[Draft] Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

[Maowi]

'Ambassador, do you have any thoughts on the following phrasing:

"...based on their inherent belonging to a reductive category"?

'Maybe inherent is not precisely the right word, but do you think phrasing it like that would solve the problem?

'Anyway, we're working on a revised draft which we'll present shortly. Thanks for your feedback, ambassadors.'

“How would you feel about ‘based on their innate belonging to a reductive category’? I believe that would be the correct word to use in this scenario.”

'Thank you for the suggestion; we've incorporated it into the new draft.'

OOC: I've put up the new draft. I'd be grateful if anybody could provide an answer to the following:

Question: would a theocracy fall under the current definition of a religious organisation? (I think it does, and want it to, but I’m not 100% sure)

OOC: Edit

As written, United Massachusetts believes this resolution to be illegal as presently written. If ruled legal without further changes, United Massachusetts will oppose this resolution and draft up another resolution defending the rights of religious institutions. If ruled legal with further changes to our satisfaction, United Massachusetts will gladly support this draft.

I'd be grateful eventually for a majority GenSec opinion one way or the other, as I see your point but I would argue, as Kenmoria said and as reflected in the preamble, that this does fall under the GAR 430 exception. If you extended your argument, wouldn't it be force legalised by GAR 430 for a priest to refuse the ritual of confession and communion to a black person because of the priest's own xenophobia, rather than anything to do with Catholicism? For nowhere in GAR 430 does it say anything about religious motives behind refusing to take part in a religious practice.

But anyway, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could tell me what sort of change you want me to make that wouldn't defeat the point of the proposal? I'd be happy to give them due consideration.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I've put up the new draft. I'd be grateful if anybody could provide an answer to the following:

Question: would a theocracy fall under the current definition of a religious organisation? (I think it does, and want it to, but I’m not 100% sure)

(OOC: I think it’s ambiguous enough that any theocracy could justifiably claim it doesn’t apply to them, given that a nation might not be considered an organisation. You could put ‘organisation or member nation’ or ‘legal person’ instead.)

[Maowi]

Question: would a theocracy fall under the current definition of a religious organisation? (I think it does, and want it to, but I’m not 100% sure)

(OOC: I think it’s ambiguous enough that any theocracy could justifiably claim it doesn’t apply to them, given that a nation might not be considered an organisation. You could put ‘organisation or member nation’ or ‘legal person’ instead.)

OOC: Thanks, I'll change it to 'organisation or member nation'.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
I'll leave the arguments about "Is this the right thing to do" aside for now, and just look at "Is this a 'legal' proposal?"instead.

But religious organisations have a loophole through GAR 35 that secular ones don't, and it needs to be closed.

Where does GAR #35 specifically say "This does not apply to religious organisations" or "This only applies to secular organisations"?

If the 'loophole' that you want to close is the potential use of the 'compelling practical purpose' exemption to let religious organisations continue practicing those religions according to their beliefs, then a new resolution can not easily do so without illegality for either Contradiction (if it effectively says that "nations can not protect religious organisations' rights in this matter even if they consider there to be a compelling practical purpose for doing so") or Amendment (if it tries to say that "the section of GAR#35 that allows exemptions for compelling practical purposes must not be interpreted as meaning..." and thus tries to change the defintion of the term in #35 as it applies to #35).
If you want to make it impossible for nations to use that "compelling practical purposes" clause in this way then you need to repeal & replace GA Resolution #35.

Re the potential illegality for contradiction of GA Resolution #430: I'm currently in agreement with this challenge, unless anybody can give me a convincing argument why the "compelling practical purposes" clause there -- which can be invoked specifically only "in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order" -- applies widely enough for this new legislation to be forced upon all of the WA member nations by this proposal regardless of those nations' individual circumstances: After all, any nation in which a church's refusal to ordain women (or men, or eunuchs, or bears, or turtles, or robots, or whatever...) really does threaten the population's "safety, health, or good order" can already invoke that clause for itself in order to over-ride the religious organisations' rights without needing a further resolution on the subject.

[one-sixth of GenSec]

[Lord Dominator]

"Ambassador, your use of lists is a bit over-the-top considering the length. You should ditch the a/b list at least, and I do think you can safely get rid of the Hereby/1/2 list part as well."

[Maowi]

OOC
If the 'loophole' that you want to close is the potential use of the 'compelling practical purpose' exemption to let religious organisations continue practicing those religions according to their beliefs, then a new resolution can not easily do so without illegality for either Contradiction (if it effectively says that "nations can not protect religious organisations' rights in this matter even if they consider there to be a compelling practical purpose for doing so") or Amendment (if it tries to say that "the section of GAR#35 that allows exemptions for compelling practical purposes must not be interpreted as meaning..." and thus tries to change the defintion of the term in #35 as it applies to #35).
If you want to make it impossible for nations to use that "compelling practical purposes" clause in this way then you need to repeal & replace GA Resolution #35.

OOC:

All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Ok, to be honest I'm probably wrong here, but I don't interpret this clause of GAR 35 as preventing the banning of discrimination based on compelling practical purposes. I see it as saying 'this resolution bans all discrimination based on arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisations unless there's a compelling practical purpose' - not 'this resolution bans discrimination based on arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisations but allows all discrimination based on a compelling practical purpose'. So if that were a legitimate, good-faith interpretation, there'd be no legality issues with GAR 35, right?

Re the potential illegality for contradiction of GA Resolution #430: I'm currently in agreement with this challenge, unless anybody can give me a convincing argument why the "compelling practical purposes" clause there -- which can be invoked specifically only "in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order" -- applies widely enough for this new legislation to be forced upon all of the WA member nations by this proposal regardless of those nations' individual circumstances: After all, any nation in which a church's refusal to ordain women (or men, or eunuchs, or bears, or turtles, or robots, or whatever...) really does threaten the population's "safety, health, or good order" can already invoke that clause for itself in order to over-ride the religious organisations' rights without needing a further resolution on the subject.

OOC: I understand the problem. I'd rather not scrap this, so I'd like to get opinions from other GenSec members if possible, but if they agree that the "compelling practical purposes" clause doesn't apply widely enough I don't see any way of making anything both legal and useful from this.

"Ambassador, your use of lists is a bit over-the-top considering the length. You should ditch the a/b list at least, and I do think you can safely get rid of the Hereby/1/2 list part as well."

OOC: True, I did it semi automatically . If I continue with this I'll change it.

[Auralia]

UM, Phydios and others who are similarly minded -- I think our time is far better spent working to prevent would-be persecutors like Maowi from acquiring any real political power than continuing to play a game with people who clearly do not respect us as human beings.

[Tinfect]

UM, Phydios and others who are similarly minded -- I think our time is far better spent working to prevent would-be persecutors like Maowi from acquiring any real political power than continuing to play a game with people who clearly do not respect us as human beings.

OOC:
Ah, yes I forgot about that part in The Gay Agenda where it says to stone Christians to death. Do tell me about brutal repression of Christians at the hands of LGBT people and the brutal enforcement of new-age homonormativity on native christian populations across the world.

[Kenmoria]

“For the real nitpickers in existence, you may want to clarify you are referring to natural persons, not legal persons, in your clause 1. Otherwise, you are including corporations, which I don’t think is your intent and which probably wouldn’t be justifiable with GA #430.”

[New Bremerton]

FULL SUPPORT. Theocracy, sharia and hudud should be outlawed. No religion has a right to stone homosexuals, trans individuals, blasphemers, apostates, rape victims and fornicators/adulterers to death, or force women to cover their entire bodies from head to toe in what is essentially a body bag, or bar them from driving solely on account of their gender, particularly if those individuals identify and/or were raised from an early age as members or former members of that particular faith.

While followers often like to claim that their discriminatory provisions only apply to followers of that particular religion, reality has shown otherwise, and religious courts, particularly in theocracies and semi-theocracies, are often able to exercise jurisdiction over non-believers (e.g. a non-believer is stoned to death for "insulting X religion" for complaining about the call to prayer being too loud, a non-believing parent loses custody of his children after his believing spouse unilaterally converts their children to X religion).

Religion is a major source of evil in the world today, and it needs to be contained and ultimately relegated to the dustbin of history alongside Nazism and communism before it destroys us all. We can't expect intolerant jihadi terrorists and extremists to compromise and respect the human rights of women and minorities who nominally share their faith, as well as those that don't. We must actively wage war on their hateful religions until they are either neutered (OOC: like mainline Protestant Christianity as practiced by self-identified "liberal" Democrats in the U.S.) or eliminated (OOC: like Wahhabi/Salafi Sunni Islam as practiced by ISIS and Saudi Arabia).

OOC: I am of course referring mainly to Islam, the most hateful, violent, intolerant religion in 2019. Islam also exists ICly in New Bremerton's universe. But this proposal would apply equally to ALL religions that would seek to persecute women and minorities.

[United Massachusetts]

Religion is a major source of evil in the world today, and it needs to be contained and ultimately relegated to the dustbin of history alongside Nazism and communism before it destroys us all.

Yes, Pope Francis is literally Hitler.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

Category: Civil rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Maowi

The World Assembly,

Aware that discrimination within religious organisations against certain groups causes significant spiritual and psychological harm to individuals within those groups,

Outraged that this discrimination is, in many member nations, still permitted as having a compelling practical purpose, and

Determined to put an end to this disguised yet no less deplorable discrimination,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a ‘religious organisation’ as any organisation or member nation offering religious services, or basing its actions on religious beliefs or teachings;
   
   
2. 1. Mandates that no religious organisation may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their innate belonging to a reductive category; and
      
      
   2. Clarifies that religious organisations may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, except for the right to convert to their religion.

Question: would a theocracy fall under the current definition of a religious organisation? (I think it does, and want it to, but I’m not 100% sure)
Anyway, all feedback, input and constructive criticism welcome. Thanks.

Can you clarify "discrimination"?

[Separatist Peoples]

Religion is a major source of evil in the world today, and it needs to be contained and ultimately relegated to the dustbin of history alongside Nazism and communism before it destroys us all.

Yes, Pope Francis is literally Hitler.

Ooc: not the strangest conspiracy I've heard.

[Kenmoria]

Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

Category: Civil rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Maowi

The World Assembly,

Aware that discrimination within religious organisations against certain groups causes significant spiritual and psychological harm to individuals within those groups,

Outraged that this discrimination is, in many member nations, still permitted as having a compelling practical purpose, and

Determined to put an end to this disguised yet no less deplorable discrimination,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a ‘religious organisation’ as any organisation or member nation offering religious services, or basing its actions on religious beliefs or teachings;
   
   
2. 1. Mandates that no religious organisation may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their innate belonging to a reductive category; and
      
      
   2. Clarifies that religious organisations may deny a person a right, power, permission or service based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, except for the right to convert to their religion.

Question: would a theocracy fall under the current definition of a religious organisation? (I think it does, and want it to, but I’m not 100% sure)
Anyway, all feedback, input and constructive criticism welcome. Thanks.

Can you clarify "discrimination"?

(OOC: It shows in the draft that discrimination is denying ‘a person a right, power, permission or service based on their innate belonging to a reductive category’. This essentially means that discrimination would be giving one group different treatment based on something they cannot change, or it is unreasonable to expect them to change.)

[Marxist Germany]

"I don't understand why you want to force religions to break their own rules just for the sake of equality."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I don't understand why you want to force religions to break their own rules just for the sake of equality."

"Because equal participation in social endeavors reduces hostility to minorities and prevents invidious exclusion. Because pluralistic societies function best when everybody can participate equally in social interactions deemed normal."

[Israeli Commonwealth]

"So in this scenario, a person of a muslim bloodline is denied or discriminated against in a Catholic church, would be a crime? If so then I highly disagree with this proposal. Lucky for you I am not in the W.A."

[Separatist Peoples]

"So in this scenario, a person of a muslim bloodline is denied or discriminated against in a Catholic church, would be a crime? If so then I highly disagree with this proposal. Lucky for you I am not in the W.A."

"Since you're not in the WA, ambassador...or whatever your title would be, we really don't care what you do. I, for one, am curious as to why you're wasting your time here when your feedback will be, by virtue of your status as a non-member, ignored."

[New Udonia]

"So in this scenario, a person of a muslim bloodline is denied or discriminated against in a Catholic church, would be a crime? If so then I highly disagree with this proposal. Lucky for you I am not in the W.A."

"Since you're not in the WA, ambassador...or whatever your title would be, we really don't care what you do. I, for one, am curious as to why you're wasting your time here when your feedback will be, by virtue of your status as a non-member, ignored."

I said I wouldn't comment anymore. However, this is disgusting.
The World Assembly Secretariat. You of all people should no better than to act in such a despicable manner.
Obviously, I don't love the Israeli Commonwealth, however this has reached the climax.

"by virtue of your status as a non-member, ignored"

The truth comes out. You guys have a stranglehold on the World Assembly. If anyone disagrees with you or points out your legal flaws and corruption you call it "god-modding." However, if they then withdraw from the World Assembly, they don't matter anymore? For someone who is so obsessed with inclusion this is a new high of hypocrisy. It is so disturbing that I am the only one noticing this.

[Separatist Peoples]

The World Assembly Secretariat. You of all people should no better than to act in such a despicable manner.
Obviously, I don't love the Israeli Commonwealth, however this has reached the climax.

OOC: I see you don't understand the difference between In Character and Out Of Character. GenSec members are allowed to play the game. Playing the game involves IC roleplaying. That was IC roleplaying. Ergo, no use of my role as GenSec.

"by virtue of your status as a non-member, ignored"

The truth comes out. You guys have a stranglehold on the World Assembly. If anyone disagrees with you or points out your legal flaws and corruption you call it "god-modding." However, if they then withdraw from the World Assembly, they don't matter anymore? For someone who is so obsessed with inclusion this is a new high of hypocrisy. It is so disturbing that I am the only one noticing this.

OOC: We have a stranglehold on...how the game works? Nonmembers get no vote, so their opposition or support is equally worthless. Further, tolerating nonmembers coming in and arguing WA policy is insensible, since they are not able to affect its passage or affected by the results.

I'm not sure why we should care about the opinions of nonmembers when they use their nonmember status to evade the obligations of membership.

If you don't like how the game rules work, petition to change them. But godmodding harms RP, and the WA is a RP entity. Ergo, when you refuse to partake in the shared rules of the game, you are excluded. If you think that's disgusting, I invite you to play a game of monopoly with a player who refuses to play by the rules and see how long you're willing to tolerate it.

[New Udonia]

I'm not sure why we should care about the opinions of nonmembers when they use their nonmember status to evade the obligations of membership.

If you don't like how the game rules work, petition to change them... Ergo, when you refuse to partake in the shared rules of the game, you are excluded.

Don't you see how this directly relates to the draft at hand?
Instead of having religions change their rules, why not tell the "victims" to just be "excluded"?
The irony is painfully hilarious.

Why does nobody remember the art of dialectic deduction?

[Separatist Peoples]

I'm not sure why we should care about the opinions of nonmembers when they use their nonmember status to evade the obligations of membership.

If you don't like how the game rules work, petition to change them... Ergo, when you refuse to partake in the shared rules of the game, you are excluded.

Don't you see how this directly relates to the draft at hand?
Instead of having religions change their rules, why not tell the "victims" to just be "excluded"?
The irony is painfully hilarious.

Why does nobody remember the art of dialectic deduction?

OOC: You're seeking a connection between an Out Of Character game between individuals and an In Character policy. Different values are at stake. For example, the goal of these rules about godmodding and nonmembers exists to protect the game. Not to create inclusive policy.

In Character interests are, obviously, different, since it has nothing to do with maintaining a roleplay. The two are comparable only by a reduction into absurdity. Get outta here with that bad arguing.

Even assuming ad arguendo that there is a comparison between membership in the WA and membership in religious organizations by excluded minorities, the comparison would fail. Anybody can join the WA. Here, the player I told to fuck off chose not to remain. Conversely, this proposal deals with people who want to join but are denied access. Fundamentally different.

[Kenmoria]

"So in this scenario, a person of a muslim bloodline is denied or discriminated against in a Catholic church, would be a crime? If so then I highly disagree with this proposal. Lucky for you I am not in the W.A."

“There is one exception, and that is for religion. Obviously, it doesn’t make sense for a person of one religion to be a priest to a different one, so that has been demonstrated by the proposed legislation.”

[New Udonia]

Get outta here with that bad arguing.

But... I thought you were inclusive!

[Separatist Peoples]

Get outta here with that bad arguing.

But... I thought you were inclusive!

OOC: The WA is. I am not. I do not suffer fools.