[GA - PASSED - Acc.] Protecting Sites Of Religious Significance

Status
Not open for further replies.

Westinor

Registered
TNP Nation
Westinor
Discord
Westinor#2315
ga.jpg

Protecting Sites Of Religious Significance
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Boston Castle | Onsite Topic

Note: This draft was accepted for the World Assembly Accelerator Program, but is not currently being sponsored by the Ministry of WA Affairs. If you're interested in participating in this program, we encourage you to apply with your draft(s)!
The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that many religious traditions have and maintain sites that are important to the history of their creed and the practice of their creed,

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 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 of people associated with or significant to a religion;

    4. Places of religious community;

    5. A museum, or other site protected by law, with a religious character;
  2. Creates the Office for the Protection of Religious Sites, hereafter noted as the OPRS, which shall:
    1. Work with faith leaders 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 sites as designated by the OPRS 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 by removing their religious character; though

      5. Desecration shall not apply in the event of an imminent threat to health and safety with the present conditions of the site, in the event that said sites were established in a hostile fashion (such as through invasion), or if said sites are being altered with a view towards preservation in perpetuity (such as through conversion into a museum);
    2. Abusing one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance;

    3. Showing favoritism to, or selectively working to maintain, sites of one belief over another; and
  5. Clarifies that nations may 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, conflict which occurs on a nation’s territory, internal instability in the region of a religious site, or if a pandemic is declared by a national health service or disease control center,

  6. Further clarifies that nations may not impose these restrictions on access solely on the grounds of religion,

  7. Urges member nations to take additional measures to provide for the security of sites of religious significance including appointing 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.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]13[/TD][TD]7[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]

Protecting Sites Of Religious Significance was passed 9,548 votes to 5,263 (64.5% support).
 
Last edited:
IFV - For

Overview
This proposal seeks to protect sites of importance to “presently practiced” religions in member nations. To this end, it creates the Office for the Protection of Religious States to identify sites to be preserved and create plans for their long-term protection. Additionally, the proposal prohibits the destruction of sites deemed by the OPRS to be significant and outlines what this destruction entails.

Recommendation
This proposal effectively allows for areas of importance for long-standing observed beliefs to be preserved into the future. While the proposal is weighed down by a few instances of strange wording or questionable grammar, these issues are hardly compromising and do not severely impede the ability of the legislation to accomplish its objectives.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting For the at-vote General Assembly proposal, “Protecting Sites of Religious Significance”.
 
Last edited:
Against due to the weird language and wording. Why create a new committee when the WATCH exists? Why need the clause 6 when clause 5 only refers to those specific cases? In fact, why refer to those specific cases at all instead of making it more inclusive and broad? What is the international need for this resolution beyond current cultural site protections?
 
For; my tired brain isn't seeing any outstanding issues and the scope is narrow enough to not run into issues inherent in legislating on religious freedom.
 
non-WA against, mostly because of duplicated words, missing commas, sometimes unclear structure. It's gonna get repealed anyway though
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top