[DRAFT] Humane Slaughter Act

[Liberatarian States]

Humane Slaughter Act

I'm relatively new to NationStates (been here for about a month), and I quickly discovered the World Assembly. Recently, I figured out how the WA works and discovered I could submit a GA proposal. I wrote one in an hour or two, and while it was legal, it failed to get enough WA Delegate approvals within the set timeframe of 3 days and a few hours. So, I read up a bit on how to write GA proposals, and checked out the forum. I guess it would make sense to submit my draft here, get some feedback, and then resubmit it as a proposal. Also, if there's something I missed because of my noobness, please don't get annoyed, I'm pretty new to the game.

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Liberatarian States

The World Assembly,

Beginning with the fact that individuals in most nations regularly slaughter animals (including but not limited to domestic livestock, wild quarry etc) for numerous purposes (including but not limited to killing for food, recreational hunting etc),

Noting that some nations legalise inhumane slaughtering of sentient animals, resulting in animals experiencing needless suffering prior to death,

Appalled by the unnecessary suffering, both mental and physical, that animals experience as a result of brutal methods of slaughtering,

Believing that as sentient organisms, animals deserve rights and if they are to be slaughtered, it should be done so in the most humane way,

Recognizing animal cruelty as an international moral issue,

Hereby mandates that all member nations enforce the following, to the best of their abilities:

1. When slaughtering any animal, the animal must be rendered insensitive to pain by any means that are rapid and effective, before being otherwise processed;

2. Knowingly violating (1.) shall be deemed a criminal offence, and said offence is punishable by law, unless:


i. The animal is posing an immediate threat to persons or domestic animals, is the carrier of a serious infectious disease, or is of an invasive species that is unreasonably difficult or impossible to apprehend for a more humane killing, in which case animals may be killed by any means, humane or not;

ii. The animal slaughtered for the purpose of religious ceremonies, though care must be taken to make the killing as painless as possible;

iii. Killing the animal is necessary for a person's survival in conditions outside of the reach of more humane methods.

How's it sound? Also, can someone tell me how to increase/decrease indentation of lines, I can't figure that out. Thanks

[North Supreria]

North Supreria had already approved the earlier proposal submitted to the WA towards a quorum. It is a pity that it was not successful within the set period. Maybe this can help the Libertarian States ambassador: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=445287. It is nice to hear that the ambassador has studied the WA and has made the proposal available for feedback.

(a) When slaughtering cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock or fish, poultry and rabbits, all animals must be rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut;

Animal rights are of enormous importance, also when it comes to passing international legislation. North Supreria supports the proposal, but has a question about the above clause. There are many examples of animals mentioned here, but then the rest of the proposal is about "animals". North Supreria wonders why a difference has been made in this clause compared to the rest.

[Liberatarian States]

North Supreria had already approved the earlier proposal submitted to the WA towards a quorum. It is a pity that it was not successful within the set period. Maybe this can help the Libertarian States ambassador: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=445287. It is nice to hear that the ambassador has studied the WA and has made the proposal available for feedback.

Greetings North Supreria,

Liberatarian States greatly appreciates your help and support.

Animal rights are of enormous importance, also when it comes to passing international legislation. North Supreria supports the proposal, but has a question about the above clause. There are many examples of animals mentioned here, but then the rest of the proposal is about "animals". North Supreria wonders why a difference has been made in this clause compared to the rest.

Liberatarian States thanks you for pointing this out. The Liberatarian States ambassador will correct this to "all animals". On behalf of the Federal Republic, he thanks you for your assistance and support.

[Liberatarian States]

North Supreria supports the proposal, but has a question about the above clause. There are many examples of animals mentioned here, but then the rest of the proposal is about "animals". North Supreria wonders why a difference has been made in this clause compared to the rest.

Liberatarian States thanks North Supreria for the suggestion and would like to ask if North Supreria wishes to be credited for co-authoring the proposal.

[North Supreria]

North Supreria supports the proposal, but has a question about the above clause. There are many examples of animals mentioned here, but then the rest of the proposal is about "animals". North Supreria wonders why a difference has been made in this clause compared to the rest.

Liberatarian States thanks North Supreria for the suggestion and would like to ask if North Supreria wishes to be credited for co-authoring the proposal.

North Supreria can never decline an offer to support and endorse animal rights, but we would like to emphasize to the ambassador of Liberatarian States that we have only provided the proposal with feedback on word choice and sentence structure. The choice of this request leaves North Supreria to the Ambassador, as far as we are concerned you have permission to put our name under proposals that improve animal rights.

[Calamari Lands]

"The Calamarilandese Delegacy also noticed the original submitted proposal, and we are glad that the Libertarian States have decided to use a more professional method of resolution writing.

Now, a few comments from our representative:

1.

2. Encourages all member states to:

(a) Embrace the ideology that slaughtered animals should experience minimal physical or psychological pain during slaughter;

(b) Discourage the slaughtering of animals whilst they are sensible to pain.

- This whole section seems unnecessary to me. You've already regulated the process with the other clause, and are simply being redundant. I get wanting to insist on your objectives, but that's what the preamble is for.
- Also, I'd encourage you to simply use "a" or "b" instead of "(a)" or "(b)" for your subclauses.

2.

Hereby:

1. Mandates that all member states enforce the following by law, to the best of their abilities:

This feels redundant as well. If you do remove clause 2 based on my previous comment I recommend just "Hereby mandates that member nations enforce the following:" (Nations is more inclusive than states in my mind, since anarchists like my nation may be against the concept of a state, but not of a nation.)

3. Usually, it's better to use "individuals" rather than "humans" because not all nations are populated exclusively by humans.

[Ardiveds]

"What is the exact meaning and purpose behind clause 2a?"

[Outer Sparta]

A decent start for a first-time. Appreciate you drafting despite already having a failed submission.

1a states that animals must be "rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot" but in 1ii, you said animals hunted for recreation may be killed in other ways not listed as long as pain is minimal. Couldn't a way to minimize pain would be to "rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot" in regards to hunting? I mean, you might as well have the hunting clause covered in 1a provided there's proper hunting equipment to achieve that aim.

You discourage slaughter of animals that are sensible to pain in 2b but wouldn't it would be better to forbid that practice as to give it more weight instead of merely discouraging?

[Ardiveds]

You discourage slaughter of animals that are sensible to pain in 2b but wouldn't it would be better to forbid that practice as to give it more weight instead of merely discouraging?

OOC: You do realise that includes almost all kinds of meat consumed irl, right?

[Outer Sparta]

You discourage slaughter of animals that are sensible to pain in 2b but wouldn't it would be better to forbid that practice as to give it more weight instead of merely discouraging?

OOC: You do realise that includes almost all kinds of meat consumed irl, right?

I meant to forbid the practice of inhumane animal slaughter. Yes, I do realize it. And yes, I'm suggesting that instead of discouraging inhumane animal slaughter, the resolution should do more in that front or else I feel would be rather toothless. No, it doesn't mean I'm clueless.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: You do realise that includes almost all kinds of meat consumed irl, right?

I meant to forbid the practice of inhumane animal slaughter. Yes, I do realize it. And yes, I'm suggesting that instead of discouraging inhumane animal slaughter, the resolution should do more in that front or else I feel would be rather toothless. No, it doesn't mean I'm clueless.

OOC: Doesn't 1a already do that? I didn't want to sound like an ahole, sorry if I offended you.

[Outer Sparta]

I meant to forbid the practice of inhumane animal slaughter. Yes, I do realize it. And yes, I'm suggesting that instead of discouraging inhumane animal slaughter, the resolution should do more in that front or else I feel would be rather toothless. No, it doesn't mean I'm clueless.

OOC: Doesn't 1a already do that? I didn't want to sound like an ahole, sorry if I offended you.

1a may do that, but to me 2b just doesn't do enough without some key word that emphasizes inhumane slaughter should be forbidden. Additionally, the resolution does need to specify more but of course, it's only in the early drafting stages.

Don't worry, you didn't offend me, it was a misunderstanding on my part for not specifying inhumane slaughter in my original comment.

[Island Girl Herby]

It would really suck to have to cancel Roadkill Sundays. Unless ehhhhhh I mean a squirrel don’t feel much when a 1700 pound vehicle is running over it’s tiny little head at 30 mph so you gotta make an exception for that.

[Boston Castle]

Ambassador Rosenborg: "Opposed. While we wish for animals to be slaughtered as humanely as possible, this proposal simply gives the state the license to discriminate against groups who require their slaughtering to be done in certain ways that are not compliant with this resolution."

OOC: I know we can't consider real-life religion in a proposal, but this would functionally ban halal and kosher slaughter, thus rendering those communities unable to eat animals unless they were to violate their religious laws. Look into those and fit a religious exemption to slaughter rules.

[Greater Cesnica]

Ambassador Rosenborg: "Opposed. While we wish for animals to be slaughtered as humanely as possible, this proposal simply gives the state the license to discriminate against groups who require their slaughtering to be done in certain ways that are not compliant with this resolution."

OOC: I know we can't consider real-life religion in a proposal, but this would functionally ban halal and kosher slaughter, thus rendering those communities unable to eat animals unless they were to violate their religious laws. Look into those and fit a religious exemption to slaughter rules.

OOC: As a Muslim, it is possible to consume food in a Halal manner without violating any of the provisions laid out here. Specifically, via hunting. Here are prerequisite conditions for hunting via a firearm:

• The hunter must be from amongst the "People of the Book" (which is understood to mean a Muslim, Christian, or Jew)
• Only wild/undomesticated animals may be hunted, and the animal must be in a location where it is able to escape (usually the Wild), or it must have fangs or claws
• Must not be a vermin animal
• The hunter must select the animal they want to target before firing their weapon
• There is a stressed Sunnah for the hunter to invoke the name of Allah (Bismillah) before firing. It is however not a strict requirement, though it may be considered by various individuals.
• If the animal died from the impact of the bullet before the hunter reaches it, the meat yielded from that animal is considered Halal

Now, if a hunter reaches the animal and it's still alive, the normal Islamic slaughter procedure must occur before the animal's death. If the animal dies after being reached and before this procedure, the carcass is considered impure.

But that's just for hunting in the wild. There is also nothing stopping people from stunning or otherwise rendering an animal unconscious before slaughtering it. The meat will still be Halal.

I am not familiar with the prerequisite conditions for Kosher meat all that well, so I can't comment on that. I understand that this may have been a tad off-topic, but just wanted to point that out, as someone who does hunt in a Halal manner.

[Greater Cesnica]

"Ambassador, I would encourage you to add a clarification clause regarding Article 1(b)(ii). Our delegation believes it is in the interest of this World Assembly to pass legislation concerning the recreational hunting of animals. Therefore, this clause should clarify that the World Assembly may collectively act to regulate the recreational hunting of animals."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Re hunting. viewtopic.php?p=17266501#p17266501

[North Supreria]

OOC: As a Muslim, it is possible to consume food in a Halal manner without violating any of the provisions laid out here. Specifically, via hunting. Here are prerequisite conditions for hunting via a firearm:

• The hunter must be from amongst the "People of the Book" (which is understood to mean a Muslim, Christian, or Jew)
• Only wild/undomesticated animals may be hunted, and the animal must be in a location where it is able to escape (usually the Wild), or it must have fangs or claws
• Must not be a vermin animal
• The hunter must select the animal they want to target before firing their weapon
• There is a stressed Sunnah for the hunter to invoke the name of Allah (Bismillah) before firing. It is however not a strict requirement, though it may be considered by various individuals.
• If the animal died from the impact of the bullet before the hunter reaches it, the meat yielded from that animal is considered Halal

Now, if a hunter reaches the animal and it's still alive, the normal Islamic slaughter procedure must occur before the animal's death. If the animal dies after being reached and before this procedure, the carcass is considered impure.

But that's just for hunting in the wild. There is also nothing stopping people from stunning or otherwise rendering an animal unconscious before slaughtering it. The meat will still be Halal.

I am not familiar with the prerequisite conditions for Kosher meat all that well, so I can't comment on that. I understand that this may have been a tad off-topic, but just wanted to point that out, as someone who does hunt in a Halal manner.

North Supreria would like to thank the Ambassador of Greater Cesnia for the explanation. Our delegation listened to your words with great interest and learned something new about Halal.

[The Python]

Full support!!!!!!!!!!

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Policies attached to bare moral assertions without practical concerns are not worthy of international attention."

[Liberatarian States]

"The Calamarilandese Delegacy also noticed the original submitted proposal, and we are glad that the Libertarian States have decided to use a more professional method of resolution writing.

Thanks for helping out, I will edit my proposal.

[Liberatarian States]

"What is the exact meaning and purpose behind clause 2a?"

Redundant, I guess. Will be removed.

[Liberatarian States]

OOC: You do realise that includes almost all kinds of meat consumed irl, right?

I meant to forbid the practice of inhumane animal slaughter. Yes, I do realize it. And yes, I'm suggesting that instead of discouraging inhumane animal slaughter, the resolution should do more in that front or else I feel would be rather toothless. No, it doesn't mean I'm clueless.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try to be more confident and definite with it.

[Liberatarian States]

Ambassador Rosenborg: "Opposed. While we wish for animals to be slaughtered as humanely as possible, this proposal simply gives the state the license to discriminate against groups who require their slaughtering to be done in certain ways that are not compliant with this resolution."

OOC: I know we can't consider real-life religion in a proposal, but this would functionally ban halal and kosher slaughter, thus rendering those communities unable to eat animals unless they were to violate their religious laws. Look into those and fit a religious exemption to slaughter rules.

Good point. I'll see to it.

[Liberatarian States]

Full support!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks.