NationStates Jolt Archive

A resolution supporting conscientious objection (provisional title)

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Charlotte Ryberg
The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that:
- Some member states mandate compulsory military service to:
a) Defend their state from enemy attack, or;
b) Teach basic and vital skills to the population in peacetime.
- Citizens may object to compulsory military service because of reasons deriving from principles and reasons of conscience, including profound convictions, arising from religious, moral, ethical, humanitarian or similar motives;
- Persons already performing military service may develop an objection for such reasons as well as traumatic experiences;

DEFINES a “conscientious objector” as a person who refuses to serve in the armed forces or bear arms on moral or religious grounds;

APPLAUDING member states that accept claims of conscientious objection to be valid without questioning;

BEARING in mind that the World Assembly seeks to secure the right to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

Hereby:

1. DECLARES that conscientious objection to military service is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

2. MANDATES that member states must:
a) Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is congruent with the beliefs of the objector, of a non-combatant and non-punitive nature, and;
b) ensure that persons affected by military service are informed of the right to conscientious objection and the procedures for obtaining such status.

3. MANDATES that member states must not:
a) Subject conscientious objectors to imprisonment and to repeated punishment for failure to perform military service, and;
b) Deny conscientious objectors or those who have not accepted military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states under national and international law.

4. FURTHER MANDATES that member states must either:
a) Accept claims of conscientious objection on face value, or alternatively;
b) Establish fair and impartial board(s) of enquiry to assess such claims.

5. URGES member states to grant asylum to conscientious objectors compelled to leave their country of origin for fear persecution owing to their refusal to perform military service where there is inadequate or no provision for conscientious objection to military service.


Open for debate.

On the recommendation of the Ambassador to the Quintessence of Dust, the planned blanket ban on conscription has been abandoned in favour of recognising the right to conscientious objection. Therefore the status of this thread shall be the recognition of conscientious objectors. Ms. Berlin wishes to say that she is in some way a conscientious objector to compulsory military service, even though the armed forces of the state of Charlotte Ryberg is entirely professional and voluntary.

The Dominion of New Leicestershire will vehemently oppose this. There are situations where conscription is appropriate and necessary to ensure the defence of the nation.

I'm afraid I will have no choice but to oppose any such proposal quite forcefully and campaign against it if necessary.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

NOTING that:
- In times of war, member states choose to force civilians to join the armed forces against their will in a practice known as “military conscription”,
Not just in times of war.

We have standing national service at all times. All young people are required to perform about nine months' service (including an option for military service) at the end of secondary education.
ARGUING that:
- There are cultures and beliefs that advocate against military service or any acts of slaughter, and;
'Acts of slaughter'? Wow, it's reassuring to see such objectivity. How is being trained to provide aid, prevent arms trafficking, and protect shipping 'slaughter'?

Furthermore, Quodite culture is intensely pacifistic. We have never fought an external war. Yet we have conscription. Hmmm.
- There are citizens in member states that believe that military conscription goes against their freedom of thought.
There are citizens in member states who believe fluoridation of water is a communist plot to sap their precious bodily fluids. What's your point?
CONVINCED that:
- Military conscription is a violation of the freedom of expression by those who oppose them, particularly conscience objectors and those following beliefs that advocate peace, and;
*Splash...waaaaagh!!*

Is that a baby I hear outside? Yes, it looks like it's been thrown out with the bathwater.

You have made a huge jump here. Just because a state practices conscription doesn't mean it doesn't allow for conscientious objection. If you want to protect the rights of conscientious objectors, fine, we're all for that. But you're banning conscription even where conscientious objection is permitted.
- Military conscription is a violation of the freedom of choice in employment and career.
Hard to argue with. But taxation is a violation of your freedom to spend your money how you will. National borders are violations of the freedom of movement. We live in a world where, in exchange for certain guarantees, we give up a bit of our freedom of choice to make a more livable community for everyone.
- Military conscription is an act of slavery, which is deeply opposed by the World Assembly.
This is sick, wrong, laughable, and pretty typical actually. The World Assembly has already declared conscription NOT TO BE an act of slavery. Fortunately, this bit renders your entire proposal illegal, in my opinion.

Phew!
- The quality of the armed forces of a member state may be compromised by poorly trained conscripts.
Good job we train our conscripts so well, then, isn't it.

I accept that in some cases conscripts are of a lower quality than volunteers. But is your concern really military readiness? Because if so, shouldn't you also be requiring that volunteers be properly trained, and subject to psychological assessment?
DEFINES “military conscription” (alternatively known as “the draft” or “compulsory service”) as involuntary labour demanded by a state, which is often forced upon its citizens.
Ok, first, this is way too broad a definition (the use of the word 'often' in a binding definition was kind of a clue). This would also ban prison labour or required community service.
MANDATES that:
- All armed forces in member states shall be made out of volunteers or professionals.
This is the crux of our argument. Quintessence of Dust is a very small nation, and our armed forces would be too small if only composed of volunteers. This is not to mention the redeeming social value of national service, which promotes equality, mutual understanding, and can teach valuable skills.

If this proposal were to come close to passage, we would be forced to immediately resign from this Assembly.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

We must agree with the honoured Ambassador for New Leicestershire, there are times when the security of a nation is in such jeopardy that it must perforce conscript part or all of its people.

We could not support a statute which outlawed this vital necessity.


Yours e.t.c. ,

From the opinions of fellow ambassadors I cannot see now that a blanket ban on conscription would be feasible, but what I am still worried about is the right to conscientious objection. Would it be better if I wrote a draft requiring all member states to recognise conscientious objection?

Would it be better if I wrote a draft requiring all member states to recognise conscientious objection?
Much.

I would urge you, though, not to get too heavy into detail to begin with. Write down clearly what the core idea of your proposal is and work from there.

conscientious objection

How about just let it be? People will revolt and protest if they object anyway...mabye I don't undertstand what you mean. At the moment I think such decisions such be left to the national level.

A resolution that supports conscientious objectors is essential to satisfy the World Assembly's aim of promoting human rights. Although the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg has an entirely professional and voluntary force (thereby supporting the freedom of choice), it believes that international recognition of conscientious objectors will increase faith in those who oppose war or refuse to kill.

I think an international WA project to create a large Kubrick-esque doomsday machine would satisfy those needs. Though highly unethically, and requring that the WA be timely and efficent with the machine's media coming-out. We'll have to piledge some backwater region and hire their children as slaves to mine the uranium. But its for peace, remember. DE-T-ER-ENCE *Raises hand accidently*

The Kubrick-esque doomsday machine has nothing to do with a resolution supporting conscientious objection, and slavery is already illegal. All ambassadors please be informed of the first "conscientious objection" draft on post #1.

Oh, by the way is "significant" stronger than "strong" or the other way round?

I think an international WA project to create a large Kubrick-esque doomsday machine would satisfy those needs. Though highly unethically, and requring that the WA be timely and efficent with the machine's media coming-out. We'll have to piledge some backwater region and hire their children as slaves to mine the uranium. But its for peace, remember. DE-T-ER-ENCE *Raises hand accidently*
Indeed. The Aundotutunagirian People would be very supportive of a project of this nature.

Oh, by the way is "significant" stronger than "strong" or the other way round?

They don't come stronger than strong.

Indeed. The Aundotutunagirian People would be very supportive of a project of this nature.

I was joking, but okay....

I was joking, but okay....
I wasn't.

Though highly unethically, and requring that the WA be timely and efficent with the machine's media coming-out.

Thats the REAL problem with it, if the construction and creation's press release was done as unproffesionally as the WAHQ (no offense, but do we even know if its built?), we would be really screwed. Not to mention, it would only take one wacko with a rod of uranium that he stole from a hospital, to stick it by one of a nation's geiger counters and tick us to the top of the doomsday clock.

We'll talk about this as global security in the Emigration Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=566460) proposal. The ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg do not have time for such a ridiculous machine in this thread.

In the form I can see at present it looks like a pretty good resolution.

A person who objects to compulsory military service shall be defined as a “conscientious objector”.
You've already observed that this is the wrong definition! What about the 'conscientious' bit of it?

APPLAUDING member states that accept claims of conscientious objection to be valid without questioning;
...while THINKING they're a bit gullible, but hey, if they're going to play with compulsory drafts...

2. MANDATES that member states will:
a) Provide for conscientious objectors either:
[snip]
- A full and dignified discharge from military service.
Excuse me, but what was a conscientious objector doing in military service in the first place?

Someone might become a conscientious objector during military service after a traumatic experience.

b) Establish an independent and impartial decision-making body, charged with the task of determining whether a conscientious objection is genuinely held in a specific case, taking account of the requirement not to discriminate between conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs: no claim of conscientious objection may be rejected without a satisfactory reason.

I have a slight problem with this; it can see certain reasons for reasonable discrimination between the various beliefs of conscientious objectors.

For example, someone who is a conscientious objector due to their belief in not killing people being placed in the Army's Medical Corps as an Stretcher Bearer, hospital orderly, or some such would seem reasonable, whereas for someone who's belief preclude his placement in any part of the armed forces or taking any part in a war would mean this would not be possible, and it would be perhaps best to put in him into either a completely civilian force (police, fire brigade, argiculture or just let him do whatever he does for a living)

I don't really understand the point of banning discrimination. Surely conscientious objectors are seeking discrimination? They're asking to be treated differently to everyone else n the basis of their beliefs. Banning discrimination would present the following scenario:

"I'd like to be excused from military service because I am a Quaker."

"Sorry, doing so would be discriminating against Quakers."

When I suggested you begin with the core of the idea and don't get too into details to begin with, there was a reason for that.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

You've already observed that this is the wrong definition! What about the 'conscientious' bit of it?
I've probrably messed up the definition a bit whilst trying to find better words. I've simplified the definition of a conscientious objector to "a person who refuses to serve in the armed forces or bear arms on moral or religious grounds".
...while THINKING they're a bit gullible, but hey, if they're going to play with compulsory drafts...
It's better than landing facing a lawsuit...

Excuse me, but what was a conscientious objector doing in military service in the first place?
I removed it totally, leaving the alternative service bit on its own.
Someone might become a conscientious objector during military service after a traumatic experience.
Revised the second part of the first preamble to "Persons already performing military service may develop an objection for such reasons as well as traumatic experiences": it is worth noting that they could also develop objections if they were inspired by pacifist cultures.

I have a slight problem with this; it can see certain reasons for reasonable discrimination between the various beliefs of conscientious objectors.

For example, someone who is a conscientious objector due to their belief in not killing people being placed in the Army's Medical Corps as an Stretcher Bearer, hospital orderly, or some such would seem reasonable, whereas for someone who's belief preclude his placement in any part of the armed forces or taking any part in a war would mean this would not be possible, and it would be perhaps best to put in him into either a completely civilian force (police, fire brigade, argiculture or just let him do whatever he does for a living)

I think that "non-combatant or civilian" should become "non-combatant and civilian" in 2a) so all conscientious objectors get alternative service away from the battle fields. Perhaps it would be of less risk to the conscientious objectors' lives.

I don't really understand the point of banning discrimination. Surely conscientious objectors are seeking discrimination? They're asking to be treated differently to everyone else n the basis of their beliefs. Banning discrimination would present the following scenario:

"I'd like to be excused from military service because I am a Quaker."

"Sorry, doing so would be discriminating against Quakers."

When I suggested you begin with the core of the idea and don't get too into details to begin with, there was a reason for that.

They do not seek discrimination, but maybe you are taking it a bit too tightly. However I can see the reminder of the requirement not to discriminate between conscientious objectors is a bit too tight so I think perhaps "the requirement not to discriminate against conscientious objectors" is simpler.

Accepting a claim of conscientious objection at face value, and then excusing a conscientious objector from compulsory service entirely to let them get on with their normal lives would be acceptable, so I have split that from 4 into a new section 5. The old section 5 becomes 6.

At section 3a I have added the world "alternative" before service because this resolution mandates that nations give conscientious objectors alternative service anyway.

Perhaps it would be of less risk to the conscientious objectors' lives.

What relevence is that? Conscientious Objection is about the objection to fighting and the waging of war, not objection to dying and getting hurt- that would usually just be considered cowardice, and I'm not sure you want this be a resolution about protecting the rights of cowards. I feel that the sentence should be expunged altogether, as I cannot see any real need for it, other than to confuse the issue. I cannot see any reason why a conscientious objector who only has a problem with fighting shouldn't be called upon to act in a non combatant, but still military capacity (OoC: indeed, in WWI, many conscientious objectors actually desired this, as they had no objection to the war, but there religion and beliefs prevented them from taking up arms. It further removed the social stigma of conscientious objection, which one cannot feasibly legislate against)

Ms. Berlin suggests that the use of the words "non-combatant" and "non-punitive" only, would be much simpler. She does not purposely intend to protect rights of cowards.

That is better, and acceptable for us, although I must admit in my previous statement I confused myself somewhat: the sentence I was referring to for expunsion was this one:

taking account of the requirement not to discriminate against conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs;

which may be better phrased in a more positive form, such as

"Such a panel may assign a conscientious objector to alternative service, and if so such must be in accordance with the conscientious objectors particular moral stance"

or some such

"If alternative service is to be required, it should be in a form that conforms to the belief of the conscientious objector on a case by case basis"
OOC: "I believe that, instead of serving this nation in its armed forces, I should be serving it as Prime Minister so that I could lead it in the paths of Peace..."

:D

Fair point, edited the suggestion :p

We think that is a good idea although individual is better than "case by case" as a member state may bring up a case with multiple individuals to their own advantage.

Although the esteemed ambassadors of Bears Armed posted before we updated, we wish to assure the ambassadors that their suggestion has been taken into consideration.

The honoured ambassadors of Bears Armed have presented a better case based on the conscientious objector's moral stance. I have updated the draft at post #1.

That works; although I'm not sure it needs the words "Alternative Wording" in it :P

That was a leftover from the last revision where I showed both possibilities. It's cleaned out, now.

I still don't understand 3 (a). Let's say, for example, we have a Quaker and a Catholic both being COs. The former will not serve in any military capacity, the latter is willing to bear stretchers but not arms. To recognise this is to '[d]iscriminate against conscientious objectors in relation to their terms of alternative service'.

Let's try this. Could you explain, in one or two sentences, in plain English NOT legalese, why you want a clause about discrimination in this proposal?

-- Samantha Benson

a) Discriminate against conscientious objectors in relation to their terms of alternative service, or any economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights, and;

It makes sense to me; you can't deny conscientious objectors there right to vote, visit the cinema or eat fish, etc. Although I'm unsure against the discrimination with regards alternative service terms. I think it means you can't have them choose between "2 years in the army, or 50 years shovelling salt" - however, I would have thought such an eventuality would be covered by clauses stating the non-punitive nature of alternative service

3a. MANDATES that member states will not discriminate against conscientious objectors in relation to their terms of alternative service, or any economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights.

My plan is to ensure that alternative service is as fair as regular military service. Additionally, it will be against the resolution for member states to deny conscientious objectors rights because they objected to military service, like standing for office and healthcare.

Just because a person is a conscientious objector is no excuse to strip them of rights.

Perhaps better wording might help?
3a. MANDATES that member states are not to deny conscientious objectors any economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights

and

a) Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, of a non-combatant and non-punitive nature, with terms of service not harsher then those of persons submitting to conscription

In fairness, the term "discrimination" is somewhat overused in WA legislation

The Cobdenian wording makes much more sense.

Perhaps better wording might help? 3a. MANDATES that member states are not to deny conscientious objectors any economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights
So we would have to allow those who refuse to help defend their homeland to have a say in its governance? Opposed.
(OOC: In point of fact, given that there is currently no WA resolution guaranteeing political rights -- or economic, social, cultural or civil ones -- in general, wouldn't this wording actually give conscientious objectors more rights than those people who agreed to serve? And wouldn't any guarantee of 'political rights' that didn't recognise nations' rights to set general limits on these actually be illegal as an ideological ban on dictatorship?)

3a. MANDATES that member states are not to deny conscientious objectors any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights granted to those who have submitted to conscription and guaranteed under national and international law
perhaps?

I was thinking about that while editing. Here's how I changed 3a: Split it into two, that is.

3a. MANDATES that member states will not make the terms of alternative service any harsher than military service

3b. MANDATES that member states will not deny conscientious objectors any economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights of those who performed military service.

3a. MANDATES that member states are not to deny conscientious objectors any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights granted to those who have submitted to conscription and guaranteed under national and international law perhaps?
Well, I still think that nations should be able to make the possession of political rights dependent upon a demonstrated willingness to help defend those nations, but that change in wording would be enough to satisfy my other points of disagreement.

I was thinking about that while editing. Here's how I changed 3a: Split it into two, that is.3a. MANDATES that member states will not make the terms of alternative service any harsher than military service

3b. MANDATES that member states will not deny conscientious objectors any economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights of those who performed military service.
With regards to your new '3b', please see my latest reply to the Cobdenians.
With regard to your new '3a', nations at war may have to resort to rationing food and it might make sense to give the armed forces larger rations than those non-combatants who aren't in physically demanding jobs... As you see this clause's meaning, would those nations have to give conscientious objectors 'military'-level rations even if their 'alternative service' meant that they were in relatively easy jobs?

I wouldn't have thought that would really be considered a term of service

MANDATES that member states will not make the terms of alternative service any harsher than military service
'harsher'? Isn't the whole point of conscientious objection that it's a moral objection? In which case, why would harshness matter?

In my opinion, working as a hospital orderly is 'harsher' than working at a missile defence station. One is up to their elbows in gore, one sits behind a computer bank. Yet I can understand someone conscientiously objecting to the latter.

Once again, the fact you have absolutely no idea what you actually want this proposal to accomplish is hindering its execution.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I've changed it back. I am trying to write it in my own words but I might have gone off a bit.

It should now read:

3b. MANDATES that member states will not deny conscientious objectors any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are:
- Accorded to those who have accepted military service, and;
- Guaranteed under national and international law.

and

2. MANDATES that member states will provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection of a non-combatant and non-punitive nature with terms of service not harsher than those of persons submitting to conscription.

You've just put the word 'harsher' back in while still not justifying it. It's a moral objection: why does harshness matter?

I will ask, again, what you want from this proposal. Is it just to have the words 'conscientious objection' and 'Charlotte Ryberg' in reasonably close proximity in the WA law books? Because if so we should all go home and let you play in the sandpit. If you actually want to accomplish some legislative aim, you need to state what that is.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

2. MANDATES that member states will provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection of a non-combatant and non-punitive nature with terms of service not harsher than those of persons submitting to conscription.

What I want is that alternative service should be not of a punitive nature and not of a combatant nature, compatible with the reasons for objection. As for the length of service it should be in balance with the military option: an alternative service lasting for life as opposed to 12 months for military service would be silly. It would be okay to have something like 16 months for an alternative service compared to 12 months for military. And whilst the conscientious objector is serving alternative service he should not be subject to humiliation, torture and intimidation.

So it would be that member states must provide conscientious objectors "any form of alternative service of a non-combatant and non-punitive nature, compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, with the length of service not too long in contrast to normal military service".

What I want is that alternative service should be not of a punitive nature and not of a combatant nature, compatible with the reasons for objection. As for the length of service it should be in balance with the military option: an alternative service lasting for life as opposed to 12 months for military service would be silly. It would be okay to have something like 16 months for an alternative service compared to 12 months for military. And whilst the conscientious objector is serving alternative service he should not be subject to humiliation, torture and intimidation.

So it would be that member states must provide conscientious objectors "any form of alternative service of a non-combatant and non-punitive nature, compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, with the length of service not too long in contrast to normal military service".
This is getting ridiculous. You have not made one single reference to the word 'harsh' in your justification yet it remains in your proposal.

*sob sob*

WHY DO YOU INCLUDE THE WORD HARSHER IN YOUR PROPOSAL?

If you simply do not wish to answer, please state so.

-- Samantha Benson

This is getting ridiculous. You have not made one single reference to the word 'harsh' in your justification yet it remains in your proposal.

*sob sob*

WHY DO YOU INCLUDE THE WORD HARSHER IN YOUR PROPOSAL?

If you simply do not wish to answer, please state so.

-- Samantha Benson

I do wish to answer, but it was included by accident by thought that states would think they would the right to make living conditions of conscientious objectors so cruel that they would eventually have to submit to military service even if they think they should not.

That's what I mean but "harsh" but also in reference to the nature of punitive.

But if you want that word to go, please state so and I will simply get rid of it.

would "Equivalent" work?

Of course I'd like to see it removed.

-- Sam Benson

Perhaps, instead of "harsh"... What do you think, Honoured Ambassador Samathna?

How is such not covered by 3 (a)? Such service is a form of punishment.

-- Samantha Benson
Not an Ambassador

Alternative is not meant to be perceived as a punishment. It is clearly an alternative to compulsory military service. However I did add an extra preamble on why member states mandate compulsory military service.

I have decided to remove the whole offending phrase as it is so similar to the requirement not to be punitive. The rule involving the term of service is covered by non-punitive, and so are the living conditions. Additionally I am changing "will" in the mandates section to "must".

These two clauses seem contradictory to us, " 4. FURTHER MANDATES that member states must establish independent and impartial decision-making bodies with the task of determining whether a conscientious objection is genuinely held in a specific case. In the case of a panel assigning a conscientious objector to alternative service, it must be in accordance with the conscientious objector's particular moral stance.

5. ALLOWS member states to accept a claim of conscientious objection at face value, and excuse a conscientious objector from compulsory service entirely;" face value is face value we do not wish to establish a board which assesses the veracity of claims of conscientious objection if we are allowed to accept such claims at face value.



Yours e.t.c. ,

I might be thinking about creating two options for the state with compulsory military service. Either they accept it directly or have them assessed. But on balance I can see that section 5 is too direct, but should be seen as an option in the assessments as implemented section 4.

So Mongkha, would it be better if section 5 is removed?

Well because we love simplicity it would suit us to keep article 5 and to reduce the complexity of article 4.

Perhaps combining the two, to say, something like " States may accept such claims on face value or alternatively are encouraged to create fair and impartial boards of enquiry to assess claims of conscientious objection" Or words to this effect.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps:

4. Member states may:
a) Accept claims of conscientious objection on face value, or alternatively;
b) Establish fair and impartial board(s) of enquiry to assess such claims.


The board, if created, would have to abide by clause 2a anyway.

For the consideration of the honoured ambassador of Urgench:


4. FURTHER MANDATES that member states must either:
a) Accept claims of conscientious objection on face value, or alternatively;
b) Establish fair and impartial board(s) of enquiry to assess such claims. In the case of alternative service being assigned to a conscientious objector, it must be in accordance with the conscientious objector's particular moral stance.

Comments appreciated.

For the consideration of the honoured ambassador of Urgench:



Comments appreciated.



Perhaps instead of, "In the case of alternative service being assigned to a conscientious objector, it must be in accordance with the conscientious objector's particular moral stance "

the clause could read - " should alternative forms of service be assigned to a conscientious objector, this service must be congruent with the beliefs of the objector "


Yours e.t.c. ,

For the consideration of the honoured ambassador of Urgench:

4. FURTHER MANDATES that member states must either:
a) Accept claims of conscientious objection on face value, or alternatively;
b) Establish fair and impartial board(s) of enquiry to assess such claims. In the case of alternative service being assigned to a conscientious objector, it must be congruent with the beliefs of the objector.

Comments appreciated and happy new year.

For the consideration of the honoured ambassador of Urgench:



Comments appreciated and happy new year.


Please don't have the statute say "In the case of alternative service being assigned"

It is much better english and much clearer just to say " Should alternative forms of service be assigned to...."



Yours e.t.c. ,

Okay, and I have it updated for you.

4. FURTHER MANDATES that member states must either:
a) Accept claims of conscientious objection on face value, or alternatively;
b) Establish fair and impartial board(s) of enquiry to assess such claims. Should alternative service be assigned to a conscientious objector, it must be congruent with the beliefs of the objector.

Anything else to address?

Okay, and I have it updated for you.



Anything else to address?


Actually on closer reading, it does rather seem that article 2 clause a) makes that last sentence completely unnecessary doesn't it ? Perhaps just mention the Boards of inquiry and leave it at that ?

Yours,

Actually on closer reading, it does rather seem that article 2 clause a) makes that last sentence completely unnecessary doesn't it ? Perhaps just mention the Boards of inquiry and leave it at that ?

That is true! You stare at a document long enough and you start to miss simple things like that. But just to be clear: 4b second sentence is the one that is unnecessary because of 2a.

That is true! You stare at a document long enough and you start to miss simple things like that. But just to be clear: 4b second sentence is the one that is unnecessary because of 2a.


Yes honoured Ambassador that would be correct.


Yours,

I was think of an alternate wording which would go:

Should alternative service be assigned to a conscientious objector, it must be in compliance with the provisions of section 2, part a.

Alternatively I would simply delete it... perhaps much simpler then, right?

I was think of an alternate wording which would go:

Should alternative service be assigned to a conscientious objector, it must be in compliance with the provisions of section 2, part a.

Alternatively I would simply delete it... perhaps much simpler then, right?



Indeed much simpler respected Ambassador and therefore far more efficacious.


Yours,

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in strong objection to this proposal. The Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii holds military service to be a holy duty and an integral part of the religious education of our youth. Putting the WA stamp of approval on so-called "conscientious objection" is nothing more than promoting irreligion and anarchy. We cannot support, and indeed must actively oppose, such attempts to undermine our peoples' faith.

Okay, I've done away with the second sentence as suggested by the respected ambassadors to Urgench, but I think Congruent is quite a key word instead of compatible, so here my suggestion for a revision to 2a.

2. MANDATES that member states must:
a) Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is congruent with the beliefs of the objector, of a non-combatant and non-punitive nature, and...

I think the comments of the honoured ambassadors of The Eternal Kawaii contradict the principles the freedom of expression. Conscientious objection should be an extension of the WA's aims for freedom of expression and thought, and it is only to promote the freedom of thought, not anarchy. Religious freedom or conscientious objection or a combination of both does not necessarily equate to anarchy.

Yours etc,

I think the comments of the honoured ambassadors of The Eternal Kawaii contradict the aims of the WA.
OOC: What "aims of the WA"? Remember, this isn't the RL UN...

It was an error in my part, and I've corrected it.

I've edited the draft at post #1 again to take into account of congruency.

I think the comments of the honoured ambassadors of The Eternal Kawaii contradict the principles the freedom of expression. Conscientious objection should be an extension of the WA's aims for freedom of expression and thought, and it is only to promote the freedom of thought, not anarchy.

I must respectfully disagree, Ambassador, although I do not agree with the representative from Kawaii either. Freedom of expression covers the right to object to military service or any other kind of act by the government. It does not give individuals the right to refuse duties mandated by the government.

That is not to say that governments can definitely force individuals to do things that contradict their beliefs; but to group this under Freedom of Expression is erroneous and dangerous. Note that the WA resolution on the subject said nothing about freedom of expression extending to refusing to obey governmental rules.

The Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii holds military service to be a holy duty and an integral part of the religious education of our youth. Putting the WA stamp of approval on so-called "conscientious objection" is nothing more than promoting irreligion and anarchy. We cannot support, and indeed must actively oppose, such attempts to undermine our peoples' faith.

Honorable Ambassador from Kawaii,

If any nation can understand your position, it is ours. The citizens of Harmonious Treefolk also enter military service for a period of two years as a duty to our own deities and to our country, as well as being a method of instilling civic and spiritual values in our citizens. We consider military service to be holy indeed.

Our forces engage in many civic projects in addition to traditional military roles. Is it not possible to find some holy duties for citizens of your respected nation that do not involve carrying a gun or sword? We have managed it in our own nation, and have found the results to be quite satisfactory.

The truth of the matter is we have few who would object to carrying out holy duties, and I suspect that the same is true in your nation.

Freedom of expression is my eventual aim, but this resolution is just about the right to object military service. It does not say that civilians have the right to disobey: your government's decision will be final and the option for a board of enquiry is an option.

I think severe illness may be a possible reason for conscientious objection if you agree.

I think severe illness may be a possible reason for conscientious objection if you agree.Severe illness, whether it be physical or mental, is not applicable to conscientious objection, as defined in this proposal. Just a heads up, Ambassador.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I was about to point that out myself. Severe illness may very well disqualify one for military service, but it is not grounds for claiming conscientious objector status.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

The Holy Empire of New Illuve, while supportive and sympathetic to the aims of this Proposal, has strong issues with a number of points contained within. Namely:

DECLARES that conscientious objection to military service is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

A purusal of past World Assembly Resolutions fails to find any right to freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion. The effect of this Proposal would be to create in total four new rights to freedom, where only the freedom of conscientous objection is worked out in any detail, and the other three would only contain this one expression.

A Propsoal dealing with conscientous objection is not the appropriate place to create new rights to freedom for these very important subjects.

Deny conscientious objectors any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are:
- Accorded to those who have accepted military service

The Holy Empire of New Illuve objects to this Article on the grounds that it grants rights to conscientious objectors that may not be granted to those that do not perform military service for other reasons. Consider those nations that have requirements that include military service for various and sundry positions. This clause would mean that those that claim conscientious objection status would necessarily be eligable while those that, for whatever other reason chose not to enter military service (such as furthering education, being a parent, or a caretaker for an infirmed family member), would not be eligable.

She finds this unacceptable. A better wording would be "to those who have not accepted military service."

The Holy Empire has one final issue with this Proposal. That is there is a distinct difference between a conscientious objector who is drafted, or otherwise forced into service, and one that voluntarily joins the military and later develops moral or religious issues. There is most likely going to be some kind of labor contract involved in this case, and this Proposal seems to give the objector the right to break, amend, or modify that labor contract between him - or her-self and the employer, namely the military. That does not seem correct in the opinion of the Holy Empire. Especially as an employee in a non-military area does not enjoy the same right. Consider, for example, a civilian that suddenly find him- or her-self working on an assembly line that produces cluster bombs.

Okay, severe illness is out, I thought it would give them automatic exemption anyway although I do imagine the worst case scenario where a nation forces absolutely everyone to fight... that is outside the scope as we are concentrating on conscientious objection only.

In response to the comments of the Holy Empire of New Illuve:

A purusal of past World Assembly Resolutions fails to find any right to freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion. The effect of this Proposal would be to create in total four new rights to freedom, where only the freedom of conscientous objection is worked out in any detail, and the other three would only contain this one expression.

A Propsoal dealing with conscientous objection is not the appropriate place to create new rights to freedom for these very important subjects.

I could revise the sentence to read: "RESOLVED that all persons have the right to conscientiously object to military service".

The Holy Empire of New Illuve objects to this Article on the grounds that it grants rights to conscientious objectors that may not be granted to those that do not perform military service for other reasons. Consider those nations that have requirements that include military service for various and sundry positions. This clause would mean that those that claim conscientious objection status would necessarily be eligable while those that, for whatever other reason chose not to enter military service (such as furthering education, being a parent, or a caretaker for an infirmed family member), would not be eligable.

She finds this unacceptable. A better wording would be "to those who have not accepted military service."

What worries me is that your suggested wording may allow member states to restrict the said rights to those who served in the military, but I see your point: making me think about the fact that the rights of those who do not accept military service should be equal to the rights of conscientious objectors and equal to the rights of those who accepted military service.

I might try:

3. MANDATES that member states must not deny conscientious objectors or those who have not accepted military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are:
- Accorded to those who served in the military, and;
- Guaranteed under national and international law.

The Holy Empire has one final issue with this Proposal. That is there is a distinct difference between a conscientious objector who is drafted, or otherwise forced into service, and one that voluntarily joins the military and later develops moral or religious issues. There is most likely going to be some kind of labor contract involved in this case, and this Proposal seems to give the objector the right to break, amend, or modify that labor contract between him - or her-self and the employer, namely the military. That does not seem correct in the opinion of the Holy Empire. Especially as an employee in a non-military area does not enjoy the same right. Consider, for example, a civilian that suddenly find him- or her-self working on an assembly line that produces cluster bombs.

The military has to respect the wishes of any recruit, professional or volunteer. As this resolution mandates that conscientious objectors have the right to alternative service, the military has to respect that under section 2 (so civilian that suddenly find himself working on an assembly line that produces cluster bombs... and that the civilian is opposed to cluster bombs... is considered to be a breach of section 2 and must be reassigned). There is however an issue about fair employment in all sectors, which is to be discussed outside of this topic.

What worries me is that your suggested wording may allow member states to restrict the said rights to those who served in the military, but I see your point: making me think about the fact that the rights of those who do not accept military service should be equal to the rights of conscientious objectors and equal to the rights of those who accepted military service.

I might try:

3. MANDATES that member states must not deny conscientious objectors or those who have not accepted military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are:
- Accorded to those who served in the military, and;
- Guaranteed under national and international law.

<snip>

The military has to respect the wishes of any recruit, professional or volunteer. As this resolution mandates that conscientious objectors have the right to alternative service, the military has to respect that under section 2 (so civilian that suddenly find himself working on an assembly line that produces cluster bombs... and that the civilian is opposed to cluster bombs... is considered to be a breach of section 2 and must be reassigned). There is however an issue about fair employment in all sectors, which is to be discussed outside of this topic.

It is correct that this Proposal (with the above rewriten Article Three) would also, in effect, outlaw any qualifications for the enjoyment of economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights to be based upon military service? Perhaps it might be wise to better define what, in the context of this Proposal, you are considering a "right". Consider the case professional organizations that have social or cultural influence or political power, such as guilds. As your proposed Article Three stands, you would be outlawing, in effect, meritocracies based upon military service.

As to your second point, about the civilian building cluster bombs being reassigned, the Holy Empire fails to see where you find the conclusion you have made. A civilian is, by definition, not in military service and the first part of the definition of a conscientious objector does not apply. The second part of the definition of deals with "bearing" arms, and not making them. Strictly speaking, as long as the civilian does not carry said weapons, the civilian cannot be considered "bearing" arms although that would not fall under the usual understanding of "bearing". Manufacturing them - yes. Being a part of of the war process - yes. But then, the same can be said of the tax payer whose monies goes towards the military budget.

You are already proposing changing national laws with regards to labor and contract with this Proposal. Are you also intending to change the tax laws of the Member Nations as well?

She also fails to see why the military is required to respect the wishes of the recruit, while the recruit has no similar obligation to respect the wishes of the military, if employment was entered into voluntarily.

Do not misunderstand the position of the Holy Empire. She has provisions in place to provide for conscientous objectors and applauds what you are attempting to do. However, to assume that the use of said provisions will have, should have, or shall have no consequences of any kind for the person in question is not realistic. Citizenship carries with it a web of rights and duties, and they interact with each other. A right does not come without an associated responsibility, such as the right of free speach does not allow the one to scream "fire" in a crowded room with imputy.

Would dropping the phrase "Accorded to those who served in the military" in section 3 work better?

The revised version would then be:

3. MANDATES that member states must not deny conscientious objectors or those who have not accepted military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed under national and international law.

Let's get this bit out of the way before getting down to the contract bit.

The Holy Empire would like to ask the question "guaranteed to whom?" She assumes the intention is "the general populace" but seeks clarity. As the anti-discrimination Resolutions in international law are somewhat spotty at this point, by not specifying the group a loophole may be created.

Yes, the general populace. The rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states but the certain wording of people has been an issue during the drafting of an anti-discrimination Resolution by the honoured ambassadors to Urgench. In this case I think it will be "citizens".

Yes, the general populace. The rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states but the certain wording of people has been an issue during the drafting of an anti-discrimination Resolution by the honoured ambassadors to Urgench. In this case I think it will be "citizens".




In this case the honoured delegation is wise to use the term citizen since strictly speaking it would only be citizens who may face the prospect of conscription.



Yours sincerely,

Generally speaking, the honored Ambassador is correct. However, conscription need not be restricted to citizens of a nation. There is nothing inherent in conscription that would not preclude pressing any and all people under the power of a government into military service. In fact, "conscription" can also be extended to include material such as ships that may be in port, or planes on the tarmac.

However, such situations will probably be rare enough that they do not need to be considered, and "citizen" should be sufficient. Otherwise "citizens and residents" would cover a larger set of situations.

OOC: US law allows for drafting resident aliens as well as illegal aliens in time of war, even if bringing in those people would be low on the list of categories of people to call up. And I'm pretty sure it's been done in the past, as well.

Generally speaking, the honored Ambassador is correct. However, conscription need not be restricted to citizens of a nation. There is nothing inherent in conscription that would not preclude pressing any and all people under the power of a government into military service. In fact, "conscription" can also be extended to include material such as ships that may be in port, or planes on the tarmac.

However, such situations will probably be rare enough that they do not need to be considered, and "citizen" should be sufficient. Otherwise "citizens and residents" would cover a larger set of situations.

OOC: US law allows for drafting resident aliens as well as illegal aliens in time of war, even if bringing in those people would be low on the list of categories of people to call up. And I'm pretty sure it's been done in the past, as well.




The exegencies of war do sometimes force states to conscript non-citizens but the essence of conscription is a contracted obligation on the part of citizens of a state to defend its existence.

requisitioning of stuffs and things is not conscription in our view.


We would be highly supportive if this resolution put the essential relationship we outlined above on an legal footing.


Yours sincerely,

I have a feeling that simply "inhabitants of member states" would be of a better general term of relating to. The citizens of or refugees in a member state are automatically subjects of the WA and are therefore granted the rights.

b) ...Must not deny conscientious objectors or those who have not accepted military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states under national and international law.

But I think the phrase "those who have not accepted military service" is ambiguous: perhaps fellow ambassadors could agree on the alternative wording "those exempted from military service"?

But I think the phrase "those who have not accepted military service" is ambiguous: perhaps fellow ambassadors could agree on the alternative wording "those exempted from military service"?

That phrasing is a good deal more logical and a much better description. I concur.

IBut I think the phrase "those who have not accepted military service" is ambiguous: perhaps fellow ambassadors could agree on the alternative wording "those exempted from military service"?

If your intention is to deny protection to those not exempted from military service but who have nonetheless not performed it, then this is a splendid phrase. If not, then the original is much preferable.

Correction:

I made an unintentional mistake: I left out "...Must not deny".

I was meant to say:
3b) Member states must not deny conscientious objectors or those exempted from military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states under national and international law.

Obviously I would say that deliberate draft evasion would be a crime of some sort so any opinions on that and the correction?

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is troubled by the definition of conscientious objector in conjunction with Article 4b.

To be classified as a conscientious objector, all one needs to do is refuse to bear arms or serve in the military based upon moral or religious ground (interestingly, ethical grounds has been omitted). There is no qualification here on that claim; making it is, by definition in this Proposal, suffient to claim this status.

Although it Article 4b creates a method of assessing that claim, no ability to revoke the status of conscientious objector has been given, or to deny the application of this Proposal to the person should the assessment be negative. Should a person continue to refuse to serve in the military or bear arms, regardless of the assesment made, that person would enjoy the protections offerred conscientious objector in this Proposal.

You got a good point to make although I believe some nations will want to test the legitimacy of such claims to avoid draft evasion thought abuse of conscientious objection. However, eliminating this would be cost effective to nations and that conscientious objectors wouldn't have to be worried about the testing, but a bit drastic when it then forces all nations to accept claims at face value.

The ambassador to Charlotte Ryberg wishes to hear opinions by other ambassadors on the proposal to remove section 4b for the reason being: Reducing bureaucracy and red tape as well as putting less pressure on potential conscientious objectors by removing the worried about being tested for their beliefs

The Holy Empire would be vehemently opposed to such a move. Doing so would require nations to grant such status for such reasons as "My religion forbids me to join the military because the color of the uniform clashes with my eye color" or a plethora of similar reasons.

A better solution would be to define "conscientious objection" rather than "objector" and allow the process as described in Article 4b to assess the validity of the claim.

4b needs to stay

Our forces engage in many civic projects in addition to traditional military roles. Is it not possible to find some holy duties for citizens of your respected nation that do not involve carrying a gun or sword? We have managed it in our own nation, and have found the results to be quite satisfactory.

Holy service is expected of every believer-citizen of the Eternal Kawaii at some point in their lives. The nature of that service naturally varies from person to person depending on their abilities and inclinations. Women, for example, are exempt from military service as that is man's work, just as the nekomimi and the Happiness Police occupations are reserved for women.

We fully understand the individual need to perform the service he or she feels best able to do. We cannot accept, however, an able-bodied Kawaiian male refusing to serve in the Eternal Kawaii's military for no other reason than they feel their "conscience" trumps their obligation to the Cute One and to their brother and sister believers.

We do not pander to egoism in our nation. That road leads to weakness, degeneration, and eventual destruction.

My proposed revision to the definition:

DEFINES “conscientious objection” as objection to service in the armed forces or the bearing of arms, both on moral or religious grounds;

Comments welcome.

Holy service is expected of every believer-citizen of the Eternal Kawaii at some point in their lives. The nature of that service naturally varies from person to person depending on their abilities and inclinations. Women, for example, are exempt from military service as that is man's work, just as the nekomimi and the Happiness Police occupations are reserved for women.

We fully understand the individual need to perform the service he or she feels best able to do. We cannot accept, however, an able-bodied Kawaiian male refusing to serve in the Eternal Kawaii's military for no other reason than they feel their "conscience" trumps their obligation to the Cute One and to their brother and sister believers.

I look forward to honored Ambassador Berlin's response to your concerns.

On another note, you should probably address the anti-discrimination resolution being drafted by the honored Urgenchi delegation. It sounds like that resolution will effect your nation even more than this one.

Comments welcome.
I agree with the statement of the delegation from The Eternal Kawaii. A man has no right to refuse to bear arms and fulfill his obligation to defend his homeland and his people.

Holy service is expected of every believer-citizen of the Eternal Kawaii at some point in their lives. The nature of that service naturally varies from person to person depending on their abilities and inclinations. Women, for example, are exempt from military service as that is man's work, just as the nekomimi and the Happiness Police occupations are reserved for women.

We fully understand the individual need to perform the service he or she feels best able to do. We cannot accept, however, an able-bodied Kawaiian male refusing to serve in the Eternal Kawaii's military for no other reason than they feel their "conscience" trumps their obligation to the Cute One and to their brother and sister believers.

We do not pander to egoism in our nation. That road leads to weakness, degeneration, and eventual destruction.

I understand that you are desperate to defend your nation greatly but all inhabitants of the world are born with a brain, which gives them the ability to decide and think. If you had believers of a moral that goes against war and you made them fight it would make them furious and they may rebel against you. Trying to suppress them may attract international criticism or even sanctions by nations who believe in freedom. What is important is the protection of the right to refuse to fight, as part of the freedom of expression.

The similar applies to the respected ambassadors of Aundotutunagir on grounds of controlling a person with strings attached to them and making them do what you please, without thinking about their anger and emotions. This is called human rights abuses.

I hope that some compromise can be made here otherwise we are going in vicious a circle between freedom fighters and authoritarians.

If you had believers of a moral that goes against war and you made them fight it would make them furious and they may rebel against you.
But then they are no longer conscientious objectors, but traitors. If they are unwilling to bear arms in defense of their country due to "conscience" then they should also be unwilling to bear arms against it in rebellion.

I agree with the statement of the delegation from The Eternal Kawaii. A man has no right to refuse to bear arms and fulfill his obligation to defend his homeland and his people.


It is probably fair to point out that if a man has no right to refuse to take up arms in defense of his nation a woman should have no such right either.



Yours,

It is probably fair to point out that if a man has no right to refuse to take up arms in defense of his nation a woman should have no such right either.



Yours,
Yes. In times of national emergency, women should take time out from their birthing responsibilities and rise in defense of the nation alongside the men.

Yes. In times of national emergency, women should take time out from their birthing responsibilities and rise in defense of the nation alongside the men.



How bleak.

Naturally we would say that only a state which can truelly claim to deserve defending could ever ask its citizens to fight for its existence. A state which is odious and defiled with moral corruption should expect nothing but the contempt of its citizens and their "betrayal" would be an act of heroism.


Yours,

If you had believers of a moral that goes against war and you made them fight it would make them furious and they may rebel against you. Trying to suppress them may attract international criticism or even sanctions by nations who believe in freedom. What is important is the protection of the right to refuse to fight, as part of the freedom of expression.

If said rebel is prepared to take up arms to force his or her right to not take up arms, then that rebel has just shown that he or she is not true conscientous objector, and thus has no justification in the rebellion. That person would, indeed, be a traitor at worst, or a fraud and coward at best.

And is not the threat of sanctions and/or criticism a moot point? Those usually are applied to a nation at war by one or another nation, so another set probably won't make much difference. Indeed, one would imagine that the offending nation's belief that all should fight in the military is stronger than the effects of sanctions and/or scorn.

There are heroes in the military who defend your nation, and there are heroes that refuse to fight for the sake of peace in your nation too.

Okay, here is the current state of the draft:


The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that:
- Some member states mandate compulsory military service to:
a) Defend their state from enemy attack, or;
b) Teach basic and vital skills to the population in peacetime.
- Citizens may object to compulsory military service because of reasons deriving from principles and reasons of conscience, including profound convictions, arising from religious, moral, ethical, humanitarian or similar motives;
- Persons already performing military service may develop an objection for such reasons as well as traumatic experiences;

DEFINES “conscientious objection” as objection to compulsory military service, the bearing of arms or specific military operations, both on moral or religious grounds;

APPLAUDING member states that accept claims of conscientious objection to be valid without questioning;

BEARING in mind that the World Assembly seeks to secure the right to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

Hereby:

1. DECLARES that conscientious objection to military service is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

2. MANDATES that member states must:
a) Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is congruent with their beliefs, of a non-combatant and non-punitive nature, and;
b) ensure that persons affected by compulsory military service are informed of the right to conscientious objection and the procedures for obtaining such status.

3. MANDATES that member states must not:
a) Subject conscientious objectors to imprisonment or repeated punishment for failure to perform compulsory military service or participate in specific military operations, and;
b) Deny conscientious objectors or those exempted from military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states under national and international law.

4. FURTHER MANDATES that member states must either:
a) Accept claims of conscientious objection on face value, or alternatively;
b) Establish fair and impartial board(s) of enquiry to assess such claims.

5. URGES member states to grant asylum to conscientious objectors compelled to leave their country of origin for fear persecution owing to their refusal to perform military service or participate in specific military operations, where there is inadequate or no provision for conscientious objection to military service.

OOC, the Iraq example in 2003, where some soldiers refused to fight in the Iraq war was the inspiration for the inclusion of the phrase "specific military operations". And in my opinion there may be some that prefer Kosovo over Iraq: some may prefer domestic operations or some may have no morale left to continue.

I'm looking into the definition again, and I think there should be adjustments to it. perhaps consider:

DEFINES “conscientious objection” as objection (on moral or religious grounds) to: compulsory military service, the bearing of arms or specific military operations.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve continues to protest most strongly against the creation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in the same Proposal that creates a right to claim conscientous objection. Such a step is neither necessary, nor warrented. The creation of any of these rights should be a topic of full debate in and of itself and not, almost sneakingly, created as an addition to something that can be considered unrelated to and independant of those rights.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve continues to protest most strongly against the creation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in the same Proposal that creates a right to claim conscientous objection. Such a step is neither necessary, nor warrented. The creation of any of these rights should be a topic of full debate in and of itself and not, almost sneakingly, created as an addition to something that can be considered unrelated to and independant of those rights.

While the wording of the proposal seems to suggest that those new rights are being created (though, freedom of religion already exists), the broadness of those rights is zero. In the clause that actually creates those three rights, only one type of exercise is defined. So, the proposal doesn't actually create these rights, more so it defines one way in which these rights may be practiced.

It could prove troublesome, however, if somebody wishes to legislate on the freedom of thought and conscience.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

3. MANDATES that member states must not:
a) Subject conscientious objectors to imprisonment and to repeated punishment for failure to perform compulsory military service or participate in specific military operations, and;
Did Ambassador Berlin mean to write "or" in place of the indicated "and", or is it her intention that member states may imprison conscientious objectors as long as they don't do so repeatedly?

While the wording of the proposal seems to suggest that those new rights are being created (though, freedom of religion already exists), the broadness of those rights is zero. In the clause that actually creates those three rights, only one type of exercise is defined. So, the proposal doesn't actually create these rights, more so it defines one way in which these rights may be practiced.

It could prove troublesome, however, if somebody wishes to legislate on the freedom of thought and conscience.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Would the honored Dr. Castro please provide the Resolution that creates the freedom of religion? A review of passed resolutions only shows a freedom of assembly and a freedom of expression.

Dr. Castro may also wish to review what he said. In three sentences, it is stated that the rights are not created, that they are created, and once again that they aren't created. The Holy Empire is confused.

Did Ambassador Berlin mean to write "or" in place of the indicated "and", or is it her intention that member states may imprison conscientious objectors as long as they don't do so repeatedly?

I was meant to write "or", I was thinking that they should not do both, or one or the other but it seems that might fit better. Fixed and refitted.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve continues to protest most strongly against the creation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion in the same Proposal that creates a right to claim conscientous objection. Such a step is neither necessary, nor warrented. The creation of any of these rights should be a topic of full debate in and of itself and not, almost sneakingly, created as an addition to something that can be considered unrelated to and independant of those rights.

You might mean section one: may I suggest:

1. DECLARES that all inhabitants have the right to conscientiously object to compulsory military service, the bearing of arms or specific military operations;

While the wording of the proposal seems to suggest that those new rights are being created (though, freedom of religion already exists), the broadness of those rights is zero. In the clause that actually creates those three rights, only one type of exercise is defined. So, the proposal doesn't actually create these rights, more so it defines one way in which these rights may be practiced.

It could prove troublesome, however, if somebody wishes to legislate on the freedom of thought and conscience.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Would the honored Dr. Castro please provide the Resolution that creates the freedom of religion? A review of passed resolutions only shows a freedom of assembly and a freedom of expression.

Dr. Castro may also wish to review what he said. In three sentences, it is stated that the rights are not created, that they are created, and once again that they aren't created. The Holy Empire is confused.

Freedom of religion not in the books? That is is why I am thinking about revising section 1 to explicitly state the right to conscientious objection: and even if there was one it should give this further independence from past events.

Unfortunately the good but unwholesome senator from the Palentine must state his opposition to this proposal. This is an issue best considered by individual governments. They can more efficently decide what is needed for national defense, decide how such conscriptions will work, and define the definition of what constitutes a conscientious objector.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Unfortunately the good but unwholesome senator from the Palentine must state his opposition to this proposal. This is an issue best considered by individual governments. They can more efficently decide what is needed for national defense, decide how such conscriptions will work, and define the definition of what constitutes a conscientious objector.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I am sceptical of the comments of Sen. Horatio Sulla. This resolution is not written in a way that will ban conscription entirely, only to protect the freedom of the WA's citizens. There must be an international definition of a conscientious objector to prevent abuse of human rights.

If you like, I will draft a resolution guaranteeing the freedom of religion and the tolerance of religion. Back in the early days of the UN they seemed to have agreed on anything that was to promote freedom and peace just as long as it worked.

Would the honored Dr. Castro please provide the Resolution that creates the freedom of religion? A review of passed resolutions only shows a freedom of assembly and a freedom of expression.
I'm happy to be obliged to do so.

Found in Freedom of Expression (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14370311&postcount=32): "Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal".

Therefore, freedom of expression includes freedom of religion.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The Holy Empire must, once again, disagree with Dr. Castro. There is a difference between the freedom of expression and the freedom to exercise. This distinction is further quailified by the use of the word "views" in the Freedom of Expression Resolution cited.

As such, a person is guaranteed the ability to state "My religion does not allow me to bear arms" without fear of reprisal - but not to act out on that religious position.

If the position of Dr. Castro is, unfortunately, correct, then the Anti-Discrimination Porposal currently under discussion would be illegal as it would violate a racist's religous or ideological view to not employ those of a different race, for example. With no qualifications on "personal, moral, political, cultural, relgious and ideological" then any person would be allowed to do anything. If one's religion calls for the systematic extintion of a race, then the Freedom of Expression Resolution would guarantee the right, with no fear of reprisal, to commit genocide. If one's religion requires one to rape children, then the Freedom of Expression Resolution would thus guarentee that, for example, Dr. Castro could not prosecute those that take advantage of his children or indeed do anything at all about it.

And that would call into question the legality of the Freedom of Expression Resolution as previous resolutions have placed bans on certain things which would fall under the excersice of religion, such as being forced to marry same-sex couples if a person's job requires that.

The Holy Empire must, once again, disagree with Dr. Castro. There is a difference between the freedom of expression and the freedom to exercise. This distinction is further quailified by the use of the word "views" in the Freedom of Expression Resolution cited.

As such, a person is guaranteed the ability to state "My religion does not allow me to bear arms" without fear of reprisal - but not to act out on that religious position.
What an odd interpretation of Freedom of Expression. An interpretation that would be probably be illegal, too. Expression covers speech, written word, publication, and distribution. Speaking, writing about, publishing works about, and distributing information about my religion might just be practicing my religion. Of course, I might be horribly wrong, and the intent of Freedom of Expression might be to define the right, but not let anybody use it.

And that would call into question the legality of the Freedom of Expression Resolution as previous resolutions have placed bans on certain things which would fall under the excersice of religion, such as being forced to marry same-sex couples if a person's job requires that.
Freedom of Marriage Act doesn't force any religion to perform same-sex marriages, or any marriages that they disagree with, for that matter. If a person works at an institution that performs same-sex marriage, then nobody is forcing them to continue working there. The anti-discrimination legislation would force employers to not take religious views in to account, but not to structure their institution around those religious views.

Though, I digress. This is not a discussion about Freedom of Expression or the Freedom of Marriage Act, but a discussion of conscientious objection. Nor is it the place to discuss possible flaws with Ambassador Mongkha's anti-discrimination proposal.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The anti-discrimination legislation would force employers to not take religious views in to account, but not to structure their institution around those religious views.

Nor is it the place to discuss possible flaws with Ambassador Mongkha's anti-discrimination proposal.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes


And yet you have brought the subject up Dr Castro. What in your view is wrong with the anti-discimination statute we are working on ?

Perhaps if you are concerned about the work we are doing you should bring it up in the appropriate place instead of informally lobbying against it in other debates.


Yours e.t.c. ,

And yet you have brought the subject up Dr Castro. What in your view is wrong with the anti-discimination statute we are working on ?

Perhaps if you are concerned about the work we are doing you should bring it up in the appropriate instead of informally lobbying against it in other debates.Well, I did digress after I responded about it, Ambassador Mongkha.

I have not paid close attention to the drafting process of the anti-discrimination resolution you have been working on Ambassador Mongkha, so forgive me if what I say is out-of-date. It should be noted, however, that the one raising questions about the legality of the resolution is the Ambassador of New Illuve. I am merely responding with my view that the resolution probably isn't illegal.

I could have responded that Freedom of Expression doesn't allow expression that incites violence, which would have made moot the point about genocide. It could be argued that the expression of religious views through the refusal of employing members of a certain race may incite violence, which means that states could set limitations in this area. Those limitations could be set by your anti-discrimination resolution. In retrospect, I probably should have gone this route, rather than altering the example at hand.

What it boils down to is that Freedom of Expression protects religious views. But, the expression of these views is not permitted to incite violence against any individual, group, or organization; so, any religion that seeks to rape children, or exterminate a race, is not protected under Freedom of Expression: "Nonetheless convinced that free expression does not extend to such abuses as defamation, incitements to disorder, or academic fraud"; "... incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization". Therefore, since discrimination may incite violence against an individual, group, or organization, (which this delegation can attest is a likely event; the history of Eastern Rhodesian discrimination is a violent one) the state, as well as the World Assembly, has the ability to set reasonable restrictions to the freedom of expression, in this regard.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I could have responded that Freedom of Expression doesn't allow expression that incites violence, which would have made moot the point about genocide. It could be argued that the expression of religious views through the refusal of employing members of a certain race may incite violence, which means that states could set limitations in this area. Those limitations could be set by your anti-discrimination resolution. In retrospect, I probably should have gone this route, rather than altering the example at hand.

What it boils down to is that Freedom of Expression protects religious views. But, the expression of these views is not permitted to incite violence against any individual, group, or organization; so, any religion that seeks to rape children, or exterminate a race, is not protected under Freedom of Expression: "Nonetheless convinced that free expression does not extend to such abuses as defamation, incitements to disorder, or academic fraud"; "... incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization". Therefore, since discrimination may incite violence against an individual, group, or organization, (which this delegation can attest is a likely event; the history of Eastern Rhodesian discrimination is a violent one) the state, as well as the World Assembly, has the ability to set reasonable restrictions to the freedom of expression, in this regard.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes


Indeed your secondary conclusions are more accurate than those preceding them.


Yours,

I'm happy to be obliged to do so.

Found in Freedom of Expression (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14370311&postcount=32): "Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal".

Therefore, freedom of expression includes freedom of religion.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Absolutely: and the right of conscientious objection is combination of both and must be protected for the furtherment of political freedoms, yet the whole resolution does not ban mandatory drafting, as conscientious objection is only against actual military service. However there is an option for alternative wording to section 21, which is:

1. DECLARES that all inhabitants have the political right to conscientiously object to compulsory military service, the bearing of arms or specific military operations;
and in response to:
And yet you have brought the subject up Dr Castro. What in your view is wrong with the anti-discimination statute we are working on ?

Perhaps if you are concerned about the work we are doing you should bring it up in the appropriate place instead of informally lobbying against it in other debates.

Yours e.t.c. ,
I agree with the respected ambassador to Urgench as he knows what he is doing with his draft.

Where was I? Oh yes, compulsory military service, the bearing of arms or specific military operations is the focus on this draft, but (OOC) I think if an existing soldier prefers to operate in Kosovo instead of Iraq, maybe:
2. MANDATES that member states must:
a) Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is congruent with their beliefs and non-punitive, and;
b) ensure that persons affected by compulsory military service or call-up to specific military operations are informed of the right to conscientious objection and the procedures for obtaining such status.

I think the phrase "congruent with their beliefs" would include the right to refuse to fight if one thinks so so I think I'll make a merger. So that means:

The right to fight in Kosovo instead of Iraq (OOC) would be allowed;
The right to alternative non-combatant service would also be allowed;
The right to civil service would also be allowed.

The right to fight in Kosovo instead of Iraq (OOC) would be allowed;
The right to alternative non-combatant service would also be allowed;
The right to civil service would also be allowed.

Hm. Providing alternative conscription methods could certainly be a positive attribute of this legislation.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

The right to fight in Kosovo instead of Iraq (OOC) would be allowed

Now we are getting into very thorny territory. The right to refuse to bear weapons against other living beings is one thing; the right to join the armed forces but then dictate your arena of combat is quite another. Once an individual is actually a part of a military unit, how can he or she dictate terms of service? It is an unmanigable system--either the military would have to track soldiers who object before deciding which units would be sent where (a logististical nightmare), or soldiers would have to be placed in units based on their objections, thereby creating entire units that could only be sent to specific regions. Or, even more absurdly, commanding officers could ask their soldier's permission before engaging in combat.

No, it is our delegations feeling that military service can only be subdivided so far; and that joining the military is an all or nothing deal.

Now we are getting into very thorny territory. The right to refuse to bear weapons against other living beings is one thing; the right to join the armed forces but then dictate your arena of combat is quite another. Once an individual is actually a part of a military unit, how can he or she dictate terms of service? It is an unmanigable system--either the military would have to track soldiers who object before deciding which units would be sent where (a logististical nightmare), or soldiers would have to be placed in units based on their objections, thereby creating entire units that could only be sent to specific regions. Or, even more absurdly, commanding officers could ask their soldier's permission before engaging in combat.I believe the intention of the Charlotte Ryberg delegation is to allow people to choose their 'arena of combat', not based on any whim, but on the same factors that conscientious objection is based on. So, if a war was, or two wars were, being fought between one's nation and Thisreligionistan and Thatreligionistan, and I'm a member of Thisreligion, I could choose to fight in Thatreligionistan, so that I am not killing my brethren. Assuming, of course, that I do not conscientiously object outright. Other options would be civil service or non-combatant service (intelligence, humanitarian, etc).

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Yes, quite a few areas of leeway are being made in terms of alternatives. Every human will have different opinions but the three aspects I mentioned earlier is likely to be as far as I will will go, but oh boy, this is about freedom of choice. I'm sure the thorns can be cut down in one way or the other.

That said, make your choices now:

A: Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is congruent with their beliefs and non-punitive.

B: Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is congruent with their beliefs, non-combatant and non-punitive.

I believe the intention of the Charlotte Ryberg delegation is to allow people to choose their 'arena of combat', not based on any whim, but on the same factors that conscientious objection is based on. So, if a war was, or two wars were, being fought between one's nation and Thisreligionistan and Thatreligionistan, and I'm a member of Thisreligion, I could choose to fight in Thatreligionistan, so that I am not killing my brethren. Assuming, of course, that I do not conscientiously object outright. Other options would be civil service or non-combatant service (intelligence, humanitarian, etc).

All of which makes sense, honored Doctor. However, when new soldiers are being assigned to units or becoming a part of a new unit, the unit does not have an official destination. That is, units are formed as "the 11th Stanistan Infantry." The decision to send them to Thisreligionstan or Thatreligionstan comes later; and that neglects the fact that many conflicts will begin after a recruit has already joined. Simply put: when signing up for the military it should be made clear to the soldier that they can and will be sent wherever the military needs them; and if they feel they may be deployed somewhere they object too, they should try for conscientious objection.

Given the choice I would take option B:

B: Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is congruent with their beliefs, non-combatant and non-punitive.

Okay, that appears more appropriate for our case.


The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that:
- Some member states mandate compulsory military service to:
a) Defend their state from enemy attack, or;
b) Teach basic and vital skills to the population in peacetime.
- Citizens may object to compulsory military service because of reasons deriving from principles and reasons of conscience, including profound convictions, arising from religious, moral, ethical, humanitarian or similar motives;
- Persons already performing military service may develop an objection for such reasons as well as traumatic experiences;

DEFINES “conscientious objection” as objection to compulsory military service, the bearing of arms or specific military operations, both on moral or religious grounds;

APPLAUDING member states that accept claims of conscientious objection to be valid without questioning;

BEARING in mind that the World Assembly seeks to secure the right to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

Hereby:

1. DECLARES that conscientious objection to military service is a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

2. MANDATES that member states must:
a) Provide for conscientious objectors any form of alternative service which is non-combatant, non-punitive and congruent with their beliefs, and;
b) ensure that persons affected by compulsory military service are informed of the right to conscientious objection and the procedures for obtaining such status.

3. MANDATES that member states must not:
a) Subject conscientious objectors to imprisonment or repeated punishment for failure to perform compulsory military service or participate in specific military operations, and;
b) Deny conscientious objectors or those exempted from military service any of the economic, social, cultural, civil or political rights that are guaranteed to inhabitants of member states under national and international law.

4. FURTHER MANDATES that member states must either:
a) Accept claims of conscientious objection on face value, or alternatively;
b) Establish fair and impartial board(s) of enquiry to assess such claims.

5. URGES member states to grant asylum to conscientious objectors compelled to leave their country of origin for fear persecution owing to their refusal to perform military service or participate in specific military operations, where there is inadequate or no provision for conscientious objection to military service.

Please make your choice on whether to adopt the alternative wording in section 1 please:

1. DECLARES that all inhabitants have the right to conscientiously object to compulsory military service, the bearing of arms or specific military operations;

The government of Bears Armed, and the governments of several of the actual Confederated Clans, join the government of New Illuve in objecting to the idea that any people who refuse to help defend their homeland must be granted the same political rights as those who are willing to serve in that way: The rest of this proposal we could just about stomach, although we're not enirely convinced that this topic as a whole should be the subject of international regulation, but that point would make it unacceptable to us.

The government of Bears Armed, and the governments of several of the actual Confederated Clans, join the government of New Illuve in objecting to the idea that any people who refuse to help defend their homeland must be granted the same political rights as those who are willing to serve in that way: The rest of this proposal we could just about stomach, although we're not enirely convinced that this topic as a whole should be the subject of international regulation, but that point would make it unacceptable to us.



And why should they not honoured Ambassador ? Surely they have a right to object to a war, to the character or agenda of their government, or to the act of taking a life or being involved in actions which cause the taking of life without suffering a political penalty ?


Yours,

And why should they not honoured Ambassador ? Surely they have a right to object to a war, to the character or agenda of their government, or to the act of taking a life or being involved in actions which cause the taking of life without suffering a political penalty ?


Yours,

Conscription does not necessarily mean they are going off to fight. In Zarquon Froods, conscription is mandatory at age 14, a minimal service of one year is required to be carried out by all conscripts. These conscripts are used solely for defence, never against a foreign enemy. That job is reserved for those that have willingly chosen to re-enlist after their mandatory service is up, which quite a large percentage of them do.

The point here is when this issue is taken to the international level, we assume that all nations within the WA are using these consripts to carry out the will of evil despots who are hell bent on ruling the world, which is just not so even though there are nations that do this, not all nations have the same modus operandi. Which is precisely why something of this nature should not be mandated by an international convention.

Zarquon Froods will object to this document in any form.

Unfortunately restricting political rights to conscientious objectors is seen as punishing those who have the right to follow (any) religion or principle of their choice. It cannot be made possible.