[PASSED] Animal Protection Act

[Discoveria]

"Ambassadors from Bears Armed, Louisistan: I acknowledge your concerns but I think I had better let Ilstoria have a chance to think about my initial suggestions. I am certainly open to changes regarding the inclusion/exclusion of sapient animals, and I do want to see changes that won't disrupt existing farming/fishing industries."

[Alqania]

"Scrap the definitions, all of them", Lord Raekevik advised. "Is this a proposal or a dictionary? If member states must follow resolutions in good faith, then member states will know how to implement a resolution against the infliction of unnecessary pain on animals, even if the Assembly does not define the words 'infliction', 'of', 'unnecessary', 'pain', 'on' and 'animals'. If member states want to loophole their way out of this, then member states are going to find loopholes whether or not the Assembly defines every single word it uses."

The Ambassador almost took his seat before quickly and suddenly adding: "Oh and one more thing: Category and Strength?"

[Ilstoria]

I appreciate your suggestions as you spell out your concerns in great detail, HOWEVER...

Your concerns are not valid:

*The "REALIZING" part explains how it is international. It is not why we want to protect animals.
*The "UNDERSTANDING" part is an exemption to blanket banning harm.
*I do not want to ban pain and suffering of animals who are not capable of feeling pain and suffering, therefore am ONLY directing this bill to sentient creatures.
*I removed the term "sapience" (the definition you quote is one I used before) because the bill has been incorrectly read as giving rights to sapient creatures. People can't read.
*Unnecessary is the most important part! If you don't only limit "unnecessary" pain and suffering then you basically destroy ALL INDUSTRY.
*I do not want to justify pain and suffering if it is avoidable. If it is unavoidable it is then it is necessary. Euthanasia doesn't cause pain, pest control is fine if done humanely, the same goes for wildlife that threatens people or livestock, and technically WILD animals aren't protected under this bill anyhow, only the animals people have legal rights to.
*I don't see your vulnerability to the fourth clause. The two are paraphrasing. However, your version is fine also.

AND FINALLY....

*Farming and fishing should NOT be exempt as they are the ones inflicting the majority of pain and suffering on animals. HOWEVER, I do want the farming and fishing industries to continue so long as they are not causing UNNECESSARY pain and suffering because it increases their bottom line. Pigs are kept from turning over for 2 years to fatten them up, they never move. That is cruelty and causes mental and physical harm to the animal. Keeping hundreds of chickens in a tiny room so they must have their beaks blunted to keep them from pecking each other to death... These things are rediculous and need to stop. Free range industry makes money just fine, thanks. And fish farming also. Going into the ocean and fishing, however, would be almost no limitations at all, since there isn't much most nations could do to reduce pain and suffering.

There are a few suggestions I am taking, however, so thanks for your input. I hope I've cleared up some of your concerns, or at least demonstrated that I won't be addressing them any more strongly than I feel they already are. I'm sorry if it means I will lose your approval, but I feel it is important.

[Ilstoria]

Animal Protection Act (Category: Moral Decency, Strength: Significant)

URGING the WA to recognize that animals kept as property by people must be provided with protections as a moral responsibility;

REALIZING the importance of animals as food, clothing and medical resources that are imported and exported internationally and would thus require an international effort to prevent cruelty;

UNDERSTANDING that populations of animals sometimes require the intervention of people to prevent population growth or harm that is detrimental to the animal, environment and people, and allowing for such actions if all reasonable actions are taken to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering.

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.

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 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.

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 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,

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.

[Allyria]

Allyria respects your proposal, but sees some internal contradictions and issues which should be addressed.

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.

Here, we see a problem with the language of "reasonably avoided." In some technologically advanced nations, the fur industry only exists for the self-interest of humans and not for the necessity of clothing. Would this resolution ban the fur industry in nations which could "reasonably avoid" these industries through the use of technology? The Community of Allyria hopes this was your intention, as the privileging of slaughter solely for economic gain or social signification does not defy the "reasonably avoided" clause.

Tissue damage inflicted under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian and with the use of anaesthetics to reduce or eliminate pain is reasonable.

Here, the Community of Allyria takes issue with the ambiguity of the statement. If a qualified veterinarian performs an anaesthetized operation with no purpose, would that still satisfy the requirements of this act? If so, could a member country license "veterinarians" to perform unnecessary and harmful operations? Also, what of our member countries without advanced medical facilities? Are they disallowed to perform operations if they do not have the proper anaesthetic?

We propose adding a "medical benefit" clause: "Tissue damage inflicted under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian, for the medical benefit of the animal, and with the use of anaesthetic to reduce or eliminate pain, where such medications are available, is reasonable."

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

Finally, the Community of Allyria would like to suggest that this rule applies directly to our concerns about fashion as provided above. The problem, of course, is defining at which point fashion stops being necessity and starts being entertainment. Unfortunately, the Community of Allyria could not come to a consensus about how to define that transition operationally.

Recognizing that all laws and governments are gradual processes of refinement, and that this law advances Allyria's hopes for promoting the General Welfare of all things, we resolve to support this resolution if the ambiguous language can be cleared up.

[Ilstoria]

THis resolution really doesn't want to infringe too heavily on a nation's ability to regulate itself, it wants to keep suffering to a minimum. The fur industry may not be "necessary" to clothe people, just as the meat industry isn't even "necessary" to feed people, there are plants that COULD do that. However, these industries are important to national economies and to traditions and culture. I honestly don't wish to ban the use of animals at all. Animals CAN be used as a form of entertainment, just not in a way that would constitute torture. Circus monkies, horse shows, these things don't actually hurt the animals. Ilstoria does believe people should be allowed to use animals in this fashion since animals are not sapient and don't have opinions on HOW they live their lives, so long as their quality of life is good. That is all that this bill tries to do, is make sure the quality of life, up to their timely or untimely death, is good.

The resolution does not ban industry, merely painful actions. If you euthanized the animals, then skinned them, they didn't experience any pain, so you didn't violate anything. That is why it only deals with banning pain and suffering, not banning the tissue damage itself, and yes, a veternarian who is performing unnecessary opperations is not causing unnecessary pain, but I doubt it would happen, since it's expensive. It would be done for medical purposes perhaps.

Please understand this is a STEP. This would prevent suffering of animals. It may not go as far as you'd like, but it is better than the current system.

[Ilstoria]

So I've posted it up for approval and campaigned for all the persons who endorsed it last time and then a few more. If you are a deligate, please, The Constitutional Monarchy of Ilstoria urges you to support the proposal "Animal Protection Act". The unnecessary pain and suffering of animals is a travesty. Even nations with laws against animal cruelty may still be importing goods from other nations who do not extend any protections to animals who are legally owned by people to produce vital resources such as food, clothing and medical supplies. Standards must be set to protect feeling species from abuse so that nations can import goods that were not created through torture.

Thank you for your support,

[Ironic Ambassador]

The national delegates took their seats in the World Assembly Conference Centre. WA Affairs Secretary Paula Bryant stood up at her desk at the front of the hall. She rapped her gavel.

"The Delegates will now vote on Resolution #M6.47 to approve and endorse the Animal Rights Act. All in favor?"

All eyes drifted to the large vote-counting screen at the head of the hall. One thing was certain: the green lights outnumbered the reds.

"Very well, it has reached quorum. The Regional Delegate will now approve the bill."

As such, Atrigeas has approved the Animal Protection Act.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

The national delegates took their seats in the World Assembly Conference Centre. WA Affairs Secretary Paula Bryant stood up at her desk at the front of the hall. She rapped her gavel.

"The Delegates will now vote on Resolution #M6.47 to approve and endorse the Animal Rights Act. All in favor?"

All eyes drifted to the large vote-counting screen at the head of the hall. One thing was certain: the green lights outnumbered the reds.

"Very well, it has reached quorum. The Regional Delegate will now approve the bill."

As such, Atrigeas has approved the Animal Protection Act.

"Point of order!" shouted the crotchety Ambassador from Cowardly Pacfists.

"The proposed Animal Protection Act certainly has NOT reached quorum. In fact, it doesn't even have half of the necessary endorsements yet.

I respectfully ask that the Ironic Ambassador's comments to the contrary be stricken from the record."

[Ilstoria]

The national delegates took their seats in the World Assembly Conference Centre. WA Affairs Secretary Paula Bryant stood up at her desk at the front of the hall. She rapped her gavel.

"The Delegates will now vote on Resolution #M6.47 to approve and endorse the Animal Rights Act. All in favor?"

All eyes drifted to the large vote-counting screen at the head of the hall. One thing was certain: the green lights outnumbered the reds.

"Very well, it has reached quorum. The Regional Delegate will now approve the bill."

As such, Atrigeas has approved the Animal Protection Act.

"Point of order!" shouted the crotchety Ambassador from Cowardly Pacfists.

"The proposed Animal Protection Act certainly has NOT reached quorum. In fact, it doesn't even have half of the necessary endorsements yet.

I respectfully ask that the Ironic Ambassador's comments to the contrary be stricken from the record."

I think the delegate was referring to their own government's process of whether or not to support!

That being said, I'm afraid I didn't put the same effort into this draft proposal as I did the last few times. I campaigned to those who supported it last time but did not ask any new delegates. As a result, half of the delegates who supported it last time simply weren't online during the 72 hour period to reach quorum. So I will be re-submitting this and giving it due dilligence the second round. Unless we get 30 approvals in the next 50 minutes!

[Hadnerland]

Would this forbid the killing of animals in order for food, clothes, etc?

[Ilstoria]

I'll be resubmitting this over the weekend and campaigning like crazy. Here's a quick recap for people who just don't bother to read the bill:

This does not forbid the killing of animals. Period. It forbids the cruel treatment of animals. Will it hurt the industry? All regulation hurts the industry, but I feel that it is a fair compromise, and it won't DECIMATE any industry. Fur is still legal. Food is still legal. Even animal testing is still legal. The regulations would just forbit these industries from causing undue pain and suffering. It doesn't make pain and suffering illegal, just UNDUE pain, something you could have avoided by not cramping your livestock into tiny pens where they can't move, putting chemicals that are known to harm on the animal to "see what happens," or fighting animals. It means that the industry needs to put a little of its profit into improving the quality of life for their property instead of making their lives hell to improve the bottom line. The bottom line will still be in the black.

ALSO

This bill only deals with domestic animals, animals that are property. Whatever laws your nation has for wild animals, or animals that are actually citizens, it simply doesn't affect those laws. If you are a country full of bears, for instance, those bears are not owned by humans, are they? Then they aren't covered here.

[Dagguerro]

It doesn't make pain and suffering illegal, just UNDUE pain, something you could have avoided by not cramping your livestock into tiny pens where they can't move, putting chemicals that are known to harm on the animal to "see what happens," or fighting animals.

That effectively bans a number of forms of medical research...as per this article:

Similarly, in the case of animal testing, testing products on animals that are reasonably expected to have painful results are avoidable, as are only providing cramped confinement for lab animals.

You just instantly killed the entire animal research aspect of chronic pain disorders, for example.

[Ilstoria]

It doesn't make pain and suffering illegal, just UNDUE pain, something you could have avoided by not cramping your livestock into tiny pens where they can't move, putting chemicals that are known to harm on the animal to "see what happens," or fighting animals.

That effectively bans a number of forms of medical research...as per this article:

Similarly, in the case of animal testing, testing products on animals that are reasonably expected to have painful results are avoidable, as are only providing cramped confinement for lab animals.

You just instantly killed the entire animal research aspect of chronic pain disorders, for example.

Giving an animal chronic pain in order to figure out how to treat it is stupid, honestly. Animals can't tell us if it feels better or not.

[Dagguerro]

That effectively bans a number of forms of medical research...as per this article:



You just instantly killed the entire animal research aspect of chronic pain disorders, for example.

Giving an animal chronic pain in order to figure out how to treat it is stupid, honestly. Animals can't tell us if it feels better or not.

...are you serious? That isn't how research works. You don't just give an animal something and asks if it gets better. There are tests, assays, etc.

Honestly if that's the state of your nation's research program I'm truly disturbed about the implications to your medical system.

(OOC: I work in a chronic disease research department IRL. It is absolutely not "stupid" to use animal models for a wide variety of chronic diseases. I know precisely how important it is as several of my colleagues use such models.)

[Ilstoria]

Giving an animal chronic pain in order to figure out how to treat it is stupid, honestly. Animals can't tell us if it feels better or not.

...are you serious? That isn't how research works. You don't just give an animal something and asks if it gets better. There are tests, assays, etc.

Honestly if that's the state of your nation's research program I'm truly disturbed about the implications to your medical system.

(OOC: I work in a chronic disease research department IRL. It is absolutely not "stupid" to use animal models for a wide variety of chronic diseases. I know precisely how important it is as several of my colleagues use such models.)

Testing that has measurable results is not the same as subjective pain. Our research in Ilstoria is based off of measurable results. We can give an animal a "disease" and minimize and/or eliminate the pain and still continue our research. Additionally, the Animal Protection Act involves language that says "reasonably avoided." There is also an exhemption for nations who are simply not able to afford more humane options for their animals, and the PAWS can be called upon to uphold that situation. Similarly, something like an epidemic falls under different guidlines where the pain and suffering of test subjects CANNOT be reasonably avoided due to time constraints in a national emergency. This bill is designed to stop BLATANT abuse of animals simply to ease the bottom line of meat, fur and pharmaceutal companies. The exemptions allow REASONABLE pain and suffering to continue, and it is up to that nation, region, WA and if all else fails, PAWS, to determine if that pain and suffering is reasonable or abusive.

(OOC: Honestly, giving mice cancer and trying to reduce the cancer or kill the cancer doesn't NEED to be painful. Giving them some disease that is painful and trying to then see what medicine treats that pain... I would love to know how you measure if a mouse is in less pain than the day before from chronic arthritis. Pain trials should be done with human subjects who volunteer or animals who already have the pain and would benefit from it, rather than ones who were forced to have pain.)

[Ilstoria]

We need just six more approvals for this proposal to reach a quorum!!!

For those of you who think this is going to kill any industry, please remember that this bill tries to eliminate UNNECESSARY pain and suffering as much as is REASONABLE for a nation. A stone age nation is not going to be administering anesthetics to an animal for any reason, let alone to minimize pain. More advanced nations will obviously be held to higher standards. As the more advanced nations are the larger exporters of goods it is even more important that they do not involve themselves in blatant animal cruelty as the world's largest suppliers.

Similarly, there are industries that quite simply DEAL in pain. Medical research is one of them. There is a lot of flexibility in the language of this proposal to keep the majority of research going without any changes beyond how the animals are kept. It is the gross neglect (Think Harry Harlow and the Pit of Despair) and you'll see what kind of Nazi testing methods I'm trying to outlaw. Putting a newborn monkey in an isolation chamber for a year and then forcing it to breed and then watching as one mother holds her baby's face to the floor and chews off his feet and fingers and another crushes her baby's head, isn't science. The ends just don't justify the means here.

So please in your consideration actually read the language if you are concerned that your nation will no longer be able to conduct basic research, produce tasty snacks, or fashionable attire for the red carpet. These things are not outlawed, merely owners must provide reasonable quality of life to their property.

[Whitewood]

The stipulations of "unnecessary" and "reasonable" seems like there is room enough to keep every animal based industry afloat, in my opinion. It also provides a little room for abuse, however, the PAWS oversight should be able to reel in major violations. If anything, it at least sets a standard in the WA that the world governments will not stand for cruelty for the sake of cruelty, or profit at the expense of cruelty. Here in Whitewood, we're all about making money, Capitalism and all that jazz. However, we do NOT support the deliberate suffering of any being just so that someone else can make a dime. Capitalism with moral decency. Our Goddess demands it.

~Temple High Priestess of Whitewood

[Ilstoria]

We have reached a quorum!

[Dagguerro]

(OOC: Honestly, giving mice cancer and trying to reduce the cancer or kill the cancer doesn't NEED to be painful. Giving them some disease that is painful and trying to then see what medicine treats that pain... I would love to know how you measure if a mouse is in less pain than the day before from chronic arthritis. Pain trials should be done with human subjects who volunteer or animals who already have the pain and would benefit from it, rather than ones who were forced to have pain.)

(OOC: You really don't know what you're talking about. Look up transgenic animals; you breed them that way. Further its not a simple case of "seeing if its in pain" or "seeing if its cured". In many cases you breed them, let them live under certain conditions then kill them, cut them up and extract the tissue and cells for experimentation purposes. You're generally not TRYING to cure them because that's not how research works. You have to find out what the problem is first before you can try to cure it. You can't breed humans to have a specific disease to experiment on them or to kill them and cut them up for samples since its unethical. I'll start drafting my repeal in advance.)

[Xarxis]

Opposed.

Normally, Xarxans would be all-for your proposal. However, we do NOT condone an all-out ban of anything that causes discomfort to any animal. That's just excessive.

[Christian Democrats]

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

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

Would these clauses make it illegal for someone to bait his fishing hook with a worm?

Certainly, a person owns a worm if he purchased it and other worms at a bait and tackle shop.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be reasonably avoided . . .

DEFINES owners as any person who . . . has provided . . . shelter . . . to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days

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

A spider, unbeknownst to me, has been living in my house for two months, during that time receiving shelter.

I see the spider, and I kill it by stepping on it.

Reasonably, I could have avoided causing the spider pain by capturing it in a jar and releasing it into the wild.

Therefore, it is illegal to stomp on spiders that have been living in my house.

This issue is far too complex for one resolution to handle. Furthermore, animal protection is not an issue on which an international body should legislate. The issue is too minor, and it should be handled by subnational governments.

STRONGLY AGAINST

[Ilstoria]

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

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

Would these clauses make it illegal for someone to bait his fishing hook with a worm?

Certainly, a person owns a worm if he purchased it and other worms at a bait and tackle shop.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be reasonably avoided . . .

DEFINES owners as any person who . . . has provided . . . shelter . . . to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days

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

A spider, unbeknownst to me, has been living in my house for two months, during that time receiving shelter.

I see the spider, and I kill it by stepping on it.

Reasonably, I could have avoided causing the spider pain by capturing it in a jar and releasing it into the wild.

Therefore, it is illegal to stomp on spiders that have been living in my house.

This issue is far too complex for one resolution to handle. Furthermore, animal protection is not an issue on which an international body should legislate. The issue is too minor, and it should be handled by subnational governments.

STRONGLY AGAINST

Insects are not sentient, they do not feel pain. They are also wild animals, not domestic, the same goes for worms. I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to convince you if you cannot read the bill.

[Ilstoria]

Opposed.

Normally, Xarxans would be all-for your proposal. However, we do NOT condone an all-out ban of anything that causes discomfort to any animal. That's just excessive.

Does no one read? Unnecessary pain and suffering. Some pain and suffering is probably necessary. And reasonable because of industry standards.

[Ilstoria]

(OOC: Honestly, giving mice cancer and trying to reduce the cancer or kill the cancer doesn't NEED to be painful. Giving them some disease that is painful and trying to then see what medicine treats that pain... I would love to know how you measure if a mouse is in less pain than the day before from chronic arthritis. Pain trials should be done with human subjects who volunteer or animals who already have the pain and would benefit from it, rather than ones who were forced to have pain.)

(OOC: You really don't know what you're talking about. Look up transgenic animals; you breed them that way. Further its not a simple case of "seeing if its in pain" or "seeing if its cured". In many cases you breed them, let them live under certain conditions then kill them, cut them up and extract the tissue and cells for experimentation purposes. You're generally not TRYING to cure them because that's not how research works. You have to find out what the problem is first before you can try to cure it. You can't breed humans to have a specific disease to experiment on them or to kill them and cut them up for samples since its unethical. I'll start drafting my repeal in advance.)

Good luck with your repeal! I'm so glad you feel such confidence that my Resolution will pass when it comes to a vote. :-) I still think you're going a little overboard with this however. There are ways to minimize and eliminate pain in most animal testing research that is simply not done because the researchers don't care about the animals. Granted, there are studies, such as pain studies, that quite simply, the pain cannot be avoided. I don't like them, I think people who have these diseases or conditions should volunteer instead. HOWEVER, believe it or not, there is a CLAUSE to exempt this kind of research from the "ban." Since this resolution only bans "unnecessary" pain and suffering, and the pain and suffering for this research cannot be reasonably avoided, then it is actually exempt, just as pain from killing an animal for it's fur and meat is exempt. Additionally, there is a CLAUSE that states that the ban is only in effect if the "alternative is economically feasible for that nation." Therefore, if it's just too expensive, then it is exempt. I'm becoming very frustrated that I put in all of these loopholes to give certain industries the opportunity to continue while only banning GROSS ABUSE, and yet no one seems to even see these loopholes. The point of this legislation is that rich nations which export their goods internationally must be humane in the treatment of their animals in as much as they can be and still operate for a profit. I would simply see the bottom line suffer a little in order to ease the suffering of the animals, but I wouldn't want to see these industries fall into the red. I don't believe this Resolution will do that, I believe it will simply see a small cut, since these industries can't possibly rely entirely on the pain and suffering of animals to prosper. If they do, that industry needs to seriously consider what it's goals are.