[TENTH DRAFT] On Religious Worship

[Sremski okrug]

Although the Sremski government respects religion we don't support this draft.

[Adamalk]

I dont think its right for any religion to be banned anyone should be able to worship anyway they want unless it is hurting people.

[Hindopia]

I applaud the honorable ambassador for attempting to further the spread of freedom with this proposal but it is unnecessary. The Freedom of Expression Act already safeguards the free expression and practice of religion (amongst other things).

Ambassador James Vargas, for Hindopia.

[Fern Prairie]

We must ask, sir, what of those nations which promote a certain faith and have done so in a self-determined manner? Can any accommodation be made for them? If a people chose to have a faith lead their government, if they wish for their government to spread that creed, is that not their choice?

---President Schiller, FNS WA Delegate

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We apologize for the inconvenience, Sanctaria.

Charlotte Ryberg, where in this proposal does it duplicate the Freedom of Expression. If you find it, please the send the section of the Freedom of Expression the other section duplicates.

Apology accepted, yet I can do what you request of Ms. Harper to do.

The Freedom of Expression states:

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;

Basically, honourable Ambassador, your proposal duplicates what is said above in the bolded segments.

Yours.,

I think I've been a little bit over-experienced on the resolution that is well known to most of the WA. Also, note the clause which allows for the restriction of terrorist cults:

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;

Because Scientology promoted persistent violence and intimidation against individuals, group or organization, especially of defectors, the ban falls in compliance with this provision. Therefore we cannot see how the draft can be better than GA#30, because at the moment all religions and cults are proposed to be allowed, including violent ones.

Yours etc,

[Vescia]

We apologize for the inconvenience, Sanctaria.

Charlotte Ryberg, where in this proposal does it duplicate the Freedom of Expression. If you find it, please the send the section of the Freedom of Expression the other section duplicates.

Apology accepted, yet I can do what you request of Ms. Harper to do.

The Freedom of Expression states:

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;

Basically, honourable Ambassador, your proposal duplicates what is said above in the bolded segments.

Yours.,

I think I've been a little bit over-experienced on the resolution that is well known to most of the WA. Also, note the clause which allows for the restriction of terrorist cults:

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;

Because Scientology promoted persistent violence and intimidation against individuals, group or organization, especially of defectors, the ban falls in compliance with this provision. Therefore we cannot see how the draft can be better than GA#30, because at the moment all religions and cults are proposed to be allowed, including violent ones.

Yours etc,

We'll change it.

[Embolalia]

Thirdly, by saying "excluding Atheism", you are first implying that it is indeed a religion and then that it is NOT worthy of the same protection as others. This would bring your proposal into contradiction with others which protect the right to freedom of expression.

Maybe I'm reading too far into it. But is this the Secretariat tacitly approving, from a rules standpoint, at least the idea of a freedom of religion proposal? Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I still maintain my claims from when I attempted my own version)

[Vescia]

Charlotte Ryberg, may I draw your attention to this comment, posted by Omigodtheykilledkenny on Embolalia's thread:

*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?

Well? This resolution protects only the freedom of religion in the "available media". This proposal protects the right of religious worship, and yet restricting it, so that extremist religious groups may be demonized.

[Mikedor]

How do you define religion?

Do you include cults like Scientology? I think you need to clear that up.

[Quadrimmina]

The Republic of Quadrimmina has, under our Constitution, protected religious freedom, and thus would support the intent of this resolution were it to pass. However, we must echo the concerns of our colleagues that freedom to practice religion could turn many things into protected entities under the guise of religion: like murder and torture. We would like reasonable restrictions placed, such as the ability to ban dangerous religions, and exception from protection in the case of extremism (for instance, committing acts of murder in the name of religion should still be punishable by law.) These were all adopted in the High Court decision "Quadrimmina v. Grayson", and formulated into law by the Reasonable End to Litigation Involving Ghastly Instances of Outlawed Nefariousness Act, or the RELIGION Act, which bans all religions whose core principles conflict with National Law, gives Provinces the ability to do the same, and establishes that freedom of religion does not imply freedom to violate National Law in the name of religion.

Now that the history lesson is finished, the point: If similar measures are adopted, we can support this bill.

[Vescia]

Edited.

EDIT: Quadrimmina, I have a similar clause in the proposal. Look under 'NOTING...'

[Quadrimmina]

Edited.

EDIT: Quadrimmina, I have a similar clause in the proposal. Look under 'NOTING...'

Simply as a point of order, any such statement should traditionally be placed under the definition so that it is considered part of the operative part of the resolution and not part of the preamble explaining the problem.

[Vescia]

Quadrimmina, I'll put it in the operable section, if possible. As for everyone else, I'm changing the title to 'On Religious Worship', as FoE only protects religion in media. This is intended protects worship and religious conscience.

[Of the Quendi]

"Bravo. It is about time. The freedom of religion is a core tennet in all civilised society and it is only fitting that the WA recognise this. On behalf of La Serenissima and I hereby applaud this draft. I hope to be able to vote yes to it as soon as possible."
Carmen Safina, Senior Minister of Foreign Affairs and the World Assembly

[Charlotte Ryberg]

c) Nations may be allowed to demonize religions, as long as the people who follow them are treated equally and fairly, and not segregated. However, any religion that intentionally commits an act of violence amongst the sapient beings that reside there may be demonized to unequal levels if the government of the member state wishes to do so.

Ms. Harper needs to be straight about this clause. Try using this as a base:

c) Member states shall be allowed to outlaw religions or cults that incite: widespread lawlessness and disorder, or harrasment against non-believers (persons, groups or organizations), including but not limited to invasion of privacy, violence or defamation.

[Vescia]

Thank you for the advice.

[Vescia]

Blah blah blah. We will not support this in any way. The Nuclear Fist's ban on religion stands.

The WA already guarantees both 'Freedom of Expression' and 'Freedom of Assembly': Just how do you operate a ban on religion while remaining compliant with those two resolutions?

Meh. I don't participate much. Besides, those resolutions can suck my third testicle.

By the way, two things. One, all WA members must comply with all resolutions, no matter how much they participate. Two, is this flaming?

[Vescia]

Any other advice?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I don't know if we need punishments for non-compliance and the ICC stuff. All member states automatically come into compliance for sake of simplicity (also a technical effect).

[Vescia]

I don't know if we need punishments for non-compliance and the ICC stuff. All member states automatically come into compliance for sake of simplicity (also a technical effect).

I'll try, but to me it's part of the backbone of this draft.

[Vescia]

I've tried. Does it still work?

[Sanctaria]

SHOCKED that many nations have banned standard, everyday religions, and also that some have banned religion altogether.

RECOGNIZING that this is putting a strict limit on beliefs for the sapient beings of the multiverse, forcing them to believe in religions against their will.

I have a few qualms with the above two pieces of the preamble as well as having one major problem with the piece overall.

Firstly, what is a "standard, everyday religion"?

Secondly, is the last part of the second sentence incorrect, or am I just read it wrong? If you're recognising the impact of the first clause, the second part of that sentence seems very wrong.

Thirdly, I notice that this piece of legislation is completely biased towards religion i.e. where religion is removed, the author is assuming it's been done against the will of the people. Now, unless I skipped over it, may I enquire why there isn't a clause stating that some nations are forcing people to undertake a religion that they do not believe in?

I know that it is stated in the clause I pointed out and italicised, however as a I also pointed out, I am of the opinion that clause is written incorrectly.

I hope you can clarify these points.

Yours.,

[Vescia]

Is this any better:

SHOCKED that many nations have banned religions of the norm, and also that some have banned religion altogether.

RECOGNIZING that this is putting a strict limit on beliefs for the sapient beings of the multiverse.

I have bolded the edited bits.

[Melki]

Is this any better:

SHOCKED that many nations have banned religions of the norm, and also that some have banned religion altogether.

RECOGNIZING that this is putting a strict limit on beliefs for the sapient beings of the multiverse.

I have bolded the edited bits.

I think minority religions are banned too, so maybe:

"SHOCKED that many nations have banned many minority and majority religions,"

[Sanctaria]

Is this any better:

SHOCKED that many nations have banned religions of the norm, and also that some have banned religion altogether.

RECOGNIZING that this is putting a strict limit on beliefs for the sapient beings of the multiverse.

I have bolded the edited bits.

I'm sorry, Ambassador, but you have failed to address the problem, you merely changed around the words. What are 'normal' religions? Perhaps this clause would be better understood if written thusly:

"SHOCKED that many nations have banned specific religions or, indeed, the practising of any religion by their people;"

Yours.,