[DROPPED] Ban on Person-sourced Meats

[Imperium Anglorum]

Moral Decency: Mild.

The World Assembly,

Convinced that the sourcing of meat from person sources (eg cannibalism) without affirmative consent should be prohibited, hereby enacts as follows.

1. In this resolution "meat derived from a person" is meat, derived from a person per the definition of a person in the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived.
   
   
2. The following activities are prohibited with regard to meat derived from a person:
   
   
   1. export from or import to any member nation, severally and collectively;
      
      
   2. transshipment across the territory of any member nation, severally and collectively;
      
      
   3. production, consumption, creation, or possession within the jurisdiction of any member nation or of the World Assembly.
3. The Independent Adjudicative Office shall levy fines at the level sufficient to induce compliance against any member nation which chooses to permit violations of section 2 within its jurisdiction.
   
   
4. The provisions of this resolution notwithstanding, no meat derived from a person may be consumed or otherwise sold if an intended final consumer has a substantial risk of contracting any disease from such consumption. Each member nation must prohibit the import of meats derived from persons into its jurisdiction under the definition of a person therein.
   
   
5. In the above section, use of the plural includes the singular and vice versa. No clause may be enacted which would violate this resolution but for any subordinating or excepting clause, including an other like clause with such effect, or a clause which would delay such a violating clause's commencement until a future date or event.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The World Assembly,

Convinced that the sourcing of meat from person sources (eg cannibalism) without affirmative consent should be prohibited,

Believing that the least restrictive means to do this is to require the licensing thereto, as a full ban on such sourcing would be overly broad and therefore violate GA 430 "Freedom of Religion", hereby enacts as follows.

1. In this resolution:
   
   
   1. "meat derived from a person" is meat, derived from a person per the definition of a person in the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived;
      
      
   2. "licensing requirements" are met when meat derived from a person is so derived with the affirmative and notarised consent of the person from which it was derived, memorialised in writing affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and providable upon demand; and
      
      
   3. "licensed person meat" is meat derived from a person which complies with licensing requirements.
2. The following activities are prohibited with regard to meat derived from a person which is not licensed person meat:
   
   
   1. export from or import to any member nation, severally and collectively;
      
      
   2. transshipment across the territory of any member nation, severally and collectively;
      
      
   3. production, consumption, creation, or possession within the jurisdiction of any member nation or of the World Assembly.
3. The Independent Adjudicative Office shall levy fines at the level sufficient to induce compliance against any member nation which chooses to permit violations of section 2 within its jurisdiction.
   
   
4. The provisions of this resolution notwithstanding, no meat derived from a person may be consumed or otherwise sold if an intended final consumer has a substantial risk of contracting any disease from such consumption. Each member nation must prohibit the import of meats derived from persons into its jurisdiction under the definition of a person therein.
   
   
5. Subject only to active prior resolutions, member nations, jointly and severally, shall have power to restrict, regulate, or ban cannibalism; no clause may be enacted which would violate this resolution but for any subordinating or excepting clause, including an other like clause with such effect, or a clause which would delay such a violating clause's commencement until a future date or event.
   
   
6. In the above section, use of the plural includes the singular and vice versa.

[Tinhampton]

Support in principle. I am not, however, a fan of the exemptions made in regards to "ethically sourced person meat."

Speaking of which: Article 1b requires that the consent of whoever's flesh is used to make meat be "affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and providable upon demand." But if text - any text - is present on the packaging of any item, then you can see it already; there is no need for such text to be "provid[ed] upon demand" because you do not need to explicitly demand to see that text in order to read it.

Nor do I understand Article 3, given that GA#440 exists and enjoys near-unanimous support among most active GA roleplayers. (See Daarwyrth.) In particular, Article I.1 of GA#440 allows for the IAO to fine member states for their noncompliance whether that noncompliance results from inaction (i.e. failure to enforce WA law) or from action (i.e. wilful defiance of mandates that exist in WA law), with the possibility of escalating to sanctions if such fines are neither paid nor if there exists a payment plan.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Speaking of which: Article 1b requires that the consent of whoever's flesh is used to make meat be "affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and providable upon demand." But if text - any text - is present on the packaging of any item, then you can see it already; there is no need for such text to be "provid[ed] upon demand" because you do not need to explicitly demand to see that text in order to read it.

The producer (or whoever holds the record) needs to be able to produce it if so demanded. This is to prevent forgeries. Do you have a suggestion which would make that clearer?

Nor do I understand Article 3, given that GA#440 exists and enjoys near-unanimous support among most active GA roleplayers. (See Daarwyrth.) In particular, Article I.1 of GA#440 allows for the IAO to fine member states for their noncompliance whether that noncompliance results from inaction (i.e. failure to enforce WA law) or from action (i.e. wilful defiance of mandates that exist in WA law), with the possibility of escalating to sanctions if such fines are neither paid nor if there exists a payment plan.

Somehow, I know how the ACA works. ACA art 1 s 1(d) gives some mitigating and aggravating circumstances before a catch-all. I want them ignored for the purposes of this resolution to make a strict liability standard. ACA art 1 does not establish exclusive IAO jurisdiction over coercive fines, which vitiates a claim of conflict.

[Simone Republic]

If 2(a) is joint and several among W states, and 2(c) is also joint and several, where exactly is the meat for "ethical consumption" coming from?

OOC:

Personally I don't know why NS has so much content dealing with cannibalism and to be honest I'd rather yank the religious issues with GAR#430 and ban the practice outright. I literally threw up even thinking about it. I appreciate my views may not work with the medieval RP etc but I am just not keen on this topic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If 2(a) is joint and several, and 2(c) is also joint and several, where exactly is the meat for "ethincal consumption" coming from?

Section 4 wholly exempts ethically sourced person meat.

OOC. I don't know why NS has an obsession with cannibalism and to be honest I'd rather yank the religious loophole and ban the practice outright. I literally threw up even thinking about it.

You'll have to repeal Freedom of Religion. I realised there should be way to do it without also contradicting it.

[Heavens Reach]

We're unsure about this one. Our concerns are as follows:

• If the definition of "person" is left up to each member nation to define, circumventing this law is as easy as reclassifying who counts as a person, or eschewing the legal classification of person altogether
• While it is definitely a plus that there is more red tape surrounding the production of person-sourced meat under this proposal, and that that red tape is tied directly to the source person's bodily autonomy, it doesn't address situations in which the person is being trafficked, or otherwise coerced, into agreeing to the license so that their meat can be sourced
• In general, cannibalism:
  
  • Falls somewhere within the scope of this proposal, as a special case of person-sourcing in which one member of a taxonomic species (a proxy, in this case, for high genetic concordance) consumes another member of the same
  • Has a dangerously high risk of causing the spread of prion-based disorders. This risk is very high given that:
    
    • Misfolded proteins (a natural consequence of digestion) are very similar in primary structure to properly folded proteins within the same species, and that this can cause misfolding cascades that induce a progressive form of dementia in the brain
    • There is a significant delay in the presentation of symptoms
    • It is nearly impossible to treat, even in concept
    • And at the scale of religion, by the time the first casualty arrives, mass casualties are already guaranteed, and additionally:
      
      • Religions can have coercive effects, especially on those lacking the developmental or cognitive faculties to weigh the risks, as well as those who are simply uneducated in what those risks are

We support this in principle, but think that you couldn't go wrong being a lot more restrictive than you currently are, even if you don't want to make the leap to banning it outright, and believe there need to be provisos addressing the vulnerable people mentioned in our concerns (including those facing trafficking, coercion, a lack of decision-making capacity, or even simple ignorance)

[Haganham]

What stops me getting meat from a nonmember state that has defined person such as to exclude say, an ethnic minority? As written this would not be considered meat from a person.

[Simone Republic]

If 2(a) is joint and several, and 2(c) is also joint and several, where exactly is the meat for "ethincal consumption" coming from?

Section 4 wholly exempts ethically sourced person meat.

Ok got it, I caught the logic now.

Perhaps to brand it as "licensed personal meat"? Ethical to me sounds a bit jarring, I find the term a bit hard to swallow.

OOC. I don't know why NS has an obsession with cannibalism and to be honest I'd rather yank the religious loophole and ban the practice outright. I literally threw up even thinking about it.

You'll have to repeal Freedom of Religion. I realised there should be way to do it without also contradicting it.

Perhaps some kind of restrictions to a justifiable need on grounds ascertained as strictly necessary by the WA state?

[Imperium Anglorum]

All OOC.

What stops me getting meat from a nonmember state that has defined person such as to exclude say, an ethnic minority? As written this would not be considered meat from a person.

All "sapients" are persons under GA 355.

We're unsure about this one. Our concerns are as follows:

• If the definition of "person" is left up to each member nation to define, circumventing this law is as easy as reclassifying who counts as a person, or eschewing the legal classification of person altogether
• While it is definitely a plus that there is more red tape surrounding the production of person-sourced meat under this proposal, and that that red tape is tied directly to the source person's bodily autonomy, it doesn't address situations in which the person is being trafficked, or otherwise coerced, into agreeing to the license so that their meat can be sourced
• In general, cannibalism:
  
  • Falls somewhere within the scope of this proposal, as a special case of person-sourcing in which one member of a taxonomic species (a proxy, in this case, for high genetic concordance) consumes another member of the same
  • Has a dangerously high risk of causing the spread of prion-based disorders. This risk is very high given that:
    
    • Misfolded proteins (a natural consequence of digestion) are very similar in primary structure to properly folded proteins within the same species, and that this can cause misfolding cascades that induce a progressive form of dementia in the brain
    • There is a significant delay in the presentation of symptoms
    • It is nearly impossible to treat, even in concept
    • And at the scale of religion, by the time the first casualty arrives, mass casualties are already guaranteed, and additionally:
      
      • Religions can have coercive effects, especially on those lacking the developmental or cognitive faculties to weigh the risks, as well as those who are simply uneducated in what those risks are

We support this in principle, but think that you couldn't go wrong being a lot more restrictive than you currently are, even if you don't want to make the leap to banning it outright, and believe there need to be provisos addressing the vulnerable people mentioned in our concerns (including those facing trafficking, coercion, a lack of decision-making capacity, or even simple ignorance)

As to health issues of prion diseases like kuru, that seems like a food and safety or public health question. I think it's somewhat out of scope, as this is a moral decency resolution. That said, I think it could be bolted on without impairment and with a legitimate justification for not failing strict scrutiny.

The provisions of this resolution notwithstanding, no meat derived from a person may be consumed or otherwise sold if an intended final consumer has a substantial risk of contracting any disease from such consumption.

As to consent, coercion vitiates consent. Second, even if it didn't, I don't think it's compatible with "affirmative consent".

Perhaps to brand it as "licensed personal meat"? Ethical to me sounds a bit jarring, I find the term a bit hard to swallow ... Perhaps some kind of restrictions to a justifiable need on grounds ascertained as strictly necessary by the WA state?

Sure. As to the second matter, could you clarify?

[Tinhampton]

If the definition of "person" is left up to each member nation to define

Wrong. GA#499 bans member states from considering foetuses as persons.

Speaking of which: Article 1b requires that the consent of whoever's flesh is used to make meat be "affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and providable upon demand." But if text - any text - is present on the packaging of any item, then you can see it already; there is no need for such text to be "provid[ed] upon demand" because you do not need to explicitly demand to see that text in order to read it.

The producer needs to be able to produce it if required. This is to prevent forgeries. Do you have a suggestion which would make that clearer?

Yes. I read 1b as meaning that the consent notice must be both:

1. "affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and
2. providable on demand."

Offering a choice between directly placing the notice on the packaging and offering that notice on demand would probably be more sensible. (And less confusing. For me, anyway!)

Nor do I understand Article 3, given that GA#440 exists and enjoys near-unanimous support among most active GA roleplayers. (See Daarwyrth.) In particular, Article I.1 of GA#440 allows for the IAO to fine member states for their noncompliance whether that noncompliance results from inaction (i.e. failure to enforce WA law) or from action (i.e. wilful defiance of mandates that exist in WA law), with the possibility of escalating to sanctions if such fines are neither paid nor if there exists a payment plan.

Somehow, I know how the ACA works. ACA art 1 s 1(d) gives some mitigating and aggravating circumstances before a catch-all. I want them ignored for the purposes of this resolution to make a strict liability standard. ACA art 1 does not establish exclusive IAO jurisdiction over coercive fines, which vitiates a claim of conflict.

Why is a "strict liability standard" - a standard which is used by no other resolution to determine what punishment is appropriate for non-compliance with its provisions - necessary, or at least preferable to using the mechanism laid out in Article I.1 of GA#440 to punish noncompliance?

To wit, your Article 3 requires the punishment of member states who fail to ensure full compliance with Article 2's provisions, regardless of any considerations that may be laid in Article I.1.d of GA#440.

• Article 2 forbids the consumption or possession of non-licensed person meat (NLPM) products, even by an individual who may not know that they are possessing or eating it. (Supply chains can be long and opaque.)
• It prohibits their production, which requires member states to either continually monitor all meat processing plants to ensure that NLPM products do not escape or face the risk of coercive fines in case they do.
• And it prohibits their "[t]ransshipment across the territory of any member." Not only lorries are used to transport foodstuffs over substantial distances, but also vans, personal vehicles, and backpacks. (Think of schoolchildren who bring packed lunch to school or hikers who want something to eat while rambling.) You cannot expect member states to check every single one of these items whenever somebody wants to go to a destination within their member state just to make sure that no NLPM products are inside them, and hence due to be transshipped across that nation.

Article 2 can be violated by anybody, anywhere in the supply chain of NLPM products within a member state - sometimes unwittingly. The scope for violation of its provisions is sufficiently vast that member states seeking to avoid receiving Article 3 fines must institute what can only be described as a surveillance state. Again: Why is this any better than simply allowing the non-enforcement of Article 2 offences to be prosecuted the same as any other violation of WA law, via Article I.1.4 of GA#440?

[Heavens Reach]

If the definition of "person" is left up to each member nation to define

Wrong. GA#499 bans member states from considering foetuses as persons.

This does not address the concern at all.

[Haganham]

All OOC.

What stops me getting meat from a nonmember state that has defined person such as to exclude say, an ethnic minority? As written this would not be considered meat from a person.

All "sapients" are persons under GA 355.

But the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived is not subject to GA 355, as it is not a member state.

[Heavens Reach]

We're unsure about this one. Our concerns are as follows:

• If the definition of "person" is left up to each member nation to define, circumventing this law is as easy as reclassifying who counts as a person, or eschewing the legal classification of person altogether
• While it is definitely a plus that there is more red tape surrounding the production of person-sourced meat under this proposal, and that that red tape is tied directly to the source person's bodily autonomy, it doesn't address situations in which the person is being trafficked, or otherwise coerced, into agreeing to the license so that their meat can be sourced
• In general, cannibalism:
  
  • Falls somewhere within the scope of this proposal, as a special case of person-sourcing in which one member of a taxonomic species (a proxy, in this case, for high genetic concordance) consumes another member of the same
  • Has a dangerously high risk of causing the spread of prion-based disorders. This risk is very high given that:
    
    • Misfolded proteins (a natural consequence of digestion) are very similar in primary structure to properly folded proteins within the same species, and that this can cause misfolding cascades that induce a progressive form of dementia in the brain
    • There is a significant delay in the presentation of symptoms
    • It is nearly impossible to treat, even in concept
    • And at the scale of religion, by the time the first casualty arrives, mass casualties are already guaranteed, and additionally:
      
      • Religions can have coercive effects, especially on those lacking the developmental or cognitive faculties to weigh the risks, as well as those who are simply uneducated in what those risks are

We support this in principle, but think that you couldn't go wrong being a lot more restrictive than you currently are, even if you don't want to make the leap to banning it outright, and believe there need to be provisos addressing the vulnerable people mentioned in our concerns (including those facing trafficking, coercion, a lack of decision-making capacity, or even simple ignorance)

As to health issues of prion diseases like kuru, that seems like a food and safety or public health question. I think it's somewhat out of scope, as this is a moral decency resolution. That said, I think it could be bolted on without impairment and with a legitimate justification for not failing strict scrutiny.

The provisions of this resolution notwithstanding, no meat derived from a person may be consumed or otherwise sold if an intended final consumer has a substantial risk of contracting any disease from such consumption.

As to consent, coercion vitiates consent. Second, even if it didn't, I don't think it's compatible with "affirmative consent".

We are mostly satisfied with this, but still feel concerned that tying the proposal to "the definition of a person in the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived" leaves open channels for circumvention. If the GA already adequately defines "person," why not "a person, as defined by the general assembly" or something similar?

Edit: sorry, we had a formatting SNAFU. This is the same content as the deleted post, with correct formatting

[Imperium Anglorum]

The producer needs to be able to produce it if required. This is to prevent forgeries. Do you have a suggestion which would make that clearer?

Yes. I read 1b as meaning that the consent notice must be both:

1. "affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and
2. providable on demand."

Offering a choice between directly placing the notice on the packaging and offering that notice on demand would probably be more sensible. (And less confusing. For me, anyway!)

I read the current text the same way and I think it should be both. You should be able to confirm both that the papers you have with you are the same ones as the papers you can demand from the records repository.

Somehow, I know how the ACA works. ACA art 1 s 1(d) gives some mitigating and aggravating circumstances before a catch-all. I want them ignored for the purposes of this resolution to make a strict liability standard. ACA art 1 does not establish exclusive IAO jurisdiction over coercive fines, which vitiates a claim of conflict.

Why is a "strict liability standard" - a standard which is used by no other resolution to determine what punishment is appropriate for non-compliance with its provisions - necessary, or at least preferable to using the mechanism laid out in Article I.1 of GA#440 to punish noncompliance?

To wit, your Article 3 requires the punishment of member states who fail to ensure full compliance with Article 2's provisions, regardless of any considerations that may be laid in Article I.1.d of GA#440.

1. Article 2 forbids the consumption or possession of non-licensed person meat (NLPM) products, even by an individual who may not know that they are possessing or eating it. (Supply chains can be long and opaque.)
2. It prohibits their production, which requires member states to either continually monitor all meat processing plants to ensure that NLPM products do not escape or face the risk of coercive fines in case they do.
3. And it prohibits their "[t]ransshipment across the territory of any member." Not only lorries are used to transport foodstuffs over substantial distances, but also vans, personal vehicles, and backpacks. (Think of schoolchildren who bring packed lunch to school or hikers who want something to eat while rambling.) You cannot expect member states to check every single one of these items whenever somebody wants to go to a destination within their member state just to make sure that no NLPM products are inside them, and hence due to be transshipped across that nation.

Article 2 can be violated by anybody, anywhere in the supply chain of NLPM products within a member state - sometimes unwittingly. The scope for violation of its provisions is sufficiently vast that member states seeking to avoid receiving Article 3 fines must institute what can only be described as a surveillance state. Again: Why is this any better than simply allowing the non-enforcement of Article 2 offences to be prosecuted the same as any other violation of WA law, via Article I.1.4 of GA#440?

Non-compliance severity is explicitly enumerated; it would be one of the mitigating factors. I think coercive cannibalism is always bad, whether it is minor or not. Your arguments are largely unreflective of the draft. I quote-edited so they are now enumerated.

On (1), because the licences are literally affixed to the meat or its packaging, this is an unlikely possibility. As to (2), yes, it is a good thing that people are not thrown unwillingly into grinders and mixed into "ground beef" to be sold to unknowing customers. On (3), standard policy is to require a customs declaration.

However, I recognise that strict liability is perhaps too strict and have substituted "The Independent Adjudicative Office shall levy fines at the level sufficient to induce compliance against any member nation which chooses to permit violations of section 2 within its jurisdiction".

All "sapients" are persons under GA 355.

But the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived is not subject to GA 355, as it is not a member state.

I think I understand you to mean that the jurisdiction in which the meat was derived is not necessarily subject to GA 355. I understand the issue now. I don't think it's an issue. If a member nation N believes that the meat was derived from people under N's laws, N would not permit its import. Edit. I've made this a requirement.

[Tinhampton]

Yes. I read 1b as meaning that the consent notice must be both:

1. "affixed to such meat or the packaging thereof and
2. providable on demand."

Offering a choice between directly placing the notice on the packaging and offering that notice on demand would probably be more sensible. (And less confusing. For me, anyway!)

I read the current text the same way and I think it should be both. You should be able to confirm both that the papers you have with you are the same ones as the papers you can demand from the records repository.

Perfectly understandable.

Non-compliance severity is explicitly enumerated; it would be one of the mitigating factors. I think coercive cannibalism is always bad, whether it is minor or not.

Where is "Non-compliance severity... explicitly enumerated" as a "mitigating factor" in your resolution? Article 3 applies whether one ounce or one hundred tonnes of non-licensed person meat is involved.

Why is a "strict liability standard" - a standard which is used by no other resolution to determine what punishment is appropriate for non-compliance with its provisions - necessary, or at least preferable to using the mechanism laid out in Article I.1 of GA#440 to punish noncompliance?

To wit, your Article 3 requires the punishment of member states who fail to ensure full compliance with Article 2's provisions, regardless of any considerations that may be laid in Article I.1.d of GA#440.

1. Article 2 forbids the consumption or possession of non-licensed person meat (NLPM) products, even by an individual who may not know that they are possessing or eating it. (Supply chains can be long and opaque.)
2. It prohibits their production, which requires member states to either continually monitor all meat processing plants to ensure that NLPM products do not escape or face the risk of coercive fines in case they do.
3. And it prohibits their "[t]ransshipment across the territory of any member." Not only lorries are used to transport foodstuffs over substantial distances, but also vans, personal vehicles, and backpacks. (Think of schoolchildren who bring packed lunch to school or hikers who want something to eat while rambling.) You cannot expect member states to check every single one of these items whenever somebody wants to go to a destination within their member state just to make sure that no NLPM products are inside them, and hence due to be transshipped across that nation.

Article 2 can be violated by anybody, anywhere in the supply chain of NLPM products within a member state - sometimes unwittingly. The scope for violation of its provisions is sufficiently vast that member states seeking to avoid receiving Article 3 fines must institute what can only be described as a surveillance state. Again: Why is this any better than simply allowing the non-enforcement of Article 2 offences to be prosecuted the same as any other violation of WA law, via Article I.1.4 of GA#440?

...Your arguments are largely unreflective of the draft. I quote-edited so they are now enumerated. On (1), because the licences are literally affixed to the meat or its packaging, this is an unlikely possibility. As to (2), yes, it is a good thing that people are not thrown unwillingly into grinders and mixed into "ground beef" to be sold to unknowing customers. On (3), standard policy is to require a customs declaration.

(I also quote-edited to split your argument about noncompliance severity and your counterargument to my three examples.)

1. You assume that all person meat which circulates in a member state is necessarily licensed person meat. This may not always be the case. Paracetamol is legal, but not everybody claiming to offer you "paracetamol" tablets without evidence is in fact offering paracetamol, rather than an illegal drug such as ecstasy.
2. And how do you expect member states to monitor every single plant to ensure that nobody is being subject to this? (Regular demands for CCTV footage is one option - but then that might not be in continuous or pan-plant operation.)
3. I had assumed that the transshipment clause applied to the transportation of a product from one point in a member state to another point in a member state, without crossing borders. (If it did cross borders, then Article 2a - which forbids the import and export of non-licensed person meat products - would apply.)

What do you think about softening it to "The Independent Adjudicative Office shall levy fines at the level sufficient to induce compliance against any member nation which chooses to permit violations of section 2 within its jurisdiction".

I honestly do not know what the difference is between that and your earlier "...which by negligence permits..." wording.

[Simone Republic]

All OOC.

[

Perhaps to brand it as "licensed personal meat"? Ethical to me sounds a bit jarring, I find the term a bit hard to swallow ... Perhaps some kind of restrictions to a justifiable need on grounds ascertained as strictly necessary by the WA state?

Sure. As to the second matter, could you clarify?

I kind of wonder whether there is enough room to wiggle out of the freedom of religion issue (and not trigger either a contravention, and obviously not triggering a house-of-cards) by making a reverse argument to clause 3 of GAR#430 "practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health".

[*]Has a dangerously high risk of causing the spread of prion-based

[Imperium Anglorum]

Tinhampton.

Non-compliance severity is a mitigating factor in my resolution, the Administrative Compliance Act, in art 1 s 1(d). It is not in this resolution, which makes it not a mitigating factor in this resolution.

As to the rest, there is a difference between negligence and active non-enforcement which makes it largely not relevant. The difference is that hobby horse which conservatives keep railing about in the US. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or, according to Fox News, Destructive inAction against Caravans of Aliens; Sharia law is coming to Cleveland!) is a policy where the federal government chooses to permit violations of immigration law. That differs from the fact that even before Daca, there was illegal immigration, which is a matter of strict liability.

Simone Republic.

What wording would you suggest?

[Attempted Socialism]

Ambassador Pride: "This resolution would allow people to ... ahem ... 'consent' to be a source of flesh for cannibals. Who might be enticed to consent to such a thing? That's right, the poorest and most exploited of our fellows. Who might buy, at great expenses most likely, said flesh? The rich, that is, the most parasitic and exploitative people available. Like trading with carbon or organs, this trade with licensed human flesh will be an avenue for the worst escapades of those who in ordinary fashion figuratively feast on the bodies of their fellow humans, and now seek to do so literally. The only version of this we would contemplate sources the meat from those convicted of capitalist crimes, such as being a bank-owner, stock-broker, or family fortune heir, and distributes the income from said meat to the victims of those criminals."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Gaius Marcius Blythe. *chuckling* Okay.

[Heidgaudr]

Asgeir Trelstad found himself agreeing with Ambassador Pride, but his mind began to wander when he brought up cannibalizing the rich. A fitting metaphor, thought Trelstad. These capitalists who act as blood-sucking leeches will finally be getting a taste of their medicine. He smirked at the thought of his ancestors eating the Alorns who had conquered Heidgaudr to extract its plentiful resources. Wait, what am I thinking? Cannibalism is immoral in even those circumstances. He shook his head in an attempt to rid himself of the thoughts.

Trelstad turns to a member of his staff and whispers: "I fear the World Assembly may have corrupted me."

[Tinhampton]

Tinhampton.

Non-compliance severity is a mitigating factor in my resolution, the Administrative Compliance Act, in art 1 s 1(d). It is not in this resolution, which makes it not a mitigating factor in this resolution.

As to the rest, there is a difference between negligence and active non-enforcement which makes it largely not relevant. The difference is that hobby horse which conservatives keep railing about in the US. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or, according to Fox News, Destructive inAction against Caravans of Aliens; Sharia law is coming to Cleveland!) is a policy where the federal government chooses to permit violations of immigration law. That differs from the fact that even before Daca, there was illegal immigration, which is a matter of strict liability.

Thank you, IA.

I will support this as written - that is, with the understanding that a full ban on cannibalism is not expressly prohibited and, should this resolution pass, be possible immediately upon the repeal of GA#430!

[Comfed]

I would very much like to see a blocker clause enabling nations to still ban cannibalism within their borders. You know, just in case

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would very much like to see a blocker clause enabling nations to still ban cannibalism within their borders. You know, just in case

Done.

[Comfed]

I would very much like to see a blocker clause enabling nations to still ban cannibalism within their borders. You know, just in case

Done.

Excellent.