NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Protecting Sites of Religious Significance

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Protecting Sites of Religious Significance

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:37 am

Howdy, everyone! I came up with this idea the other day and drafted it. There have already been some eyes on it, and while they have not requested Co-Author credit, my thanks go out to Orca and Narwhal, Maowi, and Cretox State for reviewing the proposal.

As for the specifics, I did ask Imperium Anglorum regarding a clause in GAR 430 and this idea was why, so this proposal serves to shore up a gap in existing legislation.

Edit: after discussions with Cretox, this proposal has been overhauled. We discussed it and protecting religious sites was going to be an easier lift than protecting freedom of movement, which seemed to be an insurmountable hurdle with everyone earlier.

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that many religious traditions across the world encourage their practitioners to travel to sites of religious significance,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that certain sites of religious significance have have not been properly maintained and preserved,

NOTICING that while the World Assembly has affirmed the right of citizens of nations to practice the religion of their choosing, it has not affirmed that the places of worship and related places of significance to a religion must be protected as well.

DESIRING that this deficiency in existing legislation be remedied in international law, hereby:

  1. Defines a "site of religious significance" to be:

    1. The foundational place or places of a religion;
    2. A focus of worship for a religion;
    3. The graves and birth sites of people associated with or significant to a religion;
    4. Places of religious community;
  2. Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Sites, hereafter noted as the OPRS, which shall:

    1. Work to identify and designate sites of religious significance to presently practiced religions, especially those which have significant meaning to, or are are focuses of worship of, a presently practiced religion
    2. Work with member nations to develop an effective plan to protect designated sites of religious significance; and
  3. Further clarifies that member nations must allow religious sites of presently practiced religions to be deemed significant and made compliant with this resolution,
  4. Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:

    1. Desecrating sites of religious significance and desecration shall be defined as;

      1. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;
      2. Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;
      3. The removal of bodies, relics, or items of significance with the intent to make said sites no longer significant as deemed by the OPRS, unless the removal of the bodies, relics, or items of significance is for restoration or maintenance purposes, and
      4. Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRS in an attempt to make them no longer significant; though
      5. Desecration shall not apply in the event of an imminent threat to health and safety with continued use of the site or in the event that said sites were established in a hostile fashion (such as through invasion);
    2. The imposition of special taxes, levies, fines, or fees on religious institutions for the purposes of maintenance of sites except in cases where national policy does not provide for government funds to be disbursed to private organizations;
    3. Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of access to a site of religious significance; and
    4. Showing favoritism to, or selectively working to provide access to, sites of one belief over another; and
  5. Mandates nations restrict access to religious sites in an event which requires that a nation restrict the freedom of movement throughout the whole nation such as a civil war, declared war on a nation’s territory, internal instability in the region of a religious site, or if a pandemic is declared by the Epidemic and Pandemic Response Center, and
  6. Urges member nations to take additional measures to provide for the security of religious sites they visit, and

    1. Allows nations to appoint third-party controllers of religious sites in the event that this would prove to be more conducive to their continued survival and maintenance than local administration.



PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PILGRIMS

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that many religious traditions across the world encourage their practitioners to travel to sites of religious significance,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that certain nations have, in the past, required people of certain faiths to pay taxes and suffer potential harm on the route to aforementioned religious sights,

NOTICING that while the World Assembly has affirmed the right of citizens of nations to practice the religion of their choosing, but has not affirmed their right to complete some desired, or recommended, acts of faith,

DESIRING that this deficiency in existing legislation be remedied in international law, hereby:

  1. Defines a pilgrimage as a journey undertaken to an area of religious significance, such as:

    1. Foundational places of a religion;
    2. Places of worship for a religion;
    3. The graves and birth sites of people associated with or significant to a religion;
    4. Places of religious community;
  2. Mandates that member nations allow for people undertaking pilgrimages for reasons of faith to travel with minimal impediment and with the least possible barriers towards their freedom of movement, within the bounds of their broader border control policies,
  3. Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Groups, hereafter noted as the OPRG, which shall:

    1. Work to identify areas of religious significance which attract a significant (defined as more than 10,000 visitors in a single year for the purposes of religious ) number of religious adherents on pilgrimage;
    2. Work with member nations with the aim of reducing barriers to the movement of religiously motivated tourists; and
    3. Create, in coordination with WA member nations, plans to provide access to religious sites to adherents of a religion;
  4. Clarifies that “religiously motivated tourists” requires that member nations grant this freedom to adherents of all religions,
  5. Further clarifies that member nations must allow religious sites of all religions to be deemed significant and made compliant with this resolution,
  6. Asserts the following actions are in violation of this resolution:

    1. Desecrating sites of religious significance such as places of worship, the burial, death, and birth sites of figures of religious significance, desecration shall be defined as;

      1. Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;
      2. Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;
      3. The removal of bodies, relics, or items of significance with the intent to make said sites no longer significant as deemed by the OPRG, unless the removal of the bodies, relics, or items of significance is for restoration or maintenance purposes, and
      4. Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRG in an attempt to make them no longer significant;
    2. The imposition of special taxes, levies, fines, or fees on those who come to a nation for the sole purpose of visiting sites of religious significance;
    3. Not providing equal protection to those who travel to other nations for the sole reason of religious devotion or practice; and
    4. Showing favoritism to, or selectively working to provide access to, sites of one belief over another; and
  7. Allows nations to restrict access to religious sites for pilgrims in the event of an event which requires that a nation restrict the freedom of movement throughout the whole nation such as a civil war, declared war on a nation’s territory, internal instability in the region of a religious site, or a pandemic, and
  8. Urges member nations to take additional measures to provide for the security of religious pilgrims and sites they visit.
Last edited by Boston Castle on Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:29 am, edited 14 times in total.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6394
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:04 am

“Clause 6a I have a few issues with, mainly because it doesn’t contain any exemptions. If a very religious ancient civilisation previously occupied the area in which a member state has recently grown, this clause could make it impossible for that member state to build virtually any large-scale building projects. Likewise, if a theocratic state invaded a member nation’s territory and placed a large religious monument there, the invaded country is forced to live with that monument in perpetuity.

Also, there’s no exception for a religious site on somebody’s private property, nor on top of a vast reserve of natural material, nor to remove something on a religious site that poses a significant security or health risk, nor for any other compelling purposes.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:09 am

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 6a I have a few issues with, mainly because it doesn’t contain any exemptions. If a very religious ancient civilisation previously occupied the area in which a member state has recently grown, this clause could make it impossible for that member state to build virtually any large-scale building projects. Likewise, if a theocratic state invaded a member nation’s territory and placed a large religious monument there, the invaded country is forced to live with that monument in perpetuity.

Also, there’s no exception for a religious site on somebody’s private property, nor on top of a vast reserve of natural material, nor to remove something on a religious site that poses a significant security or health risk, nor for any other compelling purposes.”

First, regarding the "very religious ancient civilisation" thing, would adding "presently practiced religion" in the resolution satisfy your quibble with the resolution? At least that quibble?

Addressing the bit about a theocratic state, I do think that's a reasonable thing to add, but I would need to think about how to word it so it wouldn't render the rest of the resolution moot.

For what it's worth, I object to the "development" idea for removing a religious site and "on top of a vast reserve...". However, the health and preservation of private property rights are good recommendations, I'll just have to figure out where to put them.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:15 am

Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 6a I have a few issues with, mainly because it doesn’t contain any exemptions. If a very religious ancient civilisation previously occupied the area in which a member state has recently grown, this clause could make it impossible for that member state to build virtually any large-scale building projects. Likewise, if a theocratic state invaded a member nation’s territory and placed a large religious monument there, the invaded country is forced to live with that monument in perpetuity.

Also, there’s no exception for a religious site on somebody’s private property, nor on top of a vast reserve of natural material, nor to remove something on a religious site that poses a significant security or health risk, nor for any other compelling purposes.”

Noting this in a separate reply, but "presently practiced religion" was noted multiple places. A 5th clause was added to clause 6a in order to assist with some of your other concerns.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15292
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:15 am

OOC: Welcome to the GA forum! Please do not take criticism of your proposal as criticism of you, and remember that in in-character (IC) our roleplay characters can be quite rude without us players being out-of-character (OOC) rude to you.

You mention asking IA about a previous resolution - exactly what were you concerned about in regards to the resolution?

I don't have time right now to do a comprehensive feedback combing through, but in clause 3 - why are you making a WA committee identify pilgrimage sites with heavy traffic? Wouldn't the nations in which they are, be already aware of such? And isn't 3.b. the whole point of this proposal existing?

Is clause 6 trying to police the religions or churches as well? If in RL the Catholic Church as a whole decided to move the whole of Vatican City somewhere else, brick by brick, would this proposal prevent that from happening? And what if the location that's the target of pilgrims, is on private land, or the object of worship is privately owned by someone not related to the religion? There are resolutions about seizure of private property and just compensation is required. Should the religious people/churches pay the compensation? The WA? The member nation? Before you pick any, do remember that nations might end up with having "holy" sites on their territory that are not in any way related to the religions practiced within their borders.

Does all of this apply even to religions that would for other reasons be banned or parts of their expression be banned (like, say, human sacrifice, or virgin rape, or child marriages, or whatever) by existing WA law?

I'm personally against this - I don't like organized religions because of all the death and misery they have caused and continue causing around the RL world - and my IC people are likely going to be rude about it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to help you make it better.

Boston Castle wrote:A 5th clause was added to clause 6a in order to assist with some of your other concerns.

Burying the private property thing in the subclause of a subclause is perhaps not the best option - it should be a main clause clarification. It's currently part of the definition, rather than an exception outside the definition, to clarify.

Also, the health exception would allow, in RL, the eradication of all religious sites of pilgrimage as they attract mass numbers of people, which of course is a bad thing in a contagious pandemic situation. :P
Last edited by Araraukar on Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 284
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sat Sep 05, 2020 10:30 am

OOC: That 10,000 people per year seems awfully arbitrary. On human scale it is acceptable but what about hamster scale? Or potted plant scale (looking at you, Ara)? Just something to think about.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7294
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:30 pm

OPPOSED. Whether any site ought to be treated as significant to any particular religion should be determined by the leaders of that religion, not a Big, Unwieldy Piece of WA.

Also, how is "a journey undertaken to an area of religious significance to a presently practiced religion" not a "practice associated with a religion... performed either individually or in a group?"
Last edited by Tinhampton on Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; current WA Delegate of Auctor; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:58 pm

Tinhampton wrote:OPPOSED. Whether any site ought to be treated as significant to any particular religion should be determined by the leaders of that religion, not a Big, Unwieldy Piece of WA.

Also, how is "a journey undertaken to an area of religious significance to a presently practiced religion" not a "practice associated with a religion... performed either individually or in a group?"

As I see it, the practice would be done when one got there and would not be constituted in access to the sites/protecting the ability to get to the sites.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:59 pm

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: That 10,000 people per year seems awfully arbitrary. On human scale it is acceptable but what about hamster scale? Or potted plant scale (looking at you, Ara)? Just something to think about.

I can see it as being arbitrary, but my entire purpose was to set the bar high enough that any ordinary thing wouldn't qualify, but not so low that many sites wouldn't qualify.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:08 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Welcome to the GA forum! Please do not take criticism of your proposal as criticism of you, and remember that in in-character (IC) our roleplay characters can be quite rude without us players being out-of-character (OOC) rude to you.

You mention asking IA about a previous resolution - exactly what were you concerned about in regards to the resolution?

I don't have time right now to do a comprehensive feedback combing through, but in clause 3 - why are you making a WA committee identify pilgrimage sites with heavy traffic? Wouldn't the nations in which they are, be already aware of such? And isn't 3.b. the whole point of this proposal existing?

Is clause 6 trying to police the religions or churches as well? If in RL the Catholic Church as a whole decided to move the whole of Vatican City somewhere else, brick by brick, would this proposal prevent that from happening? And what if the location that's the target of pilgrims, is on private land, or the object of worship is privately owned by someone not related to the religion? There are resolutions about seizure of private property and just compensation is required. Should the religious people/churches pay the compensation? The WA? The member nation? Before you pick any, do remember that nations might end up with having "holy" sites on their territory that are not in any way related to the religions practiced within their borders.

Does all of this apply even to religions that would for other reasons be banned or parts of their expression be banned (like, say, human sacrifice, or virgin rape, or child marriages, or whatever) by existing WA law?

I'm personally against this - I don't like organized religions because of all the death and misery they have caused and continue causing around the RL world - and my IC people are likely going to be rude about it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to help you make it better.

Boston Castle wrote:A 5th clause was added to clause 6a in order to assist with some of your other concerns.

Burying the private property thing in the subclause of a subclause is perhaps not the best option - it should be a main clause clarification. It's currently part of the definition, rather than an exception outside the definition, to clarify.

Also, the health exception would allow, in RL, the eradication of all religious sites of pilgrimage as they attract mass numbers of people, which of course is a bad thing in a contagious pandemic situation. :P

Alright, going to address this point by point:

1. I mentioned IA because I had asked him whether GAR 430 had constituted a right to pilgrimage, he clarified that it did not.

2. I created the WA Committee here not because this couldn't be decentralized to the national level, but due to the *objective* eyes that the WA is supposed to provide.

3. Yes, 3.b is the entire point of it, but restating it as part of the mission of the Committee is not exactly a bad thing, at least imo.

4. As for physically moving the site, I have absolutely no idea how that could be prevented or if it even could.

5. As for prohibiting religions from being recognized under the terms of this, I've been told that it's a rule violation to reference a Resolution already on the books, but I believe that's covered under GAR 430 in Clause 7 and thus, it's unnecessary to legislate it anew here.

6. Ah, will move the Private Property thing to a main clause.

7. I think some sort of a force majeure clause is necessary, but I don't think there's a WA Health Commission and therefore, I don't think there's an objective voice we can slough that responsibility on to (a la "In the event the [Health Commission] declares a pandemic...").
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7294
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:05 pm

Boston Castle wrote:2. I created the WA Committee here not because this couldn't be decentralized to the national level, but due to the *objective* eyes that the WA is supposed to provide.

Is there any reason why you have to offload this task to a new committee rather than to a committee that already exists through previous legislation? Why do you believe that the WA's admittedly incorruptible gnomes will do a better job at religious site designation than faith leaders and/or government at lower levels?

Boston Castle wrote:7. I think some sort of a force majeure clause is necessary, but I don't think there's a WA Health Commission and therefore, I don't think there's an objective voice we can slough that responsibility on to (a la "In the event the [Health Commission] declares a pandemic...").

The Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center, itself a subset of the World Health Authority, already has authority to declare a serious disease through Rights of the Quarantined (and I assume has other responsibilities for disease declaration, albeit never using the P-word, elsewhere in WA law).

Boston Castle wrote:5. As for prohibiting religions from being recognized under the terms of this, I've been told that it's a rule violation to reference a Resolution already on the books, but I believe that's covered under GAR 430 in Clause 7 and thus, it's unnecessary to legislate it anew here.

From what I recall, you may mention previously passed resolutions in your preamble/prefatory clauses, but not your active clauses (see also Administrative Compliance Act and Repeal "International Criminal Court").
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; current WA Delegate of Auctor; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15465
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:12 pm

"Opposed. Religious travelers do not merit special treatment. They can face the same barriers as any other traveler. Nor should places of religious significance get any special treatment. If a cathedral is in the way of a parking lot, we have no qualms razing it any more than we would raze an old town hall or fort."
Last edited by Separatist Peoples on Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:36 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. Religious travelers do not merit special treatment. They can face the same barriers as any other traveler. Nor should places of religious significance get any special treatment. If a cathedral is in the way of a parking lot, we have no qualms razing it any more than we would raze an old town hall or fort."

I don't delineate IC vs. OOC (Partially because I've ~never~ RP'd, partially because that's just the way I'm wired), so I must ask because I do know you're a member of the Secretariat. Opposed as in you would vote no or opposed as in illegal as currently constructed?
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:38 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Boston Castle wrote:2. I created the WA Committee here not because this couldn't be decentralized to the national level, but due to the *objective* eyes that the WA is supposed to provide.

Is there any reason why you have to offload this task to a new committee rather than to a committee that already exists through previous legislation? Why do you believe that the WA's admittedly incorruptible gnomes will do a better job at religious site designation than faith leaders and/or government at lower levels?

Boston Castle wrote:7. I think some sort of a force majeure clause is necessary, but I don't think there's a WA Health Commission and therefore, I don't think there's an objective voice we can slough that responsibility on to (a la "In the event the [Health Commission] declares a pandemic...").

The Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response Center, itself a subset of the World Health Authority, already has authority to declare a serious disease through Rights of the Quarantined (and I assume has other responsibilities for disease declaration, albeit never using the P-word, elsewhere in WA law).

Boston Castle wrote:5. As for prohibiting religions from being recognized under the terms of this, I've been told that it's a rule violation to reference a Resolution already on the books, but I believe that's covered under GAR 430 in Clause 7 and thus, it's unnecessary to legislate it anew here.

From what I recall, you may mention previously passed resolutions in your preamble/prefatory clauses, but not your active clauses (see also Administrative Compliance Act and Repeal "International Criminal Court").

1. Yes, I offload to a new committee mostly because I don't necessarily believe in the impartiality of current structures and I think it would be better to use a new committee. I believe they would do a better job because there is no question of an outside conflict of interest coloring their perception of the importance of a religious site to their nation/to a religious community.

2. That's actually a good to know, I will add that into the resolution in Clause 7.

3. I don't even know if it would be worth it to mention it unless I did so in the terms of "Applauding the focus of GAR 430 on protecting the rights of religious people(s)..."
Last edited by Boston Castle on Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15465
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:51 pm

Boston Castle wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. Religious travelers do not merit special treatment. They can face the same barriers as any other traveler. Nor should places of religious significance get any special treatment. If a cathedral is in the way of a parking lot, we have no qualms razing it any more than we would raze an old town hall or fort."

I don't delineate IC vs. OOC (Partially because I've ~never~ RP'd, partially because that's just the way I'm wired), so I must ask because I do know you're a member of the Secretariat. Opposed as in you would vote no or opposed as in illegal as currently constructed?

OOC: The GA is an IC forum. The default expectation is IC. Were it illegal, I would say it was illegal, not that I was opposed.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5062
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tinfect » Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:57 pm

Boston Castle wrote:[*]Mandates that member nations allow for people undertaking pilgrimages for reasons of faith to travel with minimal impediment and with the least possible barriers towards their freedom of movement, within the bounds of their broader border control policies,


"The Imperium sees no reason to allow primitivists special privilege over other foreigners simply because of their beliefs; indeed, with certain groups, the Imperium would prefer quite the opposite. Whether or not you share the views of the Imperium, I do hope you have some kind of justification for allowing effectively random foreigners special transit privilege for entirely arbitrary reasons?"

Boston Castle wrote:Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Groups, hereafter noted as the OPRG, which shall:
[list=a][*]Work to identify areas of religious significance to presently practiced religions which attract a significant (defined as more than 10,000 visitors in a single year for the purposes of religious ) number of religious adherents on pilgrimage;


"Ten-thousand? That isn't significant at all. Moreover, 'presently practiced', does not equate to national or even international significance; Marrov is still practiced within the Imperium, yet it is considered, for all intents and purposes, defunct; little more than a historical artifact practiced by maybe some few hundred people with little to no connection to it. It's not worth Imperial law, much less the attentions World Assembly. Incidentally, does the practice need to be within one's borders? Or are foreigners allowed to simply declare the Imperial Archive centers to be critical religious sites for the Church of Gigantic Toad?"

Boston Castle wrote:Work with member nations with the aim of reducing barriers to the movement of religiously motivated tourists; and


"The Imperium does not allow foreigners within our borders at all, and especially not tourists; religious or otherwise. The Imperium is not a foreigner's vacation site - or 'pilgrimage', or whatever nonsense you choose to call it."

Boston Castle wrote:[list=a][*]Desecrating sites of religious significance such as places of worship, the burial, death, and birth sites of figures of religious significance, desecration shall be defined as;

[list=i][*]Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;


"How is this defined? The Tower of the Stars in the East has been a museum for centuries, and there's countless sites on New Harron that have been lost to history or destroyed - often not even by the Imperium, for the record."

Boston Castle wrote:Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;


"Again, how is this defined? If some site were to be declared 'holy ground' would digging a hole for a signpost be considered desecration?"

Boston Castle wrote:Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRG in an attempt to make them no longer significant; though


"Again, all religious sites in the Imperium have long become defunct. Simply because there's some pocket of twenty or so practitioners of some extinct Talkonite primitivism, you would have the Imperium demolish city blocks simply on the basis that they once held some kind of temple?

Simply, Ambassador, this legislation is unnecessary, and fundamentally misguided. The Imperium is opposed."
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Military Oversight announces Doctrinal Reform Plan, upcoming military trials | Former Intelligence Director Taraen Vallir, additional operatives executed | 200 year old Varat destroyer found in Balder orbit at historic shipyard location, presumed malfunction of still-installed warp drive | Archive Systems, Hyperpulse Network briefly disabled following accidental release of experimental assistance program | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:27 pm

Tinfect wrote:
Boston Castle wrote:[*]Mandates that member nations allow for people undertaking pilgrimages for reasons of faith to travel with minimal impediment and with the least possible barriers towards their freedom of movement, within the bounds of their broader border control policies,


"The Imperium sees no reason to allow primitivists special privilege over other foreigners simply because of their beliefs; indeed, with certain groups, the Imperium would prefer quite the opposite. Whether or not you share the views of the Imperium, I do hope you have some kind of justification for allowing effectively random foreigners special transit privilege for entirely arbitrary reasons?"

Boston Castle wrote:Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Groups, hereafter noted as the OPRG, which shall:
[list=a][*]Work to identify areas of religious significance to presently practiced religions which attract a significant (defined as more than 10,000 visitors in a single year for the purposes of religious ) number of religious adherents on pilgrimage;


"Ten-thousand? That isn't significant at all. Moreover, 'presently practiced', does not equate to national or even international significance; Marrov is still practiced within the Imperium, yet it is considered, for all intents and purposes, defunct; little more than a historical artifact practiced by maybe some few hundred people with little to no connection to it. It's not worth Imperial law, much less the attentions World Assembly. Incidentally, does the practice need to be within one's borders? Or are foreigners allowed to simply declare the Imperial Archive centers to be critical religious sites for the Church of Gigantic Toad?"

Boston Castle wrote:Work with member nations with the aim of reducing barriers to the movement of religiously motivated tourists; and


"The Imperium does not allow foreigners within our borders at all, and especially not tourists; religious or otherwise. The Imperium is not a foreigner's vacation site - or 'pilgrimage', or whatever nonsense you choose to call it."

Boston Castle wrote:[list=a][*]Desecrating sites of religious significance such as places of worship, the burial, death, and birth sites of figures of religious significance, desecration shall be defined as;

[list=i][*]Causing permanent disrepair or irreparable damage to sites of religious significance;


"How is this defined? The Tower of the Stars in the East has been a museum for centuries, and there's countless sites on New Harron that have been lost to history or destroyed - often not even by the Imperium, for the record."

Boston Castle wrote:Destroying artefacts or materials contained at said sites which are of religious importance;


"Again, how is this defined? If some site were to be declared 'holy ground' would digging a hole for a signpost be considered desecration?"

Boston Castle wrote:Altering the religious nature of said spaces as defined by the OPRG in an attempt to make them no longer significant; though


"Again, all religious sites in the Imperium have long become defunct. Simply because there's some pocket of twenty or so practitioners of some extinct Talkonite primitivism, you would have the Imperium demolish city blocks simply on the basis that they once held some kind of temple?

Simply, Ambassador, this legislation is unnecessary, and fundamentally misguided. The Imperium is opposed."

1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

2. The national sovereignty/question of the borders is an interesting one. In the real world, the Hagia Sophia is an excellent example of this. Again, I don't there would be a reason to change the wording of the resolution, so as for it to have the maximum possible effect, and I definitely don't see the argument you make regarding religion needing to be practiced in a state in order for sites needing to come under the terms of this resolution. Quite the opposite, I think this would be a perfect time to legislate that sites of minority religions retain the same protections as those of majority faiths.

3. Also, I should note here that the 10,000 lower limit was chosen rather arbitrarily-see above for why I chose that (I know I explained it).

4. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that non-existent sites or sites that have ceased to exist are fit under the terms of the treaty and if there is effective "grandfathering", point it out, because that wasn't my intent at all.

[edit]
5. Sorry for not noticing this, but I would define "artefacts and materials" as any significant item which gives a religious site its religious character. So, for instance, a Torah scroll at a synagogue, the Western Wall, the footprints of Muhammad at Al-Aqsa.
Last edited by Boston Castle on Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1099
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Attempted Socialism » Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:03 am

"So-called pilgrims can apply for a tourist visa like everyone else. Religions and the religious generally need help, not rights that are denied the rest of the population. Care to convince us why a singular psychotic belief should qualify as a reason for ease of tourism?"


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Great Robertia
Envoy
 
Posts: 208
Founded: Jul 17, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Great Robertia » Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:08 am

"Opposed. Religious pilgrims should be treated like tourists, and not be granted any special rights or privileges."
Last edited by Great Robertia on Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Imperial State of Great Robertia

An empire formed from the unification of the Robertian Peninsula, where the monarch is revered in a cult of personality.

Our Leader: Emperor Robert Peter I | Our Capital: Saint Robertsburg | Government type: Unitary semi-constitutional parliamentary monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech | Civilization index: 13.71


User avatar
ImperialRussia
Envoy
 
Posts: 322
Founded: May 16, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby ImperialRussia » Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:14 am

“Religious pilgrims should granted the right of citizenship as low they say my nation as a full commitment of our nation and they won’t be legally allowed to leave.”
Last edited by ImperialRussia on Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 284
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:20 am

Boston Castle wrote:1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

OOC: Since you yourself compared a religious pilgrimage to people visiting to see a secular artifact like a painting, why did you word clause 2 in such a way that religious pilgrims have to be given special treatment. Why not mandate that pilgrims have to face the same impediments as an average tourist. Why discriminate against secular tourists as if religious travel is somehow objectively more important and valuable than secular travel?

User avatar
Great Robertia
Envoy
 
Posts: 208
Founded: Jul 17, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Great Robertia » Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:28 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Boston Castle wrote:1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

OOC: Since you yourself compared a religious pilgrimage to people visiting to see a secular artifact like a painting, why did you word clause 2 in such a way that religious pilgrims have to be given special treatment. Why not mandate that pilgrims have to face the same impediments as an average tourist. Why discriminate against secular tourists as if religious travel is somehow objectively more important and valuable than secular travel?


OOC: Agreed, I see no reason why a religious pilgrim should be treated as someone more important than an average tourist. If this was something to give special protection to tourists in general, I might have been supportive of it. But religious pilgrims should not be treated any different than regular tourists.
The Imperial State of Great Robertia

An empire formed from the unification of the Robertian Peninsula, where the monarch is revered in a cult of personality.

Our Leader: Emperor Robert Peter I | Our Capital: Saint Robertsburg | Government type: Unitary semi-constitutional parliamentary monarchy | Technology level: Post-Modern Tech | Civilization index: 13.71


User avatar
Ardiveds
Envoy
 
Posts: 284
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:46 am

OOC: Also, to add to my comment before on clause 2, your insistance on special treatment of pilgrims also could compromise security checks so any suicide bomber wishing to blow up a packed pilgrimage site can move with 'minimal impediment' and this is further worsened by the fact that there is no distinction between pilgrims from member and non member nations, non members where terrorism might be a perfectly legal thing.

User avatar
Boston Castle
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Aug 21, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Boston Castle » Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:22 am

Ardiveds wrote:
Boston Castle wrote:1. I almost view it as a bit of a cultural thing. For instance, if one had a piece of great art and hundreds of thousands flocked each year to come see it, we probably wouldn't view that as an arbitrary reason. Millions go to the Louvre every year, many to see the Venus de Milo or the Mona Lisa, would we say that their trips to their arbitrary? I don't see this as being any different, or less valid a reason, to travel as religion.

OOC: Since you yourself compared a religious pilgrimage to people visiting to see a secular artifact like a painting, why did you word clause 2 in such a way that religious pilgrims have to be given special treatment. Why not mandate that pilgrims have to face the same impediments as an average tourist. Why discriminate against secular tourists as if religious travel is somehow objectively more important and valuable than secular travel?

Personal belief belies the reason for travel, not aesthetics or a desire to see something.
Boston Castle/Hulldom
Flitting through the madness.

WA Ambassador: Avi Rosenborg
Assistants to the Ambassador: Michelle Billingsley and Vic Martins

Positions I've held are in the spoiler.
Hand of the Doge of Ascenthia
Director of Foreign Affairs of the New Western Empire
Electoral Commissioner of Thaecia
Chancellor of the Imperial Senate of the New Western Empire
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Westfalen Westphalia
Member of the House of Commons of Thaecia
3-Term Senator of the New Western Empire
2-Term Senator of The Democratic Republic

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3726
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:38 am

"Ambassador, I suggest a serious rethink of the wording in Clause 6(a)(v). Perhaps a time limit should apply within which the desecration charge may be waived, or simply remain silent on the matter of invasions. If this passed as is, the World Assembly would be inviting a free-for-all of destruction of the type likely to cause a new era of religious wars. Which is a godawful idea."



OOC: The current wording, if applied IRL, is basically inviting Israel to raze the Temple Mount and build a Third Temple. And inviting Muslims to wreck that Third Temple - immediately and indefinitely - afterwards. (That area sure has had a lot of invasions, amirite???) Or inviting indigenous people in Brazil to knock down the giant statue of Christ that overlooks Rio de Janeiro; or, uh, literally any site in the Western Hemisphere holy to religions originating in the Eastern Hemisphere. If you're going to regulate this, it needs a very precise touch.
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Separatist Peoples

Advertisement

Remove ads