[DEFEATED] Repeal "Preventing Animal Abuse"

[Sanders Centre]

Repeal "Preventing Animal Abuse"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #372

Affirming the object and purpose of GAR #372, "Preventing Animal Abuse", which is to criminalize animal cruelty,

Strongly condemning in particular the morally depraved practice of torturing or cruelly killing animals for sadistic pleasure or entertainment,

Acknowledging, however, that the welfare of persons must take precedence over the welfare of animals,

Recalling the historic importance of animal testing in medical breakthroughs that have saved countless lives,

Emphasizing that there are presently no feasible alternatives to animal testing in many World Assembly member states,

Noting that clause 4 of the target resolution requires "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",

Concerned that this clause effectively prohibits animal testing when such testing requires the deliberate infection of animals with diseases in order to test medical treatments,

Believing for the aforementioned reasons that this practice is morally legitimate and should not be prohibited by the World Assembly,

Hoping that replacement legislation on animal cruelty will soon be passed,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #372, "Preventing Animal Abuse".

PRESIDENT SANDERS ISSUES SCATHING STATEMENT
"Under no circumstances will this horrific piece of legislation be passed by the World Assembly. As a proud member and Delegate, I will lobby against this atrocious work and ensure that is never reaches ratification."

[Imperium Anglorum]

PRESIDENT SANDERS ISSUES SCATHING STATEMENT
"Under no circumstances will this horrific piece of legislation be passed by the World Assembly. As a proud member and Delegate, I will lobby against this atrocious work and ensure that is never reaches ratification."

Yea, why?

[Fiscis]

There is no need to repeal international law that protects the rights of animals to frolic. Here at Fiscis we have a simple solution to this issue. Capital Punishment now implies human testing rather than execution. This helps us study humans much faster than we do with animals while still keeping rights for all. Although we have recently been unable to do such, due to GAR375. For this reason we wish to repeal GAR375 but keep animal rights at a perfect stand still.

[Topolyce]

I'm seeing a lot of supporters to the original resolution have failed to note the overall plan for this one...

Hoping that replacement legislation on animal cruelty will soon be passed

I believe the supporters to repelling this resolution don't want animal cruelty to happen, but in fact lay in wait for a revised version to be brought to attention, as it is written in the resolution above.

Edit: btw Kernel Sanders...

PRESIDENT SANDERS ISSUES SCATHING STATEMENT
"Under no circumstances will this horrific piece of legislation be passed by the World Assembly. As a proud member and Delegate, I will lobby against this atrocious work and ensure that is never reaches ratification."

That's a little too vivid for a tasteful discussion such as this.

[Melodic Astra]

"We believe that these arguments are no more convincing in the form of a repeal than they were when they were initially raised before this assembly when the resolution was at vote. Voted against, in the sincere hope that we will not need to see this issue raised before the assembly for the third time in as many weeks."

[Sanders Centre]

PRESIDENT SANDERS ISSUES SCATHING STATEMENT
"Under no circumstances will this horrific piece of legislation be passed by the World Assembly. As a proud member and Delegate, I will lobby against this atrocious work and ensure that is never reaches ratification."

Yea, why?

Why? Because there is a moral necessity in protecting the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Animals deserve a level of decency we would be removing, should we allow this heinous legislation to pass.

[Critzerland]

100% agree. Animal testing is very, very important, and there is no reason that animals should take priority over humans.

So when we test a new brand of lipstick we should test it on a rabbit? I don't think so! If products that work for animals work for humans then why do animals not have feelings?!

[Imperium Anglorum]

100% agree. Animal testing is very, very important, and there is no reason that animals should take priority over humans.

So when we test a new brand of lipstick we should test it on a rabbit? I don't think so! If products that work for animals work for humans then why do animals not have feelings?!

P: There is a large difference between cosmetic testing and testing things like oncology, HIV, and pain medications. Overdoses kill. The only way, unfortunately, to determine what doses kill is by testing, since something as complicated as a rat body (let alone a human one) is much too complicated to model.

OOC: Every single drug approved in every developed country has undergone extensive animal testing. The ibuprofen, paracetamol, pseudo ephedrine, etc. that you take for colds? Tested on animals. The cetirizine, loratadine, fexofenadine, and diphenhydramine you take for allergies? Also tested on animals. Why? Because researchers want to make sure those drugs don't kill people.

---

Yea, why?

Why? Because there is a moral necessity in protecting the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Animals deserve a level of decency we would be removing, should we allow this heinous legislation to pass.

P: I seriously doubt that repealing 374 GA will mean that it will be impossible to pass legislation on the topic in the future.

[Tinfect]

If products that work for animals work for humans then why do animals not have feelings?!

"Chemical and Biological reactions in non-sapient creatures does is not a sign of sapience."

[Wallenburg]

100% agree. Animal testing is very, very important, and there is no reason that animals should take priority over humans.

So when we test a new brand of lipstick we should test it on a rabbit? I don't think so! If products that work for animals work for humans then why do animals not have feelings?!

OOC: Oxygen fuels human bodies. Oxygen, believe it or not, fuels plants as well. Plants do not have feelings.* Just because two things share mild similarities in their basic functions, such as basic life processes, does not mean that they share far more complex and symmetric similarities such as feelings.

*PPU is a special case.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Yea, why?

Why? Because there is a moral necessity in protecting the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Animals deserve a level of decency we would be removing, should we allow this heinous legislation to pass.

Will we now be drafting legislation to protect heads of cabbage? Or perhaps will we criminalize pumpkin smashing? And what of those who can not speak for themselves? What of the untold millions who will be silenced by the cold embrace of death because we can no longer test medical treatments on animals? What of their voices, what is moral about letting humans die preventable deaths?

[Silurians]

*A slightly nervous young man stands up, sipping a cup of warm coffee"
Very few people seem to see this issue as I do. Animal cruelty is a terrible thing, yes. Animal experimentation is also quite bad too. They are both very similar, however, experimentation is important in the medical field, and for quite a few countries, due to laws passed in them, it is a very necessary evil. These few depend on animal experimentation quite a lot, and many people would have died if it were not for medicines discovered with experimentation. The bill to be repealed does not specify whether there is an exception for research, and thus, it could easily be interpreted as research being banned. If the bill had an exception for experimentation, there would be no need for this repeal, and we could be debating on something more important, such as education, or minimum wages.

[Fiscis]

*A slightly nervous young man stands up, sipping a cup of warm coffee"
Very few people seem to see this issue as I do. Animal cruelty is a terrible thing, yes. Animal experimentation is also quite bad too. They are both very similar, however, experimentation is important in the medical field, and for quite a few countries, due to laws passed in them, it is a very necessary evil. These few depend on animal experimentation quite a lot, and many people would have died if it were not for medicines discovered with experimentation. The bill to be repealed does not specify whether there is an exception for research, and thus, it could easily be interpreted as research being banned. If the bill had an exception for experimentation, there would be no need for this repeal, and we could be debating on something more important, such as education, or minimum wages.

Of course, and I'm not taking a side, some won't be satisfied. Many view animal experimentation as unethical in itself, rendering any clause that made animal experimentation an exception useless.

[Arpak]

*After having carefully observed the discussion and listened to all opinions, Ambassador Dortman stands up with a determined look in his face*

Fellow WA Ambassadors and regional delegates,

Despite our problems with those Orzean Separatist terrorists terrorizing our citizens, attempting to take patriotic Arpakian lives with their murderous attacks and our great efforts to subvert and crush their terrorist organization while ensuring that Justice for the Working People will be served, the Arpakian people feel they have to voice their opinion on this matter.

The Arpakian People believe in the humane treatment of animals and respect animalr lives. After all, the Supreme Arpakian People's Assembly has passed several laws protecting Animals' Rights. However, those laws include an exception for animal testing for SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES, as long as animal suffering is kept to a minimum. This has resulted in the Democratic Republic of Arpak developing one of the most advanced Healthcare systems in the World (Top 6%) and excelling in several industries, which have improved the lives of the Working People greatly, let alone saving millions of Arpakian People's lives. We strongly agree with several of our fellow Ambassadors here and believe that the needs of humans outweigh the ones of animals and PRIMARILY that human lives are "sacred" and outweigh animal lives by far, thus refusing to effectively enforce legislation that completely bans medical or scientific experimentation on animals. We're welcome to introducing guidelines and laws ensuring minimal suffering but an outright ban on medical and scientific animal experimentation would have disastrous results on our People's health, on our scientific advancement and economy, and thus prosperity. We do not wish for our beloved fellow creatures to suffer, which is why we have implemented aforementioned legislation banning animal cruelty with no purpose, and making sure that experiments induce as less suffering as possible on them. However, the lives and needs of our fellow Working People are above all, which is why we SUPPORT this resolution and eagerly wait for a more reasonable, better defined and effective alternative for the target resolution.

Fiscis wrote:
Silurians wrote:
*A slightly nervous young man stands up, sipping a cup of warm coffee"
Very few people seem to see this issue as I do. Animal cruelty is a terrible thing, yes. Animal experimentation is also quite bad too. They are both very similar, however, experimentation is important in the medical field, and for quite a few countries, due to laws passed in them, it is a very necessary evil. These few depend on animal experimentation quite a lot, and many people would have died if it were not for medicines discovered with experimentation. The bill to be repealed does not specify whether there is an exception for research, and thus, it could easily be interpreted as research being banned. If the bill had an exception for experimentation, there would be no need for this repeal, and we could be debating on something more important, such as education, or minimum wages.

Of course, and I'm not taking a side, some won't be satisfied. Many view animal experimentation as unethical in itself, rendering any clause that made animal experimentation an exception useless.

Well, too bad for them. The WA shouldn't have a place for animal rights EXTREMISTS. Word of advice: they can abandon their lands and civilization, rip their clothes off, mate with each other uncontrollably, and reduce their lifestyle into an instinctive, animalistic one. Trust us, fellow tree-hugger hippies, you'll see your lives so much improved after that and feel soo much happier, you'll be thanking us later !!

P.S I hope you don't mind poliomyelitis, rubella, tetanus and millions of other naturally occuring and potentially LETHAL microbial infections, which could have been prevented and saved your lives IF ONLY you allowed for animal experimentation with these diseases to take place.

Sincerely,
WA Ambassador of the Arpakian People
Hans Dortman

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

(Emboldened by shots of scotch while the ambassador and his assistant are away for a medical emergency, the lowly Wrapperian intern stands, a communications tablet in his hands.)

TY: Well. One can argue that the resolution doesn't ban animal testing, particularly if animals are bred for that specific purpose. Especially since "abuse" itself isn't really defined in the resolution. Looking just at the active clauses, animal testing in most cases can be done in a non-cruel and non-malicious manner using incremental dosing, the animals must be cared for in an appropriate and reasonable manner prior to testing, and of course professional veterinarians would be on hand anyway. So, while there are some restrictions put in place that some nations haven't already been following while performing their medical research, to allege that all manner of animal testing is outlawed by this resolution is hyperbolic at best, and an outright lie at worst.

(He whispers down toward his tablet.)

TY: How'd I do?

(The muted image of an old lady, wearing a flamboyant rainbow-themed dress and a feathered hat that looks suspiciously like a dead cockatiel, smiles and gives a thumbs-up.)

[Silurians]

(Emboldened by shots of scotch while the ambassador and his assistant are away for a medical emergency, the lowly Wrapperian intern stands, a communications tablet in his hands.)

TY: Well. One can argue that the resolution doesn't ban animal testing, particularly if animals are bred for that specific purpose. Especially since "abuse" itself isn't really defined in the resolution. Looking just at the active clauses, animal testing in most cases can be done in a non-cruel and non-malicious manner using incremental dosing, the animals must be cared for in an appropriate and reasonable manner prior to testing, and of course professional veterinarians would be on hand anyway. So, while there are some restrictions put in place that some nations haven't already been following while performing their medical research, to allege that all manner of animal testing is outlawed by this resolution is hyperbolic at best, and an outright lie at worst.

(He whispers down toward his tablet.)

TY: How'd I do?

(The muted image of an old lady, wearing a flamboyant rainbow-themed dress and a feathered hat that looks suspiciously like a dead cockatiel, smiles and gives a thumbs-up.)

Very true. It can be argued that animal experimentation isn't banned by the proposal. However, it can also be argued that it is banned, as it isn't specified. That is the problem that I see, and one that should be fixed in an edited version of this proposal.

[Bhuvnesh]

clause 4, uses term such as "reasonable", "avoid" and not "prohibit"
Thus it doesn't rule out possibility of animal testing being done for serving public health. What it creates is a safeguard for unnecessary suffering/torture being inflicted over animals. An appropriate authority, established by law can decide whether public health warrants animal testing of a particular drug and thus issue permission for it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

clause 4, uses term such as "reasonable", "avoid" and not "prohibit"

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;

It requires any person who keeps an animal to provide that animal with reasonable and appropriate care necessary to avoid disease. How could you possibly provide reasonable and appropriate care when infecting an animal with disease? How could you possible provide reasonable and appropriate care to promote its health when you're infecting it diseases or dosing it with medications?

Thus it doesn't rule out possibility of animal testing being done for serving public health. What it creates is a safeguard for unnecessary suffering/torture being inflicted over animals. An appropriate authority, established by law can decide whether public health warrants animal testing of a particular drug and thus issue permission for it.

Where does it say that in the text?

[Bhuvnesh]

clause 4, uses term such as "reasonable", "avoid" and not "prohibit"

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;

It requires any person who keeps an animal to provide that animal with reasonable and appropriate care necessary to avoid disease. How could you possibly provide reasonable and appropriate care when infecting an animal with disease? How could you possible provide reasonable and appropriate care to promote its health when you're infecting it diseases or dosing it with medications?

Thus it doesn't rule out possibility of animal testing being done for serving public health. What it creates is a safeguard for unnecessary suffering/torture being inflicted over animals. An appropriate authority, established by law can decide whether public health warrants animal testing of a particular drug and thus issue permission for it.

Where does it say that in the text?

Everything cannot be mentioned in the law. Words like "reasonable", "avoid" are vague and open to interpretation. Actually this provides policy makers space and flexibility to innovate and design the law as per their local requirement. Example: Compulsory licensing clause that is innovated under WTO TRIPS agreement.
Usually public interest is the touchstone while interpreting these words.
example: inflicting torture over animals for games like bull fighting are not in public interest thus are unreasonable and should be avoided
but in case of a drug which is required for treatment, and there exits no other alternative than to go for animal trial, then it is very well within the reach of public interest and thus it will be reasonable to go for it.
But the thing is government authority will have to decide it.

[Excidium Planetis]

Everything cannot be mentioned in the law. Words like "reasonable", "avoid" are vague and open to interpretation.

"Sure, but 'necessary' and 'disease' are not. I find it hard to argue that you are reasonably attempting to avoid disease by deliberately infecting an animal, and such an interpretation requires a stretch of wording."

[Theocratic State of Camelot]

Interesting

[Bhuvnesh]

Everything cannot be mentioned in the law. Words like "reasonable", "avoid" are vague and open to interpretation.

"Sure, but 'necessary' and 'disease' are not. I find it hard to argue that you are reasonably attempting to avoid disease by deliberately infecting an animal, and such an interpretation requires a stretch of wording."

yeah the problem is there is no appellate body or tribunal to address conflicts arising from varied interpretations. I am not sure how the act would have been interpreted by compliance commission of nation state. So a better way would be to amend the act and balance the provision of animal care with concern for public health.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Sure, but 'necessary' and 'disease' are not. I find it hard to argue that you are reasonably attempting to avoid disease by deliberately infecting an animal, and such an interpretation requires a stretch of wording."

yeah the problem is there is no appellate body or tribunal to address conflicts arising from varied interpretations. I am not sure how the act would have been interpreted by compliance commission of nation state. So a better way would be to amend the act and balance the provision of animal care with concern for public health.

You cannot amend. You can only repeal. This repeal you voted against is how you accomplish what you're now supporting.

[Bhuvnesh]

yeah the problem is there is no appellate body or tribunal to address conflicts arising from varied interpretations. I am not sure how the act would have been interpreted by compliance commission of nation state. So a better way would be to amend the act and balance the provision of animal care with concern for public health.

You cannot amend. You can only repeal. This repeal you voted against is how you accomplish what you're now supporting.

like i said i am not sure how the compliance commission has interpreted the resolution. My understanding doesn't rule out animal testing. But i have withdrawn my vote and will wait for my regional delegate to take a stand

[Fiscis]

P.S I hope you don't mind poliomyelitis, rubella, tetanus and millions of other naturally occuring and potentially LETHAL microbial infections, which could have been prevented and saved your lives IF ONLY you allowed for animal experimentation with these diseases to take place.

I was not talking about Fiscis. We don't do animal testing here, as we do human testing as a form of capital punishment. Animal experimentation should be legal if there are no alternatives.