[PASSED] Ban on Ritual Sacrifice

[Fauxia]

"Basing an argument on National Sovereignty? You do realize that the WA must infringe on NatSov to create these proposals?"

Botrum replies; "Not all proposals infringe on National Sovereignty the way this one does. And when they do I for one usually disagree. This one is certainly circumstantial, in my opinion. Simply put, there is no reason for there to be an international law that deals with each nation's sacrifice laws because every Nation has a different situation, some vastly different than others. If it was strictly about murdering enemy POVs, Hatterleigh and many other nations would most certainly have a different opinion because that would be international."

“I consider the right not to be murdered a civil right, therefore one the WA can use

[United Nations Under One Flag]

The representative clears his throat as if to speak just as he is handed a new letter, he reads it quietly to himself.
"What do you mean we are withdrawing our vote?!" he yells way too load at the messenger

"I-I was just told to give it to you, I have no idea what you are talking about." The messenger responds, "The Minister of Foreign Affairs told be to have you read it."

The representative calms himself as he reads the new message to the GA.
"Dear fellow representatives of the GA,
After much consideration of many points heard for and against the proposal as well as further consideration of the proposal itself we, the United Nations Under One Flag, have decided to withdraw our vote against the proposal."

The representative adjusts his tie, he is clearly confused as he has not read the following text.

"Why, many of you may ask, would we do so? Does this mean that we will now vote for the proposal? No, this is purely a withdrawal of a single vote with no, as of time of writing, intention to vote for or against this proposal. Again, why? Further discussion and consideration of the proposal within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and with the rest of the cabinet of the UNUOF Executive branch has boiled down to one point; the ambiguity of what specific 'being' the proposal is mentioning in the definition of 'ritual sacrifice' is to great to allow for any clear conclusion on the subject of its passage. As such, the UNUOF has come to the conclusion that the passage or rejection of the proposal will not modify the status quo in such a fashion as to prompt a vote for or against it. This is to be considered the final decision of the UNUOF until further notice.

With respect,
Dave Mann
Minister of Foreign Affairs
the United Nations Under One Flag"

the representative is unsure of his bosses letter, he sits contemplating his countries decision.

[Ray the Great]

There is a major hypocrisy here; freedom and soveriegnty-
All nations, member and regions ought to be free to choose what is best for their own people. The World Assembly should focus on war prevention, natural disaster aid, and other such issues that do not breach the soveriegnty of other member nations, regardless of belief; it all goes back to freedom of choice. There may be religous reasons for ritual sacrifice, no matter how cruel it may seem, we must allow freedom to reign. This is the hypocrisy of democracy; you preach freedom while becoming controlling and intrusive into other's affairs. Do not dare to infringe upon soveriegnty and try to police the world with an iron fist. This will cause war.

[Aclion]

''forget national sovereignty then. What about individual liberty? It's been made clear that it's no accident voluntary sacrifice is included in the ban, but we already allow assisted suicide, and euthanasia. The only difference here is that there is the religious aspect. Are we really so little that we will restrict personal expression purely to spite people's faith?"

"The Lyricalian Delegation has resolved this nonsense previously."

By resolved do you mean raised a strawman? This resolution makes no distinction between people who are groomed and people acting out of free and informed consent. That objection could be raised against any voluntary action.

[Zenithian]

There is a major hypocrisy here; freedom and soveriegnty-
All nations, member and regions ought to be free to choose what is best for their own people. The World Assembly should focus on war prevention, natural disaster aid, and other such issues that do not breach the soveriegnty of other member nations, regardless of belief; it all goes back to freedom of choice. There may be religous reasons for ritual sacrifice, no matter how cruel it may seem, we must allow freedom to reign. This is the hypocrisy of democracy; you preach freedom while becoming controlling and intrusive into other's affairs. Do not dare to infringe upon soveriegnty and try to police the world with an iron fist. This will cause war.

"Considering that National sovereignty has ALWAYS been affected by the WA and always will, this arguement doesn't hold much strength. Why else do you think pure Sovereignty arguements are illegal for repeals? Because the WA is designed to bypass it and is stronger than national law. Regarding the threats of war, trying to declare war on the WA and to sabotage it has been tried in the past. It never works".

[Separatist Peoples]

"The Lyricalian Delegation has resolved this nonsense previously."

By resolved do you mean raised a strawman? This resolution makes no distinction between people who are groomed and people acting out of free and informed consent. That objection could be raised against any voluntary action.

"The WA has a strong enough interest on this front to not distinguish, considering tolerating voluntary sacrifice opens the door to coercion of sacrifices."

[Araraukar]

OOC: I wonder how seppuku would be classified under this? Especially when it's not done as capital punishment but as a ritual to appease the ancestral spirits by restoring one's honor with the ritual death...

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I wonder how seppuku would be classified under this? Especially when it's not done as capital punishment but as a ritual to appease the ancestral spirits by restoring one's honor with the ritual death...

OOC: I believe the author addressed that question.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I wonder how seppuku would be classified under this? Especially when it's not done as capital punishment but as a ritual to appease the ancestral spirits by restoring one's honor with the ritual death...

OOC: I believe the author addressed that question.

OOC: Which I would agree with if the resolution text actually included "suicide" instead of "assisted suicide" as one of the exceptions. Instead seppuku very much is an "intentional and ritualistic act of killing one ... as an offering to a god or spirit".

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: I believe the author addressed that question.

OOC: Which I would agree with if the resolution text actually included "suicide" instead of "assisted suicide" as one of the exceptions. Instead seppuku very much is an "intentional and ritualistic act of killing one ... as an offering to a god or spirit".

OOC: Crucially, the definition of ritual sacrifice concerns killing others, so seppuku should be clear. Ordering someone else to perform seppuku would be illegal, but performing it on yourself would not.

[Hatterleigh]

Botrum replies; "Not all proposals infringe on National Sovereignty the way this one does. And when they do I for one usually disagree. This one is certainly circumstantial, in my opinion. Simply put, there is no reason for there to be an international law that deals with each nation's sacrifice laws because every Nation has a different situation, some vastly different than others. If it was strictly about murdering enemy POVs, Hatterleigh and many other nations would most certainly have a different opinion because that would be international."

“I consider the right not to be murdered a civil right, therefore one the WA can use

"Fair point, fair point. But for the WA to ban Ritual Sacrifice as a whole seems like more than is needed. In some nations the folks being sacrificed are doing it voluntarily, which is also banned in this. While i'll admit that is not a culture or religion that I would equate myself with, it is really up to the Nation itself to get rid of it and not the WA."

[Izvbard]

The Izvbard ambassador to the World Assembly , Iglia Litin , has declares his country against this provision. Here's the statement in full-

While I do agree with human sacrifice being a utterly disgusting and primitive act , one must also consider the religious rights of such communities. In Izvbard for example , the Iozla tribe is permitted to do ritual sacrifice- but only on hardened criminals like murderers and rapists. The measure introduced in the World Assembly is a noble one , but fundemantally a flawed solution , in a country like ours , where ethnic minorities often feel repressed by the central government. Such a drastic measure may introduce race wars and tear our already fragile peace. Therefore , Izvbard votes against this proposal

[Excidium Planetis]

While I do agree with human sacrifice being a utterly disgusting and primitive act , one must also consider the religious rights of such communities. In Izvbard for example , the Iozla tribe is permitted to do ritual sacrifice- but only on hardened criminals like murderers and rapists. The measure introduced in the World Assembly is a noble one , but fundemantally a flawed solution , in a country like ours , where ethnic minorities often feel repressed by the central government. Such a drastic measure may introduce race wars and tear our already fragile peace. Therefore , Izvbard votes against this proposal

"This resolution allows the sacrifice of criminals, as capital punishment is protected by World Assembly law." Blackbourne responds.

[ArstotzkaBestCountry]

What may surprise some nations, Arstotzka is fully in support of this bill. Humans are resources that are finite, pointless sacrifices of individuals for some made up being that is not the High Lord Administrator (Who is real... probably? who knows, its a crime to say otherwise) is both wasteful of necessary cannon fodder, and breeding material.

[MILKLand]

Why yes, of course! It is and should be a major concern for any world, nation or peoples who support such a barbaric practice where humans are killed for the purpose of religion or otherwise!

[Naqil]

“Or otherwise? Are you against capital punishment, then?”

[ArstotzkaBestCountry]

Wow Wow Wow. Taking away the Death Penalty is going a little to far now.

Such Dialogue also has further implications that is simply to... far reaching.

[Separatist Peoples]

Wow Wow Wow. Taking away the Death Penalty is going a little to far now.

Such Dialogue also has further implications that is simply to... far reaching.

"That isnt what is happening."

[New Buckner]

Banning the ritual sacrifice of humans, we can support - but extending that ban to animals? Do we not sacrifice animals when we eat for sustenance - and is it not for population growth as well? Not to mention - are we going to dictate to groups how they are to practice their religion? Some religions have been using animal sacrifices for thousands of years - who are we to correct that when no real harm is being done.

We are voting no, and urge all members to follow suit until changes have been made to a less ambiguous bill.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Banning the ritual sacrifice of humans, we can support - but extending that ban to animals? Do we not sacrifice animals when we eat for sustenance - and is it not for population growth as well? Not to mention - are we going to dictate to groups how they are to practice their religion? Some religions have been using animal sacrifices for thousands of years - who are we to correct that when no real harm is being done.

We are voting no, and urge all members to follow suit until changes have been made to a less ambiguous bill.

"Let's take them in order. No, we are not extending the ban to animals, we are encouraging member states to do so in a non-binding fashion. No, no we do not 'sacrifice' animals when we make meat of them, for the most part - we just slaughter them. No, slaughtering of animals is not designed to keep social control nor suppress population growth. And no, we are not dictating the manner of religious practice, we're protecting the rights of persons not to be bled out on the altars of imaginary genocidal maniacs."

"And lastly, we are the World Assembly and it is precisely our business to stick our noses in where they aren't wanted in order to improve the world entire. Just because some people don't see a problem with human sacrifice doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means some people are legally blind and shouldn't be permitted to operate heavy machinery, especially not the machinery of state."

Leo leans back in his chair and plops his feet up on the desk.

"Any other questions?"

[Fauxia]

Banning the ritual sacrifice of humans, we can support - but extending that ban to animals? Do we not sacrifice animals when we eat for sustenance - and is it not for population growth as well? Not to mention - are we going to dictate to groups how they are to practice their religion? Some religions have been using animal sacrifices for thousands of years - who are we to correct that when no real harm is being done.

We are voting no, and urge all members to follow suit until changes have been made to a less ambiguous bill.

"Let's take them in order. No, we are not extending the ban to animals, we are encouraging member states to do so in a non-binding fashion. No, no we do not 'sacrifice' animals when we make meat of them, for the most part - we just slaughter them. No, slaughtering of animals is not designed to keep social control nor suppress population growth. And no, we are not dictating the manner of religious practice, we're protecting the rights of persons not to be bled out on the altars of imaginary genocidal maniacs."

"And lastly, we are the World Assembly and it is precisely our business to stick our noses in where they aren't wanted in order to improve the world entire. Just because some people don't see a problem with human sacrifice doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means some people are legally blind and shouldn't be permitted to operate heavy machinery, especially not the machinery of state."

Leo leans back in his chair and plops his feet up on the desk.

"Any other questions?"

"Yes. If you call a punishment a sacrifice and a sacrifice a punishment, what's a sacrifice and what's a punishment?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Let's take them in order. No, we are not extending the ban to animals, we are encouraging member states to do so in a non-binding fashion. No, no we do not 'sacrifice' animals when we make meat of them, for the most part - we just slaughter them. No, slaughtering of animals is not designed to keep social control nor suppress population growth. And no, we are not dictating the manner of religious practice, we're protecting the rights of persons not to be bled out on the altars of imaginary genocidal maniacs."

"And lastly, we are the World Assembly and it is precisely our business to stick our noses in where they aren't wanted in order to improve the world entire. Just because some people don't see a problem with human sacrifice doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means some people are legally blind and shouldn't be permitted to operate heavy machinery, especially not the machinery of state."

Leo leans back in his chair and plops his feet up on the desk.

"Any other questions?"

"Yes. If you call a punishment a sacrifice and a sacrifice a punishment, what's a sacrifice and what's a punishment?"

"Labels are irrelevant. They are banned based on their innate activity, not on their name."

[The ethereal lord]

"it is a punishment if someone has done something deserveing of it"

[Wallenburg]

Banning the ritual sacrifice of humans, we can support - but extending that ban to animals? Do we not sacrifice animals when we eat for sustenance - and is it not for population growth as well? Not to mention - are we going to dictate to groups how they are to practice their religion? Some religions have been using animal sacrifices for thousands of years - who are we to correct that when no real harm is being done.

We are voting no, and urge all members to follow suit until changes have been made to a less ambiguous bill.

+1 didn't read the resolution.

[Bears Armed]

"This resolution allows the sacrifice of criminals, as capital punishment is protected by World Assembly law." Blackbourne responds.

"Wait! It does that... and it requires that member nations criminalize ritual sacrifice? So a member nation could have the laws that they pass in response to this proposed resolution passing make volunteering for sacrifice a criminal offence, for which the appropriate sentence is execution by a method that just happens to be the method already used for ritual sacrifice, and thus effectively continue allowing the sacrifice of volunteers anyhows?"

Urrna Silvertrees,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.