[RE-DRAFT] Prohibiting Animal Abuse

[Imperium Anglorum]

Time to get back into the repealing business...

That's your job here. Instarepeal mildly bad legislation.

Health legislation, mate! Health legislation!

Also, I don't see ritual sacrifice as 'mild'. Secondarily, the first resolution I passed — that business on arms trading — has some severe implications if you are involved in a total war for your own country's survival.

[Eastern Ukrainian Republic]

I fully support the resolution against animal cruelty

Sincerely,
Jacques Romanov
President
Eastern Ukrainian Republic

[Sobaira]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal should have explicitly allowed self defense. I'm still not sure that self defense against an animal constitutes "abuse" - which is what the proposal actually prohibits. Nonetheless, there really should be an explicit exemption just so nations are not left to wonder.

I have requested moderator intervention to pull the proposal. In the event they do, I will include an explicit self defense provision in the next draft. I regret that this reached the floor before that issue was noticed. If this cannot be pulled, I will support a repeal so I can replace it with a law that does contain an explicit self defense provision.

The ambassador from Sobaira spoke up, "Honourable legislator, perhaps it would be wise to not only include changes in the draft to account for that issue, but to also look at the apparent repeals already being written for more comment and criticism in a collected document for further improvements? The attention garnered by the, so to speak, all of the sudden nature of this going from draft to quorum... can only be for its long-term benefit. Use the extra eyes and experience for more than that one issue with the resolution, I implore you. Thank you for your time, honourable legislator."

[Wallenburg]

I could send you a first draft for repeal.

Already done. /threadjack.

One post does not a threadjack make.

[Vancouvia]

Unfortunately, I have to agree that the proposal should have explicitly allowed self defense. I'm still not sure that self defense against an animal constitutes "abuse" - which is what the proposal actually prohibits. Nonetheless, there really should be an explicit exemption just so nations are not left to wonder.

I have requested moderator intervention to pull the proposal. In the event they do, I will include an explicit self defense provision in the next draft. I regret that this reached the floor before that issue was noticed. If this cannot be pulled, I will support a repeal so I can replace it with a law that does contain an explicit self defense provision.

Reversed my vote to against, if this doesn't get taken down as you requested. Not sure if the mods are in the habit of removing active votes

[Speculine]

While we definitely agree that animal abuse is abhorrent and should be prevented, we have voted against this proposal. While the loopholes which have been pointed out may lead to the nullification of this proposal we would like the other members of this assembly to consider that there should not be a rush to enact a replacement.

Simply put, the treatment of animals, positive or negative, is not an international issue. There are scant, if any, ways that it could be considered an international issue.

We humbly implore our respected ambassadors to consider this instead of writing or supporting this or any replacement regulation over non-international issues both today and in the future. We understand that some members of this assembly would like to create legislation to rule and/or regulate any aspect of member nations which has not already been covered but issues which are outside of the international scope should be left up to the governments of each nation, regardless of any good intention of the legislation itself.

[Uudempi Neva]

My Esteemed colleagues:

The Confederacy of Uudempi Neva is opposed to this pernicious proposal on the following grounds:

1. The General Assembly is seriously overstepping its reasonable and proper field of endeavour, which should be limited to those matters which have real value in international affairs. Morality cannot be legislated from above, not without grave threat to the sovereignty of the member nations.

2. The bill, as it stands, is still vague and subject to very subjective interpretations. Who will judge whether ritual slaughter of an animal is more or less cruel than mechanised assembly-line slaughter of the same species?

The people of Uudempi Neva abhor any wilful and unnecessary suffering, but this bill before us will be unenforcable and liable to be used for purposes other than what is actually stated. We oppose this bill.

[United West Afrika]

United West Afrika must oppose this legislation which, in proper WA form, seeks to oppress other cultures and impose a Western normative standard on the rest of the world whether they want it or not.

First, this part:

butchering, slaughtering, or killing an animal for food or other consumption, so long as the methods used are not cruel and the animal is killed as swiftly and painlessly as possible;

is completely subjective. There is absolutely no method currently existing for slaughtering an animal which could objectively be deemed "not cruel."

Second, per the absurd text highlighted above, this act could be interpreted as a ban on hunting, especially for hunters that use traps. This would immediately result in a famine in many countries that comply.

Third, this would interfere with GA#35 The Charter of Civil Rights,

All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including...religion or belief system

for any nations with spiritual traditions which including things like the ritual slaughter of animals. In particular, in UWA it is a long-held tradition that young boys seeking a rite of manhood must attempt copulation with a mother rhino. (I feel I should emphasize the word "attempt" here, as so far only one man has succeeded, the current Warlord of Ivory Coast.) A prohibition on this ritual would only serve to criminalize the activity, thereby infringing on our spiritual traditions.

Fourth, clauses five and six would effectively make any sort of large-scale slaughterhouse or factory farming impossible. No one can guarantee that every one of the thousands and thousands of chickens or cows in a meatworks are not "in distress," and it would entirely impracticable to seek veterinary care for an animal that is about to be killed for food.

Perhaps in wealthier nations it would be no problem for you to switch from eating meat to your tofu derivatives, or shell out some extra bucks for grass-fed cows with Cadillac health insurance plans, but in areas where food is scarce and expensive this would again cause a severe hardship on the population.

It's astounding to me that we're here in an international assembly, representing the leadership of the world, and we're debating the proper care of pets. Increasingly, the World Assembly looks less like a forum for the nations of the world to discuss the critical issues facing the planet today, and more like a country club for the wealthy political elite to bloviate on topics they are unaffected by while engaging in self-righteous posturing at the expense of smaller nations. I urge the assembly to cease this inane crusade to impose a monoculture on the world and instead address genuine problems.

[Excidium Planetis]

United West Afrika must oppose this legislation which, in proper WA form, seeks to oppress other cultures and impose a Western normative standard on the rest of the world whether they want it or not.

First, this part:

butchering, slaughtering, or killing an animal for food or other consumption, so long as the methods used are not cruel and the animal is killed as swiftly and painlessly as possible;

is completely subjective. There is absolutely no method currently existing for slaughtering an animal which could objectively be deemed "not cruel."

Second, per the absurd text highlighted above, this act could be interpreted as a ban on hunting, especially for hunters that use traps. This would immediately result in a famine in many countries that comply.

Third, this would interfere with GA#35 The Charter of Civil Rights,

All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including...religion or belief system

for any nations with spiritual traditions which including things like the ritual slaughter of animals. In particular, in UWA it is a long-held tradition that young boys seeking a rite of manhood must attempt copulation with a mother rhino. (I feel I should emphasize the word "attempt" here, as so far only one man has succeeded, the current Warlord of Ivory Coast.) A prohibition on this ritual would only serve to criminalize the activity, thereby infringing on our spiritual traditions.

Fourth, clauses five and six would effectively make any sort of large-scale slaughterhouse or factory farming impossible. No one can guarantee that every one of the thousands and thousands of chickens or cows in a meatworks are not "in distress," and it would entirely impracticable to seek veterinary care for an animal that is about to be killed for food.

Perhaps in wealthier nations it would be no problem for you to switch from eating meat to your tofu derivatives, or shell out some extra bucks for grass-fed cows with Cadillac health insurance plans, but in areas where food is scarce and expensive this would again cause a severe hardship on the population.

It's astounding to me that we're here in an international assembly, representing the leadership of the world, and we're debating the proper care of pets. Increasingly, the World Assembly looks less like a forum for the nations of the world to discuss the critical issues facing the planet today, and more like a country club for the wealthy political elite to bloviate on topics they are unaffected by while engaging in self-righteous posturing at the expense of smaller nations. I urge the assembly to cease this inane crusade to impose a monoculture on the world and instead address genuine problems.

The Excidian ambassador stands and applauds the United West African ambassador.

"Bravo," she says, "I hadn't even considered this would ban Santeria, which admittedly has no practitioners in Excidium Planetis, but no doubt might affect other nations and other similar religions involving animal sacrifice. Judaism, perhaps? I don't seem to recall our Jewish believers practicing animal sacrifice, but it is in their holy books, right?"

[United West Afrika]

Judaism, perhaps? I don't seem to recall our Jewish believers practicing animal sacrifice, but it is in their holy books, right?"

Some absolutely do. So far as I know we don't have any practitioners in UWA but we've been told by our partners in Europe about this sort of thing.

(Trigger warning: these chickens die.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LGwJEl3Z4E

[Floreria]

Delegate of Haiku here, I object that the resolution only covers chordate animals and I would like to request that in includes abuse of all animals.

[The Defwaen Confederation]

Delegate of Haiku here, I object that the resolution only covers chordate animals and I would like to request that in includes abuse of all animals.

Haiku's Delegate
Objects to leaving all the
Invertebrates out

And requests adding
Those protections, extending
To all animals

OOC:
Opportunities
Are being missed by you.
I hope you learned

[MRWOFFLE]

This proposal is an outrage! You do realize animal fighting and animal sacrifice is common among the indigenous people of the Republic of MRWOFFLE! It is a disgust to know that the new WA Proposal will interfere with their culture. Not to forget that Animal Fighting traditions of the indigenous people of the Republic of MRWOFFLE have assimilated into our country's culture as a whole and acts as a major economic asset to the nation.

The Passed Proposal Rights of Indigenous People even asks the member nations to keep their culture and ways legal, yet the WA is willing to outlaw perhaps one of the largest cultural traditions within many indigenous people's culture, and indigenous religion.
"Implores member nations to permit uncontacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their native lands, and to permit contacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their lands if they presently are doing so"

[MRWOFFLE]

Plus isn't this law pretty a copy of a previous ruling?

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=195935&hilit=animal

[Imperium Anglorum]

Delegate of Haiku here, I object that the resolution only covers chordate animals and I would like to request that in includes abuse of all animals.

Haiku's Delegate
Objects to leaving all the
Invertebrates out

And requests adding
Those protections, extending
To all animals

OOC:
Opportunities
Are being missed by you.
I hope you learned

I. love. this.

The Passed Proposal Rights of Indigenous People even asks the member nations to keep their culture and ways legal, yet the WA is willing to outlaw perhaps one of the largest cultural traditions within many indigenous people's culture, and indigenous religion.
"Implores member nations to permit uncontacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their native lands, and to permit contacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their lands if they presently are doing so"

Yes, but we repealed that. Fortunately, this thing will likely get repealed shortly.

[Losthaven]

Yes, but we repealed that. Fortunately, this thing will likely get repealed shortly.

We'll see. You were sooo sure that this proposal would be a non-starter from the beginning. Now you're equally convinced that you'll push through a repeal.

Even with my acknowledgment of the self-defense flaw, folks are still widely in favor of animal protection legislation. And while I would support a repeal based on the narrow grounds that explicit self-defense ought to be allowed in a redraft, I'm going to strongly oppose your misinformation campaign about zooplankton and your complaining that we're giving animals rights that we haven't given people (even though we give people LIBERTY that we don't give to animals, so it really does make sense that the standards of care are a bit different - just like the real world).

[Separatist Peoples]

Haiku's Delegate
Objects to leaving all the
Invertebrates out

And requests adding
Those protections, extending
To all animals

OOC:
Opportunities
Are being missed by you.
I hope you learned

I. love. this.

The Passed Proposal Rights of Indigenous People even asks the member nations to keep their culture and ways legal, yet the WA is willing to outlaw perhaps one of the largest cultural traditions within many indigenous people's culture, and indigenous religion.
"Implores member nations to permit uncontacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their native lands, and to permit contacted indigenous peoples to continue to live within their lands if they presently are doing so"

Yes, but we repealed that. Fortunately, this thing will likely get repealed shortly.

OOC: I'll help you campaign. Shoot me a tg. I've stamps to burn aplenty.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes, but we repealed that. Fortunately, this thing will likely get repealed shortly.

We'll see. You were sooo sure that this proposal would be a non-starter from the beginning. Now you're equally convinced that you'll push through a repeal.

It has been running pretty well with those repeals as of late.

Even with my acknowledgment of the self-defense flaw, folks are still widely in favor of animal protection legislation. And while I would support a repeal based on the narrow grounds that explicit self-defense ought to be allowed in a redraft, I'm going to strongly oppose your misinformation campaign about zooplankton and your complaining that we're giving animals rights that we haven't given people (even though we give people LIBERTY that we don't give to animals, so it really does make sense that the standards of care are a bit different - just like the real world).

They were quite widely in favour of two other things I repealed as well. However it is, it falls down again to the war of ideas. If we are to do our jobs, we must convince people of one thing or another. I am not asking anyone to take these stances solely on faith, but on a reasoned argument supported by facts (facts like, krill, a species categorised in zooplankton, are fish).

Secondarily, how could we possibly give non-sentient beings liberty? The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views is not something you can have without sentient thought. Without sapient thought, a being cannot understand the legal and logical frameworks of the modern society.

Hence, a being could not be free from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority, since neither restrictions nor authority are understood in a manner indicative of intelligent thought. Without social traditions in a cumulative culture, there is nothing to be free from, and thus, no liberty to be had.

[Mikemapolis]

Mikemapolis is strongly against this legislation.

Even ignoring the fact that it's entirely subjective rendering it either unenforceable (each individual nation will define cruelty itself) or draconian (a one size fits all definition from on high), this is an exercize in petty moralism.

In Mikemapolis' eyes this legislation is equivalent to social conservatives enforcing their moral view on homosexuality upon society. The public opinion of Mikemapolisian citizens is that animals that are not capable of abstract thought are not deserving of this absurd level of protection.

[Astodka]

i dont know how to vote

[Wallenburg]

i dont know how to vote

Probably because you aren't in the WA.

[United West Afrika]

folks are still widely in favor of animal protection legislation.

Which is entirely irrelevant. If 99% of WA member states were in favor of having you dragged out of your house and shot, you'd be opposed, and with good reason. This chauvinistic parade of yours has shown little other than your disdain towards cultures you perceive as being lesser. You'd impose a one-size-fits-all legislation across a broad spectrum of nations, including ones with no existing concept of animal rights as you have described them, and their remarkably diverse fauna, which will often defy attempts at categorization. This legislation serves little purpose other than placing an unnecessary hardship on anyone who interacts with an animal while making you look more righteous.

(even though we give people LIBERTY that we don't give to animals, so it really does make sense that the standards of care are a bit different - just like the real world).

(You can't give liberty to anyone, only choose to acknowledge the freedom they already have. You can't give someone freedom anymore than you can add emptiness to a glass. We give people PRIVILEGES that we don't give to animals, and with good reason.)

[Losthaven]

folks are still widely in favor of animal protection legislation.

Which is entirely irrelevant. If 99% of WA member states were in favor of having you dragged out of your house and shot, you'd be opposed, and with good reason. This chauvinistic parade of yours has shown little other than your disdain towards cultures you perceive as being lesser. You'd impose a one-size-fits-all legislation across a broad spectrum of nations, including ones with no existing concept of animal rights as you have described them, and their remarkably diverse fauna, which will often defy attempts at categorization. This legislation serves little purpose other than placing an unnecessary hardship on anyone who interacts with an animal while making you look more righteous.

That's just a tad hyperbolic over animal welfare legislation, don't you think. I get that you're a hardcore national soverigntist, but there are far, far worse things I could do than infringe on your "cultural right" to abuse animals.

(even though we give people LIBERTY that we don't give to animals, so it really does make sense that the standards of care are a bit different - just like the real world).

(You can't give liberty to anyone, only choose to acknowledge the freedom they already have. You can't give someone freedom anymore than you can add emptiness to a glass. We give people PRIVILEGES that we don't give to animals, and with good reason.)

Philosophically, Liberties can be given or granted. Most civil liberties are of that type, as are many so-called "positive" liberties. For example, a liberty is "given" when a government construct creates a new form of action, or when the government makes a compact not to interfere with a "natural" action that they otherwise could. Liberty does not refer only to the absence of government control - though it can mean that as well.

[Mikemapolis]

That's just a tad hyperbolic over animal welfare legislation, don't you think. I get that you're a hardcore national soverigntist, but there are far, far worse things I could do than infringe on your "cultural right" to abuse animals.

Actually considering animals are at the center of civilization they are actually very thoroughly tied up in culture. Matter of fact our ancestors only survived because they were able to chase down woolly mammoths and slowly kill them by stabbing them several times.

Philosophically, Liberties can be given or granted. Most civil liberties are of that type, as are many so-called "positive" liberties. For example, a liberty is "given" when a government construct creates a new form of action, or when the government makes a compact not to interfere with a "natural" action that they otherwise could. Liberty does not refer only to the absence of government control - though it can mean that as well.

The more important philosophical issue is the justification for giving those liberties. The justification for this legislation boils down to a value born out of emotion (this is not necessarily bad, all values are born out of emotions) However unlike the value of limiting human suffering 99% of people don't really care how much suffering a chicken goes through. You are essentially imposing this value on the 99% who don't have it.

[Losthaven]

That's just a tad hyperbolic over animal welfare legislation, don't you think. I get that you're a hardcore national soverigntist, but there are far, far worse things I could do than infringe on your "cultural right" to abuse animals.

Actually considering animals are at the center of civilization they are actually very thoroughly tied up in culture. Matter of fact our ancestors only survived because they were able to chase down woolly mammoths and slowly kill them by stabbing them several times.

I suppose at that time, hunting wooly mammoths by attrition was the best our primitive ancestors could do. That practice predates "civilization" properly understood, which began more or less with the domestication of a very different critter: wheat. But historical tangents aside, I'm sure that the fact your ancestors had to hunt wooly mammoths to survive justifies drowning a kitten today.

Philosophically, Liberties can be given or granted. Most civil liberties are of that type, as are many so-called "positive" liberties. For example, a liberty is "given" when a government construct creates a new form of action, or when the government makes a compact not to interfere with a "natural" action that they otherwise could. Liberty does not refer only to the absence of government control - though it can mean that as well.

The more important philosophical issue is the justification for giving those liberties. The justification for this legislation boils down to a value born out of emotion (this is not necessarily bad, all values are born out of emotions) However unlike the value of limiting human suffering 99% of people don't really care how much suffering a chicken goes through. You are essentially imposing this value on the 99% who don't have it.

People throw around that "I" am doing this or that. While my delegation proposed this legislation, a supermajority of member nations are voting to enact it.

A wise person once said that there is a moral underpinning to everything we do, and that certain moral principles transcend individuals, societies, and even time to speak to an ethical truth. Could it be that refraining from abusing animals is an example one such truth? Could it be that affording compassion on other beings in our care is an expression of just action? I think so. I think many agree with me.