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

[Llorens]

OOC: The GA Secretariat has once again flipped my proposal to Illegal while providing no further explanation. For clarification, I received this comment 2+ days ago, which has not been followed up on, and now Bananaistan has decided to copy-paste Grays Harbor's same explanation for declaring it Illegal without any further comment.

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

I paid for a stamp telegram to all Delegates on this, it was nearly at quorum after having been in a Legal status for several days, and now this happens without anything being said? I've been as transparent as I could be throughout this whole process, so to see that not reciprocated is a little annoying. At least some clarification would be nice. :/

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: The GA Secretariat has once again flipped my proposal to Illegal while providing no further explanation. For clarification, I received this comment 2+ days ago, which has not been followed up on, and now Bananaistan has decided to copy-paste Grays Harbor's same explanation for declaring it Illegal without any further comment.

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

I paid for a stamp telegram to all Delegates on this, it was nearly at quorum after having been in a Legal status for several days, and now this happens without anything being said? I've been as transparent as I could be throughout this whole process, so to see that not reciprocated is a little annoying. At least some clarification would be nice. :/

OOC:

Honest mistake. Extinction is already adequately covered by resolution 465

Is this nothing?

[Llorens]

OOC: The GA Secretariat has once again flipped my proposal to Illegal while providing no further explanation. For clarification, I received this comment 2+ days ago, which has not been followed up on, and now Bananaistan has decided to copy-paste Grays Harbor's same explanation for declaring it Illegal without any further comment.

I paid for a stamp telegram to all Delegates on this, it was nearly at quorum after having been in a Legal status for several days, and now this happens without anything being said? I've been as transparent as I could be throughout this whole process, so to see that not reciprocated is a little annoying. At least some clarification would be nice. :/

OOC:

Honest mistake. Extinction is already adequately covered by resolution 465

Is this nothing?

I encourage you to read our previous 'discussion'. Here was my question on it, which I've received no follow up on:

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.

If I may quote the advice I received from Sierra, who marked it Legal:

"#465 says nothing about lab animals, and if it handled literally everything to do with animals at risk of extinction, then the target resolution (#489) should have been illegal for contradiction"

Honestly, my problem is less so with the fact that it has been marked Illegal as it is that I've not really been provided a reason for it.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I don’t fully understand the reason for the marked illegality. Although GA #465 does compel member nations to implement conservation plans made by the WAESC, it is presumably the case that the committee would not promulgate regulations that contradict any piece of prior or future legislation.

Therefore, the fact that GA #489 allows member states to kill animals, with no exceptions for if the animal is part of an endangered species, is a legitimate point to address in a repeal. Maybe it’s not a particularly strong point, but I can’t see it going anywhere near to an honest mistake.)

[Bananaistan]

OOC: GAR#465, section 2(i) mandates a range of protections based on the risk of extinction of the species, ranging from monitoring for low risk, to outright prohibition of "all possible actions that are likely to negatively impact the at-risk species in any manner" for high risk, "or any level of protection in between".

The target in section 8 could be interpreted as permitting the killing of individual specimens of at risk species where the testing may have fallen within the exception provided for in section 2(c) - "unless in order to aid conservation efforts of the animal species".

However, between the target and GAR#465, I do not believe that the claim in the repeal that animal research institutes are able to kill animal species at risk is true. They might be able to kill individual specimens, even in keeping with the spirit of the target and GAR#465, where the testing was to aid conservation efforts and the species is not at high risk of extinction per GAR#465 but I don't think it's a fair reading to say that the species could be killed, which is the claim in the repeal.

(OOC: I don’t fully understand the reason for the marked illegality. Although GA #465 does compel member nations to implement conservation plans made by the WAESC, it is presumably the case that the committee would not promulgate regulations that contradict any piece of prior or future legislation.

Therefore, the fact that GA #489 allows member states to kill animals, with no exceptions for if the animal is part of an endangered species, is a legitimate point to address in a repeal. Maybe it’s not a particularly strong point, but I can’t see it going anywhere near to an honest mistake.)

Minor point here, not directly related to the proposed repeal's legality. In respect of high risk species, the plan by WAESC under GAR#465 can prevent all possible actions. One would imagine that this would include any killing of individual specimens. I would imagine that the committee would not change their policies merely because a later resolution says that such animals can be experimented on.