NATION

PASSWORD

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

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6997
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

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

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

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?
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,

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."
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador ~ Achievements
3 SC Resolutions + 0 co-authored:
A: SC#250, Repeal "Liberate Femdom Empire" (87%)
A: SC#251, Commend Alasdair I Frosticus (91%)
A: SC#267, Repeal "Liberate The East Pacific" (90%)

1 GA Resolution + 1 co-authored:
A: GA#484, Disease Naming Compact (54%)
C: GA#491, Rights of the employed (54%)

0 Issues + 1 co-authored:
C: #1115, One in the Arm for @@LEADER@@?

73rd Cup of Harmony - CHAMPIONS

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1048
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

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."

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
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

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

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

Wayne

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6231
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

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.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

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.

User avatar
Keswickholt
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 43
Founded: Aug 12, 2019
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

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.
Rupert Armstrong
Principal Secretary
World Assembly Liaison Office
Department for Foreign Affairs
Federal Republic of Keswickholt


**Robert Lewis our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is needed back in the Federal Republic, Mr Lewis will return from the 1st August 2020**

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1046
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

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."

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1241
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

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
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3057
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

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
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10290
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Liberal 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.
social democracy, environmental protection, universal healthcare, free college, social equality, LGBT, pro-choice,
GOP, corporate socialism, Trump, neoconservatism, white supremacy, extreme political views, corruption

User avatar
Heavens Reach
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 127
Founded: May 08, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

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
Diplomat
 
Posts: 992
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 and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Ardiveds
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 190
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

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.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

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"?

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1241
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

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."
Honeydewistania

Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Hepperle

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 "Regulating Desalination"
GA#498 "Ban on Forced Blood Sports"
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"

SC#315 "Commend Vippertooth33"

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
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."
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss 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.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Flying Eagles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 169
Founded: Nov 04, 2017
Liberal 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.
I do dumb things sometimes. Sorry.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tinhampton

Advertisement

Remove ads