[PASSED] Animal Protection Act

[Layze]

Our great nation is strongly against this resolution, since it would harm the quality of our Shows in our many Arenas around the country.
Sincerely,
Speaker for the people, Shue N. Sock

[Damanucus]

It's been a long time since I last had a look at this.

LIMITS animals in this resolution to beings that possess the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain. Animals unable to feel pain as a result of their physiology are exempt.

LIMITS restrictions on interactions between people and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity, including farming and animal testing industries.

I'm going to guess the second limitation has been included to allow for the possibility of an Endangered Species Act.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be reasonably avoided; While some industry, such as the meat industry, or fur industry, require that an animal be killed in order to create a product, which will necessitate brief pain, it is considered unavoidable. Similarly, prolonging the death of an animal because it is more cost effective is avoidable, so long as an alternative is economically feasible for that nation.

Okay, so you cannot prolong an animal's death, either deliberately or accidentally, even for their meat or fur. Yep, that's fair.

DEFINES pain and suffering as the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage and lasting unpleasant sensory experience as a result of prior tissue damage. Tissue damage inflicted under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian and with the use of anaesthetics to reduce or eliminate pain is reasonable.

So if we try to prevent the pain, using anaesthesia or the like, that's fine. I would get a little sketchy about it, but I think the resolution may rule in regards to that.

PROVIDES animals with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture through holding owners legally responsible by:

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person either directly or remotely.

That's fine and clear.

2. ENCOURAGING that domestic animals kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”

Okay, so that clearly outlaws battery cages, but where does that put sheds and the like? I would like to think that they are still allowable.

3. REQUIRING that individuals or a group that possess legal rights under its nation’s law to an animal provide reasonable protection from harm by other animals and persons.

4. FORBIDDING forms of entertainment that require or involve the infliction of pain or suffering on animals,

Clause four kind of extends from Clause three.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Domestic Animal Protection Convention (WDAPC) that will meet annually at the WAHQ or another suitably neutral site to create and edit a list of feeling species protected under this legislation and determines whether an action is necessary or reasonable if national governments are unable to reach a decision.

I think having them meet when it is reasonably necessary would be better, but I suppose annually would be fine.

There are some questions I would like to ask, though:

1. If an animal torturer uses anaesthetic to prevent pain, would they still be liable under this resolution? I would assume Clause 3 would, in a manner, come into play here.
2. Under Clause 2, would stables be considered as emulating natural habitat?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Skeldistan]

Skeldistan strongly opposes this resolution. Morality is inherently different from nation to nation, and this attempt to legislate it on an international scale is unnecessarily restrictive to member nations whose economies may depend upon animals or animal testing of products. Sometimes, bunnies want some shampoo.

[Katzharak]

This resolution was clearly drafted by someone who does not engage in physical science. Animal model experiments exist because they are a viable alternative to human experimentation that yield results close to what can be expected for humans after species-specific effects are controlled for, without needlessly risking human lives in all cases of plausible uncertainty of safety. Restricting safe experimentation to only animals without nervous systems (read: none) creates a chilling effect on the scientific community that will result in a massive drop in human-application scientific findings. That is to say, it is now up to non-medical, non-scientific professionals to determine whether or not a drug is safe to bring into use, and any notable research into dramatic, life-altering procedures such as nerve cell regrowth in formerly paralyzed patients, non-invasive nanocage cancer treatment, and neural prosthetics must now be stopped indefinitely so long as this provision remains in effect.

We, the Delegation of Katzharak, cannot believe what we are hearing. We can only hope that the draftees are ignorant to the stringent national and international regulations placed on bioethics especially with regards to animal model and human model experimentation. This proposal belittles the many struggles moral scientists make in order to respect animal rights and the minimization of suffering and makes a mockery of the entire study of bioethics and the truly heartwrenching dilemmas that medical professionals must contend with. This is a well-studied body of applied philosophy that should be run by those who are familiar with the scale and effect of various scientific findings.

We cannot, will not, must not vote to instate this resolution. It will subject the entire natural scientific body to arbitrary decisions made by non-scientific professionals or will force nations to contend with unsafe, unpredictable procedures and treatments performed on humans for the sake of promoting human health and knowledge. In seeking to promote the rights of animals, the Ilstoria delegate has triggered a cause for governments to revoke the rights of humans to life. The decency of animals may not come at the cost of uncountable human lives and the measured, ethical progress of scientific knowledge.

And to that, Katzharak votes no.

[Leetness]

Skeldistan strongly opposes this resolution. Morality is inherently different from nation to nation, and this attempt to legislate it on an international scale is unnecessarily restrictive to member nations whose economies may depend upon animals or animal testing of products. Sometimes, bunnies want some shampoo.

Well said. Another problem I notice is this:

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

So an owner is someone who has provided care for more than a month. This means if a person has volunteered to help someone else's animal, and harm comes to it because the volunteer no longer can help the animal, the volunteer is responsible. This is foolish. Leetness disagrees.

[Admitto]

ENCOURAGES that animals kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”

This will change nothing. No farmer or pet owner will give more space to their pet because of the Animal Protection Act. I can safely guess that the citizens of Admitto and many other nations will most likely disregard this "encouragement".

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

Here, we establish an owner with the arbitrary 31 days. Is someone exempt from torturing an animal if they have only been in possession of it for a week?

It then goes on to say...

PROVIDES animals with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture through holding owners legally responsible ...

This should limit this to owners as defined earlier, but...

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person either directly or remotely.

Now we are extending this out to "any person" under the heading of "holding owners legally responsibility". Obviously, this was not the intent, but would an owner be held legally responsible if someone other than the owner inflicts pain upon the animal? The wording leaves this possibility open.

Admitto has voted with a resounding AGAINST. I hope a repeal is not necessary.

[Ecreo]

The Ecrean government votes against this resolution.

Though clearly the intension of this is good, a lot of the clauses seem subjective about which animals can feel pain, and the definition between 'wild' and 'domestic'.

For example, researchers may microchip wild animals so they can track them. They then discover the wild animal's population requires controls (i.e. it's too large so some animals need to be retired) - but because of the fact they've been microchipped animal rights campaigners could claim they were 'domesticated' as they are being used for research purposes. If successful, cheaper practises used to control wild animal population that are later deemed 'cruel' would then result in prosecutions of the researchers, even though it would be reasonable for the researchers to assume they were wild animals and therefore not covered by the legislation.

Also, if we take a citizen who domesticates a boa constrictor. That boa constrictor escapes and isn't seen for some time (maybe a year). Then, said animal kills a citizen and the local police shoot it multiple times to kill it or kill it in a less than orthodox way (such as running it over with a car). There's no way of saying whether the owner/police officers would be breaking this legislation (as we don't know if it's feral and therefore wild, or still counts as domesticated) until it's established by their national court system.

Also, if we assume that certain animals can't feel pain and then in 10 years time we discover they can - does this mean that citizens can be prosecuted under this legislation for past transgressions against those animals, even though they would have been unaware of the suffering they were causing?

We could name other examples here, but our concern is mostly based on the vagueness of this WA legislation and the extra lawsuits that will place a strain on national judicial systems. Also, because of this legislation may be applied differently in each WA member state this could compound the problem (as citizens/businesses may be led to interpret the law one way, but discover it's interpreted another way in a different jurisdiction and be penalised for this).

[Av2]

This resolution is not what is needed for animal protection. It may be good intentioned as many people have said but as other countries have pointed out, there will be many people who will not follow the legislation that is passed (should it happen to), but a majority of people will not read it through or the discussions on the forum as to just vote because of the title, my largest concern is that most nations already have established different degrees of laws for animal protection, and while vague international laws that map out the most basic underlying laws for animal protection, more precise lawsm should be chosen by the state. This is why the government of AV2 us against this piece of legislation, should a more vague law come in the future that allows more freedom of specific laws to each individual country around the NationStates World. Thank you for those who took the time to read my opinion on this piece of legislation.

The WA Representive for AV2 and our el Presidente Dylan

[The Eternal Kawaii]

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

It is with sadness that we must rise to oppose this proposal. Let it be known that Kawaiians take second place to no nation when it comes to concern for the creatures sharing the Earth with Mankind. One need only look to our Jihi code of humane animal husbandry to see the truth of our claim.

That said, we would eagerly welcome a proposal to limit the suffering of animals by the hand of Man. However, from our reading of this proposal and hearing the arguments presented on it, we have concluded that this proposal is poorly written and contains numerous flaws. One of the most obvious ones is in its definition of animal ownership:

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

As written, an animal less than 31 days of age is not covered by the WA-mandated protections imposed upon animal owners. We presume that the author intended to mean that the animal is covered if the owner had possession of that animal's parent(s) during that 31 day period. However, that's not what the proposal says--it states "an animal or its descendants", i.e. the animal's offspring, not its progenitors.

Other representatives here have pointed out different flaws in this proposal, and we do not wish to be repetitive. However, we hold up this passage as an example of the generally poor drafting of this proposal. Given the importance of this issue, we believe it must be done right. Therefore we encourage the esteemed representatives here to reject this proposal in the sincere hope that a better draft can be written.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Retired WerePenguins must also rise in opposition to this resolution. We believe the wording is poor, the terms are vauge and the resolution not properly focused on what it wants to do. We would be in favor of a resolution whose terms are more solidly defined and whose aims are focused.

[Mattscounrty]

Think your funny bro

[Gibera]

The pretense of this law is a well-mannered resolution, but how it is written is what is fucked up. Guess the bug and weed-killing industry is gonna be illegal.

[Grantsburg]

STRONGLY SUPPORTED!

Our Führer,Adolf Hitler,was always protecting the animals.

He also did so based on animals being here for their own purposes. Not for the purposes of humans.

[Dagguerro]

This is going to pass because it's about protecting the cute, fuzzy animals from big, bad humans.

Nobody is reading the forum thread about it (it's only 4 pages long despite the resolution being at vote already).
Nobody will read the body of the resolution - they'll just scroll down and vote FOR just because the title says "Animal Protection."

Pretty much. Ridiculous state of affairs.

[The balkens]

i withdraw my vote for this act, its current language seems immature at best.

Mikhail Zhukov

[South Aztlan]

South Aztlan is in favor of Protection of Animals, since they are also living creatures, and deserve to be treated equally. We South Aztlanos punish any kind animal cruelty with up to 100 years in prison, depending on the case. We would like to spread this policy to other nations throughout the World Assembly

[Abacathea]

Skeldistan strongly opposes this resolution. Morality is inherently different from nation to nation, and this attempt to legislate it on an international scale is unnecessarily restrictive to member nations whose economies may depend upon animals or animal testing of products. Sometimes, bunnies want some shampoo.

Well said. Another problem I notice is this:

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

So an owner is someone who has provided care for more than a month. This means if a person has volunteered to help someone else's animal, and harm comes to it because the volunteer no longer can help the animal, the volunteer is responsible. This is foolish. Leetness disagrees.

Or if you go on holidays for a month and a day, when you come back, guess what buddy, under the APA, your animal is now mine. Deal with it, I've got your bunny, what you gonna do? Nothing, the APA says it's mine.

[Wilber]

Wilber supports this proposition under the terms that implementation of this Act is in flexibility if, under conditions prohibited by this Act, are in place for the advancement of science for a humane purpose such as:

[*] Bio-engineering resulting in higher quality, condition, and/or ability of the targeted species (excluding sentient beings, sapiens, et. al.);
[*] Study or action by officials or social engineers for the purpose of preventing extinction and threatening expansion*;
[*] Entertainment industries (i.e. fashion or ability shows ('pet shows')) involving the voluntary** participation of the species of interest for judgement or show that does not exhibit pain - as defined by this Act - for the purpose of economic advancement as allowed by this Act and the WA.

I do strongly suggest the PAWS division of the WA be established to support the expansion or revision of this Act to meet the wants or need to the World's People as humanely defined by this Act.

Sincerely,
Founder of the Union of Responsible Socialism
Left-Libertarian, Religiously Neutral
Speaker of Wilber

[Hiraga]

"So by this an animal that cannot feel pain can be abused at will? Not to mention the 30/31 day ownership clause that violates ownership rights? I am sorry, but this needs a re-work. Or someone making a more workable resolution based on the Hiragan standard of humane treatment of all non-sentient life."

"Hiraga votes against this resolution and advises all here to notify their member nations of their regions to do the same, lest this violation of logic passes."

[Allinlia]

This is going to pass because it's about protecting the cute, fuzzy animals from big, bad humans.

Nobody is reading the forum thread about it (it's only 4 pages long despite the resolution being at vote already).
Nobody will read the body of the resolution - they'll just scroll down and vote FOR just because the title says "Animal Protection."

its actually gonna pass because the 1000 islands is huge and it seems they are getting everyone in them to vote for it

[Malland]

The irony ensues

Against

[United Federation of Canada]

Looks like this is going to pass

Get that repeal going so we can get a quorum on it as soon as this passes.

Delegate from 10K Islands if you would change vote to against or abstain, then a repeal would not be necessary.

[Delegate Vinage]

I, Vinage v. Grey-Anumia, disagree with this condemnation and believe the flaws pointed out in this here topic cannot be overlooked.. I hereby vote NAY.

[Ilstoria]

Does this protect sapients species (Furries, Ponies)?

If the sapient being is also sentient (able to feel pain) yes! This works well since there isn't a law yet protecting sapient beings that haven't been granted rights as people in all nations.

Well said. Another problem I notice is this:

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

So an owner is someone who has provided care for more than a month. This means if a person has volunteered to help someone else's animal, and harm comes to it because the volunteer no longer can help the animal, the volunteer is responsible. This is foolish. Leetness disagrees.

Or if you go on holidays for a month and a day, when you come back, guess what buddy, under the APA, your animal is now mine. Deal with it, I've got your bunny, what you gonna do? Nothing, the APA says it's mine.

If you didn't put your animal with a responsible person for that long a time it would have died without that person helping out and guess what? YOu shouldn't have had it.

That being said, your nations laws on ownership may trump this, as the definition of owner is first someone who has purchased the animal, then someone who has cared for it. And if it was stolen, then laws about stealing apply. THis resolution tries to work within the laws of nations as much as possible.

Wilber supports this proposition under the terms that implementation of this Act is in flexibility if, under conditions prohibited by this Act, are in place for the advancement of science for a humane purpose such as:

[*] Bio-engineering resulting in higher quality, condition, and/or ability of the targeted species (excluding sentient beings, sapiens, et. al.);
[*] Study or action by officials or social engineers for the purpose of preventing extinction and threatening expansion*;
[*] Entertainment industries (i.e. fashion or ability shows ('pet shows')) involving the voluntary** participation of the species of interest for judgement or show that does not exhibit pain - as defined by this Act - for the purpose of economic advancement as allowed by this Act and the WA.

I do strongly suggest the PAWS division of the WA be established to support the expansion or revision of this Act to meet the wants or need to the World's People as humanely defined by this Act.

Sincerely,
Founder of the Union of Responsible Socialism
Left-Libertarian, Religiously Neutral
Speaker of Wilber

The language does have sufficient flexibility to accomodate all those points. Thanks!

The pretense of this law is a well-mannered resolution, but how it is written is what is fucked up. Guess the bug and weed-killing industry is gonna be illegal.

Asside from your rude language, I would like to know which study shows that bugs and weeds are sentient, pain feeling creatures? They are also WILD animals, and thus are exempt entirely from this resolution.

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

It is with sadness that we must rise to oppose this proposal. Let it be known that Kawaiians take second place to no nation when it comes to concern for the creatures sharing the Earth with Mankind. One need only look to our Jihi code of humane animal husbandry to see the truth of our claim.

That said, we would eagerly welcome a proposal to limit the suffering of animals by the hand of Man. However, from our reading of this proposal and hearing the arguments presented on it, we have concluded that this proposal is poorly written and contains numerous flaws. One of the most obvious ones is in its definition of animal ownership:

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

As written, an animal less than 31 days of age is not covered by the WA-mandated protections imposed upon animal owners. We presume that the author intended to mean that the animal is covered if the owner had possession of that animal's parent(s) during that 31 day period. However, that's not what the proposal says--it states "an animal or its descendants", i.e. the animal's offspring, not its progenitors.

Other representatives here have pointed out different flaws in this proposal, and we do not wish to be repetitive. However, we hold up this passage as an example of the generally poor drafting of this proposal. Given the importance of this issue, we believe it must be done right. Therefore we encourage the esteemed representatives here to reject this proposal in the sincere hope that a better draft can be written.

The 31 days clause is to ensure that a person who provides care to an animal but has not legally purchased it is legally responsible for it. True, it is not protected until the 31 day mark but Ilstoria could not bring itself to enforce ownership on a person who has merely given a stray some water while waiting for the dog catcher to show up. 31 days is sufficient for a person to help an animal while trying to find somewhere else for it to stay. Keep in mind, even though the animal has no protection in the 31 days it has no protection at all now.

The word "OR" ensures that a person who has legally purchased the animal is in immediate responsibility for the animal and does not need to wait 31 days.

Also, the owner is responsible for the animals offspring, progeny, NOT proginators, until that person transfers legal ownership by another person purchasing, then they become responsible. YOu can sell your puppies for a penny.

It's been a long time since I last had a look at this...

There are some questions I would like to ask, though:

1. If an animal torturer uses anaesthetic to prevent pain, would they still be liable under this resolution? I would assume Clause 3 would, in a manner, come into play here.
2. Under Clause 2, would stables be considered as emulating natural habitat?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Technically, an animal torturer could use anaesthetic to prevent pain and be fine, however, would it really be torture then? That is an argument for another bill (Sentient Rights! Sapient Rights!). The pain and suffering experienced after it wore off could be a liability however.

LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between humans and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of animals for sport and/or sustenance.

I will only support bill if it prevents hunting for sport but allow domestic farming...Majority of us all eat meat, cow, pig, turkey, chicken, etc but they need not be cruelly treated upon for sustenance.

It does allow for hunting and eating animals, just not cruelly treated.

There is a MAJOR issue with the act which everyone should know about before they vote for this act: (emphasis added by mwah)

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

This means that if I purchase the descendant of an animal, I am the owner of its father and mother and grandfather and great great aunt. This makes no sense! I have never even MET the father of my pug, so how can I be his owner?

The writer of this proposal probably meant that you are the owner of the descendants of the animal you purchased. However, what they meant means nothing. The only thing that matters is what IS. And as the act currently stands, if you purchase an animal's descendant, you are legally responsible for the animal and all its older relatives!

Why, I imagine a lot of people would be falsely convicted of cruelty to animals they have never seen, never met, and never even knew existed!

Descendants are offspring, not ancestors. And once ownership is transfered legally in your country it would obviously change. There is a limited number of characters for a resolution and the hope was to work with exhisting laws and only covering instances where there were gaps. You are legaly responsible for your purchased pugs puppies and their puppies until you transfer ownership of said puppies. This language in NO WAY could make you responsible for its ancestors.

Question on article 2. "ENCOURAGING that domestic animals kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”"

Are you suggesting a pet, like a dog which may be kept primarily outside, be provided with a forested area to freely roam, instead of a kennel? I am as interested in preventing animal abuse as anyone, especially if it makes my meat more tender (something for all the vegans), but this clause seems a little open-ended.

Dogs and cats don't have natural habitats as their evolution was in human company and thus is wherever people are. THis is more for farm animals and lab animals. It also says ENCOURAGING and there will of course be instances where it simply isn't possible.

31 days? If I buy it, it's mine, I own it. Against.

The languages says if you purchase it and/OR provide it with care. If you buy it, it is yours, no wait necessary, hence the OR. If you don't buy it but care for it for 31 days, then it is also yours.

[Ithania]

Amorita quietly sneaks to the Ithanian seat, raising a bemused eyebrow upon finding it covered in a thick layer of dust. Worse, she sees a miniscule civilisation mining crystallised sugar in a neglected tea cup. “Glad to see things are as inefficient and odd as always,” she mutters wryly whilst commanding synthanelles to cleanse away the mess. After a brief moment of waiting and a flash of light that's far too bright, she plonks down into a sparkling seat and begins fumbling with holographic displays, conveniently ignoring her gleaming teacup and the ethical questions raised by its new-found cleanliness.

“Ahh, errmm. I must inform the General Assembly that Consensus has elected to oppose this proposal. Regrettably, Consensus believes it has identified fatal flaws that our esteemed colleagues have already eloquently explored. Whilst it is not our desire to needlessly consume time with repetition, we feel elucidation is warranted as a sign of our appreciation for the empathy of the submitting member nation,” Amorita materialises a tumbler of water, nervously checking it for miniscule people before taking a sip.

“Specifically, Consensus is perplexed by the definition of pain utilised for the purposes of this resolution. Whilst many citizens of the confederation are no longer biological, thus lack experience in this domain, we believe that requiring ‘actual tissue damage’ has led to the egregious omission of pain responses to potentially damaging stimuli. If our understanding of some biological forms is correct then pain can serve as a preventative measure by encouraging change prior to damage. If this interpretation is correct then failing to protect against abuse that inflicts pain without yielding damage is a considerable oversight. Consensus also believes that this proposal excludes complex suffering such as the infliction of anxiety as 'actual tissue damage' cannot reasonably be defined as including this,” she frowns with obvious disapproval as she reads onwards.

“Having said this, a 'charitable' fragment of Consensus did argue that ‘associated with’ should not be interpreted as requiring a causal link. Fortunately, the majority regarded this as a weak argument. The majority assert that the definition of pain is exhaustive in nature and that the context supports interpreting ‘actual tissue damage’ as a necessity. Ultimately, this means we cannot support this admirable attempt to protect susceptible entities,” Amorita dismisses the holographic windows with a languid wave of her wrist, her neural net already searching through the vast quantity of information missed during the last several years. ”Stupid precautionary temporal lock.”