[DRAFT] Repeal 'Ban on Ritual Sacrifice'

[Kowani]

“This is complete and utter nonsense, an ideal held on the baseless claptrap that religion must be respected in the first place. It is rather bad enough that the WA does not allow an outright prohibition, but to require human sacrifice, regardless of consensuality-that is several bridges too far.”

[Lord Dominator]

“This is complete and utter nonsense, an ideal held on the baseless claptrap that religion must be respected in the first place. It is rather bad enough that the WA does not allow an outright prohibition, but to require human sacrifice, regardless of consensuality-that is several bridges too far.”

"Where ambassador, has anyone suggested it be made made mandatory?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Cool non-responsive.

[Kowani]

“This is complete and utter nonsense, an ideal held on the baseless claptrap that religion must be respected in the first place. It is rather bad enough that the WA does not allow an outright prohibition, but to require human sacrifice, regardless of consensuality-that is several bridges too far.”

"Where ambassador, has anyone suggested it be made made mandatory?"

“If it is not prohibited, it is permitted. If the WA ceases to prohibit it, the Legislature must do so. And yet, as by G.A. 430, clause 4, which “ Asserts, furthermore, the right of all individuals in World Assembly member-states to engage in any religious practice, or to refuse to engage in said practices, without fear of state punishment, reprisal, or persecution, except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order.”

If we are to prohibit voluntary ritual sacrifice, then we stand in violation of clause 4, plain and simple.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also cool non-responsive. Wrong from GA 2 art 2 all the way to GA 430 s 4.

[WayNeacTia]

Also cool non-responsive. Wrong from GA 2 art 2 all the way to GA 430 s 4.

What exactly is the point to repealing this? There has to be some endgame here.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What exactly is the point to repealing this? There has to be some endgame here.

We go back in time, retrieve the stones, and snap everyone back into existence. viewtopic.php?p=36515359#p36515359

[Kowani]

Also cool non-responsive. Wrong from GA 2 art 2 all the way to GA 430 s 4.

“It would be helpful if, instead of just throwing names, you actually explained why they supported your argument.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

To whom is your ambassador speaking? I'm not sure whether your are RP your ambassadors as practitioners of illiteracy or whether you have a misunderstanding of the resolution itself. The claim is still wrong: negative work needs doing to have the words come back to the consensus position on it.

If your nation really believes that everything that isn't banned by the WA is legal, then it shouldn't be called a nation at all: it would be an active war zone in which people can get away with murdering their neighbours and stealing their things with zero repercussions. And it last clause of the portion that you quoted seems clearly there. I don't believe that a real world interlocutor would be so unable to miss something so in front of their face.

So it must be your ambassadors playing as if they are fools. If they're just going to do that, there's no reason to engage at all. Clarify for me if there is really some kind of misunderstanding as to WA law rather than ambassadors sent too early to assignments before graduating the diplomatic academy.

[Kowani]

To whom is your ambassador speaking? I'm not sure whether your are RP your ambassadors as practitioners of illiteracy or whether you have a misunderstanding of the resolution itself. The claim is still wrong: negative work needs doing to have the words come back to the consensus position on it.

If your nation really believes that everything that isn't banned by the WA is legal, then it shouldn't be called a nation at all: it would be an active war zone in which people can get away with murdering their neighbours and stealing their things with zero repercussions. And it last clause of the portion that you quoted seems clearly there. I don't believe that a real world interlocutor would be so unable to miss something so in front of their face.

No, actually. Things that neither the WA or local law prohibit are permitted. However, the last portion of clause 4 states “except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order.” We shall note that an outright ban is, by definition, the most restrictive means of advancing any of the aforementioned causes, save for perhaps murdering all the practitioners. Furthermore, it cannot be justified under public safety, because, assuming that it is consensual, then the only members of the public in danger are the practitioners, and they have already consented to it. And considering that your argument to repeal GA285 was that individuals should have the right to end their own lives, it becomes immediately apparent that any argument that they should not have the right to let others do the same would be a spectacular case study in hypocrisy. Health can be done in much less restrictive ways than an outright ban-mandating proper cleanup and disposal, clean tools, a sanitary environment, etc. Even public order can be done rather simply-mandate that it be done in private. You see, ambassador, the keyword here is least restrictive, which mandates that everything else possible be done to achieve the listed objectives before an outright ban is considered.

[Imperium Anglorum]

No, actually. Things that neither the WA or local law prohibit are permitted. However, the last portion of clause 4 states “except where restrictions on said practice are the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling, practical interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order.” We shall note that an outright ban is, by definition, the most restrictive means of advancing any of the aforementioned causes, save for perhaps murdering all the practitioners. Furthermore, it cannot be justified under public safety, because, assuming that it is consensual, then the only members of the public in danger are the practitioners, and they have already consented to it. And considering that your argument to repeal GA285 was that individuals should have the right to end their own lives, it becomes immediately apparent that any argument that they should not have the right to let others do the same would be a spectacular case study in hypocrisy. Health can be done in much less restrictive ways than an outright ban-mandating proper cleanup and disposal, clean tools, a sanitary environment, etc. Even public order can be done rather simply-mandate that it be done in private. You see, ambassador, the keyword here is least restrictive, which mandates that everything else possible be done to achieve the listed objectives before an outright ban is considered.

So you're not arguing that per se repeal of legislation makes it legal everywhere, but rather, that repeal of legislation conditional on the religious freedom legislation makes it illegal everywhere. That's a good and much more nuanced point. My apologies on failing to interpret it from your text.

On to the substantive: So what? You have established no impact of any sort from this line of reasoning.

If people want to kill themselves, why ought categorically prohibit them from doing so? There is likely room for the same kind of checks that existed in "Dignified End of Life Choices", which would help maintain good order, safety, and health. Those means would also probably be the least restrictive means of doing that.

[Araraukar]

To whom is your ambassador speaking? I'm not sure whether your are RP your ambassadors

This thread is in character.

[Imperium Anglorum]

To whom is your ambassador speaking? I'm not sure whether your are RP your ambassadors

This thread is in character.

Out-of-character unless marked otherwise

[Denathor]

OOC: Uhhhhh, does

This thread is in character.

not count as "marked otherwise?