[Draft] Banning Discrimination in Religious Organisations

[Bears Armed]

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'

That's right.... and it leaves it up to the member nations to decide what is "a compelling practical purpose" which means that they could decide that allowing religions to keep their theologically-based rules on who's eligible for ordination (instead of over-ruling those in the name of sexual equality) is "a compelling practical purpose" for some reason: This might be wishing to avoid the displeasure of a deity in whom that government's members themselves believe, or because they regard promoting 'Freedom'' as a compelling purpose and think that allowing non-governmental organisations to set its own rules on membership as long as membership in rival organisations [of the same basic category] with different rules is also possible does more for the sake of Freedom than forcing every such organisation to follow a set of state-decreed rules, or something else.
Your proposal would take away that current right of national governments to declare the existence of a compelling practical purpose in this respect, and GAR #35 does not say that future resolutions could do so: Therefore, Contradiction.

"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."

Because forcing the religious to contravene their religions' laws, which they may believe to be god-given, probably increases their hostility towards the groups which that state action favours... thus giving the more militantly secularist regimes here an excuse to take further actions for suppresing religion.

[Separatist Peoples]

Because forcing the religious to contravene their religions' laws, which they may believe to be god-given, probably increases their hostility towards the groups which that state action favours... thus giving the more militantly secularist regimes here an excuse to take further actions for suppresing religion.

"Increased exposure to marginalized minorities tends to engender friendliness, not hostility. Over time. I'll admit that this is not an immediate fix. That said, I am very much in favor of anything that undermines organized religion. In the C.D.S.P., churches are considered public accommodations, and are subject to anti-discrimination law."

[New Udonia]

Anyone want some popcorn?

[The New Nordic Union]

"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."

'And what in the multiverse would a "muslim bloodline" be, observer?'

[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."

'And what in the multiverse would a "muslim bloodline" be, observer?'

"A dogwhistle for disliking brown people."

[United Massachusetts]

'And what in the multiverse would a "muslim bloodline" be, observer?'

"A dogwhistle for disliking brown people."

^ This. Having said that, non-Catholics should not be able to receive Catholic communion.

[The New Nordic Union]

'And what in the multiverse would a "muslim bloodline" be, observer?'

"A dogwhistle for disliking brown people."

'Thought as much myself.'

[Maowi]

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'

That's right.... and it leaves it up to the member nations to decide what is "a compelling practical purpose" which means that they could decide that allowing religions to keep their theologically-based rules on who's eligible for ordination (instead of over-ruling those in the name of sexual equality) is "a compelling practical purpose" for some reason: This might be wishing to avoid the displeasure of a deity in whom that government's members themselves believe, or because they regard promoting 'Freedom'' as a compelling purpose and think that allowing non-governmental organisations to set its own rules on membership as long as membership in rival organisations [of the same basic category] with different rules is also possible does more for the sake of Freedom than forcing every such organisation to follow a set of state-decreed rules, or something else.
Your proposal would take away that current right of national governments to declare the existence of a compelling practical purpose in this respect, and GAR #35 does not say that future resolutions could do so: Therefore, Contradiction.

OOC: Again, you're probably right, but I'd like to understand ... GAR 35 doesn't say anything like 'affirms the right of member nations to make exemptions for compelling practical purposes'; it just leaves the compelling practical purpose exemption open. So, by my reading, it passively 'leaves it up to the member nations to decide what is "a compelling practical purpose" ' as you say, not actively. If that's correct then that would allow future resolutions to patch up the gap, right?

"A dogwhistle for disliking brown people."

^ This. Having said that, non-Catholics should not be able to receive Catholic communion.

As it currently stands, the proposal would allow the Catholic Church to ban non-Catholics from receiving communion.

“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.”

'Ah, thank you. That will be fixed shortly.'

OOC Edit: New draft up.

[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."

“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.”

"Ah ok, thank you for the clarification"
OOC: Just because I am not voting doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion. And my opinion is just as valid as anyone else is. Maybe you don't agree with me, that is your right, but it is also my right to be able to voice MY opinion without harming you.

[Separatist Peoples]

“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.”

"Ah ok, thank you for the clarification"
OOC: Just because I am not voting doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion. And my opinion is just as valid as anyone else is. Maybe you don't agree with me, that is your right, but it is also my right to be able to voice MY opinion without harming you.

Ooc: and we, as a community, can ignore you. Or even call out your bullshit.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

"Ah ok, thank you for the clarification"
OOC: Just because I am not voting doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion. And my opinion is just as valid as anyone else is. Maybe you don't agree with me, that is your right, but it is also my right to be able to voice MY opinion without harming you.

Ooc: and we, as a community, can ignore you. Or even call out your bullshit.

OOC: Damn right you can. But you can't demand that other people ignore me or render me void because I disagree with you

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: and we, as a community, can ignore you. Or even call out your bullshit.

OOC: Damn right you can. But you can't demand that other people ignore me or render me void because I disagree with you

Ooc: I don't have to. that's the point. It's a pre-established part of the role play here. Non-compliant Nations get ignored. Non-member States are not generally heeded. There are exceptions, but usually only for veteran players

[Israeli Commonwealth]

OOC: Damn right you can. But you can't demand that other people ignore me or render me void because I disagree with you

Ooc: I don't have to. that's the point. It's a pre-established part of the role play here. Non-compliant Nations get ignored. Non-member States are not generally heeded. There are exceptions, but usually only for veteran players

OOC: I bet if I had the same opinion as you you wouldn't be saying that

[Bears Armed]

That's right.... and it leaves it up to the member nations to decide what is "a compelling practical purpose" which means that they could decide that allowing religions to keep their theologically-based rules on who's eligible for ordination (instead of over-ruling those in the name of sexual equality) is "a compelling practical purpose" for some reason: This might be wishing to avoid the displeasure of a deity in whom that government's members themselves believe, or because they regard promoting 'Freedom'' as a compelling purpose and think that allowing non-governmental organisations to set its own rules on membership as long as membership in rival organisations [of the same basic category] with different rules is also possible does more for the sake of Freedom than forcing every such organisation to follow a set of state-decreed rules, or something else.
Your proposal would take away that current right of national governments to declare the existence of a compelling practical purpose in this respect, and GAR #35 does not say that future resolutions could do so: Therefore, Contradiction.

OOC: Again, you're probably right, but I'd like to understand ... GAR 35 doesn't say anything like 'affirms the right of member nations to make exemptions for compelling practical purposes'; it just leaves the compelling practical purpose exemption open. So, by my reading, it passively 'leaves it up to the member nations to decide what is "a compelling practical purpose" ' as you say, not actively. If that's correct then that would allow future resolutions to patch up the gap, right?

OOC
It "Requires W.A. member states to fairly and equally enact and enforce the following articles," just before the list that mentions the possibility of such exemptions: To me (although, admittedly, bot necessarily to all of Gensec...), that definitely makes deciding what constitutes "a compelling practical purpose" in each case a matter for the member nations rather than for the GA. Also, even if it s read as technically leaving the possibility of further GA legislation open, you run into the problem that saying "X or Y can not be considered 'a compelling practical purpose' as far as GAR#35 is concerned" looks rather like trying to amend GAR#35.
If #35 had simply listed a number of grounds & situations that could not legally be used as a basis for discrimination, and omitted one that you would have liked to see included, then a new proposal specifically to "close the loophole" by banning discrimination on the basis of that situation would be fine... but when its list goes as far as "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" before mentioning the possibility of exemptions and (at least in my opinion) giving member nations the job of deciding what situations qualify for exemption, I think that you're stuck.

[New Udonia]

OOC: I bet if I had the same opinion as you you wouldn't be saying that

Israel, I think we broke him.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

OOC: I bet if I had the same opinion as you you wouldn't be saying that

Israel, I think we broke him.

Lmao, thanks for having my back man.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I bet if I had the same opinion as you you wouldn't be saying that

Israel, I think we broke him.

Ooc: no, I was having lunch with my wife.

You might be right. But I generally attack terrible arguments regardless of who's side they support.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

Israel, I think we broke him.

Ooc: no, I was having lunch with my wife.

You might be right. But I generally attack terrible arguments regardless of who's side they support.

Terrible how? I stated my opinion. To you that's terrible? For a law student you sure do act like a dumb lawyer.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: no, I was having lunch with my wife.

You might be right. But I generally attack terrible arguments regardless of who's side they support.

Terrible how? I stated my opinion. To you that's terrible? For a law student you sure do act like a dumb lawyer.

Ooc: you questioned applicability of a religious organization' limits in regards to a "Muslim bloodline." Islam is not genetic. The argument was awful at best, racist at worst. That's a terrible argument. It's also barely relevant to the question at hand. As such, this is my last post on the matter. You're welcome to take the argument to telegram or another venue. The GA discord is open to all.

[Israeli Commonwealth]

Terrible how? I stated my opinion. To you that's terrible? For a law student you sure do act like a dumb lawyer.

Ooc: you questioned applicability of a religious organization' limits in regards to a "Muslim bloodline." Islam is not genetic. The argument was awful at best, racist at worst. That's a terrible argument. It's also barely relevant to the question at hand. As such, this is my last post on the matter. You're welcome to take the argument to telegram or another venue. The GA discord is open to all.

I was giving a scenario but you want to leave with your tail between your legs so be it.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: you questioned applicability of a religious organization' limits in regards to a "Muslim bloodline." Islam is not genetic. The argument was awful at best, racist at worst. That's a terrible argument. It's also barely relevant to the question at hand. As such, this is my last post on the matter. You're welcome to take the argument to telegram or another venue. The GA discord is open to all.

I was giving a scenario but you want to leave with your tail between your legs so be it.

Ooc: I'm trying to obey forum rules. Which state that threadjacking is a warnable offense. If you wish to continue this...whatever it is, you can go to an alternate venue.

[Marxist Germany]

Ooc: you questioned applicability of a religious organization' limits in regards to a "Muslim bloodline." Islam is not genetic. The argument was awful at best, racist at worst. That's a terrible argument. It's also barely relevant to the question at hand. As such, this is my last post on the matter. You're welcome to take the argument to telegram or another venue. The GA discord is open to all.

I was giving a scenario but you want to leave with your tail between your legs so be it.

OOC:TGs exist for a reason

[Aclion]

'And what in the multiverse would a "muslim bloodline" be, observer?'

"A dogwhistle for disliking brown people."

"*Stares at Shia/Sunni schism* I had no idea so many muslims hated brown people."

[Separatist Peoples]

"A dogwhistle for disliking brown people."

"*Stares at Shia/Sunni schism* I had no idea so many muslims hated brown people."

"I was referring to the use of the term, not the people referenced."

[Aclion]

"*Stares at Shia/Sunni schism* I had no idea so many muslims hated brown people."

"I was referring to the use of the term, not the people referenced."

I'm aware. You should be aware that much of the conflict in the Muslim world is predicated over disagreement over Muslim bloodlines, and the political and legal fallout thereof.