[PASSED] Protection of Apostates

[Imperium Anglorum]

Lol then I'll ought just to direct you to what I tell Tinhampton when she throws a pile of irrelevant 'but in the past the WA did X' bin room arguments. This is especially not an argument that would convince me, given that I'm a (decently large) voter, when I voted in favour of the repeal you are now disavowing on the exact basis you are now disavowing.

OOC: I am just putting forward the reasoning why my own perspectives changed. If it apparently is an acceptable approach in the WA, then who am I to argue with that? I am not saying that you are wrong either however, I see the point you are making and the perspective you are advocating. For the future I will keep in mind to try to expand a term like "reasonable" or simply use different wording. But for a case like "reasonable conversation", personally, I believe the definition of that is not that ambiguous or unclear.

There are basically two dispositive ways your arguments fail.

The first is the generally accepted view on GA 35's "compelling practical purposes" clause. It is generally accepted that a CPP is whatever a member nation thinks it is. If that is the case, then we also have to accept that a "reasonable conversation" is whatever a member nation thinks it is. Both are limited to the extent to which an activity is self-detrimental, but the way that previous precedent views detriment is only in the short term. The scope of that detriment also can be reduced only to the actual people in power, rather than people writ large. This generally accepted view is the source of why this legislation is not illegal for duplicating GA 35. And it also is the source of my complaints in "Just saying ‘reasonable’ is not a standard":

This is not helped by how the word “reasonable” has been used in the World Assembly. Sometimes, it seems authors use the word really to mean something akin to “policies which I agree with, which otherwise would be prohibited or ultra vires, are permitted”. Naturally, one cannot write something so blatantly subjective into a resolution. Instead, it is hidden behind the legal-sounding word “reasonable”, the clause into which it is inserted becoming all things to all people.

Second is the fact that your views on reasonable nations, which Ara brings to mind astutely, are not accepted under mainstream views of reasonable nation theory. I don't know what the main argument related to this 'humiliation' is and I'm not particularly involved or interested in it. But the common theme that I keep seeing in your applications of RNT is that reasonable nations all do what you want. I noted this already as well:

If the Secretariat is going to try to extend RNT into something grotesque like "all nations are nice happy members of something akin to the EU and behave more or less like Denmark", then it really does fall into rational inevitability terms.

Those previously referenced "rational inevitability terms" were previously rejected as honest mistakes. Repeal "Pesticide Regulations" [2017] GAS 7. I disagree with Ara's seeming claim that various nations are not RNT because they do not do "reasonable" things. Instead, I would support the stronger claim – which, notably, is what was actually held in [2017] GAS 7 – that reasonable nations do not always do what is best for them or their people.

[Trellania]

OOC: But the tech-wank element has been used by other posters to try to avoid compliance in a similar manner. The argument you're trying to make here appears very similar to those situations where a poster tried to tech-wank their way out of compliance.

I can't change your perspective on Reasonable Nation Theory not being valid, yet in objective terms it remains valid, as it is an unwritten rule applied when it comes to proposal drafting. In this case, Reasonable Nation Theory says that it would be unlikely that a nation would introduce extensive humiliation laws in their nation just to avoid one resolution, namely this one, as it would create a ridiculous situation where those humiliation laws would have to be applied across all layers of society. Therefore, that becomes an unlikely situation since it creates a very explosive, aggressive and dangerous situation for a society, and thus an author can dismiss the notion under Reasonable Nation Theory. From my perspective you are arguing for those very niche and one-of-a-kind RP situations where a nation would try to avoid compliance. That is exactly what the Reasonable Nation Theory guards against, as it would be impossible to draft legislation otherwise.

Seeing as how we both remain steadfast in our viewpoint, perhaps it would be smart to agree to disagree? I don't mean to cut you off, of course, yet I don't believe either of us will be convinced by the other's arguments

OOC: I've been trying to find a polite way to say this, and there simply isn't one that properly communicates the issue. So, I'm just going to be blunt.

Equating the examples of real-life nations to techwank nations shows you do not understand the basics of the very theory you are attempting to use in this case, as there is no logical standing for what you have said about that theory which does not involve, as IA points out, a "reasonable nation" being one that simply does whatever you want it to. It also leaves no room for argument that is not going to inevitably come across as feeling hostile, as to challenge the flaws in your logic require pointing out the very flawed understanding you are using to begin with.

As for your statement about the effects of large amounts of humiliation being allowed in a nation: Reality says otherwise. Real-world results show such actions encourage a collectivist society rather than an individualist. You can see this in play in the United States if you pay more attention to the long-term issues of the nation; generations that grew up in periods that relied more on shame than other periods tend to be more collectivist than the generations that didn't. This back-and-forth in the nation has given it a weird obsession with shame; I could go on and on with how this is affecting things on the small and large scale, but at that point we would be straying quite far from the issue.

And, no, I don't think we can simply agree to disagree on this issue; we will likely keep revisiting the issue of Reasonable Nation Theory in future discussions. So if we do not settle this now, it will likely come up again, and each repetition of the discussion further encourages uncivil discussion about it. And it is too important to how the WA forum operates for us to avoid it.

OOC: In which case people in those cultures would presumably be a lot less likely to consider apostacy in the first place, making those nations less relevant to this proposal & discussion, no?

Not at all. If anything, the cultures in question are even more prone to look for and seek to destroy apostacy than individualist nations are. The collectivist-individualist divide is a sliding scale rather than a toggle switch, and you can never have a 100% value on either end; every collectivist nation has a small amount of individualist people, while every individualist nation has a small amount of collectivist people. As such, both types of nation have a variety of mechanisms in play to punish those who trend toward the other end of the scale.

I could go on, but that would be getting massively off-topic at this point.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I've been trying to find a polite way to say this, and there simply isn't one that properly communicates the issue. So, I'm just going to be blunt.

Equating the examples of real-life nations to techwank nations shows you do not understand the basics of the very theory you are attempting to use in this case, as there is no logical standing for what you have said about that theory which does not involve, as IA points out, a "reasonable nation" being one that simply does whatever you want it to. It also leaves no room for argument that is not going to inevitably come across as feeling hostile, as to challenge the flaws in your logic require pointing out the very flawed understanding you are using to begin with.

OOC: As per the discussion in the Discord server, RNT has been adequately explained to me there and I encourage you to read that discussion as it is quite relevant. As per the explanation, I have come to understand RNT as "a nation won't act to its own detriment, especially to its leaders, or simply to avoid a small thing" and "this means that authors, when trying to close up loopholes in their proposals, need not account for every ridiculous, unrealistic or unlikely situation or scenario that could occur within an uncooperative member state".

As for your statement about the effects of large amounts of humiliation being allowed in a nation: Reality says otherwise. Real-world results show such actions encourage a collectivist society rather than an individualist. You can see this in play in the United States if you pay more attention to the long-term issues of the nation; generations that grew up in periods that relied more on shame than other periods tend to be more collectivist than the generations that didn't. This back-and-forth in the nation has given it a weird obsession with shame; I could go on and on with how this is affecting things on the small and large scale, but at that point we would be straying quite far from the issue.

OOC: Your argument on humiliation isn't making much sense and received the same response in the Discord server when the discussion was unfolding.

And, no, I don't think we can simply agree to disagree on this issue; we will likely keep revisiting the issue of Reasonable Nation Theory in future discussions. So if we do not settle this now, it will likely come up again, and each repetition of the discussion further encourages uncivil discussion about it. And it is too important to how the WA forum operates for us to avoid it.

OOC: No, we can drop this discussion because RNT has a clear definition. I was simply operating on an outdated perspective on it, but now everything has been clarified.

[Trellania]

OOC: Discussion resolved elsewhere to avoid clogging up the thread even more than I already have.

[Saint Helga]

"Our nation will not stand by this abomination of an act. And if such act is passed we will consider resignation from the WA altogether. Not only does this resolution demand we abandon our religious values that we have defended vehemently for centuries, but it implies that the WA would rather have countries give up their sovereignty to other more powerful nations."

[Daarwyrth]

"Our nation will not stand by this abomination of an act. And if such act is passed we will consider resignation from the WA altogether. Not only does this resolution demand we abandon our religious values that we have defended vehemently for centuries, but it implies that the WA would rather have countries give up their sovereignty to other more powerful nations."

Vyn Nysen: "Ambassador, you would still have your religious rights. The only thing that would change is that your nation would be unable to inflict reprisal, punishment or harm on those who chose to renounce their faith, which is the right of every individual. There is nothing holy or just about persecuting an apostate."

[Kenmoria]

"Our nation will not stand by this abomination of an act. And if such act is passed we will consider resignation from the WA altogether. Not only does this resolution demand we abandon our religious values that we have defended vehemently for centuries, but it implies that the WA would rather have countries give up their sovereignty to other more powerful nations."

“As Ambassador Nysen has stated, this does not impair your nation’s religious freedoms. Additionally, the WA has previously passed a huge amount of law guaranteeing freedom of religion, which follow very similar lines to this proposal. I invite you to reconsider your response, given that this does nothing but allow people the right to use their conscience to decide which path they wish to do follow, a conscience which, in most religions, is given by a higher power.”

[Daarwyrth]

This is the response I received over telegram from Bears Armed about Clause 3's supposed loophole in "beyond those forms of treatment that would also be legal if carried out for reasons other than religiously-motivated ones":

I do not regard this as a loophole, I regard it as a necessary feature in line with IA's comment that ""If it isn't illegal for me to stop being your friend and also to shun you whenever you appear if.... you slept with my wife or something... it isn't illegal to do it in response to leaving our church": To me, bearing in mind that we can't really legislate people's feelings, that seems a reasonable viewpoint. I disagree that this leaves a "massive" vulnerability for apostates, however, given the fact that existing resolutions already forbid such matters as retaliation by state agencies for apostasy, extra-judicial punishments, and most forms of [prejudiced] discrimination: How far beyond people ceasing to be friends with apostates from their formerly-shared faiths, and no longer inviting them to [privately-organised] social events, would this actually let people go?

[Trellania]

OOC: I'm limiting this to nations as developed as the United States or greater; I'm not even including all nations on Earth.

The answer to "how far beyond" is "as far as their legs can legally carry them." Which, under WA rules, is quite far before you even reach the outer limits of what modern nations allow. This includes humiliation to the point it almost crosses the line into active torture, as we discussed. Active defamation to the point their reputation is destroyed, producing fake pornographic material of the person to discredit them, businesses denying them the right to buy even basic necessities, and so on are all potentially legal under World Assembly resolutions and all are under the range of activities that fall under the development qualification I posted above.

Essentially, using only the real world nations that fall under that qualification I posted above, you can destroy someone's life without violating a single WA resolution.

And this does cause problems in real life. Some nations are struggling with massive societal problems resulting from that.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: I'm limiting this to nations as developed as the United States or greater; I'm not even including all nations on Earth.

The answer to "how far beyond" is "as far as their legs can legally carry them." Which, under WA rules, is quite far before you even reach the outer limits of what modern nations allow. This includes humiliation to the point it almost crosses the line into active torture, as we discussed. Active defamation to the point their reputation is destroyed, producing fake pornographic material of the person to discredit them, businesses denying them the right to buy even basic necessities, and so on are all potentially legal under World Assembly resolutions and all are under the range of activities that fall under the development qualification I posted above.

Essentially, using only the real world nations that fall under that qualification I posted above, you can destroy someone's life without violating a single WA resolution.

And this does cause problems in real life. Some nations are struggling with massive societal problems resulting from that.

OOC: Yet you forget that all the examples that you mentioned can and most likely are criminal and illegal activities in member nations under their national laws. You say "without violating a single WA resolution", yet WA law isn't the only law that applies to member states, their national laws still remain in place and somehow you completely ignore them? Torture is illegal in most modern nations irl, defamation has actual laws against such irl, businesses denying the right to sell them stuff idem. You omit a vital piece that frankly can't be omitted as you did, and IA already told you in the Discord that your examples were problematic.

[Trellania]

OOC: Yet you forget that all the examples that you mentioned can and most likely are criminal and illegal activities in member nations under their national laws. You say "without violating a single WA resolution", yet WA law isn't the only law that applies to member states, their national laws still remain in place and somehow you completely ignore them? Torture is illegal in most modern nations irl, defamation has actual laws against such irl, businesses denying the right to sell them stuff idem. You omit a vital piece that frankly can't be omitted as you did.

OOC: I will note I said almost to the point of torture for humiliation, so it would be toeing the line of legality. Defamation is a law that is dependent heavily upon the nation; quite a few set up their defamation laws in such a way it can be de facto legal when used against you unless you happen to be incredibly wealthy (and sometimes, not even that helps). And there's no actual WA resolution stating businesses must sell to people regardless of their religion, so it's not unlikely that nations can discriminate for the same reason. And a couple real-world nations do (if you want a list, please feel free to ask in Discord; here, it would derail the thread).

So, I'm aware of that piece. I'm also aware it doesn't apply as much as it may seem.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I also said:

Given libel-proof people exist I also don't buy that would be the case [that libel laws would protect everyone] even in a society with libel laws
It's legal to disown your children if they join the KKK? It's legal to disown them if they leave Boat Mormons

[Waldenes]

"Our nation will not stand by this abomination of an act. And if such act is passed we will consider resignation from the WA altogether. Not only does this resolution demand we abandon our religious values that we have defended vehemently for centuries, but it implies that the WA would rather have countries give up their sovereignty to other more powerful nations."

“Ambassador, we too remain a very devout nation. But we have maintained our religious traditions -without- enforcing harsh laws upon our people. It can be done, you know. Religion can be practiced... freely.

We support this resolution.”

[Bunkaiia]

OOC:
Issue:
I don't normally debate in the GA, but most would consider my nation a somewhat Theocratic nation, based on the union of the four main religions (Jainism, Animism, Judaism, and Mazdakite Zoroastrianism). Al four sought refuge on Bunkaiia, to be able to practice their faith in freedom and made compromises that ensured a fair relationship. Bunkaiia has the five Gohuls as their de facto Head of State and Government. One of the Gohuls has to be tied to a specific founding religion - this is part of a careful balance that gives a level of autonomy to each of the four major religions present. If the Theocratic Gohul/"spokesperson" renounces their faith then it essentially skips the turn for their previous religious group to be heard for a period, which is unfair to that community. So could someone please explain to me what the term "punishment" entails, because as far as I am concerned, anyone elected into office poignantly based on their stated religion, but then later renounces that faith, while in office, shouldn't he be removed from office to protect the religious balance and harmony?

Please note that the other 4 Gohuls can be and are in fact often enough usually secular leaning. There is no prison or military on Bunkaiia, and we do not believe in "punishment" - just in case.

[Daarwyrth]

OOC:
Issue:
I don't normally debate in the GA, but most would consider my nation a somewhat Theocratic nation, based on the union of the four main religions (Jainism, Animism, Judaism, and Mazdakite Zoroastrianism). Al four sought refuge on Bunkaiia, to be able to practice their faith in freedom and made compromises that ensured a fair relationship. Bunkaiia has the five Gohuls as their de facto Head of State and Government. One of the Gohuls has to be tied to a specific founding religion - this is part of a careful balance that gives a level of autonomy to each of the four major religions present. If the Theocratic Gohul/"spokesperson" renounces their faith then it essentially skips the turn for their previous religious group to be heard for a period, which is unfair to that community. So could someone please explain to me what the term "punishment" entails, because as far as I am concerned, anyone elected into office poignantly based on their stated religion, but then later renounces that faith, while in office, shouldn't he be removed from office to protect the religious balance and harmony?

Please note that the other 4 Gohuls can be and are in fact often enough usually secular leaning. There is no prison or military on Bunkaiia, and we do not believe in "punishment" - just in case.

OOC: Per Clause 3, it depends on who is removing the Gohul from office. Is he or she resigning themselves? If so, then that is their choice and does not constitute a reprisal, punishment etc. etc. If the state removes the Gohul from office, then I would rather think that GAR #430 “Freedom of Religion” comes into play then, which forbids state reprisal, punishment etc. against people choosing to renounce a faith. Clause 3 of this proposal applies to religious communities and individuals, which brings us to the relevant question: who is removing removing the Gohul from office?

[The Hazar Amisnery]

Following my state religion is mandatory from birth so committing apostasy would be a rare event and if you did we would probably force you into it again in some religious conversion camp.

[Daarwyrth]

“Ambassador, we too remain a very devout nation. But we have maintained our religious traditions -without- enforcing harsh laws upon our people. It can be done, you know. Religion can be practiced... freely.

We support this resolution.”

Vyn Nysen: "I agree with and applaud the stance of the Ambassador from Waldenes, as well as the nation of Waldenes. True freedom to believe also requires that one has true freedom not to believe. Faith and religion are highly personal affairs that no state nor religious community has any business policing. If an individual wishes to renounce their faith, they should be able to do so without fear of punishment or reprisal."

Following my state religion is mandatory from birth so committing apostasy would be a rare event and if you did we would probably force you into it again in some religious conversion camp.

OOC: Then that would constitute a state reprisal under GAR #430 "Freedom of Religion", which forbids any form of state punishment, reprisal or act against individuals choosing to not believe - and thus renounce their faith. That would mean you're already in a state of non-compliance, and not by the articles of this resolution proposal.

[Chernaya Zvezda]

CURRENT DRAFT:

Protection of Apostates
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

---

Cognizant of its commitment to grant all inhabitants of member nations the right to practice their religion freely and in peace, and in a manner that is in agreement with their conscience, and their religion's teachings; yet

Equally committed to ensuring that the safety and wellbeing of apostates are secured, and similarly protected by the wings of World Assembly law;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   1. 'apostate' as any natural person who has formally renounced their religion and/or religious beliefs; and
      
      
   2. 'apostasy' as the act of a natural person freely and consciously, formally renouncing their religion and/or religious beliefs; and
      
      
   3. 'religious leadership' as any individual, group or entity that has a leadership function within a religion, religious institution, or any other organised belief-system;
   
   
2. Requires that member states treat apostasy as a legal act within their national jurisdictions;
   
   
3. Acknowledges the right of apostates and people considering apostasy not to be subjected to any form of punishment, reprisal, persecution, or humiliation, as a result of their apostasy or their contemplation of this change, whether by religious leaderships or by individual or grouped members of a religion or organised belief-system, beyond those forms of treatment that would also be legal if carried out for reasons other than religiously-motivated ones;
   
   
4. Clarifies that, as far as earlier General Assembly resolutions that are presently in force allow, religious institutions are still allowed to bar apostates from employment in their service in roles for which faith can reasonably be considered relevant, such as priesthood or teaching about religious matters, and from access to their places of worship (except as necessary for the proper performance of legitimate tasks such as by emergency services, official safety inspectorates, or armed forces, and except for any parts of those premises that are being used at the time for significant secular purposes, for example as polling stations or as emergency shelters) or participation in their religious & church-organised social activities;
   
   
5. Decrees that the process of apostasy must not be unduly restricted, or obstructed by onerous bureaucracy, or force individuals to pass through discouraging or humiliating practices in order to enact it;
   
   
6. Mandates that member nations recognise the right of apostates, and individuals contemplating apostasy, to keep the reasoning behind their decision to commit apostasy private;
   
   
7. Clarifies that religious leaderships, or individual members of a religion or organised belief-system, are permitted to attempt to convince those contemplating apostasy, or apostates themselves, to remain faithful through reasonable conversation and debate;
   
   
8. Specifies that a refusal to partake in a conversation or debate as per Clause 7, by either an apostate, or an individual contemplating apostasy, shall not have any consequences to the detriment of that apostate or individual;
   
   
9. Requires that member states enforce the articles of this resolution in a manner that entices compliance, or that inspires deterrence regarding non-compliance with the content of this legislation.

Co-authored with Bears Armed Mission.

---

OOC: After a period of drafting this resolution proposal on the Forest offsite forums, I have decided to move it to drafting here as well. Your feedback and thoughts are most welcome!

One of the critiques that I expect on this draft is GAR #430 “Freedom of Religion”, and that this proposal draft might duplicate it. Yet GAR #430 states in Clause 2 “without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution”. The words “state punishment, reprisal, or persecution” are repeated throughout all clauses, but the resolution doesn’t speak about reprisals, punishment or persecution from non-state actors, such as the leadership of a religion or religious group. This resolution targets those, and as such, doesn’t duplicate “Freedom of Religion” or contradict it, in my opinion. There is precedent for the World Assembly regulating non-state actors, namely in my old friend GAR #527 "Protected Working Leave" Clause 3, which forbids "employers from discriminating or retaliating against workers for requesting or taking paid leave pursuant to section 2 of this resolution; such retaliation including".

After significant contributions to the improvement of this draft, Bears Armed has become a co-author of this resolution under the nation Bears Armed Mission.

---

DRAFT 3:

Protection of Apostates
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

---

Cognizant of its commitment to grant all inhabitants of member nations the right to practice their religion freely and in peace, and in a manner that is in agreement with their conscience, and their religion's teachings; yet

Equally committed to ensuring that the safety and wellbeing of apostates are secured, and similarly protected by the wings of World Assembly law;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   1. 'apostate' as any natural person who has formally renounced their religion and/or religious beliefs; and
      
      
   2. 'apostasy' as the act of a natural person freely and consciously, formally renouncing their religion and/or religious beliefs; and
      
      
   3. 'religious leadership' as any individual, group or entity that has a leadership function within a religion, religious institution, or any other organised belief-system;
   
   
2. Requires that member states treat apostasy as a legal act within their national jurisdictions;
   
   
3. Acknowledges the right of apostates and people considering apostasy not to be subjected to any form of punishment, reprisal, persecution, or humiliation, as a result of their apostasy or their contemplation of this change, whether by religious leaderships or by individual or grouped members of a religion or organised belief-system, beyond those forms of treatment that would also be legal if carried out for reasons other than religiously-motivated ones;
   
   
4. Clarifies that, as far as earlier resolutions that are presently in force allow, religious institutions are still allowed to bar apostates from employment in their service or access to their premises (except for any parts of those premises that are being used at the time for significant secular purposes, for example as polling stations or as emergency shelters) or participation in their religious & social activities;
   
   
5. Decrees that the process of apostasy must not be unduly restricted, or obstructed by onerous bureaucracy, or force individuals to pass through discouraging or humiliating practices in order to enact it;
   
   
6. Recognises that apostates, and individuals contemplating apostasy, have the right to privacy regarding the reasoning behind their decision to commit apostasy;
   
   
7. Clarifies that religious leaderships, or individual members of a religion or organised belief-system, are permitted to attempt to convince those contemplating apostasy, or apostates themselves, to remain faithful through reasonable conversation and debate;
   
   
8. Specifies that Clause 7 may only be enacted when an apostate, or an individual contemplating apostasy, has freely and consciously given their consent to such;
   
   
9. Requires that member states enforce the articles of this resolution in a manner that entices compliance, or that inspires deterrence regarding non-compliance with the content of this legislation.

Co-authored with Bears Armed Mission.

DRAFT 2:

Protecting Apostates
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

---

Cognizant of its commitment to grant all inhabitants of member nations the right to practice their religion freely and in peace, and in a manner that is in agreement with their conscience, and their religion's teachings; yet

Equally committed to ensuring that the safety and wellbeing of apostates are secured, and similarly protected by the wings of World Assembly law;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   1. 'apostate' as any natural person who has formally renounced their religion and/or religious beliefs; and
      
      
   2. 'apostasy' as the act of a natural person freely and consciously, formally renouncing their religion and/or religious beliefs; and
      
      
   3. 'religious leadership' as any individual, group or entity that has a leadership function within a religion, religious institution, or any other organised belief-system;
   
   
2. Acknowledges the right of apostates and people considering apostasy not to be subjected to any form of punishment, reprisal, persecution, or humiliation, as a result of their apostasy or their contemplation of this change, whether by religious leaderships or by individual or grouped members of a religion or organised belief-system, beyond those forms of treatment that would also be legal if carried out for reasons other than religiously-motivated ones;
   
   
3. Clarifies that, as far as earlier resolutions that are presently in force allow, religious institutions are still allowed to bar apostates from employment in their service or access to their premises (except for any parts of those premises that are being used at the time for significant 'secular' purposes, for example as polling stations or as emergency shelters) or participation in their religious & social activities;
   
   
4. Decrees that the process of apostasy must not be unduly restricted, or obstructed by onerous bureaucracy, or force individuals to pass through discouraging or humiliating practices in order to enact it;
   
   
5. Recognises that apostates, and individuals contemplating apostasy, have the right to privacy regarding the reasoning behind their decision to commit apostasy;
   
   
6. Clarifies that religious leaderships, or individual members of a religion or organised belief-system, are permitted to attempt to convince those contemplating apostasy, or apostates themselves, to remain faithful through reasonable conversation and debate;
   
   
7. Specifies that Clause 6 may only be enacted when an apostate, or an individual contemplating apostasy, has freely and consciously given their consent to such;
   
   
8. Requires that member states enforce the articles of this resolution in a manner that entices compliance, or that inspires deterrence regarding non-compliance with the content of this legislation.

DRAFT 1:

Protecting Apostates
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant

---

Cognizant of its commitment to grant all inhabitants of member nations the right to practice their religion freely and in peace, and in a manner that is in agreement with their conscience, and their religion's teachings; yet

Equally committed to ensuring that the safety and wellbeing of apostates are secured, and similarly protected by the wings of World Assembly law;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   1. 'apostate' as any natural person who has formally renounced their religion and/or religious beliefs; and
      
      
   2. 'apostasy' as the act of a natural person freely and consciously, formally renouncing their religion and/or religious beliefs; and
      
      
   3. 'religious leadership' as any individual, group or entity that has a leadership function within a religion, religious institution, or any other organised belief-system;
   
   
2. Requires religious leaderships to have a system established within their religious institution, group or organised belief system that allows their members to commit apostasy;
   
   
3. Forbids religious leaderships, or the individual members of a religion or organised belief-system, from submitting an apostate, or an individual contemplating apostasy, to any form of punishment, reprisal, persecution or humiliation as a result of their apostasy, or their contemplation of such;
   
   
4. Demands that the process of apostasy will not be unduly restricted, or obstructed by onerous bureaucracy, or force individuals to pass through discouraging or humiliating practices to enact it;
   
   
5. Grants apostates, or individuals contemplating apostasy, the right to privacy regarding the reasoning behind their decision to commit apostasy;
   
   
6. Clarifies that religious leaderships, or individual members of a religion or organised belief-system, are permitted to attempt to convince those contemplating apostasy, or apostates themselves, to remain faithful through reasonable conversation and debate;
   
   
7. Specifies that Clause 6 may only be enacted when an apostate, or an individual contemplating apostasy, has freely and consciously given their consent to such;
   
   
8. Requires member states to enforce the articles of this resolution in a manner that entices compliance, or that inspires deterrence regarding non-compliance with the content of this legislation.

Cognizant is word I needed to serach and I doubt I'm the only one
And the word apostasy isn't my favourite I prefer non religious
apostates feel little bit like calling them traitors

Good proposal otherwise

[Greater Cesnica]

The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs of The North Pacific has recommended a vote For the GA Resolution "Protection of Apostates". Its reasoning may be found here.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Cognizant is word I needed to search and I doubt I'm the only one

Then this proposal is proving educational, as well as [IC] "legislative"? Excellent!

And the word apostasy isn't my favourite I prefer non religious

But existing GA law already protects the general right to be "non-religious", so that this proposal has been aimed specifically at those people who are leaving religions of which they formerly were members -- because they are probably at more at risk of persecution than is the case for lifelong non-religious individuals -- and for them specifically "apostates" is the closest thing that English has for a specific label...

[The Hazar Amisnery]

“Ambassador, we too remain a very devout nation. But we have maintained our religious traditions -without- enforcing harsh laws upon our people. It can be done, you know. Religion can be practiced... freely.

We support this resolution.”

Vyn Nysen: "I agree with and applaud the stance of the Ambassador from Waldenes, as well as the nation of Waldenes. True freedom to believe also requires that one has true freedom not to believe. Faith and religion are highly personal affairs that no state nor religious community has any business policing. If an individual wishes to renounce their faith, they should be able to do so without fear of punishment or reprisal."

Following my state religion is mandatory from birth so committing apostasy would be a rare event and if you did we would probably force you into it again in some religious conversion camp.

OOC: Then that would constitute a state reprisal under GAR #430 "Freedom of Religion", which forbids any form of state punishment, reprisal or act against individuals choosing to not believe - and thus renounce their faith. That would mean you're already in a state of non-compliance, and not by the articles of this resolution proposal.

I break so many GA Resolutions its not funny. A state reprisal would only break more.

[Daarwyrth]

I break so many GA Resolutions its not funny. A state reprisal would only break more.

OOC: Perhaps it would be an idea to try to bring your nation in compliance with WA legislation? Non-compliance essentially ruins the economy of your nation

[Kurogasa]

I break so many GA Resolutions its not funny. A state reprisal would only break more.

OOC: Perhaps it would be an idea to try to bring your nation in compliance with WA legislation? Non-compliance essentially ruins the economy of your nation

OOC: that's not even a thing. if you are in the WA you follow the rules of the WA "The WA is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by legislation it passes."

[Daarwyrth]

OOC: that's not even a thing. if you are in the WA you follow the rules of the WA "The WA is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by legislation it passes."

OOC: It is a thing. People can declare to be non-compliant, as the WA is also part RP. It's why there are two resolutions that deal on that topic: GAR #390 and GAR #440. As you can see, it is quite possible for a nation to declare itself non-compliant in RP.

[Kurogasa]

OOC: that's not even a thing. if you are in the WA you follow the rules of the WA "The WA is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by legislation it passes."

OOC: It is a thing. People can declare to be non-compliant, as the WA is also part RP. It's why there are two resolutions that deal on that topic: GAR #390 and GAR #440. As you can see, it is quite possible for a nation to declare itself non-compliant in RP.

OOC: wait, so you are telling me someone in the WA made a resolution that poked a hole in the WA just so they could rp they don't comply and take a fine?.