WA Proposal: Recognition of The Rights Of Religious Orgs

[Eccleshall]

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.

[Merni]

((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.
))

[Eccleshall]

((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.

[Grays Harbor]

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.

[Wallenburg]

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.

[Eccleshall]

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"?

[Attempted Socialism]

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.

[Eccleshall]

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.

[Attempted Socialism]

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.

[Eccleshall]

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.

[Attempted Socialism]

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...