NationStates Jolt Archive

I need more feedback on how we can get this proposal passed!

Defense of Faiths Act Text:

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.

it would be nice to have the rights of religous minorities protected by the UN, especially those Bigtopians; they have a hard time of things.

I'm sorry but we don't really think that the idea of hate crimes works in practise.

You do not have our support.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

People's freedom of (and from) religion is adequately defended in the Religious Tolerance, Universal Bill of Rights and Universal Freedom of Choice resolutions.

I fail to see how imposing draconian measures at the international level will meaningfully work to reduce the amount of religious persecution. The problem clearly stems from people's ignorance and from their local issues; at the state level. If you wish to work against religious persecution, your resolution should address the reasons why it occurs and resolve how UN nations should act to minimize those effects.

A good point brought up:
What is a hate crime? How do we deny or affirm the claim: "I was fired because I am a Christian?"

Uniform punishments aren't a good idea, nor is punishing someone extra just because they were thinking something you don't like while they committed a crime.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor racism and religious hate crimes, I just don't believe government should be legislating on its citizens' thoughts.

Also, 2 A worries me deeply. A Person found guilty of a crime should not be subject to any other punishment than those allowed by the laws at the time the crime was committed. Passing this would create a dangerous precedent for retroactive legislation, so that I could, for instance, make cigarettes illegal on Tuesday, then go and arrest people who had smoked on Monday - and cite this legislation as a precedent.

The God King Eru-Sama

People's freedom of (and from) religion is adequately defended in the Religious Tolerance, Universal Bill of Rights and Universal Freedom of Choice resolutions.

I fail to see how imposing draconian measures at the international level will meaningfully work to reduce the amount of religious persecution. The problem clearly stems from people's ignorance and from their local issues; at the state level. If you wish to work against religious persecution, your resolution should address the reasons why it occurs and resolve how UN nations should act to minimize those effects.

Religious Tolerance (Act)

Whereas, Freedom of Religion does not exist in all countries in the world. Whereas, Too many wars are started and fought because of religious differences. Whereas, There is a need for more religious tolerance on Earth. Therefore be it resolved that the United Nations support and promote a greater understanding of all religions and promote more tolerance of differences of religion. Be it further resolved that the United Nations oppose all wars fought in the name of God and religion.

Promoting is not protecting my friend. I could promote world peace. That does not protect you from acts of agression.

The Universal Bill of Rights

...Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state...

Now what is punishment, exactly? One has to have done something wrong. In this case, the state can easily get around this by inciting violence among the people on others of another faith, and they could easily make one's life miserable, without claiming a violation of the law. It's a loophole that needs to be closed.

Universal Freedom of Choice
...The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies...

That's fine. All we are asking is that member nations apply the mandatory minimum sentencing guidlines that are in the proposal.

We need to be tough. All of us.

On a personal level, it obvioulsy is a form of ignorance and intolerance. But, to quote an old movie, "..how do you fight an idea?.." For centuries myths were spread about Jews using the blood of children in baking bread. While obviously they were not true, new slanderous myths have emerged. You can promote religious tolerance all you want, but unless you force them to think otherwise ( which is a far greater misstep than punishing those who commit the crimes ) you won't change their minds. That's not to say you do not try.

And people are entitled to think what they want to, no matter how wrong another believes it to be, but to act in violence in concert with those ideas is wrong, period.

This resolution meerly asks UN member nations to provide tough manditory minimum sentences using the guidelines provided.

As for an entire national policy of religious persecution, tell me how else that can be fought. I see no other way except to put economic and diplomatic pressure on such countries. Surely there is no agressive act involved. No threats of violence. Simply a message saying "You keep doing this, we won't do business with you.", that's all.

Thank you for your feedback so far, I hope this shed some light on my position.

I need more feedback on how we can get this proposal
passed!

Defense of Faiths Act Text:

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:

BLATHER...

2. Hate crimes committed with religious motive

BLATHER...



MY GODS (probably)..!!!

Is this the demented encephalitic sputum of a feverish would-by lawyer, or
WHAT..!?

This is precisely the reason that the UN has the reputation as the "Great
Power-mad MOMMY-State Wanna-be"..!

Please,.. PLEASE,.. never give this insane organisation any real weaponry or
pervue to cross borders at will....!!

We, the people of Iakeokeo, point our collective finger at you and LAUGH OUR
ASSES OFF, as a sign of our contempt for your arrogance and weak-
mindedness, and utter lack of understanding of the concept of human nature.

Is this yet another example of "the meeting place" thinking itself "the mother
and father" of us all..!?

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

Is this the demented encephalitic sputum of a feverish would-by lawyer, or WHAT..!?
This is the UN, Iakeokeo, not a back-alley gutter. Member or non-member, we ask that you respect the diplomats that work here and at least pretend a level of civil discourse.

You've posted pretty much the exact same thing in six or seven threads in the past couple of days, so I think the UN regulars have a pretty clear picture on where you stand. I'm going to ask you politely to consider toning down your invective, and welcome you to speak your mind when you have something relevant to contribute to the discussion.

All that can be done is to promote critical thinking and understanding. I would suggest an education initiative to teach students more about logical thinking and to have them study other religions than their own to gain a better understanding of people who have different views than they do.

There is no magic bullet that will right all the wrongs in the world. You can threaten to cut people's hands off if they steal, but they'll still do it.

I fail to see how "getting tough" will stop religious persecution instead of just making the proponents of it more careful about getting caught. Especially if they are part of a nation's government.

It is all very well to demand mandatory minimum sentencing laws for the whole of the UN, but what about nations which prefer to use different forms of punishment? For instance, in _Myopia_, we usually have non-violent first time offenders do community service to give something back to the community they have harmed, rather than sending them to prison. This stops prison overcrowding, and avoids placing first time offenders in an environment in which they are often influenced by hardened criminals, thus giving us lower repeat offence rates. It also means that criminals really do pay back their debt to society. Why should we be forced to imprison a racist graffitti "artist" by your resolution, when our system has been shown to work?

Also, you haven't responded to what I wrote earlier:

Uniform punishments aren't a good idea, nor is punishing someone extra just because they were thinking something you don't like while they committed a crime.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor racism and religious hate crimes, I just don't believe government should be legislating on its citizens' thoughts.

Also, 2 A worries me deeply. A Person found guilty of a crime should not be subject to any other punishment than those allowed by the laws at the time the crime was committed. Passing this would create a dangerous precedent for retroactive legislation, so that I could, for instance, make cigarettes illegal on Tuesday, then go and arrest people who had smoked on Monday - and cite this legislation as a precedent.

Well there would be nothing that makes this legislation retrosctive.

And as for legislating on how citizens should think, that's not my goal. My goal is to punish those who act on their thoughts.

You can think about stealing all you want without incident. It's when you steal that it's a crime. And proposing anti-intolerance classes won't help those who refuse it.

"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"

This suggests to me that the courts may choose to punish hate crime offenders more severely than is allowed in the legislation applicable. Sorry if I misunderstood.

My points about citizens' thoughts and hate crimes were based on this - if you set worse punishments for, say, racially-motivated murder than other murders, you are effectively punishing the racist extra for his ideas.

This is the UN, Iakeokeo, not a back-alley gutter.
Member or non-member, we ask that you respect the diplomats that work
here and at least pretend a level of civil discourse.

You've posted pretty much the exact same thing in six or seven threads in
the past couple of days, so I think the UN regulars have a pretty clear
picture on where you stand. I'm going to ask you politely to consider toning
down your invective, and welcome you to speak your mind when you have
something relevant to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you for the opportunity to vent, great one. :)

Indeed, I have been rather heated. Perhaps a bit overly so. The "invective" is
merely a measure of the amazement of one from a small simple backwater
nation to the non-sensibility of the basic premise of this "august" body.

In my land, the families talk. The families discuss at the meeting house. The
families do not group up in exclusive little cliques, take over the meeting
house, call themselves "THE family" and impose their arbitrary will on the
other families.

We also make it quite plain what we think of silly rules and imperious people.

We laugh and point.

That can be construed as rude. That's fine. The "silly ones" can laugh and
point back. Reciprocity is the soul of discussion.

I was truly horiffied to discover that my nation needed to give up it's very
sovereignty to be allowed into the meeting place that you call the UN.

I realize much effort, many clams, and untold talking has gone into the set of
rules that you profess to impose as a whole on your membership, but I would
implore you all, all you member families in this great world of soveriegn
families, to consider how you look when you appropriate the great meeting
place of the world and tell all others to submit or be considered as nothing.

My most humble condolences to your children for the confusion and non-
sense created by their deluded parents.

With respect and homage to the sensible amongst you...


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

I was truly horiffied to discover that my nation needed to give up it's very sovereignty to be allowed into the meeting place that you call the UN.
Well, technically not true. Anyone that chooses to can speak from the podium, wander the hallways, and drink at the Stranger's Bar. However, only UN members can vote, serve as Delegates, or act as national Invaders / Defenders.

Pretty much everyone who pays any attention to the UN shares your initial reaction of horror and revulsion. We can count on eight to twelve Resolutions to Restore National Soveriegnty every month. While it gets a bit tiring to keep making the same argument over and over, the UN Speakers Bureau somehow manage to reply to each of them patiently and without (excessive) flaming.

Here's the problem, see. It says quite clearly in the UN FAQ, in virtually every sticky, and in at least one of the passed resolutions (my own Rights and Duties of UN States) what aspects of sovereignty belong to the nation and which belong to the UN. It becomes a bit tough to listen to the same complaints over and over again, especially when they didn't read the contract before signing!.

You'll hear Delegates say, "If you don't like it, you can always leave." That's not a statement of exclusion or an invitation to go jump in the lake. It's merely a reminder that membership is voluntary. You can join and quit as often as you like. Your nation isn't penalized for not being a UN member, apart from being denied the benefits and responsibilities of membership. Should we grant you the benefits without charging you the price? I don't think that's going to happen, do you?

In conclusion, let me invite you once again to stay with us as a Member, knowing full well the associated costs ... or come to us as a guest to OUR house, where YOUR family's rules may not apply.

M.J. Donovan, CEO Emeritus, Frisbeeteria.

Well, technically not true. Anyone that chooses to can
speak from the podium, wander the hallways, and drink at the Stranger's
Bar. However, only UN members can vote, serve as Delegates, or act as
national Invaders / Defenders.

Pretty much everyone who pays any attention to the UN shares your initial
reaction of horror and revulsion. We can count on eight to twelve
Resolutions to Restore National Soveriegnty every month. While it gets a
bit tiring to keep making the same argument over and over, the UN Speakers
Bureau somehow manage to reply to each of them patiently and without
(excessive) flaming.

Here's the problem, see. It says quite clearly in the UN FAQ, in virtually
every sticky, and in at least one of the passed resolutions (my own Rights
and Duties of UN States) what aspects of sovereignty belong to the
nation and which belong to the UN. It becomes a bit tough to listen to the
same complaints over and over again, especially when they didn't read the
contract before signing!.

You'll hear Delegates say, "If you don't like it, you can always leave." That's
not a statement of exclusion or an invitation to go jump in the lake. It's
merely a reminder that membership is voluntary. You can join and quit
as often as you like. Your nation isn't penalized for not being a UN member,
apart from being denied the benefits and responsibilities of membership.
Should we grant you the benefits without charging you the price? I don't
think that's going to happen, do you?

In conclusion, let me invite you once again to stay with us as a Member,
knowing full well the associated costs ... or come to us as a guest to OUR
house, where YOUR family's rules may not apply.

M.J. Donovan, CEO Emeritus, Frisbeeteria.

I very much appreciate your allowing this humble representative to speak (as
a non-member) within the halls of the UN.

My family comes to the door of the UN and knocks, hearing that the UN is a
place where families come to hear wisdom, or at least discussion, from other
families and where we too may be heard.

We are told that we can not enter unless we accept rules that we have no
say in forming.

We are stunned that anyone would accept this form of hospitality!

We protest that we do not wish to merge with these other families, we
merely wish to learn from and speak with them..!

The UN says that we must become "one big happy, or not so happy, family",
if we are to be a part of the pooled wisdom and learning of the worlds families.

Once again stunned, we sadly must turn away from this UN thing as it has no
meaning to us any longer. The UN is NOT a family, as only a family is a
family,.. and it is not a place to spread wisdom and learning, as it does not
admit those who wish only to do so.

You may think we are being "logically befuddled" with statements like "only a
family is a family" and that we should expand our definition of "family". We
chose not to. And in doing so, we choose to be an adult (a nation) amongst
the other nations, and not a child (a province) of a collective myth that the
UN defines ITSELF as.

We would be glad to visit your house, where your rules apply,.. but we will
NOT live in your house, which is what you require to have meaningful
congress with you.

Your humble finger-pointer and chider,...

-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

"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"

This suggests to me that the courts may choose to punish hate crime offenders more severely than is allowed in the legislation applicable. Sorry if I misunderstood.

My points about citizens' thoughts and hate crimes were based on this - if you set worse punishments for, say, racially-motivated murder than other murders, you are effectively punishing the racist extra for his ideas.

That is the idea though. These are minimum sentencing guidelines. If the nation chooses to make the punishment more harsh (within the human rights laws of course) then that is his wish. All this proposal is doing is setting down minimum guidlines so that crimes of this nature are not softly dealt with.

As for your second argument, we're not punishing him for his ideas, but for his acting on them. If you wanna be a racist, go right ahead. But you can't murder people, and if you do with a very abhorrent motive, you should be punished harsher.

Other nations have varying degrees of murder and many times, the punishment has to do with intent and motive.

But you can't murder people, and if you do with a very abhorrent motive, you should be punished harsher.

But don't you see - this means that you are punishing murderers more if their motive is racist, thus you are effectively punishing them extra for their racist beliefs.