[GA - PASSED] Ban on Forced Blood Sports

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cretox

Cretox

Somehow, Palpatine has returned
TNP Nation
Cretox State
Discord
Cretox#0125
ga.jpg

Ban on Forced Blood Sports
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Honeydewistania | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that sports such as bullfighting, cockfighting and dogfighting are popular amongst member nations;

Horrified that participants are often forced to compete in these sports, usually resulting in their death or serious injury;

Believing that, for the safety and protection of all sentient beings, legislation in the form of a General Assembly resolution is needed to prevent such cruel and barbaric practices;

Hereby:

1. Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:
  1. "blood sport" as an activity involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants for the entertainment of sapient individuals, excluding hunting or religious sacrifice,
  2. "animal" as a non-sapient being with a nervous system or equivalent system by which it is naturally able to experience pain;
2. Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving sapients in which one or more of the participants do not provide consent;

3. Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death;

4. Requires that formerly captive blood sport participants be treated in a humane and fair manner, according to the following rules:
  1. if an animal blood sport participant does not have a significant risk of harming itself of others, it must be given its freedom,
  2. if an animal blood sport participant poses a significant risk of harm to itself or others when released, the participant must be relocated to its natural habitat, unless said relocation poses a significant danger to the participant, any animals, or sapients in that habitat as a result of abnormal behaviour in comparison to that participant’s wild counterparts,
  3. if an animal blood sport participant cannot be relocated to its natural habitat due to the above, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released or relocated in accordance with clause 4(b), at which point it must be released or relocated in accordance with said clause, and
  4. all non-animal blood sport participants must be given their freedom, excepting lawful incarceration as a penalty for criminal conduct.
Click to expand...

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!
 
A revision of an earlier failed proposal, “Ban on Forced Blood Sports” attempts to achieve what its predecessor could not. The proposal sets out to prohibit animal blood sports that carry a significant risk of harm to any participant, and establishes a framework for the processing of newly-freed participants. The proposal also bans non-consensual sapient blood sports.

However, this is where the issues begin. The proposal’s second and third clauses are inherently contradictory, as a blood sport involving both animals and sapients would be prohibited even if it did not carry a significant risk of harm to any participant, since animals are fundamentally unable to provide informed consent. Additionally, the proposal mandates that blood sport participants be “given [their] freedom” or “relocated to [their] natural habitat,” without specifying how this release is to occur, or that it occurs humanely.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting Against the at-vote GA proposal, “Ban on Forced Blood Sports”.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can answer your questions if you like. I have made a lot of effort into ironing out a lot of issues (including the ones in the IFV). If you have concerns, let me know.
 
Abstain.

While I like the idea of this proposal, it has quite a few contradictions within itself and does not do a good job addressing the root problem.
 
Last edited:
Honeydewistan:
Do you both have reasons for your opposition?
Click to expand...
The use of sapient. Simply put, because you excluded it in animals, all animals that one could argue sapient are now not protected under the animal clauses. Also, the definition of animals relying on the ability to feel pain is extremely arbitrary, as some animals do not feel pain and can be argued to not be sapient, totally excluding them from the effects of this proposal.
 
TlomzKrano:
Also, the definition of animals relying on the ability to feel pain is extremely arbitrary, as some animals do not feel pain and can be argued to not be sapient, totally excluding them from the effects of this proposal.
Click to expand...
For the record - there is no conclusive evidence proving that there are any animals that do not feel pain.
 
TlomzKrano:
The use of sapient. Simply put, because you excluded it in animals, all animals that one could argue sapient are now not protected under the animal clauses. Also, the definition of animals relying on the ability to feel pain is extremely arbitrary, as some animals do not feel pain and can be argued to not be sapient, totally excluding them from the effects of this proposal.
Click to expand...
They are not protected under the animal clauses, that is true. However they are protected by clause 2 and the ultimate subclause in clause 4, which is adequate enough protection. Also, you can't feel pain without a nervous system. So living things without a nervous system and therefore brains like plants and bacteria are excluded.
 
Honeydewistan:
They are not protected under the animal clauses, that is true. However they are protected by clause 2 and the ultimate subclause in clause 4, which is adequate enough protection. Also, you can't feel pain without a nervous system. So living things without a nervous system and therefore brains like plants and bacteria are excluded.
Click to expand...
You're failing to distinguish between a creature possessing a brain and nervous system and those with no brain, in this statement, yet possess a nervous system, such as starfish, yet your definition of "animal" covers them fine.

For.
like this version much better than the last.

Edited.

Edit 2: y'all still have that unremovable [/ i] issue.
 
Last edited:
That's 7 against and 9 for. Still too close to call. We'll see where we're at in a few hours.
 
Last edited:
Against

Reasons :
1) The author really fails to clarify how consent is to be obtained from the animal in clause 2.
2) In clause 3, the definition of prohibition ensures that nearly every major blood sport will be banned. That makes clause 2 redundant.
3) Clause 1(b) inherently assumes that animals participating in blood sports feel pain despite the research in the field being contentious.
 
For. I see no reason not to vote yes to this bill. Even if you stated that your against it because it doesn't go far enough, it's the principle. Just because we don't have a general plan to release the animals, doesn't mean more legislation couldn't be passed later. The bill only states a couple sentences about what it will do. Every single bill is the same in the WA. You might as well vote against every bill because they are all broad statements..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top