GA Proposal: Ban on Forced Blood Sports

[Lenlyvit]

Ban On Forced Blood Sports

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Honeydewistania

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that sports such as bullfighting, cockfighting and dogfighting are popular amongst member nations;

Horrified that participants are often forced to compete in these sports, usually resulting in their death or serious injury;

Believing that, for the safety and protection of all sentient beings, legislation in the form of a General Assembly resolution is needed to prevent such cruel and barbaric practices;

Hereby:

1. Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:

a. "blood sport" as an activity involving the maiming or killing of at least one of the participants for the entertainment of sapient individuals, excluding hunting or religious sacrifice,

b. "animal" as a non-sapient being with a nervous system or equivalent system by which it is naturally able to experience pain;

2. Prohibits all forms of blood sports involving sapients in which one or more of the participants do not provide consent;

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

4. Requires that formerly captive blood sport participants be treated in a humane and fair manner, according to the following rules:

a. if an animal blood sport participant does not have a significant risk of harming itself of others, it must be given its freedom,

b. if an animal blood sport participant poses a significant risk of harm to itself or others when released, the participant must be relocated to its natural habitat, unless said relocation poses a significant danger to the participant, any animals, or sapients in that habitat as a result of abnormal behaviour in comparison to that participant’s wild counterparts,

c. if an animal blood sport participant cannot be relocated to its natural habitat due to the above, the former participant must either be euthanised humanely, or contained in a secure and safe rehabilitative environment until that participant can be safely released or relocated in accordance with clause 4(b), at which point it must be released or relocated in accordance with said clause, and

d. all non-animal blood sport participants must be given their freedom, excepting lawful incarceration as a penalty for criminal conduct.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Deleted]

It all seems a bit arbitrary to me. Hunting okay, religious sacrifice okay (for some reason), pitting some animals against each other not okay, but human vs animal in the wild (with no parameters around humanitarian hunting practices) is okay. It's difficult for me to reconcile, and I'm not sure that a one-size-fits-all WA solution is realistic or workable here. It should be up individual nations where they draw their lines, and I've never been a fan of the argument that 'if nations want to do more in addition to what's outlined in a resolution, they can', that that makes for a good resolution. The resolution should stand on its own, and this one is too conflicted.

THX, through proxy, will vote against.

[Jabberwocky]

Same here, for similar reasons

[Flying Eagles]

Clause 3’s specification of “serious injury or death” is unnecessary, as Clause 1 causes this resolution to include only sports that involve “killing and maiming”, which is already a form of “serious injury or death”.

[Whatermelon]

Jul 5, 2020 14:48:23 GMT -5 @thx1138 said:

It all seems a bit arbitrary to me. Hunting okay, religious sacrifice okay (for some reason), pitting some animals against each other not okay, but human vs animal in the wild (with no parameters around humanitarian hunting practices) is okay. It's difficult for me to reconcile, and I'm not sure that a one-size-fits-all WA solution is realistic or workable here. It should be up individual nations where they draw their lines, and I've never been a fan of the argument that 'if nations want to do more in addition to what's outlined in a resolution, they can', that that makes for a good resolution. The resolution should stand on its own, and this one is too conflicted.

THX, through proxy, will vote against.

Hunting must be allowed or else the proposal will violate Sensible Limits on Hunting