Text
Rule broken: Category
The category for the challenged proposal is Civil Rights, strength is mild. I believe the resolution does not improve worldwide civil rights. If we go through it clause by clause:
Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Sites, hereafter noted as the OPRS, which shall:
- Work with faith leaders to identify and designate sites of religious significance to presently practiced religions, especially those which have significant meaning to, or are are focuses of worship of, a presently practiced religion;
- Work with member nations to develop an effective plan to protect designated sites of religious significance; and
No civil rights being protected or furthered here.
Further clarifies that member nations must allow sites as designated by the OPRS to be deemed significant and made compliant with this resolution,
Sites are not sentient, therefore the right to be designated as significant is not a civil right.
Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:
- Desecrating sites of religious significance and desecration shall be defined as;
- Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;
- Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;
- The removal of bodies, relics, or items of significance with the intent to make said sites no longer significant as deemed by the OPRS, unless the removal of the bodies, relics, or items of significance is for restoration or maintenance purposes, and
- Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRS in an attempt to make them no longer significant by removing their religious character; though
- Desecration shall not apply in the event of an imminent threat to health and safety with the present conditions of the site, in the event that said sites were established in a hostile fashion (such as through invasion), or if said sites are being altered with a view towards preservation in perpetuity (such as through conversion into a museum);
- Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance;
- Showing favoritism to, or selectively working to maintain, sites of one belief over another; and
This whole section is infringing on the right to desecrate sites, so it’s restricting liberty. Though there is a section on banning abusing private property rights, it’s very minor considering the other rights being infringed upon.
[*]Clarifies that nations may restrict access to religious sites in an event which requires that a nation restrict the freedom of movement throughout the whole nation such as a civil war, conflict which occurs on a nation’s territory, internal instability in the region of a religious site, or if a pandemic is declared by a national health service or disease control center,
More infringing on the rights, this time on access to religious sites.
[*]Further clarifies that nations may not impose these restrictions on access solely on the grounds of religion,
[*]Urges member nations to take additional measures to provide for the security of sites of religious significance including appointing third-party controllers of religious sites in the event that this would prove to be more conducive to their continued survival and maintenance than local administration.
Neither of these protect civil rights.
So, while there is a very small case of furthering civil rights, the proposal has more elements of restricting them. I believe that the current proposal at vote has failed the any suitable category test. Therefore, I believe the current General Assembly proposal at vote is illegal for a Category Violation.