NationStates Jolt Archive

Defense of Faiths Act

NOTING that one's personal right to believe in a deity, deities, higher power, philosophy, or nothing at all is an integral part of one's civil rights,

OBSERVING that in the past and even now, state sponsored religious persecution and the actions of individuals in nations where religious freedom is accepted is still a problem and that it should no longer be tolerated,

The nation of Tibetania proposes that religious persecution and hate crimes based on religion in particular be punished in this fashion:

1. State sponsored religious persection:

A. The nation(s) who are engaged in the persecution of people of a particular faith must hereby cease and desist all such activity within a period of seven ( 7 ) days.

B. That failure to do so by said time will result in an economic embargo lasting no sooner than thirty ( 30 ) days.

C. After said seven ( 7 ) day time limit has expired, the thirty (30) day economic embargo will be imposed and the violating nation will have forty-eight (48) hours from the imposing of said embargo to cease and desist. After the forty-eight (48) hour time limit has passed, every day from then on that the nation has not ceased and desisted it's policies, seven ( 7 ) more days of embargo shall be imposed.

D. After fourteen (14) more days, if there a nation(s) continue to violate this resolution, a UN vote will be brought on how to deal with said offending nation(s).

2. Hate crimes committed with religious motive

A. Individuals in UN member nations who committ hate crimes based on religious motives shall be punished according to the member nation's existing hate crime laws.

B. If no laws exist in said member country, then the UN Delegate from the region it occured in will be allowed to seek the criminal's extradition and the criminal will serve his punishment in the nation of the UN Delegate under these stipulations:

(a) That the criminal be afforded all human rights guaranteed under the NSUN Charter.

(b) That if it is a crime in which there are no injuries (i.e. vandalism) that the offender be jailed for no sooner than fifteen (15) and no longer than thirty (30) days.

(c) That if there is an injury affronted on the victim, depending on the seriousness of the injury, the UN Delegate will decide the amount of time the offender is imprisioned, a time that is to be no sooner than ninety (90) and no longer than one (1) year.

(d) That if there is a death that results in the commission of such an act that the offender be imprisioned for no sooner than twenty-five (25) years with a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.

You feedback is much appriciated!

Per the Universal Bill of Rights and the Rights and Duties of UN States, your proposal seeks to illegalize something that is already illegal and imposes on national sovereignty of member nations.

Member nations have the right to set laws and impose punishment on its own citizens for denial of the right to religious freedom.

Thats why it says... IF NO LAWS EXIST... if the nation has laws... it prosecutes how its laws dictate.

And that is what I AM saying.

The right has already been guaranteed by the NS UN in the Universal Bill of Rights, which even says that it does not replace any Bill of Rights already held by any member nation.

Since these rights are already guaranteed by the UN and most states, it would lead to reason that it already has punishments attached to it. Therefore I am saying your proposal seeks to handle an issue already settled.

So is the whole proposal SNAFU'd or is part of it worth proposing?

I can see some salvageable parts of it that would make it a small but worth proposal.

Firstly, it does not good to impose time limits and embargos on NS UN nations. And per game mechanics, even if they did pass the 30 day limit, then we could not enforce stricter sentencing like expulsion or suspension from the UN.

However, the idea that a country may have the rights of religion guarateed but not actually have laws punishing its denial is are possible. But being that I am a nation that is extremely avid to sovereign rights, I still dont like the idea of setting specific terms.

So, I would would think that a proposal that sets guideline terms of enforcement, and a demand that all nations enact laws to protect the guaranteed right would be good reasonably acceptable.

I think that the state sponsored stipulations are sound, I mean, after a certain time, the UN will decide what further action is to take place.

But, what if I scrapped the stipulations for the individual hate crimes for a more general action, say that UN member nations must have tough religious violence laws?

well firstly, the subjective word tough would be considered inadequate.


So, first thing in the resolution, IMHO, should be a declaration that all member nations adopt laws to punish hate crimes.

Then a definition of hate crime.

Then a list of sentencing guidelines for punishments for hate crimes, broken down by number of offenses. (Start with adoption of these, and then if too many countries balk, move it to an urging).

and then MAYBE create a program to enhance tolerance.

OK, i see what you mean by wording, but I thought I did establish punishment guidlines for religious hate crimes. But your number of offenses suggestion is interesting.

Three strikes clause perhaps?

What exactly is wrong with the guidlines I had?

The way it was worded was too broad IMHO.

First is the orders of extradition. That needs to go completely. Countries need to punish their own.

Punishments for hate crimes needs to show escalating punishment based on offenses. 5 offenses where no injury occurs, and 3 where there is injury, before a repeat offender is classified as a serial offender and is "out".

Something that reads the adoption of the following sentencing guidelines or greater where the laws of the State demand more.
Its called minimum sentencing guidelines. Set an appropriate minimum. Denote the expected repayment of damages, should property damage occur.

Try the proposal as an adoption of the guidelines.

Ex:

For a hate crime where no physical injury occurs:
First offense-- No less than XX days and full restitution of damages for property, or sentencing according to the laws of the State where the State demands more.

The word 'physical' is important, to establish that these do not apply when someone gets their feelings hurt. Restitution of damages is more important than a fine. It ensures the offender will be paying for whatever they damaged or destroyed in their crime.

Defense of Faiths Act

NOTING that one's personal right to believe in a deity, deities, higher power, philosophy, or nothing at all is an integral part of one's civil rights,

OBSERVING that in the past and even now, state sponsored religious persecution and the actions of individuals in nations where religious freedom is accepted is still a problem and that it should no longer be tolerated,

The nation of Tibetania proposes that religious persecution and hate crimes based on religion in particular be punished in this fashion:

1. State sponsored religious persection:

A. The nation(s) who are engaged in the persecution of people of a particular faith must hereby cease and desist all such activity within a period of seven ( 7 ) days.

B. That failure to do so by said time will result in an economic embargo lasting no sooner than thirty ( 30 ) days.

C. After said seven ( 7 ) day time limit has expired, the thirty (30) day economic embargo will be imposed and the violating nation will have forty-eight (48) hours from the imposing of said embargo to cease and desist. After the forty-eight (48) hour time limit has passed, every day from then on that the nation has not ceased and desisted it's policies, seven ( 7 ) more days of embargo shall be imposed.

D. After fourteen (14) more days, if there a nation(s) continue to violate this resolution, a UN vote will be brought on how to deal with said offending nation(s).

2. Hate crimes committed with religious motive

A. Individuals in UN member nations who committ hate crimes based on religious motives shall be punished according to the member nation's existing hate crime laws. If they see fit that, due to the extent of damages or injury affronted, the sentencing of the offender shall be more harsh than these guidlines, the nation has that right to act in such a manner within the limits of NSUN human rights guidlines.

B. Nations will adpot these mandatory minimum sentencing guidlines as follows:

(a) In offenses where there is no physical injury, a first offence will incur a sentence of no sooner than thirty days in jail and restitution of all property damage. Repeat offenses will incur the same length of jail time and restitution unless a total of five offenses have been committed by the person, wheras he shall be sentenced to no sooner than three years in prison and a restitution of all damages.

(b) In offenses where physical injury has occured, a first offense will incur a sentence of no sooner than eighteen months. A second offense will incur no sooner that thirty-six months in jail and a if a total of three of these offenses have been committed by the person, a sentence of no sooner than five years imprisionment will be levied.

(c) In offenses where a death has occured as a result, a sentence will consist of imprisonment of no sooner than the natural life of the offender without the possibility of parole.