[FAILED QUORUM] Ban On Cannibalism Attempt Two

[Libana]

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.

Some people could forced to say that they consent to it, and that would create loopholes. There are already enough exceptions placed. I say that it should be left how it is.

[Libana]

I have decided to extend the final call to tomorrow. The draft has not been submitted yet.

[Essu Beti]

Some people could forced to say that they consent to it, and that would create loopholes. There are already enough exceptions placed. I say that it should be left how it is.

You keep saying that and you keep being wrong. Without the exception for respectful cannibalism, your entire argument is undermined. Put the exception in.

[Giant Bats]

"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."

Ikiti turned her ears towards the weirdly squawking creature as a sign that she was listening to what it was saying, even if she had to wait for the translation to actually understand the words.

"The exception mentioned says "if the act is seen as justified when given circumstances through a court ruling". Through a court ruling, ambassador. Does that mean that people like mine would need to first establish a law system that has courts, and then would need to set up a case against each and every newborn and existing Tikrr and then pardon them? Do the words "unnecessary bureaucracy" mean anything to you?"

She then turned her head to face the bipedal creature, to scan it with her hunting sonar, which couldn't be done with her mouth closed, hence her teeth were still visible.

"I could kill you and eat you and it would not be against World Assembly law, as you are not a child."

She then turned to face the bipedal ambassador fully, placing her wing hands on the adjacent tables, crouching down as if for take-off. The spines on her back rose from their usual resting position against her skin, in additional display of imminent aggression, though it was unlikely the wingless creature could understand her body language.

"You wish to make my unborn children criminals, unless they are pardoned by a court. How is that not discrimination based on my species? There are existing resolutions that ban arbitrary discrimination, and if using a basic fact of biology one cannot do anything about to discriminate against someone is not arbitrary, then you must be mentally handicapped." She paused for a moment. "Which probably would make killing and eating you to be against a resolution. Do you wish to claim that defense?"

She didn't bother to comment on the "withdrawing of teeth", as it was utter nonsense. Tikrr teeth were no more retractable than human teeth were. The only difference in their visibility was that the humans had fleshy cheeks and lips to hide theirs, due to them being masticating animals.

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

[Araraukar]

Some people could forced to say that they consent to it, and that would create loopholes. There are already enough exceptions placed. I say that it should be left how it is.

OOC: Just put in an exception for a biological process that the sapient individual has no control over, and please don't cause a legality issue about making children and people with diminished understanding (who wouldn't be declared criminals even if they killed someone and were found guilty of it in court) who do not know/understand that what they did was wrong. If someone is below the age of criminal responsibility, they cannot be a criminal.

...actually, not sure you can automatically classify people as criminals at all, without running afoul of some resolution(s). You can criminalise the act, but whether someone is criminal or not should depend on a court ruling. Not the other way around. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

[The Northeastern Confederation]

Some people could forced to say that they consent to it, and that would create loopholes. There are already enough exceptions placed. I say that it should be left how it is.

One could say the same for any form of ritual or activity such as sexual intercourse or circuncision, yet we trust the nation-states to enforce the rule of law regardless. If it is left how it is, then it does not have the Northeastern Confederation's support.

You keep saying that and you keep being wrong. Without the exception for respectful cannibalism, your entire argument is undermined. Put the exception in.

Agreed.

[Rafterland]

Dear sovereign nation of Libana,

Although we share your feelings of deep repulsion when it comes to cannibalism, we truly believe that this proposal is not a matter of international law and therefore has no place for discussion in this assembly.

Indeed, we have reasons to believe that in all scenarios where an individual might be in the position of ingesting a corpse of his species, already existing local law, derived or not from GA resolutions, explicitly prohibits the acquisition and destruction of said corpse and exceptional circumstances might apply in which local judiciary systems (and all ensuing appeal courts, international or not) should have the final say.

Therefore, we regret to inform you that we will not be supporting this proposal.

I urge you not to eat your heart out and wish you the best of luck,

For the Rafterland Office for Foreign Affairs,
Director André VANDEPUTTE

ooc: lol got it ? eat your heart out hahaha anyway check this link https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cannibalism

[Libana]

After so much opposition and demand, I'm finally giving in and putting an exception to consent. It was Northeast Confederation's argument that changed my mind. The final call will be extended further to Tuesday morning. The draft is still not submitted. Hopefully, there will be some more support.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The final call will be extended further to Tuesday morning.

OOC: What's your rush?

[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.

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

It's something called freedom of religion and freedom of expression. This is infringing on basic human rights. This is not getting my support in any way.

[Wallenburg]

Shouldn't the exception be in clause 1 instead of clause 2?

[Kenmoria]

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

It's something called freedom of religion and freedom of expression. This is infringing on basic human rights. This is not getting my support in any way.

(OOC: I'm sure there are religions and cultures somewhere in the vast multiverse of the WA where every single act that has been prohibited is a vital part of ritual. Making an exception for certain cultures would: firstly make the resolution a bit pointless given the fact that these cultures would perform it most; and secondly run the risk of breaking the optionality rule. Cannibalism in particular deserves to be stamped out whether or not it is part of a culture.)

[Libana]

(OOC: I'm sure there are religions and cultures somewhere in the vast multiverse of the WA where every single act that has been prohibited is a vital part of ritual. Making an exception for certain cultures would: firstly make the resolution a bit pointless given the fact that these cultures would perform it most; and secondly run the risk of breaking the optionality rule. Cannibalism in particular deserves to be stamped out whether or not it is part of a culture.)

I absolutely agree, but this draft has zero chance if there is no compromise. Like I said earlier, I hope this does not get "loopholed" too much.

[Libana]

Shouldn't the exception be in clause 1 instead of clause 2?

Good point. Changed it.

[Libana]

The final call is now officially over! The draft has been submitted to the General Assembly as a Proposal. Don't worry guys, it INCLUDES funerary/consent to cannibalism. If you want, you can spread the word to other nations, regions, and delegates!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1522148961

[Rafterland]

Do you mind if I challenge the legality of your proposal ?

[Wrapper]

Do you mind if I challenge the legality of your proposal ?

You really don't need someone's permission to do so.

[Rafterland]

Do you mind if I challenge the legality of your proposal ?

You really don't need someone's permission to do so.

Meh, just for courtesy's sake

Since I'm really new to this, I would like to tell you my argument and see some feedback :


Here is my totally funny RP style post from earlier :

Dear sovereign nation of Libana,

Although we share your feelings of deep repulsion when it comes to cannibalism, we truly believe that this proposal is not a matter of international law and therefore has no place for discussion in this assembly.

Indeed, we have reasons to believe that in all scenarios where an individual might be in the position of ingesting a corpse of his species, already existing local law, derived or not from GA resolutions, explicitly prohibits the acquisition and destruction of said corpse and exceptional circumstances might apply in which local judiciary systems (and all ensuing appeal courts, international or not) should have the final say.

Therefore, we regret to inform you that we will not be supporting this proposal.

I urge you not to eat your heart out and wish you the best of luck,

For the Rafterland Office for Foreign Affairs,
Director André VANDEPUTTE

ooc: lol got it ? eat your heart out hahaha anyway check this link https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cannibalism

A more refined version of that, which should be foolproof, is , in 3 parts :

1) It is demonstrated in my post that, in member nations which outlaw cannibalism, acquiring and disposing of a deceased corpse for consumption implicitly requires contravening other existing local law as well, due to the existence of a national interest in cannibalism inherent to the observance of GAR#2 Article 6.

Demonstrating national interest in cannibalism->
This article strongly implies at the end that judiciary and executive branches of a member nation's government must actively act to prevent revolt (in any way possible, but to stay fair and be cool with the gameplay, if the criminality stat is changed positively by any resolution, it can then be implied that criminals have been apprehended by a proper police force, thus enabling and necessitating forensic work -> that's it if you're really hardcore about interpreting GAR#2 as waconstitution.txt )

In layman's terms, if a member nation wants to outlaw cannibalism, they would require a proper judiciary system to enforce that, which means that the pertinence of linking the need for preserving forensic evidence to the nation's sovereignty on the matter is derived from WA membership in itself (do you feel the natsov coming)

If you want to be real picky about nations who permit cannibalism after proper autopsy and consent of family, as a form of ritualistic burial for example, then lack of consent generates moral prejudice, which would evidently need to be taken into account in law as it is the one of the basis of basic local legal practice. This further exemplifies the obvious existence of a national interest in such nations towards cannibalism.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say that a member nation's judiciary system is mandated by the GA (which would kill natsov), I'm saying that if any such system exists, it must have the goal of being efficient at keeping order, which requires evidence preservation or defines moral prejudice, for exemple

2) As a matter of fact, legislation should not really aim to be a substitute for common moral decency and instances of degeneracy that prove to be criminal should be covered by law. This has been proven to be the case in regards to cannibalism in 1.

3) Apply NatSov entirely (GAR#2 Section 1) if it's not already clear to you that this shouldn't be international law.

I also believe it could be proven that the proposal itself wouldn't have any operative effect, but that's going too far. All in all, I really think that there could be some interesting jurisprudence going on.

Just to be clear, and even if I'm not sure if there's an equivalent to at least parts of the Human Rights Declaration at the GA, it seems that we don't even care that much about that in real life too [I mean by this that the HRD doesn't cover cannibalism, + I can link to a MSF medic's quote saying they didn't care about preventing people from eating the victims of their violation of human rights], as well as in the posts in the proposal thread which have mentioned the above issues [ tl;dr : why did you even submit ? If you really want to pass a resolution, then you should just choose another topic and run along with it, at least that's how I see it].

Frankly, I haven't read into the history of this proposal, but I really think that if it has failed once, it's for a reason :s

Anyway, no beef, I'm just debating for the sake of debate and correctness

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: If you're posting a legality challenge, create a new thread for it, and title it "[LEGALITY CHALLENGE]: Ban On Cannibalism". Capitalization is optional, but the words "legality challenge" need to be in the thread title, as well as the name of the proposal you're challenging.

If you do a formal challenge, include a spoilered version of the proposal and/or link to the proposal, the rule(s) you believe were broken and your arguments for why you think the rule was broken.

Legality challenge threads are out-of-character (OOC) ones.

[Rafterland]

*snip*

OOC: If you're posting a legality challenge, create a new thread for it, and title it "[LEGALITY CHALLENGE]: Ban On Cannibalism". Capitalization is optional, but the words "legality challenge" need to be in the thread title, as well as the name of the proposal you're challenging.

If you do a formal challenge, include a spoilered version of the proposal and/or link to the proposal, the rule(s) you believe were broken and your arguments for why you think the rule was broken.

Legality challenge threads are out-of-character (OOC) ones.

Meh, I think that there are a few chances that this passes anyways, and contradicting national sovereignty sounds like a pretty pettish issue

[Imperium Anglorum]

"[LEGALITY CHALLENGE]: Ban On Cannibalism"

No colons!

[Imperial Polk County]

"I have a real issue with this line." Drane points to:

B. If the one who shall be eaten gives solid proof of consent, then the act shall be legal

"This prevents nations from outright outlawing cannibalism, as it forces us to recognize the act of consensual cannibalism as a legal act. Definitely opposed to this as written."

[The Northeastern Confederation]

"I have a real issue with this line." Drane points to:

B. If the one who shall be eaten gives solid proof of consent, then the act shall be legal

"This prevents nations from outright outlawing cannibalism, as it forces us to recognize the act of consensual cannibalism as a legal act. Definitely opposed to this as written."

it could be rewritten to "[...]then the act can be tolerated."

[Kenmoria]

"I have a real issue with this line." Drane points to:

B. If the one who shall be eaten gives solid proof of consent, then the act shall be legal

"This prevents nations from outright outlawing cannibalism, as it forces us to recognize the act of consensual cannibalism as a legal act. Definitely opposed to this as written."

"I would suggest, therefore, that it be re-written to, “B. If the one who shall be eaten gives solid proof of full, informed consent, then the act shall not be mandated to be illegal by the WA.” As this way, the resolution allows for cannibalism to be rendered illegal in all circumstances."

[Imperial Polk County]

"A mite late for changes, seeing it's been submitted."