[GA - withdrawn] - Protecting Religious Freedoms

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Ursine thingy
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
Discord
simonenstnp
ga.jpg

Protecting Religious Freedoms
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic​

Recalling that the World Assembly's previous attempt at addressing religious freedoms, "Freedom of Religion", was repealed due to overly restrictive and specific mandates vis-a-vis restrictions on religious practices;

Noting that, while resolutions such as "Freedom of Association" may protect rights such as to gather into religious institutions, there is still no resolution legislating on freedom of religious practice or from state discrimination based on religion,

Recognising the importance of balancing the ability of member nations to take measures to advance compelling, practical interests, and the international protection of the right to religious freedom,

The World Assembly enacts as follows _

No member nation, or political or administrative subdivision thereof, may discriminate against any individual for their religion or lack thereof, including by

denying equal protection under the law to those holding or lacking a religion;

enforcing legal penalties for an individual's holding or lack of a religion; or

discriminating against individuals in tax based on their religion or lack thereof.

Individuals have the right to perform any religious practice in accordance with their bona fide religious beliefs. Any restriction upon this right must (i) be vital for the furtherment of a compelling, practical, and secular state interest; and (ii) make an advancement in that interest which considerably outweighs that restriction's hindrance on religious freedom.

Should a provision of this resolution contradict some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that previous resolution takes precedence.
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
8903
 
IFV.

Edit: Now in quorum.

Edit: also note that repeal PSAV would come up first.
 
Last edited:
Against.

While this is a clear improvement over the repealed resolution, it still gives too much credence to religious practises. Bona fide believers can claim that any law is a hindrance of some religious right, and argue that the advancement made by that law doesn't substantially outweigh the limitation of their religious right. Even if their success rate isn't high (I presume, since hopefully rational national courts would take the case), it's still an unneeded obstacle in legislation when the first part of the test was sufficient.
 
Don't listen to the big wig establishment. This is a resolution written by the people. Not churned out by some crappy WA writer who has the backing of major regions. Mage tries hard to get where he was unlike some people!!!
 
Attempted Socialism:
Against.

While this is a clear improvement over the repealed resolution, it still gives too much credence to religious practises. Bona fide believers can claim that any law is a hindrance of some religious right, and argue that the advancement made by that law doesn't substantially outweigh the limitation of their religious right. Even if their success rate isn't high (I presume, since hopefully rational national courts would take the case), it's still an unneeded obstacle in legislation when the first part of the test was sufficient.
Click to expand...
If the sole issue with the test is laws being challenged (not struck down), at that point would nations not set their own case law for how to interpret the test, and accordingly not hear prima facie frivolous challenges? If a challenge is heard -- even with such jurisprudence as to the test -- I would find that there is likely a legitimate reason that said challenge should indeed be heard.

Kastonvia:
Don't listen to the big wig establishment. This is a resolution written by the people. Not churned out by some crappy WA writer who has the backing of major regions. Mage tries hard to get where he was unlike some people!!!
Click to expand...
The WA Elite is watching you.

Nb this has reached quorum.
 
Last edited:
Actually, on second thought, for. I think that this is a good resolution and I am not convinced that the drawbacks of having potentially frivolous challenges to legislation exist outweighs the overall benefit of freedom of religion.
 
Attempted Socialism:
Against.

While this is a clear improvement over the repealed resolution, it still gives too much credence to religious practises. Bona fide believers can claim that any law is a hindrance of some religious right, and argue that the advancement made by that law doesn't substantially outweigh the limitation of their religious right. Even if their success rate isn't high (I presume, since hopefully rational national courts would take the case), it's still an unneeded obstacle in legislation when the first part of the test was sufficient.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the whole compelling practical purposes thing that makes a previous resolution a potential target for repeal (17, I think?). Against.
 
Hulldom:
Not to mention the whole compelling practical purposes thing that makes a previous resolution a potential target for repeal (17, I think?). Against.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the previous religious freedom resolution repealed because the way in which "compelling practical purpose" was applied was absurd?
 
Comfed:
Wasn't the previous religious freedom resolution repealed because the way in which "compelling practical purpose" was applied was absurd?
Click to expand...
I can't say I've been up enough on the GA to know. However, given the controversy I do know about, I don't like the inclusion of that phrase.
 
Hulldom:
I can't say I've been up enough on the GA to know. However, given the controversy I do know about, I don't like the inclusion of that phrase.
Click to expand...
As the author of the (passed) repeal of the previous religious freedom resolution, my repeal was based on mandating the "least restrictive means to advance"; the "compelling practical purpose" test was only a problem inasmuch as the target required the purpose to be in "safety, health, or good order" (despite there being other reasons to take action against a religious practice).

If you are referring to GA #35, I would find that (at least my) issue with the CPP test there is the test's failure to do anything besides specify what the purpose must ostensibly be -- there is no restriction on the scope, strength, etc of a discriminatory policy, as long as it is ostensibly enacted for the purpose of advancing a CPP. I don't believe that the term "compelling practical purpose" is, in itself, problematic, even though I do not disclaim obvious bias.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the test that it doesn't specify what the purpose is is precisely the problem, Magecastle.
 
Magecastle:
The purpose is "the furtherment of a compelling, practical, and secular state interest".
Click to expand...
Yes. You don't define what "compelling" or "practical" is, unless I take it that they are, inherently, the third thing.
 
For. It isn't the matter of The State to decide the spiritual beliefs of the citizens. Unless it contradicts core national ethos...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top