General Assembly ~ Removal Of Extreme Religions [DRAFT]

[Artsotska]

Noting that the act of terrorism should and most likely "is" illegal,

Also noting that many acts of terrorism is could be used as a form of religious extremism,

Demands that those with religious belief that use extreme violence be absolutely banned prosecuted
accordingly,

Suggests that this act is to promote world peace and the safety of innocent civilians,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines that this act is not a way to promote atheism or any other religious belief, and does not violate religious freedoms;

2. Restrict that all members of a religion is not to use violence or any form of extremism on any national or regional soil;

3. Authorizes any nation or region to prosecute any extreme religious acts accordingly by their legal standards;

4. Suggesting that nations should optionally increase Military and/or Law Enforcement spending to promote the
the safety of its citizens;

5. Assigns the World Assembly the duties to enforce this act;

6. Also Suggesting that every nation's youth be educated on the dangers of Extremism and the understandings of an
act of Terrorism;

7. Demands that in the case a person or congregation (regardless of gender, religious belief, colour, race, sexuality,
political ideology, etc.), is respectfully prosecuted with evidence of using the act of Extremism/Terrorism in the Court of Law
accordingly by local legal standards.

This proposal has been lifted and a new one is in the process as of 2019 June, 07

[The New Nordic Union]

All OOC:

Noting that the act of terrorism should and most likely "is" illegal,

It is, see GAR#25.

Also noting that many acts of terrorism is could be used as a form of religious extremism,

So?

Demands that those with religious belief that use extreme violence be absolutely banned prosecuted accordingly,

Only those with religious believes? Also, what constitutes extreme violence? Is it the same as terrorism? Then this is already covered by aforementioned resolution.

Suggests that this act is to promote world peace and the safety of innocent civilians,

Is ist now or is it not?

1. Defines that this act is not a way to promote atheism or any other religious belief, and does not violate religious freedoms;

You cannot just state something like that, if something violates religious freedoms, it does, even if you say it does not.

2. Restrict that all members of a religion is not to use violence or any form of extremism on any national or regional soil;

'Restrict' does not make sense here; 'regional' is arguably a meta-gaming violation; and 'any form of extremism' is probably to wide: People are allowed extremist opinions, making this illegal for contradiction.

3. Authorizes any nation or region to prosecute any extreme religious acts accordingly by their legal standards;

Nations do not need to be authorised to do this by the World Assembly. Also, again, 'region' is probably meta-gaming.

7. Demands that in the case a person or congregation (regardless of gender, religious belief, colour, race, sexuality, political ideology, etc.), is respectfully prosecuted with evidence of using the act of Extremism/Terrorism in the Court of Law
accordingly by local legal standards.

Close to incomprehensible. Are you saying that courts in which people are prosecuted should only use evidence related to the case?

Overall: Several illegalities because of the duplication, contradictions, and meta-gaming; other parts need to be redrafted to be understood. There is work in this for you if you want to continue this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I don't quite understand what's the purpose of this? Terrorism is already banned. Whether there are religious motives or not, it doesn't matter.

Noting that the act of terrorism should and most likely "is" illegal,

Also noting that many acts of terrorism is could be used as a form of religious extremism,

Demands that those with religious belief that use extreme violence be absolutely banned prosecuted
accordingly,

Suggests that this act is to promote world peace and the safety of innocent civilians,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Defines that this act is not a way to promote atheism or any other religious belief, and does not violate religious freedoms;

2. Restrict that all members of a religion is not to use violence or any form of extremism on any national or regional soil;

3. Authorizes any nation or region to prosecute any extreme religious acts accordingly by their legal standards;

4. Suggesting that nations should optionally increase Military and/or Law Enforcement spending to promote the
the safety of its citizens;

5. Assigns the World Assembly the duties to enforce this act;

6. Also Suggesting that every nation's youth be educated on the dangers of Extremism and the understandings of an
act of Terrorism;

7. Demands that in the case a person or congregation (regardless of gender, religious belief, colour, race, sexuality,
political ideology, etc.), is respectfully prosecuted with evidence of using the act of Extremism/Terrorism in the Court of Law
accordingly by local legal standards.

[Falcania]

Amusingly clause 2 prohibits any religious people from serving in any military branch.

[Tinfect]

OOC: I don't quite understand what's the purpose of this?

OOC:
It's a quiet little backdoor for Islamophobia.

[Maowi]

This draft is incoherent, incomprehensible and

OOC:
It's a quiet little backdoor for Islamophobia.

^this, whether intentionally or not.

And also illegal.

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: I don't quite understand what's the purpose of this?

OOC:
It's a quiet little backdoor for Islamophobia.

I know this may be a novel concept, but not everything is [Cause du Jour]phobia

[Maowi]

OOC:
It's a quiet little backdoor for Islamophobia.

I know this may be a novel concept, but not everything is [Cause du Jour]phobia

Clause 3, in not defining extreme, would essentially allow Governments to prosecute pretty much any public religious worship, were it not illegal for contradiction

[Tinfect]

I know this may be a novel concept, but not everything is [Cause du Jour]phobia

OOC:
Oh, don't pretend like you don't know. This is one of the most obvious dogwhistles around.

[Wallenburg]

What's with this formatting and all the strikethroughs? You can keep edits under [spoilers].

[Araraukar]

OOC: It's a quiet little backdoor for Islamophobia.

OOC: To be fair, my first thought was of Christian terrorism, which is much more accepted (as in, rarely passing international news treshold) by the society for some reason, because they rarely bomb schools or public places...

[Artsotska]

All OOC:

Noting that the act of terrorism should and most likely "is" illegal,

It is, see GAR#25.

Also noting that many acts of terrorism is could be used as a form of religious extremism,

So?

Demands that those with religious belief that use extreme violence be absolutely banned prosecuted accordingly,

Only those with religious believes? Also, what constitutes extreme violence? Is it the same as terrorism? Then this is already covered by aforementioned resolution.

Suggests that this act is to promote world peace and the safety of innocent civilians,

Is ist now or is it not?

1. Defines that this act is not a way to promote atheism or any other religious belief, and does not violate religious freedoms;

You cannot just state something like that, if something violates religious freedoms, it does, even if you say it does not.

2. Restrict that all members of a religion is not to use violence or any form of extremism on any national or regional soil;

'Restrict' does not make sense here; 'regional' is arguably a meta-gaming violation; and 'any form of extremism' is probably to wide: People are allowed extremist opinions, making this illegal for contradiction.

3. Authorizes any nation or region to prosecute any extreme religious acts accordingly by their legal standards;

Nations do not need to be authorised to do this by the World Assembly. Also, again, 'region' is probably meta-gaming.

7. Demands that in the case a person or congregation (regardless of gender, religious belief, colour, race, sexuality, political ideology, etc.), is respectfully prosecuted with evidence of using the act of Extremism/Terrorism in the Court of Law
accordingly by local legal standards.

Close to incomprehensible. Are you saying that courts in which people are prosecuted should only use evidence related to the case?

Overall: Several illegalities because of the duplication, contradictions, and meta-gaming; other parts need to be redrafted to be understood. There is work in this for you if you want to continue this.

I can see there is a huge misunderstanding with the differences between "extremism" and "terrorism". I seem to have also misunderstood that they are not the same. This draft will be dramatically changed when I can find a time to edit it. I also understand that some believe that this draft is Anti-religious or whatever anyone wants to call it. That is not the point though. The point is to stop Extremist groups from committing acts of terrorism related to their belief. It is not supposed to make people's opinions on their religion "illegal" nor is it to ban them from promoting their religion or their right to protest. The only reason is to stop violence in religion and/or between other religions. Peaceful actions is the key here.

[Artsotska]

What's with this formatting and all the strikethroughs? You can keep edits under [spoilers].

That's just to help me with the editing process. It is a little weird but it helps me more.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I don't quite understand what's the purpose of this?

OOC:
It's a quiet little backdoor for Islamophobia.

OOC:This resolution doesn't mention any specific religion.

[Hatzisland]

This proposal is useless. Terrorism is illegal by WA law, whether it's in the name on religion or otherwise.

OOC: I don't quite understand what's the purpose of this?

OOC:
It's a quiet little backdoor for Islamophobia.

OOC: BS. Terrorism is illegal anyhow. In fact, I consider it a quiet back door for discriminating against Christians.

[Phydios]

OOC: I don't quite understand what's the purpose of this?

OOC:
It's a quiet little backdoor for Islamophobia.

OOC: And how is that? As I understand it, the proposal bans religiously-motivated terrorism. If you're saying that that's equal to a ban on or persecution of Islam, then you're saying that religiously-motivated terrorism is inherent in Islam- or, in other words, that Islam is inherently terrorist. Which is an Islamophobic statement in itself. (And very wrong, of course.)

I don't support this proposal. I agree with what's already been said. But to call it Islamophobic is itself an Islamophobic action.

[The Gilded Star]

OOC:This resolution doesn't mention any specific religion.

It's not a dogwhistle if you specifically namedrop what you're dogwhistling.

OOC: And how is that? As I understand it, the proposal bans religiously-motivated terrorism. If you're saying that that's equal to a ban on or persecution of Islam, then you're saying that religiously-motivated terrorism is inherent in Islam- or, in other words, that Islam is inherently terrorist. Which is an Islamophobic statement in itself. (And very wrong, of course.)

I don't support this proposal. I agree with what's already been said. But to call it Islamophobic is itself an Islamophobic action.

The point of dogwhistling is to use specific terms or phrases that sound innocuous or all-encompassing but are intended to be subtly referencing a very specific thing. The general public will take the terms or phrases at face value but those who understand the underlying meaning know full well how it's actually intended to be interpreted. That doesn't necessarily mean the interpreter is complicit with the interpretation. However, the whistler proclaiming themselves as the victim and the people calling them out as the true bad guys is a common defensive tactic.

EG; I could make a statement that sounds innocent on the surface but is actually a pro-nazi dogwhistle. You understand what I'm doing and rightfully call me out for being a Nazi. I use the deliberate ambiguousness of my statement as plausible deniability that I didn't mean for it to sound Nazi, but because that's what you heard, it means you must be the Nazi instead.

That's not to say this proposal is intended to be a dogwhistle against Islam, but there's a reason people are feeling uncomfortable about it, and not just because there's already GA laws covering everything this is trying to do without being open to alternative interpretation.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:This resolution doesn't mention any specific religion.

It's not a dogwhistle if you specifically namedrop what you're dogwhistling.

OOC: And how is that? As I understand it, the proposal bans religiously-motivated terrorism. If you're saying that that's equal to a ban on or persecution of Islam, then you're saying that religiously-motivated terrorism is inherent in Islam- or, in other words, that Islam is inherently terrorist. Which is an Islamophobic statement in itself. (And very wrong, of course.)

I don't support this proposal. I agree with what's already been said. But to call it Islamophobic is itself an Islamophobic action.

The point of dogwhistling is to use specific terms or phrases that sound innocuous or all-encompassing but are intended to be subtly referencing a very specific thing. The general public will take the terms or phrases at face value but those who understand the underlying meaning know full well how it's actually intended to be interpreted. That doesn't necessarily mean the interpreter is complicit with the interpretation. However, the whistler proclaiming themselves as the victim and the people calling them out as the true bad guys is a common defensive tactic.

EG; I could make a statement that sounds innocent on the surface but is actually a pro-nazi dogwhistle. You understand what I'm doing and rightfully call me out for being a Nazi. I use the deliberate ambiguousness of my statement as plausible deniability that I didn't mean for it to sound Nazi, but because that's what you heard, it means you must be the Nazi instead.

That's not to say this proposal is intended to be a dogwhistle against Islam, but there's a reason people are feeling uncomfortable about it, and not just because there's already GA laws covering everything this is trying to do without being open to alternative interpretation.

OOC: I don't support this proposal.

[The Order of the Holy Inquisitors]

1. Defines that this act is not a way to promote atheism or any other religious belief, and does not violate religious freedoms;
Given the fact that religious extremism is not explicitly defined, this point might actually be correct.

2. Restrict that all members of a religion is not to use violence or any form of extremism on any national or regional soil;
My problem with this line is that you don't specify that this is specifically religiously-justified violence. Right now, this reads that anyone who is in any religion is hereby forbidden from any violence, even if their in say the military and legally defending their country.

3. Authorizes any nation or region to prosecute any extreme religious acts accordingly by their legal standards;
You never actually define extreme religious acts. That's sort of a problem.

4. Suggesting that nations should optionally increase Military and/or Law Enforcement spending to promote the
the safety of its citizens;

6. Also Suggesting that every nation's youth be educated on the dangers of Extremism and the understandings of an
act of Terrorism;

7. Demands that in the case a person or congregation (regardless of gender, religious belief, colour, race, sexuality,
political ideology, etc.), is respectfully prosecuted with evidence of using the act of Extremism/Terrorism in the Court of Law
accordingly by local legal standards.
I feel like you're missing some words here. This one isn't actually a complete thought.

[United Massachusetts]

Cut clause one. It serves no purpose.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: If you insist on pursuing this, remove all references to regions - as is the draft is illegal for Metagaming.

[The Canadian Republic Colonies]

I believe this draft is against current legality standards in the WA. And rightfully so. The WA already contains laws that prohibit violent terrorist acts regardless of the reason behind them. The "why" is not something that is taken into consideration in terroristic acts as far as was it because they're from x y or z religion, but is something taken into account for an overall view. Just because someone belongs to a religious organization or none at all doesn't make them any more or less likely to act violently. However, there are good intentions it seems behind this proposal. The issue is that it is a slippery slope and way to legalize islamophobia and other such anti sentiments among citizens and member nations. The idea to have laws against known and factually proven terrorist groups, however, I believe is already law in the WA. That ensure that no one religious belief is targeted. The issue is that for instance, there is Christianity. However, there's protestants and Catholics. But even among those two designations there are multiple other sects that fall underneath. Saying anyone who is Christian or Islam, or Atheist is part of a terrorist group is the issue. It is not a religion issue here. The issue is what individual corporation or business entity the person actually belongs to under the guise of a religion. All churches and communities of worship are all their own individual business. Each of them regardless of official or claimed membership to an ideology needs to be examined at an individual case methodology. And jut because one person belonged to them does not make them a terroristic organization. It is more the individual business entity that needs to be focused on in the spirit of this proposal than any one religion. Because of the lack of this clarity we say NO! to this proposal at this time. However, continue to talk about this proposal in the forums to perhaps form one that follows all legal precidents of the WA along with other member nations. Sometimes trial and error is how we learn best and by joining together with other nations to write these forms of proposals we further civil discourse to draft better proposals each time improving on our last idea. I totally understand the intentions behind this proposal, but as I said, there are many ways we need to adjust where we're at right now to make this intention translate to actually legal proposals, etc. Another idea is to simply draft an amendment of sorts to an already established proposal by simply adding in a portion that prohibits the use of an ideology or religious belief or membership being an excuse for these types of actions or something along these lines (obviously polished up by the WA members here with experience in this arena and most likely worded way better than what I've said).

[Wallenburg]

Clause two, in conjunction with Freedom of Religion, functions as a ban on war, police action, incarceration, and self-defensive violence.

[Phydios]

OOC: And how is that? As I understand it, the proposal bans religiously-motivated terrorism. If you're saying that that's equal to a ban on or persecution of Islam, then you're saying that religiously-motivated terrorism is inherent in Islam- or, in other words, that Islam is inherently terrorist. Which is an Islamophobic statement in itself. (And very wrong, of course.)

I don't support this proposal. I agree with what's already been said. But to call it Islamophobic is itself an Islamophobic action.

The point of dogwhistling is to use specific terms or phrases that sound innocuous or all-encompassing but are intended to be subtly referencing a very specific thing. The general public will take the terms or phrases at face value but those who understand the underlying meaning know full well how it's actually intended to be interpreted. That doesn't necessarily mean the interpreter is complicit with the interpretation. However, the whistler proclaiming themselves as the victim and the people calling them out as the true bad guys is a common defensive tactic.

So basically, dogwhistling is whatever you decide it is? If some number of people decide that this proposal was written with Islam in mind, it's Islamophobic, even when there's no evidence except feelings? Yeah, no. I don't care whether the phrase "religious terrorism" makes people think of Islam or the Jedi Order. A proposal to ban religious terrorism doesn't target any religion specifically, and claiming otherwise is an intellectually dishonest act. You do yourself a disservice when you call out implications that you yourself shoved into the proposal. Are the existing problems with it not enough to discuss?

[Wallenburg]

The point of dogwhistling is to use specific terms or phrases that sound innocuous or all-encompassing but are intended to be subtly referencing a very specific thing. The general public will take the terms or phrases at face value but those who understand the underlying meaning know full well how it's actually intended to be interpreted. That doesn't necessarily mean the interpreter is complicit with the interpretation. However, the whistler proclaiming themselves as the victim and the people calling them out as the true bad guys is a common defensive tactic.

So basically, dogwhistling is whatever you decide it is? If some number of people decide that this proposal was written with Islam in mind, it's Islamophobic, even when there's no evidence except feelings? Yeah, no. I don't care whether the phrase "religious terrorism" makes people think of Islam or the Jedi Order. A proposal to ban religious terrorism doesn't target any religion specifically, and claiming otherwise is an intellectually dishonest act. You do yourself a disservice when you call out implications that you yourself shoved into the proposal. Are the existing problems with it not enough to discuss?

The accusation that this proposal is a dogwhistle to Islamophobic policy has merit. As has been explained, the point of a dogwhistle is to be understood clearly by the intended audience while everyone else does not understand its full meaning. In this case, the proposal appears to most people as an effort to combat religious extremism, but to intolerant parties it represents grounds to criminalize entire religions and the people that believe them. On NS, the religion most commonly targeted in such a manner is Islam.