NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote For The Defense Of Faiths Act!

Don't let people and countries get away with hate crimes!

Vote For The Defense Of Faiths Act!

Vote For The Defense Of Faiths Act!

Don't let people and countries get away with hate crimes!

Vote For The Defense Of Faiths Act!

YES...!!

I urge all UN members to VOTE YES on this important Act..!

Give up as much of your national and sovereign rights as possible, because the UN really needs to show itself more to the world as what it really is...

The Great Mega-Mommy-State, with designs on all your cultures to make them utterly bland and unreal.

VOTE YES TODAY..!


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

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

The King's Government of Denbighshire would be pleased to extend its support for the aforementioned Defence of Faiths Act just as soon as it is made aware of what said Act actually contains. Please submit a Draft Resolution for our review.

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,

NOTING that this resolution in no way is intended to punish people for their thoughts but for their deeds,

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. UN member nations will be urged to 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.

If anyone wishes to see what objections have already been raised against this text, look at the original thread for the proposal at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349413

If anyone wishes to see what objections have already been raised against this text, look at the original thread for the proposal at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349413

Even though I disagree greatly with Myopia on religious matters, I think he has a good point.

I believe the UN to be a form of federalism. I undertstand federalism to be the seperation of powers to their appropriate levels (national/provnce/local), that way you have powers correctly distributed to make representation and benefit from government the greatest.

i.e. you don't have a national governemnt making zoning regulations for you neighborhood, the national government is so far removed from your neighborhood, it only in a very small way represents it. Plus the national government would be eternally busy making zoning regulations for the many many regions of the nation that it would be impossible to operate.

I believe this also to be somewhat the case in judicial-executive relationships. I understand this is more a checks and balances issue (excuse my US-often-viewed-as-close-minded-set-of-examples, they are all that are readily available to me), but I think the federalism concept applies to it, too.

When there are trials involving hate crimes, the judge is going to be the person most able to represent the evidential specifics as well as the individuals involved. He has first hand experience, as opposed to the UN which is only involved in the trial in a hypothetical sense (the UN has hypothetically included what the sentencing should be, without knowing specific information). The UN shoukld allow as much power as possible to be in the hands of judges, or like local officials. This ensures the stringest shape of democracy.

I understand the principal of requiring harsher punishements to curb trends in crime and such, but I think these guidelines should be as general as possible, and I think we should, again, leave as much of the sentencing to the discretion of the judge as possible.

These are my thoughts. I don't really agree with the stance this proposal is taking.

Thank you for your time.

Additionally, the author has still not explained how punishing religiously motivated murder more harshly than murder with other motives does not equate to punishing the offender extra for his racist beliefs - since _Myopia_ does not believe in punishing citizens for their ideas, no matter how abhorrent, we cannot accept the notion that hate crimes should be punished differently to their non-hate equivalents.

On the contrary, I've explained it a few times already. Imagine the problem is it is an explanation that you refuse to acknowledge becuase it does not suit your ideals.

In the United States of America, crimes based on motives of the hatred of inheirent differences among people are judged more harshly than those that do not. And that nation is one of the freer nations in their world.

I will say this for the last time. This proposal seeks not to punish people for their thoughts, but for their ACTS.

Noone is saying you can't be ignorant, but you just can't use that as a motive to kill people. I imagine that the penalties for murder vary from nation to nation. This establishes a solid foundation on which people can step into their place of worship without fear of their steps inside being their last.

I will say this for the last time. This proposal seeks not to punish people for their thoughts, but for their ACTS.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's based on thought patterns at the time of the crime.2. Hate crimes committed with religious motiveHow can religious motive be anything other than intent to harm or commit a crime based on what you THINK? This cannot be dismissed on idealogical grounds. Half your proposal is about hate crimes, and that's motive and intent. That's thought.

Vote for it, don't vote for it. Do what you want. But don't try to convince us this is something other than Thought Police.

Show me where I'm punishing people for thinking and not murder, and I'll ceede this argument.

Say in country X, which does punish hate crimes more severely, the sentence for murder averages (this is merely an example) 30 years imprisonment, and the sentence for religiously-motivated murder is on average 40 years. Hate crime offenders are therefore serving an extra 10 years for what they thought of their victim - effectively, they receive a 30 year murder sentence plus a 10 year sentence for their thoughts.

As Frsbeeteris points out, the difference I make between a "normal" murderer and a hate-crime offender is his thought pattern, why he did what he did, his motivations. I believe this means that this person is receiving an increased sentence for what his thoughts are, in a way.