[Draft] Right to Culture

[Morover]

Definition of "culture" could still use some work, but I'm stuck on how to proceed, so I'm opening it up to a wider audience.

Civil Rights - Significant.

The World Assembly,

Noting and applauding the anti-discrimination acts put forth by this Assembly,

Believing that, while these anti-discrimination acts do help people of various cultural backgrounds, they do not directly stop the persecution of individuals for their cultural background or beliefs,

And wishing to institute protections for the expression of the many diverse cultural beliefs of the world, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "culture" as the shared values, attitudes, standards, and beliefs that distinctly characterise members of a unique group and define that group’s nature;
   2. "cultural beliefs" as any beliefs that stem from a specific culture and are not inherently hateful to another culture or group of people;
   3. "cultural acts" as any non-violent and non-harmful actions that are done as an expression of a culture;
2. Requires member-nations to:
   
   1. Prohibit the persecution or legal punishment of an individual solely for belonging to a specific culture;
   2. Legalize discourse of one's culture and cultural beliefs;
   3. Prohibit the implementation of national or local laws that are put in place to intentionally limit one’s cultural acts;
   4. Legalize all cultural acts that do not break broader relevant local, national, or international law.

Co-authored by Cretox State

There is some slight overlap with GAR#35, but most of the stuff there is merely hinted at and is not very explicit - I think I avoid contradiction/duplication, but further comment on the subject is appreciated.

[Morover]

The World Assembly,

Noting and applauding the anti-discrimination acts put forth by this Assembly,

Believing that, while these anti-discrimination acts do help people of various cultural backgrounds, they do not directly stop the persecution of individuals for their cultural background or beliefs,

And wishing to institute protections for the expression of the many diverse cultural beliefs of the world, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "culture" as the shared values, attitudes, standards, and beliefs that distinctly characterise members of a unique group and define that group’s nature;
   2. "cultural beliefs" as any beliefs that stem from a specific culture and are not inherently hateful to another culture or group of people;
   3. "cultural acts" as any non-violent and non-harmful actions that are done as an expression of a culture;
2. Requires member-nations to:
   
   1. Prohibit the persecution or legal punishment of an individual solely for belonging to a specific culture;
   2. Legalize discourse of one's culture and cultural beliefs;
   3. Prohibit the implementation of national or local laws that are put in place to either directly impede or indirectly limit one’s cultural acts;
   4. Legalize all cultural acts that do not break other relevant local, national, or international law;
   5. Allow cultural beliefs to be shared and spread.

Co-authored by Cretox State

The World Assembly,

Noting and applauding the anti-discrimination acts put forth by this Assembly,

Believing that, while these anti-discrimination acts do help people of various cultural backgrounds, they do not directly stop the persecution of individuals for their cultural background or beliefs,

And wishing to institute protections for the expression of the many diverse cultural beliefs of the world, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "culture" as the shared values, attitudes, standards, and beliefs that distinctly characterise members of a unique group and define that group’s nature;
   2. "cultural beliefs" as any beliefs that stem from a specific culture and are not inherently hateful to another culture or group of people;
   3. "cultural acts" as any non-violent and non-harmful actions that are done as an expression of a culture;
2. Requires member-nations to:
   
   1. Prohibit the persecution or legal punishment of an individual solely for belonging to a specific culture;
   2. Legalize discourse of one's culture and cultural beliefs;
   3. Prohibit the implementation of national or local laws that are put in place to either directly impede or indirectly limit one’s cultural acts;
   4. Legalize all cultural acts that do not break other relevant local, national, or international law;

Co-authored by Cretox State

The World Assembly,

Noting and applauding the anti-discrimination acts put forth by this Assembly,

Believing that, while these anti-discrimination acts do help people of various cultural backgrounds, they do not directly stop the persecution of individuals for their cultural background or beliefs,

And wishing to institute protections for the expression of the many diverse cultural beliefs of the world, hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "culture" as the shared values, attitudes, standards, and beliefs that distinctly characterise members of a unique group and define that group’s nature;
   2. "cultural beliefs" as any beliefs that stem from a specific culture and are not inherently hateful to another culture or group of people;
   3. "cultural acts" as any non-violent and non-harmful actions that are done as an expression of a culture;
2. Requires member-nations to:
   
   1. Prohibit the persecution or legal punishment of an individual solely for belonging to a specific culture;
   2. Legalize discourse of one's culture and cultural beliefs;
   3. Prohibit the implementation of national or local laws that are put in place to intentionally limit one’s cultural acts;
   4. Legalize all cultural acts that do not break broader relevant local, national, or international law.

Co-authored by Cretox State

Small change to Draft Two: Changed the semicolon in clause 2d to a period.

[Tinhampton]

Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith: This is acceptable for now, at least.

With that said, ambassador - why does Article 2e need to be included when it fundamentally does the same thing as Article 2b? If you do want a somewhat simplified version of Article 2 that I've concocted over the past five minutes, please consider what's on this scrap of paper but don't credit Tinhampton as a co-author:

2. Requires member nations to:

1. refrain from punishing or persecuting any individual simply because they belong to a particular culture;
2. permit individuals to share, spread, and talk about their culture and cultural beliefs;
3. legalize all cultural acts that do not violate other relevant local, national, or international law; save that no member nation nor any political subdivision thereof may act to directly or indirectly impede one's cultural acts.

[Atheris]

A good draft. I think clause 2e could be revoked, as it does the same thing as 2b, but otherwise it's pretty good.

[Morover]

OOC: Removed 2e. I kept the rest as-is to leave each clause as simple and straightforward as possible.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 2d should end with a full stop, rather than a semicolon. I have full support for this proposal.”

[Morover]

“Clause 2d should end with a full stop, rather than a semicolon. I have full support for this proposal.”

"Fixed. Thank you, ambassador."

[Araraukar]

Prohibit the persecution or legal punishment of an individual solely for belonging to a specific culture;

OOC: ...so a terrorist claims they belong to an oppressed minority culture that wants the majority culture's people being wiped out, and then they can't be touched for being a member of the terrorist group, because the definition makes their group a culture now.

Legalize discourse of one's culture and cultural beliefs;

Meaning what? Allowing hatespeech? Inciting violence, etc.?

Prohibit the implementation of national or local laws that are put in place to either directly impede or indirectly limit one’s cultural acts;

See the definition and terrorist acts.

Legalize all cultural acts that do not break other relevant local, national, or international law.

This is entirely unnecessary, as anything that is not against the law, is legal.

[Morover]

Prohibit the persecution or legal punishment of an individual solely for belonging to a specific culture;

OOC: ...so a terrorist claims they belong to an oppressed minority culture that wants the majority culture's people being wiped out, and then they can't be touched for being a member of the terrorist group, because the definition makes their group a culture now.

Like I said, the definition is a work in progress. Additionally, you missed the word "solely" here.

Legalize discourse of one's culture and cultural beliefs;

Meaning what? Allowing hatespeech? Inciting violence, etc.?

The definitions of "cultural beliefs" exempts hatespeech.

Prohibit the implementation of national or local laws that are put in place to either directly impede or indirectly limit one’s cultural acts;

See the definition and terrorist acts.

What?

Legalize all cultural acts that do not break other relevant local, national, or international law.

This is entirely unnecessary, as anything that is not against the law, is legal.

It's reinforcement of the previous idea, with an added assurance that nations can outlaw actions without relation to the actual culture itself. E.G. cultural group A has ritualistic killings as a traditional practice - you can't say that "we outlaw ritualistic killings because they're performed by cultural group A" - but you can say that "we outlaw ritualistic killings because it's killing someone." This is ignoring the "non-violent and non-harmful" part of that, though.

[Picairn]

"Support, although this topic is already covered under Article 1 and 3 of our Constitution. We even reserve Article 2 powers (Right to bear Arms) to the people in case any tyrant wants to prosecute people based on cultures. Needless to say, we will vote For."

Also, "Right to Cultural Expression" sounds better.

[Maowi]

Legalize all cultural acts that do not break other relevant local, national, or international law.

OOC: This could probably do with some clarification, because although I definitely understand what you mean it to do, I think simply using "other" leaves significant ambiguity. Maybe you could replace "other" with "broader"? Or you could go for a more wordy but explicit explanation.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

Ambassadors, there are a few issues with this proposal. First of all, "non-harmful" needs to be clarified: does it include offensive speech or is that considered harmful, etc.? Second of all, I agree with the points raised by Her Excellency Linda Äyrämäki, the Araraukar Ambassador, about clause 2d; the response you gave is unconvincing—countries just need to come up with an excuse as to why they ban something? Rather, consider requiring that no cultural practices be subject to discriminatory/non-generally applicable legal limitations.

--Saint Kateri Tekakwitha, patron of the environment and people ridiculed for their piety
Consuasor ad Sancti Imperii

[Thermodolia]

Against in full

[Morover]

OOC: Made some changes to hopefully address most of the concerns here - definition wasn't changed, because, as much as I'd like to add something requiring a culture to have a "shared heritage..." or similar, I am unsure of a way to add that in without messing up the definition. I've left it as-is because I think the rest of the proposal does a decent job at ensuring that the definition is not readily abused. Feedback on this is appreciated.

[Honeydewistania]

As said in the IFV of Restrictions on Blood Sports by TNP, you can't rely on intent in 2c.

[Maowi]

"Although I greatly appreciate the intent behind this proposal, I'm afraid I fail to see what it would in practice add to General Assembly law that is not covered by GAR 436. Specifically, it should be noted that the latter's definition of "free expression" includes "the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a [...] cultural [...] belief" etc. This includes much of what you seek to protect here. At the very least there may be contradiction issues regarding 2b., c., and d. arising from clause 2 of GAR 436."

[Honeydewistania]

"Although I greatly appreciate the intent behind this proposal, I'm afraid I fail to see what it would in practice add to General Assembly law that is not covered by GAR 436. Specifically, it should be noted that the latter's definition of "free expression" includes "the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a [...] cultural [...] belief" etc. This includes much of what you seek to protect here. At the very least there may be contradiction issues regarding 2b., c., and d. arising from clause 2 of GAR 436."

"Also a good point"