NationStates Jolt Archive

Within this act, we the members of the World Assembly seek to protect the sovereignty of all of its nations. We shall outline the civil rights that may be affected by WA proposals, as well as the policies that count as "international" for the purpose of WA governance.

---------------------------------------------------------

Section 1) Civil Rights and Sovereignty

Section 1a: General proclamation of Human Rights

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the World Assembly have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the World Assembly, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the World Assembly.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the World Assembly for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


Section 1b: Clarification of restrictions on WA power

a)Whereas all human being are regarded as having equal right to all freedoms set forth in the above proposal (see Article 2), the WA may not place any limits upon the power of a sovereign government to accept a certain religion, language, or culture as their own and to favor and support followers of said religion, speakers of said language, and members of said culture. While members of contrary practices are protected (see Articles 15, 18, 19, 20, 27), a sovereign government has the right to encourage and support whatever practices (within the bounds of this resolution) they wish, and the WA has no power to change this right. A sovereign government must, however, strive for total impartiality in court and martial law (see Articles 9-12).

b)A sovereign government also has the right to support and uphold any religious or ethical tradition and its laws, so long as they do not contradict the rights set out within this proposal. The WA cannot make laws infringing this right under any circumstances.*

c)The World Assembly may not pass and enact any resolutions limiting economy or monetary distribution, except in the case of violation of the stated rights throught government manipulation of the economy.

d)The World Assembly may not pass any universal laws regarding substances (drugs, alcohol, or meat) or regarding sexual practices (homosexual or heterosexual). These laws are left to the sovereign government of the state.

*Please note that the current resolution "Freedom of Marriage Act" is in essence a violation of this sovereign right, and is thus rendered null and void by the institution of this act.

Section 2) Conclusion

a) In conclusion, this act limits the power of the World Assembly to regulation of international relations and BASIC human rights. In the interest of protecting Sovereignty, we propose this amendment for the WA.

IMPRIMATVR: SILVANVS I

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's too long for a single proposal. Any ideas about splitting it up?

While I fully support this idea, the whole thing is pretty much illegal. You should probably go read the Proposal rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) before you try again.

Bob Flibble
WA Repsentative

You might start the word cull by removing every single superflous "whereas" , respected Ambassador.

We applaud you on your skills in drafting. Perhaps you could server the protection of sovereignty and the "Bill of Rights" section from each other. Otherwise both would fall foul of of the legal categories for submition.

Both would however be significantly too long and probably too polemical to first fit the word count and second meet requirements.

You should look through the passed resolutions thread to get a better idea of how your resolutions might finally end up looking.

We wish the best of luck with your endeavour.

yours e.t.c. ,

You might start the word cull by removing every single superflous "whereas" , respected Ambassador.

Eh, it's a drafting style popular with some. It makes it look like the statements in the preamble are actually related to each other, for instance.

Indeed most highly esteemed Ambassador, we have noticed it's popularity with some, in our opinion it makes these statements nonsensical since there is no need for them.

And why include them if there is a limited word count and operative phrases in good english would be infinetely preferable?

yours sincerely,

p.s. Oh how is the beer by the way? do let us know if you would prefer another kind, Muskovy has many varieties to choose from?

The beer is very fine, and I commend it heartily to anyone wondering whether to support anything from Urgench. Hint, hint. ;)

Dear proponent,

This proposal of yours is highly heterogeneous. The so-called section 1a is wonderfully written and imbibed with a spirit our delegation identifies with completely. In fact, we would dare say it is a re-enactment of the mythical document we have alluded to elsewhere, to justify that the right to marry was indeed a human right. We would advise you to change the phrase 'General Assembly' and use 'World Assembly' instead for that is the proper name of the body you will be submitting your proposal to.

Section 2 is of no legal consequence for it does nothing but merely re-state the purpose of the all enterprise and a lousy remedy for your lack of clarity on Section 1b.

Section 1b is clearly a piece of legislation of much poorer quality. It is nothing but a commentary on section 1a, sprinkled with attempts of emasculation of that earlier section, stripping it of the power to have any real impact on the lives of citizens. It also invokes matters that are not germane to the general discussion of human rights and national sovereignty like illicit substances, meat (?!) and sexual behavior. But the very fact that such opposite concerns as human rights and national sovereignty are put on a single proposal is, at best, odd.

It is, then, clear that this proposal has nothing to do with human rights, as its very title gives away. It has also little to do with national sovereignty. The whole enterprise was devised to prohibit this Assembly from ever again trying to enact resolutions that mentioned sexual behavior and its proximal aim was to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act, a goal which was very disingenuously exposed by the proponent himself. For the sake of economy, if that was all the honorable Ambassador wanted to do, then this proposal could have been much shorter.

Others have already pointed out that this is not the proper way to repeal a resolution, since a Repeal proposal has to be enacted for that purpose.

But, more interestingly, this proposal, despite its best attempts, does not contradict the Freedom of Marriage Act, although it would contradict other proposals we wish to bring forth.

The Freedom of Marriage Act is not about sexual behavior. In legal terms, it is a resolution about non-discrimination in celebrating civil contracts, so paragraph d) of section 1b is not controlling. Your excellency would probably argue that it would still violate paragraph b), and we would disagree for the following reasons:

Paragraph b) while recognizing the right of States to having an official religion and adopting canon law as the law of the land contains a safeguard,

so long as they do not contradict the rights set out within this proposal

And indeed the Freedom of Marriage Act is nothing but the legal development of article 7 of section 1a, which some scholars would sustain already protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Additionally, if the honorable Ambassador wishes to see this proposal ever reaching the status of resolution, it would be well-advised to refer to it internally as such.

But regardless of all these shortcomings we would not support a resolution that created additional legal barriers to what legislation the World Assembly can enact, especially when piggy-backed on such a noble text as your section 1a.

Good points, thank you. I notice only one of you realized section 1a was actually the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, kudos for that.

Mendosia: Do you not believe there should be limits on the power of the WA? Mine is a Catholic nation, and therefore we see it as a massive violation of human rights that the "Freedom of Marriage" resolution was passed.

I have struggled with how to include this repeal. Mr. Barry pointed out to me the illegality of this inclusion, yet it is true that this resolution would nullify the recent act. Though you have expressed doubt about this affirmation, you will notice that article 16, section 1a does not require recognition of same-sex marriages, though it is rather arbitrary in its outline. This is why I chose to clarify the issue within section 1b. As well, section 7 leaves it up to the sovereign nation to determine the definition of "discrimination." If the sovereign state views marriage as a union between one man and one woman, then it is not discrimination to enforce it.

Per your suggestion, I shall remove section 2.

Though you state that section 1b has no power to affect the rights of citizens, you forget the purpose of the resolution. The resolution is meant to limit the power of the WA. Section 1a is in itself a safeguard preventing abuse of sovereign power.

Let me explain the reason for this resolution:

NOVEM IERUSALEM IS FRUSTRATED with the all-consuming power of the WA. We are not prepared to accept such bills as the Freedom of Marriage Act, yet we have no choice. This in itself is a violation of human rights, this in itself is a violation of freedom of religion. Our citizens have chosen to follow Catholic teachings, and Catholic teachings do not condone same-sex marriage. We intend to set down a proper limit on the WA, to protect our sovereignty and to act in the interest of civil rights and political freedoms everywhere.

NOVEM IERUSALEM IS FRUSTRATED with the all-consuming power of the WA. We are not prepared to accept such bills as the Freedom of Marriage Act, yet we have no choice. This in itself is a violation of human rights, this in itself is a violation of freedom of religion. Our citizens have chosen to follow Catholic teachings, and Catholic teachings do not condone same-sex marriage. We intend to set down a proper limit on the WA, to protect our sovereignty and to act in the interest of civil rights and political freedoms everywhere.

Dear Ambassador,

In exactly what way was the freedom of religion of the majority of your population violated by the Freedom of Marriage Act? Are they now being forced to marry against their will with persons of the same sex? Are your churches being forced to change your liturgy in any way? Are they being forced to celebrate or even recognize same-sex couples?

If a government with a largely Catholic population, but a committed non-denominational government approved divorce laws allowing for married couples to dissolve their marriages, would it be infringing on people's freedom of religion? What if it let them marry again?

These question illustrate, Ambassador, how marriage is not a religious issue but rather an issue of civil law. The Catholic faith, in particular, has no such thing as marriage but rather the sacrament of matrimony which was belatedly introduced in the official list of sacraments almost a thousand years after the founding of the Church, if we recall correctly. Until then it was, as it should remain to be now, a largely secular affair.

In any event, if the intent of your excellency is to curtail the power and might of this noble Assembly then we advise your excellency to think of the general principles of national sovereignty that you feel ought to be protected against WA intervention. It is my opinion, however, that asking a legislative body to decree its own limits only to leave intact his power to repeal those limits is an exercise in futility. We believe that the wise members of the Assembly should be the sole judges, in a case by case manner, of whether this body ought to legislate on each matter presented before them.

Good points, thank you. I notice only one of you realized section 1a was actually the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, kudos for that.

((OOC: I didn't know what document it was, but I could tell it was a RL document, so you lost me around article 11. You'll have a harder time getting a proposal to quorum if it reads like a RL document - it's not illegal, but some ambassadors frown upon it. Just an FYI.))


I have struggled with how to include this repeal. Mr. Barry pointed out to me the illegality of this inclusion, yet it is true that this resolution would nullify the recent act.

You'd have to repeal the Freedom of Marriage Act first (in a separate resolution), then go ahead with this. That's the only legal way to do it.

Our citizens have chosen to follow Catholic teachings, and Catholic teachings do not condone same-sex marriage.

If indeed your citizens have freely made this choice (as opposed to the government making the choice for them), then presumably they would simply choose not to marry people of the same gender. Just because the government allows something to be done doesn't mean any citizen has to do it.

*sighs* And I would also fully support this.

I think section 1b are the real teeth to this proposal. It will limit at those points the power of the WA.

But I think the list in where the WA powers are binded (ea meat) is very arbitrary. So cannibalism (as eating meat) the WA should have no say on?

More important I think is that much approved and existing resolutions of the WA should be repealed first.

I do not think that will be done. I do not think the nations who entered in the WA are sovereign, because they said they would (and should, by entering the WA) follow all (although much resolutions can be really insane) existing approved resolutions.

I think limiting this power of the WA had to be done by resolution #1 (I opposed that, but for different reasons). It will be hard, if possible, to change it. I would not help changing that, because I will obey majority or I will leave WA. If future human rights resolutions will be limited by this proposal (as its intend is) I think I will leave (maybe you can be glad about that).

But I will give an advise against my own interest in this, because I value the will of others much.
I think if you would bring the different articles of sector 1b one by one, you will have bigger chances to success. It will be more work, but maybe less frustrating.

Regards
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

Good points, thank you. I notice only one of you realized section 1a was actually the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, kudos for that.

Mendosia: Do you not believe there should be limits on the power of the WA? Mine is a Catholic nation, and therefore we see it as a massive violation of human rights that the "Freedom of Marriage" resolution was passed.

I have struggled with how to include this repeal. Mr. Barry pointed out to me the illegality of this inclusion, yet it is true that this resolution would nullify the recent act. Though you have expressed doubt about this affirmation, you will notice that article 16, section 1a does not require recognition of same-sex marriages, though it is rather arbitrary in its outline. This is why I chose to clarify the issue within section 1b. As well, section 7 leaves it up to the sovereign nation to determine the definition of "discrimination." If the sovereign state views marriage as a union between one man and one woman, then it is not discrimination to enforce it.

Per your suggestion, I shall remove section 2.

Though you state that section 1b has no power to affect the rights of citizens, you forget the purpose of the resolution. The resolution is meant to limit the power of the WA. Section 1a is in itself a safeguard preventing abuse of sovereign power.

Let me explain the reason for this resolution:

NOVEM IERUSALEM IS FRUSTRATED with the all-consuming power of the WA. We are not prepared to accept such bills as the Freedom of Marriage Act, yet we have no choice. This in itself is a violation of human rights, this in itself is a violation of freedom of religion. Our citizens have chosen to follow Catholic teachings, and Catholic teachings do not condone same-sex marriage. We intend to set down a proper limit on the WA, to protect our sovereignty and to act in the interest of civil rights and political freedoms everywhere.

In our humble opinion respected Ambassador, Articles 7 and 8 of section 1a would undermine your nation's stated aim with this resolution. Unless your explanation of this resolution's definition of discrmination is true.

If the statute is internally insconsistent enough to apply its rights to all persons, or "everyone" as it describes them and then to specifically exclude one sub set of persons without totally redefining the actuall word "everyone" then it is redundant.

The application of what ever this resolution ended up becoming without the rectification of this fundamental flaw would cause legislative and judicial chaos within the nations of this organisations membership.

Everyone means everyone, regardless of this resolution's definition of discrimination. The consequences of this contradiction make this resolution unpassable in our opinion.

Of course remedies to this situation exist such as redifining for the purposes of this resolution the word "everyone" specifically, which we are sure would meet with endless causes of oposition. Or perhaps the honoured ambassador could decide to write what would ammount to three seperate resolutions, one dealing with the rights of individuals, another dealing with rights of nations in respect of their membership of the World Assembly and the rights of individuals and another defining Discrimination in terms which would allow the honoured Ambassador's nation and others to specifically discriminate against homosexuals. Of course to do this the honoured Ambassador would first have to write a repeal resolution to the freedom of marriage statute already passd by this organisation.

The infinite complexity of these tasks and the subtlety and subterfuge necessary to bring about their completion to the honoured Ambassador's satisfaction ( and that of the rest of the membership ) would prove prodigious.

As we had cause to say earlier in this debate ( since we anticipated this eventuality ) we wish the honoured Ambassador luck with their endeavour it will test them to the fullest extent we are sure.

yours e.t.c. ,

Not to mention the fact that many of these points are flawed. Given how this resolution is already illegal due to the possible contradiction with FoM, I can't be bothered to go in depth in every one of them. I will simply produce a list:

Article 5 - Already covered by Resolution 9 "Prevention of Torture"
Article 6 (among others) - What's the definition of "everyone?" Only humans? Or does it also include Sasquatchewain's national animal, the Yeti? Or is it only sentient beings?
Article 13(1) - Doesn't this maim anti-immigration laws? Does this remove the need for travel visas? What if Sasquatchewain is not interested in allowing the immigration of people from other states?
Article 13(2) - Dictatorships should reserve the right to expel any dissenters.
Article 14(1) - Right to see asylum? Fine. Right to enjoy it? No. The State has the right to allow others to enjoy asylum within it.
Article 16 - Already covered by Resolution 15 "Freedom of Marriage." This Article doesn't include sexual inclination, but what it does include is already protected by FoM.
Article 17(1) - Ideological ban on communist states, where private property is non-existent.
Article 18(1) - Possible ideological ban on theocracies. A theocratic government (and therefore, government) should have the right to reprimand individuals who do not believe in the State's religion (and, thus, government).
Article 19 - Forces freedom of expression and press, undesirable in police states.
Article 20 - Police states should reserve the right to forbid free assembly.
Article 21(1, 2) - What is the definition of "his country?" The country of citizenship? The country of residence? Because no Nation should be forced to allow a new-comer immigrant from achieving political office.
Article 21(3) - Ideological ban on monarchies.
Article 23(1) - Lack of definition of work-conditions. Perhaps a Nation regards any environment under 100 degrees Celsius to be a reasonable work environment. As well, the WA should not impose social security measures, such as unemployment assistance, upon its Member-States.
Article 23(2) - What about tips and commissions?
Article 23(3) - instates a minimum wage? Thus enforcing another social security measure.
Article 23(4) - capitalist Nations might prefer banning work unions, lest they weaken the ever-so-fragile economy
Article 24 - Lack of definition. A Nation might instate a 169 hour week as reasonable. And every employee is given one hour of vacation every 30 years. Periodical.
Article 25(1) - More social protections. As well, there is no definition of family: does a worker earn more money due to having more children? They are, after all, part of his family, which must be, according to this Article, protected. And what about grandparents? Uncles? Cousins thrice-removed?
Article 26(1) - Prohibits elementary and fundamental private schools? As well, a capitalist Nation might believe that private institutions are a better choice. As well, does this force universities to be Need-Blind, being forced to accept students regardless of their capacity to pay for the education?
Article 26(2) - Ideological ban on "Spartan" states, that define themselves in contrast to other nations.
Article 27(1) - "... as long as they can afford it."
Article 27(2) - Socialist Nations might prefer banning copyrights in order to lower production costs

And the Ambassador for Mendosia has done a good enough job arguing against Section 1b.

Good points, thank you. I notice only one of you realized section 1a was actually the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, kudos for that.

OOC (since in the world of NationStates we don't have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights): I recognised that it was something or things from RL by about halfway through the preamble. Judging from that:

a) it's quite likely to be done for plagiarism;
b) it's much too long;
c) it sprawls across multiple categories;
d) it contradicts existing WA legislation;
e) given the sprawl, it's a safe bet it also duplicates existing legislation;
f) it's much too long (I know, I said it once already, but it bears emphasis)
g) with all this before I've even started picking it apart, there are better uses of my time than reading on.

Seriously, your only reasonable option is to toss the whole thing and start again, one piece at a time.

Mendosia: Do you not believe there should be limits on the power of the WA? Mine is a Catholic nation, and therefore we see it as a massive violation of human rights that the "Freedom of Marriage" resolution was passed.
(Back IC)
Which is curious, since it's only a violation of your nation's rights to violate human rights.

Let me explain the reason for this resolution:

NOVEM IERUSALEM IS FRUSTRATED with the all-consuming power of the WA. We are not prepared to accept such bills as the Freedom of Marriage Act, yet we have no choice.
Untrue. You have the same choice that everyone has. If something is unacceptable to you, you can leave the WA. Gobbannium did exactly that, leaving me behind in this diplomatic mission, when we decided that Fair Criminal Trial created an unacceptable national security risk.

This in itself is a violation of human rights,
No it is not. Human rights belong to humans. And other sapients, but let's take that as read for the moment. Human rights do not belong to governments. Governments are the ones who infringe on their citizens' human rights when they fail in or ignore their duties of care. An act which removes or reduces the ability of a government to act in a prejudiced manner towards its citizens can't be anything but upholding human rights.

this in itself is a violation of freedom of religion.
And here we finally have it. "Our religion allows our government to display and act on this particular set of prejudices." Classic. Also, no it doesn't.

Our citizens have chosen to follow Catholic teachings, and Catholic teachings do not condone same-sex marriage.
And that's fine. Your citizens aren't being forced to marry someone of the same sex, and your church isn't being forced to condone it. If no one in Novem Ierusalem wants to marry someone of the same sex, nothing changes. If someone does want to marry someone of the same sex, however, their right to the same legal protections as everyone else is no longer infringed. Your church, and indeed you yourself, can disapprove and teach against it all you like. In my book you're wrong, but it's only my book, and you're allowed to be wrong anyway.

We intend to set down a proper limit on the WA, to protect our sovereignty and to act in the interest of civil rights and political freedoms everywhere.
I'm sorry, but so far you're only convincing me that you want to people in power from ever allowing their citizens freedom of choice. In my view, it is a right and proper duty to the WA to protect them against that.

Just to add the official imprint to this ...

I haven't read every line of every post, but the sum total expressed in prior criticism is correct. The proposal is entirely illegal in game terms. There might be a few lines here or there that could be connected to form a coherent proposal, but taken as a whole it violates virtually every line in the proposal rules.

This might fly in the real world where you don't have limitations from game code, but you cannot make that assumption here. The rules come first, your textual implementation are a distant second.

Frisbeeteria
Senior World Assembly Game Moderator.