[SUBMITTED] Repeal: "Ethical Treatment Of Animals In...

[Llorens]

I am writing a replacement resolution now. In writing the new one, I've realised that the following clause is irrelevant and will be removing it from my repeal:

"DISSATISFIED with the definition of the term 'animal' in clause 1(a) of the resolution, which neglects the increasing literature that supports the notion of sapience extending to other non-person animals, such as dolphins, apes, and crows;"

I think I neglected this point as it was made earlier, but this definition is "for the purposes of this resolution". I think my recommend change was just pedantic and the current way it is set up in terms of defining 'animal' is good as is. Will still push forward with the repeal on all the other points, though.

[Llorens]

For those who haven't already seen it, the proposed replacement resolution: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=486781

Tried my best to change it up so as to avoid plagiarising the original.

[Tinhampton]

Still opposed. I do not support the replacement of one wacctastic piece of WA with another wacctastic piece of WA that has broadly the same intentions as its predecessor

[Kenmoria]

“The ‘anxious’ clause doesn’t seem very compelling to me. If there is a species that cannot be returned to the wild and there doesn’t exist any body capable of looking after it, then I don’t see what alternative there is to killing it. The research facility probably won’t have the resources to look after an animal long-term. The best solution here would be for national legislation to prohibit the use of endangered species in research.”

[WA Kitty Kops]

“The best solution here would be for national legislation to prohibit the use of endangered species in research.”

"How's you gonna know how to protect thems pro-purrrr-ly, then?" a dark grey kitten asked, not bothering to uncurl from the sunny patch on a desk.

[Kenmoria]

“The best solution here would be for national legislation to prohibit the use of endangered species in research.”

"How's you gonna know how to protect thems pro-purrrr-ly, then?" a dark grey kitten asked, not bothering to uncurl from the sunny patch on a desk.

“Since this is going to be national legislation, government departments will be able to authorise exceptions in relevant cases, and provide case-by-case regulations in a way that the World Assembly can’t.”

[Llorens]

“The ‘anxious’ clause doesn’t seem very compelling to me. If there is a species that cannot be returned to the wild and there doesn’t exist any body capable of looking after it, then I don’t see what alternative there is to killing it. The research facility probably won’t have the resources to look after an animal long-term. The best solution here would be for national legislation to prohibit the use of endangered species in research.”

Even though it is highly unlikely that an animal of a species at risk of extinction would be killed, this should be an uncompromising principle reflected in international law. I believe, in these cases, there is a moral demand to mandate that the animal research institute or their government obtain the resources to look after the animal, rather than just let them die.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: I think your best bet for making a strong repeal resolution here would be to draft up the replacement, and work backwards. I'm not sure I see the end game of this proposal other than to repeal the only resolution of any sort protecting animals in the general assembly on the basis that it might not be doing enough to protect said previously completely unprotected animals.

[Llorens]

OOC: I think your best bet for making a strong repeal resolution here would be to draft up the replacement, and work backwards. I'm not sure I see the end game of this proposal other than to repeal the only resolution of any sort protecting animals in the general assembly on the basis that it might not be doing enough to protect said previously completely unprotected animals.

I have already drafted a replacement?

[Llorens]

Since there has been no comment on this repeal or the proposed replacement resolutions in over a day now, I've decided to label this one as 'final call' for any last comments or suggestions before submitting it to the General Assembly.

[Honeydewistania]

Stylistic suggestion: remove the capitalisation of the starting words. However the rest looks good.

[Llorens]

Stylistic suggestion: remove the capitalisation of the starting words. However the rest looks good.

Sure, I'd seen others capitalise the starting words before, but it seems that the more recent standard has been not to do so.

[Llorens]

The repeal resolution has now been submitted to the General Assembly: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1592115106

Feel free to spread the word to Delegates to approve the proposal!

[Honeydewistania]

The repeal resolution has now been submitted to the General Assembly: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1592115106

Feel free to spread the word to Delegates to approve the proposal!

Good luck.

How are you campaigning for this, by the way?

[Llorens]

The repeal resolution has now been submitted to the General Assembly: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1592115106

Feel free to spread the word to Delegates to approve the proposal!

Good luck.

How are you campaigning for this, by the way?

Via the 5G airwaves, of course.

[Honeydewistania]

Good luck.

How are you campaigning for this, by the way?

Via the 5G airwaves, of course.

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: One of the main points for this repeal is the concerns about potential species extinction. 465 already covers this, and if 489 had also included that would have run a significant risk of duplication of 465. So, how can a resolution be faulted for not duplicating an earlier resolution? I would urge further drafting to correct that oversight. As it stands I have marked it illegal for “honest mistake”.

[Honeydewistania]

One of the main points for this repeal is the concerns about potential species extinction. 465 already covers this, and if 489 had also included that would have run a significant risk of duplication of 465. So, how can a resolution be faulted for not duplicating an earlier resolution? I would urge further drafting to correct that oversight.

It already got submitted though

[Grays Harbor]

One of the main points for this repeal is the concerns about potential species extinction. 465 already covers this, and if 489 had also included that would have run a significant risk of duplication of 465. So, how can a resolution be faulted for not duplicating an earlier resolution? I would urge further drafting to correct that oversight.

It already got submitted though

Irrelevant. It can be withdrawn and reworked prior to resubmission because as it stands it is illegal for “honest mistake”.

[Llorens]

OOC: One of the main points for this repeal is the concerns about potential species extinction. 465 already covers this, and if 489 had also included that would have run a significant risk of duplication of 465. So, how can a resolution be faulted for not duplicating an earlier resolution? I would urge further drafting to correct that oversight. As it stands I have marked it illegal for “honest mistake”.

I think this misses the point. The resolution I am attempting to repeal explicitly permits the killing of animals at risk of extinction if the animal research institute is unable to provide for it nor can they find another individual or body who can do so. GAR#465 just mandates conservation plans and provides certain rules by which those plans can be suspended - what clause, may I ask, contradicts the point I'm making in this repeal? I don't think I understand the point being made except that it pertains to the same topic.

[Grays Harbor]

(At work now. I’ll go into depth later)

[Araraukar]

I think this misses the point. The resolution I am attempting to repeal explicitly permits the killing of animals at risk of extinction if the animal research institute is unable to provide for it nor can they find another individual or body who can do so.

OOC: If it can't be released into wild (either because it couldn't fend for itself, or because it might be a danger to others of its species or environment), and there's nobody who can take care of it properly, then what would you do, realistically? The only thing you can do (EDIT: humanely - if you didn't care of its suffering, I guess you could put it in some cage too small for it and feed it substandard food and then stress would kill it fairly quickly), is put it down.

[Llorens]

I think this misses the point. The resolution I am attempting to repeal explicitly permits the killing of animals at risk of extinction if the animal research institute is unable to provide for it nor can they find another individual or body who can do so.

OOC: If it can't be released into wild (either because it couldn't fend for itself, or because it might be a danger to others of its species or environment), and there's nobody who can take care of it properly, then what would you do, realistically? The only thing you can do (EDIT: humanely - if you didn't care of its suffering, I guess you could put it in some cage too small for it and feed it substandard food and then stress would kill it fairly quickly), is put it down.

If there's nobody who can currently take care of it properly and it poses no danger to others, then international law should mandate that the institute obtain some means by which to support them. This is a more a matter for the replacement, so I won't go into detail here, but this might be a good area for some wordsmithing to ensure governments have some responsibility to help animal research institutes obtain such means.

[Araraukar]

If there's nobody who can currently take care of it properly and it poses no danger to others, then international law should mandate that the institute obtain some means by which to support them. This is a more a matter for the replacement, so I won't go into detail here, but this might be a good area for some wordsmithing to ensure governments have some responsibility to help animal research institutes obtain such means.

OOC: Since you're using it as one of the excuses in the repeal, I think it's very much topical for you to specify what you would want done in such a situation. If the loss of the endangered animal from the gene pool of the population is acceptable to the state in order for them to get a better scientific understanding of the species to begin with, as would be necessary to obtain the animal in the first place, then putting it down does not hurt the conservation of the species, as the individual animal has already been "written off".

Struck out edit because I specifically said one of the reasons it couldn't be returned to the wild could be because it might pose a threat to others of its species, or its environment.

[Llorens]

If there's nobody who can currently take care of it properly and it poses no danger to others, then international law should mandate that the institute obtain some means by which to support them. This is a more a matter for the replacement, so I won't go into detail here, but this might be a good area for some wordsmithing to ensure governments have some responsibility to help animal research institutes obtain such means.

OOC: Since you're using it as one of the excuses in the repeal, I think it's very much topical for you to specify what you would want done in such a situation. If the loss of the endangered animal from the gene pool of the population is acceptable to the state in order for them to get a better scientific understanding of the species to begin with, as would be necessary to obtain the animal in the first place, then putting it down does not hurt the conservation of the species, as the individual animal has already been "written off".

Struck out edit because I specifically said one of the reasons it couldn't be returned to the wild could be because it might pose a threat to others of its species, or its environment.

I don't understand how you're equating taking an animal out of the wild to use for experimentation as it being 'written off'? Simply because the animal itself is unsuitable to be returned to its original habitat, it doesn't make it unable to reproduce and continue its species.