[PASSED] Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Xecriussau]

"Ritual sacrifice is not a punitive state-mandated punishment for a crime. It is not an execution. Even by that interpretation, it would not be banned."

My friend, you read much to literally. First define state-mandated. It is not defined within the international law cited. So, here we have a people within a sovereign nation who have condemned one to die. Often, these forms of sacrifice are as a payment to the gods to bring some favor. In essence, it is a payment for the group's sins. Said in another fashion: it is paying for all the group's crimes. As such it is the "sponsored and orchestrated death of an individual as their punishment for committing a crime". Show me one person who has not committed a sin (which is the equivalent of a crime in many primitive cultures). One could then argue that putting a person to death in this fashion is clearly an execution. However, it would run afoul of provision 4 where there is no trial let alone a separate sentencing portion of the trial.

As you can see, it is not very difficult to argue ritual murder or sacrifice is against international law as it currently stands. I'm afraid this does put some pretty damaging holes in your current theory...

[Excidium Planetis]

"Ritual sacrifice is not a punitive state-mandated punishment for a crime. It is not an execution. Even by that interpretation, it would not be banned."

My friend, you read much to literally. First define state-mandated. It is not defined within the international law cited. So, here we have a people within a sovereign nation who have condemned one to die. Often, these forms of sacrifice are as a payment to the gods to bring some favor. In essence, it is a payment for the group's sins. Said in another fashion: it is paying for all the group's crimes. As such it is the "sponsored and orchestrated death of an individual as their punishment for committing a crime". Show me one person who has not committed a sin (which is the equivalent of a crime in many primitive cultures). One could then argue that putting a person to death in this fashion is clearly an execution. However, it would run afoul of provision 4 where there is no trial let alone a separate sentencing portion of the trial.

As you can see, it is not very difficult to argue ritual murder or sacrifice is against international law as it currently stands. I'm afraid this does put some pretty damaging holes in your current theory...

First, not all ritual sacrifice is an atonement for sins. So at best, your logic only bans some ritual murders, not all.
Second, who is to say there is no trial? Ritual sacrifice can very well have a trial. If, as you say, everyone has sin, then this can be easily proven in a trial, and the person can be killed in a ritual murder normally illegal by a nation's laws but now legal because of this resolution!.

[Barometria]

My friend, you read much to literally. First define state-mandated. It is not defined within the international law cited. So, here we have a people within a sovereign nation who have condemned one to die. Often, these forms of sacrifice are as a payment to the gods to bring some favor. In essence, it is a payment for the group's sins. Said in another fashion: it is paying for all the group's crimes. As such it is the "sponsored and orchestrated death of an individual as their punishment for committing a crime". Show me one person who has not committed a sin (which is the equivalent of a crime in many primitive cultures). One could then argue that putting a person to death in this fashion is clearly an execution. However, it would run afoul of provision 4 where there is no trial let alone a separate sentencing portion of the trial.

As you can see, it is not very difficult to argue ritual murder or sacrifice is against international law as it currently stands. I'm afraid this does put some pretty damaging holes in your current theory...

First, not all ritual sacrifice is an atonement for sins. So at best, your logic only bans some ritual murders, not all.
Second, who is to say there is no trial? Ritual sacrifice can very well have a trial. If, as you say, everyone has sin, then this can be easily proven in a trial, and the person can be killed in a ritual murder normally illegal by a nation's laws but now legal because of this resolution!.

Also, if we're not to interfere in their affairs, how could we even investigate specific ritual murders to determine whether or not they are protected?

[Cooper Station]

Often, these forms of sacrifice are as a payment to the gods to bring some favor.

No, they aren't. Gods don't exist.

Show me one person who has not committed a sin (which is the equivalent of a crime in many primitive cultures).

All people. Sins don't exist.

[Excidium Planetis]

Often, these forms of sacrifice are as a payment to the gods to bring some favor.

No, they aren't. Gods don't exist.

Yeah they do. People invented them.

Show me one person who has not committed a sin (which is the equivalent of a crime in many primitive cultures).

All people. Sins don't exist.

They do exist. Whether or not you believe a god said not to lie has no bearing on the fact that people consider it a sin.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

As we understand it, the chief argument against this proposal is that it would give indigenous tribes carte blanche to live like savages. We would argue that, if they choose do do so, then is not the most fitting punishment allowing them to live in their savage state?

[Excidium Planetis]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

As we understand it, the chief argument against this proposal is that it would give indigenous tribes carte blanche to live like savages. We would argue that, if they choose do do so, then is not the most fitting punishment allowing them to live in their savage state?

Until they start kidnapping your people in order to offer their hearts to the Sun God. And of course, you can't stop them because that would be infringing on their culture.

[Hackonia]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

As we understand it, the chief argument against this proposal is that it would give indigenous tribes carte blanche to live like savages. We would argue that, if they choose do do so, then is not the most fitting punishment allowing them to live in their savage state?

Until they start kidnapping your people in order to offer their hearts to the Sun God. And of course, you can't stop them because that would be infringing on their culture.

Surely our own people would still be under the protection of the nation's laws. This proposal provides some form of protection, in terms of allowing indigenous people to maintain their cultural heritage - such as art and literature. but it does not make them first class citizens while relegating the rest of the population to second class status. If the indigenous people try to start reverting back to their barbaric ways then they will quickly find that their cultural protections do not extend to violating the existing laws set in place to protect the lives and property of the national residents. The indigenous people will not have their own autonomous government, police force, or any other methods of enforcing their outdated or barbaric rules and desires.

[Defwa]

Until they start kidnapping your people in order to offer their hearts to the Sun God. And of course, you can't stop them because that would be infringing on their culture.

Surely our own people would still be under the protection of the nation's laws. This proposal provides some form of protection, in terms of allowing indigenous people to maintain their cultural heritage - such as art and literature. but it does not make them first class citizens while relegating the rest of the population to second class status. If the indigenous people try to start reverting back to their barbaric ways then they will quickly find that their cultural protections do not extend to violating the existing laws set in place to protect the lives and property of the national residents. The indigenous people will not have their own autonomous government, police force, or any other methods of enforcing their outdated or barbaric rules and desires.

This soon to be repealed soon to be resolution explicitly says you can't stop them! You will be required to allow them to harm your citizens.

Everyone in Defwa can claim lineage from some outdated wizard and based on their religion are considered culturally different from those that worship and descend from another wizard. Pretty much all of these wizards, from hundreds of years ago, have no rule against murder when done to anyone who is not the property of the patron wizard.
I simply can't wait to see future murderers claiming indigenous heritage when brought to court.

[Hackonia]

Surely our own people would still be under the protection of the nation's laws. This proposal provides some form of protection, in terms of allowing indigenous people to maintain their cultural heritage - such as art and literature. but it does not make them first class citizens while relegating the rest of the population to second class status. If the indigenous people try to start reverting back to their barbaric ways then they will quickly find that their cultural protections do not extend to violating the existing laws set in place to protect the lives and property of the national residents. The indigenous people will not have their own autonomous government, police force, or any other methods of enforcing their outdated or barbaric rules and desires.

This soon to be repealed soon to be resolution explicitly says you can't stop them! You will be required to allow them to harm your citizens.

Everyone in Defwa can claim lineage from some outdated wizard and based on their religion are considered culturally different from those that worship and descend from another wizard. Pretty much all of these wizards, from hundreds of years ago, have no rule against murder when done to anyone who is not the property of the patron wizard.
I simply can't wait to see future murderers claiming indigenous heritage when brought to court.

The government of Hackonia simply will not sit by while our people are turned into second class citizens for the sake of protecting the culture of some failed tribes. If the WA goes through with this overly ambiguous and troublesome proposal, then our government will comply with the law as our legal team has previously defined it. Everyone in Hackonia will be treated with equal protection under the law, there will be no second class citizens. If the WA has a supreme court-like body to help define the law then we will await their final interpretation. If no such body exists, and if the WA has no methods for clarifying the law, then we will declare ourselves in full compliance - without needing to worry about ritualistic murders towards any deities that may or may not need pleasing.

[Excidium Planetis]

Until they start kidnapping your people in order to offer their hearts to the Sun God. And of course, you can't stop them because that would be infringing on their culture.

Surely our own people would still be under the protection of the nation's laws. This proposal provides some form of protection, in terms of allowing indigenous people to maintain their cultural heritage - such as art and literature. but it does not make them first class citizens while relegating the rest of the population to second class status. If the indigenous people try to start reverting back to their barbaric ways then they will quickly find that their cultural protections do not extend to violating the existing laws set in place to protect the lives and property of the national residents. The indigenous people will not have their own autonomous government, police force, or any other methods of enforcing their outdated or barbaric rules and desires.

But those laws you have to protect your citizens by necessity limit the culture of your indigenous peoples. Therefore, you are in violation of this resolution's operative clause, which prohibits your nation from forcibly limiting indigenous culture.

[CreepyCut]

Well, so much for turning the tables...

Fortunately it doesn't affect my region in a role-play sense.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ritual sacrifice is not a punitive state-mandated punishment for a crime. It is not an execution. Even by that interpretation, it would not be banned."

My friend, you read much to literally. First define state-mandated. It is not defined within the international law cited. So, here we have a people within a sovereign nation who have condemned one to die. Often, these forms of sacrifice are as a payment to the gods to bring some favor. In essence, it is a payment for the group's sins. Said in another fashion: it is paying for all the group's crimes. As such it is the "sponsored and orchestrated death of an individual as their punishment for committing a crime". Show me one person who has not committed a sin (which is the equivalent of a crime in many primitive cultures). One could then argue that putting a person to death in this fashion is clearly an execution. However, it would run afoul of provision 4 where there is no trial let alone a separate sentencing portion of the trial.

As you can see, it is not very difficult to argue ritual murder or sacrifice is against international law as it currently stands. I'm afraid this does put some pretty damaging holes in your current theory...

"Simply untrue. An execution is only a lawful execution and not murder when done with judicial backing from a court decision. Ergo, a ritual sacrifice carried out by a non-representative of the judiciary with no trial is not an execution, but a murder. There exists no WA law against murder. Therefore, it is not illegal. This law prevents us from stopping exactly that."

[Xecriussau]

First, not all ritual sacrifice is an atonement for sins. So at best, your logic only bans some ritual murders, not all.
Second, who is to say there is no trial? Ritual sacrifice can very well have a trial. If, as you say, everyone has sin, then this can be easily proven in a trial, and the person can be killed in a ritual murder normally illegal by a nation's laws but now legal because of this resolution!.

My friend, perhaps you are correct, but if we as sovereign nations are not allowed to investigate to determine what is actually transpiring due to the nature of the proposed legislation before us then we cannot verify the veracity of the legal process within such indigenous groups.

And as I said, it was only one possible argument a clever lawyer could use and it pains me that I must do the thinking here and provide more examples. However, as the resolution is destined to pass within the next three hours, I will not continue this debate.

Let the sensationalists have their ritualistic murder.

[Mundiferrum]

Mundiferrum is very, very glad to announce that we are voting FOR this proposal

's repeal. This is a terrible resolution, for the reasons so stated.

[Frisbeeteria]

The General Assembly resolution Rights of Indigenous Peoples was passed 9,611 votes to 5,657, and implemented in all WA member nations.

[Excidium Planetis]

The General Assembly resolution Rights of Indigenous Peoples was passed 9,611 votes to 5,657, and implemented in all WA member nations.

Which was followed immediately by natives beginning record amounts of human sacrifice, witch doctors killing patients with cultural medicine practices, and people generally engaging in backwards customs because they could...

[Kaboomlandia]

Two illegal repeal attempts have already been submitted. That didn't take long

[Excidium Planetis]

Two illegal repeal attempts have already been submitted. That didn't take long

What makes the second one illegal?
The first clearly is though.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Spectacular. A shitty resolution passed by a landslide. I fucking love summer."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

"Spectacular. A shitty resolution passed by a landslide. I fucking love summer."

Talk to Ram. He voted for it to ensure it's passage. Also why did the NP delegate not vote on the matter?

[Dibeg]

"Spectacular. A shitty resolution passed by a landslide. I fucking love summer."

Talk to Ram. He voted for it to ensure it's passage. Also why did the NP delegate not vote on the matter?

that's what I am wondering.

[Sainterre]

"Spectacular. A shitty resolution passed by a landslide. I fucking love summer."

Talk to Ram. He voted for it to ensure it's passage. Also why did the NP delegate not vote on the matter?

I believe that TNP didn't vote on it because they were changing delegates from SillyString to Eluvatar. But on their forum, they didn't even mention it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Talk to Ram. He voted for it to ensure it's passage. Also why did the NP delegate not vote on the matter?

I believe that TNP didn't vote on it because they were changing delegates from SillyString to Eluvatar. But on their forum, they didn't even mention it.

Yes, I noticed that. Was actually hoping for a TNP WA ministry summary, but never saw it.

[Separatist Peoples]

I believe that TNP didn't vote on it because they were changing delegates from SillyString to Eluvatar. But on their forum, they didn't even mention it.

Yes, I noticed that. Was actually hoping for a TNP WA ministry summary, but never saw it.

OOC: that was a fun string of unfortunate timing. I was reappointed as Minister just before Tomb stepped down. By the time I was ready to take the oath, things were crazy and I couldn't get my forum tools back in time.