[FAILED QUORUM] Ban On Cannibalism Attempt Two

[United North American Commonwealths]

The World Assembly,

Believing that every single form of sapient life is very precious, special, and worthy, which means that it should be held absolutely dear,

Acknowledging that the deceased had once possessed the traits of the living, meaning that they loved and were loved by others who were close to them, and should be respected just like any other person,

Aware that there are various cultures around the world, each with their different customs, beliefs, and ideologies, but also seeing cannibalism and other acts similar to it as unethical and unscrupulous,

Disgusted at the complete lack of moral decency in the individuals who support the eating of the flesh and organs of others, who basically sum up the dead they feast on as nothing more than food,

Defining cannibalism for the purposes of this resolution, as the eating of the flesh or body parts of one's own species, while also clarifying that being a carnivore is not condemned in the sense of eating meat from other animals,

Hereby,

1. Completely prohibits all forms of cannibalism, except autocannibalism, in all member-nations, whether or not it may be ritualistic,

2. Classifies all perpetrators of cannibalism after the passing of this resolution as criminals, meaning that those who have comitted the act prior shall be excused,

A. Pardons and exceptions may be issued towards a future suspect if the act is seen as justified when given circumstances through a court ruling

3. Urges member-nations to limit and prevent the promotion of cannibalism.

Your current version of your proposal only accounts for human beings like some nations on Nationstates are Aliens where there only food sources is cannibalism and also this proposal infringes on religious freedoms so therefore I am Against this Proposal.

Sincerely;
United North American Commonwealths

[The New California Republic]

Your current version of your proposal only accounts for human beings like some nations on Nationstates are Aliens where there only food sources is cannibalism and also this proposal infringes on religious freedoms so therefore I am Against this Proposal.

OOC: Where does the draft say that it only applies to humans? What nation in the World Assembly has a species that relies solely on cannibalism as its food source?

[Libana]

I would be fine with this, but what if the culture itself accepts this as something you do? If it does and the person inside of the culture is then consenting to it, then what is the problem? It is unethical to the large population of the world, yes. But, if you just realize that people who live in cultures like these often times are consenting to this sort of thing, you will realize there is less of a problem than you think. Maybe add something about consent in to your draft.

Believing that every single form of sapient life is very precious, special, and worthy, which means that it should be held absolutely dear,

This is contradictory to the rest of the draft. Get rid of the sapient part, and then it'll be more accurate since you're obviously going to be banning every type of cannibalism. Unless this is JUST for sapiens in which you need to get rid of

Defining cannibalism for the purposes of this resolution, as the eating of the flesh or body parts of one's own species, while also clarifying that being a carnivore is not condemned in the sense of eating meat from other animals,

I got rid of the sapient part by the way. As for consent, I could throw in an exception. I'm just trying to make sure that I don't put so many exceptions that the entire draft becomes pointless.

[Allied Sapients]

Your current version of your proposal only accounts for human beings like some nations on Nationstates are Aliens where there only food sources is cannibalism and also this proposal infringes on religious freedoms so therefore I am Against this Proposal.

Sincerely;
United North American Commonwealths

"That is an exceptionally poor evolutionary strategy; a species that only eats its own species will go extinct in short order," says Ambassador Olsh. "Entropy and the gradual decline in bioavailable energy will ensure it."

[He Qixin]

OOC: Sorry if this was beyond imagining here, but if this bill applies to animals too, how would you deal with them?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Sorry if this was beyond imagining here, but if this bill applies to animals too, how would you deal with them?

(OOC: It does seem the resolution never mention any exception for non-sapients, which would criminalise animals and force nations to designate them as criminals. This needs to be changed in the draft.)

[Libana]

OOC: Sorry if this was beyond imagining here, but if this bill applies to animals too, how would you deal with them?

(OOC: It does seem the resolution never mention any exception for non-sapients, which would criminalise animals and force nations to designate them as criminals. This needs to be changed in the draft.)

You have a pretty good point. I just added in an exception for non-sapients. Just asking by the way, is there any more I should add to the draft, or do you think it is ready enough to place as a Proposal in the WA?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: It does seem the resolution never mention any exception for non-sapients, which would criminalise animals and force nations to designate them as criminals. This needs to be changed in the draft.)

You have a pretty good point. I just added in an exception for non-sapients. Just asking by the way, is there any more I should add to the draft, or do you think it is ready enough to place as a Proposal in the WA?

(OOC: I can't see any changes I would suggest at the moment, but it's normal to draft for weeks or months before submission, so I would hold the draft for a while to see if anyone else has any concerns.)

[Allied Sapients]

You have a pretty good point. I just added in an exception for non-sapients. Just asking by the way, is there any more I should add to the draft, or do you think it is ready enough to place as a Proposal in the WA?

OOC: How about an exception for this?

What about circumstances where it’s not disrespect, such as in funerary cannibalism?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: If too many exceptions are added, the proposal will look a bit toothless.)

[Allied Sapients]

(OOC: If the entire proposal is based around “summing up the dead as nothing but food” then cases where eating the dead is respect don’t fall into that and should be excused)

[Libana]

I already stated earlier that if I add too many exceptions, then the entire legislation would be useless. I don't want to be rude, but I'm pretty sure laws are supposed to actually do something. That is like saying you want to ban slavery, but provide exceptions to people who make money off of it.

[Allied Sapients]

OOC: If you have literally only one reason for a ban and there's a circumstance that doesn't trip that reason, that circumstance should be excepted from the ban.

[Kenmoria]

"2A could defeat the whole purpose of the proposal if the court sees every act as justified."

[Libana]

I am issuing a two-day final call. After 48 hours, this draft will be submitted.

[Libana]

"2A could defeat the whole purpose of the proposal if the court sees every act as justified."

I know what you mean, but I added it because so many people were asking for specific excuses/exceptions. Hopefully, it won't get "loopholed" too much.

[The Northeastern Confederation]

"We have recently passed an legislation that aproved individuals to sell/donate their bodies after death to be eaten if they wish to do so. We think this must also to be an exception, if an individual can donate their bodies after their deaths to science, then they can give the rights of their own corpse to their family or to an organization so they can colect the profits or enjoy a meal. If everybody is in a agreement, of course.

The individual's right to choose the fate of their bodies after death - even to be eaten - must be taken into consideration."

---

OOC: I edited above to be IC since i tought that this board was out-of-character. But my statement ramains, if an individual cannot choose what happens to their own bodies after death then this decision is as tyranical as what it tries to tackle. Peace.

[Essu Beti]

I recently passed an issue in my nation that aproved individuals to sell their bodies after death to be eaten if they wish to do so. I think this also have to be an exception, if an individual can donate their bodies after their deaths to science, then they can give the rights to sell the flesh to their family or to an organization so they can colect the profits. Or even to not sell and have others to eat their bodies for whatever reason, if everybody is in a agreement.

The individual's right to choose the fate of their bodies after death - even to be eaten - must be taken into consideration.

((OOC: NationStates Issues have no influence on World Assembly resolutions.

And, since I'm Allied Sapients, I really must reiterate that there needs to be an exception for funerary cannibalism.))

[Wallenburg]

"Wallenburg shares close diplomatic relationships with nations whose cultures embrace cannibalism as a funeral practice. The practice hurts no one when performed properly, and is an integral part of these foreign cultures. Sure, it's disgusting, but so is fried chicken, and I'm not going around trying to ban that."

[Die PreuBen Kaiserreich]

I'm still not seeing ANYTHING in here about people that preform cannibalism as part of their culture and/or religion. I'm not supporting this unless you acknowledge these cultures and religions.

[Giant Bats]

Ikiti Tikilikrr, the Tikrr ambassador, resembling a combination of what in some world somewhere might have been called bats, orca whales and birds of prey, listened to the debate on her perch behind the table spot spared for her nation. She of course couldn't understand anything of what to her ears was mostly low-pitched moans and growls, but her cybernetic headgear, connected to the half-organic brain implant that all Tikrr received, included a kind of universal translator that not only translated the alien words, but also the alien concepts.

She felt that this practice called "cannibalism" was really confusing. All Tikrr started their lives by eating their siblings that had had the misfortune of starting their lives in the same branch of the uterus and then further consuming unfertilized eggs the mother's body produced for food, with only the gas exchange being taken care of by the umbilical cord. To classify all Tikrr ever born as criminals because of acts done before they were even born didn't make any sense.

"What of those who commit this so-called crime before they are old enough to know that they should not do so?" she asked. "Our young are cannibalistic before they are born. Does that make them criminals? Does it make me a criminal?"

By now she had learned what a great - if unintentional - intimidation factor her teeth were, so she opened her jaws slightly to let her teeth - which would have been more commonly seen in the jaws of some fish than a creature at least outwardly resembling a mammal of some kind - be visible due to the lack of lips. When her jaws were closed, the outermost row of teeth was not visible thanks to grooves in the gums where the other jaw's teeth nicely slotted. She also had many more series of teeth than were immediately visible.

- Ikiti Tikilikrr, Head of the Diplomatic Wing of the Tikrr, 10th generation mother of two

[Kenmoria]

Ikiti Tikilikrr, the Tikrr ambassador, resembling a combination of what in some world somewhere might have been called bats, orca whales and birds of prey, listened to the debate on her perch behind the table spot spared for her nation. She of course couldn't understand anything of what to her ears was mostly low-pitched moans and growls, but her cybernetic headgear, connected to the half-organic brain implant that all Tikrr received, included a kind of universal translator that not only translated the alien words, but also the alien concepts.

She felt that this practice called "cannibalism" was really confusing. All Tikrr started their lives by eating their siblings that had had the misfortune of starting their lives in the same branch of the uterus and then further consuming unfertilized eggs the mother's body produced for food, with only the gas exchange being taken care of by the umbilical cord. To classify all Tikrr ever born as criminals because of acts done before they were even born didn't make any sense.

"What of those who commit this so-called crime before they are old enough to know that they should not do so?" she asked. "Our young are cannibalistic before they are born. Does that make them criminals? Does it make me a criminal?"

By now she had learned what a great - if unintentional - intimidation factor her teeth were, so she opened her jaws slightly to let her teeth - which would have been more commonly seen in the jaws of some fish than a creature at least outwardly resembling a mammal of some kind - be visible due to the lack of lips. When her jaws were closed, the outermost row of teeth was not visible thanks to grooves in the gums where the other jaw's teeth nicely slotted. She also had many more series of teeth than were immediately visible.

- Ikiti Tikilikrr, Head of the Diplomatic Wing of the Tikrr, 10th generation mother of two

"Note the numerous exceptions granted by the draft, one of which, namely clause 2A, could very easily fix your predicament. The proposal is very much geared towards banning cannibalism only in unjustified, hedonistic circumstances. And would you please retract those teeth."

[Libana]

"Note the numerous exceptions granted by the draft, one of which, namely clause 2A, could very easily fix your predicament. The proposal is very much geared towards banning cannibalism only in unjustified, hedonistic circumstances. And would you please retract those teeth."

THANK YOU!!! SOMEONE GETS IT!!!

[Libana]

I'm still not seeing ANYTHING in here about people that preform cannibalism as part of their culture and/or religion. I'm not supporting this unless you acknowledge these cultures and religions.

By granting exceptions to those cultures, the entire thing will literally be pointless.

[The Northeastern Confederation]

I'm still not seeing ANYTHING in here about people that preform cannibalism as part of their culture and/or religion. I'm not supporting this unless you acknowledge these cultures and religions.

By granting exceptions to those cultures, the entire thing will literally be pointless.

Maybe because it is. The proposal could focus more in the ensurance of individuals' right to choose to participate in those rituals or even remain in the religion itself, but instead only focus on the banishment of the practice. Maybe, the proposal needs to be reestructured.

I would propose that:
1 - The text focus in "non-consensual cannibalism";
2 - The definition of "non-consensual cannibalism" is expressed right in the begining of the proposal in terms of "the consumption of the body of a sapient beign without previous agreement about it and/or who's death was caused exclusively for this purpose."

With this, religious cannibalism would be protected, since it would recquire the individual to vocalize its will to have its remains eaten before death, as long as the death itself is not for the sake of cannibalism.