Abstract
This paper seeks to address effective aggressiveness and the treatment of aggressive behaviour in the context of MMA in comparison to the balance of the formal Canadian legal landscape. I choose anti-bullying legislation, and its treatment of aggressive behaviour, as a counterexample to the treatment of aggressive behaviour within the MMA regulatory framework. By intertextually linking and superimposing these two categories of legislation, a critical lens drawing on institutional ethnography is applied in order to question and deconstruct the differential treatment of aggressive behaviour and the rationale behind the legislative mixed message sent. The quandary faced within the fabric of the MMA community regarding its own treatment of aggressive behaviour, where it is both reified as well as castigated through anti-bullying advocacy, will also be examined.
Highlights
EFFECTIVE AGGRESSIVENESS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE BIJURIDICAL TREATMENT OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR: MIXED MARTIAL ARTS, BULLYING, AND SOCIOLEGAL QUANDARIES Sara Gwendolyn Ross One of the most legally restricted elements of human nature is that of aggression and the intent to harm
Rather than being in line with the Unified Rules, which were in place during the UFC fights that comprise the data, this would instead seem to be in line with the definition of effective aggressiveness found in Quebec’s mixed-martial arts (MMA) regulations
While BullyingCanada.ca suggests that bullying ends almost immediately when peers intervene, it remains to be seen if the awareness-raising of anti-bullying campaigns deployed by the MMA community are effective in leading to peer castigation of bullying.[103]
Summary
In Canada the regulation of MMA is delegated, depending on the province in question, to the provincial or municipal body or agency—usually the athletic commission—responsible for overseeing athletics-related policy.[3]. Legalization was influenced by the rationale that greater regulation leads to better protection of MMA participants.[26] Increased ability to regulate post-decriminalization enables the implementation of safety standards and, it is hoped, reduces the attraction of unregulated underground events.[27] These reasons for decriminalization appear in the limited case law dealing with the old version of Section 83, such as R v Chang.[28] In this case the court found that the 2002 “Extreme Fighting Championship” event promoted by Mr Chang in Saint John, New Brunswick constituted a prize-fight due to the various fighting techniques used and the pre-arranged nature of the fight.[29] Judge Brien noted that if the popularity and public acceptance of combat sports of this genre were growing, regulations would be needed for the safety of the contestants; to be achieved through lobbying efforts seeking a legislative response and resulting change in legislation.[30]. This is distinct from the traditional desire of many sports organizations that seek decreased government regulation and oversight or hope to avoid it altogether.[47]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
