[PASSED] Religious Freedom Protection

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"In case GA#436 gets repealed, I would recommend a clause protecting expression of religious belief and disbelief. During your repeal, the possibility of GA#436 meeting the same fate was mentioned as an argument against the repeal which this replaces, so protecting against such would be a good defense." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"Should 436 be repealed, there would theoretically also be a replacement, and doing as such would seem unnecessary."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Juansonia]

"In case GA#436 gets repealed, I would recommend a clause protecting expression of religious belief and disbelief. During your repeal, the possibility of GA#436 meeting the same fate was mentioned as an argument against the repeal which this replaces, so protecting against such would be a good defense." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"Should 436 be repealed, there would theoretically also be a replacement, and doing as such would seem unnecessary."

"However, it would be important to have such protections in place during the interim, or if the repeal author's replacement failed. The damage caused by the repeal of GA#430 is already too great, and it would be desirable to ensure that a repeal of GA#436 is less destructive during the interim." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"Should 436 be repealed, there would theoretically also be a replacement, and doing as such would seem unnecessary."

"However, it would be important to have such protections in place during the interim, or if the repeal author's replacement failed. The damage caused by the repeal of GA#430 is already too great, and it would be desirable to ensure that a repeal of GA#436 is less destructive during the interim." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"Then oppose repeal of 430 without replacement, or draft your own version of a resolution to duplicate 436. It seems unnecessary to include such a redundant mandate, as it will in fact likely procure greater opposition for the partial duplication of past resolutions."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[Pekares]

We commend the efforts to improve World Assembly legislation.
Whereas we can not comment the legal implications of this proposal, we wish to give our opinion on some other things:

+
The use of the word 'govern' in the definition 1.a. is in our mind unnecessarily strong. It runs the risk of promoting the view that religion is some sort of oppressive control of people. We are not saying that it (i.e. 'govern') does this, but that it is in that direction.
We view that a word such as 'guide' is more neutral, and thus more fitting in international legislation. Or any other word of similar implication.

++
to procure a material advancement in a practical, secular purpose
In our mind the use of the word 'secular' is quite unfortunate here, as it might imply that advancements for secular purposes are generally good just for being secular. Since the legislation is about protecting the freedoms of those living secular or religious lives, the use of the word 'secular' comes across as a biased word in this context, favoring one group.
The intention is good, but we suggest the phrasing be changed. Earlier drafts have not included the word 'secular'. Perhaps they were changed to the current form for some reasonable purpose; some legal implication we do not see. Yet, we hope this can be resolved in a practical way.

+++
5.b. is said to restrict the use of Church Tax. Whereas we can understand the argument: it isn't the job of the state to prop up churches,
the restricting of said tax entirely, rather than restricting its potential misuse, seems to be an individual agenda not appropriate for international and common law of all. We suggest that discrimination in matter of tax due to a person's faith or lack thereof, be restricted in a more generally affecting section of the proposal.

The proposal at large is in our opinion good, and we hope that it can pass, with appropriate changes.

<:-:-:> Dep. of INA, Pekares <:-:-:>

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

We commend the efforts to improve World Assembly legislation.
Whereas we can not comment the legal implications of this proposal, we wish to give our opinion on some other things:

+
The use of the word 'govern' in the definition 1.a. is in our mind unnecessarily strong. It runs the risk of promoting the view that religion is some sort of oppressive control of people. We are not saying that it (i.e. 'govern') does this, but that it is in that direction.
We view that a word such as 'guide' is more neutral, and thus more fitting in international legislation. Or any other word of similar implication.

"Arguably, the use of 'governs' instead of 'guides' is what separates religion from philosophy. Religion actually requires adherents to follow a certain moral code

++
to procure a material advancement in a practical, secular purpose
In our mind the use of the word 'secular' is quite unfortunate here, as it might imply that advancements for secular purposes are generally good just for being secular. Since the legislation is about protecting the freedoms of those living secular or religious lives, the use of the word 'secular' comes across as a biased word in this context, favoring one group.
The intention is good, but we suggest the phrasing be changed. Earlier drafts have not included the word 'secular'. Perhaps they were changed to the current form for some reasonable purpose; some legal implication we do not see. Yet, we hope this can be resolved in a practical way.

"Secular does not mean atheist. Secular means 'not relating to religion or to a religious body' (Ooc: [1]). Something like suppressing or promoting a religion would not be a 'secular' purpose -- a secular purpose would be, say, wanting to suppress cannibalism due to its health risks, or banning dowry to advance non-discrimination against women. A nation simply cannot claim 'promoting citizen salvation' or something as reason to discriminate against religious groups."

+++
5.b. is said to restrict the use of Church Tax. Whereas we can understand the argument: it isn't the job of the state to prop up churches,
the restricting of said tax entirely, rather than restricting its potential misuse, seems to be an individual agenda not appropriate for international and common law of all. We suggest that discrimination in matter of tax due to a person's faith or lack thereof, be restricted in a more generally affecting section of the proposal.

"The current section is indeed generally affecting. It addresses all discrimination in tax against religious groups, and is broadly intended to focus on such discrimination where to suppress a religion. It also, secondarily, prohibits church tax. Subsidising churches with taxpayer money is not necessarily prohibited -- it's only if said taxpayer money is collected at a greater rate from individuals in certain religious groups than those in other religious groups."

~Alexnder Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The ice States

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"We have decided that we will be waiting around one or two weeks longer before submitting this."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[Honeydewistania]

As we consider religious persecution 'based', no support.

-Benji

[Juansonia]

As we consider religious persecution 'based', no support.
-Benji

"Based? Based on what? Based on the teachings of Klyprer? Please shut the fuck up and use words properly you fucking troglodyte. Do you think General Assembly resolution number 436, Protecting Free Expression, was passed just so you may spew random words that have no meaning and don't even correlate to the topic of the conversation? You always complain about why no one talks to you, why no one expresses their opinions on you. It's because you're always spewing random shit like 'poggers', 'based', and 'cringe', and, when you try to explain what it is, you just say that it's funny. What the fuck is funny about it? Do you think you'll just become a comedian of an ambassador that will get a standing ovation just because you said "cum" while addressing the Security Council? Of course not, you fucking idiot, so please shut the fuck up and use words properly."
- an intern from Juansonia's delegation to the World Assembly

Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia, proceeds to reprimand the intern.

OOC: New copypasta just dropped, feel free to use.

[New Visayan Islands]

As we consider religious persecution 'based', no support.
-Benji

"Based? Based on what? Based on the teachings of Klyprer? Please shut the fuck up and use words properly you fucking troglodyte. Do you think General Assembly resolution number 436, Protecting Free Expression, was passed just so you may spew random words that have no meaning and don't even correlate to the topic of the conversation? You always complain about why no one talks to you, why no one expresses their opinions on you. It's because you're always spewing random shit like 'poggers', 'based', and 'cringe', and, when you try to explain what it is, you just say that it's funny. What the fuck is funny about it? Do you think you'll just become a comedian of an ambassador that will get a standing ovation just because you said "cum" while addressing the Security Council? Of course not, you fucking idiot, so please shut the fuck up and use words properly."
- an intern from Juansonia's delegation to the World Assembly

Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia, proceeds to reprimand the intern.

OOC: New copypasta just dropped, feel free to use.

A veneer of roleplay is no excuse for *** flaming; take the warning *** as a hint to read and review the Rules.

New Visayan Islands
Game Moderator

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: Yes, this has been submitted. Roleplay element of this post continued here.

---

Deephedge, The Ice States; 6:17 PM

"I had told you explicitly not to submit Religious so-called Freedom Protection!"

"Emperor, it was an accide-"

"Even if you accidentally bumbled your way into the submission office, and accidentally filled in the form as to submit RFP, and; you know, whatever. You ruined any prospect of us joining the World Assembly through your idiocy, which is nothing but treason against the Empire."

"I'm sorry, Emperor, now you know how much I've done for the Ice States in the World Assembly? I repealed 430, commended Esternial-"

"Quiet!", exclaimed the Duke of Deephedge. "I don't care what you've done in the past for the Ice States! You're a traitor to Klyprer, and that you were taken to Deephedge for this case indicates the graveness of your offence. Marcus, the traitor's incarnation shall be taken to Embassy Building A5, in Magecastle, and given a short drop hanging there. His body shall not be removed from the execution place."

The servant's quiet affirmative reply could barely be heard over the former Ambassador's cries for mercy, as the Emperor's servant dragged the ex-Ambassador to the car and bussed him off to Magecastle. The Duke of Deephedge seemed not to care at the fact that PRF could only be withdrawn if authorised by the submitting ambassador, with Duke Jeramy Vliet having already been sent to procure PRF's withdrawal on behalf of the Ice mission.

[Aelyria]

Ambassador Forrest-Drake, keeping her expression carefully neutral, asks, "What, or who, defines a 'compelling, practical, and secular state interest'? What prevents, for instance, a state from performing an end run on religious freedoms by, for example, declaring that non-critical body modification is illegal to avoid possible health consequences, even though those consequences are extremely unlikely with practices like male circumcision that are of intense importance to practicing religions like Judaism?"
"Further, what, or who, defines the degree to which 'considerably outweighs' applies? This is so ambiguously worded it could allow nearly anything. There are extremely good reasons to restrict the ability of governments to impinge upon the free exercise of religion. One of those reasons is that the government has enormous powers and little to no recourse exists for smaller minority groups; even large majority groups can be effectively oppressed by a well-armed and influential minority government, as demonstrated in multiple nations throughout history. Why should we not require that the means used truly be as restricted as possible while still 'advancing' the state interest? Why should we take so cavalier an attitude toward a government's ability to oppress, coerce, or manipulate its people? These are rights that demand strong protection and government powers that, unchecked, invite extreme abuse even in the best of cases."

[Las Duendes]

Ambassador Forrest-Drake, keeping her expression carefully neutral, asks, "What, or who, defines a 'compelling, practical, and secular state interest'? What prevents, for instance, a state from performing an end run on religious freedoms by, for example, declaring that non-critical body modification is illegal to avoid possible health consequences, even though those consequences are extremely unlikely with practices like male circumcision that are of intense importance to practicing religions like Judaism?"

I decide I have compelling interest in no more Jew, because Jew stealing all the moneys. It is practical for state to find Jew, and behead him. No more Jew makes for much more secular, because no more Jew.

Before anyone get mad, know that Las Duendes might be Jew in real life. So might be okat to speak very freely about Jew. All in food gun!

"Further, what, or who, defines the degree to which 'considerably outweighs' applies? This is so ambiguously worded it could allow nearly anything. There are extremely good reasons to restrict the ability of governments to impinge upon the free exercise of religion. One of those reasons is that the government has enormous powers and little to no recourse exists for smaller minority groups; even large majority groups can be effectively oppressed by a well-armed and influential minority government, as demonstrated in multiple nations throughout history. Why should we not require that the means used truly be as restricted as possible while still 'advancing' the state interest? Why should we take so cavalier an attitude toward a government's ability to oppress, coerce, or manipulate its people? These are rights that demand strong protection and government powers that, unchecked, invite extreme abuse even in the best of cases."

You misspell Fuhrer, but I like how you think. Do you want to be chief Jew exterminator?

[Juansonia]

Ambassador Forrest-Drake, keeping her expression carefully neutral, asks, "What, or who, defines a 'compelling, practical, and secular state interest'? What prevents, for instance, a state from performing an end run on religious freedoms by, for example, declaring that non-critical body modification is illegal to avoid possible health consequences, even though those consequences are extremely unlikely with practices like male circumcision that are of intense importance to practicing religions like Judaism?"

"If the intent of the law is, as you put it, 'an end run on religious freedoms', it is not for a secular purpose. Otherwise, such restrictions are allowed, and there isn't much reason to disallow them. While elective body modification of adults, and all medically-necessary body modification, would be allowed by any reasonable nation, protecting the rights of a child would be sufficent grounds to outlaw male circumcision, and GA#114 applies a similar standard to a practice that, while more severe in harm caused, is comparable." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"Further, what, or who, defines the degree to which 'considerably outweighs' applies? This is so ambiguously worded it could allow nearly anything. There are extremely good reasons to restrict the ability of governments to impinge upon the free exercise of religion. One of those reasons is that the government has enormous powers and little to no recourse exists for smaller minority groups; even large majority groups can be effectively oppressed by a well-armed and influential minority government, as demonstrated in multiple nations throughout history. Why should we not require that the means used truly be as restricted as possible while still 'advancing' the state interest? Why should we take so cavalier an attitude toward a government's ability to oppress, coerce, or manipulate its people? These are rights that demand strong protection and government powers that, unchecked, invite extreme abuse even in the best of cases."

"The practice-restriction standards are vague because GA#430 imposed a 'least restrictive means' test for any interference with religious practices, and the strictness of that standard was a significant argument for its repeal, which has already occurred. Seeing as how this version has already been submitted, and the Magecastle delegation is unable to withdraw it due to the recent discharge of their ambassador, it would be best to address your concerns in a supplementary proposal." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

[Starman of Stardust]

Ooc: I will be responding to In-Character queries vis-a-vis this proposal from this nation, as the Ice mission is opposed to this proposal for obvious reasons, and the submitting ambassador is likewise not present for obvious reasons.

Ic _

Ambassador Forrest-Drake, keeping her expression carefully neutral, asks, "What, or who, defines a 'compelling, practical, and secular state interest'? What prevents, for instance, a state from performing an end run on religious freedoms by, for example, declaring that non-critical body modification is illegal to avoid possible health consequences, even though those consequences are extremely unlikely with practices like male circumcision that are of intense importance to practicing religions like Judaism?"

"If 'those consequences are extremely unlikely', then prohibiting non-critical body modification would not be 'vital for the furtherment' of an interest such as promoting public health. Such a justification for a restriction would fail to pass Section 2's scrutiny prima facie. That said, this would not seem to prohibit a justification such as bodily autonomy to prohibit eg circumcision only where done upon non-consenting individuals. Indeed, such circumcision is prohibited in the Union, despite being known for our great tolerance and inclusiveness, including of other religions and lack thereof."

"Further, what, or who, defines the degree to which 'considerably outweighs' applies? This is so ambiguously worded it could allow nearly anything. There are extremely good reasons to restrict the ability of governments to impinge upon the free exercise of religion. One of those reasons is that the government has enormous powers and little to no recourse exists for smaller minority groups; even large majority groups can be effectively oppressed by a well-armed and influential minority government, as demonstrated in multiple nations throughout history. Why should we not require that the means used truly be as restricted as possible while still 'advancing' the state interest? Why should we take so cavalier an attitude toward a government's ability to oppress, coerce, or manipulate its people? These are rights that demand strong protection and government powers that, unchecked, invite extreme abuse even in the best of cases."

"This would appear to be a balancing test between religious freedom and the compelling practical purpose claimed. From my reading of the text, this would prevent frivolous or bad faith invocation of a compelling practical purpose, and provide a legal recourse for restrictions on freedom of religious practice by forcing lawmakers to confront the real, practical circumstances of the policies enacted, and the interests of those affected."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Ooc: This has been withdrawn and resubmitted with alterations to the Section 2 test, after discussion with Attempted Socialism. Nb in my roleplayed canon I will be assuming that the text of the new proposal is what was originally submitted.

[Attempted Socialism]

Ooc: This has been withdrawn and resubmitted with alterations to the Section 2 test, after discussion with Attempted Socialism. Nb in my roleplayed canon I will be assuming that the text of the new proposal is what was originally submitted.

I'm very happy I could help. As I said privately I apologise for raising my concerns to late, so thank you for reaching out. Good luck on the proposal!

[Bakivaland]

"We mustn't support, even though Bakivaland is a free country, we shouldn't control dictatorships and theocracies way of ruling their people."

[Honeydewistania]

What is a 'positive harm'? Is it just harm? What does the positive part even mean?

[Juansonia]

What is a 'positive harm'? Is it just harm? What does the positive part even mean?

OOC: I am guessing that "Positive Harm" means active harm, as opposed to passive harm.

[The Ice States]

pos·i·tive (pŏz′ĭ-tĭv)
adj.
1. Characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation

indicating, relating to, or characterized by affirmation, addition, inclusion, or presence rather than negation, withholding, or absence

Characterized by the existence or presence of distinguishing qualities or features, rather than by their absence.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

What is a 'positive harm'? Is it just harm? What does the positive part even mean?

OOC: I am guessing that "Positive Harm" means active harm, as opposed to passive harm.

There is an obscure distinction between harm caused directly (or actively) and harm caused indirectly (or passively). To try to make it more clear, consider this example: kicking a dog. The act clearly does direct harm to the dog, basically no one would disagree there. Where it gets tricky is that the act does some kind of harm, maybe a form of direct harm but maybe a form of indirect harm (depending on your point of view) to people who perceive the act and are negatively emotionally affected by witnessing it. It gets more obscure from there. Has the act indirectly harmed someone who does not perceive it, but hears about it later and feels bad about it? Did the person who told that other person directly harm them by telling them, because they experienced a negative emotional reaction after hearing it? It's a very uncertain subject, because harm is a weird concept with an extremely complex mix of objective and subjective features.

Smoking is perhaps a clearer example. The smoker actively or directly harms themselves, pretty clearly.* But what about people who breathe in second hand smoke? Arguably they are actively harmed because the person's conduct is directly affecting them negatively. Arguably they are indirectly or passively harmed because the smoker is just trying to put the smoke in their own lungs, and the fact that someone else is breathing in the exhaled smoke is accidental or incidental to that primary aim. Again, even in this clearer example things get weird fast. (*there is a view that the smoker has not harmed themselves at all! because the enjoyment they receive from smoking makes the overall experience unharmful despite any health costs, much how like we don't ordinarily think a person is harming themselves by eating a bacon double cheeseburger or watching a scary movie).

It is an especially hard concept when we talk about religion. If I teach a small child that God created the world in seven days, have I directly (or "positively" harmed them). Some would say obviously not; I've just told them what a very large portion of people believe about the creation of the world. Others would say obviously I did, because I gave the child factually and scientifically wrong information that might screw up their educational development and cause them to be resistant to scientifically valid ideas like evolution and planetary accretion. Others would say it's somewhere in between; that merely telling the child these things did not "positively" harm them because all I did was say something they heard with their ears and processed with their brain, but that I may have "indirectly" harmed the child if the information I gave causes future radicalism and rejection of science.

TLDR: the distinction is probably meaningless because when speaking of harm generally it quickly becomes very subjective whether you believe a particular harm was caused "positively" or indirectly. As I side note, to the extent the distinction is useful at all, I think term "direct" harm is (slightly) clearer. In part because the opposite of "positive" harm would be "negative" harm, and that framing is just really confusing.

pos·i·tive (pŏz′ĭ-tĭv)
adj.
1. Characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation

indicating, relating to, or characterized by affirmation, addition, inclusion, or presence rather than negation, withholding, or absence

Characterized by the existence or presence of distinguishing qualities or features, rather than by their absence.

Edit: to the extent the author just meant "certain" harm (which is implied by the definitions given in the post above, because that's the only definition that makes sense in this context) I would suggest that word would be better. If you mean positive in the sense of "not withholding" then that raises some very troubling questions of whether this applies to religious beliefs about not giving people things, like not giving them sexual education.

[Bananaistan]

pos·i·tive (pŏz′ĭ-tĭv)
adj.
1. Characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation

indicating, relating to, or characterized by affirmation, addition, inclusion, or presence rather than negation, withholding, or absence

Characterized by the existence or presence of distinguishing qualities or features, rather than by their absence.

OOC: This literally explains nothing.

If one was to replace "positive" with each definition, we would end up with word salad. The question is a reasonable question. What does "positive harm" mean? How is it different to mere "harm"?

[Minskiev]

Adding meaningless fluff words to meaningless vague terms to throw people off and appear to be less meaningless for 400 please

[Honeydewistania]

pos·i·tive (pŏz′ĭ-tĭv)
adj.
1. Characterized by or displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation

indicating, relating to, or characterized by affirmation, addition, inclusion, or presence rather than negation, withholding, or absence

Characterized by the existence or presence of distinguishing qualities or features, rather than by their absence.

Congrats, you know how to use a dictionary. Now can you tell me what 'positive harm' even means?