[CLOSED DRAFT] Repeal GAR #416, "Ban On Ritual Sacrifice"

[He Qixin]

OOC: I'm going to be submitting this proposal on my third account - Triangle and Square.

IC: "Here we go. Attempt #26 at repealing this."

Description:

The World Assembly:

Realizing that the author of this resolution had noble intentions of preventing the sacrifice of humans and other sapient beings in religions;

Applauding to the fact that the author had wrote this resolution for the rights of those sacrificed;

Noting that resolutions cannot be amended in anyway except for repealing;

However disgusted that such a proposal written so simply can be allowed to stand;

Shocked by the fact that the author actually wants the government to take actions in managing ritual sacrifices, when most nations can just tackle it with a police force;

Further dismayed that the author of this proposal has not considered the fact that, ritual sacrifices are part of peoples' religious heritage too, and thus such religious practice should be preserved;

Implied that those "irreparable harm or death" are done on purpose for religious purposes only, and that the author is restricting peoples' religious freedoms, because such actions do not constitute "violations of the basic human right to live";

Unhappy about the fact that, under the "Defines" section, the author does not (a)acknowledge the purposes for offering beings to a god or spirit, thus making the proposal ban all purposes of offering beings to a god or spirit, which is bad for some religions may have done it for a good and/or useful purpose, (b)state how the population of sapient beings would be affected whether badly or not and (c) recognize that not all ritual sacrifices done is "a method by which a ruling class or regime creates or perpetuates social hierarchy"; and

Further thinking that it would be unfair for religious-based sacrifice to be exempted from all other kinds of suicide.

This proposal hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #416, "Ban On Ritual Sacrifice".

"Imperial Folk County, sorry if I went a bit extreme on some parts; those parts were a bit difficult to think a downside on. To everyone, guys, I heard that there were 25 attempts made in repealing this, and obviously, all of them failed. I'm here to make attempt #26 and hope for a pass."

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium would prefer that certain primitive regimes that insist on remaining within this Assembly are prohibited from engaging in at least their most destructive practices. In short, Ambassador, I suggest you find a modern ethical standard, and simply resign this draft to the incinerator." Says a familiar figure, in a worn, heavy coat, who makes a quick exit from the chamber.

[Kenmoria]

"Remove the word "actually" in the shocked clause. It is a filler word that adds nothing to its meaning and makes the sentence look unprofessional. Perhaps replace it with "unnecessarily" instead."

[Imperial Polk County]

"Oh, bless your little heart. Now, let's see what we have here. Hmmm, yes, at first glance this one might actually be legal -- maybe -- but let's tear it down, just to make sure."

Realizing that the author of this resolution had noble intentions of preventing the sacrifice of humans and other sapient beings in religions;

Applauding to the fact that the author had wrote this resolution for the rights of those sacrificed;

"Well, thank you. It's so polite to say nice things before tearing someone's guts out. That said, your grammar could use a little work. Let's continue."

Noting that resolutions cannot be amended in anyway except for repealing;

"I believe everyone knows this by now. But, if you want to fluff up your preamble, that's your business. I'm still waiting for the meaty parts."

However disgusted that such a proposal written so simply can be allowed to stand;

"Now that is the silliest thing I've read all week, and I read the first three chapters of 'The Perilous Princess Plot' to my granddaughter over the weekend. What is wrong with being straight-forward and avoiding convoluted language?"

Shocked by the fact that the author actually wants the government to take actions in managing ritual sacrifices, when most nations can just tackle it with a police force;

"What drivel. How can a police force tackle an issue if it isn't illegal in the first place?"

Further dismayed that the author of this proposal has not considered the fact that, ritual sacrifices are part of peoples' religious heritage too, and thus such religious practice should be preserved;

"Actually, I have. It even says so in the preamble: 'Having considered that the importance of certain cultural and religious practices are integral to the beliefs of such followers'. Now, if you're going to spout lies like this clause, I'm afraid I'll have to get the Secretariat involved. They took a very dim view of most of the previous 25 attempts which were deemed illegal. Perhaps your attempt can join them in the dead letter bin."

Implied that those "irreparable harm or death" are done on purpose for religious purposes only, and that the author is restricting peoples' religious freedoms, because such actions do not constitute "violations of the basic human right to live";

"What a clumsy clause. In any case, take another look at GAR#416. It does not merely outlaw ritual sacrifice when performed as a religious ceremony. It outlaws it as a method of controlling the population or maintaining social stratification. Historically, human sacrifice has not only been used as a religious tool; it has been used by rulers and elites to maintain or cement their power, or in extreme cases to proclaim their own divinity. Such practices must not continue."

Unhappy about the fact that, under the "Defines" section, the author does not (a)acknowledge the purposes for offering beings to a god or spirit, thus making the proposal ban all purposes of offering beings to a god or spirit, which is bad for some religions may have done it for a good and/or useful purpose, (b)state how the population of sapient beings would be affected whether badly or not and (c) recognize that not all ritual sacrifices done is "a method by which a ruling class or regime creates or perpetuates social hierarchy";

"If you are that unhappy, ambassador, then perhaps you should try an anti-depressant. I myself am quite happy with the 'Defining' clause, as were nearly 12,000 voters."

Further thinking that it would be unfair for religious-based sacrifice to be exempted from all other kinds of suicide.

"Aaaand there we are. Once again, a prospective repeal author misreads the proposal. Read that 'Defining' clause again -- I'm sorry, I know it will depress you even more, but read it again. Notice the part where it says it's the 'act of killing one or more other beings'? Ritual sacrifice, by this definition, does not include ritual suicide. You want to throw yourself into a volcano in the name of Pele the Fire Goddess, go right ahead, you won't be violating this resolution."

This proposal hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #416, "Ban On Ritual Sacrifice".

"Once it passes, it's not a proposal, it's a resolution. Tsk, tsk. All in all, I have to say, this is better than nearly all of the 25 attempts that preceded it, but that really doesn't say much. I find your argument comes up as short as a six-lined racerunner."

[Imperial Polk County]

As Drane finishes his statement, he looks up at an empty, abandoned room. "Oh," he says, as he exits, thinking, okay, that's twenty-six down, and how many more to go?

[He Qixin 2]

"ha! i'm back!"

"and i'm going to adjust this proposal to suit your needs."

[He Qixin 2]

Realizing that the author of this resolution had noble intentions of preventing the sacrifice of humans and other sapient beings in religions;

Applauding to the fact that the author had wrote this resolution for the rights of those sacrificed;

"Well, thank you. It's so polite to say nice things before tearing someone's guts out. That said, your grammar could use a little work. Let's continue."

"You're welcome."

Noting that resolutions cannot be amended in anyway except for repealing;

"I believe everyone knows this by now. But, if you want to fluff up your preamble, that's your business. I'm still waiting for the meaty parts."

"I'm gonna keep that. But thanks for the comment."

However disgusted that such a proposal written so simply can be allowed to stand;

"Now that is the silliest thing I've read all week, and I read the first three chapters of 'The Perilous Princess Plot' to my granddaughter over the weekend. What is wrong with being straight-forward and avoiding convoluted language?"

"Got it. Removing that."

Shocked by the fact that the author actually wants the government to take actions in managing ritual sacrifices, when most nations can just tackle it with a police force;

"What drivel. How can a police force tackle an issue if it isn't illegal in the first place?"

"My point is, if you want to ban ritual sacrifices, let the individual member nations impose a new law which arrests everybody who does ritual sacrifices. I also don't think such a proposal is necessary.

Further dismayed that the author of this proposal has not considered the fact that, ritual sacrifices are part of peoples' religious heritage too, and thus such religious practice should be preserved;

"Actually, I have. It even says so in the preamble: 'Having considered that the importance of certain cultural and religious practices are integral to the beliefs of such followers'. Now, if you're going to spout lies like this clause, I'm afraid I'll have to get the Secretariat involved. They took a very dim view of most of the previous 25 attempts which were deemed illegal. Perhaps your attempt can join them in the dead letter bin."

"Okay, stop being extreme here. I'm going to remove that clause. Calm down, man."

Implied that those "irreparable harm or death" are done on purpose for religious purposes only, and that the author is restricting peoples' religious freedoms, because such actions do not constitute "violations of the basic human right to live";

"What a clumsy clause. In any case, take another look at GAR#416. It does not merely outlaw ritual sacrifice when performed as a religious ceremony. It outlaws it as a method of controlling the population or maintaining social stratification. Historically, human sacrifice has not only been used as a religious tool; it has been used by rulers and elites to maintain or cement their power, or in extreme cases to proclaim their own divinity. Such practices must not continue."

"Okay, I get it. But aren't some rulers and elites do ritual sacrifice for a good purpose?"

Unhappy about the fact that, under the "Defines" section, the author does not (a)acknowledge the purposes for offering beings to a god or spirit, thus making the proposal ban all purposes of offering beings to a god or spirit, which is bad for some religions may have done it for a good and/or useful purpose, (b)state how the population of sapient beings would be affected whether badly or not and (c) recognize that not all ritual sacrifices done is "a method by which a ruling class or regime creates or perpetuates social hierarchy";

"If you are that unhappy, ambassador, then perhaps you should try an anti-depressant. I myself am quite happy with the 'Defining' clause, as were nearly 12,000 voters."

"Yep, thanks for the anti-depressant. There are still 5,000 voters who may not be happy with the 'Defining' clause, though."

Further thinking that it would be unfair for religious-based sacrifice to be exempted from all other kinds of suicide.

"Aaaand there we are. Once again, a prospective repeal author misreads the proposal. Read that 'Defining' clause again -- I'm sorry, I know it will depress you even more, but read it again. Notice the part where it says it's the 'act of killing one or more other beings'? Ritual sacrifice, by this definition, does not include ritual suicide. You want to throw yourself into a volcano in the name of Pele the Fire Goddess, go right ahead, you won't be violating this resolution."

"That clause does NOT talk about the 'Defining' clause. It talks about the 'Clarifying' clause. Let me know if you have further comments about that."

This proposal hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #416, "Ban On Ritual Sacrifice".

"Once it passes, it's not a proposal, it's a resolution. Tsk, tsk. All in all, I have to say, this is better than nearly all of the 25 attempts that preceded it, but that really doesn't say much. I find your argument comes up as short as a six-lined racerunner."

"Okay, got it. However, even if my proposal is that bad to you, don't call it a racerunner. I can tolerate something like 'This could be improved greatly' or 'There is still much room for improvement', but definitely not a racerunner."

"All in all, thanks for your comments. I will eventually edit the draft, and make this at least enter the voting floor."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Okay, I get it. But aren't some rulers and elites do ritual sacrifice for a good purpose?"

"...is that a trick question? From Aztecs to The Lottery to that one timeline where Kree feudalists took over the last remaining fragments of Urrth-humans, the answer to that question has never once been 'yes.' Really, Ambassador, one gets the impression you're a social control freak yourself. The only reason to sacrifice a sapient being instead of a goat or a cow is to keep the peasants cowed. No need to impose censorship and martial law when the people don't want to buck the Divine Right of Kings, now, is there?"

"You'd be better off arguing that the World Assembly has made the gods angry, and that we must repeal this resolution - and sacrifice Ambassador Drane - if we're to have any hope of appeasing them. Probably need to add a couple other folks to the pile, too..."

[Clean Land]

"Okay, I get it. But aren't some rulers and elites do ritual sacrifice for a good purpose?"

"...is that a trick question? From Aztecs to The Lottery to that one timeline where Kree feudalists took over the last remaining fragments of Urrth-humans, the answer to that question has never once been 'yes.' Really, Ambassador, one gets the impression you're a social control freak yourself. The only reason to sacrifice a sapient being instead of a goat or a cow is to keep the peasants cowed. No need to impose censorship and martial law when the people don't want to buck the Divine Right of Kings, now, is there?"

"You'd be better off arguing that the World Assembly has made the gods angry, and that we must repeal this resolution - and sacrifice Ambassador Drane - if we're to have any hope of appeasing them. Probably need to add a couple other folks to the pile, too..."

OOC: Don't make suggestions that make the proposal illegal, such as adding names of ambassadors.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Don't make suggestions that make the proposal illegal, such as adding names of ambassadors.

OOC: If he'd actually done it I would step in and clarify. But an In Character suggestion that's clearly (in actual game terms) tongue in cheek isn't unreasonable.

[Republic of Europe]

The USRE deems this repeal as inhuman and in-just. Ritual sacrifice has been outlawed in the name of human rights.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Teran Saber: "Must we roleplay this again to show why this repeal is a bad idea?"

[Kenmoria]

"The word "and' in the unhappy clause before "(c)" should be an "or" instead."

[Imperial Polk County]

"My point is, if you want to ban ritual sacrifices, let the individual member nations impose a new law which arrests everybody who does ritual sacrifices. I also don't think such a proposal is necessary.

"No, if I want to ban ritual sacrifice, I write a resolution to ban ritual sacrifice, which forces individual member nations to impose such laws."

"Okay, I get it. But aren't some rulers and elites do ritual sacrifice for a good purpose?"

Drane stares at the ambassador for a moment. "No."

"Okay, got it. However, even if my proposal is that bad to you, don't call it a racerunner. I can tolerate something like 'This could be improved greatly' or 'There is still much room for improvement', but definitely not a racerunner."

"No, I said your argument came up shorter than-- Never mind."

"You'd be better off arguing that the World Assembly has made the gods angry, and that we must repeal this resolution - and sacrifice Ambassador Drane - if we're to have any hope of appeasing them. Probably need to add a couple other folks to the pile, too..."

Drane eyes Steph warily, smiles weakly, and briefly scratches his nose with his middle finger in a not-so-subtle manner.

[Wallenburg]

IC:

Applauding to the fact that the author had wrote this resolution for the rights of those sacrificed;

"'Applauding to the fact that'? 'Had wrote?' Those are a lot of unnecessary and misused words. 'Applauding this resolution for recognizing the rights of the sacrificed' would do much better."

Noting that resolutions cannot be amended in anyway except for repealing;

"Please do not jump on this bandwagon, Ambassador. We know how World Assembly law works. We don't need a lesson on it at the beginning of every repeal."

However disgusted that such a proposal written so simply can be allowed to stand;

"What is wrong with simple writing? Overly complex writing is, generally, incomprehensible. Would you prefer incomprehensible legislation?"

Shocked by the fact that the author actually wants the government to take actions in managing ritual sacrifices, when most nations can just tackle it with a police force;

"Presumably, the resolution's total ban on ritual sacrifice of sapients would be managed through a police force. If your nation is not enforcing the resolution's mandates through police action, you are most likely not compliant with World Assembly legislation, and have violated the terms of your membership."

Further dismayed that the author of this proposal has not considered the fact that, ritual sacrifices are part of peoples' religious heritage too, and thus such religious practice should be preserved;

"The author and many other member delegations have considered this argument and rejected it. Barbaric religious customs are no justification for the murder of innocent people."

Implied that those "irreparable harm or death" are done on purpose for religious purposes only, and that the author is restricting peoples' religious freedoms, because such actions do not constitute "violations of the basic human right to live";

"Killing innocent people is most certainly a violation of their right to live."

Unhappy about the fact that, under the "Defines" section, the author does not (a)acknowledge the purposes for offering beings to a god or spirit, thus making the proposal ban all purposes of offering beings to a god or spirit, which is bad for some religions may have done it for a good and/or useful purpose,

"That is hardly more than gibberish. After translating this statement, I think that you mean to complain that the definition of ritual sacrifice does not constitute a full encyclopedia article on the topic. Definitions do not need to go into depth about the words they describe."

(b)state how the population of sapient beings would be affected whether badly or not

"Slaughtering innocent people in order to please a nonexistent god or spirit most certainly affects sapient populations negatively."

(c) recognize that not all ritual sacrifices done is "a method by which a ruling class or regime creates or perpetuates social hierarchy"; and

"It does recognize that. You have either misread the definition, or you are lying."

Further thinking that it would be unfair for religious-based sacrifice to be exempted from all other kinds of suicide.

"Ritual sacrifice is not a form of suicide."

This proposal hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #416, "Ban On Ritual Sacrifice".

"No, thank you."