[PASSED] Preventing Animal Abuse

[Losthaven]

OOC: Since it's spring and I'm back around for the WBC I figured I'll take another stab at the embarrassing lack of animal abuse legislation in this WA. Of course, I'm sure nothing is going to stop Imperium Anglorum from repealing it by claiming that turtles are a type of hat, or some other nonsense, but this is a subject dear to Losthaven so I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it back up while I'm still around. I have endeavored with this draft to address the concerns brought up previously, though I look forward to addressing many of them again in this thread.

Preventing Animal Abuse
Category: Moral Decency ~*~ Strength: Significant

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that animals are non-sapient, sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;

Convinced that there is no just cause for intentionally abusing an animal, and that animals should be cared for in ways that support a healthy life free from suffering;

Resolved that animal abuse is utterly unjustifiable and should be universally condemned and prohibited;

Saddened that some individuals continue to permit or perpetrate acts of animal abuse out of antipathy, intransigence, and even malicious character;

Resolved that putting an end to unjustifiable cruelty is part of what it means to make the world a better place, one resolution at a time;

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions, subject to the rules and laws set by earlier WA resolutions that are still in force:

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.

2. Further declares that individuals have an absolute right to defend themselves and others against a hostile animal, and nothing in this law shall be read to prevent or prohibit reasonable acts of self-defense, even if they cause injury to the animal;

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;

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;

5. Recommends that any person who keeps an animal must, to the best of their means and ability, provide the animal with access to professional veterinary care.

Prohibiting Animal Abuse
Category: Moral Decency ~*~ Strength: Significant

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;

Convinced that there is no just cause for intentionally abusing an animal, and that animals should be cared for in ways that support a healthy life free from suffering;

Resolved that animal abuse is utterly unjustifiable and should be universally condemned and prohibited;

Saddened that some individuals continue to permit or perpetrate acts of animal abuse out of antipathy, intransigence, and even malicious character;

Resolved that putting an end to unjustifiable cruelty is part of what it means to make the world a better place, one resolution at a time;

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions, subject to the rules and laws set by earlier WA resolutions that are still in force:

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.

2. Further declares that individuals have an absolute right to defend themselves and others against a hostile animal, and nothing in this law shall be read to prevent or prohibit reasonable acts of self-defense, even if they cause injury to the animal;

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;

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;

5. Recommends that any person who keeps an animal must, to the best of their means and ability, provide the animal with access to professional veterinary care.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This isn't even remotely an International issue.
I'll take the axe to it when I can get to an actual computer.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad is prepared to offer its full support. It is time the World Assembly addressed this important issue once and for all."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Turtles are hats, war crimes are vanilla flavored custards, and the General Fund is murdertheft. Calaepes 2007."


"In all seriousness, we don't view this as at all an international issue. But you remember that from last time, I imagine. Your category and strength look spot on, so you don't have to worry about that jiggerypokery in legality challenges. So, good luck with that. Its really very well constructed. Lets see...Objection filed, comments made...alright, please excuse me."


Bell proceeds to grab a yuuuuge bucket of popcorn and a lawn chair in anticipation of Ambassador Cyril Parson's inevitable entrance into the debate.

[Tinfect]

Recognizing that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;

"The plight of non-sapients is of no concern to the Imperium.
Beyond this, there is little objectionable in the text, as you have entirely exempted military activities from the provisions of this draft. However, we cannot provide support to this draft as the Imperium does not believe this to be an issue worthy of International Legislation."

[Sobaira]

Ambassador Taksan chuckled to herself upon seeing this, "Honourable Ambassador, you do to be of quite the timing. I had been of the looking through old files and saw my original response to this- and then you done to become of the being doing this again?" she laughed again and shook her head, "What jolly coincidence. You do to be of understanding that Sobaira supports the notion behind this resolution and can to be of into doing, if turnabout does to be of fairplay with the proceedings, a revitalisation of its own drafts on this. If for no reason other than continuing to improve my drafting skills for international legislation."

[Losthaven]

Ambassador Taksan chuckled to herself upon seeing this, "Honourable Ambassador, you do to be of quite the timing. I had been of the looking through old files and saw my original response to this- and then you done to become of the being doing this again?" she laughed again and shook her head, "What jolly coincidence. You do to be of understanding that Sobaira supports the notion behind this resolution and can to be of into doing, if turnabout does to be of fairplay with the proceedings, a revitalisation of its own drafts on this. If for no reason other than continuing to improve my drafting skills for international legislation."

I certainly welcome Sobaira's input on this draft and would welcome you to pursue your own draft on the subject! My goal is to have animal abuse legislation done right, and I find having multiple approaches floating around often helps the process.

[Aclion]

Your definition of abuse covers spaying and neutering. medically necessary amputation, euthanasia, hunting and commercial slaughterhouses.
Is that your intent?

[Losthaven]

Your definition of abuse covers spaying and neutering. medically necessary amputation, euthanasia, hunting and commercial slaughterhouses.
Is that your intent?

Euthanasia is not covered; the law only prohibits cruelly killing the animal, which by definition is not euthanasia.

Medically necessarily amputation is also not "debilitative" so I don't think that's covered either

Hunting is already regulated by other laws. You'll have to be more specific how the definition of abuse covers commercial slaughterhouses.

Arguably spaying and neutering are debilitative, so if you can suggest a fix I'll be happy to consider it.

[Aclion]

Your definition of abuse covers spaying and neutering. medically necessary amputation, euthanasia, hunting and commercial slaughterhouses.
Is that your intent?

Euthanasia is not covered; the law only prohibits cruelly killing the animal, which by definition is not euthanasia.

Medically necessarily amputation is also not "debilitative" so I don't think that's covered either

Hunting is already regulated by other laws. You'll have to be more specific how the definition of abuse covers commercial slaughterhouses.

Arguably spaying and neutering are debilitative, so if you can suggest a fix I'll be happy to consider it.

"Abuse" is defined as knowingly inflicting physical injury on an animal;
"Physical injury" is defined as protracted impairment of the use of the body or bodily organ

[Losthaven]

Euthanasia is not covered; the law only prohibits cruelly killing the animal, which by definition is not euthanasia.

Medically necessarily amputation is also not "debilitative" so I don't think that's covered either

Hunting is already regulated by other laws. You'll have to be more specific how the definition of abuse covers commercial slaughterhouses.

Arguably spaying and neutering are debilitative, so if you can suggest a fix I'll be happy to consider it.

"Abuse" is defined as knowingly inflicting physical injury on an animal;
"Physical injury" is defined as protracted impairment of the use of the body or bodily organ

I think I see the point. I want to prevent this from devolving into a list of exceptions which I thought was one of the big problems with the last go round. Accordingly, I've made the following changes; the prospoal now:

1. Defines the following terms as they are used in this act:

• "Abuse" is defined as cruelly and maliciously inflicting physical injury on an animal;
• "Physical injury" is defined as an impairment of the use of the body or a bodily organ and substantial pain;

2. Declares that abuse of an animal, cruelly killing an animal, and torturing an animal are outlawed and prohibited within World Assembly member nations.

My hope is that by focusing on the intent of the actor, we can still capture "abuse" while avoiding questions about whether this bans veterinary care and the like. Veterinarians, folks who spay their animals, slaughterhouses, etc. are presumably not "cruelly" or "maliciously" inflicting pain and mutilation on animals. Does this language address your concerns? If not, give me a bit more feedback on what would.

Also, can I get rid of the definitions altogether at this point and simply state: "2. 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." That might be even clearer.

Edit: After further reflection, I simply removed the definitions entirely and changed the "Declares" clause as mentioned above.

[Wallenburg]

"When half of this is not copied from a previous resolution, Ambassador, we will then take it seriously. As it stands, this is hardly an international issue, and what we do with creatures that cannot even think rationally is none of the international community's business."

[Separatist Peoples]

"When half of this is not copied from a previous resolution, Ambassador, we will then take it seriously. As it stands, this is hardly an international issue, and what we do with creatures that cannot even think rationally is none of the international community's business."

"If it was the author's resolution, what does it matter if it was copied?"

[Wallenburg]

"When half of this is not copied from a previous resolution, Ambassador, we will then take it seriously. As it stands, this is hardly an international issue, and what we do with creatures that cannot even think rationally is none of the international community's business."

"If it was the author's resolution, what does it matter if it was copied?"

"It shows a lack of effort, Ambassador. If the previous resolution was repealed, it clearly had problems great enough that it was no longer acceptable to the international community. Using it as the foundation for a new one is hardly logical."

[Separatist Peoples]

"It shows a lack of effort, Ambassador. If the previous resolution was repealed, it clearly had problems great enough that it was no longer acceptable to the international community. Using it as the foundation for a new one is hardly logical."

"Effort was put into the draft the first time around. The repeal succeeded because of an untruth in the argument. In light of dishonesty of the repeal, what actual flaw is there in the resolution that needs adjusted?"

[Sciongrad]

"If it was the author's resolution, what does it matter if it was copied?"

"It shows a lack of effort, Ambassador. If the previous resolution was repealed, it clearly had problems great enough that it was no longer acceptable to the international community. Using it as the foundation for a new one is hardly logical."

"That's sorta unreasonable, especially considering the repeal was really, umm, dumb. Plus, I judge resolutions on their quality, not the amount of effort their authors put in or whatever," mumbled Ricardo.

[Wallenburg]

"It shows a lack of effort, Ambassador. If the previous resolution was repealed, it clearly had problems great enough that it was no longer acceptable to the international community. Using it as the foundation for a new one is hardly logical."

"Effort was put into the draft the first time around. The repeal succeeded because of an untruth in the argument. In light of dishonesty of the repeal, what actual flaw is there in the resolution that needs adjusted?"

"Clause four has grammar errors and is, generally, unreasonable."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Clause four has grammar errors and is, generally, unreasonable."

"Is that the same grammatical error present in the original resolution, I wonder. How on earth is that unreasonable? I distinctly recall that being the first lesson I learned upon getting a childhood pet. Is it a bit micromanaging to manage this on an international scale? Yes, that's why I'm opposed, but the sentiment is hardly unreasonable."

[John Turner]

Using it as the foundation for a new one is hardly logical."

Nooooo.... IA fabricated some bullshit lie and it was repealed on those grounds. Not that I am overly supportive of this draft either, but let's at least try to tell the truth here.

[Wallenburg]

"Clause four has grammar errors and is, generally, unreasonable."

"Is that the same grammatical error present in the original resolution, I wonder.

"No, actually, it is not. This is a new one."

How on earth is that unreasonable? I distinctly recall that being the first lesson I learned upon getting a childhood pet. Is it a bit micromanaging to manage this on an international scale? Yes, that's why I'm opposed, but the sentiment is hardly unreasonable."

"It's a sound idea in general, but it ignores many, many important factors that may make it unsustainable in reality. For instance, in a nation driven into massive poverty, pretty much nobody can care for all the animals in the nation, and the few who can certainly cannot sustain those of the people who cannot. The standards of this bill presume that all member nations have the necessary resources to provide food, water, and healthcare to every domestic animal. That is not a reality."

Using it as the foundation for a new one is hardly logical."

Nooooo.... IA fabricated some bullshit lie and it was repealed on those grounds. Not that I am overly supportive of this draft either, but let's at least try to tell the truth here.

"And what lie was that, Ambassador? Miss Trevanyika laughed a bit about some jellyfish nonsense, but as I understand that was hardly the foundation of the repeal's argument."

[Sciongrad]

"It's a sound idea in general, but it ignores many, many important factors that may make it unsustainable in reality. For instance, in a nation driven into massive poverty, pretty much nobody can care for all the animals in the nation, and the few who can certainly cannot sustain those of the people who cannot. The standards of this bill presume that all member nations have the necessary resources to provide food, water, and healthcare to every domestic animal. That is not a reality."

"So you're saying that individuals and institutions that can't afford to provide basic care to animals should still be permitted to keep them in horrible conditions rather than not being able to keep them at all? Doesn't sound reasonable to me," Ricardo complained.

[Wallenburg]

"It's a sound idea in general, but it ignores many, many important factors that may make it unsustainable in reality. For instance, in a nation driven into massive poverty, pretty much nobody can care for all the animals in the nation, and the few who can certainly cannot sustain those of the people who cannot. The standards of this bill presume that all member nations have the necessary resources to provide food, water, and healthcare to every domestic animal. That is not a reality."

"So you're saying that individuals and institutions that can't afford to provide basic care to animals should still be permitted to keep them in horrible conditions rather than not being able to keep them at all? Doesn't sound reasonable to me," Ricardo complained.

"Poor farmers can provide if they have animals to help them work. If we take away their animals, they may starve, and so may their nation."

[Sciongrad]

"So you're saying that individuals and institutions that can't afford to provide basic care to animals should still be permitted to keep them in horrible conditions rather than not being able to keep them at all? Doesn't sound reasonable to me," Ricardo complained.

"Poor farmers can provide if they have animals to help them work. If we take away their animals, they may starve, and so may their nation."

"But, like, what good are farm animals if they have no food? Or if they're so sick they can't work? Just to be effective, they need to be kept in good condition, ya know?"

[Wallenburg]

"Poor farmers can provide if they have animals to help them work. If we take away their animals, they may starve, and so may their nation."

"But, like, what good are farm animals if they have no food? Or if they're so sick they can't work? Just to be effective, they need to be kept in good condition, ya know?"

"And to be effective, farmers need to be in good condition. I agree that healthy animals work better, but in a struggling economy cuts must be made somewhere."

[Sciongrad]

"But, like, what good are farm animals if they have no food? Or if they're so sick they can't work? Just to be effective, they need to be kept in good condition, ya know?"

"And to be effective, farmers need to be in good condition. I agree that healthy animals work better, but in a struggling economy cuts must be made somewhere."

"Hmmm... I don't know if I buy that argument, but this isn't really my area of expertise, so Sciongrad will probably be okay with some type of exception. As long as the basic ideas behind the proposal are still there."