[INSTAREPEAL!] Repeal GA#498 "Ban On Forced Blood Sports"

[Tinhampton]

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

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,

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."

[Morover]

"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."

[Burn Swi]

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?

[Wayneactia]

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

Wayne

[Kenmoria]

“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.”

[Wayneactia]

“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.

[Keswickholt]

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.

[Maowi]

• 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."

[Neutraligon]

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

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.

(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.

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.

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.

[Sciongrad]

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.

[Outer Sparta]

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.

[Heavens Reach]

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.

[Attempted Socialism]

"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?"

[Ardiveds]

"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..."

[Wayneactia]

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"?

[Honeydewistania]

"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."

[Araraukar]

"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."

[Flying Eagles]

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.