[GA, in queue] - Repeal: “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”


White thingy
TNP Nation

Repeal: “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”
Category: Repeal | GA #693
Proposed by: Varanius, Co-authored by: A Bloodred Moon, Simone Republic | Onsite Topic
Replacement: < None >​

The World Assembly (WA),

Appreciative of the aim of GA#693 to eradicate forced blood sports, which many delegations consider to be a blight redolent of brutal gladiatorial combat and similarly repulsive, brutal spectacle;

Frustrated with the definition of “forced blood sport”, which is restricted only to activities “intended to entertain”, forcing WA delegations to discern the intent of participants without any meaningful impact on the activities associated with blood sports or the scope for injuries and death on the part of participants, sapient or otherwise;

Distressed that, for sapient individuals, both the protection against forced participation in such activities and the prohibition against the trafficking of individuals for such purposes are already largely covered by GA#23;

At the same time, acknowledging the inherent difficulty of regulating this issue in the presence of GA#267, which gives certain exemptions to certain circumstances such as threats to ecosystems from invasive non-sapient species, as well as catering to some WA members that may rely on hunting animals for food as their primary source of food;

Frustrated that the result is that the target resolution provides a blanket exemption for “hunting for sapient consumption shall not be considered a forced blood sport for the purpose of this resolution”, thus allowing some member states to bring themselves into compliance by holding a barbecue at the end of every hunting event, assuming the hunted species is edible, regardless of whether entertainment or competitive aspects are in place, and defeating much of the purpose of the target resolution in the first place;

Hereby Repeals GA#693 “Forced Blood Sport Eradication Act”.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in 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!

Last edited:
These arguments are quite poor and are mostly misleading or irrelevant; I suspect there are ulterior motives behind it. Against (non-WA).

The repeal seems to make four main arguments: that it is too difficult to determine when an activity is "intended to entertain", that parts of the resolution are covered by GA #23, that GA #267 makes the subject too difficult to legislate on, and it is too easy for some blood sports to adapt to avoid the ban. The first argument is a frivolous complaint; it is generally obvious that something like getting animals or people to fight in front of an audience is intended to entertain that audience. This brings us to the other three arguments.

The most obvious issue is that none of these arguments even attempts to argue that the target is harmful; merely that parts are unnecessary or too weak. The only provisions argued to be superfluous under #23 are the bans on forcing people to engage in blood sports, or trafficking them for this purpose. They are not. #23 only prohibits forced "work"; sending a convicted criminal to be killed by gladiators in an arena is not "work" in any meaningful sense. Even if we accept that forced blood sports are "work", #23 still has a number of exceptions, including for civilian prisoners; an additional resolution is needed to prohibit forced blood sports in these exceptions. Finally, this does not even engage with the primary effect of the target: prohibiting blood sports involving animals, such as cockfighting and fox tossing. These are not covered by #23 or any other resolution.

The remaining two arguments in the repeal focus on another very narrow aspect of the target: the ban on hunting for not food. The third argument is a blatant non sequitur; it argues about "catering to some WA members that may rely on hunting animals for food as their primary source of food", while the target does not even attempt to legislate on hunting for food. I am not sure what approach this clause favours, but if a lack of legislation on some subject somehow fails to cater to nations' sovereignty, one can easily write a new proposal which does so. The final argument misses the point of why this ban is in place: killing an animal where one is not even going to use the carcass for consumption as food is fundamentally immoral, as an unnecessary death which creates no benefit other than entertaining the person who does it. If someone derives their food from hunting, instead of agriculture, even if it's because they find hunting more "fun", that does not result in extra, unnecessary harm to animals.

Regardless, even if we assume that killing animals for no actual reason is okay, this is still a very minor part of what the target does. The vast majority of the target's hypothetical effect -- ie, the prohibition of literally any other blood sport -- is unaffected by this argument. It may call for more comprehensive legislation on what kind of hunting for food is or is not legal; this is what the R/R of #267 is intended to do. However, it does not call for eliminating a ban on a number of cruel practices just because one of those practices could potentially adapt to avoid the ban. In general, I think the less-than-desirable situation around the replacement is enough reason to oppose; resolutions on this topic have historically been very contested at vote, and it is quite likely that a replacement would fail. This is particularly the case now that any redraft would be automatically opposed by a number of regions on grounds of increasingly broad, largely retroactive sanctions.
Last edited:
Present, per discussion and argument between myself and those in support including the resolution's author, clarifying their points and resulting in me being incapable of continuing to defend my position.
Last edited: