[PASSED] Preventing Animal Abuse

[Araraukar]

AHUME: (whispers to Janis) You think that's bad, you should see how the plants on Luna II react when we try to pick them. Just sayin'. (He exits.)

OOC: Hehehehe, you should bring that up in the Stranger's Bar.

[Bad Libertopia]

Secondly, the notion that this resolution would outlaw wild bears hunting fish or, as a better example, stray kittens playing with mice before slowly killing them, is utterly ridiculous. Laws do not apply directly to wildlife. For cryin' out loud, does anyone, as a matter of course, put a tiger or a lion on trial for assault and battery if it were to slash someone?

The laws apply to the stewards of the wildlife--the lion isn't put on trial, but the zookeeper is because he was grossly negligent by not restraining the animal. He knew that lions are likely to slash people, and someone was injured or killed as a result of his inaction. The zookeeper is guilty of reckless endangerment.

The resolution could have been written only to make it a crime for an individual to inflict cruel physical injury or death to an animal--but it wasn't written that way.

Instead, what is outlawed is the cruelty itself occurring in your nation no matter who or what does it, which is a vastly higher standard of animal cruelty prevention.

It is now the legal mandate of each WA nation to protect animals from cruelty, and allowing cats to play with mice makes your nation guilty of reckless endangerment.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's not quite what the resolution says, though: "4. Requires that any person who keeps an animal to provide that animal with reasonable and appropriate care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease;". That's entirely separate from the cruelty outlawing in clause 1. Food animals certainly will work better as food if they themselves are healthy...

ARI: Right, we get that. What we're saying is, keepers of livestock have to fulfill both requirements -- ensure their animals get reasonable and appropriate care under clause 4, and avoid killing them in a cruel manner under clause 1. Neither should be an undue burden.

"Clause 4 is an undue burden. Clause 4 is pretty much the cause for all the trouble with this resolution."

but is the animal's health ultimately promoted and suffering avoided, if it's being raised to be killed, however humanely?

(Ari, looking dumbfounded, shrugs.)

AHUME: Yes, its health is ultimately promoted and suffering avoided.

"It's health is being promoted by killing it in its prime?"

We do the same for our all life, don't we? Provide all with as comfortable and healthy an existence as possible, until their time is up.

"Yeah, but generally 'time is up' means that the organism is on the verge of dying from other causes, not 'it's for time for us to kill you'. How barbaric would we be if we said 'okay, Little Johnny's sixth birthday is here, time to go, let's stun him with a bolt gun to the back of the head and then slaughter him'? Do you think that promotes his health?"

Ultimately, virtually all lifeforms die in one manner or another. Whether their destiny is food for humankind, food for natural predators or scavengers, or food for underground maggots, they're provided for as well as possible, and that includes humanely taking their lives as warranted. You do allow euthanasia in your nation, don't you?

"Not anymore. Euthanasia is now illegal, thanks to this resolution. At least in the case of 'animals'. At any rate, euthanasia never promotes the health of the organism. Tell me, have you ever seen an organism whose health improved after being euthanized?"

[Wrapper]

ARI: Right, we get that. What we're saying is, keepers of livestock have to fulfill both requirements -- ensure their animals get reasonable and appropriate care under clause 4, and avoid killing them in a cruel manner under clause 1. Neither should be an undue burden.

"Clause 4 is an undue burden. Clause 4 is pretty much the cause for all the trouble with this resolution."

(Ari, looking dumbfounded, shrugs.)

AHUME: Yes, its health is ultimately promoted and suffering avoided.

"It's health is being promoted by killing it in its prime?"

We do the same for our all life, don't we? Provide all with as comfortable and healthy an existence as possible, until their time is up.

"Yeah, but generally 'time is up' means that the organism is on the verge of dying from other causes, not 'it's for time for us to kill you'. How barbaric would we be if we said 'okay, Little Johnny's sixth birthday is here, time to go, let's stun him with a bolt gun to the back of the head and then slaughter him'? Do you think that promotes his health?"

Ultimately, virtually all lifeforms die in one manner or another. Whether their destiny is food for humankind, food for natural predators or scavengers, or food for underground maggots, they're provided for as well as possible, and that includes humanely taking their lives as warranted. You do allow euthanasia in your nation, don't you?

"Not anymore. Euthanasia is now illegal, thanks to this resolution. At least in the case of 'animals'. At any rate, euthanasia never promotes the health of the organism. Tell me, have you ever seen an organism whose health improved after being euthanized?"

OOC: Thankfully, the Wads left already, because you are making a couple of good points. The euthanasia one is not one of them. It's not cruel, it's not malicious, and it's reasonable and appropriate veterinary care, used only to avoid suffering. There's no way this resolution outlaws euthanasia.

EDIT: Should have posted from my other nation; this should not be construed as a modly ruling.

[Losthaven]

Thanks to everyone who supported this effort!

"Not anymore. Euthanasia is now illegal, thanks to this resolution. At least in the case of 'animals'. At any rate, euthanasia never promotes the health of the organism. Tell me, have you ever seen an organism whose health improved after being euthanized?"

Euthanasia, by definition, is not cruel or malicious. It's killing to end pain a suffering, not to cause it.

[The Jain Casino]

Laws have been enacted to bring The Jain Casino into compliance with the World Assembly resolution Preventing Animal Abuse.

However, some of these laws pose a risk for our world renown chihuahua blood matches. As one of our favorite tourist activities and betting games, many of you may be wondering how this will affect a classic family tradition.

Luckily, our well-organized and sizable force of World Assembly lawyers have found considerable loopholes within the Preventing Animal Abuse resolution, and are pleased to inform you that the chihuahua blood matches are here to stay!

1. Declares that cruelly or maliciously causing physical injury to an animal, cruelly killing an animal, and torturing an animal are outlawed and prohibited within World Assembly member nations;

As our lawyers have pointed out, section 1 is legislation against humans torturing animals, and since the only physical injury that occurs to our dogs is when one chihuahua rips another to shreds in exhilarating combat, this section does not apply.

3. Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports and any other non-military and non-law enforcement exhibition where the animal is intentionally and purposefully exposed to physical injury;

Instead of closing the "red-boxes", we will now be reclassifying them from entertainment to law-enforcement, as studies have shown areas with high concentrations of chihuahua blood match participants exhibit lower crime rates.

4. Requires that any person who keeps an animal to provide that animal with reasonable and appropriate care necessary to promote the health of the animal and avoid suffering and disease;

To prevent international scrutiny, the red-boxes can no longer be authorized to own the chihuahua 'athletes'. Instead, these dogs will be kept at a shelter in accordance to the Preventing Animal Abuse resolution, until they're ready to fight to the death.

Thank you for your time, and remember that The Jain Casino is your one-stop destination for world-class dining, gambling, and entertainment!

[Devernia]

"I really hope this didn't ban meat."

[Bad Libertopia]

As our lawyers have pointed out, section 1 is legislation against humans torturing animals, and since the only physical injury that occurs to our dogs is when one chihuahua rips another to shreds in exhilarating combat, this section does not apply.

Section 1 was specifically worded to prohibit the torture of animals--whether that's by an individual's action (personally ripping a chihuahua to shreds) or inaction (not rescuing a chihuahua that's being attacked by another dog).

Instead of closing the "red-boxes", we will now be reclassifying them from entertainment to law-enforcement, as studies have shown areas with high concentrations of chihuahua blood match participants exhibit lower crime rates.

Now that's a good loophole. I'll put down 5 Casino Chips on the big one.

[The Jain Casino]

Section 1 was specifically worded to prohibit the torture of animals--whether that's by an individual's action (personally ripping a chihuahua to shreds) or inaction (not rescuing a chihuahua that's being attacked by another dog)..

I'm afraid we simply can't find the language within the resolution that says we would be committing injury, killing, or torturing by stopping animals from attacking one another.

1. Declares that cruelly or maliciously causing physical injury to an animal, cruelly killing an animal, and torturing an animal are outlawed and prohibited within World Assembly member nations;

We should say, animals attack each other in the wild and in plain sight every day, and this legislature only inhibits a human role in this. Otherwise we would be criminalizing nature, so clearly that is not what is written.

You may say that we are passively torturing by staging these fights but as chihuahua's are defined as 'sentient' these creatures are determined to have the ability to make choices. And it is their choice to participate in the most exciting sport known to the world, and ferociously end their opponent! Otherwise, chihuahua's are not sentient and thus no part of the resolution applies.

[Bad Libertopia]

I'm afraid we simply can't find the language within the resolution that says we would be committing injury, killing, or torturing by stopping animals from attacking one another.

You wouldn't be committing it; but you would be standing idly by when you are legally obligated to prevent it. The legal principle is reckless endangerment--engaging in conduct that is likely to cause death or injury, ignoring the foreseeable consequences.

A homeowner is responsible when he allows weeds to grow on his property that create a fire hazard; a parent is responsible when she locks her child in a car seat on a sunny day and leaves the vehicle for hours; a government is responsible when it fails to filter out naturally occurring chemicals or bacteria from a municipal water supply.

Nature isn't criminalized, but the individuals that understand how the natural world works and who failed to take action are held liable for their action or inaction.

Your chihuahuas are law enforcement employees and so them ripping each other to shreds is permissible.

What's prohibited is putting them in a flea bath or allowing them to chase cats during their off-duty hours (unless the cat is playing with a mouse at the time).

[Araraukar]

or allowing them to chase cats during their off-duty hours (unless the cat is playing with a mouse at the time).

Considering the size of chihuahuas, it's more likely that the cats would be chasing the dogs...