[Challenge] Protecting Sites of Religious Significance

[Honeydewistania]

Thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=490689

Text

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that many religious traditions have and maintain sites that are important to the history of their creed and the practice of their creed,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that certain sites of religious significance have have not been properly maintained and preserved,

NOTICING that while the World Assembly has affirmed the right of citizens of nations to practice the religion of their choosing, it has not affirmed that the places of significance to a religion must be protected as well.

DESIRING that this deficiency in existing legislation be remedied in international law, hereby:

1. Defines a "site of religious significance" to be:
   
   
   1. The foundational place, or places, of a religion;
      
   2. A focus of worship for a religion;
      
   3. The graves of people associated with or significant to a religion;
      
   4. Places of religious community;
      
   5. A museum, or other site protected by law, with a religious character;
2. Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Sites, hereafter noted as the OPRS, which shall:
   
   
   1. 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;
      
   2. Work with member nations to develop an effective plan to protect designated sites of religious significance; and
3. Further clarifies that member nations must allow sites as designated by the OPRS to be deemed significant and made compliant with this resolution,
   
4. Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:
   
   
   1. Desecrating sites of religious significance and desecration shall be defined as;
      
      
      1. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;
         
      2. Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;
         
      3. 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
         
      4. 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
         
      5. 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);
   2. Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance;
      
   3. Showing favoritism to, or selectively working to maintain, sites of one belief over another; and
5. 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,
   
6. Further clarifies that nations may not impose these restrictions on access solely on the grounds of religion,
   
7. 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.

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:

1. 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;
   
2. 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:

1. Desecrating sites of religious significance and desecration shall be defined as;
   
   
   1. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;
      
   2. Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;
      
   3. 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
      
   4. 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
      
   5. 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);
2. Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance;
   
3. 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.

[Bananaistan]

Shame you didn't raise this during drafting or in the five days it was submitted before getting to vote and only now challenge at the eleventh hour.

At the grain there does not appear to be much to do with civil rights but I feel that the whole taken together protects the practice of religion and that this is not an insignificant effect. Stopping everyone including the state from desecrating these sites is a net gain to religious freedom.

Further discussion is welcome.

[Honeydewistania]

Shame you didn't raise this during drafting or in the five days it was submitted before getting to vote and only now challenge at the eleventh hour.

At the grain there does not appear to be much to do with civil rights but I feel that the whole taken together protects the practice of religion and that this is not an insignificant effect. Stopping everyone including the state from desecrating these sites is a net gain to religious freedom.

Further discussion is welcome.

I apologise for my tardiness, I hadn’t really taken note of the category until late.

[Maowi]

While Education and Creativity - Cultural Heritage may have been a better suited category and area of effect for this proposal, the single best category is no longer required, and I would argue that Civil Rights is a reasonable fit for the proposal (which is sufficient for it to be legal). The provisions of clause 4.a. — i. to iv. — are very clearly designed to safeguard individuals' right to practice their religion (and, along the same lines, clause 2 furthers this effort). The "noticing" line of the preamble indicates this link. This is not dissimilar to the general intent of passed resolutions such as GA 430, with the Civil/Human Rights category; while its measures protecting civil rights are not as strong, it has a "mild" strength accordingly.

[Araraukar]

While Education and Creativity - Cultural Heritage may have been a better suited category and area of effect for this proposal, the single best category is no longer required, and I would argue that Civil Rights is a reasonable fit for the proposal (which is sufficient for it to be legal). The provisions of clause 4.a. — i. to iv. — are very clearly designed to safeguard individuals' right to practice their religion (and, along the same lines, clause 2 furthers this effort). The "noticing" line of the preamble indicates this link. This is not dissimilar to the general intent of passed resolutions such as GA 430, with the Civil/Human Rights category; while its measures protecting civil rights are not as strong, it has a "mild" strength accordingly.

But if the only thing that the proposal has for going for its category, is duplication of an existing resolution, then doesn't that mean that in essence it has no effect in that category? Otherwise you could add "and also bans slavery" to any proposal and have it be Civil Rights even if the majority of it fit Moral Decency, the polar opposite.

[Verdant Haven]

Calling it a net gain for religious freedom and therefore a civil rights improvement, while it simultaneously smashes every manner of civil right for individuals, cultures, and non-faith-based movements feels disingenuous.

Under this resolution, a home-owner could not take down a mud mound a previous occupant's child assembled in the back yard, if that child attached a religious icon to it.

Under this resolution, a missionary group that defiles the lands of an indigenous group by hurriedly erecting a temple in their hunting grounds would be protected, while the rights of the people affected are dismissed.

Under this resolution, a landlord could not re-carpet an apartment they own, wherein a delusional former occupant declared themself to be a prophet.

Under this resolution, even a religious congregation could not tear down their own decrepit church in order to build a new one on the same ground.

This resolution is a travesty, and I would argue strongly that not only does it not protect civil rights - it destroys them on a massive scale. This is about forcing religion on the world, not permitting it.


----

I would actually file a challenge against this on the basis of both conflict and overlap with multiple other passed resolutions.

GAR 35 (The Charter of Civil Rights) specifies that all inhabitants of member states are equal in status under law. GAR 35 further states that no discrimination may exist on the basis of religion. The proposal in question introduces very specific discrimination in favor of religion and the religious, and does offers special protection to certain residents and their beliefs specifically on the basis of the excluded category of religion. In particular, the graves of religious people are protected, but not the graves of the non-religious. The homes and facilities of religious groups are protected, but not the homes and facilities of non-religious groups.

GAR 287 (Cultural Site Preservation) already creates a WA body to identify cultural sites of significance, and mandates protection against unnecessary damage to such sites. Significant religious sites would already be covered by that resolution. The proposal in question overlaps heavily upon this and creates double-bureaucracy and conflicting mandates.

GAR 430 (Freedom of Religion) asserts the equality of belief and non-belief, and prevents any state actor from negatively handling one side or the other on the basis of that status.The proposal in question specifically demands that state actors treat non-believers as lesser entities, and their rights as irrelevant when at conflict with those of believers.

Apologies of course that this comes now rather than while it was in submission, but real world politics have been keeping me a bit busy. Should this objection be filed as a separate challenge, or just tag it on here?

[Araraukar]

Should this objection be filed as a separate challenge, or just tag it on here?

Adding it here works. Challenge threads are collection bins for the objections against a proposal's legality after it's been submitted.

To GenSec: The issues of contradiction and duplication were brought up during drafting, but were basically ignored by the author.

[Junitaki-cho]

Shame you didn't raise this during drafting or in the five days it was submitted before getting to vote and only now challenge at the eleventh hour.

For clarification, does this imply the outcome of the challenge would be different were it brought up sooner?

[Verdant Haven]

Adding my own voice to this challenge in more fleshed out form:

-------------------

I feel that it is necessary to challenge the proposal currently at vote, "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance," the discussion thread for which is here:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=490689

I make my challenge on the grounds of two rules:

Proposal Basics > Originality > Contradiction

-and-

Proposal Basics > Originality > Duplication

The text of the proposal in question is as follows in spoiler tags:

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that many religious traditions have and maintain sites that are important to the history of their creed and the practice of their creed,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that certain sites of religious significance have have not been properly maintained and preserved,

NOTICING that while the World Assembly has affirmed the right of citizens of nations to practice the religion of their choosing, it has not affirmed that the places of significance to a religion must be protected as well.

DESIRING that this deficiency in existing legislation be remedied in international law, hereby:

1. Defines a "site of religious significance" to be:
   
   
   1. The foundational place, or places, of a religion;
      
   2. A focus of worship for a religion;
      
   3. The graves of people associated with or significant to a religion;
      
   4. Places of religious community;
      
   5. A museum, or other site protected by law, with a religious character;
2. Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Sites, hereafter noted as the OPRS, which shall:
   
   
   1. 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;
      
   2. Work with member nations to develop an effective plan to protect designated sites of religious significance; and
3. Further clarifies that member nations must allow sites as designated by the OPRS to be deemed significant and made compliant with this resolution,
   
4. Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:
   
   
   1. Desecrating sites of religious significance and desecration shall be defined as;
      
      
      1. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;
         
      2. Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;
         
      3. 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
         
      4. 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
         
      5. 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);
   2. Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance;
      
   3. Showing favoritism to, or selectively working to maintain, sites of one belief over another; and
5. 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,
   
6. Further clarifies that nations may not impose these restrictions on access solely on the grounds of religion,
   
7. 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.

Specific Violations

Contradiction

----------------------------

GAR #35 The Charter of Civil Rights (viewtopic.php?p=414#p414)

GAR 35 specifies that all inhabitants of member states are equal in status under law:

All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

GAR 35 further states that no discrimination may exist on the basis of religion:

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

----------------------------

GAR #430 Freedom of Religion (viewtopic.php?p=34237174#p34237174)

GAR 430 specifies the equality of belief and lack of belief:

Asserts the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to hold any religious belief, including a lack of religious beliefs

GAR 430 further specifies that the state may not punish or persecute individuals for lack of belief:

Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution

----------------------------

Discrimination can be both positive and negative, and the equality between belief and non-belief means that one cannot discriminate in favor of one side any more than one can discriminate against the other side. The proposal in question introduces very specific discrimination in favor of religion and the religious, and offers special protections and privileges to only some individuals on the basis of positively having religious beliefs. It does this specifically on the basis of the category of religion, which is excluded by GAR 35 from use in this manner.

In particular, from the proposal in question, protections are mandated for:

The graves of people associated with or significant to a religion

Objection: To be associated with a religion means literally any practitioner thereof, and excludes those who do not practice. The grave of any religious person is hereby protected, while the non-religious receive no such protections.

Places of religious community

Objection: To be a place of religious community can mean literally any place where a religious individual engages in action related to their religion. This can include homes, private shrines, illegally constructed meeting places, or any place a person claiming unique personal religious status decides to announce or hold as being of significance to themself. It allows no such rights or protections for the homes or facilities of the non-religious individual or organization.

The foundational place, or places, of a religion

Objection: This privileges the creation of religious organizations over the creation of any other such organization. A religious service organization being founded in a community building would have that building protected. A secular service organization that is otherwise completely identical, using the same building, would not.

Duplication

----------------------------

GAR #287 Cultural Site Preservation (viewtopic.php?p=19281851#p19281851)

GAR 287 provides for the creation of a World Assembly agency with the mandate to identify culturally significant sites in consultation with relevant local leaders:

1. Hereby creates the World Assembly Trust for Cultural Heritage(WATCH),

2. Empowers the WATCH to perform the following actions:
a. Designate sites, in consultation with the nation housing said site

Objection: The proposal in question seeks to create a World Assembly agency with a mandate to identify religiously significant sites in consultation with relevant local leaders:

Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Sites, hereafter noted as the OPRS, which shall:
1. Work with faith leaders to identify and designate sites of religious significance

It is undeniable that religious sites fall under the umbrella of cultural sites covered by GAR 287.

GAR 287 further mandates that nations shall do all they can to avoid damage to identified sites:

Mandates that nations shall take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary damage to sites the WATCH has deemed culturally relevant,

Objection: The proposal in question seeks to mandate that nations do all they can to avoid damage to identified sites:

Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:
1. Desecrating sites of religious significance and desecration shall be defined as;
i. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance

This definition falls fully within the definition already provided by GAR 287.

----------------------------

In light of these contradictions and overlaps, which the author ignored repeatedly in their original drafting thread, I hereby ask for a review of its legality.

[Araraukar]

Shame you didn't raise this during drafting or in the five days it was submitted before getting to vote and only now challenge at the eleventh hour.

For clarification, does this imply the outcome of the challenge would be different were it brought up sooner?

I think there's some precedent on a proposal at vote getting more leniency, but don't quote me on that.

[Bananaistan]

Shame you didn't raise this during drafting or in the five days it was submitted before getting to vote and only now challenge at the eleventh hour.

For clarification, does this imply the outcome of the challenge would be different were it brought up sooner?

No.

<snip>

Regarding GAR#35, there is relevant precedent that it is not generally used to scupper further anti-discrimination resolutions and that the GA can clarify that something which appears to be discriminatory is a compelling practical purpose further to article 1 c.

Regarding GAR#430, I don’t see that anything in the challenged proposal impacts an individual’s “lack of religious beliefs” or has anything to do with “state punishment, reprisal, or persecution”. The non-believer can carry on not believing or engaging in religious practices. That someone is prevented from desecrating graves etc doesn’t impact their non-belief and non-practice.

Regarding GAR#287, the duplication rule specifically allows for “[elaboration] in specific areas of policy where broad legislation exists”. This elaborates and goes much further. EG WATCH designates sites in consultation with member nations, here OPRS designates sites in consultation with faith leaders, and mandates member nations accept such sites as designated sites. GAR#287 is significantly weaker in this respect.

[Junitaki-cho]

Regarding GAR#430, I don’t see that anything in the challenged proposal impacts an individual’s “lack of religious beliefs” or has anything to do with “state punishment, reprisal, or persecution”. The non-believer can carry on not believing or engaging in religious practices. That someone is prevented from desecrating graves etc doesn’t impact their non-belief and non-practice.

That's an awfully narrow reading. "Sites of religious significance" are defined to include "places of religious community," and that's going to apply well beyond conventional churches due to the vagueness of its wording. The home of a pastor who regularly hosts guests could qualify. A park or community center frequently rented by the local church may be eligible. 4(a)(i) defines "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" as an act of unlawful desecration. The upshot of all this is that religious groups may monopolize land and structures which can never be used for any other purpose; even a religious leader attempting to close their own church would be in violation. A nonreligious person in, say, a small town where a significant portion of the population is devout enough for their homes or businesses to be "places of religious community," will be functionally unable to participate in aspects of commerce such as leasing or purchasing land without risking opening themselves up to prosecution, and that's indisputably at odds with GAR#430's promise of equity.

[Bananaistan]

Regarding GAR#430, I don’t see that anything in the challenged proposal impacts an individual’s “lack of religious beliefs” or has anything to do with “state punishment, reprisal, or persecution”. The non-believer can carry on not believing or engaging in religious practices. That someone is prevented from desecrating graves etc doesn’t impact their non-belief and non-practice.

That's an awfully narrow reading. "Sites of religious significance" are defined to include "places of religious community," and that's going to apply well beyond conventional churches due to the vagueness of its wording. The home of a pastor who regularly hosts guests could qualify. A park or community center frequently rented by the local church may be eligible. 4(a)(i) defines "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" as an act of unlawful desecration. The upshot of all this is that religious groups may monopolize land and structures which can never be used for any other purpose; even a religious leader attempting to close their own church would be in violation. A nonreligious person in, say, a small town where a significant portion of the population is devout enough for their homes or businesses to be "places of religious community," will be functionally unable to participate in aspects of commerce such as leasing or purchasing land without risking opening themselves up to prosecution, and that's indisputably at odds with GAR#430's promise of equity.

Which particularly section in GAR#430 is any of these scenarios at odds with?

[Junitaki-cho]

The portion previously quoted by Verdant:

2. Asserts the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to hold any religious belief, including a lack of religious beliefs, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution,

The aforementioned scenarios would heavily curtail an individual's freedom to hold a different religion or lack of religious belief when engaging in commercial activities such as those outlined.

[Bananaistan]

The portion previously quoted by Verdant:

2. Asserts the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to hold any religious belief, including a lack of religious beliefs, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution,

The aforementioned scenarios would heavily curtail an individual's freedom to hold a different religion or lack of religious belief when engaging in commercial activities such as those outlined.

I'm not seeing the link tbh. If Joe Bloggs buys some piece of ground that happens to be a designated site, how does this stop him from holding a particular religious belief or none, or practicing a religion or not? How does the property referred to in the challenged proposal translate into restrictions of the beliefs and practices, or lack thereof, of some third party?

Put it this way. If for some reason I happen to acquire, say, this pastor's house. The fact that I own that house and can't demolish it, does not mean I must now practice that pastor's religion.

[Junitaki-cho]

I'm not seeing the link tbh. If Joe Bloggs buys some piece of ground that happens to be a designated site, how does this stop him from holding a particular religious belief or none, or practicing a religion or not? How does the property referred to in the challenged proposal translate into restrictions of the beliefs and practices, or lack thereof, of some third party?

Put it this way. If for some reason I happen to acquire, say, this pastor's house. The fact that I own that house and can't demolish it, does not mean I must now practice that pastor's religion.

The way I'm reading it, if you come to own someplace which has received a "site of religious significance" distinction, you're forbidden from, in the proposal's words, altering its religious nature. Doesn't matter whether it's the house the old pastor lived in or the grange hall the church uses for banquets or the corner store people like to shop at on Sunday afternoons. A person can't purchase that pastor's home even as an innocuous personal residence without maintaining its religious stature, and that stature stems from the religious practice of its owner. If the pastor were Catholic, for instance, the new owner couldn't remove the crosses on the walls, nor could they install, say, mezuzah in the doorways - that would alter the religious character of the structure, and that's forbidden even if it would inhibit one's usual religious freedoms. Same thing if a pastor with a designated home denounced their faith, as they'd be disallowed from changing their residence to reflect a new religious outlook. None of this inhibits belief, obviously, as we're not talking about thought policing, but religion frequently entails acts of devotion, and this proposal stands to (perhaps inadvertently) restrict that ability.

[Bananaistan]

Let’s say for the sake of argument, this alteration argument is correct and this former pastor’s house is a designated site. One can still carry on whatever activities one wishes to carry on. The crucifix on the wall etc does not change this. The definition of religious practice in GAR#430 hinges on activities, not items used in them.

Back to the alteration argument, perhaps you couldn’t remove the crucifix, but you could add the mezuzah.

In any case, this is rather stuck into what would likely be be a tiny subset of the issues caused by the challenged proposal.

I’m still unconvinced and remain of the opinion that the resolution is legal.

[Verdant Haven]

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of if it is phrased positively or negatively. If you say "Only white people may sit at the front of the bus" that is no different than saying "Non-white people must sit at the back of the bus." If you say "Only men are granted the right to vote" that is no different than saying "Women are denied the right to vote." If you say "Only religious people are included in special protections" that is the same as saying "Non-religious people are excluded from special protection." You cannot have one without the other.

-------

Here are some examples, if we were to assume the proposal in question is permitted to pass:

- Let us suppose a government is laying a new road through an occupied area, and will be forced to use eminent domain to clear a path. You are not religious, but your neighbor is. The government can choose to seize and pave over either your house, or your neighbor's house. Your neighbor occasionally hosts a bible-study group when their church common room isn't available. The government now seizes and paves over your house. They do not do this based on an analysis of cost-benefit, or civil good, or even by flipping a coin for fairness. They do this because you are not religious.

- Let us suppose you come from a long family of non-religious people. You live in a community that has a number of people who are religious. Everybody gets along and respects everybody else, and everybody is buried in the same cemetery. One day, two rival factions roll into town, declaring that they are having a war for the souls of the departed. One faction is a fanatical religious cult, and the other a fanatic secular group. In the dark of night, both of these factions raid the cemetery and put up their own monuments - the religious cult places their monuments on your non-religious family's graves and declares that they are hereby consecrated in the name of their god. The secularists place their monuments on the religious community members' graves and declare they have been de-sanctified. In the legal shakedown that follows, the secularist monuments are all removed because they desecrated the graves of people associated with a religion. The cultist monuments however are now required to be left on your family's graves, because your graves had no protection. Furthermore, these unwelcome monuments are now eternally protected under international law. The difference? Religion. The graves of religious families got protection, and the graves of the non-religious did not. The monuments of a religious group got protection, and the monuments of a non-religious group did not.

- Let us suppose you are a member of a religious congregation. Across the street from your church is the office of a local secular club. Both buildings are in a state of disrepair, and both groups have raised the necessary funds to tear down their buildings and replace them with new, purpose-built structures. The same architect has offered each group a nice set of plans, and the same contractor has offered to do both jobs for the same price. Your congregation is not allow to tear down your own building to replace it because it is a place of religious community. The secular club has no problem doing so. The reason for the difference? You are religious and they are not.

-------

Because this bill does not base determination upon any cultural, artistic, or historical assessment of worth, but rather entirely on the singular characteristic of being religious or not, it is prohibited discrimination.

The only factor being used to make determination is religion.

The only trait being looked at is religion.

The only question it permits is religion.

Religion is not permitted to be used as the basis for discriminatory practices.

[Bananaistan]

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of if it is phrased positively or negatively. If you say "Only white people may sit at the front of the bus" that is no different than saying "Non-white people must sit at the back of the bus." If you say "Only men are granted the right to vote" that is no different than saying "Women are denied the right to vote." If you say "Only religious people are included in special protections" that is the same as saying "Non-religious people are excluded from special protection." You cannot have one without the other.

-------

Here are some examples, if we were to assume the proposal in question is permitted to pass:

- Let us suppose a government is laying a new road through an occupied area, and will be forced to use eminent domain to clear a path. You are not religious, but your neighbor is. The government can choose to seize and pave over either your house, or your neighbor's house. Your neighbor occasionally hosts a bible-study group when their church common room isn't available. The government now seizes and paves over your house. They do not do this based on an analysis of cost-benefit, or civil good, or even by flipping a coin for fairness. They do this because you are not religious.

- Let us suppose you come from a long family of non-religious people. You live in a community that has a number of people who are religious. Everybody gets along and respects everybody else, and everybody is buried in the same cemetery. One day, two rival factions roll into town, declaring that they are having a war for the souls of the departed. One faction is a fanatical religious cult, and the other a fanatic secular group. In the dark of night, both of these factions raid the cemetery and put up their own monuments - the religious cult places their monuments on your non-religious family's graves and declares that they are hereby consecrated in the name of their god. The secularists place their monuments on the religious community members' graves and declare they have been de-sanctified. In the legal shakedown that follows, the secularist monuments are all removed because they desecrated the graves of people associated with a religion. The cultist monuments however are now required to be left on your family's graves, because your graves had no protection. Furthermore, these unwelcome monuments are now eternally protected under international law. The difference? Religion. The graves of religious families got protection, and the graves of the non-religious did not. The monuments of a religious group got protection, and the monuments of a non-religious group did not.

- Let us suppose you are a member of a religious congregation. Across the street from your church is the office of a local secular club. Both buildings are in a state of disrepair, and both groups have raised the necessary funds to tear down their buildings and replace them with new, purpose-built structures. The same architect has offered each group a nice set of plans, and the same contractor has offered to do both jobs for the same price. Your congregation is not allow to tear down your own building to replace it because it is a place of religious community. The secular club has no problem doing so. The reason for the difference? You are religious and they are not.

-------

Because this bill does not base determination upon any cultural, artistic, or historical assessment of worth, but rather entirely on the singular characteristic of being religious or not, it is prohibited discrimination.

The only factor being used to make determination is religion.

The only trait being looked at is religion.

The only question it permits is religion.

Religion is not permitted to be used as the basis for discriminatory practices.

I referred above to existing precedent on GAR#35, I quote here the relevant part:

It is the viewpoint of the SecGen’s office that as “compelling practical purposes” was never fully defined and as a strong argument can be made that the current proposal falls into that area due to the impact religion has on various people, it is up to the General Assembly to decide if giving such an exception as this is of “compelling practical purposes”.

There is no blanket prohibition of discrimination in WA law atm. The current law against discrimination allows the GA to decide what is or isn't a compelling practical purpose to allow for discrimination.

[Separatist Peoples]

Not available for a long analysis, but I agree with Banana.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

- Let us suppose a government is laying a new road through an occupied area, and will be forced to use eminent domain to clear a path. You are not religious, but your neighbor is. The government can choose to seize and pave over either your house, or your neighbor's house. Your neighbor occasionally hosts a bible-study group when their church common room isn't available. The government now seizes and paves over your house. They do not do this based on an analysis of cost-benefit, or civil good, or even by flipping a coin for fairness. They do this because you are not religious.

Why would an international committee trying to protect churches and temples in war zones (for example) take the time to designate some random schmo's bible study a place of religious significance? And how is that a "place of religious community" deserving protection under this resolution when it was legally a "place of residence" first?

- Let us suppose you come from a long family of non-religious people. You live in a community that has a number of people who are religious. Everybody gets along and respects everybody else, and everybody is buried in the same cemetery. One day, two rival factions roll into town, declaring that they are having a war for the souls of the departed. One faction is a fanatical religious cult, and the other a fanatic secular group. In the dark of night, both of these factions raid the cemetery and put up their own monuments - the religious cult places their monuments on your non-religious family's graves and declares that they are hereby consecrated in the name of their god. The secularists place their monuments on the religious community members' graves and declare they have been de-sanctified. In the legal shakedown that follows, the secularist monuments are all removed because they desecrated the graves of people associated with a religion. The cultist monuments however are now required to be left on your family's graves, because your graves had no protection. Furthermore, these unwelcome monuments are now eternally protected under international law. The difference? Religion. The graves of religious families got protection, and the graves of the non-religious did not. The monuments of a religious group got protection, and the monuments of a non-religious group did not.

See Clause 4(a)(v) of the resolution.

- Let us suppose you are a member of a religious congregation. Across the street from your church is the office of a local secular club. Both buildings are in a state of disrepair, and both groups have raised the necessary funds to tear down their buildings and replace them with new, purpose-built structures. The same architect has offered each group a nice set of plans, and the same contractor has offered to do both jobs for the same price. Your congregation is not allow to tear down your own building to replace it because it is a place of religious community. The secular club has no problem doing so. The reason for the difference? You are religious and they are not.

See Clause 4(a)(v) of the resolution.

I agree with Banana's analysis. Civil Rights is an acceptable category for this.

This proposal goes a significant way beyond GAR #287. That resolution's operative clauses are: committee creation/tasking; urges following of recommendations; encourages good faith effort to preserve sites; mandates reasonable precautions against unnecessary damage; mandates non-use of sites for military or intelligence; grandfathers current such uses into legality. Whereas this resolution's operative clauses are: definitions; committee creation/tasking; mandates compliance; lists six distinct actions forbidden by resolution (i.e. mandates nations not do them); clarifies crises permit access restrictions; mandates non-discrimination w/r/t religion for access to sites; and urges further measures.

By any accounting this proposal goes significantly further than #287 does. This type of "duplication" has always been permitted, in which a newer resolution expands on the details and increases the strength* of a predecessor.

No illegal duplication.

*("strength" here in the lower-case, descriptive sense, not in the official, GA category "strength")

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Just so we are clear, in GenSec declining to hear the challenge?

[Separatist Peoples]

Just so we are clear, in GenSec declining to hear the challenge?

3/5 say no dice. Does the Challenger need a formal opinion, or is this enough?

[Honeydewistania]

Enough for me, not sure about Verdant Haven. Thanks guys

[Verdant Haven]

While I both disagree with, and am disturbed by, what I consider the appalling misreading of permissible exceptions under GAR 35, it is apparent from this thread that no formal opinion is needed. I thank the Gen Sec for its responses, and will focus future efforts towards repealing this proposal.