[PASSED] Limiting Animal Pathogens

[Tinhampton]

BCP opposes this resolution due to the extremely species-ist and abelist nature of the proposition to help the homo sapiens species or "species which are wise" and not any other types of organisms which may be employed in this line of work. Who is the governing body which determines what species are smart enough to gain the so called benefits of this proposition, or is it simply arrogance that it only applies to homo sapiens?

Many nations are driven by non-homo sapiens species which requires acknowledgement by the author, BCP implores you to vote AGAINST this issue.

As much as I semi-vehemently dislike this proposal (for reasons unrelated to Gem's), nowhere does it say that its provisions apply only to human beings who work or shop at wet markets.

[The Canadian Republic Colonies]

So... I am voting yes on this with major reservations. My main reservation is that while intentioned, the way this law is written, it basically acknowledged animal testing as ok on some aspects as well as ok for the misuse and abuse of certain animals in, say, "religious" ceremonies. It almost unintentionally gives leeway to usher in animal testing more so and other such ideals which is highly alarming. The legitimacy of these things is seemingly being normalized or alluded to as something that the assembly may be faced with in the future. I'm not sure. I'm having trouble describing what I'm getting at here (sorry dealing with alot of health issues currently affecting my ability to write well). I'm sure you get the basic idea of what I'm trying to say but having trouble finding the right words for.

[Bistritza]

NGL mate, for someone who actually translates documents like these IRL,
I have no idea what you mean. I won't pretend to know what you mean and suspect most people are doing just that. If this was given to me, I haven't got a single clue how to translate the essence of this document to someone. You provide a very controversial term or content and then it immediately dissipates. If it were not for the title itself, I couldn't guess in front of a roulette what your subject would be.
Actual no cap serious take. I've gone over it.

[Civia Welephilostopia]

Klamur Artage Civia Welephilostopia's representative at the GA stands up and begins: "While this legislation is most certainly a step in the right direction it does not go far enough," Artage shuffles through some notes and resumes, "The testing measures while enough still allow for the potential of the spreading of zoonotic diseases which is highly unfortunate, as well as that the wet markets are most commonly illegal and there is no mention at what punishment would be given for those engaging in them," Artage adjusts her spectacles and begins the end of her speech, "All of these issues aside this legislation is still better than nothing and Civia Welephilostopia's vote is in favour of the Limiting Animal Pathogens Act.

[Blind Squirrel]

Personally, this is not a subject I am well educated on this subject. However, I like the way this proposal is formatted and as such I will be supporting this proposal.

[Havl]

Havl’s permanent World Assembly representative, Wanda Stax, cleared her throat as she approached the mic.

“Per the Nation State of Havl’s longstanding World Assembly policy, I vote for this legislation. OK then.”

She coughed again as she returned to her seat and began aggressively biting her fingernails.

[Meadowfields]

The vote seems to have swung because East Durthang voted "FOR". At the start the "AGAINST" was much bigger but Madjack voting "FOR" caused the vote counts to become closer.

[Barfleur]

So... I am voting yes on this with major reservations. My main reservation is that while intentioned, the way this law is written, it basically acknowledged animal testing as ok on some aspects as well as ok for the misuse and abuse of certain animals in, say, "religious" ceremonies. It almost unintentionally gives leeway to usher in animal testing more so and other such ideals which is highly alarming. The legitimacy of these things is seemingly being normalized or alluded to as something that the assembly may be faced with in the future. I'm not sure. I'm having trouble describing what I'm getting at here (sorry dealing with alot of health issues currently affecting my ability to write well). I'm sure you get the basic idea of what I'm trying to say but having trouble finding the right words for.

OOC: This proposal's use of "testing" refers to testing animals for diseases, and does not affect the legality or illegality of using animals to test cosmetic products. That would have to be the subject of a different proposal. And I'm sorry about the health issues.

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire of Ainocra stands opposed to this measure. Should it pass we would also support it's immediate repeal

[Bear Connors Paradiso]

BCP opposes this resolution due to the extremely species-ist and abelist nature of the proposition to help the homo sapiens species or "species which are wise" and not any other types of organisms which may be employed in this line of work. Who is the governing body which determines what species are smart enough to gain the so called benefits of this proposition, or is it simply arrogance that it only applies to homo sapiens?

Many nations are driven by non-homo sapiens species which requires acknowledgement by the author, BCP implores you to vote AGAINST this issue.

As much as I semi-vehemently dislike this proposal (for reasons unrelated to Gem's), nowhere does it say that its provisions apply only to human beings who work or shop at wet markets.

The first line is for the benefits of sapien life.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*** Princess Rainbow Sparkles *** votes FOR.

I am convinced this law will generally improve the environmental quality of all member nations, which is among my nation's greatest priorities. I reviewed the proposal; no problems or unreasonable costs were immediately apparent to me. In such circumstances, I presumptively vote in favor unless an opponent makes a persuasive argument against. No persuasive argument against has been raised.

[Zabruolor]

OOC: The qualifier "described in subsection (a)" means that this only applies to zoonotic diseases which are capable of "infecting and thereby harming sapient beings." For that reason, clause 2(d) would serve an important purpose, namely, preventing further spread of such a dangerous disease. If they are treated to the point of nontransmissibility, then it would not be "capable of infecting and thereby harming" anyone.

No. The actual wording of the clause does not support that interpretation. Clause 2d. does defer to clause 2a. in "Every individual who works at a wet market shall be subject to random testing for any communicable zoonotic disease described in subsection (a).". However, this explicitly refers to the disease, not the individual case. One example would be the Toxoplasma gondii parasite, which is responsible for Toxoplasmosis. The disease is zoonotic, the most common forms of transmission being exposure to the fecal matter and consumption of the undercooked meat of an infected animal. It can pose a substantial threat to well-being, approximately one in one thousand deaths being attributed to the disease, and through improper sanitation or contact with blood, can continue to spread in a wet market. Chronic toxoplasmosis can be treated, and the vast majority of cases are latent, but the parasite remains within the host's body, and can result in continued positive testing over the duration of the infected organism's lifespan. Under clause 2d., once a person tests positive for a disease that initially meets the requirements set in clause 2a., toxoplasmosis included, they are barred from working in wet markets "until such person reliably tests negative for the same zoonotic disease." There is no condition present at that point, and thus this very much remains an issue.

Additionally, there's been another issue with this clause brought to my attention in the time following my original post. There are very many diseases, many of which are zoonotic and comply with the conditions laid out in clause 2a,. that may be treated and cured, but for which there only exist antibody or genetic material tests which may continue to give positive results weeks, months, or years after the infection has been eliminated.

Both of these could very easily be fixed by changing the final sentence of Clause 2d. to "Any person who tests positive under this paragraph may not work at any wet market until such person reliably tests negative for the same zoonotic disease, or once the illness has been treated to a point of safety and nontransmissibility.", but as it stands, we cannot support this proposal.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Seems like a major oversight to me therefore i cannot in good faith vote for this proposal.

[Santa Byzantina]

In spite of the promise "to increase the quality of the world's environment", this particular resolution does hardly anything at all to actually improve the global environment. It's all about the protection of humans (who are disguised as "sapient beings") FROM the rest of the animals, aka from the environment. As such, the resolution should be classified as a Healthcare proposal, not introduced under the category of Environment. Non-humans (aka animals) are treated in this resolution merely as potentially harmful industrial goods (to humans), and the welfare of those animals themselves seems to have no importance whatsoever.

Therefore, as a nation that deeply values the actual protection of the world's environment for the sake of the environment itself, and for the sake of all the mammals, birds, etc, living within that environment - not merely from the narrow perspective of strictly human welfare - our Holy Empire has no other option but to vote AGAINST this resolution, which does not deliver at all on its central promise to protect the world's environment.

[Tinhampton]

Limiting Animal Pathogens was passed 9,254 votes to 7,352. (55.73% support)

[Fachumonn]

Congrats on passing this one!