[PASSED] Ban on Forced Blood Sports

[Honeydewistania]

Ban on Forced Blood Sports

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that sports such as bullfighting, cockfighting and dogfighting are popular amongst member nations;

Horrified that participants are often forced to compete in these sports, usually resulting in their death or serious injury;

Believing that, for the safety and protection of all sentient beings, legislation in the form of a General Assembly resolution is needed to prevent such cruel and barbaric practices;

Hereby:

1. Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

1. "blood sport" as an activity involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants for the entertainment of sapient individuals, excluding hunting or religious sacrifice,
2. "animal" as a non-sapient being with a nervous system or equivalent system by which it is naturally able to experience pain;

2. Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving sapients in which one or more of the participants do not provide consent;

3. Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death;

4. Requires that formerly captive blood sport participants be treated in a humane and fair manner, according to the following rules:

1. if an animal blood sport participant does not have a significant risk of harming itself of others, it must be given its freedom,
2. if an animal blood sport participant poses a significant risk of harm to itself or others when released, the participant must be relocated to its natural habitat, unless said relocation poses a significant danger to the participant, any animals, or sapients in that habitat as a result of abnormal behaviour in comparison to that participant’s wild counterparts,
3. if an animal blood sport participant cannot be relocated to its natural habitat due to the above, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released or relocated in accordance with clause 4(b), at which point it must be released or relocated in accordance with said clause, and
4. all non-animal blood sport participants must be given their freedom, excepting lawful incarceration as a penalty for criminal conduct.

Ban on Forced Blood Sports

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that sports such as bullfighting, cockfighting and dogfighting are popular amongst member nations;

Horrified that in most of these cases at least one of the participants in such competitions is forced to participate, usually resulting in their death or serious injury;

Believing that, for the safety and protection of all sentient beings, legislation in the form of a General Assembly resolution is needed to prevent such cruel and barbaric practices;

Hereby:

1. Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

1. "blood sport" as a form of entertainment in which the aim is to maim or kill at least one of the participants, excluding hunting and animal sacrifice;
2. "animal" as a non-sapient being with a nervous system or equivalent system by which it is naturally able to experience pain;

2. Prohibits all forms of blood sports in which one or more of the participants do not provide consent;

3. Requires that formerly captive blood sport participants be treated in a humane and fair manner, according to the following rules:

1. if an animal blood sport participant does not have a significant risk of harming itself of others, it must be given its freedom and released,
2. if an animal blood sport participant poses a significant risk of harm to itself or others when released, the participant must be relocated to its natural habitat, unless said relocation also poses a significant risk of harm,
3. if an animal blood sport participant being relocated to its natural habitat poses a significant danger to itself, any animals, or humans in that habitat as a result of abnormal behaviour in comparison to said participant’s wild counterparts, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released in accordance with the above,
4. all non-animal blood sport participants must be given their freedom, excepting lawful incarceration as a penalty for criminal conduct; and

4. Reserves to member nations the right to make final decisions as to the legality of animal sacrifices for religious purposes.

In the event my proposal in queue gets defeated or repealed, I have this one as a replacement. For example, I have removed all mentions of the word ‘sapient’. I’ve also made it compulsory to either release the captive creatures, relocate them to their natural habitat or put them down (the last being a last resort, of course)

By the way OP for the original thread, Ancient Greek Empire, is controlled by us.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I would suggest putting some notice somewhere that you're the same player as Ancient Greek Empire, given that the about-to-go-to-vote one was drafted by that account. Saves time on less confusion. And I can't spell today.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: I would suggest putting some notice somewhere that you're the same player as Ancient Greek Empire, given that the about-to-go-to-vote one was drafted by that account. Saves time on less confusion. And I can't spell today.

Aight. But you got any content suggestions?

[Araraukar]

OOC: I would suggest putting some notice somewhere that you're the same player as Ancient Greek Empire, given that the about-to-go-to-vote one was drafted by that account. Saves time on less confusion. And I can't spell today.

Aight. But you got any content suggestions?

OOC: I think you're jumping the gun and the shark and the moon, and everything else as well, given the first one hasn't even gone to vote yet. We'll see how that goes, first. No use putting lots of effort into drafting something that's unnecessary.

[Honeydewistania]

Aight. But you got any content suggestions?

OOC: I think you're jumping the gun and the shark and the moon, and everything else as well, given the first one hasn't even gone to vote yet. We'll see how that goes, first. No use putting lots of effort into drafting something that's unnecessary.

This isn’t much more different anyway, so not a lot of effort was used. I’m just keeping it here just in case.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You might want to bump the active thread, by the way. It's on page 2 at the moment.

[Honeydewistania]

I am reviving this draft. Please lave your suggestions below.

[Tinhampton]

The definition of consent is obvious enough that it has been used - without definition - in GA#14, GA#18, GA#29, GA#39, GA#46, GA#58, GA#61, GA#82, GA#84, GA#98, GA#110, GA#111, GA#114, GA#128, GA#160, GA#161, GA#167, GA#171, GA#175, GA#190, GA#197, GA#208, GA#213, GA#217, GA#218, GA#223, GA#231, GA#233, GA#240, GA#279, GA#299, GA#328, GA#442, GA#461, GA#466, GA#481, and probably a ton of other resolutions I may have deliberately or accidentally omitted here. Why do you feel the need to define it here and now?

[Anarchic Turkish States]

The definition of consent is obvious enough that it has been used - without definition - in GA#14, GA#18, GA#29, GA#39, GA#46, GA#58, GA#61, GA#82, GA#84, GA#98, GA#110, GA#111, GA#114, GA#128, GA#160, GA#161, GA#167, GA#171, GA#175, GA#190, GA#197, GA#208, GA#213, GA#217, GA#218, GA#223, GA#231, GA#233, GA#240, GA#279, GA#299, GA#328, GA#442, GA#461, GA#466, GA#481, and probably a ton of other resolutions I may have deliberately or accidentally omitted here. Why do you feel the need to define it here and now?

In the XKI forum it was suggested to define it. If it isn't really needed though, I could remove it.
edit: wrong puppet

[WA Kitty Kops]

OOC: If you're working on this, leave the current draft visible in the first post.

Both "consent" and "participant" are used in dictionary definition ways and so don't need to be defined.

What's "non-individual" in clauses 4 and 5? If you're trying to refer to persons and animals, then use those words instead. Individual animals are individual animals but not persons.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: If you're working on this, leave the current draft visible in the first post.

Both "consent" and "participant" are used in dictionary definition ways and so don't need to be defined.

What's "non-individual" in clauses 4 and 5? If you're trying to refer to persons and animals, then use those words instead. Individual animals are individual animals but not persons.

I am indeed working on this. Do I need to define animals for this context?

[Honeydewistania]

Le bump

[Kenmoria]

OOC: If you're working on this, leave the current draft visible in the first post.

Both "consent" and "participant" are used in dictionary definition ways and so don't need to be defined.

What's "non-individual" in clauses 4 and 5? If you're trying to refer to persons and animals, then use those words instead. Individual animals are individual animals but not persons.

I am indeed working on this. Do I need to define animals for this context?

(OOC: Because humans are animals, you will need a definition of ‘animal’ which would exclude sapient beings.)

[Honeydewistania]

I am indeed working on this. Do I need to define animals for this context?

(OOC: Because humans are animals, you will need a definition of ‘animal’ which would exclude sapient beings.)

So do I define animal as excluding humans or excluding sapients or either are fine?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Because humans are animals, you will need a definition of ‘animal’ which would exclude sapient beings.)

So do I define animal as excluding humans or excluding sapients or either are fine?

(OOC: You will need to exclude sapient beings from the definition, rather than humans, because of all the non-human species.)

[Flying Eagles]

OOC: Things like trophy or sport hunting would be included in this resolution, which many may object to.

If this was the intent, I would include it as an example, as blood sports goes beyond fighting various animals. Otherwise, people may feel like you're trying to sneak it in. Banning sport hunting is one thing, giving people the impression you're trying to be secretive about it is another thing.

If this wasn't the intent, you need a new definition of "blood sport"

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Things like trophy or sport hunting would be included in this resolution, which many may object to.

If this was the intent, I would include it as an example, as blood sports goes beyond fighting various animals. Otherwise, people may feel like you're trying to sneak it in. Banning sport hunting is one thing, giving people the impression you're trying to be secretive about it is another thing.

If this wasn't the intent, you need a new definition of "blood sport"

(OOC: In the previous draft, the definition for ‘blood sport’ specifically excluded hunting to avoid contradiction with Sensible Limits on Hunting. I suggest that this is reinstated.)

[Honeydewistania]

Added suggestions.

Also with regards to the definition of animal, I have been granted explicit permission by Maowi to use their definition of animal in Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research in this resolution.

[Maowi]

"In clauses 4 and 5, phrasing it as "significant damage" seems a strange way of putting it - perhaps refer to posing significant danger/a significant threat instead."

OOC:

Also with regards to the definition of animal, I have been granted explicit permission by Maowi to use their definition of animal in Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research in this resolution.

I confirm that this is the case.

[Honeydewistania]

"In clauses 4 and 5, phrasing it as "significant damage" seems a strange way of putting it - perhaps refer to posing significant danger/a significant threat instead."

OOC:

Also with regards to the definition of animal, I have been granted explicit permission by Maowi to use their definition of animal in Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research in this resolution.

I confirm that this is the case.

Okay, I will change that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY (wearing clothing something like this): Would animal sacrifices count as a blood sport?

[Deacarsia]

I oppose this proposal, mainly on grounds of national sovereignty.

[Honeydewistania]

ELSIE MORTIMER WELLESLEY (wearing clothing something like this): Would animal sacrifices count as a blood sport?

Benji stands up and praises the clothing of EMW. He coughs. “As it is written, yes. Would you recommend a change to exclude it?”

I oppose this proposal, mainly on grounds of national sovereignty.

“Ok”

[Imperium Anglorum]

ELSIE: We are opposed to any restrictions on augurs, haruspices, or assorted priests of the state cults to Andraste, Quirinus, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, etc that would prevent them from giving the traditional offerings unto the immortal gods for the health of the Roman people, the republic, and its magistrates.

[Honeydewistania]

ELSIE: We are opposed to any restrictions on augurs, haruspices, or assorted priests of the state cults to Andraste, Quirinus, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, etc that would prevent them from giving the traditional offerings unto the immortal gods for the health of the Roman people, the republic, and its magistrates.

BENJI: Okay, animal sacrifice isn’t excluded from the definition of blood sports