[ABANDONED] Religious Freedom

[Embolalia]

EDIT: While I maintain that this proposal is legal and non-duplicative, the level and vehemence of opposition has lead me to abandon it. Any others who wish to take up the cause, you are welcome to it. You can even use my draft, if you credit me as writer. But, given that I already have another proposal on the floor to defend (OOC: and it's the middle of my finals week), I think my time is better spent elsewhere.

I can't believe this hasn't come up yet. I think it's legal, because it specifically allows for theocracy and religious government. Does not conflict with GA#35, because it affords specific protections not mentioned therein. Also, it is my opinion that this does not conflict with GA#30, since FoE protects the right to express faith in media, but does not protect freedom of conscience or freedom of worship. For category/strength, I'm thinking Civil Rights, significant.

Religious Freedom

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the importance of religion in the governance of many of its member nations;

REGRETTING the problems religious government may cause for those who do not believe in that religion;

Hereby:

ALLOWS for member nations to have theocratic government, or to use religious dogma and doctrine in governmental process;

PROHIBITS nations from establishing mandatory religion:
1) All persons shall be legally allowed to believe in any religion, or no religion.
2) Membership or belief in a specific religion shall not be a requirement for citizenship for those born within the nation, nor for those born outside of it.
3) Membership or belief in a specific religion alone shall not be grounds for expulsion from a nation.
4) Attendance of religious services shall not be required of the citizens of the nation.
5) Membership or belief in a specific religion shall not be a requirement for entry into civil contracts.

MANDATES that all persons shall be free to practice their own religion;

REQUIRES that said practices shall not be illegal, provided:
1) The practice does not cause the death or serious injury to any person, regardless of that person's involvement or consent.
2) The practice is not destructive of public property, nor of the property of any non-consenting person or entity.
3) The practice is not coercive, nor an attempt to brainwash or otherwise subvert one's control of emotion, belief, or thought.

AFFIRMS that this act does not prohibit the institution of religious law, nor the use of religion in governmental process;

[Sionis Prioratus]

*cof cof*
*ahem*

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 30

Freedom of Expression
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: Assured that freedom of expression is an essential human right deserving of international protection;

Determined that no one should have to put their lives, families, liberty or property at risk for expressing honest dissent with, otherwise criticizing or even satirizing their leaders, governments, societies, churches or any other institutions of established power;

Chastened by the sacrifices already made by prisoners and victims of conscience throughout the world;

Nonetheless convinced that free expression does not extend to such abuses as defamation, incitements to disorder, or academic fraud;

Agreed that for purposes of this resolution defamation is defined as the use of knowingly false information, or the raising of such with reckless disregard for its truthfulness, in a deliberate attempt to impugn the character or reputation of any individual, group or organization, excepting government institutions or political leaders,

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

Votes For: 3,225
Votes Against: 992

Implemented: Thu Jan 1 2009

We have got a really royally nasty flu.... *cof*

[/thread]

[Embolalia]

Damned broad resolutions. Honestly. Somehow that doesn't seem like nearly enough attention to the topic. Ah, well. It is what it is. I withdraw my proposal.

EDIT: I don't want to bump this at all, but I feel I have to address the below. It did not prohibit the establishment of a state religion, merely the requirement that one participate in it.

EDIT2: To make sure I am consistent through my posts. On further review, and considering Kenny's post below, I do not believe FoE covers freedom of worship or freedom of conscience.

[Grays Harbor]

We have a question. How is it possible to state that nations may have a theocratic government, then go on to say that nations may not establish a state religion? That appears at first glance a bit contradictory, as theocratic governments tend to be, in most cases, the very picture of a single religion political instrument.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Damned broad resolutions. Honestly. Somehow that doesn't seem like nearly enough attention to the topic. Ah, well. It is what it is. I withdraw my proposal.

Happens to everybody. It happened to us, and it was not pretty

Yours in despair over what to do,

[Quadrimmina]

We have a question. How is it possible to state that nations may have a theocratic government, then go on to say that nations may not establish a state religion? That appears at first glance a bit contradictory, as theocratic governments tend to be, in most cases, the very picture of a single religion political instrument.

I believe that the purpose of this resolution with respect to state-sponsored religion and theocracy is to say that while there may be one religion and that religion may govern all the laws of the nation, one cannot be forced to participate in that religion above and beyond being held to the laws of that religion. You can't force them to go to church or to pray or whatever.

[Quadrimmina]

Also, we applaud the delegation proposing herein for at least ensuring GA#35 was not infringed.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*cof cof*
*ahem*

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 30

Freedom of Expression
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: Assured that freedom of expression is an essential human right deserving of international protection;

Determined that no one should have to put their lives, families, liberty or property at risk for expressing honest dissent with, otherwise criticizing or even satirizing their leaders, governments, societies, churches or any other institutions of established power;

Chastened by the sacrifices already made by prisoners and victims of conscience throughout the world;

Nonetheless convinced that free expression does not extend to such abuses as defamation, incitements to disorder, or academic fraud;

Agreed that for purposes of this resolution defamation is defined as the use of knowingly false information, or the raising of such with reckless disregard for its truthfulness, in a deliberate attempt to impugn the character or reputation of any individual, group or organization, excepting government institutions or political leaders,

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud; incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization; the unauthorized disclosure of highly classified government information; the unauthorized disclosure of strictly confidential personal information; and blatant, explicit and offensive pornographic materials;

Forbids member states from abusing these restrictions in an effort to stifle free expression among law-abiding citizens.

Votes For: 3,225
Votes Against: 992

Implemented: Thu Jan 1 2009

We have got a really royally nasty flu.... *cof*

[/thread]

No. FoE merely protects the right of individuals to express religious beliefs in "available media." That in my mind does not extend to freedom of worship or even freedom of conscience. Freedom of Assembly might cover the rights of people to worship in groups, but wouldn't a separate resolution be a safer bet than just assuming that theocratic or despotic regimes will read past resolutions the same way?

[Sionis Prioratus]

No. FoE merely protects the right of individuals to express religious beliefs in "available media." That in my mind does not extend to freedom of worship or even freedom of conscience. Freedom of Assembly might cover the rights of people to worship in groups, but wouldn't a separate resolution be a safer bet than just assuming that theocratic or despotic regimes will read past resolutions the same way?

So hate crimes laws would also be legal, whether they are desirable or not?

Yours in pondering over the weight of a nightingale feather,

[Embolalia]

No. FoE merely protects the right of individuals to express religious beliefs in "available media." That in my mind does not extend to freedom of worship or even freedom of conscience. Freedom of Assembly might cover the rights of people to worship in groups, but wouldn't a separate resolution be a safer bet than just assuming that theocratic or despotic regimes will read past resolutions the same way?

You make a very good point. I was a little unsure at first reading of SP's post, but I trusted that the ambassador knew better than I. Considering that OMGTKK is a pretty trustworthy name around here, I am re-opening this for discussion.

[Sionis Prioratus]

No. FoE merely protects the right of individuals to express religious beliefs in "available media." That in my mind does not extend to freedom of worship or even freedom of conscience. Freedom of Assembly might cover the rights of people to worship in groups, but wouldn't a separate resolution be a safer bet than just assuming that theocratic or despotic regimes will read past resolutions the same way?

You make a very good point. I was a little unsure at first reading of SP's post, but I trusted that the ambassador knew better than I. Considering that OMGTKK is a pretty trustworthy name around here, I am re-opening this for discussion.

And we our long forlorn hate crimes project. Yay, Kenny!

It amazes us, nonetheless... one cannot burn a witch at the stake because she wrote about witchcraft, but you can burn a witch because she is a witch?!? What the hell Freedom of Expression did ever actually guarantee, besides all this babblecock on "available media"?

Yours in utter perplexity,

[Urgench]

We are opposed to this statute, religious freedom is not a human right, even if freedom of conscience and the right not to be discriminated against and the right to freedom of expression are. Besides much of this statute is in fact a duplication of the CoCR.


Yours,

[Embolalia]

Urgench: Do you have an argument as to how it duplicates CoCR?

No. FoE merely protects the right of individuals to express religious beliefs in "available media." That in my mind does not extend to freedom of worship or even freedom of conscience. Freedom of Assembly might cover the rights of people to worship in groups, but wouldn't a separate resolution be a safer bet than just assuming that theocratic or despotic regimes will read past resolutions the same way?

You make a very good point. I was a little unsure at first reading of SP's post, but I trusted that the ambassador knew better than I. Considering that OMGTKK is a pretty trustworthy name around here, I am re-opening this for discussion.

And we our long forlorn hate crimes project. Yay, Kenny!

It amazes us, nonetheless... one cannot burn a witch at the stake because she wrote about witchcraft, but you can burn a witch because she is a witch?!? What the hell Freedom of Expression did ever actually guarantee, besides all this babblecock on "available media"?

Yours in utter perplexity,

FoE guarantees that one can express their religion in public. It does not prevent mandatory membership in a state religion, or mandatory attendance of religious events. It does not ensure that the actual practices be legal. "Express" is incredibly vague. By my reading, it would include a statement in a book, or the wearing of religious garments, but would not include, for example, communion. Or religious marriage. I wouldn't consider these as being expression, per se. And FoE certainly does not prevent mandatory attendance of religious services, or membership in a religious organization as grounds for civil contracts or for citizenship.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Do you have an argument as to how it duplicates CoCR?

If Kenny is trustworthy because he authored FoE, guess who authored CoCR? Hmmmm?

Yours vomiting,

[Embolalia]

Do you have an argument as to how it duplicates CoCR?

If Kenny is trustworthy because he authored FoE, guess who authored CoCR? Hmmmm?

Yours vomiting,

(That comment was aimed toward Urgench. Sorry if it wasn't clear)
I'm not saying you're not trustworthy. (Nor did I say that Kenny's authorship was the reason for his trustworthiness. It's as much name recognition as anything else. And as the maintainer of the passed resolutions thread, you really don't get much better name recognition.) I merely meant that Kenny is, so I'm willing to put faith in his arguments for legality. Not to say I'm not listening to yours, merely that I am listening to Kenny's, and further that I happen to agree with Kenny.

[Sionis Prioratus]

FoE guarantees that one can express their religion in public.

[...]

By my reading, it would include a statement in a book, or the wearing of religious garments

Upon a closer look:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Expects member states to enforce this right fairly and equitably in the application of national laws;

Only expression related to "available media" is required to be protected; the rest is merely "expected", which is as good as nothing.

Since we do not view a public street or one's own body (use of garments) as "available media", FoE is as flawed as flawed gets.

[Glen-Rhodes]

No. FoE merely protects the right of individuals to express religious beliefs in "available media." That in my mind does not extend to freedom of worship or even freedom of conscience. Freedom of Assembly might cover the rights of people to worship in groups, but wouldn't a separate resolution be a safer bet than just assuming that theocratic or despotic regimes will read past resolutions the same way?

Erm, I know you authored Freedom of Expression, but it does state:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

That pretty much cements a right to express religious views, without any requirement that it be done through 'available media'. Worship is an expression of a religious view, not simply believing something in your mind. Since it's a right, a government can't prevent that expression, even if it's being expressed outside of 'available media'. Many proposals and clauses have been struck out under that assumption. To me, the clause you're alluding to establishes freedom of the press, completely separate from the affirmation of the freedom of expression.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Urgench]

Urgench: Do you have an argument as to how it duplicates CoCR?

PROHIBITS nations from establishing mandatory religion:

A mandatory religion would be illegal as a form of discrimination.

1) All persons shall be legally allowed to believe in any religion, or no religion.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.

2) Membership or belief in a specific religion shall not be a requirement for citizenship for those born within the nation, nor for those born outside of it.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.

3) Membership or belief in a specific religion alone shall not be grounds for expulsion from a nation.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.

4) Attendance of religious services shall not be required of the citizens of the nation.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.

5) Membership or belief in a specific religion shall not be a requirement for entry into civil contracts.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.



Yours,

[Unibot]

PROHIBITS nations from establishing mandatory religion:

A mandatory religion would be illegal as a form of discrimination.

Eduard frowned, "How so, ambassador?"

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

All would be mandated to believe in a certain religion, so everyone is equal is treatment.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

It is not discrimination to mandate that someone must believe in a religion or belief system that is not their current one, so long as the mandate is not enforced (because any enforcement would likely be illegal).

.. or non-compliance will result in your removal from the nation, thus making one no longer an 'inhabitant' of said nation, and no longer a concern of the CoCR.

[Embolalia]

Urgench: Do you have an argument as to how it duplicates CoCR?

PROHIBITS nations from establishing mandatory religion:

A mandatory religion would be illegal as a form of discrimination.

There are plenty of ways to loophole around that being considered discrimination. That's iffy at best[quote

1) All persons shall be legally allowed to believe in any religion, or no religion.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.[/quote]I really don't think so. discrimination is the distinct treatment of one group. By requiring everyone to be a member of the religion, you aren't singling anyone out. This goes for the prior as well. It may be unfair, which is what my proposal intends to remedy, but it isn't discriminatory per se.

2) Membership or belief in a specific religion shall not be a requirement for citizenship for those born within the nation, nor for those born outside of it.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.

Again, treatment of the whole as opposed to the part. There might be a case here, but there is equally a case against.

3) Membership or belief in a specific religion alone shall not be grounds for expulsion from a nation.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.

As written, you are right. But if I were to add "Lack of" to the beginning, it would go back to the same argument as before.

4) Attendance of religious services shall not be required of the citizens of the nation.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.

There is absolutely no case there. If a nation requires attendance of a religious service of all its people, it is no different than requiring compulsory military service or jury duty. (As a side note, I think I'll leave conscientious objection to military service out of this. It warrants its own proposal. Which I think I'm going to go research and write.)

5) Membership or belief in a specific religion shall not be a requirement for entry into civil contracts.

This is guaranteed as a right by the CoCR since anything to the contrary would be unfair discrimination.

I really think that the treatment of the whole, as opposed to a group therein, is not discrimination. Further, you haven't presented a case against the second half of the resolution.

[Urgench]

Snip.

If all people are required to follow the same mandatory religion this discriminates against groups within society who do not wish to follow that religion or who follow another. Meaning that all the successive clauses are already dealt with the for same reason. The treatment of the whole may be discriminatory if it adversely effects specific groups to a greater extent than other groups.

We may say, "all religions are banned" this would seem by your logic to be non-discriminatory, however in fact it is discriminatory because only those who do not practice a religion will be unduly troubled by it, whereas on the contrary those who do practice a religion will be far more adversely effected.

This is unfair discrimination. The fact that all are required to submit to any given treatment does not mean that specific individuals or groups of individuals will not be unfairly discriminated against by this treatment. That all people are expected to use stairs does not mean that persons in wheelchairs are not discriminated against by not having the ability to use other means of elevation. In many ways this is part of the essence of governmental or state discrimination, targeted forms of discrimination disguised as universal requirements. Does your Excellency really need us to explain this?

The second half of the proposal is a nonsense and out of politeness we felt it churlish to say so but since your Excellency pushes us we have no choice.


Yours,

[Urgench]

.. or non-compliance will result in your removal from the nation, thus making one no longer an 'inhabitant' of said nation, and no longer a concern of the CoCR.

That in and of itself would be illegal under the CoCR, one could not be deported merely for ones religious beliefs.


Yours,

[Unibot]

.. or non-compliance will result in your removal from the nation, thus making one no longer an 'inhabitant' of said nation, and no longer a concern of the CoCR.

That in and of itself would be illegal under the CoCR, one could not be deported merely for ones religious beliefs.


Yours,

Eduard nodded, "Therefore it is important for our citizens to be bred from birth or immigration with psychoactive orientation procedures to ensure that all will be supportive of our major religion without enforcement. It is not discrimination, because all inhabitants receive the orientation!"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It amazes us, nonetheless... one cannot burn a witch at the stake because she wrote about witchcraft, but you can burn a witch because she is a witch?!? What the hell Freedom of Expression did ever actually guarantee, besides all this babblecock on "available media"?

It protects freedom of expression - the first clause affirms the basic right, the second prevents censorship in public media, the third ensures the central right is applied fairly and equally. If the resolution was about freedom of religion or freedom of conscience, it would have been named that instead. But as adding provisions concerning conscience or religion would have been a categorical violation, we decided to leave that be. Not to mention the longstanding issue with freedom of religion proposals in the UN/WA, as they walk a very fine line between upholding human rights and representing an ideological ban against theocracies. But I suppose while the rest of us were considering the ramifications of human freedoms legislation, you were still trying to think up clever ways of signing your posts? Highly amusing.

Yours in freely expressed humility,
Jack Riley
Secretary of State

[Sionis Prioratus]

the third ensures the central right is applied fairly and equally.

While the rest is all fine and dandy, the third does not ensure anything whatsoever. It merely meekly EXPECTS the central right is applied fairly and equally. While we certainly apply it so, we highly doubt it is the case across the WA.

clever ways of signing your posts? Highly amusing.

Thanks!

Yours in admiring the beatific peace of the ones who attained Buddhahood,