[PASSED] Protecting Sites of Religious Significance

[Attempted Socialism]

"Ambassador those are fundamental issues to your proposal. You want to give extra rights to people who are wholly undeserving, without any attempt to credibly delineate who they are, and who could if they are genuine apply for a tourist visa. The edit needed is, quite frankly, a shredder."

Undeserving? Since when?

"Since becoming religious, obviously. What is it about an unwarranted belief in some made-up fantasy that makes it deserving of more rights than other people? Why should two tourists from the same country in the same airport be treated differently because when asked 'business or pleasure' one answers pleasure and the other rambles about their favourite faeries?"

[Verdant Haven]

"There is no conceivable reason why an individual should have additional privileges or rights based on their pronouncement of belief in some unsupported legend or irrational fantasy being. We do provide high quality custodial care and extensive educational resources at government cost for individuals thus afflicted, as they are most certainly non compos mentis and cannot be considered capable of caring for themselves, but this is done with a mind to cure their maladies, not to permit them to stomp roughshod over the rights of our other citizens, bring detriment to the collective good through their rantings, or to gather en masse to spread their poison to others. They may, with proper guardianship, enjoy the same privileges as other citizens or travelers. No more, no less, nor should that change."

[Honeydewistania]

"We look forward to personal beliefs as a reason for travel being enshrined in international law. We have many party members who personally believe in communism and a worldwide revolution. They will be only to happy to spread their good news to the international proletariat."

"Since all places of worker exploitation are sites worthy of a pilgrimage, this argument has convinced us and I am instructed to issue a retraction to my earlier statement. Full support, we are delighted to see the good news of the world revolution and slight demolishing of the capitalist class be granted special travel rights."

"Rather unfortunately, this will also enshrine the rights of ultra-capitalist states to spread 'freedom' and 'free market' and other disgusting and repugnant ideas. There's always a catch."

[Western Kidora]

"We, the people of Western Kidora, are concerned with the definition of "presently practiced." Does a religion not hold weight should it be adhered to by less than 10,000 people? While this might open the door to hooligans claiming that their religion of three is just as valid as the largest religions of a state, the freedoms of those people are more important than any risks that might be associated. Disregarding that slight hiccup, however, we believe that this bill is important to the religious freedoms of those throughout the world."

[Separatist Peoples]

"We, the people of Western Kidora, are concerned with the definition of "presently practiced." Does a religion not hold weight should it be adhered to by less than 10,000 people? While this might open the door to hooligans claiming that their religion of three is just as valid as the largest religions of a state, the freedoms of those people are more important than any risks that might be associated. Disregarding that slight hiccup, however, we believe that this bill is important to the religious freedoms of those throughout the world."

"The general population does not have, and ought not have, the freedom to enter into a nation freely. Nations have compelling rationale for managing their borders. That an individual holds a particular belief does not exempt them from a state's reasonable screening concerns."

[Boston Castle]

"I think I've perhaps come up with an agreeable solution to one of the snafus that came up in the drafting process. Several of you who've responded, rightly, came up with a criticism of the resolution that was warranted in that it didn't necessarily protect certain contested sites. Would the addition of the following clause under 3(d) to be numbered 3(e): "Work to ensure access to contested sites of religious pilgrimage by serving as an impartial arbiter of rights to visit the site and ensuring pilgrims of all faiths who claim the site can visit the site" work to allay that concern?"

"As for the question of freedom of movement, there is no easy solution to this particular question, but nations are bound by the terms of the Resolutions that we pass and as such, would it not be better to protect the freedoms of our citizens rather than the tyranny of our governments?"

[Boston Castle]

"We, the people of Western Kidora, are concerned with the definition of "presently practiced." Does a religion not hold weight should it be adhered to by less than 10,000 people? While this might open the door to hooligans claiming that their religion of three is just as valid as the largest religions of a state, the freedoms of those people are more important than any risks that might be associated. Disregarding that slight hiccup, however, we believe that this bill is important to the religious freedoms of those throughout the world."

"To wit here, Ambassador, this was precisely the reason that "presently practiced" was so vaguely defined. Any arbitrary limits would simply be put in place on the recommendations of those august ambassadors who insert themselves into the process of refining this draft, but the original intent of this Resolution was not to have any sort of arbitrary lower bound on what we can consider as "presently practiced". We, as a body, work to protect the rights of all of our citizens, not just those of this group or that group."

[Separatist Peoples]

"We, the people of Western Kidora, are concerned with the definition of "presently practiced." Does a religion not hold weight should it be adhered to by less than 10,000 people? While this might open the door to hooligans claiming that their religion of three is just as valid as the largest religions of a state, the freedoms of those people are more important than any risks that might be associated. Disregarding that slight hiccup, however, we believe that this bill is important to the religious freedoms of those throughout the world."

"To wit here, Ambassador, this was precisely the reason that "presently practiced" was so vaguely defined. Any arbitrary limits would simply be put in place on the recommendations of those august ambassadors who insert themselves into the process of refining this draft, but the original intent of this Resolution was not to have any sort of arbitrary lower bound on what we can consider as "presently practiced". We, as a body, work to protect the rights of all of our citizens, not just those of this group or that group."

"Then why do we give special transit rights to philosophical clubs and not to model train collectors? Communists? Vegans? BDSM enthusiasts? There is no practical reason to give a christian special entry privileges over a leather daddy or obnoxious vegan, and yet we are here trying to make a distinction. It seems a poor policy and a poorer execution."

[Ardiveds]

"As for the question of freedom of movement, there is no easy solution to this particular question, but nations are bound by the terms of the Resolutions that we pass and as such, would it not be better to protect the freedoms of our citizens rather than the tyranny of our governments?"

"Ambassador, protecting the freedom of citizens is a noble goal indeed but: 1. Protecting the freedom of citizens in lieu of their safety is questionable. 2. You're protecting the freedom of a particular class of citizens you favour."

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Rather forgot about this post, oops...
IC:

1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

"A... cultural thing? It, may very well be fully within your culture to have legions of foreigners flock to the... Venus-de-Louvre or, whatever that is meant to be, but it is not within the Imperium's. Sightseeing is an entirely arbitrary reason; and, of course, you're right in that it isn't any less valid. It is not, however, any more valid. Tourists of any sort, are neither wanted nor accepted."

2. The national sovereignty/question of the borders is an interesting one. [...] the Hagia Sophia is an excellent example of this. Again, I don't there would be a reason to change the wording of the resolution, so as for it to have the maximum possible effect, and I definitely don't see the argument you make regarding religion needing to be practiced in a state in order for sites needing to come under the terms of this resolution. Quite the opposite, I think this would be a perfect time to legislate that sites of minority religions retain the same protections as those of majority faiths.

"I neither know nor care who 'Hagia Sophia' is, or what impact she has had on your borders. Do you know what an Archive Facility is, Ambassador? I used as an example for a reason; they are among the most secure and vital pieces of infrastructure in the Imperium. This legislation would allow a handful of foreigners to declare them a 'religious site' and effectively hand them control over them. This, is unacceptable. That, is why the Imperium objects to the unilateral declaration of religious significance by foreigners.

This situation could of course, occur with internal dissidents as well, but, one concern at a time, yes?"

4. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that non-existent sites or sites that have ceased to exist are fit under the terms of the treaty and if there is effective "grandfathering", point it out, because that wasn't my intent at all.

OOC:
It's worth noting that the state of sites of spiritual significance is far from clear-cut. Sacred sites (and artifacts,) of indigenous peoples often retain importance after they've been desecrated, see Six Grandfathers, or destroyed, see, any number of sites destroyed and looted by settlers. So, do be aware of that when you're handling defunct sites. This isn't IC because the Imperium couldn't give a damn about such situations.

[Goobergunchia]

7. Allows nations to restrict access to religious sites for pilgrims in the event of an event which requires that a nation restrict the freedom of movement throughout the whole nation such as a civil war, declared war on a nation’s territory, internal instability in the region of a religious site, or if a pandemic is declared by the Epidemic and Pandemic Response Center

We are concerned about the breadth of clause 7 insofar as it appears to be both self-contradictory and overly specific even if not so. Our primary issue is that an event such as a natural disaster may require reasonable restrictions of freedom of movement in a given region while not at all applying nationwide. While the draft proposal acknowledges the possibility of regional instability, that language both appears to contradict the "freedom of movement throughout the whole nation" in general and is too narrow to cope with more generalized evacuation orders.

While we are generally supportive of minimal restrictions upon freedom of movement, we cannot support a proposal that would allow religious pilgrims unfettered access to hazardous areas, thereby permitting them to interfere with rescue operations and potentially risking the lives of our own first responders when they inevitably must save them from their own folly.

Finally, while we do not wish to unnecessarily repeat what other Members have said regarding clause 6a of the draft proposal, we are unfortunately reminded of the predecessor body's World Heritage List.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Boston Castle]

7. Allows nations to restrict access to religious sites for pilgrims in the event of an event which requires that a nation restrict the freedom of movement throughout the whole nation such as a civil war, declared war on a nation’s territory, internal instability in the region of a religious site, or if a pandemic is declared by the Epidemic and Pandemic Response Center

We are concerned about the breadth of clause 7 insofar as it appears to be both self-contradictory and overly specific even if not so. Our primary issue is that an event such as a natural disaster may require reasonable restrictions of freedom of movement in a given region while not at all applying nationwide. While the draft proposal acknowledges the possibility of regional instability, that language both appears to contradict the "freedom of movement throughout the whole nation" in general and is too narrow to cope with more generalized evacuation orders.

While we are generally supportive of minimal restrictions upon freedom of movement, we cannot support a proposal that would allow religious pilgrims unfettered access to hazardous areas, thereby permitting them to interfere with rescue operations and potentially risking the lives of our own first responders when they inevitably must save them from their own folly.

Finally, while we do not wish to unnecessarily repeat what other Members have said regarding clause 6a of the draft proposal, we are unfortunately reminded of the predecessor body's World Heritage List.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

OOC: Ah, the RL reference would be a bit of an issue, wouldn't it?

"Well, while I have asked this august assembly several times for suggestions for wording that would be amenable to their supporting this resolution, none has been forthcoming.

Therefore, I can really only assume that either there is no such language that would make any member amenable or else that the question is so thorny insofar as this is the best we can do."

Edit to the OOC: while I can see clause 6(a) potentially being construed as World Heritage Sites, my understanding (and perhaps Sierra Lyricalia who was here earlier can advise on this) of the rule regarding RL references is that it has to be a clear and direct reference, so the current wording stands, but if I said "UNICEF World Heritage site" that would obviously be problematic.

[Boston Castle]

Noting this here.

The draft has been significantly overhauled. The barebones language remains unchanged, but the target has changed.

Please read the new draft before commenting.

Thanks in advance,
Boston Castle

[Goobergunchia]

OOC: Ah, the RL reference would be a bit of an issue, wouldn't it?

"Well, while I have asked this august assembly several times for suggestions for wording that would be amenable to their supporting this resolution, none has been forthcoming.

Therefore, I can really only assume that either there is no such language that would make any member amenable or else that the question is so thorny insofar as this is the best we can do."

Edit to the OOC: while I can see clause 6(a) potentially being construed as World Heritage Sites, my understanding (and perhaps Sierra Lyricalia who was here earlier can advise on this) of the rule regarding RL references is that it has to be a clear and direct reference, so the current wording stands, but if I said "UNICEF World Heritage site" that would obviously be problematic.

It's not an RL issue. Lord Evif was actually referring to Historical Resolution #37, whicch had a provision where any UN nation could list a site in any other nation, which led to nations declaring large areas of nations they didn't like as part of the List.

Lord Evif's concern is that "site of religious significance" could be abused in this fashion. Even setting aside the international issue, he doesn't want some group claiming that, say, an upscale neighborhood of Goobergunch City is a "site of religious significance" and therefore can't be rezoned or redeveloped at any time for fear of desecration. (Goobergunchian officials are not going to rule that one's property values are an invalid subject of worship, and I'd argue that they'd be banned anyway from doing so under GA Res. 430(2).)

GA Res. 430(3)'s least-restrictive-means test provides leeway for Goobergunchia to handle people that argue that their religious beliefs give them exemptions from general laws. Goobergunchia would want something similar in this resolution.

This has been an OOC post.

[Boston Castle]

OOC: Ah, the RL reference would be a bit of an issue, wouldn't it?

"Well, while I have asked this august assembly several times for suggestions for wording that would be amenable to their supporting this resolution, none has been forthcoming.

Therefore, I can really only assume that either there is no such language that would make any member amenable or else that the question is so thorny insofar as this is the best we can do."

Edit to the OOC: while I can see clause 6(a) potentially being construed as World Heritage Sites, my understanding (and perhaps Sierra Lyricalia who was here earlier can advise on this) of the rule regarding RL references is that it has to be a clear and direct reference, so the current wording stands, but if I said "UNICEF World Heritage site" that would obviously be problematic.

It's not an RL issue. Lord Evif was actually referring to Historical Resolution #37, whicch had a provision where any UN nation could list a site in any other nation, which led to nations declaring large areas of nations they didn't like as part of the List.

Lord Evif's concern is that "site of religious significance" could be abused in this fashion. Even setting aside the international issue, he doesn't want some group claiming that, say, an upscale neighborhood of Goobergunch City is a "site of religious significance" and therefore can't be rezoned or redeveloped at any time for fear of desecration. (Goobergunchian officials are not going to rule that one's property values are an invalid subject of worship, and I'd argue that they'd be banned anyway from doing so under GA Res. 430(2).)

GA Res. 430(3)'s least-restrictive-means test provides leeway for Goobergunchia to handle people that argue that their religious beliefs give them exemptions from general laws. Goobergunchia would want something similar in this resolution.

This has been an OOC post.

OOC: going to redirect you to the post above now. Decided to change the topic slightly while operating in the same general framework.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Religious sites do not deserve special consideration over practical societal benefits like roads, hospitals, and parking lots."

[Boston Castle]

"Opposed. Religious sites do not deserve special consideration over practical societal benefits like roads, hospitals, and parking lots."

OOC: Well, I'm at least glad to see the objection is on the overall content of the resolution this time and not over flaws in the resolution.

(Though, obviously, feel free to point those out.)

[La Xinga]

Support

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Religious sites do not deserve special consideration over practical societal benefits like roads, hospitals, and parking lots."

OOC: Well, I'm at least glad to see the objection is on the overall content of the resolution this time and not over flaws in the resolution.

(Though, obviously, feel free to point those out.)

Ooc: my delegation has only ever had concerns with the policy aspects. Technically, it's relatively solid.

[Bananaistan]

"This is ridiculously broad, we remain opposed.

"Also any sites actually worthy of consideration (IE more than just some layman happened to have a pray somewhere once) are already covered by existing legislation - we already passed "Cultural Site Preservation". What is so special about all these sites of even minor or non-existent significance?

"Also opposed on account of the word desecration being completely redefined. EG a cemetery being relocated with due respect and dignity is not desecration."

[Boston Castle]

"This is ridiculously broad, we remain opposed.

"Also any sites actually worthy of consideration (IE more than just some layman happened to have a pray somewhere once) are already covered by existing legislation - we already passed "Cultural Site Preservation". What is so special about all these sites of even minor or non-existent significance?

"Also opposed on account of the word desecration being completely redefined. EG a cemetery being relocated with due respect and dignity is not desecration."

"Would the ambassador more amenable to this resolution if we reined in what is defined as a "focus of worship" to include only, say, "large religious centers and sites associated with revered people in a religion"?"

"And furthermore, how would one define religion in such an august assembly?"

[Boston Castle]

After some discussion and suggestion-taking in the TNP off-site forum, clause 5 has been amended and there's a new clause 6.

[Tinhampton]

if a pandemic is declared by the Epidemic and Pandemic Response Center

Except that no General Assembly resolution expressly authorises EPARC (let alone EPRC! ) to "declare" "a pandemic" of anything... unless you were thinking of GA#53 Article 6, of course >:P

[Boston Castle]

if a pandemic is declared by the Epidemic and Pandemic Response Center

Except that no General Assembly resolution expressly authorises EPARC (let alone EPRC! ) to "declare" "a pandemic" of anything... unless you were thinking of GA#53 Article 6, of course >:P

"I'll review it, but that's an excellent catch, Ambassador."

"In response, ambassador, let me point you to GA#53 Article 1(a) which gives the EPARC the ability to "identify and confirm" outbreaks."

[Savyy]

OPPOSED. In a diverse country with many different religions, supporting a religious site of a specific religion could infuriate the members of other religions ultimately leading to rise in hostility between the religious groups which could have disastrous consequences. I believe that the support of important historic structures should not be based on religion.