[GA - passed] Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act

Status
Not open for further replies.

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle_Embassy_Building_A5
Discord
red_canine
ga.jpg

Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: The Ice States, Co-authored by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic


Whereas forced blood sports are, by their nature, inherently cruel both towards both sapients and non-sapients taking part, and should thus only occur with the consent of participants; and

Whereas member nations should also prevent trade of blood sport participants to other nations, as such trade merely facilitates cruelty in other jurisdicitions which this body lacks the authority to directly prohibit blood sports in;

The World Assembly enacts as follows, subject to relevant past World Assembly law still in force.
  1. The following provisions must be applied in interpretation of this resolution.
    1. A "forced blood sport" is an event intended to entertain a person or group thereof where
      1. a participant intends or is likely to inflict death or severe injury on any sapient or non-sapient being (who, for the purposes of this resolution, shall also be considered a participant in the event); and

      2. any of the participants are not sapients who have provided consent to the event.

      Hunting for sapient consumption shall not be considered a forced blood sport for the purpose of this resolution.

    2. "Consent" refers to free and informed consent from a person, which that person may freely withdraw at any time. Consent shall be considered invalid should that person be mentally incompetent or of such age as to be unable to give informed consent.

  2. No forced blood sport may take place within World Assembly jurisdiction. Nor may any person be held in captivity without their consent for the purpose of any forced blood sport, regardless of when such captivity commenced.

  3. No person or non-sapient animal may be transported from, into, or within a member nation for the purpose of their participation in any forced blood sport. Nor may any entity under World Assembly jurisdiction sell or purchase a person or non-sapient animal for the purpose of that person or animal's participation in a forced blood sport. Both provisions of this Section may only be waived upon the positive consent of that person.

  4. No entity under World Assembly jurisdiction may arrange or solicit any transport violating Section 3. Nor may such an entity wilfully supply a person or non-sapient animal for the purpose of transport of the nature prohibited by Section 3.

  5. Any non-sapient animal held in captivity for the purpose of a blood sport must be:
    1. kept in conditions where their basic needs are fulfilled before any of Sections 5b-5d are triggered; and either

    2. released as soon as possible in a manner that allows for the animal to live in their natural environment independently and without harming it;

    3. released as soon as possible into an enclosed environment where the animal will be treated with the appropriate dignity, but only until invoking Section 5b becomes possible; or

    4. euthanised in a manner which causes minimal pain and suffering to the animal, but only as a last resort if following Sections 5b or 5c is impossible within the animal's lifetime.
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
131200
 
Last edited:
Overview
This resolution seeks to reinstate the protections of the now-repealed GA #683 "End Blood Sports", from which this resolution was redrafted. It begins by defining both "consent" and a "forced blood sport", with the latter defined as an event held for entertainment purposes where participants are harmed with any not being a consenting sapient; the definition thus includes all animal blood sports with the specified exception of hunting for food. The resolution then prohibits all forced blood sports, as well as forced trade or captivity for the purposes of the same. A procedure is then prescribed for treatment of animal blood sport participants, including that they be released into an appropriate environment if possible.

Recommendation
With the repeal of GA #683, we do not believe that this resolution is adequate enough to be worth enacting. The definition of a forced blood sport is unnecessarily narrow and results in various forms of blood sports being permitted, or their permissibility being left ambiguous: ostensibly consensual blood sports such as "Squid Game" are permitted, while the definition of when a blood sport is for "entertainment" or "hunting for sapient consumption" is left unclear. Overall, we find that this does not adequately address the flaws of GA #683, while introducing substantial policy flaws of its own.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the at-vote GA resolution, "Forced Blood Sport Eradiction Act".
 
Last edited:
Against. To quote IA's repeal of the last thing, "registering complaints for the record as to the largely unnecessary, duplicative, and dubious character of and surrounding recent legislation on this topic".

(IC) The bear opens its mouth and chomps on a salmon raw. What's the difference?

Image of bear eating salmon


Actually, again (and the same complaint applying from the last resolution), also Squid Game, since humans can be hunted if they voluntarily are induced to do so


Also, what if this whole thing is not to "entertain"? It's the same story all over again with "competitive" the last time around. "Non-competitive shooting practice not for entertainment" would not be covered. Military training, "character building exercises", "team building training" etc would be exempt.
 
Last edited:
Against.

If a crime victim is forced to choose between serving his death sentence and/or fighting to his death, does that count as "consensual"?
 
Last edited:
Against. To quote IA's repeal of the last thing, "registering complaints for the record as to the largely unnecessary, duplicative, and dubious character of and surrounding recent legislation on this topic".
What even is this "unnecessary, duplicative, and dubious character"? Why didn't you bring this up, you know, during drafting?

(IC) The bear opens its mouth and chomps on a salmon raw. What's the difference?

Image of bear eating salmon


Actually, again (and the same complaint applying from the last resolution), also Squid Game, since humans can be hunted if they voluntarily are induced to do so

This is not only RP wank, but has been addressed countless times already. This does not legalise consensual blood sports, it merely does not ban them. A member nation, or second World Assembly resolution, can easily do so. I really do not see the issue.

Also, what if this whole thing is not to "entertain"? It's the same story all over again with "competitive" the last time around. "Non-competitive shooting practice not for entertainment" would not be covered. Military training, "character building exercises", "team building training" etc would be exempt.
Likewise, why didn't you bring this up actually during drafting?
 
Last edited:
Against. Again, like the recent Cannibalism proposal, I prefer blood sports to be banned completely than to be partially protected by the veneer of "consent". Also, Fregerson pointed out a potential loophole that consent provided under coercion is not considered invalid.
 
Against. Again, like the recent Cannibalism proposal, I prefer blood sports to be banned completely than to be partially protected by the veneer of "consent". Also, Fregerson pointed out a potential loophole that consent provided under coercion is not considered invalid.
Once again, consensual blood sports are merely not banned, as opposed to being legalised or otherwise protected -- it is clearly outside of the scope of banning forced blood sports to also ban consensual ones. Regarding coercion, I addressed that on Discord, although I apologise for not having mentioned that here -- GA #9 clearly bans blood sports as punishment, which was largely my position regarding TCB's etc criticisms of Tinhampton's original resolution on the grounds that "competitive" excludes punishment. Even so, coerced consent does not seem to be particularly "free", which is a criterion for consent to be valid under the resolution.
 
Last edited:
Likewise, why didn't you bring this up actually during drafting?

I didn't realize you were going to immediately submit a replacement, to be honest, especially given we chat nearly daily on discord. I didn't even realize you submitted this until I saw it getting quorum raided and I had to shore up quorum.
 
Last edited:
Against, I feel the consent clause is unneeded as there are very few situations where I feel it would be acceptable for someone to consent to them being attacked.
 
Against, I feel the consent clause is unneeded as there are very few situations where I feel it would be acceptable for someone to consent to them being attacked.
I don't think this would declare it "acceptable", it merely would not ban it as it is outside of its scope. This does not declare, say, robbery acceptable just because it's not banned in the resolution itself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top