[NEW DRAFT] Freedom of Religion

[States of Glory WA Office]

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant (Relax, Wrapper, it'll stay as 'Significant' this time )

The World Assembly,

NOTING that inhabitants of member states can have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right both to hold and to express their religious beliefs,

APPLAUDING previous international efforts to prohibit direct discrimination on the basis of religion,

CONCERNED that laws and policies that are neutral de jure, such as prohibiting all individuals regardless of religion from visiting a holy site, can de facto be indirectly discriminatory towards certain religious communities,

CONCEDING that there may be compelling reasons to implement policies that are indirectly discriminatory against a particular religious community, such as protecting property rights and ensuring the safety of other individuals,

CONVINCED nonetheless that where indirect discrimination serves no legitimate policy goal, it is the duty of the international community to protect an individual's right to manifest their religious convictions in a manner of their choosing,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its followers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. AFFIRMS the right of all individuals within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,
   
   
4. PROHIBITS member states from criminalising or otherwise restricting religious rituals, unless such rituals:
   
   
   1. contradict prior unrepealed World Assembly resolutions,
   2. cause harm to or are likely to cause harm to sapient individuals,
   3. cause undue suffering to or are likely to cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings, or
   4. cause damage to or are likely to cause damage to the property of individuals or organisations without their consent,
   
   
5. REQUIRES that member states impose the least intrusive restrictions on religious rituals that are necessary to fulfil the aims outlined in Clause Four,
   
   
6. DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the factual basis behind religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that inhabitants of member states can have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right to hold religious beliefs,

CONCERNED that, in some member states, this right is threatened by the actions of the government or by the prevailing cultural or religious practices in that state,

CONCEDING that it may be in the public interest to restrict freedom of religion under certain circumstances, such as the health and safety of others,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its followers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. AFFIRMS the right of all individuals within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,
   
   
4. REQUIRES member states to refrain from criminalising religious rituals, unless such rituals:
   
   
   1. contradict prior unrepealed World Assembly resolutions,
   2. cause harm to sapient individuals,
   3. cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings, or
   4. cause damage to the property of individuals or organisations without their consent,
   
   
5. CLARIFIES that religious belief shall not constitute a legal aggravation or extenuating circumstance,
   
   
6. DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the factual basis behind religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant (Relax, Wrapper, it'll stay as 'Significant' this time )

The World Assembly,

NOTING that inhabitants of member states can have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right both to hold and to express their religious beliefs,

APPLAUDING previous international efforts to prohibit direct discrimination on the basis of religion,

CONCERNED that laws and policies that are neutral de jure, such as prohibiting all individuals regardless of religion from visiting a holy site, can de facto be indirectly discriminatory towards certain religious communities,

CONCEDING that there may be compelling reasons to implement policies that are indirectly discriminatory against a particular religious community, such as protecting property rights and ensuring the safety of other individuals,

CONVINCED nonetheless that where indirect discrimination serves no legitimate policy goal, it is the duty of the international community to protect an individual's right to manifest their religious convictions in a manner of their choosing,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its followers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. AFFIRMS the right of all individuals within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,
   
   
4. PROHIBITS member states from criminalising or otherwise restricting religious rituals, unless such rituals:
   
   
   1. contradict prior unrepealed World Assembly resolutions,
   2. cause harm to sapient individuals,
   3. cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings, or
   4. cause damage to the property of individuals or organisations without their consent,
   
   
5. REQUESTS that member states impose the minimum possible restrictions on religious rituals that are necessary to fulfil the aims outlined in Clause Four,
   
   
6. DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the factual basis behind religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

Freedom of Religion
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant (Relax, Wrapper, it'll stay as 'Significant' this time )

The World Assembly,

NOTING that inhabitants of member states can have strong and often deep religious convictions,

BELIEVING that individuals have a right both to hold and to express their religious beliefs,

APPLAUDING previous international efforts to prohibit direct discrimination on the basis of religion,

CONCERNED that laws and policies that are neutral de jure, such as prohibiting all individuals regardless of religion from visiting a holy site, can de facto be indirectly discriminatory towards certain religious communities,

CONCEDING that there may be compelling reasons to implement policies that are indirectly discriminatory against a particular religious community, such as protecting property rights and ensuring the safety of other individuals,

CONVINCED nonetheless that where indirect discrimination serves no legitimate policy goal, it is the duty of the international community to protect an individual's right to manifest their religious convictions in a manner of their choosing,

WISHING to remain neutral regarding the accuracy of religious beliefs,

HEREBY:

1. DEFINES a religious belief, for the purposes of this resolution, as an ideology or any part of an ideology that dictates behaviours, practices and morals on its followers for the purposes of spiritual enlightenment,
   
   
2. DEFINES a religious ritual, for the purposes of this resolution, as an act that is performed on the basis that such an act is required or encouraged by an individual's religious belief,
   
   
3. AFFIRMS the right of all individuals within the World Assembly's jurisdiction to hold a religious belief,
   
   
4. PROHIBITS member states from criminalising or otherwise restricting religious rituals, unless such rituals:
   
   
   1. contradict prior unrepealed World Assembly resolutions,
   2. cause harm to or are likely to cause harm to sapient individuals,
   3. cause undue suffering to or are likely to cause undue suffering to non-sapient living beings, or
   4. cause damage to or are likely to cause damage to the property of individuals or organisations without their consent,
   
   
5. REQUESTS that member states impose the minimum possible restrictions on religious rituals that are necessary to fulfil the aims outlined in Clause Four,
   
   
6. DECLARES that the World Assembly shall make no statement on the factual basis behind religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: (through a megaphone) Hello? Is anybody home?

[Fauxia]

"Against. We do not understand why one person should be allowed to do something another is not, in this case. If you decriminalize a religious ritual, it should be decriminalized for all."

[The Provisional State of Nevada]

I support this proposal wholeheartedly, it appears to be well thought out and contains the necessary safeguards.

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium has no objections to this legislation."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Against. We do not understand why one person should be allowed to do something another is not, in this case. If you decriminalize a religious ritual, it should be decriminalized for all."

Fairburn: I agree completely. You are more than free to decriminalise religious rituals for the non-religious as well.

[Fauxia]

"Against. We do not understand why one person should be allowed to do something another is not, in this case. If you decriminalize a religious ritual, it should be decriminalized for all."

Fairburn: I agree completely. You are more than free to decriminalise religious rituals for the non-religious as well.

"My point is I will not support legislation that requires decriminalization of such rituals. There may be good reason not mentioned. If you included something like 'Urges nations not to legislate from a religiously-biased point of view' or something similar you may enjoy my support"

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: I agree completely. You are more than free to decriminalise religious rituals for the non-religious as well.

"My point is I will not support legislation that requires decriminalization of such rituals. There may be good reason not mentioned. If you included something like 'Urges nations not to legislate from a religiously-biased point of view' or something similar you may enjoy my support"

Fairburn: If it doesn't contradict WA resolutions, harm individuals or animals or damage property, why should it be banned?

[The Provisional State of Nevada]

"My point is I will not support legislation that requires decriminalization of such rituals. There may be good reason not mentioned. If you included something like 'Urges nations not to legislate from a religiously-biased point of view' or something similar you may enjoy my support"

Fairburn: If it doesn't contradict WA resolutions, harm individuals or animals or damage property, why should it be banned?

Exactly, the government has no duty in being involved in issues in which no one is harmed.

[Fauxia]

Fairburn: If it doesn't contradict WA resolutions, harm individuals or animals or damage property, why should it be banned?

Exactly, the government has no duty in being involved in issues in which no one is harmed.

"I agree, but we shouldn't force that on nations, and it's hard to define what harms anyway."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: I think it's time we brought this back from the dead.

[Essu Beti]

“My nation is very much for, but I personally am against,” says Iksana. “My concern is the “prior unrepealed” part of section 4A, because it could lead to a slew of repeal attempts just to ensure that any and all active resolutions come after this one and therefore no longer apply to it. Why not put “active” or “extant” instead?”

[States of Glory WA Office]

“My nation is very much for, but I personally am against,” says Iksana. “My concern is the “prior unrepealed” part of section 4A, because it could lead to a slew of repeal attempts just to ensure that any and all active resolutions come after this one and therefore no longer apply to it. Why not put “active” or “extant” instead?”

Neville: The clause serves as a blocker with the exception of three specific cases, so we're not sure what you're getting at.

[Alpha Cassiopeiae]

"The Alliance supports, but I have concerns over clause 4a. In addition to Ambassador Gayan's concerns, it seems to me that 4a would not apply to any future legislation and thus make future legislation difficult to pass or ineffective. I suggest the same correction as Ambassador Gayan."

[Igueranel]

Igueranel supports. Clause 4a, which has been the topic of debate, seems adequate as is. However, It should be noted that I have no issues with the changes in wording suggested by Essu Beti and Alpha Cassiopiae to help alleviate their concerns.

[Carmine]

Neville: I think it's time we brought this back from the dead.

I approve of this proposal wholeheartedly and like how certain parameters were set to ensure what should be protected and what should not be protected so that we may avoid people harming who wish to do harm from claiming that it’s part of their faith.

The United Kingdom of Carmine is in favor.

[Jormengand]

Clause 4 needs a rewrite. Put simply, there are things which are - and very well should be - illegal which do not contradict WA legislation, cause harm to sapient individuals, cause undue suffering to nonsapient living beings, or cause damage to property without the owner's consent. For example, carrying offensive weaponry without lawful authority does not cause harm directly, but it's relatively trivial that some nations would want to prevent people from doing so, and that being religious shouldn't be an exception. Religions cannot be allowed to run ramshod over the laws of the nation. You would be better served by preventing legislation that prevents religious rituals in specific, not allowing religious people to ignore extant national legislation because they are religious. If you're concerned about the indirect discrimination you mention, you can subject nations to a WA review to check that they aren't making needless policies.

In the second instance, this should afford members of WA nations freedom from religion as well, such as affirming their right to lack a religious belief.

[Bruke]

What would one consider "freedom from religion"?

[Merni]

What would one consider "freedom from religion"?

OOC: right to lack a religious belief, to oppose the idea of religion, to be an atheist or agnostic freely.

[Bruke]

OOC: That's perfectly understandable, then.

[Apolloloreyvarterria]

Very well thought out, props to you. I may not be a religious person, but I can support this wholeheartedly. Go human rights!

You have Apolloloreyvarterria's support.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"it seems to me that 4a would not apply to any future legislation and thus make future legislation difficult to pass or ineffective."

Neville: That is precisely the point, Ambassador. It's meant to block future restrictions on freedom of religion by this assembly except for the circumstances specified in Clauses 4b, 4c and 4d.

Clause 4 needs a rewrite. Put simply, there are things which are - and very well should be - illegal which do not contradict WA legislation, cause harm to sapient individuals, cause undue suffering to nonsapient living beings, or cause damage to property without the owner's consent. For example, carrying offensive weaponry without lawful authority does not cause harm directly, but it's relatively trivial that some nations would want to prevent people from doing so, and that being religious shouldn't be an exception.

Neville: We hope that the changes we've made to Clause Four address your concerns.

Religions cannot be allowed to run ramshod over the laws of the nation.

Neville: Where national laws are patently discriminatory, even indirectly, the World Assembly has a legitimate interest in preventing those laws from being enforced. See GA #35 a.k.a. The Charter of Civil Rights.

You would be better served by preventing legislation that prevents religious rituals in specific

Neville: It is our opinion that GA #35 covers this adequately.

If you're concerned about the indirect discrimination you mention, you can subject nations to a WA review to check that they aren't making needless policies.

Neville: We are yet to be convinced that the benefits of additional bureaucracy in this instance would outweigh the disadvantages.

In the second instance, this should afford members of WA nations freedom from religion as well, such as affirming their right to lack a religious belief.

Neville: We already have a proposal for that.

[Essu Beti]

Neville: That is precisely the point, Ambassador. It's meant to block future restrictions on freedom of religion by this assembly except for the circumstances specified in Clauses 4b, 4c and 4d.

“Wait, you want religious people to be exempt from any and all future proposals? Why should the religious get special privileges?” Iksana asks, slapping his hand on the table. “Let’s take GAR #39. If it were repealed and replaced by something that does the same thing but, oh, minus a typo or whatever, your proposal here would open the gates to people being refused a divorce because it’s the “religious right” of their husband or wife to refuse one. Or, let’s take those higher education bills that are being debated and occasionally buried for a month and dug up again. It would be trivial for an official or a block of officials to quote some passage or other to claim they have an obligation only to provide education to those whose families are not traditionally involved in manual labor.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: Happily there's a loophole that lets you ban religious rituals entirely. EDIT: Oh, and another one that, taken together with existing resolutions, lets you ban religious peeps from having any extra privileges.

If those loopholes didn't exist, I'd be writing a challenge for this (though not right now, need to go do some Xmas shopping).