Senate: Passed [PASSED] Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

[Wes]

Proposal 89 - Anti-Sapient Consumption Act (ASC Act)

Purpose:

1. To prevent sapients from being used as a food source.

Proposal:

1. Add the following to the law: "It is a crime to knowingly and willfully consume the flesh of another sapient being without that person's written consent."

2. The convening court shall be entrusted with the decision as to whether or not extenuating circumstances are present, and it is within their purview dismiss charges for the same.

 

[Nashoba]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Vote: Yes

Mikasa Sorano, Taisho
Commander 2XF

 

[Sigma]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Add a second proposal: "The consumption of human flesh is only justified in the direst of situations when no other food source presents itself."

 

[Gabriel]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Second the above motion to change.

 

[Nashoba]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Propose change. Replace Human with Sentient

"The consumption of sentient flesh is only justified in the direst of situations when no other food source presents itself."

 

[Wes]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Sapient would be better. Cows and pigs are sentient.

 

[Nashoba]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Seconded the use of Sapient

 

[SSharp]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I propose we change it to: "It is a crime to knowingly and willfully consume the flesh of another sapient being without that person's written consent, except cases in which the flesh being used is from a (naturally or not consumer-caused) death."

This is because in cases of combat and wilderness survival there isn't always paper on hand, or a subject died before they could write their consent.

 

[Nashoba]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I vote negative on this proposed rewording.

 

[Wes]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I also am against the proposed rewording.

 

[Toshiro]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I propose that we instead use:

"It is a crime to knowingly and willfully consume the flesh of another sapient being without that being's written consent, except for cases in which the being whose flesh is being consumed has both died for a reason irrelevant to being used as a food source, and not consuming the flesh would result in further death from starvation due to a lack of other food sources."


In summary; it's a crime without written consent, unless the being is already dead and was not murdered to be eaten to begin with AND if further death is imminent if they aren't used for food.

 

[Sigma]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

To be clear, I believe this is the current draft.

Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Purpose:

1. To prevent people from being used as a food source, eg with NMX rations.

Proposal:

1. Add the following to the law: "It is a crime to knowingly and willfully consume the flesh of another sapient being without that person's written consent."

2. "The consumption of sapient flesh is only justified in the direst of situations when no other food source presents itself."

I don't see anything amiss in Toshiro's proposal, though it is a little difficult to read since it is one giant run-on sentence.

 

[Nashoba]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I reject that change, because it creates to much ambiguity, it makes it fine for NMX to eat people who conveniently are killed in battle.

 

[Sigma]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Do you really intend to call foul on the average NMX Mishhu or Neko who engages in cannibalism? None of these laws are binding on them. They are a separate government, unbound by whatever international treaties.

The Nepleslians, Lorath and other nations not in the YSE are not subject to it. If Lorath refugees found a dead SAOY Neko, but no other food source, would you prosecute them for trying to survive? This law, as I understand it, is only to pertain to YSE citizens. To enforce it on other nations' citizens or military requires their agreement to be subject to a Yamataian law.

 

[Nashoba]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

The stated initial purpose of this law was specifically mentioning the NMX rations. But that said, this proposed change also would make eating Dolphin and Whales justifiable.

Proposal 88 - Marine Life Protection Act, YE 34 makes those creatures applicable to this law with regards to eating them.

Sigma, the law applies to anyone regardless of their Affiliation if it takes place within the Empire or its holdings. So while in Nepleslian controlled space the law would not hold, if a Nepleslian came to a Yamatai world, killed a dolphin and then cooked and ate it. They would be in violation of #88 and 89.

 

[Sigma]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

This is supposed to be an anti-cannibalism law. Its intent and the very definition of the word "cannibalism" would not support the case for a person who tried to justify eating a dolphin or a whale.

If the intent is to make a civil law applicable to all non-military citizens and foreigners, then this works. But if the point is to make it punishable by law for the NMX to eat Nekos or Yamataians, then I think we'd need a separate Proposal addressing it specifically as a war crime. Otherwise, you'd be using a law to apply to both civilians and military and in peace and war. By keeping them as separate issues, you can amend one or the other as needed.

 

[Wes]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I am also against the latest rewording (OOC: Toshiro's) and I think we should go with the current draft (OOC: As posted by Sigma) or a rewording of it that explains the item of item 2 more clearly than "justified" does. We may want to add or link to a definition for sapient being to maximize clarity.

 

[SSharp]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

Defined: "Last Resort" - I.) A final expedient or recourse to achieve some end or settle a difficulty; II.) An expedient adopted only in desperation;

Defined: "Expedient" - I.) Tending to promote some proposed or desired object; II.) Fit or suitable for the purpose; III.) Proper under the circumstances.

Defined: "Cannibalism" - I.) The eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.

Defined: "Justified" - I.) To declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.

PROPOSED CHANGE: Re-Naming of the bill to "Anti-Sapient Consumption Act (SC Act)"

Rewording of bill to: "It is a crime to knowingly and willfully consume the flesh of another sapient being, except under circumstances of LAST RESORT, in which case it is a justifiable act, or when the sapient has written their consent."

To punish those wishing to survive for trying to survive is possibly the epitome of tyranny, and even as we struggle against our enemy who not only rapes and pillages our People, but, in fact, eats our People, we should not sink so low as to persecute our own People further.

If the purpose of the bill is to address a war crime, it should be made to apply to the military, or else tossed out; we cannot punish our People for trying to live. If it is going to have an effect on our civilian courts as well, then we should take care when dealing with this law insofar as it affects our civilians.

The ONLY fundamental right we have is the Right to Life, by virtue of being born alive. Life is a process of self-generated and self-sustained action. We must CHOOSE to survive. If we CHOOSE to survive, then we must eat food, drink clean water (in most cases), breathe air...

We have a Right to Life, and, as a consequence, a Right to Survive. No one else will live for us, no one else can breathe for us, so in the most dire of cases we must protect our Right to Life.

The Purpose of this bill originally was to protect the dignity of the deceased; this is not enough. Before you can have respect for dignity, you must first be alive. The Right to Life subsumes the 'right to dignity'.

If you believe you have a fundamental Right to Life, you must vote against the current bill proposal ((Sigma posted up the current one I believe...)) or else second my proposal to change this bill.

Thank you.

 

[Gabriel]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I second the newly proposed change.

 

[Wes]

Re: Proposal 89 - Anti-Cannibalism Act

I am against the proposed change. It is too wordy and talks about about NMX, whom this law does not affect and has little to do with, and also about war crimes, which are not related to this law. Laws should be written to be lasting, and should not mention other factions that may not be around in 5 years or so.