[GA - PASSED] Repeal "Freedom of Religion"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fregerson

Fregerson

Secretly here
-
-
TNP Nation
PotatoFarmers
Discord
Freg#0420
ga.jpg

Repeal "Freedom of Religion"
Category: Repeal | GA #430
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic
Replacement: Defending Religious Freedoms​

Believing that the protection of religious individuals from unfair persecution is indeed important, and accordingly respecting the resolution's intent to protect religious individuals,

Affirming that a replacement resolution has already been drafted, so as to ensure that religious freedoms are still protected internationally after repeal of the target, yet

Saddened that the resolution's mandate that restrictions on religious practices only be "the least restrictive means" to advance certain interests prevents member nations from advancing "safety, health, or good order" through more restrictive, albeit also more effective, means, including prohibiting cannibalism wholesale to address the practice's inherent health risks, as opposed to eg licensing and disease testing mandates which are less restrictive but also far less effective,

Emphasising that the requirement that restrictions on religious practices only be to advance interests in "health, safety, or good order" is also too narrow, as there are many other reasons that a member nation might want to restrict a religious practice, such as preventing sacrifice of endangered animals to advance environmental protection, the World Assembly

Declares "Freedom of Religion" null and void.
Click to expand...
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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
9915
 
Last edited:
Overview
This resolution seeks to repeal GA#430 "Freedom of Religion", providing 2 main arguments for why the target resolution is bad. Firstly, the target's requirements for the "least restrictive means" prevent the use of more effective yet more restrictive solutions in dealing with religious practices. Secondly, the target has a "narrow scope" for reasons as to why religious practices can be restricted.

Recommendation
While we believe that religious freedoms are important, we agree with the arguments laid out by the repeal. We also note that the author is currently drafting a replacement, which would solve the issues with the target resolution and continue to protect religious freedoms. As such, we are receptive to the idea of a repeal-and-replace for the resolution.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at-vote, Repeal: "Freedom of Religion".
 
Last edited:
For I guess, though I'm not a fan of the cop-out article 6 of the replacement.
 
Last edited:
Present. I am not a deeply religious person so I'd defer to those with stronger views.

Edit: no change in views. I plan to abstain from voting personally if this comes to vote.
 
Last edited:
Change my vote to Against

Re-reading the original legislation, the repeal proposal, and the replacement, I do not feel the arguments are compelling enough for repeal or the replacement strong enough to be worthwhile.
 
Against. The repeal is not sufficiently convincing, moreover the replacement does not solve the problems argued in this repeal.
 
Last edited:
Against

Whilst there's definitely a case to be made against the target, and this resolution is on the verge of doing that properly, I don't feel the argument here is particularly strong (even undermining itself through the example it provides, which can almost certainly be classed under the "health" provision). I'm not too pleased with the writing overall, though I'm generally not bothered by the status of the replacement until it's submitted in this case.
 
Against

I'm not unsympathetic to the repeal arguments, but too often have we seen repeals with promissory new legislation that did not manifest, and I don't think the intended replacement is adequate yet.
 
Attempted Socialism:
Against

I'm not unsympathetic to the repeal arguments, but too often have we seen repeals with promissory new legislation that did not manifest, and I don't think the intended replacement is adequate yet.
Click to expand...
Chipoli:
I will be against until there is a well-written replacement.
Click to expand...
I've pulled this to work on the replacement further, though I don't agree with this argument prima facie -- should the merits of the replacement not be considered independently of the repeal?
 
Ice Empire:
I've pulled this to work on the replacement further, though I don't agree with this argument prima facie -- should the merits of the replacement not be considered independently of the repeal?
Click to expand...
If the replacement is not convincing or does not add anything compared to the original resolution, then the repeal becomes useless.
Why repeal a resolution to replace it with another of poor quality or which does nothing more or less?
 
Jag:
If the replacement is not convincing or does not add anything compared to the original resolution, then the repeal becomes useless.
Why repeal a resolution to replace it with another of poor quality or which does nothing more or less?
Click to expand...
Eh to be honest it depends on the original. I don't really like the original, and so I would love to repeal it and would have voted for. If the replacement is bad, I just vote it down and let us stay in limbo
 
Fregerson:
resubmitted with little changes, edited OP to reflect the slight changes and therefore reopened.
Click to expand...
For the record and posterity, the main changes since resubmission were to the replacement -- the substance of the repeal remains the same, except with some minor changes to improve clarity.
 
The replacement is much improved from the previous iteration. However, that said, I still do not see a need to repeal the original as while there may be weaker language in the original, it still stands fine on its own, so I see no need to vote to repeal it.

Against.

All this said - why doesn't a group actually put together a cohesive proposal to ban cannibalism, which appears to be the entire crux of all these arguments in the first place?
 
Against

Barely improved, and still suffers from basically all of the problems previously mentioned. Writing still annoying me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top