[GA - defeated] - repeal Cannibalism Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Ursine thingy
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
Discord
simonenstnp
ga.jpg

Repeal "Cannibalism Act"
Category: Repeal | GA #691
Proposed by: Simone Republic | Onsite Topic
Replacement: < Don't eat your own species & no sex with a corpse >​

General Assembly Resolution #691 “Cannibalism Act” (Category: Moral Decency; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Noting that the target requires "affirmative and notarized written consent of every person from whom it was produced" when producing "person-sourced meat";

Noting that it is unclear if, under clause 2(a), for the "notarized written consent" required for consumption of person-sourced meat can be granted by legal parent(s) or legal guardian(s) (hereafter, "parents" for convenience) to eat the organs of their own (legal) children in certain very specific cases, such as (merely as an example) when the children suffer no pain in the process, the parent(s) are in a current or imminent emergency, in the interest of the survival of the parent(s) and without malicious intent;

Noting that the target also permits parents to eat their children for food if those children passed away due to other reasons (under clause 2 as long as no act of bodily harm or homicide is committed), again in "a current or imminent emergency";

Believing that permitting consent in the case of cannibalism is generally a bad idea in any event due to health and disease related concerns, and the blocker in the target resolution is inappropriate in the interest of protecting the wider communities from the actions of individuals in committing acts of cannibalism;

Hereby repeals "Cannibalism Act".
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
13300
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview
This resolution proposal seeks to repeal GA#691, "Cannibalism Act", citing that permitting consent in the case of cannibalism is generally a bad idea in any event due to health and disease related concerns, and the blocker in the target resolution from the WA taking further action is inappropriate in the interest of protecting the wider communities from the actions of individuals in committing acts of cannibalism.

Recommendation
The wider TNP community opposed the passing of the original resolution in the earlier vote, and the community has expressed a preference for its repeal and bid good riddance to this topic altogether.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly resolution at vote, Repeal "Cannibalism Act".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For.

This repeal's focus is on one matter specifically: due to a curious interaction between General Assembly resolutions 217, 222, and 299 and the target resolution, it is possible that parents can grant consent for themselves to eat their own kids' organs, in certain limited circumstances. (It is established that parents can eat their own kids' bodies if they're already dead under the target resolution) again in certain limited circumstances.

I am truly horrified by this. (Note that I am not blaming Red Canine for this horrors, Gensec's interpretation on Discord is different to what he had in mind originally apparently. There's a long discussion on NSWA discord for those interested.)
 
Last edited:
Against. While apparently legal, these claims are at best deceptive and at worst false. They seem to emote instead of presenting an actual policy argument. The resolution does not create any right for parents to consent to eat their children; the author has argued that other resolutions do, but then it is an issue which exists with those resolutions regardless of what the target does. Repealing the target does not solve the issues argued in the repeal. (NB: the target does not legalise any form of cannibalism, it merely prohibits a subset thereof; so member nation laws against parents consenting to cannibalism would remain regardless of the target).

I especially dislike the claim in the third "Noting" clause; it is technically true, but that is the result of a broad provision to avoid criminalising cannibalism in emergency scenarios where no homicide or bodily harm is involved, regardless of parental consent. Frankly it is nonsensical for, say, survivors of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 to be criminalised regardless of potential familial relation or lack thereof. This alleged issue has nothing to do with parental consent or lack thereof.

Even if you disagree with the target, please vote against this repeal so that its claims are not permanently enshrined into World Assembly law.
 
Last edited:
For. I’ll vote for anything that repeals GA#691 because the blocker provision is just stupid.
 
Magecastle:
Against. While apparently legal, these claims are at best deceptive and at worst false. They seem to emote instead of presenting an actual policy argument. The resolution does not create any right for parents to consent to eat their children; the author has argued that other resolutions do, but then it is an issue which exists with those resolutions regardless of what the target does. Unless those resolutions (as opposed to the target) are repealed, this issue will exist regardless of the target (NB: the target does not legalise any form of cannibalism, it merely prohibits a subset thereof;
Click to expand...

I agree, your resolution itself does not create any right for parents to consent to eat their children. I always said "due to a curious interaction between 217, 222, 299 and 691".

The argument (as you point out) is that because GAR#299 explicitly assigns legal competence to a parent or guardian for anyone under-age, and because #691 has anti-contradiction clause, it means that the parent can issue a notarized written consent to eat their own children pursuant to #691. It sounds perverse but to quote Wally and Sep:

discord.com

Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities

Discord is the easiest way to communicate over voice, video, and text. Chat, hang out, and stay close with your friends and communities.
discord.com discord.com
WA law establishes that guardians can consent on behalf of their wards. If the target's effects depend on the consent of a ward, then they in fact depend on the discretion of the guardian.
Click to expand...

Whether the WA wants to repeal #299 is a separate matter, but that's a preceding extant resolution so as it stands, this is the interpretation I have.

so member nation laws against parents consenting to cannibalism would remain regardless of the target).
Click to expand...

I don't expect Gensec to rule on this, but if you are relying on national laws to prevent this sort of this happening, I think 299 would probably be cited as overriding national laws as well.

R&R #222 to define child abuse to include eating your children under any circumstances would also probably work, as I pointed to Mage in DMs.

Magecastle:
I especially dislike the claim in the third "Noting" clause; it is technically true, but that is the result of a broad provision to avoid criminalising cannibalism in emergency scenarios where no homicide or bodily harm is involved, regardless of parental consent. Frankly it is nonsensical for, say, survivors of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 to be criminalised regardless of potential familial relation or lack thereof. This alleged issue has nothing to do with parental consent or lack thereof.

Even if you disagree with the target, please vote against this repeal so that its claims are not permanently enshrined into World Assembly law.
Click to expand...

I reverse it in my replacement in clause 2c to say that highly unusual mitigating circumstances (I did have Uruguayan 571 in mind as it has been mentioned before) is a valid absolute defence, but that reverses the logic from "not criminalising cannibalism under dire circumstances" to "making a valid defence argument and not able to convict if certain dire circumstances appear and you can convince a judge that this is the case". (Note that I always ignore the TCB argument about not having a judiciary).
 
Simone:
I agree, your resolution itself does not create any right for parents to consent to eat their children. I always said "due to a curious interaction between 217, 222, 299 and 691".

The argument (as you point out) is that because GAR#299 explicitly assigns legal competence to a parent or guardian for anyone under-age,
Click to expand...
Then it's not a relevant argument to repeal #691, period. It's potentially a compelling argument to repeal #299 etc, but not to repeal a resolution which, per your own admission, does not cause the issue you are using to argue to repeal it.

Simone:
and because #691 has anti-contradiction clause,
Click to expand...
Not including one would merely have meant that the proposal would have been challenged for contradiction. The issue would exist regardless.

Simone:
I don't expect Gensec to rule on this, but if you are relying on national laws to prevent this sort of this happening, I think 299 would probably be cited as overriding national laws as well.
Click to expand...
#691 does not legalise any form of cannibalism within a member nation, regardless of consent or lack thereof. It prohibits certain forms of cannibalism in member nations, but no member nation is obligated to lift even one law restricting cannibalism; this includes laws against parental consent to cannibalism. The target actively legalising cannibalism was wrong when Tinhampton claimed it in their countercampaign, and is still wrong. If your argument is that #299 etc themselves force every member nation to legalise cannibal meats produced with parents' consent, then that not only reinforces my point that it is not relevant to this target, but it potentially makes your own replacement illegal for contradiction. Now, I do not believe that #299 does this, but that is the only circumstance under which your assertion is correct based on any understanding of what the target does.
 
Last edited:
For the love of God after we repeal this, can we stop with the cannibalism resolutions? Please I’m begging you guys, this is way too much time wasted on something that didn’t need this kind of attention.

For
 
Pallaith:
For the love of God after we repeal this, can we stop with the cannibalism resolutions? Please I’m begging you guys, this is way too much time wasted on something that didn’t need this kind of attention.

For
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that the replacement linked in the OP will not be pursued if this repeal passes. :P
 
Magecastle:
I highly doubt that the replacement linked in the OP will not be pursued if this repeal passes. :P
Click to expand...
As I already replied in the Ministry discord, I don't strictly speaking have to submit that replacement. I have plenty of other proposals like light pollution, maritime laws, securities regulation and that Mariah Carey parody in the pipeline, for example.

I don't expect Gensec to rule on this, but if you are relying on national laws to prevent this sort of this happening, I think 299 would probably be cited as overriding national laws as well.
Click to expand...

I was talking about 299 overriding national age of consent laws when I said "this sort of thi[ng]", not national laws on cannibalism.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top