[Abandoned] Ban On Hunger Strikes

[Walfo]

Category: Moral Decency, Health
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that hunger strikes are detrimental to the health of people, and prolonged periods without any food can cause lifelong problems, or death,

Realizes that certain religions take part in hunger strikes,

Acknowledging that hunger strikes are impractical in the way that they can bring death to the participant,

Wishing to eliminate these politically fueled protests that are destructive to human health,

Further recognizing that hunger strikes can often lead to force-feeding, which is considered torture and can lead to death,

Hereby:

1. Defines hunger strikes as a method of non-violent resistance in which participants refuse to eat as an act of political protest or to provoke feelings of guilt in others.

2. Prohibits:

1. A person or persons to partake in hunger strikes,
2. In which the person subjects themselves to prolonged periods without food, water, or other products,
3. To create or act as the impetus for:
   
   1. Political means,
   2. Inducing guilt,
   3. Spurring policy change,
   4. Protesting incarceration.
   
   3. Permits:
   
   1. A person or persons to partake in hunger strikes for religious purposes,
   2. In which the person subjects themselves to prolonged periods without food, water, or other products,
   3. For the reason of:
      
      1. Becoming closer to god,
      2. Focus on the plight of those who involuntarily go without food or water, and
   4. Requires that this fasting take place during recognized and known times

3a. Examples of these times include:

1. Lent,
2. Yom Kippur,
3. Ramadan.

1st Draft.

[Walfo]

Hello everyone! Please feel free to drop some comments or advice on this proposal. I am also looking for possible co-authors to help me. FYI, this is my first proposal so give it a chance. Thanks for your time! Also I had a problem with the coding on the third section, so help on that would be great.

[Free Ravensburg]

Question: Will fasting be considered as hunger strikes?

Edit: never mind, religious is allowed

Edit 2, Electric Boogaloo: Under this law, wouldn’t that make Gandhi, who wouldn’t hurt a fly (unless you are playing Civilizations), a war criminal?

[Walfo]

Edit 2, Electric Boogaloo: Under this law, wouldn’t that make Gandhi, who wouldn’t hurt a fly (unless you are playing Civilizations), a war criminal?

People would not be considered war criminals, but breaking the law. This ban would go into effect, and not cause severe jail time, still debating about that or a fine. Not sure about the consequence yet (if it is needed).

[Boston Castle]

“Boston Castle is unequivocally and virulently opposed to this draft. While we appreciate the efforts of the delegation from Walfo, we believe that a hunger strike by any person is a legitimate form of protest that a person should be unhindered in.”

[Drew Durrnil]

"This bans a form of legitimate protest. Opposed."

[Walfo]

Thanks for your feedback. I understand your views, heck I agree with them, but still something I am willing to see what happens (if I bring it to vote).

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: No real-life references like Ramadan and Lent. Also, very strongly opposed. An individual should have the inherent ability to choose their own destiny, and if they decide to risk it by protesting barbarism, so be it.

[Boston Castle]

OOC: No real-life references like Ramadan and Lent. Also, very strongly opposed. An individual should have the inherent ability to choose their own destiny, and if they decide to risk it by protesting barbarism, so be it.

Frankly, a blanket ban on hunger strikes doesn't need to mention fasting much at all other than to say "fasting for religious or cultural purposes, however, is permitted".

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: No real-life references like Ramadan and Lent. Also, very strongly opposed. An individual should have the inherent ability to choose their own destiny, and if they decide to risk it by protesting barbarism, so be it.

There's a novel GA legality question for you. Are the major holidays of major real life religions RW references? Something of a novel question given that previous precedent says that major real life religions are themselves not real life references. Repeal "For the Detained and Convicted" (2009) 2 IAM __. The argument, ibid, that major real life religions would themselves have counterparts in the world of NationStates would cross-apply easily to the holidays of such religions.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: No real-life references like Ramadan and Lent. Also, very strongly opposed. An individual should have the inherent ability to choose their own destiny, and if they decide to risk it by protesting barbarism, so be it.

There's a novel GA legality question for you. Are the major holidays of major real life religions RW references? Something of a novel question given that previous precedent says that major real life religions are themselves not real life references. Repeal "For the Detained and Convicted" (2009) 2 IAM __.

OOC: Hmmm. The practices are specific, and may not necessarily have NS counterparts.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There's a novel GA legality question for you. Are the major holidays of major real life religions RW references? Something of a novel question given that previous precedent says that major real life religions are themselves not real life references. Repeal "For the Detained and Convicted" (2009) 2 IAM __.

OOC: Hmmm. The practices are specific, and may not necessarily have NS counterparts.

That would be the same counterargument re the major real life religions themselves which, implicitly, was rejected by Ard's citation of previous rulings quoted. Re the meaning of the ruling itself, which is a bit oblique, my interpretation is that Ard voices disagreement with the opinion given but does not overrule it and instead defers to past precedent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

As to the proposal itself, rather than the (perhaps academic) debate over its legality, I'm unsure as to whether the policy desired is to stop people from killing themselves by starvation... or to allow them to do so. The former seems what is implied by a no-hunger-strike policy, but the latter is is implied by the preamble's association of force-feeding (by tube etc) with torture and death. If hunger strikes are to be prohibited, how exactly would that happen? Surely if Schmandi decides he is going to do a hunger strike, he will not be stopped by magical gnomes sustaining him indefinitely regardless of his nutritional needs.

[Barfleur]

"Though we understand the international interest in safeguarding sapient life, we wholeheartedly oppose this proposal. If a mature sapient individual wishes to not eat, and knows the risks, they are well within their right to not eat. In addition, we cannot help but notice the incongruity of labeling force-feeding as a practice 'which is considered torture and can lead to death' and then imposing a prohibition on hunger striking which would necessitate force-feeding as a means of enforcing this very proposal. And furthermore, how is 'focus[ing] on the plight of those who involuntarily go without food or water' so different from 'inducing guilt' or 'spurring policy change' to the extent that one is permitted and the others prohibited?"

[The Python]

Strongly opposed. Hunger strikes are a form of protest.

[Greater Cesnica]

"Though we understand the international interest in safeguarding sapient life, we wholeheartedly oppose this proposal. If a mature sapient individual wishes to not eat, and knows the risks, they are well within their right to not eat. In addition, we cannot help but notice the incongruity of labeling force-feeding as a practice 'which is considered torture and can lead to death' and then imposing a prohibition on hunger striking which would necessitate force-feeding as a means of enforcing this very proposal. And furthermore, how is 'focus[ing] on the plight of those who involuntarily go without food or water' so different from 'inducing guilt' or 'spurring policy change' to the extent that one is permitted and the others prohibited?"

"Very well put, Ambassador. This resolution would ultimately serve as little more than a means to protect tyrants and authoritarian regimes."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Though we understand the international interest in safeguarding sapient life, we wholeheartedly oppose this proposal. If a mature sapient individual wishes to not eat, and knows the risks, they are well within their right to not eat. In addition, we cannot help but notice the incongruity of labeling force-feeding as a practice 'which is considered torture and can lead to death' and then imposing a prohibition on hunger striking which would necessitate force-feeding as a means of enforcing this very proposal. And furthermore, how is 'focus[ing] on the plight of those who involuntarily go without food or water' so different from 'inducing guilt' or 'spurring policy change' to the extent that one is permitted and the others prohibited?"

"Very well put, Ambassador. This resolution would ultimately serve as little more than a means to protect tyrants and authoritarian regimes."

Or maybe your rhetoric is bounding a bit too far ahead. There are many reasons for people to hunger strike. A Karen who believes she was treated unfairly by the corrupt liberal globalist establishment after she shot up an abortion clinic might hunger strike against her imprisonment. Preventing her from starving herself to 'heaven' would do very little to protect tyrants or authoritarian regimes.

[Greater Cesnica]

"Very well put, Ambassador. This resolution would ultimately serve as little more than a means to protect tyrants and authoritarian regimes."

Or maybe your rhetoric is bounding a bit too far ahead. There are many reasons for people to hunger strike. A Karen who believes she was treated unfairly by the corrupt liberal globalist establishment after she shot up an abortion clinic might hunger strike against her imprisonment. Preventing her from starving herself to 'heaven' would do very little to protect tyrants or authoritarian regimes.

OOC: Sure, that Karen might hunger strike, but the point stands. Hunger strikes have been historically associated with resisting oppression and bringing attention to the plight of oppressed people(s). As such, it's imperative that they are not prohibited.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is a terrible policy, ambassador. How do you plan on enforcing this? Force feeding people? Opposed."

[Daarwyrth]

Vyn Nysen: "A policy such as this would be impossible to police and enforce. Also, it would impede on the personal autonomy of every living being that exists within the WA. Our delegation opposes this proposal."

[Walfo]

I had a feeling that this was going to be thorny, it is something that I did not have high hopes on. Effective immediately, I am discarding this draft. Once again, thanks for the feedback, always appreciated. I will be back with another proposal, and something less controversial.

Best, Waffles.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: [DISCARDED] proposals were actually discarded at vote; proposals that have been voluntarily abandoned by their authors are typically [ABANDONED].

Category: Moral Decency, Health
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that hunger strikes are detrimental to the health of people, and prolonged periods without any food can cause lifelong problems, or death,

Realizes that certain religions take part in hunger strikes,

Acknowledging that hunger strikes are impractical in the way that they can bring death to the participant,

Wishing to eliminate these politically fueled protests that are destructive to human health,

Further recognizing that hunger strikes can often lead to force-feeding, which is considered torture and can lead to death,

Hereby:

1. Defines hunger strikes as a method of non-violent resistance in which participants refuse to eat as an act of political protest or to provoke feelings of guilt in others.

2. Prohibits:

1. A person or persons to partake in hunger strikes,
2. In which the person subjects themselves to prolonged periods without food, water, or other products,
3. To create or act as the impetus for:
   
   1. Political means,
   2. Inducing guilt,
   3. Spurring policy change,
   4. Protesting incarceration.
   
   3. Permits:
   
   1. A person or persons to partake in hunger strikes for religious purposes,
   2. In which the person subjects themselves to prolonged periods without food, water, or other products,
   3. For the reason of:
      
      1. Becoming closer to god,
      2. Focus on the plight of those who involuntarily go without food or water, and
   4. Requires that this fasting take place during recognized and known times

3a. Examples of these times include:

1. Lent,
2. Yom Kippur,
3. Ramadan.

1st Draft.

[Walfo]

OOC: [DISCARDED] proposals were actually discarded at vote; proposals that have been voluntarily abandoned by their authors are typically [ABANDONED].

Category: Moral Decency, Health
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that hunger strikes are detrimental to the health of people, and prolonged periods without any food can cause lifelong problems, or death,

Realizes that certain religions take part in hunger strikes,

Acknowledging that hunger strikes are impractical in the way that they can bring death to the participant,

Wishing to eliminate these politically fueled protests that are destructive to human health,

Further recognizing that hunger strikes can often lead to force-feeding, which is considered torture and can lead to death,

Hereby:

1. Defines hunger strikes as a method of non-violent resistance in which participants refuse to eat as an act of political protest or to provoke feelings of guilt in others.

2. Prohibits:

1. A person or persons to partake in hunger strikes,
2. In which the person subjects themselves to prolonged periods without food, water, or other products,
3. To create or act as the impetus for:
   
   1. Political means,
   2. Inducing guilt,
   3. Spurring policy change,
   4. Protesting incarceration.
   
   3. Permits:
   
   1. A person or persons to partake in hunger strikes for religious purposes,
   2. In which the person subjects themselves to prolonged periods without food, water, or other products,
   3. For the reason of:
      
      1. Becoming closer to god,
      2. Focus on the plight of those who involuntarily go without food or water, and
   4. Requires that this fasting take place during recognized and known times

3a. Examples of these times include:

1. Lent,
2. Yom Kippur,
3. Ramadan.

1st Draft.

Done!