[Draft] Limiting Religious Discrimination Exemptions

[Catgirl Harems]

The World Assembly,

Holding that religious institutions must be held to the same standards with regards to discrimination based on sexuality and/or gender identity, as any other entity,

Believing that the rights granted by existing legislation, including, but not limited to, [resolution=GA#430]”Freedom of Religion”[/resolution], shall not be abridged based on an individual’s sexuality, and/or gender identity,

Concerned that no laws concerning discrimination based on sexuality, and/or gender identity, within religious institutions, have been put in place,

Understanding that the absence of such legislation creates a loophole, which may limit the religious freedoms of sexual and gender minorities, thus additional legislation is necessary to protect these vulnerable groups,

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "religious institution" as:

• Any entity whose main purpose, or charter, is the organization of individuals who hold a shared belief system,
• OR
• Any entity that operates within, or claims, a belief system,

Hereby,

1. Requires that all member nations extend their discrimination laws to include the denial of rights and privileges, based on sexuality and/or gender identity within religious institutions.
   
2. Orders member nations to impose the same sanctions, or punishments, for actions that deny rights, or privileges, based on sexuality or gender identity, .
   
3. Requests that all member nations establish and maintain mechanisms to report discrimination based on an individual’s sexuality, and/or gender identity, within religious institutions.
4. Mandates that all member nations investigate reports of discrimination within a religious institution, in a swift and fair manner, and promptly act on the results of discrimination investigations.
   
   
5. Clarifies that this resolution does not grant member nations the right to dissolve religious institutions, or to restrict religious practices that do not deny the rights, or privileges, of individuals based on sexuality or gender identity.

[Falcania]

Pretty wobbly house of cards you've got going on there.

[Catgirl Harems]

I think I can skate through house of cards? I'm cutting it close but my reasoning is that the DRSGM doesn't touch religious practices, and FoR doesn't touch discrimination. I feel like this could stand alone but weakly, and need help for it to not wobble this hard.

[Tinfect]

HOLDING that religious institutions must be held to the same standards with regards to discrimination based on sexuality, and/or gender identity, as any other entity, as set out by [resolution=GA#457]"Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities"[/resolution] (herein referred to as DRSGM),

BELIEVING that the rights granted by [resolution=GA#430]”Freedom of Religion”[/resolution], shall not be abridged based on an individual’s sexuality, and/or gender identity,

OOC:
Scrap all references to Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities; that's a House of Cards Violation.

Concerned that no laws concerning discrimination based on sexuality, and/or gender identity, within religious organizations, have been put in place,
Understanding that the absence of such legislation creates a loophole which may abridge the religious freedom of sexual and gender minorities, thus necessitating additional legislation to protect these vulnerable groups,

I've done some quick grammatical changes, marked in red. I feel that it flows better as Legislation in this form. Capitalizing the first words of the preamble will get you some opposition, so, it's best to avoid that.

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a "religious institution" as any entity whose main purpose, or charter, is the organization of individuals who hold a shared belief system,

I'd highly recommend including another definition for any organization that otherwise claims or operates under a religion. Basically, don't want to let in the 'we don't serve gays here because jesus' crowd.

Hereby,

1. Requires all member nations to hold any religious institution found to be denying the rights, or privileges, of an individual, or a group of individuals, based on their sexuality, and/or gender identity, including denial due to actions, or practices, performed within the religious institution, liable for such discrimination.
2. Mandates that all member nations establish and maintain mechanisms to report discrimination based on an individual’s sexuality, and/or gender identity, within religious institutions.
3. MANDATES that all member nations investigate [deleted word] reports of discrimination which involving a religious institution in a swift and fair manner, and to promptly act on the results of such investigations.
4. ORDERS member nations to impose the same sanctions, or punishments, for actions that the rights, or privileges, of an individual(s) based on sexuality or gender identity, on religious institutions as are imposed on any other entity for such actions, within the confines of past resolutions on the subject.
5. CLARIFIES that this resolution does not grant member nations the right to dissolve religious institutions, or to restrict religious practices that do not deny the rights, or privileges, of individuals based on sexuality or gender identity.

Slight modifications in red, to help avoid looperholery. Also, I highly recommend replacing the 'REQUIRES' clause with one that simply requires Member-States to apply the same discrimination law they already do to other things, to religious institutions, it would greatly simplify the draft.

[Kenmoria]

“This is exactly why a repeal of DRSGM is a bad idea, since something like this can easily redress the exception. I will go through in more detail later, but I like the concept.”

[Restoration of Eastern Kaiserreich]

The World Assembly,

HOLDING that religious institutions must be held to the same standards with regards to discrimination based on sexuality, and/or gender identity, as any other entity, as set out by [resolution=GA#457]"Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities"[/resolution] (herein referred to as DRSGM),

BELIEVING that the rights granted by [resolution=GA#430]”Freedom of Religion”[/resolution], shall not be abridged based on an individual’s sexuality, and/or gender identity,

FINDING that no laws concerning discrimination based on sexuality, and/or gender identity, within religious institutions, has been put in place,

REASONING that the absence of such law creates a loophole, which may abridge the religious freedom of sexual and gender minorities, which necessitates new legislation to protect these vulnerable groups,

1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, a "religious institution" as any entity whose main purpose, or charter, is the organization of individuals who hold a shared belief system,

Hereby,

1. REQUIRES all member nations to hold any religious institution found to be denying the rights, or privileges, of an individual, or a group of individuals, based on their sexuality, and/or gender identity, including denial due to actions, or practices, performed within the religious institution, liable for such discrimination.
2. SUGGESTS that all member nations establish and maintain mechanisms to report discrimination based on an individual’s sexuality, and/or gender identity, within religious institutions.
3. MANDATES that all member nations to investigate all reports of discrimination which occurred within a religious institution, in a swift and fair manner, and to promptly act on the results of such investigations.
4. ORDERS member nations to impose the same sanctions, or punishments, for actions that the rights, or privileges, of an individual(s) based on sexuality or gender identity, on religious institutions as are imposed on any other entity for such actions, within the confines of past resolutions on the subject.
5. CLARIFIES that this resolution does not grant member nations the right to dissolve religious institutions, or to restrict religious practices that do not deny the rights, or privileges, of individuals based on sexuality or gender identity.

Yeah no thanks I'd prefer to not go completely leftist.

[Wallenburg]

Basically everything Tinfect said, although IIRC passive references to past resolutions are no longer considered HoC violations.

[Falcania]

Basically everything Tinfect said, although IIRC passive references to past resolutions are no longer considered HoC violations.

"Passive" is a stretch here. The preamble invokes two pieces of legislation to synthesise its conclusion.

[Wallenburg]

Basically everything Tinfect said, although IIRC passive references to past resolutions are no longer considered HoC violations.

"Passive" is a stretch here. The preamble invokes two pieces of legislation to synthesise its conclusion.

Fair enough. The preambulatory nature here is also questionable, considering the language used and the inclusion of definitions before the "hereby".

[Catgirl Harems]

Fair enough. The preambulatory nature here is also questionable, considering the language used and the inclusion of definitions before the "hereby".

I mostly copied the preamble format from the DRSGM oops

Yeah no thanks I'd prefer to not go completely leftist.

My main intention here is to strengthen the DRSGM (aka making a blocker for its repeal), not necessarily aligning the resolution either way, so thank you for that criticism.

Thanks Tinfect, I'll look through your edits carefully. Should I list you as a co-author? I'm pretty new to this whole process and don't want to run afoul of the plagiarism rule.

[THX1138]

My main intention here is to strengthen the DRSGM (aka making a blocker for its repeal)

OOC: So, is it just a red herring? Do you have any intention of following it through, or is this just deigned to show that it can be done without actually doing it? Because at the end of the day, getting it passed is the actual proof.

[Hatzisland]

IC: This plan is a blatant violation of freedom of religion. Even if this is upheld as legal(which I highly doubt, as there as a lot of precedent involving the rights of religious organizations) it would be overwhelmingly rejected. The whole point of religious exemptions is allowing people to follow their beliefs. The taking away of that right would be the last straw of efforts to keep the WA from become a secular, socialist mess.

OOC: There's been a lot of really bad proposals going around lately.

[Hatzisland]

Also, there is a "Clarifies" clause in almost every civil rights resolution exempting religious organizations. So unless you want to repeal every single civil rights resolution, or amend laws(which is illegal), this plan has no way of being upheld.

[Catgirl Harems]

OOC: So, is it just a red herring? Do you have any intention of following it through, or is this just deigned to show that it can be done without actually doing it? Because at the end of the day, getting it passed is the actual proof.

OOC: I agree it's a long shot, but I think repealing the entire DRSGM because one clause leaves an opening for further legislation is a bit too far.

[THX1138]

OOC: I agree it's a long shot, but I think repealing the entire DRSGM because one clause leaves an opening for further legislation is a bit too far.

OOC: A very long shot, which is why the repeal is the only way forward that I saw. I still maintain that 457 had a significant chance of passing if resubmitted, after repeal, without clause 5, and I was more than certain the the author, given their passion, would resubmit. Had I thought otherwise, I wouldn't have sought the repeal. Food for thought.

[Catgirl Harems]

Also, there is a "Clarifies" clause in almost every civil rights resolution exempting religious organizations. So unless you want to repeal every single civil rights resolution, or amend laws(which is illegal), this plan has no way of being upheld.

OOC: I think that closing the loophole is legal because the clarifies clause of the Freedom of Religion resolution allows for action against "groups whose religious beliefs manifest themselves in violence or coercive action," and Clause 3 allows for legislation establishing "means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order." It can be argued that discrimination is an act of violence or coercion, and therefore exempted from the rules established in the rest of the resolution. Clause 4 is the operative clause here because this draft is about limiting religious institutions, and it carries the Clause 3 exemption, and it could be argued that adding class protection based on sexuality/gender identity "advance[s] a compelling, practical public interest." I'd be interested to see other resolutions that you think would cause contradictions.

[Catgirl Harems]

OOC: I agree it's a long shot, but I think repealing the entire DRSGM because one clause leaves an opening for further legislation is a bit too far.

OOC: A very long shot, which is why the repeal is the only way forward that I saw. I still maintain that 457 had a significant chance of passing if resubmitted, after repeal, without clause 5, and I was more than certain the the author, given their passion, would resubmit. Had I thought otherwise, I wouldn't have sought the repeal. Food for thought.

OOC: I read the motivation behind Clause 5 as the author knowing that any discrimination legislation that included religion would be incredibly hard to pass through. I think a resubmitted version that does not include the fifth clause would be stone walled or implicitly include an exemption on grounds of religion.

[Wallenburg]

IC: This plan is a blatant violation of freedom of religion. Even if this is upheld as legal(which I highly doubt, as there as a lot of precedent involving the rights of religious organizations) it would be overwhelmingly rejected. The whole point of religious exemptions is allowing people to follow their beliefs. The taking away of that right would be the last straw of efforts to keep the WA from become a secular, socialist mess.

OOC: There's been a lot of really bad proposals going around lately.

What rule does it contradict and how?

[Tinfect]

Thanks Tinfect, I'll look through your edits carefully. Should I list you as a co-author? I'm pretty new to this whole process and don't want to run afoul of the plagiarism rule.

OOC:
You can if you want, don't mind it either way. And don't worry about plagiarism, if it's posted in your own thread about your draft, chances are it's fine to integrate.

[Kenmoria]

“In advance, I like this proposal.”

The World Assembly,

Holding that religious institutions must be held to the same standards with regards to discrimination based on sexuality, and/or gender identity, as any other entity, This clause has slightly too many commas to be optimally readable, I suggest removing the one before ‘and/or’.

Believing that the rights granted by [resolution=GA#430]”Freedom of Religion”[/resolution], shall not be abridged based on an individual’s sexuality, and/or gender identity,

Concerned that no laws concerning discrimination based on sexuality, and/or gender identity, within religious institutions, have been put in place, Actually GA #035 dealt with discrimination generally, including religious institutions, just not very well.

Understanding that the absence of such legislation creates a loophole, which may abridge the religious freedom of sexual and gender minorities, thus additional legislation is necessary to protect these vulnerable groups, I don’t like the word ‘abridge’ here - it feels awkward.

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "religious institution" as:

1. Any entity whose main purpose, or charter, is the organization of individuals who hold a shared belief system, Os this an ‘and’ list or an ‘or’ list.
2. Any entity that operates within, or claims, a belief system,

Hereby,

1. Requires that all member nations extend their discrimination laws to include the denial of rights and privileges, based on sexuality and/or gender identity within religious institutions. On a general note, make sure to put line breaks between your active clauses in order to aid readability.
2. Orders member nations to impose the same sanctions, or punishments, for actions that deny rights, or privileges, based on sexuality or gender identity, on religious institutions as are imposed on any other entity for such actions, within the confines of past resolutions on the subject. The reason religious-based discrimination wasn’t included in DRSGM was that it needs to be addressed in a different way, yet all you’ve done here is treat it exactly the same.
3. Requests that all member nations establish and maintain mechanisms to report discrimination based on an individual’s sexuality, and/or gender identity, within religious institutions.
4. Mandates that all member nations investigate reports of discrimination within a religious institution, in a swift and fair manner, and to promptly act on the results of discrimination investigations. The ‘to” before ‘promptly’ should be removed.
   
5. Clarifies that this resolution does not grant member nations the right to dissolve religious institutions, or to restrict religious practices that do not deny the rights, or privileges, of individuals based on sexuality or gender identity.

[Falcania]

The standard fudge for this sort of thing seems to be to replace "resolution X" with a phrase like "existing GA legislation, such as resolution X"

[Old Hope]

So now religious organizations cannot expel or demote people who are tasked with spreading the word of the organization and giving spiritual counsel if their sexual behaviour violates the belief of that religious organization.
No thanks!
Against.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What was this original alleged house of cards violation?

[Hatzisland]

Also, there is a "Clarifies" clause in almost every civil rights resolution exempting religious organizations. So unless you want to repeal every single civil rights resolution, or amend laws(which is illegal), this plan has no way of being upheld.

OOC: I think that closing the loophole is legal because the clarifies clause of the Freedom of Religion resolution allows for action against "groups whose religious beliefs manifest themselves in violence or coercive action," and Clause 3 allows for legislation establishing "means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order." It can be argued that discrimination is an act of violence or coercion, and therefore exempted from the rules established in the rest of the resolution. Clause 4 is the operative clause here because this draft is about limiting religious institutions, and it carries the Clause 3 exemption, and it could be argued that adding class protection based on sexuality/gender identity "advance[s] a compelling, practical public interest." I'd be interested to see other resolutions that you think would cause contradictions.

Maybe, but what about every other civil rights law? They all "clarify" that the rules don't all apply to religious organizations, a right undeniably taken away in this proposal. I highly doubt the legality of this plan, and would oppose it anyway even if the proposal was ruled legal.

[Liberimery]

I'm pretty sure that the OP wants us to infer that the Catholic Church (largest sect of Christianity, which is the largest religion in the world) would be illegal in member state... as well as most major sects of Islam (which is the fastest growing religion in the world). To say nothing about Judaism.

I must say that although I am disinclined to Vote in favor of this legislation, curiosity compels me to ask if the Ambassador takes a stance on removal. Shall I merely ban immigration of holders of offensive religions, feed offenders to lions, or just chuck'em into ovens?