[WITHDRAWN] Repeal "Prevention of Torture"

[Quadrimmina]

THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

NOTING that GAR#9 makes great strides in preventing the gruesome abuses by individuals and governments of other individuals by utilization of physical and mental torture.

HOWEVER, appalled that this resolution defines "denial of right to religious observance" as torture.

NOTING that denying this right is considered by this resolution and thus by the Assembly as a crime against humanity.

FURTHER NOTING that "religious observance" can refer to sacrifice of individuals, stonings, and other inhumane, barbaric, or antiquated practices.

HORRIFIED that this Assembly forces governments to compel nations to allow this practice.

HEREBY repeals GAR#9 "Prevention of Torture" in the hopes for an alternative that addresses the concerns herein mentioned.

[Erythrina]

[Quadrimmina]

:palm:

Wow, it's been a while since I've gotten one of these.

Care to actually say something of substance, honored ambassador?

[Doomiedoomiedoom]

While I'm no fan of Prevention of Torture, this does need some work. I'll start by saying this: That makes no sense whatsoever. Try to make is so I know what it's saying.

[Yohannes]

The 1987 Imperial Constitution of the Indonesian Empire clearly stated that the act of torture itself is, and shall always be, the most basic violation of an individual's list of rights.

-Jack Bradnock-
Indonesian Empire Consul-General to the WA

[Belschaft]

The Confederate Republic wishes to point out that while GAR#9 classifies "denial of right to religious observance" it does not restrict the prohibition of certain religious practices that conflict with local laws. You may observe any religion without obeying its more objectionable requirements. As such we view this repeal as unnecessary.

[Quadrimmina]

The Confederate Republic wishes to point out that while GAR#9 classifies "denial of right to religious observance" it does not restrict the prohibition of certain religious practices that conflict with local laws. You may observe any religion without obeying its more objectionable requirements. As such we view this repeal as unnecessary.

Perhaps, but we feel that the semantics argument may affect future WA resolutions, such as any resolution banning sacrifices, etc. We want to ensure that there is absolute clarity.

[Belschaft]

The Confederate Republic wishes to point out that while GAR#9 classifies "denial of right to religious observance" it does not restrict the prohibition of certain religious practices that conflict with local laws. You may observe any religion without obeying its more objectionable requirements. As such we view this repeal as unnecessary.

Perhaps, but we feel that the semantics argument may affect future WA resolutions, such as any resolution banning sacrifices, etc. We want to ensure that there is absolute clarity.

We recognize that is a possibility, but believe that it is not at present an urgent one in need of WA action. As the saying goes, let us cross that bridge when we come to it. Of course, if you are currently working on such an Act our position will be changed, as such a ban is something we would support. However at present our instincts are to oppose this repeal.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think the Freedom of Expression resolution might have covered the permission for member states to set reasonable limitations on religious practice. I think the clause the honoured ambassador from Quadrimmina were concerned about may be written in a more, kind of, general way.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Quadrimmina]

Alright, how about a resolution restricting the free exercise of religion by WA precedent? Would that even work?

[Embolalia]

Alright, how about a resolution restricting the free exercise of religion by WA precedent? Would that even work?

Whaa? I think CoCR would have something to say about that...

[Quadrimmina]

Alright, how about a resolution restricting the free exercise of religion by WA precedent? Would that even work?

Whaa? I think CoCR would have something to say about that...

Perhaps. Between CoCR, and FoE, we've got a bit of a pickle on our hands. I mean something like restricting or at least declaring unprotected the exercise of the parts of religion that violate the rights of others, like stonings, etc.

[Embolalia]

Whaa? I think CoCR would have something to say about that...

Perhaps. Between CoCR, and FoE, we've got a bit of a pickle on our hands. I mean something like restricting or at least declaring unprotected the exercise of the parts of religion that violate the rights of others, like stonings, etc.

Oh, I see. You mean restricting practices that affect others, not restricting free exercise (which I would consider slightly different). I had thought that CoCR and FoE covered that, but reading through them, I'm not so sure anymore. (I know what it was. I had tried to require legal free exercise, which is covered under CoCR and FoE. But going the other way might not be. Certainly an interesting idea.)

[Quadrimmina]

Perhaps. Between CoCR, and FoE, we've got a bit of a pickle on our hands. I mean something like restricting or at least declaring unprotected the exercise of the parts of religion that violate the rights of others, like stonings, etc.

Oh, I see. You mean restricting practices that affect others, not restricting free exercise (which I would consider slightly different). I had thought that CoCR and FoE covered that, but reading through them, I'm not so sure anymore. (I know what it was. I had tried to require legal free exercise, which is covered under CoCR and FoE. But going the other way might not be. Certainly an interesting idea.)

I'll try to see what my legal eagles can cook up.