Recalling that the World Assembly's previous attempt at addressing religious freedoms, "Freedom of Religion", was repealed due to overly restrictive and specific mandates vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices;
Noting that, while resolutions such as "Freedom of Association" may protect rights such as to gather into religious institutions, there is still no resolution legislating on freedom of religious practice or from state discrimination based on religion,
Recognising the importance of balancing the ability of member nations to take measures to advance compelling, practical interests, and the international protection of the right to religious freedom,
The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _
No member nation, or political or administrative subdivision thereof, may discriminate against any individual for their religion or lack thereof, including by
denying equal protection under the law to those holding or lacking a religion;
enforcing legal penalties for an individual's holding or lack of a religion; or
discriminating against individuals in tax based on their religion or lack thereof.
No individual may be penalised for performing a bona fide religious practice which does not cause positive harm to other individuals. Any restriction upon this right must be vital for the furtherment of a secular interest which outweighs the public's interest in religious freedom.
Notes _
Since apparently multiple players haven't noticed this, the difference between the Section 2 test here and Section 3 of 430 is that 1) this does not mandate the 'least restrictive means'; and 2) this avoids specifying that the compelling practical purpose must be "health, safety, or good order"; instead merely that it be a "secular" CPP.
Category is tentatively Civil Rights -> Significant.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:30 am
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Drafts with hands glued to _
The World Assembly,
Observing the persecution and discrimination both by states and private entities therein towards certain religious groups, and believing this to be vastly unjust,
Recognising that this institution's previous attempt at addressing religious freedoms, "Freedom of Religion", was repealed due to overly restrictive and specific mandates vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices,
Identifying the importance of balancing both the ability of states to take measures to advance compelling, practical interests, and the international protection of the right to religious freedom,
Believing that new World Assembly legislation is therefore needed to internationally address this matter,
Enacts as follows _
So be it that in this resolution _
"Religion" means a set of beliefs regarding the spiritual or supernatural, which governs means of behaviour or morality.
"State" means a World Assembly member nation, or any administrative or political subdivision thereof.
The act of targeting violence or any otherwise-unlawful act towards a person on the grounds of their religion or lack thereof, or their membership or non-membership in a religious institution, is hereby prohibited.
Any restriction imposed by a state upon a religious practice must substantially advance a compelling, practical, and secular interest, and may not be enforced in a manner that discriminates against or in favour of that practice where performed as part of a specific religion.
No secular service may be denied to any individual due to their religion or lack thereof, or segregated based on religion or lack thereof. No entity may deny an individual employment in a secular role due to that individual's religion or lack thereof.
Each state must refrain from discriminating against any individual for their religion or lack thereof, including by
enforcing legal penalties for an individual's holding or lack of a religion;
discriminating against individuals in tax based on their religion or lack thereof; or
deporting or denying entry to any individual due to their religion or lack thereof.
Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.
The World Assembly,
Observing the persecution and discrimination both by member states and private entities therein towards certain religious groups, and believing this to be vastly unjust,
Recognising that this institution's previous attempt at addressing religious freedoms, "Freedom of Religion", was repealed due to overly restrictive and specific mandates vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices,
Identifying the importance of balancing both the ability of member states to take measures to advance compelling, practical interests, and the international protection of the right to religious freedom,
Believing that new World Assembly legislation is therefore needed to internationally address this matter,
Enacts as follows _
So be it that in this resolution _
"Religion" means a set of beliefs regarding the spiritual or supernatural, which governs means of behaviour or morality.
"Religious practice" means a practice performed due to and as per one's bona fide religion, where said action is necessary for the observance of said religion.
"Member state" includes any political or administrative subdivision thereof.
The holding or lack of any religion must be legal in all member states. Accordingly, no member state may prosecute or penalise any individual for their religion or lack thereof.
All individuals within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly have a right to engage in bona fide religious practices without state punishment or interference. Member states may restrict this right in order to advance a compelling, practical interest, where the scope of said restriction is substantially related to that interest. The promotion, suppression, or discouragement of a religion shall never be considered a "compelling, practical interest" for the purposes of this resolution.
The act of targeting violence, murder, or any otherwise-unlawful act towards a person on the grounds of their religion or lack thereof, or their membership or non-membership in a religious institution, is hereby prohibited. Further, no secular service -- such as education or insurance -- may be denied to any individual due to their religion or lack thereof, nor may any entity deny an individual employment in a secular role due to that individual's religion or lack thereof.
Each member state must refrain from discriminating against any individual for their religion or lack thereof. Accordingly, no member state may
deny equality under the law to those holding or lacking a religion;
discriminate in tax based on religion or lack thereof; or
deny any secular right or privilege from individuals based on their religion or lack thereof.
Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.
The World Assembly,
Observing the persecution and discrimination both by member nations and private entities therein towards certain religious groups, and believing this to be vastly unjust,
Recognising that, while resolutions such as "Protecting Free Expression" and "Freedom of Association" enact protections against certain means of state persecution of religions, due to the repeal of "Freedom of Religion", there is an ominous silence of World Assembly law on the general topic of religious freedoms,
Identifying freedom of religion as an important civil right, and one that ought to be protected internationally, rather than left up to the whims of individual member nations,
Believing that World Assembly legislation is therefore needed to universally protect this important right within member nations,
Enacts as follows _
So be it within this resolution _
"Religion" means a set of beliefs on the metaphysical governing means of behaviour or morality.
"Religious practice" means a practice, such as ritual or fasting, performed due to and as per one's religion.
"Religious institution" means an organisation or institution that facilitates religion.
The act of targetting harassment, murder, or any otherwise-unlawful act towards a person on the grounds of their religion or lack thereof, or their participation or lack of participation in a religious institution, is hereby prohibited.
All member nations must prohibit the denial of any secular service -- such as welfare or insurance -- to an individual based solely on their religion or lack thereof, or their participation or lack of participation in a religious institution.
The holding or lack of a religion must be considered legal in all member nations. Accordingly, no member nation may prosecute or penalise any individual for their religion or lack thereof.
Each member nation must refrain from discriminating or retaliating against any individual for their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution, including by
denying equality under the law to individuals based on their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution;
discriminating against individuals in tax based on their religion or lack thereof, or status as a participant or non-participant in a religious institution; or
restricting a religious practice in a manner designed to discourage or suppress the religion in question.
Yet, other mandates of this resolution notwithstanding and subject to World Assembly law, member nations may prosecute or penalise membership in a religious institution that actively encourages or performs unlawful acts, or directly endorses hate towards some group.
If any provision of this resolution contradicts some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. Singular terms in this resolution are to be interpreted as including the plural thereof, and vice versa.
The World Assembly,
Observing the persecution and discrimination faced by many merely for their religious faith, and believing this to be vastly unjust,
Recognising that, while resolutions such as "Protecting Free Expression" and "Freedom of Association" enact protections beneficial to certain areas of religious freedoms, due to the repeal of "Freedom of Religion", there is an ominous silence of World Assembly law on the general topic of religious freedoms,
Identifying freedom of religion as an important civil right, and one that ought to be protected internationally, rather than left up to the whims of individual member nations,
Believing that World Assembly legislation is therefore needed to universally protect this important right within member nations,
Enacts as follows _
So be the following terms defined within this resolution _
"Religious belief" means any belief about the supernatural, divine, or sacred, including a lack of belief in the supernatural, divine, or sacred.
"Religious persecution" refers to the act of targetting harassment, murder, or any otherwise-unlawful act towards a person on the grounds of their holding or lack of some religious belief.
The religious persecution of any individual is hereby proscribed in all member nations.
Each member nation must refrain from discriminating or retaliating against any individual for their holding or lack of a particular religious belief, including by
penalising or prosecuting an individual for their holding or lack of a religious belief;
denying any secular service, such as healthcare or unemployment benefits, to an individual based on their holding or lack of some religious belief; or
discriminating against individuals in tax based on their holding or lack of a religious belief.
Each member nation must prohibit, and refrain from, coercing any individual to hold, renounce, disclose their holding or lack of, or alter any religious belief.
If any provision of this resolution contradicts some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence. Singular terms in this resolution are to be interpreted as including the plural thereof, and vice versa.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2022 7:12 pm
by Simone Republic
Again, if there is a viable replacement to get rid of the issue of cannibalism (with reference to IA's resolution on human meat), I am not in opposition if there is consensus for this.
Simone Republic wrote:Again, if there is a viable replacement to get rid of the issue of cannibalism (with reference to IA's resolution on human meat), I am in support.
Ooc: Do you mean a resolution like this to replace the freedom of religion protections, or a proposal to directly ban cannibalism WA-wide?
Simone Republic wrote:Again, if there is a viable replacement to get rid of the issue of cannibalism (with reference to IA's resolution on human meat), I am in support.
Ooc: Do you mean a resolution like this to replace the freedom of religion protections, or a proposal to directly ban cannibalism WA-wide?
The issue with banning cannibalism in the WA has been that GAR#430 has been interpreted to mean that the consumption of human meat for religious reasons cannot be explicitly prohibited. I consider this interpretation to be tenuous at best on health grounds with reference to Clause 3 of GAR#430, given that GAR#430 makes an exception for "advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order" and I consider cannibalism to be contrary to public interest on "health" grounds.
Since you are attempting to R/R-ing that resolution anyway, any language that bans cannibalism outright and avoid this issue without infringing on religious freedoms would be appreciated.
OOC: There are contributors on this Forum with far more concerns on religious freedom issues than I am, so I'd leave the rest of the resolution to their comments.
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:Ooc: Do you mean a resolution like this to replace the freedom of religion protections, or a proposal to directly ban cannibalism WA-wide?
The issue with banning cannibalism in the WA has been that GAR#430 has been interpreted to mean that the consumption of human meat for religious reasons cannot be explicitly prohibited. I consider this interpretation to be tenuous at best on health grounds with reference to Clause 3 of GAR#430, given that GAR#430 makes an exception for "advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order" and I consider cannibalism to be contrary to public interest on "health" grounds.
Since you are attempting to R/R-ing that resolution anyway, any language that bans cannibalism outright and avoid this issue without infringing on religious freedoms would be appreciated.
OOC: There are contributors on this Forum with far more concerns on religious freedom issues than I am, so I'd leave the rest of the resolution to their comments.
(Ooc: Replying Ic as I assume that your post is also Ic.)
"As written, this draft does not bar member nations from prohibiting cannibalism, or other practices performed out of a religious belief for that matter. I would believe that a prohibition on cannibalism is best suited for a separate proposal, which the Ice mission would support. Such a proposal would not in any way be prevented by this draft, should it pass."
Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti, World Assembly Ambassador, The Empire of The Ice States
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2022 8:18 pm
by Heavens Reach
Support in general, and support the repeal now that there is a replacement draft in progress.
One big thing we noticed, however (though this might be your intent), is that while this proposal protects a person's right to hold a religious belief, it does not actually protect, in any sense, their ability to engage in a religious practice. This might be the better way to go, perhaps, particularly if you're concerned about how to go about parsing out which religious practices should be rightly protected from those that are harmful and should not. We just thought we should point it out since the resolution you're repealing explicitly protects religious practices. That said, it might also be a good idea (and we would agree) to propose two separate resolutions protecting religious beliefs and religious practices, because they are both complex enough topics on their own (and possibly too complex for a single shared resolution) to warrant a resolution. Thoughts?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2022 8:30 pm
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Heavens Reach wrote:Support in general, and support the repeal now that there is a replacement draft in progress.
One big thing we noticed, however (though this might be your intent), is that while this proposal protects a person's right to hold a religious belief, it does not actually protect, in any sense, their ability to engage in a religious practice. This might be the better way to go, perhaps, particularly if you're concerned about how to go about parsing out which religious practices should be rightly protected from those that are harmful and should not. We just thought we should point it out since the resolution you're repealing explicitly protects religious practices. That said, it might also be a good idea (and we would agree) to propose two separate resolutions protecting religious beliefs and religious practices, because they are both complex enough topics on their own (and possibly too complex for a single shared resolution) to warrant a resolution. Thoughts?
"I would agree with your sentiment, ambassador. While protected by previous resolutions in some parts, the ability to participate in a religious practice, and object to a particular action based on religious or moral objection, seems to be a topic that would be best addressed by a separate resolution. Therefore, this current draft does not address that matter, but we invite the drafting of further proposals to do so. (Ooc: I would support such a draft in principle.)"
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti, World Assembly Ambassador, The Empire of The Ice States
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:53 pm
by Goobergunchia
It is our view that protection of religious practices is in fact the most important part of the resolution "Freedom of Religion" and is most important to replace forthwith. While this draft proposal contains certain broader protections (notably in its clause 2, which is not restricted to state actors) that may be of interest, it still leaves individuals belonging to minority religious groups open to state-sanctioned targeting. (Consider, for instance, a law mandating that all residents of a nation consume diurnally a minimum amount of bacon per month. Or a nation granting members of the majority religion their most important holidays off while requiring all government employees to work on holidays important to minority religions.)
We note that expression of religious belief is protected by "Protecting Free Expression" and therefore might not be quite as pressing an area of coverage as the protection of religious practice.
While we are not necessarily opposed to considering these matters over two different proposals, we cannot support a repeal of the extant resolution until a replacement mandating adequate allowances—we are not asking for sweeping, automatic exemptions from generally applicable laws—for religious practices is ready.
[Lord] Michael Evif Goobergunchian WA Ambassador
Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2022 2:17 pm
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5
"We have elected to add a mandate in Section 3d to hopefully protect religious practices better. However, this is still not intended to be the be-all, end-all, of protection of religious practices, and we would still invite companion legislation to fully protect religious practices."
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti, World Assembly Ambassador, The Empire of The Ice States
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2022 11:55 am
by Old Hope
[list][*]Yes, 3c bans church tax. That is deliberate.
If it is deliberate, why do you want to ban church tax?
[list][*]Yes, 3c bans church tax. That is deliberate.
If it is deliberate, why do you want to ban church tax?
"Imagine a person who was born into a religion which subjects infants to the initiation ceremony. Imagine that he ceased to believe said religion and ceased to practice it, but the organisation which runs the religion refuses to recognise the right of members to leave. Imagine that he moved to a nation which agrees to help the religious organisation collect church tax. He would be forced to pay taxes to that religious organisation regardless of his refutation of the core tenets, regardless of his refusal to practice the rites, regardless of his condemnation of the many crimes against humanity committed by said religion. At best, the nation's tax agency would have a bureaucratic nightmare of a path to stop the church tax collection in exchange for a one-time fee that has to be repaid every twenty years or so because of convenient misplacement of records. At worst, he has no recourse, and will continue to pay his former abusers until he leaves that nation. That is why church tax must be banned, even in cases where it is not preferential or subsidised by regular taxation."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia
Old Hope wrote:If it is deliberate, why do you want to ban church tax?
"Imagine a person who was born into a religion which subjects infants to the initiation ceremony. Imagine that he ceased to believe said religion and ceased to practice it, but the organisation which runs the religion refuses to recognise the right of members to leave. Imagine that he moved to a nation which agrees to help the religious organisation collect church tax. He would be forced to pay taxes to that religious organisation regardless of his refutation of the core tenets, regardless of his refusal to practice the rites, regardless of his condemnation of the many crimes against humanity committed by said religion. At best, the nation's tax agency would have a bureaucratic nightmare of a path to stop the church tax collection in exchange for a one-time fee that has to be repaid every twenty years or so because of convenient misplacement of records. At worst, he has no recourse, and will continue to pay his former abusers until he leaves that nation. That is why church tax must be banned, even in cases where it is not preferential or subsidised by regular taxation."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia
Princess Madelyne enters the room with a folder in her hands, and extends it to Ambassador Novo with a polite smile. "Actually, Ambassador, that is not entirely the case. "Protection of Apostates" demands of member states that apostasy be treated as a legal procedure. As such, an act of apostasy has legal strength and protects a person who wishes to abandon a religion or faith from any repercussions, such as a church tax," the princess then turns to the authoring delegation, her smile become more genuine now. "That said, I heartily support the inclusion of a ban on church tax."
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 1:21 am
by West Barack and East Obama
Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This is not an international issue.
The coercion of any individual to participate in a religious institution, or refrain from participating in a religious institution, is hereby prohibited.
Does "parents taking their children to church" every Sunday apply? Would this ban churches from preaching eternal damnation?
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 1:39 am
by Daarwyrth
West Barack and East Obama wrote:Does "parents taking their children to church" every Sunday apply? Would this ban churches from preaching eternal damnation?
Zylkoven: "If that is the case, then this proposal would get even greater support from us. We sincerely hope the authoring delegation intends to bring this about with this proposal text."
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 7:14 am
by Astrobolt
West Barack and East Obama wrote:Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This is not an international issue.
Ambassador Tappe: “Freedom of religion is a civil rights issue, and as such is a matter of international concern.”
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"We have elected to add a mandate in Section 3d to hopefully protect religious practices better. However, this is still not intended to be the be-all, end-all, of protection of religious practices, and we would still invite companion legislation to fully protect religious practices."
“Is there any reason why your delegation is unable to add this protection within this proposal itself?” OOC: Is there a word count issue?
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 8:30 am
by Lounarei
"Oh, my bad Zylkoven, guess dere was a replacement ready. Ahem.. given de full context of de repeal comen right before dis, full approval. De Ice States seem do be doen a great job as of late, General Assembly wise. If de repeal works, and dis somehow lags behind, we would be willen to donate a few hundred stamps or so for course correction, campaign-wise. Do keep de Concordat notified." --Mésruu Kiimas, WA Ambassador to the Concordat of Lónaré
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 11:07 am
by Magecastle Embassy Building A5
West Barack and East Obama wrote:Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This is not an international issue.
The coercion of any individual to participate in a religious institution, or refrain from participating in a religious institution, is hereby prohibited.
Does "parents taking their children to church" every Sunday apply? Would this ban churches from preaching eternal damnation?
"The term 'coercion' means to persuade someone by use of force or intimidation (Ooc: (1)(2)(3)). It does not mean mere persuasion of such a belief as eternal damnation. You really should learn what words mean prior to making such bold and baseless assertions. On the other hand, using force or intimidation to compel someone -- including a minor -- to go to church against their will is indeed prohibited. Does, uh, religious freedom not also extend to minors?"
"On another note, following conversation with other ambassadors, we will be drafting a generic resolution on freedom of conscience and religious practice intended to supplement this, while 5c has been rewritten to hopefully be stronger in its mandate."
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti, World Assembly Ambassador, The Empire of The Ice States
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2022 12:39 pm
by Old Hope
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote: On the other hand, forcing someone -- including a minor -- to go to church against their will is indeed prohibited. Does, uh, religious freedom not also extend to minors?"
World Assembly Resolution #299 says "not entirely". If the child is not deemed competent to make these decisions on their own...
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote: On the other hand, forcing someone -- including a minor -- to go to church against their will is indeed prohibited. Does, uh, religious freedom not also extend to minors?"
World Assembly Resolution #299 says "not entirely". If the child is not deemed competent to make these decisions on their own...
"Would you like to enlighten the Ice mission to where it says that mentally incompetent individuals cannot choose which religion to believe in?"
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti, World Assembly Ambassador, The Empire of The Ice States
Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote: On the other hand, forcing someone -- including a minor -- to go to church against their will is indeed prohibited. Does, uh, religious freedom not also extend to minors?"
World Assembly Resolution #299 says "not entirely". If the child is not deemed competent to make these decisions on their own...
Zylkoven: "Then the question of religion should not be enforced upon the child at any age, but left up to them to decide when they attain legal competence through reaching the age of majority. We have resolutions on the books that protect children from undue influences, I don't see a reason religion should be exempt from that."
West Barack and East Obama wrote:Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: This is not an international issue.
Does "parents taking their children to church" every Sunday apply? Would this ban churches from preaching eternal damnation?
"The term 'coercion' means to persuade someone by use of force or intimidation (Ooc: (1)(2)(3)). It does not mean mere persuasion of such a belief as eternal damnation. You really should learn what words mean prior to making such bold and baseless assertions. On the other hand, forcing someone -- including a minor -- to go to church against their will is indeed prohibited. Does, uh, religious freedom not also extend to minors?"
"On another note, following conversation with other ambassadors, we will be drafting a generic resolution on freedom of conscience and religious practice intended to supplement this, while 5c has been rewritten to hopefully be stronger in its mandate."
~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti, World Assembly Ambassador, The Empire of The Ice States
"Senator--! wait, wrong term... Ambassador, please understand dat if de definition of "conscience" is folk medicine and de like, you know, like crystal healing or whatever some humans come wif, please, upon Bhaepe's left tit I swear alchemy actually works, and de medicine of magic enabled species is notdat kinda snakeoil." --Mésruu Kiimas, WA Ambassador to the Concordat of Lónaré
Old Hope wrote:World Assembly Resolution #299 says "not entirely". If the child is not deemed competent to make these decisions on their own...
Zylkoven: "Then the question of religion should not be enforced upon the child at any age, but left up to them to decide when they attain legal competence through reaching the age of majority. We have resolutions on the books that protect children from undue influences, I don't see a reason religion should be exempt from that."
The ambassador of Old Hope replies in an icy tone:"Ambassador, you should really know better than to open this can of worms. Not every person survives to reach the age of majority. To consign all those who do not reach the age of majority to damnation, at least in their view, will be very unpopular... and that is probably an understatement."
Daarwyrth wrote:Zylkoven: "Then the question of religion should not be enforced upon the child at any age, but left up to them to decide when they attain legal competence through reaching the age of majority. We have resolutions on the books that protect children from undue influences, I don't see a reason religion should be exempt from that."
The ambassador of Old Hope replies in an icy tone:"Ambassador, you should really know better than to open this can of worms. Not every person survives to reach the age of majority. To consign all those who do not reach the age of majority to damnation, at least in their view, will be very unpopular... and that is probably an understatement."
"In the view of many others, threats of damnation constitute psychological abuse when such a threat is imposed on a child by those capable of impressioning the thoughts thereof. While I would not support an outright ban on parents requiring children to attend religious services, I probably would support something which at least reccomends that parents respect the intellectual and moral autonomy of children. Neither is necessary for my support of this resolution, given that GA#430 is repealed prior, but the argument from the Old Hope delegation does not hold up as well as it seems to." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:06 am