[GA - PASSED] Repeal: "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pronouns
she/her
Discord
Whatermelons#1111
ga.jpg

Repeal: “Protecting Sites of Religious Significance”
Category: Repeal | GA #522
Proposed by: Honeydewistania | Coauthor: Verdant Haven | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Onsite Drafting Thread

The World Assembly,

Affirming the importance of identifying and protecting sites of cultural significance;

Acknowledging that religious sites frequently fall into this category and are deserving of protection;

Gratified by the long-standing success of General Assembly Resolution #287 "Cultural Site Preservation", which codifies identification and protection for sites with all manner of cultural significance;

Abhorring the needless and overreaching bureaucracy present in General Assembly Resolution #522 "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance", which both duplicates effort and exceeds reasonable boundaries;

Notes that the target resolution creates extensive and overlapping efforts in this regard through the creation of a second committee tasked with an overlapping mandate, and the separate designations of significance for religious sites now being required under multiple competing resolutions;

Annoyed that the creation of this unnecessary second committee will massively waste World Assembly funds that would be of better use elsewhere;

Further notes that the target resolution uses incredibly broad and problematic definitions, such as:
  • defining any ‘place of religious community’ as a site of religious significance to be protected in perpetuity, which will include culturally insignificant houses with shrines where community worship may take place, preventing owners of the house from altering the religious nature of the house in the future even if their own religious views have changed;
  • defining any grave ‘of people associated with […] a religion’ as a site of religious significance to be protected in perpetuity, which would render the grave of any deceased practitioner of an active religion forever untouchable, even for law enforcement purposes such as recovering evidence in a murder;

Dismayed that member nations are required to protect "foundational place, or places, of a religion" in perpetuity, which could lead to people declaring the establishment of a religion to immediately gain international protections for their person and property against even the most reasonable of societal demands;

Troubled that sites of religious significance established through invasion may be completely desecrated by member nations regardless of their current importance to the adherents of the religion at present;

Further troubled that the resolution does not fully prevent member nations from applying blanket access restrictions to sites of religious significance, defeating the purpose of protecting these sites in the first place;

Confused by unclear wording in the resolution, such as ‘[a]busing [sic] one's private property rights in the pursuit of gaining the legal right to protect or maintain a site of religious significance’, which could lead to vastly different interpretations by member nations and not result in the intended effect that the clause wanted;

Concluding that the member nations of the World Assembly should repeal a flawed resolution; hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #522, “Protecting Sites of Religious Significance.”

Co-authored by Verdant Haven.
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]5[/TD][TD]13[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]

Repeal "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance" was passed 10,299 votes to 4,715 (68.6% support).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV - Against

Overview
"Repeal 'Protecting Sites of Religious Significance'" seeks to repeal GA 522, "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance". It argues that the resolution imposes unnecessary bureaucracy, especially in light of existing protections under GA 287, "Cultural Site Preservation". Furthermore, it argues that the resolution's definitions are sufficiently vague for it to precipitate a number of issues.

Recommendation
The at-vote repeal ultimately fails to make a convincing case for stripping religious sites of the target's protections, which are sufficiently separate from those of prior resolutions. Additionally, the repeal's argument that the definitions of the target resolution would cause trivial sites to be protected in perpetuity is unconvincing, given that the target is sufficiently vague to allow for a reasonable interpretation of its mandates. Further, the repeal assumes that members' court systems are incapable of reasonably determining what constitutes an actual religion.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote General Assembly proposal, "Repeal: 'Protecting Sites of Religious Significance'".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Against, largely don't buy that the excessively broad interpretations the repeal mentions are interpretations nations need to make at all.

One example would be:
Dismayed that member nations are required to protect "foundational place, or places, of a religion" in perpetuity, which could lead to people declaring the establishment of a religion to immediately gain international protections for their person and property against even the most reasonable of societal demands;
What exactly renders courts unable to decide what is actually a religion and what is not? In real life, courts can do so (cf. Dutch Council of State on Pastafarianism). Not sure why courts in NationStates cannot.
 
Last edited:
Obviously as author of the original, I’m against, but again, I’ll stress, not going to be mad if it gets repealed.
 
Present. While I personally feel that religion should have no bearing on state policy, I don't find the arguments in this repeal particularly convincing.
 
Present. While I personally feel that religion should have no bearing on state policy, I don't find the arguments in this repeal particularly convincing.
Like what?
What exactly renders courts unable to decide what is actually a religion and what is not? In real life, courts can do so (cf. Dutch Council of State on Pastafarianism). Not sure why courts in NationStates cannot.
I do not believe that courts can simply decide what they want. This is the first I've heard of such an argument.
Obviously as author of the original, I’m against, but again, I’ll stress, not going to be mad if it gets repealed.
So do you agree with the points made?
 
Last edited:
Against, though not sternly so. If there are errors in the original resolution then I see a conversation to correct them as beneficial. Otherwise, the protection of religious places of significance are deserving of their own resolution separate of mere culture as the two are of course intwined but are not always synonymous.
 
Against, though not sternly so. If there are errors in the original resolution then I see a conversation to correct them as beneficial. Otherwise, the protection of religious places of significance are deserving of their own resolution separate of mere culture as the two are of course intwined but are not always synonymous.
There is a superior replacement being drafted on the forums, which is linked in the OP.

They can in real life. Why not NS?
I am not sure, but why couldn’t courts define corporations to not be people in GA c 30 "Freedom of Expression"? Or define ‘medicinal knowledge’ to also mean ‘medical knowledge’ in GA c 400 "World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact"?
 
Last edited:
There is a superior replacement being drafted on the forums, which is linked in the OP.


I am not sure, but why couldn’t courts define corporations to not be people in GA c 30 "Freedom of Expression"? Or define ‘medicinal knowledge’ to also mean ‘medical knowledge’ in GA c 400 "World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact"?
Just to be clear, the repeal is authored by you, but the MWA is recommending voting against, and there is a draft resolution coming as a replacement?
 
Just to be clear, the repeal is authored by you, but the MWA is recommending voting against, and there is a draft resolution coming as a replacement?
It’s not being authored by me, but there is. It’s being written by Refuge Isle. No idea how soon it’ll be put in the queue assuming this passes.
 
Troubled that sites of religious significance established through invasion may be completely desecrated by member nations regardless of their current importance to the adherents of the religion at present;

@Honeydewistan Can you please explain how repealing would help with the above? Is there a provision to remedy this in the replacement?
 
Troubled that sites of religious significance established through invasion may be completely desecrated by member nations regardless of their current importance to the adherents of the religion at present;

@Honeydewistan Can you please explain how repealing would help with the above? Is there a provision to remedy this in the replacement?
Yes
 
For

Reason:
A superior resolution is in the works. I don't see why we should not repeal a poorly written resolution to replace it with a better one.
 
Repeal "Protecting Sites of Religious Significance" was passed 10,299 votes to 4,715 (68.6% support).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top