[Draft] Repeal "Freedom of Religion"

[Morover]

target

Repeal "Freedom of Religion"
Category: Repeal
Resolution: GAR#430
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

General Assembly Resolution #430 "Freedom of Religion" (Category: Civil Rights, Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Believing in the inherent right of sapients to believe in any belief systems in which they choose to believe in;

Aware of the assurance of this inherent right by the resolution GAR#430: "Freedom of Religion";

Knowing that GAR#430 was written in good faith by the author and has had overall positive effects in the world at large;

Concerned, however, at the several fatal flaws which belie GAR#430, most notably the continued assertion of the rights of individuals residing in member-states to hold religious beliefs and participate in religious practices "without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution" to be overly ambiguous, and to perhaps to suggest to more authoritarian states that it is not, in fact, a contradiction of World Assembly law to participate in religious persecution, but rather to violate the right of an individual to not fear religious persecution;

Worried that this is a glaring loophole that could easily be abused by nations with malicious intent;

Wishing to patch this loophole with replacement legislation;

Hereby repeal GAR#430 "Freedom of Religion."

OOC: I talked to some people about this and got some mixed opinions on the loophole. Honestly, I'm not entirely convinced myself if it holds too much merit myself, but it didn't take too long to draft, so I figured I'd bring it to a more public eye.

If I go through with drafting this further completely depends on the public reception of it. If I do go on, I'll start drafting up a replacement. Feedback is greatly appreciated.

[Morover]

Reserved for drafts.

[WayNeacTia]

Reasonable nation theory is a thing. This seems like a stretch.

[Araraukar]

IC: "Support."

OOC: To be fair, Araraukar was already compliant, because it's not discrimination if you treat everyone the same, and there are clauses that of course would be read terribly widely anyway (it is a police state, after all) to justify the treatment of religious displays, but I would still prefer to see the resolution fixed to place more reasonable restrictions on the freedoms given.

[Kenmoria]

“Support. My feedback would be that you mention ‘several fatal flaws’, but you detail only one in the proposal. You should either add another or change the sentence to acknowledge only one fatal flaw”

[Maowi]

Concerned, however, at the several fatal flaws which belie GAR#430, most notably the continued assertion of the rights of individuals residing in member-states to hold religious beliefs and participate in religious practices "without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution" to be overly ambiguous, and to perhaps to suggest to more authoritarian states that it is not, in fact, a contradiction of World Assembly law to participate in religious persecution, but rather to violate the right of an individual to not fear religious persecution;

"I could be convinced, but at the moment I'm not buying it. Given that the World Assembly already "prohibits member nations, political subdivisions thereof, or any person or organisation acting on or purporting to be acting on the authority of the member nation or political subdivisions thereof, from arresting, detaining, prosecuting, incarcerating, fining, or otherwise placing under duress individuals for violating laws that are not publicly promulgated" (see GAR #323), any member nation wishing to punish individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs must publicly promulgate legislation stipulating such, which the targeted individuals' right not to fear state punishment, reprisal, or persecution for their religious belief or practices."

OOC:

General Assembly Resolution #432 "Preventing Desertification" (Category: Civil Rights, Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Also, the link goes to the right place and it doesn't really matter since this wouldn't go into the submitted proposal, but you should probably rename that link

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I'll reiterate for the forum-going public the informal opinion I gave on the GA discord: "without fear of..." in English does not mean that WA inhabitants are given the right to repress their emotional response to the religious persecution that they will face, it means that they have the right not to be subjected to such persecution at all. "...without fear of..." means exactly the same thing as "...without the threat of..." and therefore the argument fails.

-1/6GS

[Morover]

OOC:

At the present time, I'm still not sure if I'll go forward with this at all, but I'm bumping it for more opinions. It currently seems like it has a mixed set of opinions on it, and, if nothing else, could stimulate an interesting conversation.

[Bears Armed]

"We will not support this repeal unless and until we see a suitable replacement drafted and ready for submission."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly

[The Yellow Monkey]

I agree with the bear. Give me a draft which fixes the so-called problem while still protecting the right to practice religion and hold religious beliefs. Otherwise this appears to be a pretext for allowing government to stamp out disfavored religious groups, which for some of you means all religious groups.

I've never fully understood the degree of disdain for religious belief I've encountered in this Assembly. When they're actively advocating something harmful (outlawing abortion, for instance) it's easy enough to dismiss their religious arguments as an improper basis to curtail the rights of others. They do often have more legitimate arguments that can and should be debated (for instance, the extent to which we should protect unborn lives at the expense of the freedom of others is a legitimate question for debate on which people have strong opinions not necessarily tethered to religious teaching). Advocating a repeal of religious freedom altogether on the grounds that the freedom to hold religious beliefs and participate in religious practices somehow permits and even requires states to allow religious groups to persecute others is a ridiculous construction.

[Morover]

"Oh, believe me. This delegation will have no attempt to pass a repeal of this legislation without a replacement draft by ourselves or the World Assembly delegation of another nation - hence the last clause. We will not, however, began on a replacement, though that will hopefully come at a later stage. Those which hold religious beliefs deserve to have the freedom to continue to hold those beliefs upheld, which is actually the basis behind the concern of the target. The overly ambiguous wording is something we'd like to see fixed, which is unfortunately possible solely through a repeal and subsequent replacement, instead of an amendment."

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

IC: We support the repeal.

OOC: Yeah, I don't think this argument can be made. Remember that WA members are supposed to meet its obligations "in good faith". This is an example of blatantly bad faith interpretation that actually goes against the rules of the English language itself, as Sierra Lyricalia already said. This argument doesn't convince me OOC.