[GA - Passed] Cannibalism Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
magecastle_embassy_building_a5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Cannibalism Act
Category: Moral Decency | Strength Mild
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5, Co-authored by: States of Glory WA Office, Imperium Anglorum | Onsite Topic​

Believing the non-consensual consumption of a person's body to be a violation of their dignity; and
Seeking to thus restrict cannibalism to ensure a minimum standard of consensuality and transparency in the practice, whilst permitting member nations to still proscribe cannibalism wholesale within their jurisdiction;
The World Assembly enacts as follows.

  1. Definitions.The following provisions must be followed in interpretation of this resolution.
    1. "Person-sourced meat" refers to organs or tissues originating from a natural person or any meat derived therefrom, where produced, distributed, or otherwise used for the purpose of consumption as food.
      1. Personhood for the purpose of this definition shall be decided by the jurisdiction in which the meat is produced, subject to any exclusions or inclusions specified by section 1a.ii or other World Assembly law.

      2. In this resolution, "natural person" excludes supernatural entities or deities.

    2. "Cannibalism" refers to the act of knowingly and wilfully consuming person-sourced meat, regardless of whether the individual from whom the meat is sourced is alive at the time of consumption.

    3. "Entities" includes individuals.

  2. Production.Person-sourced meat may not be produced absent the affirmative and notarised written consent of every person from whom it was produced.
    1. Any act of homicide or bodily harm committed with the intent of producing person-sourced meat in a manner violating this section shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible as homicide or battery (or charges to the same end).

    2. Consent for production of such meat is not required only if (i) such meat is produced for immediate consumption as food where such consumption is absolutely necessary to prevent starvation of the consumer in a current or imminent emergency and (ii) no act of bodily harm or homicide was performed for the purpose of producing such meat.

  3. Consent. Individuals possess the right to withdraw section 2 consent, limit section 2 consent to specific organs or tissues, and determine whether such consent shall be limited to while they are alive or after their death. Consent is void if obtained by coercion, as a result of external material incentives, or without the consenter's full awareness of what they are consenting to.

  4. Distribution. No entity may provide person-sourced meat to another entity without having clearly informed the recipient of the nature of such meat as person-sourced. Any entity providing person-sourced meat to another entity must retain proof of section 2 consent, including the original written consent where possible, and provide it to competent authorities as well as the recipient of such meat on demand.

  5. Trade restrictions. Every member nation must prohibit all international trade and transshipment of person-sourced meat not compliant with this resolution, regardless of whether such meat is produced within World Assembly jurisdiction. A member nation shall be liable under this section if that nation chooses to allow violation of this section within its jurisdiction.

  6. Blocker.The World Assembly disclaims all authority to impose additional restrictions on cannibalism or person-sourced meat, excepting restrictions limited to the scope of
    1. informing individuals about the health and other risks of cannibalism;

    2. restricting the distribution of person-sourced meat likely to contain, or not tested for, or is not tested for, any contaminant, prion, or other substance which would pose a significant health risk to the intended or final consumer; or

    3. restricting consumption or distribution of person-sourced meats produced in a manner violating section 2.
  7. Contradiction. If a provision of this resolution contradicts some past World Assembly resolution still in force, that past resolution takes precedence.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
71500
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview
The resolution proposal at hand proposes to restrict cannibalism to ensure a minimum standard of consensuality and transparency in the practice, whilst permitting member nations to still proscribe cannibalism wholesale within their jurisdiction. Under this proposal, WA states, if they permit cannibalism, will require that anyone eaten give notarized consent first. The resolution has a blocker which prohibits the WA from taking further action on this matter.

Recommendation
There had been seven different versions of proposals to ban cannibalism throughout World Assembly member states in the last year. This one's main push back from the wider TNP community concerns health and safety issues, regarding such real life diseases such as Kuru, and variant-CJD (mad cow disease). We believe that the World Assembly should have the authority to prohibit cannibalism to mitigate the risks of disease outbreaks resulting from cannibalism.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, "Cannibalism Act".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For, due to hopefully obvious reasons. As the author I am happy to address any concerns regarding this resolution. As argued in the campaign,

The main effect of the resolution is to prohibit the harvesting of cannibal meats without individuals' consent. This is because such non-consensual harvesting very clearly harms individuals' right to bodily autonomy and general dignity; and thus ought to be outlawed. The resolution especially targets acts of homicide or bodily harm with the intent of such harvesting, which is required to be "prosecuted to the fullest extent possible as homicide or battery". The resolution also takes various steps to address the significant health risks posed by cannibalism; specifically, prohibiting international trade of cannibal meats, as well as the distribution of cannibal meats without the recipient being clearly informed of its origin (eg Soylent Green).​

Regarding the blocker, that exists to stop the countless proposals which have been drafted to ban cannibalism in every member nation. This is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact prohibiting consumption of cannibal meats on health grounds (the main argument cited so far) is simply penalising people for endangering themselves; and morality-based/religious arguments may not be applicable to every member nation.

To avoid any misinterpretations, I do want to clarify that this does not stop a member nation from banning cannibalism. The blocker applies only to the World Assembly, ie the World Assembly may not force the prohibition of cannibalism.
 
Last edited:
Against, as I am opposed to the consent clause and prefer to ban cannibalism outright, as had been debated ad nauseam on gameside and in the NSWA discord since at least March 2023 and several drafts have come and gone.

Some examples:

I focus on the health and disease aspects of necrophilia and cannibalism and the potential to spread such diseases, such as BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, i.e., mad cow disease) and vCJD. We live in a community and the risk of disease from eating whatever bizarre sapient species is simply too great to ignore. There are also moral and ethical considerations (as well as religious ones, for those that are religious).
 
Last edited:
Simone:
I focus on the health and disease aspects of necrophilia and cannibalism and the potential to spread such diseases, such as BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, i.e., mad cow disease) and vCJD. This topic has been debated ad nauseum since March. We live in a community and the risk of disease from eating whatever bizarre sapient species is simply too great to ignore.
Click to expand...
As already stated, I simply don't think that people should be penalised for endangering themselves. It's fairly difficult to spread diseases gained by cannibalism (not addressing necrophilia, as that is not covered by this resolution) by means other than cannibalism and possibly blood/organ/etc transfusion (the latter of which you can prevent by simply banning individuals who have eaten cannibal meat from donating blood/organs/etc; if people break the law by lying about that, then they will certainly break a law banning all cannibalism itself). If you want to ban distribution of person-sourced meats likely to have diseases, then go ahead, the blocker explicitly makes an exception for that.

Simone:
There are also moral and ethical considerations (as well as religious ones, for those that are religious).
Click to expand...
What such considerations are applicable to every member nation?
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
As already stated, I simply don't think that people should be penalised for endangering themselves. It's fairly difficult to spread diseases gained by cannibalism (not addressing necrophilia, as that is not covered by this resolution) by means other than cannibalism and possibly blood/organ/etc transfusion (the latter of which you can prevent by simply banning individuals who have eaten cannibal meat from donating blood/organs/etc; if people break the law by lying about that, then they will certainly break a law banning all cannibalism itself). If you want to ban distribution of person-sourced meats likely to have diseases, then go ahead, the blocker explicitly makes an exception for that.


What such considerations are applicable to every member nation?
Click to expand...

This discussion has gone on for about six months already and I really have nothing further to add. A lot of the arguments are principles based, such as whether we want to take the health risks of living with someone who eats "crunchy mom" for breakfast and potentially catching all kinds of weird and unusual diseases. My views are tainted by mad cow disease (being in Britain at that time) and the human equivalent, vCJD, so probably have a different interpretation to your views.
 
Last edited:
I just don’t understand why this particular topic is getting the advanced policy system treatment. I understand the GA can tackle whatever creative issues and topics it wants and that’s kind of the whole point, but is cannibalism really something that requires this level of nuance, and this level of effort to legislate? Help me understand why this has been of such interest to this extent.
 
Pallaith:
I just don’t understand why this particular topic is getting the advanced policy system treatment. I understand the GA can tackle whatever creative issues and topics it wants and that’s kind of the whole point, but is cannibalism really something that requires this level of nuance, and this level of effort to legislate? Help me understand why this has been of such interest to this extent.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have brought this topic up in such a resolution if there weren't, in the span of twelve months, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, but seven other attempts to address the topic. Only one of these is not a complete ban; and for the reasons already described above, I would very strongly oppose a complete ban which does not make an exception for consent. Having these restrictions is, I believe, a sufficient compromise to prevent an outright ban, while still restricting the practice to comply with common-sense standards for consent and health.
 
Last edited:
I'm fine with an outright ban myself. Complex resolutions on cannibalism, of all topics, are silly.
 
Magecastle:
I wouldn't have brought this topic up in such a resolution if there weren't, in the span of twelve months, not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, but seven other attempts to address the topic. Only one of these is not a complete ban; and for the reasons already described above, I would very strongly oppose a complete ban which does not make an exception for consent. Having these restrictions is, I believe, a sufficient compromise to prevent an outright ban, while still restricting the practice to comply with common-sense standards for consent and health.
Click to expand...
Yeah but why have there been so many attempts on this? Why do people keep fighting this fight? I don’t get it.
 
Pallaith:
Yeah but why have there been so many attempts on this? Why do people keep fighting this fight? I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think it's just that when one draft dies, someone else wants to pick up the topic. The alternative to not passing this is simply for the cannibalism proposals in the GA -- such as Simone's full ban regardless of consensuality -- to be continued to be pursued.
 
Against. I support a complete ban of cannibalism in all forms, not a partial legalization.
 
For, I think that cannibalism is permissible providing it conforms to the principles stated in this proposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top