[Draft] Limiting Religious Discrimination Exemptions

[Reploid Productions]

Then She needs to stop accusing me of being hateful when she doesn't know me.

If you can't take the heat of having your opinion called out as being hateful, perhaps this is not the best place for you to be debating. Attacking your arguments and opinions is not against the site rules, that's just debate and discussion. The Assembly (as well as the General forum) can be quite brutal at tearing badly-supported arguments to pieces, it's not for the faint of heart.

[Bears Armed]

"So, some people here are arguing -- whether on behalf of their governments, or from a more personal viewpoint -- that religious organisations should not be allowed to set moral codes which members must follow in order to receive the benefits of membership.
"How many of those governments and individuals would extend the same principle to political organisations as well, for example by accepting the argument that Communist parties -- even in nations with single-party systems of government which those particular parties dominate -- must be forced by the WA to welcome and grant full rights to people who preach and practice the private (and hereditary) ownership of 'the means of production'?"
"I accuse any of them who would not support such an extension of hypocrisy."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[THX1138]

OOC: And the next resolution of this nature that comes with a clause 5 that merely clarifies that it's non discrimination mandates do not apply to say, white supremacist organizations, will have no effect on the mandates of CoCR either, right?

Yes. That is how World Assembly resolutions work.

Attempting to rationalize away the very evident problems, because the result in one case is more palatable to you than in the other, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

I have not defended GA #457's religious exemption. I have merely pointed out that the draft here does not contradict #457 or #35. Don't put words in my mouth, buddy.

OOC: I'm not your buddy, pal.
Of course you are right if the question is framed in the strictest sense of game mechanics and our understanding of proposal rules and the legality of 457 in relation to 35, but look around this thread, that's no longer what's being discussed.
It's pretty obvious that in practical application within nations, across the multiverse, and in the minds of many delegates, any situation where one law makes clear that discrimination is not allowed, while a newer law gives a tacit exemption to any given group in their discrimination, that the intent of the original law is undermined, and weakened in it's cause.
That is an effect, whether you chose to acknowledge it in the strictest legal sense, or not. It's also pretty fair to say that that effect accumulates with every new regulation containing an exemption of this nature, allowing more and more people to opt-out of respecting the human rights of others.
I find your argument, that one does not effect the other to be purposely obtuse to the point of being misleading. That's not putting words in your mouth, that's calling you out on exactly what you said.

[Wallenburg]

Yes. That is how World Assembly resolutions work.

I have not defended GA #457's religious exemption. I have merely pointed out that the draft here does not contradict #457 or #35. Don't put words in my mouth, buddy.

OOC: I'm not your buddy, pal.

Fucking lol.

Of course you are right if the question is framed in the strictest sense of game mechanics and our understanding of proposal rules and the legality of 457 in relation to 35, but look around this thread, that's no longer what's being discussed.

Yeah, two fucking pages later. Don't try to pull that crap.

It's pretty obvious that in practical application within nations, across the multiverse, and in the minds of many delegates, any situation where one law makes clear that discrimination is not allowed, while a newer law gives a tacit exemption to any given group in their discrimination, that the intent of the original law is undermined, and weakened in it's cause.
That is an effect, whether you chose to acknowledge it in the strictest legal sense, or not. It's also pretty fair to say that that effect accumulates with every new regulation containing an exemption of this nature, allowing more and more people to opt-out of respecting the human rights of others.
I find your argument, that one does not effect the other to be purposely obtuse to the point of being misleading. That's not putting words in your mouth, that's calling you out on exactly what you said.

Truly stunning, the absolute density of your hostility to me, arguing with me because I dared defend the legality of a draft that would prevent religious exemptions.

[Maowi]

“In advance, I like this proposal.”

OOC: Do you have any specific ideas about what could be done here?

The reason for excluding it was also an attempt to allow broader legislation regarding all types of discrimination within religious organisations. Maybe you could consider expanding this proposal? If not, I might start thinking about the possibility of doing that...although it would be hard.

[THX1138]

Truly stunning, the absolute density of your hostility to me, arguing with me because I dared defend the legality of a draft that would prevent religious exemptions.

No hostility at all, except that coming from you. You made a statement that one reg doesn't effect another. I countered, suggesting that that kind of assertion misses the point. If you chose to infer some deeper meaning in that exchange, that's on you, and very much off topic.

[Auze]

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,

Don't agree with this resolution, but the code you want is:

Code: Select all

[url=https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=430/council=1]”Freedom of Religion”[/url]

[Wallenburg]

I don't think hyperlinks are allowed in resolutions.

[Auze]

I don't think hyperlinks are allowed in resolutions.

Probably right, though I just wanted to fix that broken code.
Edit: It seems like [resolution] is (or was) a tag, but it has long since broke on the forums of NS.