NationStates

Parsons: It appears that the current attempt will fail, judging by the current gap. I hope that it does not. We have also gone on the wire to lobby for its success. However, we will be pursuing an attempt, as we promised some time ago in the original thread.

Applauding the World Assembly’s stance on the paternalising and ethnocentric treatment of animals,

Bemoaning the inherent problems and uncaught exceptions of overarching legislation, believing the provisions set forth are too broad and in the end, self-destructive of animal and sapient rights, and

Observing it is impossible to amend resolutions to patch problems and therefore convinced that the only way to resolve issues is by repealing the target resolution and replacing it with a new resolution,

This august World Assembly hereby:

1. Protests against the implicit moral supremacy in the resolution, imposing an ethnocentric 'morality' upon all nations from the feelings of a subset of World Assembly members and thereby committing a blow against cultural diversity in preventing cultures from exercising their independently formulated religious rights and societal traditions;

2. Recognises that clauses 1 and 3 prevent member nations from taking action to avert ecosystem collapse and preserve the natural environment by intervening against invasive predator species;

3. Notes that this resolution, with its overly-broad definition of animal, makes it illegal for people to exterminate ants, mosquitoes, and other annoying insects while also requiring member nations to pass laws that make such actions illegal;

4. Observes that:

1. clause 4 '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', which thereby prohibits all forms of medical testing, and that
   
   
2. to ensure that drugs are safe and effective to consume, animal testing is required to reduce lethal risks when conducting clinical trials for new pharmaceutical compounds as required by 82 GA 'Universal Clinical Trials Act';

5. Believes the safety of pharmaceutical products and the speedy development of new drugs is increasingly important in an age of antibiotic resistance and globally spreading diseases; and therefore considers 372 GA harmful towards the development of new treatments for a wide array of diseases;

6. Repeals 372 GA 'Preventing Animal Abuse'.

Yes, the preamble is pretty much copied from the old one.

Clause Justifications

---

a-b. These are copied from my repeal of Prohibiting Animal Abuse, linked below.

c. viewtopic.php?p=28982796#p28982796

1. This is copied directly from my original repeal. I also believe that the new target resolution infringes on the religious rights of national inhabitants. People's religious and societal traditions matter and we should not be attempting to impose some kind of other morality upon them.

2-3. Clauses 1 and 3 prevent action against animals which can feel, excepting those animals are used in military and law enforcement, since WA members love their militaries. It also notes that defences based on 372 GA § 2 fail to adequately respond, since it provides for self-defence, not the defence of others.

4. This is based off the argument by Excidium Planetis. The reasoning for why this is true is given in the text itself. Counter-arguments from Sciongrad in the original thread did not address illegality directly, but rather, punishment thereof.

5-6. Clause 4 is the logic behind why medical testing is prohibited. It then gives reasons why medial testing is important. Clause 5 explains the importance of medical advances. Clause 6 concludes this line of reasoning.

Relevant Posts

---

Preventing Animal Abuse: viewtopic.php?p=28952112#p28952112
Repeal Prohibiting Animal Abuse: viewtopic.php?p=25513844#p25513844
Prohibiting Animal Abuse: viewtopic.php?p=25513722#p25513722

Repeal Animal Protection Act: viewtopic.php?p=17266392#p17266392
Animal Protection Act: viewtopic.php?p=12008898#p12008898

Repeal Animal Cruelty Prevention: viewtopic.php?p=9214497#p9214497
Animal Cruelty Prevention: viewtopic.php?p=5466267#p5466267

More

---

[Reserved for further content]

"Outlawing animal testing is certainly what we don't approve of. I apparently haven't read the proposal twice when trying to cast my vote for it. My apologies."

OK, what here is new? The bulk of your argument seems to be the same one that's being soundly defeated at vote - and while it's a compelling point, you might want to think of ways of reframing your argument so that people don't think it's just the same thing over again.

--Although the thing about kids torturing ants is a nice touch.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:OK, what here is new? The bulk of your argument seems to be the same one that's being soundly defeated at vote - and while it's a compelling point, you might want to think of ways of reframing your argument so that people don't think it's just the same thing over again.

--Although the thing about kids torturing ants is a nice touch.

Well, that's just 5, 6, and 7. The new stuff is 1, 2, 3, and 4.

[EDIT] And yes, I mean that the repeals clause was just defeated at vote...

The numbers in your justification do not match up with the numbers in your draft.

"Needless to say, Sciongrad will vote nay."

Sciongrad wrote:"Needless to say, Sciongrad will vote nay."

Hey! That rhymes!

Railana wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:"Needless to say, Sciongrad will vote nay."

Hey! That rhymes!

"And in iambic pentameter!" quoth the deputy.

"All accidentally..."

Sciongrad wrote:

Railana wrote:Hey! That rhymes!

"And in iambic pentameter!" quoth the deputy.

"All accidentally..."

It is not! I'd say the tonal pattern is like this: U D D U U D D D U U
Iambic pentameter requires: U D U D U D U D U D

---

Excidium Planetis wrote:The numbers in your justification do not match up with the numbers in your draft.

This has been resolved.

"Now my issue with clause 4 is that it is not explained thoroughly enough. People do not understand how the resolution applies to insects. Say something about how scientific evidence indicates that insects can feel pain and respond emotionally to negative stimuli."

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Now my issue with clause 4 is that it is not explained thoroughly enough. People do not understand how the resolution applies to insects. Say something about how scientific evidence indicates that insects can feel pain and respond emotionally to negative stimuli."

OOC: I'll deal with it tomorrow. EST gonna sleep now.

"Regardless of your laudable goals and the content of this repeal proposal, I would advise you to let the matter rest and re-tackle the repeal in, say, one or two months time. The voters tend to become wary when they have to vote on the exact same issue over and over and over again."

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:"And in iambic pentameter!" quoth the deputy.

"All accidentally..."

It is not! I'd say the tonal pattern is like this: U D D U U D D D U U
Iambic pentameter requires: U D U D U D U D U D

---

Excidium Planetis wrote:The numbers in your justification do not match up with the numbers in your draft.

This has been resolved.

"Rather closer to Latin dactylic pentameter, a la Homer. Good for solemn and weighty issues, as the meter thunders on like the chorus of the Gods."

Louisistan wrote:"Regardless of your laudable goals and the content of this repeal proposal, I would advise you to let the matter rest and re-tackle the repeal in, say, one or two months time. The voters tend to become wary when they have to vote on the exact same issue over and over and over again."

Parsons: We have no intentions of sending this too the floor prematurely. In fact, we entirely intend to do some pre-campaigning to make this work.

"Since Your Grace has requested our input on this resolution, here it is:

It's hard on the eyes. Seriously, this is excruciating to read. But we refuse to engage in debates about style and format, so do whatever you wish with regards to that. we have no objections as to the contents of this resolution and shall support it in the same manner as we supported the previous repeal attempt."


OOC: Seriously, as a (a little bit tired) non-native speaker I had to read some things twice. You write English like I write German -- and that's not a good thing.

We will, naturally, endeavour to make the appropriate substitutions and corrections as required.

Edits have been made. The original draft has been spoilered. Most clauses have been reworked.

Yeeeeeeahhhhhhh okay this looks good. I am looking forward to runnin' over those squirrelly tails again. And them raccoons. Oooh oooh and wabbits! Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit.......

Any further issues or objections?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Any further issues or objections?

OOC: Good luck with Round 2.

Herby wrote:Yeeeeeeahhhhhhh okay this looks good. I am looking forward to runnin' over those squirrelly tails again. And them raccoons. Oooh oooh and wabbits! Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit.......

"that's not very nice, Doc," says a voice from [what previously had seemed to be] an empty space just a little way off from Herby's right side, "not nice at all!"

In a number of telegrams I sent out, I informed the recipients that I would submit this on Wednesday (I sent these out over a week ago, by the way). Thus, this will be submitted on Wednesday. Any questions, queries, documents, etc?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In a number of telegrams I sent out, I informed the recipients that I would submit this on Wednesday (I sent these out over a week ago, by the way). Thus, this will be submitted on Wednesday. Any questions, queries, documents, etc?

"This has not be in the drafting stage nearly long enough. Everyone knows a good resolution takes several years to marinate with intervening periods of inactivity and fierce debates over minor details."

Sciongrad wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:In a number of telegrams I sent out, I informed the recipients that I would submit this on Wednesday (I sent these out over a week ago, by the way). Thus, this will be submitted on Wednesday. Any questions, queries, documents, etc?

"This has not be in the drafting stage nearly long enough. Everyone knows a good resolution takes several years to marinate with intervening periods of inactivity and fierce debates over minor details."

Parsons: You know me. We hold the record for fastest insta-repeal. To quote one of our Admirals, "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!".