NationStates

Bears Armed wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Suppose there was a person who wanted to join a religion, it doesn’t matter which, but was prohibited from doing so based on some arbitrary category, such as having green eyes. The actual category itself doesn’t matter, only that the person can’t reasonably change it. This religion probably has some teachings about why people need to follow. It is conceivable that the person has some fears about eternal damnation, bad karma or soul annihilation.

To prevent this person from joining the religion of their choice and exercising all the necessary sacramanets is to deny them the opportunity to grow spiritually and feel secure with their place in the universe. The GA’s very purpose it to uphold fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion, and this proposal is just a way of achieving that.”

Suppose that religion teaches that allowing people with green eyes to participate in its rites is itself a grievous sin: By forcing the religion to admit that person to membership & sacraments you force its members to commit a sin, harming their ability to feel secure within their place in the universe. Son't you recognise the existing members of religions as possessing rights, too?

“Except that religions can, and should, change. A faith can adapt and gain more liberal interpretations of scripture, or find a way to reconcile their somewhat archaic practices with modern society. Societal change can happen at a religious level, and often does in many societies around Kenmoria. However, someone being discriminated against for an innate condition cannot change, and shouldn’t have to be hurt for something over which they have no control.”

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
I recommend that we end this 'green-eyed' euphemism immediately; this is not about something so trivial, if intrinsic. This is about women, and gay people. If you are going to stand there and defend homophobia and misogyny, say the damn words.

(OOC: The main reason I stick to mentioning eye colour is that nobody will be offended by either side of the debate. As far as I know, no country in the world discriminates on the basis of eye colour, so nobody could potentially feel threatened if somebody is defending eye-based discrimination. That could very easily not be true with gender or sexuality.)

OOC
Legality discussion started in the GenSec forum.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Legality discussion started in the GenSec forum.

OOC: Exactly what is the legality challenge?

Araraukar wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Legality discussion started in the GenSec forum.

OOC: Exactly what is the legality challenge?

OOC
(short version:) GAR# 35 gives member nations the authority to define “compelling practical purpose” for continuing to allow discrimination. It says nothing at all about allowing future GA legislation to limit that authority, which must therefore be considered limited only by the general "reasonable nation" concept. Therefore, by imposing new limits on that authority, this proposal is in Contradiction of GAR#35.

Bears Armed wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Exactly what is the legality challenge?

OOC
(short version:) GAR# 35 gives member nations the authority to define “compelling practical purpose” for continuing to allow discrimination. It says nothing at all about allowing future GA legislation to limit that authority, which must therefore be considered limited only by the general "reasonable nation" concept. Therefore, by imposing new limits on that authority, this proposal is in Contradiction of GAR#35.

OOC: I'm still not convinced, but we've discussed this already so no point continuing to beat a dead horse. Thanks for having the discussion and obviously I'll respect the outcome.

Bears Armed wrote:It says nothing at all about allowing future GA legislation to limit that authority, which must therefore be considered limited only by the general "reasonable nation" concept. Therefore, by imposing new limits on that authority, this proposal is in Contradiction of GAR#35.

OOC: It also says nothing about not allowing GA to define what is compelling. Seriously, this from the person who argues that forcing private ownership on concepts and ideas does not go contrary to how communism and socialism work? I bet it's just because it's religion that's being put to question that you're against it. You (and most of the GenSec) have been fine when the issue has been GA legislation destroying ideals you don't care about.

Araraukar wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:It says nothing at all about allowing future GA legislation to limit that authority, which must therefore be considered limited only by the general "reasonable nation" concept. Therefore, by imposing new limits on that authority, this proposal is in Contradiction of GAR#35.

OOC: It also says nothing about not allowing GA to define what is compelling. Seriously, this from the person who argues that forcing private ownership on concepts and ideas does not go contrary to how communism and socialism work? I bet it's just because it's religion that's being put to question that you're against it. You (and most of the GenSec) have been fine when the issue has been GA legislation destroying ideals you don't care about.

OOC:
Complaints about GenSec misconduct belong in Moderation.

“In order to close any loopholes, I suggest altering or adding to clause 2 so that it also covers: restricting a right, having a different set of criteria for a right, or delaying the giving of a right to any groups. None of those would technically fall under full ‘denying’ of the right, but would still serve to enact discrimination.”

Kenmoria wrote:“In order to close any loopholes, I suggest altering or adding to clause 2 so that it also covers: restricting a right, having a different set of criteria for a right, or delaying the giving of a right to any groups. None of those would technically fall under full ‘denying’ of the right, but would still serve to enact discrimination.”

'Nice spot, ambassador. The proposal will shortly be edited accordingly.'

OOC Edit: Draft edited as suggested, thanks

Kenmoria wrote:“In order to close any loopholes, I suggest altering or adding to clause 2 so that it also covers: restricting a right, having a different set of criteria for a right, or delaying the giving of a right to any groups. None of those would technically fall under full ‘denying’ of the right, but would still serve to enact discrimination.”

"Thank you for closing the loophole we were going to exploit," Ambassador Erich sighs.

Maowi wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“In order to close any loopholes, I suggest altering or adding to clause 2 so that it also covers: restricting a right, having a different set of criteria for a right, or delaying the giving of a right to any groups. None of those would technically fall under full ‘denying’ of the right, but would still serve to enact discrimination.”

'Nice spot, ambassador. The proposal will shortly be edited accordingly.'

“Also, I suggest possible altering ‘their religion’ at the end of clause three to ‘the religion of that organisation’, since currently it is ambiguous as to whether you mean the former or future religion of the convert.”

Kenmoria wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Suppose that religion teaches that allowing people with green eyes to participate in its rites is itself a grievous sin: By forcing the religion to admit that person to membership & sacraments you force its members to commit a sin, harming their ability to feel secure within their place in the universe. Son't you recognise the existing members of religions as possessing rights, too?

“Except that religions can, and should, change. A faith can adapt and gain more liberal interpretations of scripture, or find a way to reconcile their somewhat archaic practices with modern society. Societal change can happen at a religious level, and often does in many societies around Kenmoria. However, someone being discriminated against for an innate condition cannot change, and shouldn’t have to be hurt for something over which they have no control.”

"Telling a religious group to change their religious doctrines or else doesn't exactly comport with religious freedom. Like, at all."

Has anyone addressed why we are holding religious organizations to a higher standards then say, the judicial system?

United Massachusetts wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Except that religions can, and should, change. A faith can adapt and gain more liberal interpretations of scripture, or find a way to reconcile their somewhat archaic practices with modern society. Societal change can happen at a religious level, and often does in many societies around Kenmoria. However, someone being discriminated against for an innate condition cannot change, and shouldn’t have to be hurt for something over which they have no control.”

"Telling a religious group to change their religious doctrines or else doesn't exactly comport with religious freedom. Like, at all."

“The same could easily be said for denying religious practices to certain groups based on immutable characteristics. As with all rights, it is a balancing act, and it is impossible to satisfy everyone. I would much rather avoid deliberate discrimination in society than fulfill the will of some church elders, who possibly have no regard for minorities.”

Aclion wrote:Has anyone addressed why we are holding religious organizations to a higher standards then say, the judicial system?

"In which way do you think judicial systems are allowed to discriminate against anyone? Though I would like to know if "discrimination" based on ability is still allowed? Such as not choosing someone unable to communicate meaningfully to a spiritual role requiring communication." He decided to leave it unsaid that the communication ability was required to be with the ancestral spirits, because some people apparently didn't have them.

- Kistiri Tikilikrr, Assistant to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation male

Araraukar wrote:Seriously, this from the person who argues that forcing private ownership on concepts and ideas does not go contrary to how communism and socialism work?

Yes, I know how socialism & communism work (to the extent that socialist and communists can agree among themselves how this is the case, anyway).

I also know, however, that — according to years of precedentary rulings — the rule against ‘Ideological Bans’ does not say that “proposals cannot legally prevent any ideology’s followers from practicing their ideology to its fullest extent”.
The way in which that rule has always been interpreted officially is that proposals cannot ban any ideology outright (whether by trying to ban people from believing in it, banning people who believe in & seek to promote it from holding political office, requiring member nations to suppress it, or expelling nations whose governments follow that ideology from WA membership), and cannot make trying to follow it completely impossible (for example, either by forbidding private ownership of property or by forbidding collective ownership of property), and cannot either mandate or forbid that member nations have some particular system of government, they can make practicing ideologies or systems of government more difficult.
Thus, yes, if they want to stay in the WA then communist and socialist regimes do have to tolerate resolutions that give some protection to private property rights.. but so too, likewise, do laissez-fair capitalist regimes have to tolerate resolutions on workers’ rights or environmental protection that prevent unfettered industrial growth, Objectivist regimes have to tolerate resolutions that establish welfare systems, and both those types of regime have to tolerate resolutions that establish state-run/tax-funded healthcare or education; totalitarian regimes have to tolerate resolutions that increase individual rights, while anarchists have to tolerate resolutions that reduce individual rights; theocracies have to tolerate resolutions which limit their power to enforce their faith’s moral codes; and so on. Change from that policy to a total ban on hindering any ideology’s enforcement at all, as you’re apparently suggesting, and you’d not only make new resolutions extremely impossible you’d probably make at least 90% of the GA’s non-Repeal resolutions impossible to replace if they ever get repealed…

Aclion wrote:Has anyone addressed why we are holding religious organizations to a higher standards then say, the judicial system?

'Religious organisations are much more easily able to take advantage of the "compelling practical purpose" exception in the Charter of Civil Rights. As Ambassador Tikilikrr says (...um, did I pronounce that right?), I'm struggling to see a situation in which the judicial system could claim that discrimination based on innate characteristics is justified by a compelling practical purpose.'

(OOC: Is ‘mild’ the right strength for this? Although this does address a relatively small facet of civil rights, this is such a prevalent issue in RL and among WA nations as well as being very bold and non-optional, that I could see this bring better as ‘significant’.)

Bears Armed wrote:theocracies have to tolerate resolutions which limit their power to enforce their faith’s moral codes

OOC: Which is exactly what's happening here?

Araraukar wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:theocracies have to tolerate resolutions which limit their power to enforce their faith’s moral codes

OOC: Which is exactly what's happening here?

OOC
As it happens, yes.
However, my arguments about its legality are not based on the 'Ideological Ban' rule, while my arguments about its undesirability are on the grounds on government over-reach and do not try to claim that it would be Illegal under that rule either.

United Massachusetts wrote:"Telling a religious group to change their religious doctrines or else doesn't exactly comport with religious freedom. Like, at all."

OOC: Yet it happens in RL all the time in nations that have freedom of religion and often religious freedoms written into the actual constitution. It's just a case of secular law being higher than ecclesial law. I don't see anything in any existing GA resolution or the general idea of how GA resolutions work that would suggest otherwise.

Bears Armed wrote:*snip*

OOC: So why isn't CoCR held up otherwise? Why does this one "compelling reasons" clause make re-evaluing things impossible? Why aren't all resolutions and proposals that have come later, that have dealt with banning different forms of discrimination, been declared illegal? I mean, either CoCR is always right and you're right that this proposal is contradictory, or CoCR is general and vague, as has been the reading of the mods and GenSec since you were founded, so that antidiscriminatory laws (and indeed resolution(s) that re-define the compelling reasons) can have been bassed since its passing. Which is it?

Or could the current proposal simply obey CoCR by saying that these things are not compelling reasons to discriminate against people? Because if they're not compelling reasons, then CoCR's compelling reasons clause is not contradicted.

EDIT: And I know you know that I have advocated for CoCR being read more strongly than it is, which is why this sudden "bcuz CoCR" stance seems such a big turnaround from people who have constantly argued the opposite.

"Our delegation is in full opposition to the resolution as it stands."

Maowi wrote:

Aclion wrote:Has anyone addressed why we are holding religious organizations to a higher standards then say, the judicial system?

'Religious organisations are much more easily able to take advantage of the "compelling practical purpose" exception in the Charter of Civil Rights. As Ambassador Tikilikrr says (...um, did I pronounce that right?), I'm struggling to see a situation in which the judicial system could claim that discrimination based on innate characteristics is justified by a compelling practical purpose.'

See: US family courts

Gebietersland wrote:"Our delegation is in full opposition to the resolution as it stands."

“Why? It is much better to provide reasoning, ambassador, so that this important proposal on discrimination can have a better chance of passing.”

Aclion wrote:

Maowi wrote:
'Religious organisations are much more easily able to take advantage of the "compelling practical purpose" exception in the Charter of Civil Rights. As Ambassador Tikilikrr says (...um, did I pronounce that right?), I'm struggling to see a situation in which the judicial system could claim that discrimination based on innate characteristics is justified by a compelling practical purpose.'

See: US family courts

(OOC: US family courts are a nightmare, and they are also a topic for another proposal. It would be strange to have a piece of legislation tackling both religious organisations and the justice system.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Gebietersland wrote:"Our delegation is in full opposition to the resolution as it stands."

“Why? It is much better to provide reasoning, ambassador, so that this important proposal on discrimination can have a better chance of passing.”

"It is much better to provide reasoning, and I almost always do. Since we are a Libertarian state, our concern is ideological and hence we disagree with this proposal on a fundamental level. That being said, I should have clarified and phrased our position differently."