[DRAFT] Concerning Cannibalism

[Hillbillica]

The many delegates and member nations of the World Assembly,

Realizing that establishing acceptable forms of cannibalism is far from a pressing matter,

Concerned, however, that there exists no prior legislation in the General Assembly that fully addresses this,

Horrified that there are nations in the World Assembly that allow, and frequently condone, the killing and eating of unconsenting people, typically for religious reasons,

Confused that there are nations in the World Assembly that have outlawed cannibalism entirely, even in survival situations, typically for religious reasons,

Desiring to create a set of enforceable guidelines for cannibalism while still allowing WA nations some freedom of choice,

HEREBY

1. Defines cannibalism as the informed and willing consumption of the flesh, bones, skin, organs, or any other portion of another sapient being.

2. Prohibits the nonconsensual killing of another sapient being with intent to cannibalize them. It is important to note that this does not necessarily prohibit cannibalism performed on a sapient being killed for another reason, such as self-defense.

3. Prohibits, similarly, the nonfatal harvesting of organic matter from a sapient being with intent to cannibalize it without said sapient being’s consent. The consumption of organic matter removed for another reason, such as an amputated limb, is not necessarily prohibited.

4. Mandates that cannibalism must not be criminalized when performed as a last resort. This typically applies to consumption of sapient flesh to sustain oneself in a survival situation. This sustenance must either come from the survivor's own person, that of a consenting other, or the corpse of another sentient being. Eating more than the bare minimum required to sustain oneself long enough to escape these conditions is not necessarily allowable, and is not protected under this legislation.



(This would be submitted with the category of civil rights - mild strength.)


NOTE: This is a very rough draft. Please let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions on how to polish it.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 4 worries me due to a lack of limitations. I don’t think being starving hungry would justify one to eat a crew of twenty for nourishment, particularly as you haven’t defined a ‘last resort’.”

[Potted Plants United]

A large plant growing in a plantpot with wheels rolls into the room. "This is not something I will ever agree with," it says, "as when I grow food - berries, fruits, leaves, stems, roots and bulbs - for the exact purpose for them to be eaten as food by other sapients, then forbidding them to be eaten simply because they originate from a sapient being, is insane. If the idea behind this is to disallow causing suffering, then that is fine, as I do not suffer when those selves that are for eating, are eaten. But to ban the eating regardless of suffering, will only cause waste of resources."

[Hillbillica]

A large plant growing in a plantpot with wheels rolls into the room. "This is not something I will ever agree with," it says, "as when I grow food - berries, fruits, leaves, stems, roots and bulbs - for the exact purpose for them to be eaten as food by other sapients, then forbidding them to be eaten simply because they originate from a sapient being, is insane. If the idea behind this is to disallow causing suffering, then that is fine, as I do not suffer when those selves that are for eating, are eaten. But to ban the eating regardless of suffering, will only cause waste of resources."

This is why I've only proposed to prohibit unconsensual harvesting and consumption of sapient flesh. If your plant-based hivemind of a nation wants to make it legal to harvest berries, fruits, tubers, and the like from its people consensually, which seems to be what you are doing, that's perfectly in line with the provisions of the proposal, unless there's some bad phrasing in there that I missed.

[Hillbillica]

“Clause 4 worries me due to a lack of limitations. I don’t think being starving hungry would justify one to eat a crew of twenty for nourishment, particularly as you haven’t defined a ‘last resort’.”

That's an excellent point. I've edited it to make it more restrictive in that regard. Thanks for the advice!

[Kenmoria]

“‘Unconsensual’ isn’t a word; I think you meant ‘non-consensual’. Also, clause 5 is utterly useless, since that is true as soon as legislation is passed by default.”

[Sethtekia]

"Sethtekia executes cannibals. But you should add into it. That the incarcerated are an acceptable herd forncannibals."

[The New Nordic Union]

Eating more than the bare minimum required to sustain oneself in any situation is not necessarily allowable, and is not protected under this legislation.

'Does this mean that nations would be free to legislate in a way that only eating enough not to die of starvation is permitted, but anything else, e.g., to get enough sustenance from the food to actually escape the survival situation, would be illegal?'

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”

[The New Nordic Union]

“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”

'Especially so since killings for religious reasons are outlawed by GAR #416.'

[Kowani]

“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”

“Wait for it. Somebody’ll step in.”

[Hillbillica]

“‘Unconsensual’ isn’t a word; I think you meant ‘non-consensual’. Also, clause 5 is utterly useless, since that is true as soon as legislation is passed by default.”

...That’s an excellent point about “unconsensual.” I’ll fix that.

I’d added clause 5 simply for clarification purposes, but if it’s redundant, I’ll remove it.

[Hillbillica]

Eating more than the bare minimum required to sustain oneself in any situation is not necessarily allowable, and is not protected under this legislation.

'Does this mean that nations would be free to legislate in a way that only eating enough not to die of starvation is permitted, but anything else, e.g., to get enough sustenance from the food to actually escape the survival situation, would be illegal?'

I’ve reworded this to make more sense in this regard. Thanks.

[Hillbillica]

“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”

If the ‘realizing’ clause isn’t serious enough for cannibalism, what would be a better, more serious word?

Also, regarding the ‘horrified’ clause, I was mostly referring to nations that had legalized the hunting of albino people for medicinal (spiritual, and thusly loosely religious) reasons. I honestly can’t think of any specific WA nations that condone nonconsensual cannibalism in other forms off the top of my head, but I’m sure they exist. Besides (I believe), there isn’t any existing legislation in the GA that illegalizes it.

[Hillbillica]

“Your ‘realising’ clause rather trivialises the issue at hands and should perhaps be rewritten to adopt a more serious tone. Also, the ‘horrified’ clause doesn’t really have any precedent in the World Assembly. I find it hard to believe that this is actually occurring.”

'Especially so since killings for religious reasons are outlawed by GAR #416.'

I might reword the “religious reasons” part later, but this illegalizes nonconsensual cannibalism in all forms. I put the “religious reasons” in there mostly to give it some rhythm. It’s not essential.

[Giant Bats]

Those who were familiar with the WA delegation of the Tikrr - entities that could be best described as some kinds of hybrids between bats, birds of prey and great white shark - would have known that the individual now perching behind the desk space allotted to them, was Atikitir, as her short fur was lighter in colour than that of Ikiti, who was their official ambassador.

"I have a question about how is intent taken into account? Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience? Or should the proposal only be applied to choosing to commit such an act, which requires conscious thought?"

- Atikitir Tikilikrr, Spiritual Advisor to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 9th generation mother of six

[Bears Armed]

Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience?

OOC
And anybody here who wants to complain about people "making things up to derail proposals" should be informed that this really happens in RL, certainly in some species of sharks and possibly [although I'd have to check] in one or more other groups of animals as well.

[Kenmoria]

Those who were familiar with the WA delegation of the Tikrr - entities that could be best described as some kinds of hybrids between bats, birds of prey and great white shark - would have known that the individual now perching behind the desk space allotted to them, was Atikitir, as her short fur was lighter in colour than that of Ikiti, who was their official ambassador.

"I have a question about how is intent taken into account? Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience? Or should the proposal only be applied to choosing to commit such an act, which requires conscious thought?"

- Atikitir Tikilikrr, Spiritual Advisor to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 9th generation mother of six

“To me, the wording ‘with the intent to cannibalise’, necessarily implies that there must be conscious thought involved. Otherwise, there would be no possibility of intent in the first place.”

[Araraukar]

Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience?

OOC
And anybody here who wants to complain about people "making things up to derail proposals" should be informed that this really happens in RL, certainly in some species of sharks and possibly [although I'd have to check] in one or more other groups of animals as well.

OOC: There is a reason why sharks are mentioned in the description, it's not just for dentition. The Tikrr are ovoviviparous and in addition to fetuses reducing their number to one per side of womb, they also then do oophagy, which means the mother's body producing eggs (unfertilized in the Tikrr's case) to feed the fetuses, with a placenta-like structure only doing gas exchange. Which is exactly what some RL sharks (admittedly not great whites) have going on.

[Aclion]

Our reproductive biology works so that fetuses devour other fetuses while still in the womb. They are obviously not sapient at that point, so it is an instinctual act more than a deliberate choice. Are we all cannibals because of actions committed before even sentience has developed, nevermind sapience?

OOC
And anybody here who wants to complain about people "making things up to derail proposals" should be informed that this really happens in RL, certainly in some species of sharks and possibly [although I'd have to check] in one or more other groups of animals as well.

*opens can of worms*
Are fetuses informed and willing sentient beings, shark or otherwise? If not this objection is utterly irrelevant.

[Giant Bats]

"The prohibition for killing a sapient to eat them, in the second clause, does not actually use the definition provided in the first clause. Though I guess one could argue for self defence, given that it's an eat or be eaten situation."

- Atikitir Tikilikrr, Spiritual Advisor to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 9th generation mother of six

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 4, you mention that last resort situations are ‘typically’ survival situations. What others are you envisioning? I can’t think of any other legitimate reasons why cannibalism would necessarily be required over more decent forms of killing.”

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: The use of the word 'necessarily' in clauses 2 and 3 seems strange to me. Either these acts are prohibited by the resolution, or they are not. If they are not prohibited by the resolution, yes, they might be outlawed by member nations, but there is not need to express this in the resolution by using 'necessarily'.

Also, I would add a clause about consensual cannibalism into the proposal; and be it just a blocker like 'The right to regulate acts of consensual cannibalism remains with the Member Nations.' If you do not want to do that, maybe change the title to reflect that you are regulating unconsensual cannibalism.

[Kenmoria]

If you do not want to do that, maybe change the title to reflect that you are regulating unconsensual cannibalism.

(OOC: I’ll add to this that the title might need to be changed anyway. ‘Concerning’ doesn’t really say what you want to do, and could just as well being about the WA encouraging, forcibly legalising, banning entirely, or obligating member nations to commit cannibalism.)

[Araraukar]

If you do not want to do that, maybe change the title to reflect that you are regulating unconsensual cannibalism.

(OOC: I’ll add to this that the title might need to be changed anyway. ‘Concerning’ doesn’t really say what you want to do, and could just as well being about the WA encouraging, forcibly legalising, banning entirely, or obligating member nations to commit cannibalism.)

OOC: ...just watch someone make a Joke Proposal about enforcing cannibalism, now...