[Abandoned] Repeal "Ban On Ritual Sacrifice'

[Ransium]

The World Assembly,

Lauding the goal of GAR #416 "Ban on Ritual Sacrifice" of preventing death of sapient beings;

Noting that "Ban on Ritual Sacrifice" claims to respect the rich tapestry of cultures composed by World Assembly member states;

However, convinced that the resolution embraces one cultural worldview while being wholly dismissive to many others;

Aware that the resolution makes no exception for when the party being sacrificed are willing and legal adults;

Convinced from the comments of the drafting author of the resolution that this omission was made because it was felt that local culture would 'brainwash' its adherents;

Outraged that the World Assembly would denigrate the facilities of and try to control the decision making of sentient adults of sound mind to this extent;

Finding it distressingly ironic that the traditions of some cultures within the World Assembly would be deemed to control its adherents to the extent that they could not make rational decisions, while the traditions of other cultures would be held up as the whole and unquestioned truth for all member nations;

Regretting that no exceptions were made in the original resolution for uncontacted tribes within member states, consequently the enforcement of "Ban on Ritual Sacrifice" necessitates the possible disruption and permanent alteration of previously independent cultures;

Hoping that a resolution could be put in place in the future that finds better balance between the need to prevent the unnecessary death of sentient species, while still treating the cultural traditions of all member states as valid;

Hereby repeals GAR #416 "Ban on Ritual Sacrifice".

[Kenmoria]

"We stand opposed, purely because the resolution does not, we believe, do what you say it does."

Defining "ritual sacrifice" as the intentional and ritualistic act of killing one or more other beings (a) as an offering to a god or spirit, (b) as an effort to control sapient population growth, or (c) as a method by which a ruling class or regime creates or perpetuates social hierarchy;

"Killing yourself does not count as killing other beings."

[Mzeusia]

Supported.

[Ransium]

"We stand opposed, purely because the resolution does not, we believe, do what you say it does."

Defining "ritual sacrifice" as the intentional and ritualistic act of killing one or more other beings (a) as an offering to a god or spirit, (b) as an effort to control sapient population growth, or (c) as a method by which a ruling class or regime creates or perpetuates social hierarchy;

"Killing yourself does not count as killing other beings."

It is possible to willingly sacrifice yourself and for it not to be suicide. IPC made clear in the drafting thread that while suicide for ritualistic reasons is legal, if someone else performs the killing (as is necessary in many cultural traditions) it would not be legal no matter how willing the party being sacrificed was: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=79106

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We are categorically opposed to the repeal. Human sacrifice of any kind stands in opposition to the fundamental principles of human rights and decency and any "culture" practicing it is an objectively savage and degenerate one lacking in fundamental morality and accordance with the ius naturale. This assembly is properly called on to be sensitive to the cultural, historical, and circumstantial differences of its members, but it would be a gross abrogation of its responsibilities to accept the patently false, anti-life proposition that all cultures and their associated practices are equally valid and deserving of respect.

[Kenmoria]

"Also, we are opposed on the basis that killing other's for non-euthanasia purposes is always morally wrong, and should be rendered illegal. Simply because it is common in a culture does not make it acceptable, for example, FGM is practiced in many cultures but I don't see anyone trying to repeal #114, “Ban on Female Genital Mutilation”."

[Ransium]

"Also, we are opposed on the basis that killing other's for non-euthanasia purposes is always morally wrong, and should be rendered illegal. Simply because it is common in a culture does not make it acceptable, for example, FGM is practiced in many cultures but I don't see anyone trying to repeal #114, “Ban on Female Genital Mutilation”."

Funny you should bring up 114. #114 is specifically about protecting children and young adults, and I would not oppose a ban on ritual sacrifice of a similar demographic. I'm fine with #114 because of this clause (although the grammar hurts a bit):

CLARIFY that this resolution does nothing to prohibit the voluntary alteration of the genitals when the individual undergoing the procedure fully understands the potential consequences and grants informed uncoerced consent to the procedure

Perhaps you should be the one repealing 114, since it appears you don't trust informed adults to make decisions for themselves, despite the culture they grew up in?

[Durzan]

Currently, the resolution has a simple blanket ban on any form of human sacrifice done by another's hand and allows for no such exceptions. While we Durzanians do find Human Sacrifice morally and ethically reprehensible as a concept, we believe that it is not our place (Nor the World Assembly's place) to determine and enforce said policy in other nations or cultures one way or another.

Therefore, on behalf of my citizens, I, Doctor Doomsday, do hereby support this resolution... but only for the sake of amending the resolution to allow for the sacrifice of willing and officially consenting adults (received as both verbal and written consent from the individual in clear language) done by legally licensed officials according to the laws and regulations of the host country.

[Ransium]

I've added a clause on uncontacted tribes. I believe that it is correct with the current state of WA law, but I could be wrong, please let me know if I am.

[Kenmoria]

"I believe you have put “Salient” where you meant “Sapient” in the lauding clause."

[Excidium Planetis]

salient beings

"I am quite certain that Ban on Ritual Sacrifice bans the killing of even the non-important beings." Ambassador Blackbourne points out from the back of the room.

[Tinfect]

"Quite needless to say," began Feren, apparently finding it quite necessary to say, "The Imperium is entirely opposed, and we find this effort to repeal entirely reasonable legislation entirely abhorrent. It is safe to say that Member-States of the World Assembly are to be held to a higher standard than Non-Members; where such a clear standard exists, such as the matter of simple murder in the name of any number of absurd primitivisms, this nonsense about the supposed irony of 'cultural traditions' and the superiority of one or the other is entirely meaningless. Certainly, Ambassador, a culture that prohibits such absurdities as this is considerably more advanced than one for which it is a matter of course; there can be little ambiguity in such things."

[Herby]

OOC. Dude. Not cool doing this while Wrapper is on a break. He’ll be back to full speed next month, can ya wait until then?

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

Johannes W.R. de Marchant et d'Ansembourg, ambassador to the World Assembly representing the region Parkstad remarks:
"We believe in a nation's right to guide itself through its own culture and policies. The World Assembly shouldn't get into banning cultural activities, or they could end up as an unpopular entity to religious armed groups, who will pester and discriminate against people who openly support this assembly. In the interest of my region, and that of our assembly, we announce that we support to repeal this law to improve our relations with nations that practice ritual sacrifice. Denouncing this repeal and continuing the oppressive behaviour on tribes and small nations that practice religious killings is just as inhumane as the ritual sacrifices."

"It is up to any nation itsself to find their ways around their religion, to reform it where necessary, and to be conscious of inhumane practices. We cannot get between a people and their culture, or it would mean that this very entity could be threatened by outsiders. We support the repeal."

[Separatist Peoples]

We are categorically opposed to the repeal. Human sacrifice of any kind stands in opposition to the fundamental principles of human rights and decency and any "culture" practicing it is an objectively savage and degenerate one lacking in fundamental morality and accordance with the ius naturale. This assembly is properly called on to be sensitive to the cultural, historical, and circumstantial differences of its members, but it would be a gross abrogation of its responsibilities to accept the patently false, anti-life proposition that all cultures and their associated practices are equally valid and deserving of respect.

Bell stands. "Hear, hear! What she said!"

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

We are categorically opposed to the repeal. Human sacrifice of any kind stands in opposition to the fundamental principles of human rights and decency and any "culture" practicing it is an objectively savage and degenerate one lacking in fundamental morality and accordance with the ius naturale. This assembly is properly called on to be sensitive to the cultural, historical, and circumstantial differences of its members, but it would be a gross abrogation of its responsibilities to accept the patently false, anti-life proposition that all cultures and their associated practices are equally valid and deserving of respect.

Bell stands. "Hear, hear! What she said!"

d'Marchant et d'Ansembourg calmly replies: "It's not up to us to critique other nation's cultures, even if they are gruesome. I strongly believe that any nation has a path to greatness, and that every nation, given time, will abolish their more grave traditions. I dislike repeating myself, but I need to make this very clear: To retain good relations with upcoming nations that still allow, and in some cases even organize, ritual sacrifices, and to not enforce this assembly's might, we should drop our ban on ritual sacrifices. We wouldn't want insurgents murdering ambassadors in nations that still permit the savage act. We, as a globalist organisation, cannot enforce what we deem "culturally appropriate". It is up to the nation itsself to find the proper way, as have we done. Cultures change, and with them do rituals. It is only a matter of time until the tribes stop sacrificing lives.

Let's not get involved."

[Tethys 13]

In
"Finding it distressingly ironic that the traditions of some cultures within the World Assembly would be deemed to control its adherents to the extent that they could not make rational decisions, while the traditions of other cultures would be help up as the whole and unquestioned truth for all member nations;"
did you mean to say "held" rather than "help"?

[Ransium]

OOC. Dude. Not cool doing this while Wrapper is on a break. He’ll be back to full speed next month, can ya wait until then?

I had time to write my little screed now. I promise I’ll submit when Wrapper can participate in the debate.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

OOC. Dude. Not cool doing this while Wrapper is on a break. He’ll be back to full speed next month, can ya wait until then?

While I like wrapper a lot I think it is intellectually unsound to put the WA on hold because of someone’s absence

[Ransium]

"I believe you have put “Salient” where you meant “Sapient” in the lauding clause."

In
"Finding it distressingly ironic that the traditions of some cultures within the World Assembly would be deemed to control its adherents to the extent that they could not make rational decisions, while the traditions of other cultures would be help up as the whole and unquestioned truth for all member nations;"
did you mean to say "held" rather than "help"?

I've fixed both of these typos, thanks for pointing them out.

OOC. Dude. Not cool doing this while Wrapper is on a break. He’ll be back to full speed next month, can ya wait until then?

While I like wrapper a lot I think it is intellectually unsound to put the WA on hold because of someone’s absence

Anything worth doing is worth doing right, and allowing the original author to be around when attempting to repeal their resolution is doing it right IMO.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

"I believe you have put “Salient” where you meant “Sapient” in the lauding clause."

In
"Finding it distressingly ironic that the traditions of some cultures within the World Assembly would be deemed to control its adherents to the extent that they could not make rational decisions, while the traditions of other cultures would be help up as the whole and unquestioned truth for all member nations;"
did you mean to say "held" rather than "help"?

I've fixed both of these typos, thanks for pointing them out.

While I like wrapper a lot I think it is intellectually unsound to put the WA on hold because of someone’s absence

Anything worth doing is worth doing right, and allowing the original author to be around when attempting to repeal their resolution is doing it right IMO.

I too believe it was right but I don’t think it’s fair to assume that work must stop even if the author is gone

[Bears Armed]

"This will have ourr support."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear,
Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Wrapper]

...I don’t think it’s fair to assume that work must stop even if the author is gone

OOC: Actually, I agree. Ransium is under absolutely no obligation to await my return to active duty here. And if he decides to proceed and the repeal goes through before I return, I'll just make some tweaks and resubmit; I'm positive that if there are indeed flaws that warrant its repeal, I can get an improved version passed. That said, if he wants to wait, that's fine too; it's entirely up to him.

[Alsace and Lorraine United]

...I don’t think it’s fair to assume that work must stop even if the author is gone

OOC: Actually, I agree. Ransium is under absolutely no obligation to await my return to active duty here. And if he decides to proceed and the repeal goes through before I return, I'll just make some tweaks and resubmit; I'm positive that if there are indeed flaws that warrant its repeal, I can get an improved version passed. That said, if he wants to wait, that's fine too; it's entirely up to him.

This is how I feel, thank you for your confirmation ambassador, to clarify, I was in no way meaning that he could not wait, but that they shouldn’t have to

OOC: good to see ya wrapper

[Separatist Peoples]

d'Marchant et d'Ansembourg calmly replies: "It's not up to us to critique other nation's cultures, even if they are gruesome.

"Right. We should permit slavery, because it may be culturally important." Bell rolls his eyes. "Culture is a bad reason to protect bad acts."

To retain good relations with upcoming nations that still allow, and in some cases even organize, ritual sacrifices, and to not enforce this assembly's might, we should drop our ban on ritual sacrifices.

"We shouldn't ban genocide for nations that still engage in it, and refuse to enforce the Assembly's decree. See how dumb that sounds?"

We wouldn't want insurgents murdering ambassadors in nations that still permit the savage act.

"Why do you send your ambassadors to places they are likely to be murdered? Why is your response not sufficient to deter future attacks if you do? The last time the C.D.S.P.'s embassy was threatened, the ambassador ordered the evacuating naval craft to level the embassy property as soon as the protestors broke through the barrier. The late Ambassador Grenell's actions are well known, and he and the guards who stayed behind to secure the embassy all earned posthumous medals. Not the way I'd like to go, but to each their own."

We, as a globalist organisation, cannot enforce what we deem "culturally appropriate".

"Can. Do. This line of argument is intellectual and moral cowardice."