[PASSED] Repeal Protecting Sites of Religious Significance

[Honeydewistania]

The World Assembly,

Affirming the importance of identifying and protecting sites of cultural significance;

Acknowledging that religious sites frequently fall into this category and are deserving of protection;

Gratified by the long-standing success of General Assembly Resolution #287 "Cultural Site Preservation", which codifies identification and protection for sites with all manner of cultural significance;

Abhorring the needless and overreaching bureaucracy present in General Assembly Resolution #522 "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance", which both duplicates effort and exceeds reasonable boundaries;

Notes that the target resolution creates extensive and overlapping efforts in this regard through the creation of a second committee tasked with an overlapping mandate, and the separate designations of significance for religious sites now being required under multiple competing resolutions;

Annoyed that the creation of this unnecessary second committee will massively waste World Assembly funds that would be of better use elsewhere;

Further notes that the target resolution uses incredibly broad and problematic definitions, such as:

• defining any ‘place of religious community’ as a site of religious significance to be protected in perpetuity, which will include culturally insignificant houses with shrines where community worship may take place, preventing owners of the house from altering the religious nature of the house in the future even if their own religious views have changed;
• defining any grave ‘of people associated with […] a religion’ as a site of religious significance to be protected in perpetuity, which would render the grave of any deceased practitioner of an active religion forever untouchable, even for law enforcement purposes such as recovering evidence in a murder;

Dismayed that member nations are required to protect "foundational place, or places, of a religion" in perpetuity, which could lead to people declaring the establishment of a religion to immediately gain international protections for their person and property against even the most reasonable of societal demands;

Troubled that sites of religious significance established through invasion may be completely desecrated by member nations regardless of their current importance to the adherents of the religion at present;

Further troubled that the resolution does not fully prevent member nations from applying blanket access restrictions to sites of religious significance, defeating the purpose of protecting these sites in the first place;

Confused by unclear wording in the resolution, such as ‘[a]busing [sic] one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance’, which could lead to vastly different interpretations by member nations and not result in the intended effect that the clause wanted;

Concluding that the member nations of the World Assembly should repeal a flawed resolution; hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #522, “Protecting Sites of Religious Significance.”

Co-authored by Verdant Haven.

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that the passage of General Assembly Resolution #522, “Protecting Sites of Religious Significance”, was intended to prevent the destruction of sites that have significant value to a religious community;

Noticing, however, numerous critical flaws that render the target resolution unable to achieve its goal;

Concerned by the poor definitions of GA#522, such as:

• defining a ‘place of religious community’ as a site of religious significance, which includes private homes wherein religious gatherings may occur due to festivities, and such a definition will prevent any owner of that property in the future from altering the religious nature to reflect their current beliefs;
• defining the ‘graves of people associated with […] a religion’ as a site of religious significance, which would cover any grave of anyone that has practiced a currently practiced religion, preventing them from being exhumed for crime solving purposes or being relocated by their next of kin;
• failing to define religion or religious significance, as well as the failure to set parameters on the size of the following of a religion, which could lead to people declaring the establishment of ‘religions’ on the spot and as a result these locations will be determined as foundational places for a religion, causing a massive headache to the owner of these properties or the objects within;

Troubled that sites of religious significance established through invasion may be completely desecrated by member nations regardless of its current importance to the adherents of the religion at present;

Confused by the wording of the resolution, such as ‘[a]busing [sic] one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance’, which could lead to vastly different interpretations by member nations and not result in the intended effect that the clause wanted; and

Determining that the member nations of the World Assembly should repeal a flawed resolution; hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #522, “Protecting Sites of Religious Significance”.

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

[Tinhampton]

YES

Repeal cow is still poggers

[Sylh Alanor]

This seems to address the major concerns I and the people in my region had with GAR#522, and I'll be happy to support the repeal. Thanks for writing it

[Attempted Socialism]

But... but... but... I wanted to write this repeal!

Too tired from dealing with Western Sahara atm, but despite my attempts to get museums exempted, they got explicitly included, which means all museums of "holy" sites... are in violation due to altering the religious nature.

[Junitaki-cho]

Confused by the wording of the resolution, such as ‘[a]busing [sic] one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance’, which could lead to vastly different interpretations by member nations and not resulting in the intended effect that the clause wanted; and

The last portion of this should read "[...]and not result in the intended effect," to keep the tense consistent.

Strongly support this repeal. Thanks for drafting it up.

[Honeydewistania]

Confused by the wording of the resolution, such as ‘[a]busing [sic] one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance’, which could lead to vastly different interpretations by member nations and not resulting in the intended effect that the clause wanted; and

The last portion of this should read "[...]and not result in the intended effect," to keep the tense consistent.

Strongly support this repeal. Thanks for drafting it up.

This seems to address the major concerns I and the people in my region had with GAR#522, and I'll be happy to support the repeal. Thanks for writing it

YES

Repeal cow is still poggers

Thank you for the kind words, I'll make edits.

[Brutica]

Seriously support this. I was mostly in favour of the stated goals of the original, but the writing of the resolution was not careful to limit the potential for over-reach and abuse.

Would perhaps suggest changing the wording here:

wacky and uncharacteristic ‘religions’

...to something like:

'religions' of convenience

...just to limit the use of subjective adjectives and to keep the formality of the proposal.

[Honeydewistania]

Seriously support this. I was mostly in favour of the stated goals of the original, but the writing of the resolution was not careful to limit the potential for over-reach and abuse.

Would perhaps suggest changing the wording here:

wacky and uncharacteristic ‘religions’

...to something like:

'religions' of convenience

...just to limit the use of subjective adjectives and to keep the formality of the proposal.

Wow was trying to be funny smh

Thanks for the feedback and the support

[Kenmoria]

“The ‘acknowledging’ clause should have a ‘that’ after ‘acknowledging’. You also need to rework the tenses on the first subpoint of the ‘concerned’ clause, since it currently doesn’t flow. Also, I don’t see the need to number a singular clause, at the end. However, this and any other repeal of the target has my support.”

[Bananaistan]

"Full support."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Is a replacement available?

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Is a replacement available?

If you, or Boston Castle, or whoever wants to write one, be my guest. However, I won't be doing that

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Is a replacement available?

I don't see a replacement as necessary, nor desirable.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Is a replacement available?

OOC: frankly with how open to abuse some of thr clauses are, the repeal is more important than a replacement.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Is a replacement available?

OOC: frankly with how open to abuse some of thr clauses are, the repeal is more important than a replacement.

I completely agree with this assessment

[Refuge Isle]

I wouldn't mind putting together a replacement, and I think there's a possible presentation of the idea that doesn't step on too many toes.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: frankly with how open to abuse some of thr clauses are, the repeal is more important than a replacement.

I completely agree with this assessment

OOC: OK. However, the necessity of a repeal does not mean a replacement is not desirable.

[Separatist Peoples]

I completely agree with this assessment

OOC: OK. However, the necessity of a repeal does not mean a replacement is not desirable.

OOC: Somebody else is welcome to draft it. Its not the repealing party's job to draft replacements.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: OK. However, the necessity of a repeal does not mean a replacement is not desirable.

OOC: Somebody else is welcome to draft it. Its not the repealing party's job to draft replacements.

OOC: Maybe. But given that the resolution has a "laudable goal" and is repealed not because of disagreements over the intended goals but perceived side-effects, delegations may decide that they are not willing to repeal the resolution without the understanding that a proper replacement will protect these vital rights.

[Honeydewistania]

Write one then. I’m not going to.

Also, ‘laudable’ removed (I had originally removed it but accidentally put an older draft up)

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Write one then. I’m not going to.

Also, ‘laudable’ removed (I had originally removed it but accidentally put an older draft up)

OOC: Unsurprising, but still unfortunate.

[Honeydewistania]

There’s nothing unfortunate about it, Cultural Site Preservation already protects the most significant ones, and as I said you’re fully welcome to drafting a replacement that has merit.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

There’s nothing unfortunate about it, Cultural Site Preservation already protects the most significant ones, and as I said you’re fully welcome to drafting a replacement that has merit.

OOC: Disagree. But it appears others are already drafting one.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: The target achieves its goals. It protects sites of religious significance. The problem with it is that it also protects all sorts of presumably insignificant sites. I'd remove the acknowledging line and change the central thrust of the argument away from "it does not achieve its aims". However, you might wait to get further opinions on this please.

Further issues are that it defines sites of religious significance and then it gives the committee a role in identifying and designating sites. It's unclear if the protections in section 4 apply automatically to all sites defined in section 1 or just those which have been considered and designated by the committee.

You might consider adding something to the effect that the target goes to great lengths to protect Fr Ted's parochial house but it never allows anyone visit or view such sites.

Previous repeals have had arguments relating to the reasonable part of what a target does is already covered. EG GAR#411 and GAR#313. IMO a narrow replacement covering actually significant sites and stripping out all the insignificant sites covered by section 1 of the target would be mere duplication of GAR#287. You could consider adding some argument to this effect. The reasonable part of what the target does is already done.

[South St Maarten]

Full support. Thanks for writing it