[legality challenge]Ban on Ritual Sacrifice

[Aclion]

Yes another one

Resolution: Ban on Ritual Sacrifice

Rule broken: Category violation

Ban on Ritual Sacrifice proposes a blanket ban on Ritual Sacrifice. The resolution acknowledges the importance of such sacrifices in some cultures and faiths, yet makes makes no accommodations for sacrifices in which the sacrificed is a willing participant, nor does Ban on Ritual Sacrifice make a distinction between sacrifices carried out by member states and those carried out by individuals within them.

The resolution also urges a similar ban on animal sacrifice. While urging doesn't have the same effect as a ban I believe it is relevant as it demonstrates that the World Assembly is seeking to enforce a moral norm, rather then merely protect the right of sapient beings to live.

Because of this I believe Ban on Ritual Sacrifice is a proposal to imposes a moral standard on individuals at the expense of their civil rights and is therefore a moral decency resolution rather then a civil rights one. We must remember that civil rights doesn't distinguish between the freedom to do things we approve of, and the right to do things we find distasteful.

[Separatist Peoples]

It seems to protect the inherent rights of individuals. Not MD, even if one clause could be MD.

[Aclion]

It seems to protect the inherent rights of individuals. Not MD, even if one clause could be MD.

It makes no distinction between people whose rights are being violated and those who are participating freely. The position of the proposal is that indivual rights are irrelevant.

[Separatist Peoples]

It seems to protect the inherent rights of individuals. Not MD, even if one clause could be MD.

It makes no distinction between people whose rights are being violated and those who are participating freely. The position of the proposal is that indivual rights are irrelevant.

Most HR resolutions don't make that distinction. There isn't s provision for the Ban on Torture. Nor either does CoCR allow consent to discrimination.

Not buying it. These at-vote challenges look more like attempts to scuttle a proposal you personally disagree with than genuine questions of legality.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It makes no distinction between people whose rights are being violated and those who are participating freely. The position of the proposal is that indivual rights are irrelevant.

Most HR resolutions don't make that distinction. There isn't s provision for the Ban on Torture. Nor either does CoCR allow consent to discrimination.

Not buying it.

^

I don't see a legality issue here.

[Imperial Polk County]

I can sum it up in one sentence, with (no) apologies to Joe Strummer:

You have the right not to be killed.

Thus, Human Rights.

[Aclion]

It makes no distinction between people whose rights are being violated and those who are participating freely. The position of the proposal is that indivual rights are irrelevant.

Most HR resolutions don't make that distinction. There isn't s provision for the Ban on Torture. Nor either does CoCR allow consent to discrimination.

Not buying it. These at-vote challenges look more like attempts to scuttle a proposal you personally disagree with than genuine questions of legality.

I don't see how they're comparable. Ban on Torture defines torture strictly according to the purpose of the torture while consent is not a factor CoCR because discrimination is still an issue even if both parties consent(one cannot opt out of the effects of discriminatory policies of the society they live in).

You know perfectly well that Gen-Sec will refuse challenges if they don't believe the resolution is going to go to vote. So I'm not going to waste my time with them. If you believe I'm abusing the challenge process go waste the mods time with it.

I can sum it up in one sentence, with (no) apologies to Joe Strummer:

You have the right not to be killed.

Thus, Human Rights.

Joe Strummer is not the general assembly and we have so far skirted around establishing a general right to live.

Regardless your proposal is not a proposal to establish a right to not be killed. It only forbids killing for specific purposes and does so without regard for the consent of the person involved.
That is not a right to life founded on the principles of civil rights. It is a Right to Life an obligation placed on individuals for sake of moral decency; comparable to laws against euthanasia, abortion or assisted suicide.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't see how they're comparable. Ban on Torture defines torture strictly according to the purpose of the torture while consent is not a factor CoCR because discrimination is still an issue even if both parties consent(one cannot opt out of the effects of discriminatory policies of the society they live in).

Which proves that consent isn't relevant to HR resolutions.

You know perfectly well that Gen-Sec will refuse challenges if they don't believe the resolution is going to go to vote. So I'm not going to waste my time with them. If you believe I'm abusing the challenge process go waste the mods time with it.

GenSec needs not go to the mods. If GenSec believes a player does not file challenges in good faith, we can elect not to hear their repeated challenges. GenSec has a mechanism to deal with this built in.

[Imperial Polk County]

That is not a right to life founded on the principles of civil rights. It is a Right to Life an obligation placed on individuals for sake of moral decency; comparable to laws against euthanasia, abortion or assisted suicide.

As are most who are decrying this proposal, you're putting all the focus on definition part (a). If you look at definition parts (b) and (c), it upholds the rights of the individual from being ritually sacrificed by an oppressive government, for reasons of population control or social hierarchy in, for example, a totalitarian state. Taking all three parts of the definition together, it is indeed a proposal to protect people from getting killed for what I believe are outdated, barbaric reasons. It belongs in Human Rights.

[Bananaistan]

I agree with Sep and SL. I see no issue here. At best, looking at it sideways and from 2 blocks away, it might just marginally cross the line between two categories. But no doubt had it been submitted as moral decency, there'd be a challenge on the basis that it should be human rights.

A general point: the ideal time to raise legality concerns is in the drafting thread before its submitted.

[Clean Land]

I can sum it up in one sentence, with (no) apologies to Joe Strummer:

You have the right not to be killed.

Thus, Human Rights.

According to the description in the moderation thread, Human Rights decreases state meddling in citizen's affairs while Moral Decency increases it.
A proposal to legalize Ritual Sacrifice in all member states would be Human Rights because the state has less influence. The OP is correct; this one increases state meddling in internal affairs of their citiziens by telling them that they may not kill others.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

I can sum it up in one sentence, with (no) apologies to Joe Strummer:

You have the right not to be killed.

Thus, Human Rights.

According to the description in the moderation thread, Human Rights decreases state meddling in citizen's affairs while Moral Decency increases it.
A proposal to legalize Ritual Sacrifice in all member states would be Human Rights because the state has less influence. The OP is correct; this one increases state meddling in internal affairs of their citiziens by telling them that they may not kill others.

Just to play devil's advocate in regards to that specific claim, wouldn't legalizing ritual sacrifice in all member states interfere with one's right to not be killed?

[Aclion]

According to the description in the moderation thread, Human Rights decreases state meddling in citizen's affairs while Moral Decency increases it.
A proposal to legalize Ritual Sacrifice in all member states would be Human Rights because the state has less influence. The OP is correct; this one increases state meddling in internal affairs of their citiziens by telling them that they may not kill others.

Just to play devil's advocate in regards to that specific claim, wouldn't legalizing ritual sacrifice in all member states interfere with one's right to not be killed?

No, just as legalizing abortion does not interfere with one's right to have children.

[Wallenburg]

The preamble, in "determining that such actions [ritual sacrifice] are violations of the basic human right to live", establishes this resolution as a Human Rights resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

I can sum it up in one sentence, with (no) apologies to Joe Strummer:

You have the right not to be killed.

Thus, Human Rights.

According to the description in the moderation thread, Human Rights decreases state meddling in citizen's affairs while Moral Decency increases it.
A proposal to legalize Ritual Sacrifice in all member states would be Human Rights because the state has less influence. The OP is correct; this one increases state meddling in internal affairs of their citiziens by telling them that they may not kill others.

Except that's not what fully half GenSec believes this does. And frankly, it's unlikely you'll get the other half to agree with you.

[Aclion]

Then I have to ask why the descriptions in the rules sticky have so little relationship with how GenSec interprets the rules.

[Separatist Peoples]

Then I have to ask why the descriptions in the rules sticky have so little relationship with how GenSec interprets the rules.

We do interpret the rules, and accurately. We also use precedent. Precedent says that the government interfering in the lives of the few to prevent intrusion in the lives of the many can be Human Rights. You can spin intrusion either way, so a meaningful distinction has to be made.

The rules cannot reflect every single nuanced difference. If it did, the ruleset would be a thousand page treatise that nobody would read.

[Attempted Socialism]

I can sum it up in one sentence, with (no) apologies to Joe Strummer:

You have the right not to be killed.

Thus, Human Rights.

According to the description in the moderation thread, Human Rights decreases state meddling in citizen's affairs while Moral Decency increases it.
A proposal to legalize Ritual Sacrifice in all member states would be Human Rights because the state has less influence. The OP is correct; this one increases state meddling in internal affairs of their citiziens by telling them that they may not kill others.

The other way around, surely? The state being unable to ritually sacrifice anyone would decrease the states' ability to meddle, while legalising it would increase the states' ability to meddle. Taking away a right of the state and enshrining it as a right to not get killed in a certain way would be clear human rights.
As for people not killing each other, I'd say the right to not get killed defaults to human rights as well.

[Aclion]

According to the description in the moderation thread, Human Rights decreases state meddling in citizen's affairs while Moral Decency increases it.
A proposal to legalize Ritual Sacrifice in all member states would be Human Rights because the state has less influence. The OP is correct; this one increases state meddling in internal affairs of their citiziens by telling them that they may not kill others.

The other way around, surely? The state being unable to ritually sacrifice anyone would decrease the states' ability to meddle, while legalising it would increase the states' ability to meddle. Taking away a right of the state and enshrining it as a right to not get killed in a certain way would be clear human rights.
As for people not killing each other, I'd say the right to not get killed defaults to human rights as well.

I don't know where your getting the state from. The ban isn't specific to the state. It applies to individuals as well.
Hell human sacrifice as form of punishment, probobly the most common form of state sponsored sacrifice, isn't even considered human sacrifice under the ban.

[Flying Eagles]

This resolution is Human Rights because it bans you from killing others

[Clean Land]

This resolution is Human Rights because it bans you from killing others

What you percieve to be Human Rights(and what would normally IRL being classified as Human Rights) and what Human Rights are for the purposes of Nation States Categories are... there are massive differences.

[Bears Armed]

I can sum it up in one sentence, with (no) apologies to Joe Strummer:

You have the right not to be killed.

So, when can we expect to see you trying to repeal GAR#285 in order to replace it with an outright ban on assisted suicide?

[Imperial Polk County]

I can sum it up in one sentence, with (no) apologies to Joe Strummer:

You have the right not to be killed.

So, when can we expect to see you trying to repeal GAR#285 in order to replace it with an outright ban on assisted suicide?

Not relevant to this discussion.

[Aclion]

So, when can we expect to see you trying to repeal GAR#285 in order to replace it with an outright ban on assisted suicide?

Not relevant to this discussion.

Nor is any right to life, as no such right exist under WA law, nor is it established under this proposal.

[Imperial Polk County]

Not relevant to this discussion.

Nor is any right to life, as no such right exist under WA law, nor is it established under this proposal.

Also not relevant to this discussion. All that's relevant is that this proposal gives people the right not to be killed as victims of ritual homicide, whether that act is performed by religious or government leaders.