NATION

PASSWORD

WA Proposal: Recognition of The Rights Of Religious Orgs

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Eccleshall
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jan 14, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

WA Proposal: Recognition of The Rights Of Religious Orgs

Postby Eccleshall » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:39 am

I've had an idea for a proposal to place before the General Assembly, namely the creation of some sort of supranational organization devoted to enforcing the rights of religious folk, easing inter-religious tensions and codifying the right to religious freedom in some sort.

I've got nothing written down, but if you guys could help me that'd be nice. I need to know the following"

1) Bills already passed on the issue.

2) Your ideas for what we could do.

3) Chance of it getting passed.

User avatar
Merni
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 469
Founded: May 03, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Merni » Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:55 am

((OOC:

Welcome to the GA!

Related resolutions that I can find right now:
027 GA Freedom of Assembly
030 GA Freedom of Expression
035 GA Charter of Civil Rights
416 GA Ban on Ritual Sacrifice

Also, looking at SoG's failed Freedom of Religion proposal might help.
))
Embassy | Discord | Officer of The Labyrinth | Member of DEUN | Left-wing, but pro-life
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. — Ronald Reagan

When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.' — Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)

You're supposed to be employing the arts of diplomacy, not the ruddy great thumping sledgehammers of diplomacy. — Ardchoille

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion [...] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do. — Samuel P. Huntington

Economic L/R : -5.63
Social Lib/Auth: -4.26

User avatar
Eccleshall
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jan 14, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Eccleshall » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:37 am

Merni wrote:((OOC:

Welcome to the GA!

Related resolutions that I can find right now:
027 GA Freedom of Assembly
030 GA Freedom of Expression
035 GA Charter of Civil Rights
416 GA Ban on Ritual Sacrifice

Also, looking at SoG's failed Freedom of Religion proposal might help.
))


I'm considering creating a mediation system for religious disputes. Perhaps a commission of sorts with trained mediators with a body for religious sociology to complement it.
Last edited by Eccleshall on Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17415
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:20 pm

You want the WA to ... mediate ... religious disputes? On what level? How? Why? This would be difficult for even experienced drafters to get around the "No committee only" rule.
curmudgeon of the week

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17624
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:39 pm

I'm afraid you won't get much help until you give us a draft. We can send you to the passed resolutions thread and remind you of proposal rules, but until we know exactly what you want to do, we can't tell you how you can develop it or at least whether it is legal.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Eccleshall
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jan 14, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Eccleshall » Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:14 am

Grays Harbor wrote:You want the WA to ... mediate ... religious disputes? On what level? How? Why? This would be difficult for even experienced drafters to get around the "No committee only" rule.


What do you mean by "no committee only"?

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 412
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:35 am

Eccleshall wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:You want the WA to ... mediate ... religious disputes? On what level? How? Why? This would be difficult for even experienced drafters to get around the "No committee only" rule.


What do you mean by "no committee only"?
It's a reference to the rules you should read at least twice before writing a draft and post here. In this case, "committee only" refers to a rule against having your resolution only direct one or more World Assembly committee(s) to do X. Since every resolution carries with it some stat change in every WA nation, your resolution must contain some clause that has an impact on that stat in the WA nations. Even the mildest resolutions "urges" nations to do (Or refrain from doing) something, since nations cannot help but be urged, even if they do not follow through on that urging.
A common way to safeguard against the ban on committee only proposals is to take away every active clause that directs a committee to do X. If the active clause(s) left still has some impact on the nations that justifies the stat change under category X, your resolution passes the committee only rule. If your proposal has no active clauses left, it is illegal and will not come up for a vote.
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Qui benefacit animae custodire custodes?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Eccleshall
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jan 14, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Eccleshall » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:05 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Eccleshall wrote:
What do you mean by "no committee only"?
It's a reference to the rules you should read at least twice before writing a draft and post here. In this case, "committee only" refers to a rule against having your resolution only direct one or more World Assembly committee(s) to do X. Since every resolution carries with it some stat change in every WA nation, your resolution must contain some clause that has an impact on that stat in the WA nations. Even the mildest resolutions "urges" nations to do (Or refrain from doing) something, since nations cannot help but be urged, even if they do not follow through on that urging.
A common way to safeguard against the ban on committee only proposals is to take away every active clause that directs a committee to do X. If the active clause(s) left still has some impact on the nations that justifies the stat change under category X, your resolution passes the committee only rule. If your proposal has no active clauses left, it is illegal and will not come up for a vote.


If I say for example that this mediation for religious organizations has a positive impact of civil liberties (namely that right to religious conscience) and that all WA members have to respect certain clauses that guarantee the right of the organization to mediate disputes in their territory, does that pass the no committee only rule?

I'm in the process of drafting it, I'd like to see any precedents in this matter.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 412
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:42 am

Eccleshall wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:It's a reference to the rules you should read at least twice before writing a draft and post here. In this case, "committee only" refers to a rule against having your resolution only direct one or more World Assembly committee(s) to do X. Since every resolution carries with it some stat change in every WA nation, your resolution must contain some clause that has an impact on that stat in the WA nations. Even the mildest resolutions "urges" nations to do (Or refrain from doing) something, since nations cannot help but be urged, even if they do not follow through on that urging.
A common way to safeguard against the ban on committee only proposals is to take away every active clause that directs a committee to do X. If the active clause(s) left still has some impact on the nations that justifies the stat change under category X, your resolution passes the committee only rule. If your proposal has no active clauses left, it is illegal and will not come up for a vote.


If I say for example that this mediation for religious organizations has a positive impact of civil liberties (namely that right to religious conscience) and that all WA members have to respect certain clauses that guarantee the right of the organization to mediate disputes in their territory, does that pass the no committee only rule?

I'm in the process of drafting it, I'd like to see any precedents in this matter.
It doesn't sound like that. If it is still, essentially, your committee mediating disputes, you can't get around the rule by requiring nations to allow it or to comply. You would have to include clauses that have an impact on nations regardless of your committee. Believing that mediation has a positive impact on civil liberties sounds like a preambulatory clause, and does not count either.
A way to get around it is to urge nations to go above and beyond. If, for example, you urge nations to enable and facilitate independent mediation and association organisations between national religious organisations, such a clause would not fall under the committee rule. You can also do more than just urge things, of course.

If you give religious organisations extra rights, be sure not to run afoul of the Charter of Civil Rights. Freedom of association is already guaranteed under [url=https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=389#p389]Freedom of Assembly[url]. You need to make sure that you don't contradict or duplicate (Though you can reaffirm specific points) other resolutions.
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Qui benefacit animae custodire custodes?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Eccleshall
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jan 14, 2018
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Eccleshall » Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:28 pm

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Eccleshall wrote:
If I say for example that this mediation for religious organizations has a positive impact of civil liberties (namely that right to religious conscience) and that all WA members have to respect certain clauses that guarantee the right of the organization to mediate disputes in their territory, does that pass the no committee only rule?

I'm in the process of drafting it, I'd like to see any precedents in this matter.
It doesn't sound like that. If it is still, essentially, your committee mediating disputes, you can't get around the rule by requiring nations to allow it or to comply. You would have to include clauses that have an impact on nations regardless of your committee. Believing that mediation has a positive impact on civil liberties sounds like a preambulatory clause, and does not count either.
A way to get around it is to urge nations to go above and beyond. If, for example, you urge nations to enable and facilitate independent mediation and association organisations between national religious organisations, such a clause would not fall under the committee rule. You can also do more than just urge things, of course.

If you give religious organisations extra rights, be sure not to run afoul of the Charter of Civil Rights. Freedom of association is already guaranteed under [url=https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=389#p389]Freedom of Assembly[url]. You need to make sure that you don't contradict or duplicate (Though you can reaffirm specific points) other resolutions.


Could you help me draft it? You seem more experienced than I.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 412
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:43 pm

To be honest, you'd be better off with a co-author who is enthusiastic about the subject. I'll also guess from your tone and questions here that I/my nation may have some political disagreements with your ideas for the draft. I wouldn't prioritise writing on a draft, though if you have an early version or thoughts feel free to post (Or telegram) me and I'll give any inputs I have.
If you want a good author (And I say that despite serious political disagreements) to help with your draft ideas more in depth, I would suggest you contact United Massachusetts; they're amiable, honest and experienced - and they're far more interested in writing religiously oriented proposals than I am.

Edit: Now UM is spelt right...
Last edited by Attempted Socialism on Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Qui benefacit animae custodire custodes?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics


Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Masurbia

Remove ads