[DRAFT] Aiding Cult Survivors

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

Praising the General Assembly and its attempts to spread the acceptance and tolerance of different faiths via the passage of previous resolutions, most notably through GA#430, "Freedom of Religion",

Concerned, however, that certain practices which purport to be religious actually constitute the most severe forms of social, psychological, physical, and financial manipulation,

Convinced that something must be done, within the confines of existing protections for religious freedom, to nip these cultish practices in the bud and aid their survivors,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Establishes the World Assembly Committee for Cult Survivors (WACCS), to be tasked with providing the following to individuals harmed by their membership in extremely manipulative, coercive, and destructive organisations that purport to be “religious”:
   1. shame-free post-traumatic counseling and support for said individuals and their families,
   2. financial assistance, in those cases where membership in said organisation came at significant and irreparable financial harm,
   3. information about how to identify and avoid similar organisations in the future,
   4. information on how to access other means of support and recovery,
2. Clarifies that the WACCS shall exercise extreme caution in deciding which supposedly-religious organisations are “extremely manipulative, coercive, and destructive,” so as to avoid including legitimate, mainstream, or commonplace religious organisations under its purview,
   
3. Tasks member nations with investigating those organisations that the WACCS has deemed to be “extremely manipulative, coercive, and destructive,” and bringing appropriate legal action against such organisations where they have engaged in fraudulent or illegal activity,
   
4. Urges member nations to cooperate in the identification and reporting of such “extremely manipulative, coercive and destructive” organisations to the WACCS, taking extreme caution to avoid the targeting of legitimate, mainstream, or commonplace religious organisations,
   
5. Requires member states to disseminate appropriate information about the dangers of such manipulation, taking care to avoid the targeting of legitimate, mainstream, or commonplace religious organisations.

Co-authored by United Massachusetts.

Long story short, I wanted to try my hand at a GA proposal. So, I came up with an idea and drafted this with major editing and help from UM and with a tiny bit of help from Morover. Please give me your honest thoughts. I'm new to the GA and am a lot better at writing SC resolutions, so I hope this isn't bad!

[United Massachusetts]

The idea is really cool. It probably still needs some fleshing out, but I think this is very workable.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I'm going to second UM here, and highly recommend that you take his advice. I'll try to get an IC breakdown up later.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Category and AoE/strength?

Also, you open with a committee and most of the clauses are directly related to the committee. That's generally speaking the wrong approach when you're trying to legislate on the personal level - that is, for the individuals in question. You really should make the nations do most of the things prescribed here, especially considering you're requiring financial assistance. All WA money comes from all WA nations. So a nation that doesn't have cults or cult victims, would still have to pay for one that does - or knowingly even encourages such organizations. Which is unfair.

I would also like to see a clause that allowed member nations to ban/disband the cults, if they're so serious a problem that they require international legislation to deal with. I know you mention "appropriate legal action", but that's not really helpful if what they do is not illegal.

I can sort of buy the committee being given the power to decide what religions are harmful cults and what aren't (though Christianity ticks all the boxes currently, so it's doubtful whether it would actually help your case), but you should give nations the right to appeal the decisions/ask for a new consideration, if new evidence of the religion/cult comes to light later.

Clauses 4 and 5 especially are problematic, because a psychologically harmful cult can be "legitimate, mainstream, or commonplace". Especially if you don't make them illegal WA-wide.

Also, you have lots of repetition, which suggests to me that you should likely define the things you're talking about (like "cult" and "cult survivor" and maybe "legitimate religion"), and then use the defined words instead of repeating the same phrase 4 times.

Oh and UM is mentioned as a co-author and his drafting help mentioned, but his reaction on this thread doesn't suggest him having been at all involved?

[Maowi]

OOC: This looks good to me. From a quick reading, though, I'm a bit jarred by the exemption of mainstream religious organisations from the legislation: a successful cult is equally dangerous to, if not more dangerous than, a more obscure one, and similarly, I don't believe a minority religion is less deserving of protection than a majority one. I feel that explicitly creating an exception there is unnecessary and unjustified (unless you convince me otherwise ), especially since GA committees are supposedly infallible and impartial.

Also like what Ara said: it might be more practical to give a definition for the type of cult you are seeking to restrict and then use that term rather than restating the full definition every time.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

Tokiko entered the room with much more fervour than usual. She looked though the proposal with intrigue. As she sat down, she took a knife and pointed at her eyepatch, her tally-mark scars.

“We once fought a war against a nation of cultists,” she explained. “Each one of these tallies is a dead Tengo. They sent children at us. Some of ‘em gouged my eye out. Ruthless pieces of-“ she allowed herself a small stream of profanity before clearing her throat. “Anyway, the point is that we all have a very, very vested interest in keeping cults far, far away from our population. And since freedom of religion rules make that hard sometimes-“ she gave an unconvincing cough as if to punctuate her annoyance that religion had to be permitted at all- “we have trouble dealing with people like tengokutankyu. A proposal to address that, and help people who can get themselves out of those messes, is a good idea. That said, just ‘cause somethin’s mainstream doesn’t mean it’s not harmful. Tengos, for instance. Whole nation was a cult. Mainstream, yeah. Commonplace, yeah. Harmful? From the corpse-walls I saw, yeah. I think that if we have to work so hard to avoid targeting mainstream organisations...that says somethin’ about those mainstream organisations. They can’t be allowed to engage in extortion and indoctrination any more than some five-man circle of ghost-worshipper fanatics. I suggest you add a universal definition for dangerous religious organisations and apply it to all of them, rather than givin’ some ways to weasel out of it.”

[Separatist Peoples]

"I'm not sure how this is different than any other traumatic event, and therefore why its an international issue."

[West Phoenicia]

Ooc: as a cult survivor myself. I find many sites that say they are there to help the person can be just as damaging.

There are already counselling services available and some of those are free for the person and their families.

These is also a fine line between religion and cult. Many people use the term incorrectly simply for disagreeing with a religious doctrine, however it doesn't mean they are cultish.

Ic

West Phoenicia does not support this bill. There are plenty of services that offer assistance.

Clause 2 is difficult to monitor, many legitimate religions are banned in some nations. While some nations allow cults others have banned them. To an atheist nation all religions would be perceived as highly manipulative and destructive. A bill like this would actually increase persecution and we will not be a party to that.

There is counseling and support services for all sorts of traumatic events, one does not need to set up a taskforce that one is a waste of money and resources and two is open to additional persecution and harassment of victims and religious bodies..


We also reprimand Araraukar for their cheap swipe at Christianity, when no, all he boxes are not ticked and we find it shameful for them to target one specific faith in their address.

[Araraukar]

We also reprimand Araraukar for their cheap swipe at Christianity, when no, all he boxes are not ticked and we find it shameful for them to target one specific faith in their address.

OOC: It was an OOC comment, not IC. In IC my ambassador would essentially consider believing in something non-scientific to be a sign of insanity. In RL I know the difference. I'm technically (member of the Finnish Lutheran Church) a Christian and was brought up as one. But "manipulative, coercive, and destructive"? Absolutely. Manipulative and coercive: if you don't do and believe the way we teach, you'll suffer for eternity after death. Destructive: do I really need to bring up the crusades and wars fought in the name of the various Christian sects, people executed/imprisoned for "heresy", witch hunts, inquisition, and in modern times, harassment and discrimination of minorities, and so forth? I used Christianity because I know more about it than other religions.

However, Christianity was far from being the actual point I was making, it was just an example of how the current definitions or the lack of them would not actually do what the author wants them to do.

[West Phoenicia]

We also reprimand Araraukar for their cheap swipe at Christianity, when no, all he boxes are not ticked and we find it shameful for them to target one specific faith in their address.

OOC: It was an OOC comment, not IC. In IC my ambassador would essentially consider believing in something non-scientific to be a sign of insanity. In RL I know the difference. I'm technically (member of the Finnish Lutheran Church) a Christian and was brought up as one. But "manipulative, coercive, and destructive"? Absolutely. Manipulative and coercive: if you don't do and believe the way we teach, you'll suffer for eternity after death. Destructive: do I really need to bring up the crusades and wars fought in the name of the various Christian sects, people executed/imprisoned for "heresy", witch hunts, inquisition, and in modern times, harassment and discrimination of minorities, and so forth? I used Christianity because I know more about it than other religions.

However, Christianity was far from being the actual point I was making, it was just an example of how the current definitions or the lack of them would not actually do what the author wants them to do.

Occ.


One could have said Christianity as well as a host of other Major religions which can all tick the boxes outlined in the proposal. Which it can as if one looks hard enough one can find fault in every religious or political or cultural group.

Otherwise you come across as borderline bigotry against Christianity even though you said it wasn't your intention. But moving on.

[Araraukar]

One could have said Christianity as well as a host of other Major religions which can all tick the boxes outlined in the proposal. Which it can as if one looks hard enough one can find fault in every religious or political or cultural group.

OOC: ...which is literally what I said.

Also...

I used Christianity because I know more about it than other religions.

However, Christianity was far from being the actual point I was making, it was just an example of how the current definitions or the lack of them would not actually do what the author wants them to do.

You apparently missed ^this.

Otherwise you come across as borderline bigotry against Christianity even though you said it wasn't your intention.

"The lady doth protest too much." Or in more modern vernacular, "if the shoe fits..." But again, Christianity was simply an example. You can mentally replace it with whatever major religion you want.

[Wallenburg]

You'll definitely need to define "cult", but that alone will be a whole can of worms. While all religions are harmful to society and the world would be better off without them, cults are a whole league of their own, and are built exclusively on control, manipulation, and abuse.

[Morover]

OOC: Twice now have I refreshed the page with my critiques accidentally, so I'm just going to write these out briefly because I have an early day tomorrow and a lot still to do tonight.

1. The committee feels unnecessary, most can be delegated to the nations themselves.
2. Almost all religions are manipulative or coercive
3. Cults can be mainstream or commonplace
4. Most cults can operate without breaking national or international laws, so clause 3 would have essentially no effect on them.

Sorry that my more in-depth and in-character critiques got deleted, but I believe that this covers most of it.

[United Massachusetts]

OK, time to respond to these. I knew when we were drafting that this would need a lot of work, and frankly, I didn't know how to approach it.

OOC: Twice now have I refreshed the page with my critiques accidentally, so I'm just going to write these out briefly because I have an early day tomorrow and a lot still to do tonight.

1. The committee feels unnecessary, most can be delegated to the nations themselves.
2. Almost all religions are manipulative or coercive
3. Cults can be mainstream or commonplace
4. Most cults can operate without breaking national or international laws, so clause 3 would have essentially no effect on them.

Sorry that my more in-depth and in-character critiques got deleted, but I believe that this covers most of it.

1. The committee is absolutely necessary. Unless there is a damn-near perfect definition, I fear that certain, more regressive nations, will attempt to use some "creative" definition of a cult as a means of spreading their anti-religious bigotry.
2. While this is clearly false, the key word is "extremely." I'm certainly working on a better definition, but frankly, I have faith that the committee would not go after a legitimate religious view.
3. Very rarely are they. I'm willing to compromise here, but then we'd need more specific, almost objective language.
4. Clause 3 is designed to prompt nations into taking the investigations to begin with. I think it's best, probably, to require nations to pursue an investigation.

They would probably already be free, within the context of 430 GA, to go after cults that might not break other laws. Of course, the solution would be for a nation to simply ban cults, as they are already empowered to do.[/list]

You'll definitely need to define "cult", but that alone will be a whole can of worms. While all religions are harmful to society and the world would be better off without them, cults are a whole league of their own, and are built exclusively on control, manipulation, and abuse.

I believe the only fair definition of cult is one best left to the committee. Also, ambassador, you can leave the chamber if you wish to spew intentionally-provocative, anti-religious bigotry.

Tokiko entered the room with much more fervour than usual. She looked though the proposal with intrigue. As she sat down, she took a knife and pointed at her eyepatch, her tally-mark scars.

“We once fought a war against a nation of cultists,” she explained. “Each one of these tallies is a dead Tengo. They sent children at us. Some of ‘em gouged my eye out. Ruthless pieces of-“ she allowed herself a small stream of profanity before clearing her throat. “Anyway, the point is that we all have a very, very vested interest in keeping cults far, far away from our population. And since freedom of religion rules make that hard sometimes-“ she gave an unconvincing cough as if to punctuate her annoyance that religion had to be permitted at all- “we have trouble dealing with people like tengokutankyu. A proposal to address that, and help people who can get themselves out of those messes, is a good idea. That said, just ‘cause somethin’s mainstream doesn’t mean it’s not harmful. Tengos, for instance. Whole nation was a cult. Mainstream, yeah. Commonplace, yeah. Harmful? From the corpse-walls I saw, yeah. I think that if we have to work so hard to avoid targeting mainstream organisations...that says somethin’ about those mainstream organisations. They can’t be allowed to engage in extortion and indoctrination any more than some five-man circle of ghost-worshipper fanatics. I suggest you add a universal definition for dangerous religious organisations and apply it to all of them, rather than givin’ some ways to weasel out of it.”

We understand this concern, and would appreciate any assistance in better defining a cult.

OOC: This looks good to me. From a quick reading, though, I'm a bit jarred by the exemption of mainstream religious organisations from the legislation: a successful cult is equally dangerous to, if not more dangerous than, a more obscure one, and similarly, I don't believe a minority religion is less deserving of protection than a majority one. I feel that explicitly creating an exception there is unnecessary and unjustified (unless you convince me otherwise ), especially since GA committees are supposedly infallible and impartial.

I'm working on a better definition.

Also like what Ara said: it might be more practical to give a definition for the type of cult you are seeking to restrict and then use that term rather than restating the full definition every time.

I'm not keen on defining a term and asking member nations to implement mandates involving that term. Frankly, I think the only definition should belong in the hands of the committee. And unless a really good definition is given, I will not budge on that point.

OOC: Category and AoE/strength?

Civil Rights - Mild, I think?

You open with a committee and most of the clauses are directly related to the committee. That's generally speaking the wrong approach when you're trying to legislate on the personal level - that is, for the individuals in question. You really should make the nations do most of the things prescribed here, especially considering you're requiring financial assistance. All WA money comes from all WA nations. So a nation that doesn't have cults or cult victims, would still have to pay for one that does - or knowingly even encourages such organizations. Which is unfair.

We are categorically opposed to this, unless a mechanism exists to protect legitimate religious practices from those who would try to use this as a means of "creative compliance" to push the limits of existing religious freedom protections. The committee should have the power to determine which organisations are cult-like.

I would also like to see a clause that allowed member nations to ban/disband the cults, if they're so serious a problem that they require international legislation to deal with. I know you mention "appropriate legal action", but that's not really helpful if what they do is not illegal.

We're not comfortable with this if nations are to be defining cults on their own. I can already imagine some delegations ready to declare the Catholic Church a cult and "disband" it. We'll see what we can do, and are redrafting shortly.

Clauses 4 and 5 especially are problematic, because a psychologically harmful cult can be "legitimate, mainstream, or commonplace". Especially if you don't make them illegal WA-wide.

I know, I know. Working on it.

Oh and UM is mentioned as a co-author and his drafting help mentioned, but his reaction on this thread doesn't suggest him having been at all involved?

UM was involved in this. He just is very unsure about how to approach the issue.

OOC:
I'm going to second UM here, and highly recommend that you take his advice. I'll try to get an IC breakdown up later.

I will give myself my advice, thank you.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Where on earth are you getting the idea that I was suggesting the nations decide what is cult and what is not? I was suggesting defining a cult, pointing out that the current "definitions" don't actually work the way the author intends, and that to make the proposal properly effective, it should ban or urge nations to ban cults that fall under the definition-to-come, given that without such there's no incentive for pro-cult nations (personal leader cults like North Korea and pre-WW2 Japan come to mind) to do anything about it.

EDIT: Also, for this to fall under Civil Rights, a rewrite is definitely in order as this seeks to restrict certain kinds of religions rather than strip away state control. Moral Decency, instead?

[United Massachusetts]

Praising the General Assembly and its attempts to spread the acceptance and tolerance of different faiths via the passage of previous resolutions, most notably through GA#430, "Freedom of Religion",

Concerned, however, that certain practices which purport to be religious actually constitute the most severe forms of social, psychological, physical, and financial manipulation,

Convinced that something must be done, within the confines of existing protections for religious freedom, to nip these cultish practices in the bud and aid their survivors,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "cult" as any extremely manipulative, coercive, secretive, and exclusive organisation that purports to offer "religious" truth,
   
   
2. Establishes the World Assembly Committee for Cult Survivors (WACCS), to be tasked with identifying which organisations constitute cults, and providing the general public information about the characteristics of said cults, as well as information about accessing recovery resources,
   
   
3. Grants representatives from potential cult organisations the right to defend themselves before the committee,
   
   
4. Clarifies that the WACCS shall exercise extreme caution in determining which organisations constitute cults, so as to avoid including legitimate religious organisations under its definition,
   
   
5. Requires member nations to provide the following to those individuals who suffered from their participation in cults:
   1. shame-free post-traumatic counseling and support for said individuals and their families,
   2. financial assistance, in those cases where membership in said organisation came at significant and irreparable financial harm,
   
   
6. Tasks member nations with investigating cults, as defined by the WACCS and bringing appropriate legal action against said cults, including their disbandment, where such a solution advances a compelling practical interest in public health, mental or physical safety, or good order,
   
   
7. Urges member nations to cooperate in the identification and reporting of such cult organisations to the WACCS, taking extreme caution to avoid the targeting of legitimate religious organisations,

Co-authored by United Massachusetts.

I think this helps?

[Barfleur]

OOC: I know very little about cults, but I think that given the trauma (physical and otherwise) many cults inflict on their members, something like this is in order.

[United Massachusetts]

*snip*

OOC: Where on earth are you getting the idea that I was suggesting the nations decide what is cult and what is not? I was suggesting defining a cult, pointing out that the current "definitions" don't actually work the way the author intends, and that to make the proposal properly effective, it should ban or urge nations to ban cults that fall under the definition-to-come, given that without such there's no incentive for pro-cult nations (personal leader cults like North Korea and pre-WW2 Japan come to mind) to do anything about it.

EDIT: Also, for this to fall under Civil Rights, a rewrite is definitely in order as this seeks to restrict certain kinds of religions rather than strip away state control. Moral Decency, instead?

OOC: So long as the committee is the one tasked with interpreting definitions, I'm fine with such a definition. The definition was kind of a placefiller, until a better one was written up. As for banning cults: if we were to do that, there are two options, neither of which are good:

1. Member nations are allowed to decide what is a cult. The resolution now enables nations to twist definitions to ban legitimate religious organisations, unless there is a damn-near perfect definition of a cult.
2. The committee decides what is a cult. Now nations are required to ban and break up organisations at the whims of a committee. This is not good.

I will say that I think my proposed draft resolves some of your problems

[Araraukar]

Praising the General Assembly and its attempts to spread the acceptance and tolerance of different faiths via the passage of previous resolutions, most notably through GA#430, "Freedom of Religion",

Concerned, however, that certain practices which purport to be religious actually constitute the most severe forms of social, psychological, physical, and financial manipulation,

Convinced that something must be done, within the confines of existing protections for religious freedom, to nip these cultish practices in the bud and aid their survivors,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "cult" as any extremely manipulative, coercive, secretive, and exclusive organisation that purports to offer "religious" truth,
   
   
2. Establishes the World Assembly Committee for Cult Survivors (WACCS), to be tasked with identifying which organisations constitute cults, and providing the general public information about the characteristics of said cults, as well as information about accessing recovery resources:
   
   
3. Clarifies that the WACCS shall exercise extreme caution in determining which organisations constitute cults, so as to avoid including legitimate religious organisations under its definition,
   
   
4. Tasks member nations with investigating cults, as defined by the WACCS and bringing appropriate legal action against such organisations where they have engaged in fraudulent or illegal activity,
   
   
5. Urges member nations to cooperate in the identification and reporting of such cult organisations to the WACCS, taking extreme caution to avoid the targeting of legitimate religious organisations,

Co-authored by United Massachusetts.

I think this helps?

OOC: Definition is otherwise good except for the "secretive" in an "and" list, as that would leave quite a few cults (again, North Korea-esque) outside the whole proposal. Also, why the skirting around the ban? Either even cults are protected by the general religion protection, or they aren't. Which is it? And if "they break laws" is the only thing you have going for them being legitimate targets, then that has already been dealt with by the existing resolution.

Also, thread title doesn't match your new draft as there's nothing about helping "survivors" (whatever that means), beyond the terminally vague "information about accessing recovery resources" (whatever they are).

The committee decides what is a cult. Now nations are required to ban and break up organisations at the whims of a committee. This is not good.

But it's been written to literally do that. The whole proposal has. There isn't a single clause in your suggested draft that isn't committee-dependent.

[United Massachusetts]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add the stuff about survivors. Let me do that.

[Araraukar]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add the stuff about survivors. Let me do that.

OOC: A slight oversight, yeah. But please make that something that member nations do, not the committee.

[United Massachusetts]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add the stuff about survivors. Let me do that.

OOC: A slight oversight, yeah. But please make that something that member nations do, not the committee.

I've capitulated on the banning. See edited draft above.

Of course, this is all if the author supports.

[Araraukar]

See edited draft above.

OOC: You have a double comma at the end of 4.b., but it looks good now. If it can pass GenSec scrutiny on the issue with the religious freedom (or religion freedom, can't remember its name) resolution (that is, them deciding cults as defined here not counting as religions for that one), it should be okay.

Author, I strongly suggest going with UM's draft.

[Wallenburg]

You'll definitely need to define "cult", but that alone will be a whole can of worms. While all religions are harmful to society and the world would be better off without them, cults are a whole league of their own, and are built exclusively on control, manipulation, and abuse.

I believe the only fair definition of cult is one best left to the committee. Also, ambassador, you can leave the chamber if you wish to spew intentionally-provocative, anti-religious bigotry.

"The only bigotry that concerns me is that toward the innate characteristics of a fellow citizen. If it is bigoted for me to scoff at the absurdity of superstitious beliefs, then I suppose I must proudly wear that badge." Ogenbond rolls his eyes, leaning back in his chair as he watches the vote counter attached to the ceiling, wiring in the tallies from the voting chamber.

[United Massachusetts]

I believe the only fair definition of cult is one best left to the committee. Also, ambassador, you can leave the chamber if you wish to spew intentionally-provocative, anti-religious bigotry.

"The only bigotry that concerns me is that toward the innate characteristics of a fellow citizen. If it is bigoted for me to scoff at the absurdity of superstitious beliefs, then I suppose I must proudly wear that badge." Ogenbond rolls his eyes, leaning back in his chair as he watches the vote counter attached to the ceiling, wiring in the tallies from the voting chamber.

"You know as well as I that any definition of bigotry includes the militant hatred of particular religions. Frankly, sir, you should be ashamed." The Cardinal notices that Ogenbond is merely watching the votes roll by overhead. "Sir!" He raises his voice. "Do you hear me? I said, if you want to peddle hatred, you should do it in the other room."