[PASSED] Animal Protection Act

[Ilstoria]

1. Two grammar typos shouldn't be enough to kill it
2. Farming doesn't involve animals and fishing is protected since killing is okay so long as it is done in a reasonably human way.
3. Clause four would prohibit bull fighting or cock fighting. It is a long, drawn out form of slaughter that is unnecessary and cruel, sorry. It constitutes torture for the sake of entertainment.
4. WSBC is a little impractical, perhaps, but it is only going to handle issues of direct violations or nations requesting assistance, and most nations will not want assistance, so just creating the list and inspecting WA member legislation shouldn't be too difficult.

[Ilstoria]

The domestic limitation. One could argue a possible loophole through non-domestic animals; snakes, racoons, lions, tigers, other circus animals, and so-on.

Once an animal is put in the circus or zoo it isn't really "wild" any more. As for other wild animals, I'm really focusing this bill on animals where humans have accepted responsibility, which would even extend to preserve areas. Individuals who torture animals are few and far between and most countries deal with that. It's when it is done on a large scale by governments and corporations that we find serious issues of cruelty.

[Flibbleites]

1. Two grammar typos shouldn't be enough to kill it

I wouldn't be so sure about that, I remember a time where a grammatical error (a misplaced apostrophe) drastically altered the effect of the resolution.

2. Farming doesn't involve animals

Really? What do you think farmers use to plow their fields if they don't have a tractor?

and fishing is protected since killing is okay so long as it is done in a reasonably human way.

Suffocating a fish is humane?

The domestic limitation. One could argue a possible loophole through non-domestic animals; snakes, racoons, lions, tigers, other circus animals, and so-on.

Once an animal is put in the circus or zoo it isn't really "wild" any more.

So I guess the next time I go to a zoo I should be able to walk right into the lion's cage and pet it because it not a wild animal anymore.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Ilstoria]

1. Two grammar typos shouldn't be enough to kill it

I wouldn't be so sure about that, I remember a time where a grammatical error (a misplaced apostrophe) drastically altered the effect of the resolution.

2. Farming doesn't involve animals

Really? What do you think farmers use to plow their fields if they don't have a tractor?

and fishing is protected since killing is okay so long as it is done in a reasonably human way.

Suffocating a fish is humane?

Once an animal is put in the circus or zoo it isn't really "wild" any more.

So I guess the next time I go to a zoo I should be able to walk right into the lion's cage and pet it because it not a wild animal anymore.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Fine, plows, how is using an animal to do work cruel if you're providing it with food, shelter and not whipping and scarring it? You're reading so much more into this, making arguments that aren't even part of the resolution. This isn't giving human rights to animals. And you're free to pet the lions if the zoo allows, but notice that there is a difference between "tame" and "not-wild." Lots of domestic animals bite, certain dogs are notorious for killing toddlers because they're owners are idiots who don't keep them in safe circumstances. As to the fish, are you saying there isn't a way to kill the fish without suffocating them? If there isn't, then it's necessary, and protected, but honestly, I can think of at least one quick, fairly cheap, method: electrocution. And for nations unable to do that, well, suffocation is pretty quick, if not painless. It IS protected. We'll see if the two grammar errors are enough kill it.

[Ilstoria]

Anyone who's a delegate and supports this bill, please support so it goes to a vote! It's almost there, just 20 more and still 2 days left!

[Bears Armed]

As to the fish, are you saying there isn't a way to kill the fish without suffocating them? If there isn't, then it's necessary, and protected, but honestly, I can think of at least one quick, fairly cheap, method: electrocution.

"Electrocuting the fish "easy"... For an individual fisherman who's gone out into the woods or hills for a day's recreation? Or when the nets have just been hauled in aboard a fishing-boat in turbulent waters? Are you serious?!?"

[Flibbleites]

I wouldn't be so sure about that, I remember a time where a grammatical error (a misplaced apostrophe) drastically altered the effect of the resolution.
Really? What do you think farmers use to plow their fields if they don't have a tractor?

Suffocating a fish is humane?


So I guess the next time I go to a zoo I should be able to walk right into the lion's cage and pet it because it not a wild animal anymore.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Fine, plows, how is using an animal to do work cruel if you're providing it with food, shelter and not whipping and scarring it? You're reading so much more into this, making arguments that aren't even part of the resolution. This isn't giving human rights to animals. And you're free to pet the lions if the zoo allows, but notice that there is a difference between "tame" and "not-wild." Lots of domestic animals bite, certain dogs are notorious for killing toddlers because they're owners are idiots who don't keep them in safe circumstances. As to the fish, are you saying there isn't a way to kill the fish without suffocating them? If there isn't, then it's necessary, and protected, but honestly, I can think of at least one quick, fairly cheap, method: electrocution. And for nations unable to do that, well, suffocation is pretty quick, if not painless. It IS protected. We'll see if the two grammar errors are enough kill it.

Hey, I'm just debunking bad arguments that you made, and if I didn't do it someone else would.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Reagan Island]

This is such a ridiculous proposal. THIS IS NOT AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE!

[Ilstoria]

Anyone who thinks this issue isn't international would think that slavery is not an international issue. That is where Ilstoria stands. Sentient beings deserve rights, albeit limited ones.

And the word "reasonable" gives enough flexibility for situations where there isn't a better option. The individual fisherman is not going to be able to electrocute his fish, but big companies can. This legislation sets standards. And yes, this will hurt the economy a little, but just like when slavery is repealed in nations that rely heavily on slave labor, they will adjust and things will right themselves. No government should be allowed to subject a feeling creature to torture to help their bottom line. Ilstoria believes we are caretakers of that which is within our dominion, and if we don't care for it, we are not being moral.

This is a moral issue. If your nation has no morals or different morals, then of course you don't agree with it, and honestly, why are you a member of the WA if you don't believe in sacrificing some liberties, like the right to be deliberately cruel, to improve the lives of all that dwell in your nation and region???

[Ilstoria]

We have reached a quorum, so this will go to vote soon!

[Togana]

As the leader of my people and an avid hunter and fisherman i cannot fully endorse this proposal. As it could get in the way off a big money business and a unique culture in Togana. Saying that i fully support protection and enhancement of our natural resources. Our natural resources dept is responsible the for strict regulations of our fishing/hunting seasons and the punishment for breaking the laws is heavy. In Togana it is also illegal to do most if not all forms of animal testing.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Where did the proposal go?

Anyway...

DEFINES an animal as a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia which poses the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain with the exclusion of humans, whose rights have been defined elsewhere.

Any animal can feel pain. You might want to narrow it down to animals which are widely domesticated and kept as a pet.

[Ilstoria]

Where did the proposal go?

Anyway...

DEFINES an animal as a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia which poses the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain with the exclusion of humans, whose rights have been defined elsewhere.

Any animal can feel pain. You might want to narrow it down to animals which are widely domesticated and kept as a pet.

You are wrong, not all animals can feel pain. Fish were only just recognized as able to feel pain in the last 10 years. And I will note that this bill does not stop hunting and fishing, as killing and causing pain are not made illegal, rather UNNECESSARY pain and suffering is made illegal. Industry would be limited because it currently uses immoral practices to increase revenue, but when the limitations are in place, they will still achieve a significant profit.

(OOC: As for where it went... The mods can't figure out that just 'cause sapient beings are mentioned doesn't mean that they're given rights. They think this is a human rights bill, giving intelligent animals rights. They obviously didn't bother to read it. I put in a GHR and asked the forums, but someone just can't get over the sci-fi community using "sentience" incorrectly for years.... IN SPITE OF THE FACT I DEFINED IT)

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In my opinion, the present definition is too broad because it can be seem to include feral pigeons or invasive species, depending on how one country may view it. This means that no one would be able to kill invasive species without permission from their member state.

I'm confident that you might be trying to focus on farm and pet animals. They are all domesticated.

[Ilstoria]

In my opinion, the present definition is too broad because it can be seem to include feral pigeons or invasive species, depending on how one country may view it. This means that no one would be able to kill invasive species without permission from their member state.

I'm confident that you might be trying to focus on farm and pet animals. They are all domesticated.

"UNDERSTANDING that populations of animals sometimes require human intervention to prevent population growth that is detrimental to the animal, environment and other animals...

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."

Wild pigeons and invasive species are simply not protected in this bill, and if they were, there is still an exception for human intervention to prevent population growth that is detrimental to the nation.

Please, people, read the info before you comment on things that aren't there.

[Flibbleites]

In my opinion, the present definition is too broad because it can be seem to include feral pigeons or invasive species, depending on how one country may view it. This means that no one would be able to kill invasive species without permission from their member state.

I'm confident that you might be trying to focus on farm and pet animals. They are all domesticated.

"UNDERSTANDING that populations of animals sometimes require human intervention to prevent population growth that is detrimental to the animal, environment and other animals...

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."

Wild pigeons and invasive species are simply not protected in this bill, and if they were, there is still an exception for human intervention to prevent population growth that is detrimental to the nation.

Please, people, read the info before you comment on things that aren't there.

Here's a thought, rather than waste your time complaining about a secretariat ruling, maybe you should try to fix the problems?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Ilstoria]

Here's a thought, rather than waste your time complaining about a secretariat ruling, maybe you should try to fix the problems?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Because there is no problem, it's a misunderstanding. I don't even know how anyone thinks that this bill extends civil rights, so I am not able to fix it.

And as for the person complaining about pigeons, they too do not know how to read, which is why I do not see what I can fix, since I don't have the time or finances to assist with their literacy skills.

[Ilstoria]

Ilstoria has decided to wait to re-submit this bill until after the Sapient Rights Act has been submitted. Hopefully the act will clear up the misconceptions of persons who cannot distinguish between human/sapient rights and animal/sentient rights because of years of misuse by the sci-fi community for the term "sentient." Ilstoria has contributed to the current definition of sapience and sentience in the Sapient Rights Act, and thus, when that act has received the recognition it deserves, we shall be able to fall back on the greater understanding gained by the WA of said terms and bring this important proposal back to quorum.

[Ilstoria]

In order to clear up the confusion by persons who cannot understand that SENTIENT does not mean intelligent, and that giving rights to animals is NOT a civil rights issue, I have chopped this bill down to its bare essentials in the hopes that it is as plain as I can make it. I already know I can get this to a quorum, I've done it TWICE. The problem is not in getting support. PLEASE, please let me know if you too think this gives rights to people OR gives animals civil rights. It is not the intention and I cannot see a SINGLE thing that would indicate that. Thanks.

---

Animal Rights Act

REALIZING the importance of animals as food, clothing and medical resources that are imported and exported internationally;

UNDERSTANDING that populations of animals sometimes require the intervention of people to prevent population growth that is detrimental to the animal, environment and people.

URGING the WA to consider the rights of non-person life when interactions by people constitute a direct effect;

DEFINES and limits animals as beings that posses the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain.

DEFINES a person and/or people as a being(s) having an essential property that bestows personhood, and thus legal rights and duties, onto said being by the WA and nations.

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

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.

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.

PROVIDES animals with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture by:

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

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.”

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

4. FORBIDING any individual or group to use animals for the express purpose of inflicting pain and suffering on them as a form of entertainment.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Animal Rights Convention (WARC) 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 the national governments are unable to reach a decision.

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Schulz reads over the proposal. He then shows it to his aide. They both shrug and Schulz stands up
Could the Ambassador from Ilstoria please ellaborate on the meaning of clause 3? We have problems understanding what it means. Thank you.

[Ilstoria]

Deputy Ambassador Schulz reads over the proposal. He then shows it to his aide. They both shrug and Schulz stands up
Could the Ambassador from Ilstoria please ellaborate on the meaning of clause 3? We have problems understanding what it means. Thank you.

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

If you legaly own an animal you have the legal duty to make sure no one else causes pain and suffering to it. To the best of your ability, of course. You can't throw a dog in with a lion and say "I didn't hurt it, the lion did" while you're selling tickets. That kind of thing.

[Discoveria]

"We will not be supporting this unless our concerns are addressed. We suggest the following extensive alterations to do this."

Animal Rights Act

REALIZING the importance of animals as food, clothing and medical resources that are imported and exported internationally;Not a particularly good reason to protect animal rights. See below.

UNDERSTANDING that populations of animals sometimes require the intervention of people to prevent population growth that is detrimental to the animal, environment and people.I think this is a weak case for international intervention in this issue. It's a moral issue, isn't it? Perhaps the resolution should just say so, and let those opposed to moralising vote against it. I would suggest something like, "BELIEVING that World Assembly member-states should provide a basic level of protection of animal welfare,

CONVINCED that international co-operation is required to implement animal welfare provisions fairly in all member-states,"

URGING the WA to consider the rights of non-person life when interactions by people constitute a direct effect;The meaning is unclear. Also this becomes redundant if you use my suggestion above. In any case, non-person life has no rights unless this resolution or something similar gets passed. I would remove this.

DEFINES and limits animals as beings that possess the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain.So animals with nerve damage or rare genetic syndromes involving the absence of pain sensation are not protected by the resolution? Pain sensation is not what defines an animal. I would prefer a biological definition, something like "For the purposes of this resolution, the World Assembly:

• DEFINES an 'animal' as a living organism of the biological kingdom Animalia,"

DEFINES a person and/or people as a being(s) having an essential property that bestows personhood, and thus legal rights and duties, onto said being by the WA and nations.A bit imprecise. I would suggest "DEFINES a person as a being having an essential property (such as sapience) that bestows personhood," - you might get away with not defining sapience. The legal rights and duties bit seems unnecessary.

LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between people and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of animals for sport and/or sustenance.As I have said before, there's no point defining "interaction between people and animals" if you don't use the term "interaction between people and animals" in the resolution! I would replace this clause with "AFFIRMS that this resolution pertains to all forms of animal domestication, including the hunting of animals for sport or sustenance".

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.I really wouldn't bother to define 'unnecessary' here. Your example is terrible anyway. Just because you consider the death of an animal to create a fur coat to be unavoidable does not make it so. An animal might be skinned alive and kept alive via high-tech medical means simply to harvest its fur! In a sense, all activities and industries are 'unnecessary', since people can survive just fine without any animal involvement whatsoever.

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.

PROVIDES animals with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture by:I think this needs a stronger operator, e.g. "REQUIRES World Assembly member-states to provide animals with..."

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person either directly or remotely.I would go for a weaker threshold of pain and suffering based on the ability to justify that pain and suffering, e.g. "PROHIBITING the intentional infliction of pain or suffering on any animal by any person, either directly or indirectly, unless such pain or suffering may be justified as being:

• In the best interests of the animal, e.g. euthanising an animal to prevent a prolonged period of suffering from a medical or traumatic condition,
• In the best interests of a population of animals or of the wider environment, e.g. pest control to maintain biodiversity in an area,
• For the protection of a person or people or the prevention of a threat to life, health or property, e.g. management of predatory animals that pose a threat to a person's safety."

Add more as needed.

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.”

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

4. FORBIDINGFORBIDDING any individual or group to use animals for the express purpose of inflicting pain and suffering on them as a form of entertainment.I would replace this with "FORBIDDING forms of entertainment that require or involve the infliction of pain or suffering on animals," to remove the vulnerability I previously pointed out but you dismissed.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Animal Rights Convention (WARC) 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 thenational governments are unable to reach a decision.

Please also consider exempting farming and fishing from the resolution. I doubt it will pass otherwise. Got to go otherwise I would say more about this.

[Louisistan]

Schulz stands up

Ambassador Turing, I have some objections to your proposed changes:

DEFINES an 'animal' as a living organism of the biological kingdom Animalia,"

I am not sure, but wouldn't that include the people of Bears Armed?

"PROHIBITING the intentional infliction of pain or suffering on any animal by any person, either directly or indirectly, unless such pain or suffering may be justified as being:
- In the best interests of the animal, e.g. euthanising an animal to prevent a prolonged period of suffering from a medical or traumatic condition,
- In the best interests of a population of animals or of the wider environment, e.g. pest control to maintain biodiversity in an area,
- For the protection of a person or people or the prevention of a threat to life, health or property, e.g. management of predatory animals that pose a threat to a person's safety."
Soo... no more meat production? The Confederacy of Louisistan will not stand for this.

Schulz sat down.

[Bears Armed]

Schulz stands up

Ambassador Turing, I have some objections to your proposed changes:

DEFINES an 'animal' as a living organism of the biological kingdom Animalia,"

I am not sure, but wouldn't that include the people of Bears Armed?

"You apparently missed the bit that says "with the exclusion of sapient beings"..."

[Louisistan]

Schulz stands up

Ambassador Turing, I have some objections to your proposed changes:

DEFINES an 'animal' as a living organism of the biological kingdom Animalia,"

I am not sure, but wouldn't that include the people of Bears Armed?

"Includes Humans, too..."

Huh.... indeed it does.