[PASSED] Ban on Forced Blood Sports

[Honeydewistania]

The first break in voting since April?

Since late May, starting with 488 if i'm not wrong

[Wallenburg]

The first break in voting since April?

Since late May, starting with 488 if i'm not wrong

Since April 20th, with Prevention of Forced Sterilization.

[Christian Democrats]

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

This clause, in effect, permits the continuation of so-called "blood sports." Cockfights, for example, do not pose "a significant possibility of serious injury or death." You'd be hard-pressed to find a cockfight where somebody died or was seriously injured.

[Honeydewistania]

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

This clause, in effect, permits the continuation of so-called "blood sports." Cockfights, for example, do not pose "a significant possibility of serious injury or death." You'd be hard-pressed to find a cockfight where somebody died or was seriously injured.

Pretty sure the cocks have a good chance of dying.

[Christian Democrats]

This clause, in effect, permits the continuation of so-called "blood sports." Cockfights, for example, do not pose "a significant possibility of serious injury or death." You'd be hard-pressed to find a cockfight where somebody died or was seriously injured.

Pretty sure the cocks have a good chance of dying.

Indeed, but the resolution is unclear on that point. It can easily be interpreted to mean: "Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death [to people]."

[Honeydewistania]

Pretty sure the cocks have a good chance of dying.

Indeed, but the resolution is unclear on that point. It can easily be interpreted to mean: "Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death [to people]."

That sounds like bad faith compliance

[Wallenburg]

Indeed, but the resolution is unclear on that point. It can easily be interpreted to mean: "Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving animals in which there is a significant possibility of serious injury or death [to people]."

That sounds like bad faith compliance

That is bad faith compliance. Member states don't get to introduce additional qualifiers and pretend that was the meaning of the mandate all along.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Bad faith or not, it would still allow "blood sports" (including cockfights) where "serious injury or death" is prevented in some way (like people separating the animals before they can cause serious injuries to one another, or having them wear protective gear). So basically, CD is half right.

[Flying Eagles]

These arguments are irrelevant, as a blood sport must involve "maiming or killing" per Clause 1a. Blood sports that do not involve "maiming or killing" are not technically considered to be blood sports per this resolution, and a reasonable good-faith compliance would consider "maiming" to be a "serious injury" and "killing" to be a "death".

OOC: Read the repeal attempt. Clause 3 is superfluous.