[RE-DRAFT] Prohibiting Animal Abuse

[Tinfect]

If you are adamant in not granting an exemption for animal blood sports, then the Barisan Delegation cannot support this proposal, as it implies -- and you yourself explicitly state -- that our culture is "uncivilized" owing to some of our traditional practices, a line of thought very similar to that which inspired many violent colonialistic and imperialistic actions in many so-called uncivilized nations.

"Ambassador, if you nation not only condones, but protects blood sports, than perhaps it would not be unfair to call your people Uncivilized, regardless of whether the sports involve Sapients, or Animals. Traditions are worthless when it comes to the advancement of Society, and if you are willing to sacrifice progress to retain Tradition, then perhaps it would be best if you were to remove yourself from power, as you are clearly not acting in the interests of your people."

[Bari]

If you are adamant in not granting an exemption for animal blood sports, then the Barisan Delegation cannot support this proposal, as it implies -- and you yourself explicitly state -- that our culture is "uncivilized" owing to some of our traditional practices, a line of thought very similar to that which inspired many violent colonialistic and imperialistic actions in many so-called uncivilized nations.

"Ambassador, if you nation not only condones, but protects blood sports, than perhaps it would not be unfair to call your people Uncivilized, regardless of whether the sports involve Sapients, or Animals. Traditions are worthless when it comes to the advancement of Society, and if you are willing to sacrifice progress to retain Tradition, then perhaps it would be best if you were to remove yourself from power, as you are clearly not acting in the interests of your people."

Perhaps foreign legislators from foreign nations with foreign cultures informed by foreign ideals ought not sit in judgement of the traditions of my nation, which cause no harm to you, your people or, in point of fact, any people. Additionally, it is in the interest of my people that their culture and traditions be not suppressed nor submitted to the desires of any other people simply because the foreign people do not like our culture and traditions. On these grounds, therefore, the Barisan Delegation continues to oppose the proposal.

[Bananaistan]

"Furthermore, Ambassador, this proposal seems too much to be a proposal which was originally very solid, then you applied multiple band-aid solutions to fix every single problem which people threw at you. You may as well write a proposal banning guns except [Parsons lists every firearm for sale in the World]. This kind of [z] except [a, b, c, d, e, f, g...] proposal is what we really shouldn't be writing. Simply ban what you actually are going to ban and write that much shorter list in the resolution."

We must say that we agree with the good ambassador. This needs to be completely reworked from the start while keeping the aims of the proposal in mind. For example, at the moment section 4 abolishes any and all regulations that a member state may have around the good upkeep and management of livestock farms. It is not sufficient for anyone in business to comply with any regulation merely "to the best of their ability". When "to the best of their ability" doesn't measure up properly, they should be going off and doing something else for a livelihood, not getting a pat on the head from the WA for trying their best but coming up short.

[Losthaven]

Perhaps foreign legislators from foreign nations with foreign cultures informed by foreign ideals ought not sit in judgement of the traditions of my nation, which cause no harm to you, your people or, in point of fact, any people. Additionally, it is in the interest of my people that their culture and traditions be not suppressed nor submitted to the desires of any other people simply because the foreign people do not like our culture and traditions. On these grounds, therefore, the Barisan Delegation continues to oppose the proposal.

I reject the idea that a person may act immorally because of their "culture" or the practices of their ancestors. The defense of abhorrent practices on the basis of tradition is often the last bastion of those who, knowing they have no legitimate argument in favor of their position, must resort instead to an argument from authority: that they should be permitted to continue in the way they wish because doing so is a statement or practice or belief consistent with their culture from some time past. We see that argument played out a lot: in defense of "traditional marriage" (and in opposition to gay marriage), in defense of symbols of oppression and atrocity, and, of course, in defense of torturing animals for fun. Put simply a person does not get a pass to rip apart an animal for sport (a habit, by the way, which sociopaths tend to exhibit) simply because "that's how things are done 'round here."

Ughhh... Moral Decency? Opposed.

Agreed. I'm going to oppose this proposal.

Addendum: "Ambassador, considering that zooplankton are fish, are not sapient, and are kept 'for any other purposes' (like drinking water), your proposal requires that we provide zooplankton with food and prohibits us from filtering them out of our drinking water. Especially since there is no acknowledgement of sentient being's rights by the World Assembly as of yet, I find this quite out of place."

"Furthermore, Ambassador, this proposal seems too much to be a proposal which was originally very solid, then you applied multiple band-aid solutions to fix every single problem which people threw at you. You may as well write a proposal banning guns except [Parsons lists every firearm for sale in the World]. This kind of [z] except [a, b, c, d, e, f, g...] proposal is what we really shouldn't be writing. Simply ban what you actually are going to ban and write that much shorter list in the resolution."

While we appreciate your comments, it would help if you would post the constructive stuff more clearly, rather than posting a one-line agreement that you intend to oppose this purely because of its category then going back later to change that post after the conversation has moved on (to another page in the thread).

Zooplankton are not fish; they are not a "species". Zooplankton is a categorization for a number of different species that all behave similarly. It includes single-cell critters, jellyfish, crabs, and some small fish fry (generally the ones that primarily drift in the current until they become stronger). So this proposal does not cover Zooplankton generally, though certain fish might. And anyway, people don't "keep" zooplankton for any "purpose". If they find their way into drinking water, it's not because anyone put them there or want them there. This proposal does not require us to feed spiders living in our attic either... This is not a fair criticism.

There are, of course, several resolutions on the rights of sentient beings, including the charter of civil rights (unless you think being an animal is an arbitrary, reductive classification), ban on slavery (unless you read that as prohibiting livestock ownership), and many many others. EVERY human rights resolutions is a resolution on the rights of sentient beings. To claim that this is untimely because we have not yet given people any rights is simply absurd.

Your second point may be more valid, and I'd invite specific suggestions on what can be removed. Generally, Animal Welfare proposals have done well only to be repealed later because they didn't address this or that. My goal was to avoid that problem by prohibiting animal abuse in broad terms, then providing guidance to narrow the focus of what abuse is by giving specific examples, and then carving out specific exceptions for reasonable circumstances with the input from others. Generally, that's the way legislation should be drafted. Legislation should not be one person merely dictating their will and seeing how many people nod in agreement.

This needs to be completely reworked from the start while keeping the aims of the proposal in mind. For example, at the moment section 4 abolishes any and all regulations that a member state may have around the good upkeep and management of livestock farms. It is not sufficient for anyone in business to comply with any regulation merely "to the best of their ability". When "to the best of their ability" doesn't measure up properly, they should be going off and doing something else for a livelihood, not getting a pat on the head from the WA for trying their best but coming up short.

I've always been suspicious of the "best of their ability" nonsense and, having found at least one person who agrees, I will likely take that out. I am definitely inclined to agree that there is no excuse for depriving an animal of food simply because, well, I tried my best but couldn't find/afford any. If that's the case, you should focus on getting other parts of your life in order and worry about caring for an animal later, when you can do so properly.

But we don't think section 4 abolishes anything (especially good upkeep and management of farms). All section 4 requires is at least minimum standards. If you're doing more than that, it doesn't say you have to stop.

[Jarish Inyo]

I reject the idea that a person may act immorally because of their "culture" or the practices of their ancestors. The defense of abhorrent practices on the basis of tradition is often the last bastion of those who, knowing they have no legitimate argument in favor of their position, must resort instead to an argument from authority: that they should be permitted to continue in the way they wish because doing so is a statement or practice or belief consistent with their culture from some time past. We see that argument played out a lot: in defense of "traditional marriage" (and in opposition to gay marriage), in defense of symbols of oppression and atrocity, and, of course, in defense of torturing animals for fun. Put simply a person does not get a pass to rip apart an animal for sport (a habit, by the way, which sociopaths tend to exhibit) simply because "that's how things are done 'round here."

That belief may run afoul of one or two proposals if they pass.

As I'e stated before, no non sentient being has rights. Nor should they be granted rights that sentient do not have.

[Bari]

Perhaps foreign legislators from foreign nations with foreign cultures informed by foreign ideals ought not sit in judgement of the traditions of my nation, which cause no harm to you, your people or, in point of fact, any people. Additionally, it is in the interest of my people that their culture and traditions be not suppressed nor submitted to the desires of any other people simply because the foreign people do not like our culture and traditions. On these grounds, therefore, the Barisan Delegation continues to oppose the proposal.

I reject the idea that a person may act immorally because of their "culture" or the practices of their ancestors. The defense of abhorrent practices on the basis of tradition is often the last bastion of those who, knowing they have no legitimate argument in favor of their position, must resort instead to an argument from authority: that they should be permitted to continue in the way they wish because doing so is a statement or practice or belief consistent with their culture from some time past. We see that argument played out a lot: in defense of "traditional marriage" (and in opposition to gay marriage), in defense of symbols of oppression and atrocity, and, of course, in defense of torturing animals for fun. Put simply a person does not get a pass to rip apart an animal for sport (a habit, by the way, which sociopaths tend to exhibit) simply because "that's how things are done 'round here."

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the exercising or practicing of one's cultural traditions, except where those traditions would negatively affect other persons. The traditions of Bari that I am bound to defend are one of the many traditions that cause no harm to anyone. The legitimate argument in favor of this tradition is that it is tradition. Should the indigenes be refused their right to dress in their cultural garb simply because such garb does not conform to your national standards? No. It does not fit in; so, why do they continue to wear their unique garb? Because of the fact that it is traditional. Likewise, should the Barisans be refused their right to enjoy their traditional supports only because some legislator, dislocated and out of touch with Bari, does not enjoy it? No. Tradition is not malleable, for it does not easily bend, especially not to the will of any passing judgement. You may condemn the culture of Bari because it is alien to your culture; however, you will not regulate the culture of Bari. Additionally, just as you can calumniously vilify and defame the good people of Bari by maliciously implying they are sociopathic, so could anyone else your people by stating they are xenophobic for refusing to accept or merely tolerate the traditions of another culture. However, it is because I represent the people of Bari, who have been imbued with a righteous sense of forgiveness, that I will not stoop to such a level. In return, we ask you do the same for us.

[Losthaven]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the exercising or practicing of one's cultural traditions, except where those traditions would negatively affect other persons. The traditions of Bari that I am bound to defend are one of the many traditions that cause no harm to anyone. The legitimate argument in favor of this tradition is that it is tradition. Should the indigenes be refused their right to dress in their cultural garb simply because such garb does not conform to your national standards? No. It does not fit in; so, why do they continue to wear their unique garb? Because of the fact that it is traditional. Likewise, should the Barisans be refused their right to enjoy their traditional supports only because some legislator, dislocated and out of touch with Bari, does not enjoy it? No. Tradition is not malleable, for it does not easily bend, especially not to the will of any passing judgement. You may condemn the culture of Bari because it is alien to your culture; however, you will not regulate the culture of Bari. Additionally, just as you can calumniously vilify and defame the good people of Bari by maliciously implying they are sociopathic, so could anyone else your people by stating they are xenophobic for refusing to accept or merely tolerate the traditions of another culture. However, it is because I represent the people of Bari, who have been imbued with a righteous sense of forgiveness, that I will not stoop to such a level. In return, we ask you do the same for us.

If you really don't understand the difference between wearing a traditional native outfit and inflicting suffering on an animal then we really don't have much more to discuss. There is always a line between respecting cultural differences and recognizing that some practices are morally wrong. We obviously draw the line in very different places.

And while traditional practices are, by definition, not malleable (because they took place in the past), that does not mean that our sense of right and wrong needs to be blind to ills born of the past and which we have a present power to end. Old traditions can, of course, give way to new traditions.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Seems that a particularly dedicated nation will just consider their traditional squirrel rape a form of pest control and not bother stopping. The exceptions list on this is broad enough to ensure plenty of loopholes."

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Humane treatment of animals in all aspects of life is a religious obligation to the Kawaiian people. We have looked over this proposal and are pleased to see it's in agreement with the many principles of Kawaiian law on the matter. We therefore offer our Approval and support to this proposal.

[Losthaven]

"Seems that a particularly dedicated nation will just consider their traditional squirrel rape a form of pest control and not bother stopping. The exceptions list on this is broad enough to ensure plenty of loopholes."

I may well take a stab at slimming down and streamlining the exceptions, but before I do, would you kindly share what voodoo logic you are using that would possibly make rape a "reasonable" pest control method? Are you suggesting it needs to be qualified, like most of the other exceptions, with a prohibition on outright malice, wickedness, and unnecessary cruelty?

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Humane treatment of animals in all aspects of life is a religious obligation to the Kawaiian people. We have looked over this proposal and are pleased to see it's in agreement with the many principles of Kawaiian law on the matter. We therefore offer our Approval and support to this proposal.

We greatly appreciate the approval of Your Grace, as we were gradually becoming concerned that nobody was going to voice their support of this effort. Many thanks!

[Separatist Peoples]

"Seems that a particularly dedicated nation will just consider their traditional squirrel rape a form of pest control and not bother stopping. The exceptions list on this is broad enough to ensure plenty of loopholes."

I may well take a stab at slimming down and streamlining the exceptions, but before I do, would you kindly share what voodoo logic you are using that would possibly make rape a "reasonable" pest control method? Are you suggesting it needs to be qualified, like most of the other exceptions, with a prohibition on outright malice, wickedness, and unnecessary cruelty?

"Ambassador, you have spent five minutes around your peers here, yes? If we don't excessively exploit three different loopholes by lunch, it's a wasted day around here."

[Losthaven]

I may well take a stab at slimming down and streamlining the exceptions, but before I do, would you kindly share what voodoo logic you are using that would possibly make rape a "reasonable" pest control method? Are you suggesting it needs to be qualified, like most of the other exceptions, with a prohibition on outright malice, wickedness, and unnecessary cruelty?

"Ambassador, you have spent five minutes around your peers here, yes? If we don't excessively exploit three different loopholes by lunch, it's a wasted day around here."

Hmmm... touche.

Well, assuming that the proposal currently in the queue is not going to make it, I'm going to make a strong effort to slim the proposal down and tighten up the exception section. I will likely remove some of the wonkier ones.

[Wallenburg]

As this proposal fails to recognize that citizens or subjects of developing or impoverished nations may not have the adequate resources or knowledge to slaughter their livestock or quarry in accordance with its regulations, the People's Republic of Wallenburg cannot justify support for this well-intentioned bill.

[Bari]

As this proposal fails to recognize that citizens or subjects of developing or impoverished nations may not have the adequate resources or knowledge to slaughter their livestock or quarry in accordance with its regulations, the People's Republic of Wallenburg cannot justify support for this well-intentioned bill.

This also raises the issue of slaughtering an animal in accordance with kashrut through the process of shechita, which, under the current proposal, one may argue constitutes a violation.

[Losthaven]

NEW DRAFT UP. I have removed various clauses that I felt were redundant, streamlined the exceptions, and substantially reworded the "abuse" clause so that several of the delineated exceptions were no longer necessary.

As this proposal fails to recognize that citizens or subjects of developing or impoverished nations may not have the adequate resources or knowledge to slaughter their livestock or quarry in accordance with its regulations, the People's Republic of Wallenburg cannot justify support for this well-intentioned bill.

This also raises the issue of slaughtering an animal in accordance with kashrut through the process of shechita, which, under the current proposal, one may argue constitutes a violation.

Don't be absurd. The kosher slaughtering of animals - including shechita, which requires slaughtering the animal with respect and compassion in a manner that causes death quickly and painlessly - would fully comply with these provisions.

[Jarish Inyo]

Still opposed. Section 4 still prohibits low income and homeless from have pets. Also, since these rights are not granted sentient beings, we will not grant them to none sentient beings.

We are also opposed to section 5.

[Wallenburg]

To be honest, your clauses still would cause more human suffering than they would spare animals. I propose this:

1. Defines an "animal" for the purposes of this resolution as any nonperson living heterotrophic
organism.

2. Prohibits the intentional abuse of animals, including:

causing an animal unnecessary, serious and debilitating bodily disfigurement;
inflicting physical trauma or intense pain on an animal;
unnecessarily and recklessly abandoning an animal or otherwise placing the animal at grave risk of death, injury, disfigurement or disease;
torturing an animal;
sexually assaulting an animal;
maliciously and cruelly killing an animal;

3. Clarifies that the following acts do not constitute abuse and are not prohibited by this resolution:

acts of humane veterinary medicine, care, or study;
animal research conducted for a legitimate scientific purpose that does not needlessly inflict pain or suffering;
butchering, slaughtering, or killing an animal for food or other consumption, given the methods used are not cruel or unnecessarily prolonged;
acts of pest control, including any reasonable method of dealing with pests that is not unnecessarily cruel;
acts based on the science of animal breeding and care;

4. Requires that any person who intentionally and willingly keeps an animal for any purpose must provide that animal, to the extent that said individual's own health and safety are not placed at risk, with reasonable and appropriate care. This includes shelter, nutrients of appropriate quantity and quality, and veterinary care when necessary.

5. Outlaws the use of animals in any exhibition where the purpose, theme, or substance of the exhibition endangers the health and/or safety of the animal, except that animals may be utilized in potentially dangerous situations or occupations - such as law enforcement animals, guard dogs, war horses, and other service animals - given the animal has been trained and handled for use in such situations.

[Losthaven]

Still opposed. Section 4 still prohibits low income and homeless from have pets. Also, since these rights are not granted sentient beings, we will not grant them to none sentient beings.

We are also opposed to section 5.

Unfortunately, our Delegation has ceased to care about your opinion on this matter, Ambassador Nameless, as you offer no constructive criticism and have opposed this throughout it's many iterations regardless of changes designed to allay your concerns. If you want to remain opposed so that people who cannot afford to take care of a pet can slowly starve it to death, or so you can continue tying badgers to each other until one emerges victorious, then so be it. We will hopefully find more ground on which to work together next time.

To be honest, your clauses still would cause more human suffering than they would spare animals. I propose this:

4. Requires that any person who intentionally and willingly keeps an animal for any purpose must provide that animal, to the extent that said individual's own health and safety are not placed at risk, with reasonable and appropriate care. This includes shelter, nutrients of appropriate quantity and quality, and veterinary care when necessary.

It appears this is the real substantive change you're asking for and the rest of what you propose is mostly cosmetic changes to my grammar. The minimal care standards I've proposed require reasonable care, not reckless care. I may slim down the list in a manner similar to what you suggest, as "reasonable and appropriate care" likely already brings to mind keeping the animal's enclosure clean and providing necessary food and water. I don't plan on adding the bit about "the extent that said individual's own health and safety are not placed at risk" as I find it wholly unnecessary. Nothing in the proposal suggests that a person must get into the gorilla's cage while the gorilla is eating in order to clean it (for example). I cannot fathom a possible scenario in which feeding an animal properly and reasonably would place an individual's health and safety at risk.

Edit: Upon further reflection, I suppose there are times when providing an animal with veterinary care may be dangerous. While I think the requirement that "reasonable" care be provided will give veterinarians flexibility to decide whether they really have to climb into the sarlacc pit to administer flea and tick medication... Still, I'll consider an appropriately worded addition to that clause.

Sincerely,
Myron Stokov-Mercier; Distinguished Lawyer and Lead Counsel for the Losthavenite Delegation.

[Wallenburg]

*SNIP*

// FROM THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF WALLENBURG \\
\\ RECIPIENT: Myron Stokov-Mercier //

Greetings from the People's Republic of Wallenburg:

We appreciate your willingness to consider reform to your bill, especially considering how many revisions have been made already. We had not considered the issue of tending to dangerous animals when putting together our proposed revision. For this Assembly, the far more pressing matter was the severity of the damage done to the citizens of poor and undeveloped countries, where your current draft would essentially demand that they sustain better living conditions for their animals than for themselves. We cannot allow for the rights of animals, as important as they may be, to crush the basic needs of the people.

We recognize your belief that those who cannot afford to maintain good living conditions for their animals should not own them in the first place, but we ask you this: does such a position not reek of active oppression of the poor and continuing issues of unequal rights between fellow citizens? And if the animals should be confiscated from the poor, who shall care for them? The World Assembly cannot force the rich to take custody of the animals--especially considering they are still the property of others--so these confiscated animals would have few options but to starve as the governments failed to gather adequate material to sustain them.

We share your convictions that animals have rights and need greater protections. Nevertheless, your efforts to pass reform have been startlingly myopic, as clear by the multiple revisions already made to this still inadequate draft. We suggest that you reflect on the possible implications of each facet of your proposal, so that you may return with a polished, careful proposal that considers not only animal rights but peoples' rights as well.

As always, Independence or Death!

Ulysses Kant
MAJORITY LEADER

[Bari]

This also raises the issue of slaughtering an animal in accordance with kashrut through the process of shechita, which, under the current proposal, one may argue constitutes a violation.

Don't be absurd. The kosher slaughtering of animals - including shechita, which requires slaughtering the animal with respect and compassion in a manner that causes death quickly and painlessly - would fully comply with these provisions.

Yet animal welfare organizations disagree.

[Jarish Inyo]

Unfortunately, our Delegation has ceased to care about your opinion on this matter, Ambassador Nameless, as you offer no constructive criticism and have opposed this throughout it's many iterations regardless of changes designed to allay your concerns. If you want to remain opposed so that people who cannot afford to take care of a pet can slowly starve it to death, or so you can continue tying badgers to each other until one emerges victorious, then so be it. We will hopefully find more ground on which to work together next time.

You've made no changes to allay my concerns in any version of this proposal. I stated many times that I can not support due to section 4, which has more or less remained the same in every version. Section 4 has nothing to do with animal abuse in any way. It just restricts who may have a pet in your opinion. I continue to oppose this due to section 4 and as it grants rights to non sentient beings not granted to sentient beings.

I've pointed out that because someone can not meet your requirements does not mean that they are abusing an animal or unfit to have a pet. I've pointed out that some may live in remote areas that there are no vets. And lets not forget nomads that follow their herds and can not provide adequate shelter to protect the animal from weather and injury, food of appropriate quantity and quality to keep the animal healthy, access to a sufficient quantity of clean water to satisfy the animal's needs, or veterinary care deemed necessary to relieve the animal from distress, injury, neglect or disease.

Simply put, section 4 is unreasonable.

[Sobaira]

Simply put, section 4 is unreasonable.

The ambassador from Sobaira spoke up, "Excuse me, honourable ambassador, but I do believe I find myself in agreement with you. Sir honourable legislator, perhaps 4 could be made more agreeable by the inclusion of something along the lines of 'to the best of their ability'? It is to my knowledge that this assembly includes a far reaching variety of persons and technologies, underdeveloped nations could be entirely banned from owning animals, it feels, by this resolution as is. I believe that while it may be so that it is, so to say, 'gutted' by the inclusion of such a line, but it would still bring the case of neglect, where one could provide but does not, as internationally agreed upon cruelty and abuse..."

"Or, perhaps 'Requests' instead of 'Requires' or some combinations of language?" she mused before shaking her head, "If you have it so it is 'to the best of their ability' and then 'request member nations institute 'reasonable national provisions' for the ownership of animals' atop that, as suitable for their nation, maybe this could address this issue? This would permit some nations to ban ownership of pets by a more strict interpretation of 'best of their ability'... or more, or permit the example of a homeless person taking care of an animal not to be stripped of the animal just because it does not have the same care afforded it as isn't even afforded citizens of the nation."

"Or, if you set it so the minimal standard of care for an animal is the lower of the care one can afford oneself and the level outlined in the proposal as it stands, that would be the level owners would have to confirm to? So if they cannot hold themselves to that standard then they have to hold the animal to roughly equal with themselves, but if they can they don't have to treat the pet above that threshold as designated in the proposal, but could if they wanted to? I will have to think more on this and discuss it with my peers. As it stands, however, Sobaira is unfortunately against such legislation. Thank you for your time."

[Jarish Inyo]

Simply put, section 4 is unreasonable.

The ambassador from Sobaira spoke up, "Excuse me, honourable ambassador, but I do believe I find myself in agreement with you. Sir honourable legislator, perhaps 4 could be made more agreeable by the inclusion of something along the lines of 'to the best of their ability'? It is to my knowledge that this assembly includes a far reaching variety of persons and technologies, underdeveloped nations could be entirely banned from owning animals, it feels, by this resolution as is. I believe that while it may be so that it is, so to say, 'gutted' by the inclusion of such a line, but it would still bring the case of neglect, where one could provide but does not, as internationally agreed upon cruelty and abuse..."

"Or, perhaps 'Requests' instead of 'Requires' or some combinations of language?" she mused before shaking her head, "If you have it so it is 'to the best of their ability' and then 'request member nations institute 'reasonable national provisions' for the ownership of animals' atop that, as suitable for their nation, maybe this could address this issue? This would permit some nations to ban ownership of pets by a more strict interpretation of 'best of their ability'... or more, or permit the example of a homeless person taking care of an animal not to be stripped of the animal just because it does not have the same care afforded it as isn't even afforded citizens of the nation."

"Or, if you set it so the minimal standard of care for an animal is the lower of the care one can afford oneself and the level outlined in the proposal as it stands, that would be the level owners would have to confirm to? So if they cannot hold themselves to that standard then they have to hold the animal to roughly equal with themselves, but if they can they don't have to treat the pet above that threshold as designated in the proposal, but could if they wanted to? I will have to think more on this and discuss it with my peers. As it stands, however, Sobaira is unfortunately against such legislation. Thank you for your time."

It has been suggested to use the 'to the best of their ability' line before. Losthaven has refused to change it's requirement for animal ownership.

Also, Losthaven has never made an argument why this is an international issue or why nations are not able to decide what counts as animal abuse within their nations.

[Sobaira]

Also, Losthaven has never made an argument why this is an international issue or why nations are not able to decide what counts as animal abuse within their nations.

The ambassador spoke up again, "I am to believe that the part of 4 that indicates inclusion of commercially used animals could be the basis of argument for this being an international issue. Commercial animals only takes so many steps before you get to international trade, perhaps? But besides this, without prolonged preponderance of the proposal and knowing the intent of the legislator, I cannot be saying what their argument for it is; from a perspective not inclined to... rampant, if sometimes misguided, altruism. I am loathe to admit that I can't think of international necessity for laws of this type in an immediate sense."

"Despite this, if provisions were to change to permit pet ownership in a more broad sense than as restricted under the current draft, Sobaira would be in favour of it to assure that laws curtailing the abuse are instituted in the case where there are none; though I must to be admitting that I shudder the thought of a nation that lacks a reasonable level of such laws..." she bit her cheek, clearly uncomfortable with the thought across her mind. At least discussion here appeared more civil than in another unrelated proposal which carried threats of genocide, enslavement, cannibalism, and such pleasantries. "Perhaps in the case that this fails, instead a resolution requiring nations to have the laws at all would work as a far, far weaker alternative to this. Depends on the vote..." her voice trailed off in thought.

One of her aides gave her a poke and she snapped out of that line of thinking to continue speaking, "All this having been said, while not necessary, it feels that it could be argued that such a proposal is within the assembly's purview; reworked, relaxed, and improved... the argument of such 'improving the world' are not difficult, even if such a proposal be not of the magnitude of one on, say, the behaviour of soldiers in foreign lands. I fully understand if you find this insufficient for thinking such an international issue, honourable ambassador, and find no inherent fault if you or others feel as such," she began to relax once more, "I would like to again thank you for time." With that, she sat down and began to look over some documents; namely, older passed resolutions and how they would interact with this proposal.

[Gogol Transcendancy]

adequate shelter to protect the animal from weather and injury

Given that hurricanes and tornadoes are forms of weather, this would essentially require pet owners to keep their animals in hardened bomb shelters.