NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13700
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Repeal GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:04 pm

On the 4th of August 2023, Repeal "Ban on Forced Blood Sports" became GA#677!
This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Repeals Board.
NOTE 2: at 1910 BST on the 16th of July 2023, the second iteration of this proposal reached quorum with The Ambis Government Puppet's approval, the 57th all told.

NOTE: at 0048 BST on the 8th of July 2023, the first iteration of this proposal reached quorum with NiCrawlosis' approval, the 58th all told.

Character count: 3,105
Word count: 507
John Bell, staffer: What we have on our hands today is a poor resolution - I'd go as far as call it frankly terrible. Can't we just nuke it? Please, can't we?
Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly, twenty months later: Mister Bell was removed from the Tinhamptonian delegation earlier. Much earlier.
Susanna Bryant, fifth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador, thirty-three months later: I'm told this is my project now. Thanks for giving me something politically feasible to work on, Alex.
Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador, thirty-six months later: Susanna's said I can take this on, given that her iteration contained the crucial flaw of not actually saying anything. My East Chimorean colleague, who I had the idea of contacting in my dreams last night, is to be praised for identifying ways it could have, in fact, said something.
Image
Image
Image
Repeal "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal
Target: GA#498
Proposed by: Tinhampton

General Assembly Resolution #498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports” (Category: Moral Decency; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Noting that, with the full ban on blood sports involving animals imposed by Articles 1-3 of GA#498, the keepers of animal blood sport participants (ABSPs) can choose either to release them, keep them captive, or put them down,

Upset, however, that Article 4a simply requires that "if an [ABSP] does not have a significant risk of harming itself of others, it must be given its freedom" without either:
  1. requiring it to be released into its natural habitat (enabling ABSP keepers to release them into unsuitable, dangerous or assuredly fatal environments - contrary to the resolution's spirit of preventing animal cruelty - without risk of punishment), or
  2. permitting screening to instead ensure that ABSPs need only be released if they neither endanger themselves nor other living things in its natural habitat (incentivising keepers to invoke Article 4b when ABSPs they keep attack them, even if their species is not native to those ABSPs' natural habitats, or even if their training means they can only pose a "significant risk" of harm to other sentients while in dedicated blood sport environments),

Recognising that ABSPs not covered by Article 4a are described either by Article 4b (where they do not exhibit "abnormal behaviour" - relative to their "wild counterparts" - which causes them to pose "a significant danger to [themselves], any animals, or sapients in that habitat") or Article 4c (if they do exhibit such behaviour),

Concerned that Article 4b's requirement for ABSPs to be released into their natural habitat may only be waived where their behaviour leads them to endanger its living beings without regards for the harm they may cause to its flora and fauna, precluding animals not covered by the waiver purely due to the threat they pose to plant life from being kept in suitable and dignified environments where they cannot harm their natural habitat's biodiversity instead (as is permitted where Article 4c applies),

Objecting to GA#498's blanket authorisation for any ABSP described by Article 4c to "be euthanised humanely" as a potential alternative to their being kept "in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment" until Article 4b describes them instead, not only because of the lack of any explicit requirement that the release of ABSPs likewise be humane in the first place, but also because it tacitly encourages keepers to immediately put down ABSPs for patterns of aggressive behaviour that may be readily unlearned instead of putting in the effort to wait until Article 4b applies to them, and

Concluding that GA#498 is flawed to the extent it allows some ABSPs to be released into habitats where they may not survive, permits others to be released into habitats where they could harm flora and fauna simply because those environments are their natural habitats, and promotes the use of euthanisation of others still as an immediate last resort - and ought to be replaced with a clearer, more effective WA-wide prohibition of blood sports when the opportunity arises...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports."

Co-author: East Chimore

Recognising that, with the full ban on blood sports involving animals put into place by Articles 1-3 of GA#498, the keepers of animal blood sport participants (ABSPs) can choose either to release them or to keep them captive,

Concerned that, when discussing the release of ABSPs, GA#498 fails to specify:
  1. what a "significant risk of harm [or] danger" is,
  2. whether an animal's release to its natural habitat must avoid endangering that habitat,
  3. what kind of habitat animals that pose no "significant risk" should be released into, and
  4. whether the release of animal participants should be humane just as their euthanisation must be should it take place,
Noting that these ambiguities could hence allow members to do more harm than good to their natural habitats while complying in good faith, thus potentially rending Articles 4a-4c self-defeating,

Concerned that, in view of these ambiguities, keepers of ABSPs that pose no "significant risk of harming itself of others" may choose to retain them in captivity due to Article 4's utter failure to require that such ABSPs be let out of captivity for as long as they pose no such risk, and

Hoping that any future WA-wide regulation of blood sports will have clearer writing, clearer effects and clearer mandates on member states than did GA#498...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports."


Noting that, as a result of GA#498:
  1. blood sports occurring solely between animals are forbidden, given that Article 3 (which prohibits blood sports involving animals that carry "a significant possibility of serious injury or death") is superfluous in light of Article 1a, which defines a blood sport as "involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants," and
  2. blood sports occurring between animals and sapient beings are also forbidden, as animals are not sapient under Article 1b and thus cannot consent to blood sports organised under Article 2,

Believing that this construction does not make it immediately apparent that all blood sports involving animals are forbidden, creating a sweeping mandate which is spelled out with less-than-ideal certainty,

Concerned that GA#498 is unclear on how animal blood sport participants should be released; including on what a "significant risk of harm [or] danger" is, whether an animal's release to its natural habitat must avoid endangering that habitat, what kind of habitat animals that pose no "significant risk" should be released into, and whether the release of animal participants should be humane just as their euthanisation must be should it take place,

Unnerved that these ambiguities could allow members to do more harm than good to their natural habitats while complying in good faith, thus potentially rending Articles 4a-4c self-defeating, and

Hoping that any future WA-wide regulation of blood sports will have clearer writing, clearer effects and clearer mandates on member states than did GA#498...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports."


Condemning GA#498 for its unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to regulating animal fights, inasmuch as:
  • blood sports occurring solely between animals are forbidden, given that Article 3 - which prohibits blood sports involving animals that carry "a significant possibility of serious injury or death" - is superfluous in light of Article 1a, which defines a blood sport as "involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants," and
  • blood sports occurring between animals and sapient beings are also forbidden, as animals are not sapient under Article 1b and thus cannot consent to blood sports organised under Article 2,

Noting, with concern, the lack of clarity over how animal blood sport participants should be released; including over what a "significant risk of harm [or] danger" is, whether an animal's release to its natural habitat must avoid endangering that habitat, and whether (given that the euthanisation of animal participants must be humane) they should also be released or freed humanely,

Believing that this vagueness allows member states to do more harm than good to such participants and their natural habitats even while making a good-faith attempt to comply with GA#498, thus potentially making the intended outcomes of Clauses 4a, 4b and 4c self-defeating, and

Convinced that the regulation of blood sports is a matter for individual member states, rather than international legislation...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#498, its "Ban on Forced Blood Sports."
Last edited by Tinhampton on Fri Aug 04, 2023 12:48 am, edited 14 times in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1557
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Morover » Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:06 pm

"Beat me to the punch - support, nonetheless. I'm going to make a quick run to the loo and then I'll be back to give any critiques I may have on the subject."
World Assembly Author
ns.morover@gmail.com

User avatar
Burn Swi
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Jul 05, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Burn Swi » Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:28 pm

I would think that the will of the General Assembly should be respected, unless there is a serious shift over time in WA opinions on the issue. I doubt there will be such a drastic shift of opinion in a few short days. Besides, the proposal is still be voted on, why not instead lobby for it's defeat?
Faith, Family, Freedom
Commonwealth of Burn Swi
WA Ambassador: George Collins

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:03 pm

"Should be interesting watching this one burn". *grabs popcorn*

Wayne
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
Kenmoria
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 7910
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:17 am

“I do not find myself in support of this repeal. Although your ‘condemning’ clause is accurate, I find the heavy-handed approach to be entirely reasonable given how cruel blood sports necessarily are.

I disagree with the arguments presented in the ‘noting’ clause. In the order in which they are introduced: a ‘significant risk of harm’ is exactly what it says on the tin - a risk of harm that is significant; given that an animal’s release can’t harm any creatures or people in that habitat, I don’t see how a habitat could be damaged in a way compliant with the clause; and the final question seems an obvious ‘no’, since there’s nothing in the legislation requiring as such.

Lastly, I am not convinced that blood sports are a matter for member nations. If the WA can promulgate effective legislation, then there is no reason not to do so. Blood sports are able to be addressed, as a category, with equal efficacy by international bodies as by national governments.”
Hello! I’m a GAer and NS Roleplayer from the United Kingdom.
My pronouns are he/him.
Any posts that I make as GenSec will be clearly marked as such and OOC. Conversely, my IC ambassador in the General Assembly is Ambassador Fortier. I’m always happy to discuss ideas about proposals, particularly if grammar or wording are in issue. I am also Executive Deputy Minister for the WA Ministry of TNP.
Kenmoria is an illiberal yet democratic nation pursuing the goals of communism in a semi-effective fashion. It has a very broad diplomatic presence despite being economically developing, mainly to seek help in recovering from the effect of a recent civil war. Read the factbook here for more information; perhaps, I will eventually finish it.

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:26 am

Kenmoria wrote:“I do not find myself in support of this repeal. Although your ‘condemning’ clause is accurate, I find the heavy-handed approach to be entirely reasonable given how cruel blood sports necessarily are.

I disagree with the arguments presented in the ‘noting’ clause. In the order in which they are introduced: a ‘significant risk of harm’ is exactly what it says on the tin - a risk of harm that is significant; given that an animal’s release can’t harm any creatures or people in that habitat, I don’t see how a habitat could be damaged in a way compliant with the clause; and the final question seems an obvious ‘no’, since there’s nothing in the legislation requiring as such.

Lastly, I am not convinced that blood sports are a matter for member nations. If the WA can promulgate effective legislation, then there is no reason not to do so. Blood sports are able to be addressed, as a category, with equal efficacy by international bodies as by national governments.”

It's the same standard fluff as always from Tin. This doesn't do this, this doesn't do that, this doesn't clarify this, this doesn't specify that, whine, whine, whine.... Titties.
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
Keswickholt
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 64
Founded: Aug 12, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Keswickholt » Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:33 am

Excuse me while I just grab some popcorn.

It amazes me that it hasn't even passed the vote yet and there is already a fully written 1st draft for Repealment.

I will wait for the outcome of the original vote, before making a decision on whether to back a repeal of the resolution or not.

At this time, we the Federal Republic of Keswickholt have voted against the current proposal in line with our regional delegate.
Lord Cameron Stewart
Foreign Secretary
World Assembly Liaison Office
HM Foreign Office
Holy Roman Empire of Keswickholt

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1241
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:53 am

Tinhampton wrote:
  • blood sports occurring solely between animals are forbidden, given that Article 3 - which prohibits blood sports involving animals that carry "a significant possibility of serious injury or death" - is superfluous in light of Article 1a, which defines a blood sport as "involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants," and
  • blood sports occurring between animals and sapient beings are also forbidden, as animals are not sapient under Article 1b and thus cannot consent to blood sports organised under Article 2,


"I am profoundly bewildered by the presentation of these effects as some sort of flaw rather than a set of measures to be desired. If you insist on listing this as a repeal argument, at the very least explain why you seem to think of it as a defect.

"I also find myself in agreement with Ambassador Lewitt regarding the suitability of the target legislation for international law."
THE SUPINE SOCIALIST SLOTHLAND OF MAOWI

hi!LETHARGY ⭐️ LANGUOR ⭐️ LAZINESShi!

Home | Guide for Visitors | Religion | Fashion

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Senator
 
Posts: 3875
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Honeydewistania » Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:34 am

:roll:


Tinhampton wrote:TINHAMPTONIAN MINISTRY OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS: Notice of Submission Warning
This proposal will be submitted at 5pm BST on Thursday.


Seriously? You’d think you’d at least wait a week on this one, there isn’t a rush. Marathon, not a sprint etc etc

Tinhampton wrote: Thank you for your consideration.
Character count: 1,530
Word count: 240
John Bell, staffer: What we have on our hands today is a poor resolution - I'd go as far as call it frankly terrible. Can't we just nuke it? Please, can't we?


Wow. Okay. Yeah, sticks and stones, but that’s a real low blow. Also I’d like to point out in the months of drafting that not once did you point out about how ‘frankly terrible’ this was.

Tinhampton wrote:
(Image)
Repeal "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal
Target: GA#498
Proposed by: Tinhampton

General Assembly Resolution #498 “Ban on Forced Blood Sports” (Category: Moral Decency; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Condemning GA#498 for its unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to regulating animal fights, inasmuch as:
  • blood sports occurring solely between animals are forbidden, given that Article 3 - which prohibits blood sports involving animals that carry "a significant possibility of serious injury or death" - is superfluous in light of Article 1a, which defines a blood sport as "involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants," and
  • blood sports occurring between animals and sapient beings are also forbidden, as animals are not sapient under Article 1b and thus cannot consent to blood sports organised under Article 2,


Condemning? I don’t see how it’s condemnable to have a heavy hand on subjecting animals to torture and abuse for entertainment. I didn’t legalise warcrimes or anything. And for the first part, that’s nonsense because even if the maiming killing part was superfluous the blood sport is still the maiming or killing, which means I’ve banned the maiming or killing of animals for entertainment aka my intention.

Tinhampton wrote:
Noting, with concern, the lack of clarity over how animal blood sport participants should be released; including over what a "significant risk of harm [or] danger" is, whether an animal's release to its natural habitat must avoid endangering that habitat, and whether (given that the euthanisation of animal participants must be humane) they should also be released or freed humanely,

Believing that this vagueness allows member states to do more harm than good to such participants and their natural habitats even while making a good-faith attempt to comply with GA#498, thus potentially making the intended outcomes of Clauses 4a, 4b and 4c self-defeating, and


What Kenmoria said.

Tinhampton wrote:
Convinced that the regulation of blood sports is a matter for individual member states, rather than international legislation...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#498, its "Ban on Forced Blood Sports."


It is. In fact, I would be open to a repeal if it encouraged a replacement, but this discourages it. From what I gather, I feel the writer is motivated by their personal belief that they think animals should be killed for fun and they wrote a sloppy replacement by taking a peek at TNP IFV. I will do everything I can to counter-campaign this if the current draft goes ahead, which it will because there’s only going to be two days of drafting. I strongly encourage anybody, even proponents of the proposal at vote, to write a repeal and perhaps a replacement so that this awful mess doesn’t even reach the floor. Thanks.
Last edited by Neutraligon on Tue Jul 14, 2020 5:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: shifted blocktext that was borque the post
Home of the first best pizza topping known to NationStates | Prolific Security Council Author (15x resolutions written) | Not that one fraud, Pineappleistania(ew) | Mouthpiece for Melons' first-rate SC takes | read this please

Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass

User avatar
Sciongrad
Minister
 
Posts: 3060
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Sciongrad » Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:26 pm

Condemning GA#498 for its unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to regulating animal fights, inasmuch as:
  • blood sports occurring solely between animals are forbidden, given that Article 3 - which prohibits blood sports involving animals that carry "a significant possibility of serious injury or death" - is superfluous in light of Article 1a, which defines a blood sport as "involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants," and
  • blood sports occurring between animals and sapient beings are also forbidden, as animals are not sapient under Article 1b and thus cannot consent to blood sports organised under Article 2,

I'd like a little more explanation for why this is a flaw. Do you think animal fighting is sometimes permissible? All the other arguments made here are also pretty trivial.

John Bell, staffer:[/color] What we have on our hands today is a poor resolution - I'd go as far as call it frankly terrible. Can't we just nuke it? Please, can't we?

This is pretty bold considering the quality of the arguments you make in this repeal, no offense.
Last edited by Sciongrad on Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Outer Sparta
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15106
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:30 pm

I mean, a repeal like this shouldn't be rushed by any means. Taking your time with this stuff never hurts by any means. Currently opposed to this one given the nature of the proposal branded as an instarepeal.
Last edited by Outer Sparta on Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Free Palestine, stop the genocide in Gaza

User avatar
Heavens Reach
Diplomat
 
Posts: 691
Founded: May 08, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Heavens Reach » Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:41 pm

We're on-board with all of the arguments but NatSov. This seems like important moral legislation -- we just don't feel it realizes its goals for most of the above, and some other reasons.

Revised: to clarify, we will not vote for a repeal of this particular resolution if it includes a NatSov argument.
Last edited by Heavens Reach on Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1681
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:20 am

"I think the resolution is much superior to this repeal. The arguments for a repeal boils down to 'the resolution bans the things it sets out to ban', which is, quite frankly, a terrible argument for a repeal. Is the Tinhamptonian delegation so bereft of attention that any repeal will do?"


Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through."
Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes
My NS career

User avatar
Ardiveds
Diplomat
 
Posts: 663
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Ardiveds » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:51 am

"Ambassador, I must tell you it says a lot about the moral character of a nation and its people when the nation condemns a resolution for banning animal cruelty..."
Last edited by Ardiveds on Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
WayNeacTia
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby WayNeacTia » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:19 pm

How is this "Instarepeal" working out Tin? #499 just passed, and I haven't seen so much as a sniff of this being submitted yet. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of an "INSTANT REPEAL"?
Sarcasm dispensed moderately.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac

wait

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Senator
 
Posts: 3875
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:21 pm

Morover wrote:"Beat me to the punch - support, nonetheless. I'm going to make a quick run to the loo and then I'll be back to give any critiques I may have on the subject."

"Excuse me Ambassador, but you have been in the loo for a week already. We may need to send in a search party."
Home of the first best pizza topping known to NationStates | Prolific Security Council Author (15x resolutions written) | Not that one fraud, Pineappleistania(ew) | Mouthpiece for Melons' first-rate SC takes | read this please

Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15899
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jul 14, 2020 7:44 am

Honeydewistania wrote:
Morover wrote:"Beat me to the punch - support, nonetheless. I'm going to make a quick run to the loo and then I'll be back to give any critiques I may have on the subject."

"Excuse me Ambassador, but you have been in the loo for a week already. We may need to send in a search party."

"Or call the emergency services. Possibly the coroner."
- ambassador miss Janis Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.

User avatar
Flying Eagles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Flying Eagles » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:30 am

Tinhampton wrote:and whether (given that the euthanisation of animal participants must be humane) they should also be released or freed humanely


Well, Clause 4 of the target "Requires that formerly captive blood sport participants be treated in a humane and fair manner, according to the following rules:" which would make your argument invalid.

However, a repeal is probably still necessary, as Clause 1a mentions that a blood sport must involve "maiming or killing". It is impossible to know whether in advance a blood sport will maim or kill somebody, so this needs a risk threshold attached to it in order to allow good faith compliance.
Last edited by Flying Eagles on Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
XKI TITO Field Commander

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13700
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:50 pm

Honeydewistania wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:TINHAMPTONIAN MINISTRY OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS: Notice of Submission Warning
This proposal will be submitted at 5pm BST on Thursday.


Seriously? You’d think you’d at least wait a week on this one, there isn’t a rush. Marathon, not a sprint etc etc

I never said which Thursday. I'll give you my reassurances it won't be this one, however :P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

User avatar
Apatosaurus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 944
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Apatosaurus » Tue Mar 08, 2022 8:17 pm

"Opposed as long as NatSov arguments remain."
Last edited by Apatosaurus on Tue Mar 08, 2022 8:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
This signature stands with Palestine.

End the continued practice of bombing houses, museums, refugee camps, ambulances, and churches.
WA Ambassador: Ambrose Scott; further detail on WA delegation in factbooks. Nation overview.

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:04 am

"The ellipsis at the end of the argument should be deleted. Such punctuation has no place outside of a citation. International law should not trail off."

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
Senator
 
Posts: 4343
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Mar 11, 2022 5:08 pm

Wayneactia wrote:Titties.


Leo's head jerks up off of his chest, where it had clearly been resting as a result of an unscheduled nap. He looks around the chamber quickly, and grabs a nearby napkin to rub the drool from his chin. He leans forward in order to reposition himself in his chair, this time more upright and straight-backed.

"Where?!?" he hisses urgently. "I see none - someone give me bearing and range!"
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral [fmr], The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, Roach, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13700
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Tue May 30, 2023 10:20 pm

This exists!
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16989
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed May 31, 2023 12:34 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The ellipsis at the end of the argument should be deleted. Such punctuation has no place outside of a citation. International law should not trail off."

"This remains critical to our support."

His Worshipfulness, the Most Unscrupulous, Plainly Deceitful, Dissembling, Strategicly Calculating Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13700
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Wed May 31, 2023 1:04 pm

Bryant: The Tinhamptonian delegation has followed a common resolution format since time immemorial. I am not upending it just to satisfy the more respected Ambassador Bell.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; *author of the most popular SC Res. ever; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; 48yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate ~ currently reading The World by Simon Sebag Montefiore

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads