[PASSED] Animal Protection Act

[Ilstoria]

I've edited this big time, scroll down to a more recent post, here's the original to ignore, ROFL:

APPLAUDING the work of the WA in protecting Human Rights;

REALIZING the importance of animals as food, clothing and medical resources;

UNDERSTANDING that populations of animals sometimes require human intervention to prevent population growth that is detrimental to the animal, environment and other animals.

URGING the WA to consider the rights of non-human life when human interactions constitute a direct effect;

DEFINES an animal as a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia which poses the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain with the exclusion of humans, whose rights have been defined elsewhere.

LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between humans and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of animals for sport and/or sustenance.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be avoided; While some industry, such as the meat industry, or fur industry, require that an animal be killed in order to create a product, which will necessitate brief pain to an animal, it is considered unavoidable. Similarly, in the case of animal testing, testing products on animals that are reasonably expected to have painful results are avoidable, as are only providing cramped confinement for lab animals. The treatment of the animal up until the moment of it serving its purpose is the primary focus of this resolution.

DEFINES pain and suffering as the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage and lasting unpleasant sensory experience as a result of prior tissue damage.

PROHIBITS the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person.

ENCOURAGES that animals kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”

REQUIRES that individuals or a group who poses legal rights under their nation’s law to an animal provide reasonable protection from other animals or humans.

FORBIDS any individual or group to use animals for the express purpose of inflicting pain and suffering on them as a form of entertainment.

(Okay people, what is this missing or not covering or blatantly ignoring the rules?)

[Ilstoria]

I would like someone to come up with a good example of a term to replace "human" and include any sapient being who would be holding legal rights to animals, like aliens, et al.

[Separatist Peoples]

Category and Strength?

[The Solarian Isles]

I would like someone to come up with a good example of a term to replace "human" and include any sapient being who would be holding legal rights to animals, like aliens, et al.

You said it yourself. 'Sapient being' covers it nicely, I think. That having been said, I really don't see how this is an international issue.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

[Ilstoria]

Yeah, someone put in a DRAFT for a Sapient Beings Act, which we are in need of. It's International because animals are international and the products produced through animals are imported and exported world wide.

I haven't even looked at the strength categories and what not yet, what are suggestions? This is my first resolution except a repeal.

[Separatist Peoples]

Yeah, someone put in a DRAFT for a Sapient Beings Act, which we are in need of. It's International because animals are international and the products produced through animals are imported and exported world wide.

I haven't even looked at the strength categories and what not yet, what are suggestions? This is my first resolution except a repeal.

Write the proposal to the Category. Don't write a proposal and then try to shoehorn it into a Category. It doesn't end well.

[Ilstoria]

It would be Moral Decency and Mild.

[Ilstoria]

I've considered changing the title of this act to "Sentient Beings Rights Act" since my definition of "animal" is essentially that. It would obviously need a few tweaks to turn it into a rights act, but it would essentially give them the right to NOT be unnecessarily harmed, so it's not so different.

[ForTheHorde]

APPLAUDING the work of the WA in protecting Human Rights;


PROHIBITS the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person.

According to this resolution, It would be ok to automate the entire process, and have no humans actually doing anything. Example, a machine is programmed to chop off the legs of every animal, and then their heads, technically speaking, the human didn't do anything, the machine did. Additionally, you say that it is ok if its based on the fur and food industry's. Let's say in hypothetical country xzy, the endangered species QQ (a well-known intelligent species with sapience) which resides only in that nation has its fur worn in the winter by the elite. IT would still be legal to kill the QQ's despite their sapience.

[The Solarian Isles]

Yeah, someone put in a DRAFT for a Sapient Beings Act, which we are in need of. It's International because animals are international and the products produced through animals are imported and exported world wide.

Not sure I agree with you on either the need for a sapient rights act, or the idea that animal cruelty is an international issue. For now, though, I'll bite. I'm not sure where we'll come down on this issue in the end, so consider this a rare opportunity to change my mind.

In your proposal, you mentioned exceptions granted to the agricultural industry and for animal testing. I'll assume that covers both standard scientific research, as well as testing new products for the consumer market. Agriculture and research are the two biggest potential institutional offenders in this case, and really the only ones potentially international in scope. By granting them both exceptions, even if they are somewhat limited, what does this hope to accomplish? If you're referring to how people treat their pets, then that is most certainly not an international issue.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

[ForTheHorde]

I would like someone to come up with a good example of a term to replace "human" and include any sapient being who would be holding legal rights to animals, like aliens, et al.

I've had this conversation on another draft the sapient rights draft and really don't feel like doing this again, go check there for possible definitions

[Ilstoria]

This bill is about SENTIENT species, not sapient, it was an aside when I mentione sapient rights which is another DRAFT out there now. And there is no exception to cruelty, it merely admits that some cruelty cannot be avoided in meat and fur industries because it rquires killing the animals. I'll take tips on how to clarify that since I thought it was pretty obvious.

As to the automated loophole I think a line stating that interaction between sapient and sentient beings would include any machines under the direct or indirect control of sapient beings for the purpose of industry.

Please remember, it is UNNECESSARY cruelty, cruelty done to increase profits at the expense of the animal, not any and all cruelty, please read the draft in its entirity.

[Ilstoria]

Additionally, to the person complaining about Sapient beings being used for fur, that's why I'd support a Sapient Rights Bill that would extend Human Rights to other Sapient creatures, though not creatures who are sentient, but not sapient. Sentience merely means they can feel pain and suffering, and as such we have a moral responsibility to not abuse them just because we can. You don't starve your dog to see how long it will take for him to die, you don't put pigs in cages for 4 years so they can't move and thus "fatten" them easier for slaughter, and you don't keep lab animals in cages their whole lives because you want to reduce the possible variables that might conflict with their reaction to a new sunscreen. Nations trade with one another and that means that nations with laws forbidding animal cruelty may still have to import meats or products from countries that are abusing and torturing the creatures in their care. The animals can't leave the country or region like a person could, so there's no way for them to escape, particularly since most laws make them property.

[Ilstoria]

Bump

[Ilstoria]

APPLAUDING the work of the WA in protecting Human Rights;

REALIZING the importance of sentient beings as food, clothing and medical resources that are imported and exported internationally;

UNDERSTANDING that populations of sentient beings sometimes require sapient intervention to prevent population growth that is detrimental to the sentient being, environment and other beings.

URGING the WA to consider the rights of non-sapient life when sapient interactions constitute a direct effect;

DEFINES a sentient creature as a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia that poses the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain with the exclusion of sapient beings, whose rights have been defined elsewhere.

DEFINES a sapient creature as having an essential property that bestows personhood, and thus legal rights and duties, onto a being. The essential property is wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, or a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties and allows a being to respond to its environment based on speculative or abstract reasoning.

LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between sapient beings and sentient beings in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of animals for sport and/or sustenance.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be avoided; While some industry, such as the meat industry, or fur industry, require that a sentient being be killed in order to create a product, which will necessitate brief pain to the being, it is considered unavoidable. Similarly, in the case of medical testing, testing products on sentient beings that are reasonably expected to have painful results are avoidable, as are only providing cramped confinement for test subjects. The treatment of the being up until the moment of it serving its purpose is the primary focus of this resolution.

DEFINES pain and suffering as the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage and lasting unpleasant sensory experience as a result of prior tissue damage.

PROVIDES sentient beings with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture by:

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any sentient being by any sapient being either directly or remotely.

2. ENCOURAGING that domestic beings kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”

3. REQUIRING that individuals or a group that poses legal rights under its nation’s law to a sentient being provide reasonable protection from harm by other beings, sentient or sapient.

4. FORBIDING any individual or group to use sentient beings for the express purpose of inflicting pain and suffering on them as a form of entertainment.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Sentient Beings Convention (WSBC), with volunteers from the scientific community of WA Nations that will meet annually at the WAHQ or another suitably neutral site to create and edit a list of sentient species protected under this legislation and determine whether an action is necessary or reasonable if the national governments are unable to determine thus far.

[Category: Moral Decency and Strength: Strong]
So, people, what works, what doesn't, does anything blatantly break the rules? This was previously the Unnecessary Cruelty to Animals Act, and although it looks long, it's within the 3500 character count!

[Tzenzariah-Nkri]

is this about the monkies again?

[Ilstoria]

is this about the monkies again?

Monkies are sentient, so they'd be included in this bill. It is an animal rights bill that is designed purely to stop unnecessary cruelty, with as little regulation as possible, which is tough. Suggestions are welcome.

[Frisbeeteria]

Suggestions are welcome.

Let's start with not creating a new topic every time you change your mind on the title. Threads merged. Convention is to edit the latest version of the proposal into the OP and adjust the title as needed.

[The Solarian Isles]

is this about the monkies again?

Monkies are sentient, so they'd be included in this bill. It is an animal rights bill that is designed purely to stop unnecessary cruelty, with as little regulation as possible, which is tough. Suggestions are welcome.

My first suggestion would be to call it an Animal Rights bill instead of Sentient Rights, just for clarity. Thanks to years of the word being misused in science fiction, a lot of people don't know the difference between sapience and sentience. Let me review the rest of the proposal, and I'll let you know if I spot any issues.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

EDIT:
Oh, my. My assistant has just informed me that I've already made my opinion clear on this issue. Getting old sucks, I don't recommend it. I'll just be moving on to the next issue now.

[Damanucus]

At this point in time, I would actually suggest keeping the definitions out of the resolution. If this is intended as a follow-up to a Sapient Rights Act resolution (either mine or the Unibotian effort), then having a redef will confuse the issue. Keep them handy, without doubt, but do not keep them in for now.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Swith Witherward]

I see a few flaws to this draft.

DEFINES pain and suffering as the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage and lasting unpleasant sensory experience as a result of prior tissue damage.

Surgery itself damages tissue and can result in a lasting unpleasant sensory experience. This clause would prohibit veterinarians from performing basic services (spay/neuter/amputation etc).

PROVIDES sentient beings with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture by:

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any sentient being by any sapient being either directly or remotely.

2. ENCOURAGING that domestic beings kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”

3. REQUIRING that individuals or a group that poses legal rights under its nation’s law to a sentient being provide reasonable protection from harm by other beings, sentient or sapient.

4. FORBIDING any individual or group to use sentient beings for the express purpose of inflicting pain and suffering on them as a form of entertainment.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Sentient Beings Convention (WSBC), with volunteers from the scientific community of WA Nations that will meet annually at the WAHQ or another suitably neutral site to create and edit a list of sentient species protected under this legislation and determine whether an action is necessary or reasonable if the national governments are unable to determine thus far.

1. The animal rights lovers will have a field day with this. They will question what is or isn't classified as "necessary". Is docking lamb tails necessary? Is the removal of horns on ungulates necessary? What about dew claws on puppies? It's vague as it's written.
2. "Domestic beings" refer to more than livestock (unless you choose to specify it earlier). Domesticated cats and dogs fall into this category. I think your intent was towards livestock (eliminating the cramped and inhumane conditions that cattle, chickens, turkeys and such endure); because the issue is vague, some people might argue that your measure states "cats or dogs shouldn't be kept in urban settings".
3. -
4. -
5. I like this. I would want to be involved with it.

Bear in mind that culture plays into this bill. While it works for Western countries, other countries may not see things the same way. It can conflict with their religious beliefs, for example.

Another thing to consider is that some nations are based on bioengineering. They define sapience and sentience as you have it here, however their engineered sentient beings are tools, weapons, vehicles or factories. Nations with advanced bioengineering technologies will not support this measure because it effectively outlaws their technology. They can not protect a genetically engineered sentient "tank" from harm and still have an effective military. You have chosen to define sentient as "a sentient creature as a multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia that poses the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain with the exclusion of sapient beings, whose rights have been defined elsewhere". I would suggest adding something that would include the phrase "naturally-occurring multicellular organism".

You're heart is in the right place with this draft. A few tweaks here and there will do the trick.

[Ilstoria]

I meant to include pets, and one would argue that surgeries are necessary and unavoidable because they are for the health of the animal, which I would add. Good point. And removing parts of an animal that is kept as livestock to "protec" other animals, like blunting beaks or removing horns, these also fall under safety.

As for bioengineered creatures, tanks should not be sentient. Certainly they can bioengineer a living tank/factory/whatever that doesn't feel pain? Then it is exempt.

[Ilstoria]

Any loopholes people said existed have been taken care of to the best of my ability, a few were actual misunderstandings by people who didn't bother to READ the legislation!!!! So, here's the final that is sumbitted, if you liked this bill, ask your delgate to support it!

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=ilstoria_1345469621

[Discoveria]

Sentient and Animal Rights
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ilstoria

APPLAUDING the work of the WA in protecting Human Rights;

REALIZING the importance of sentient beings as food, clothing and medical resources that are imported and exported internationally;

UNDERSTANDING that populations of sentient beings sometimes require sapient intervention to prevent harm and population growth that is detrimental to the sentient being, environment and other beings.

URGING the WA to consider the rights of non-sapient life when sapient interactions constitute a direct effect;

DEFINES a sentient being as an organism that poses the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain with the exclusion of sapient beings, whose rights have been defined elsewhere. Hereafter sentient beings will be referred to as animals.

DEFINES a sapient being as having an essential property that bestows personhood, and thus legal rights and duties, onto a being, including humans and any other beings classified by the WA as sapient, hereafter referred to as persons or people.

LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between persons and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of wild animals for sport and/or sustenance.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be reasonably avoided; anything that is designed to protect the animal, environment or persons in a nation are deemed necessary. Harm inflicted solely to increase revenue is not necessary. The treatment of the animal up until the moment of its death is the primary focus of this resolution and up to the final determination of the WSBC as later defined.

DEFINES pain and suffering as the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage and lasting unpleasant sensory experience as a result of prior tissue damage. The use of anesthetics is recommended to reduce or eliminate pain in unavoidable situations.

PROVIDES animals with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture by:

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person either directly or remotely including unnecessarily long lasting methods of slaughter.

2. ENCOURAGING that domestic animals kept outside of an individual’s living space for the purpose of industry be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is reasonable; one example would be “free range.”

3. REQUIRING that individuals or a group that poses legal rights under its nation’s law to an animal provide reasonable protection from harm by other animals and persons.

4. FORBIDING any individual or group to use animals for the express purpose of inflicting pain and suffering on them as a form of entertainment.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Sentient Beings Convention (WSBC), with diverse volunteers from the scientific community that will meet annually at the WAHQ or another suitably neutral site to create and edit a list of sentient species protected under this legislation and determine whether an action is necessary or reasonable if the national governments are unable to come to a consensus or if blatant violations occur.

(OOC) I think this needs more work before submission; as it stands, there are problems with the writing that create problems with implementing it.

REALIZING the importance of sentient beings as food, clothing and medical resources that are imported and exported internationally;

I think this is a poor reason (and certainly not the first one to mention) to advocate for international legislation on this issue. The real reason one might want to protect animal rights in international law is that the WA would be perceived to have the authority to grant animals rights. The case for granting animals rights should be based on public morality/preventing cruelty or whatever, which has little to do with the industrial uses of animals.

UNDERSTANDING that populations of sentient beings sometimes require sapient intervention to prevent harm and population growth that is detrimental to the sentient being, environment and other beings.

This is more convincing than the above.

DEFINES a sentient being as an organism that poses the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain with the exclusion of sapient beings, whose rights have been defined elsewhere. Hereafter sentient beings will be referred to as animals.

DEFINES a sapient being as having an essential property that bestows personhood, and thus legal rights and duties, onto a being, including humans and any other beings classified by the WA as sapient, hereafter referred to as persons or people.

"poses" -> possesses.
These definitions seem adequate, for now.

LIMITS THE DEFINITION of interaction between persons and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity as well as the hunting of wild animals for sport and/or sustenance.

You never use the term "interaction between persons and animals" in the rest of the resolution. This renders the above clause totally redundant.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be reasonably avoided; anything that is designed to protect the animal, environment or persons in a nation are deemed necessary. Harm inflicted solely to increase revenue is not necessary. The treatment of the animal up until the moment of its death is the primary focus of this resolution and up to the final determination of the WSBC as later defined.

These definitions are too broad. For example, bullet-proof armour is designed to protect people, but does that mean it's necessary for everyone to have it? "Harm inflicted solely to increase revenue" is similarly broad. A cattle ranch increases revenue by, you know, raising cows and sending them to slaughter. This resolution looks like it will destroy all forms of meat production and fishing industries.

Also, if you have to mention the WSBC here, it would make more sense to say what the WSBC is earlier rather than not explaining it until the end of the resolution.

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person either directly or remotely including unnecessarily long lasting methods of slaughter.

This will definitely destroy farming and fishing.

3. REQUIRING that individuals or a group that poses legal rights under its nation’s law to an animal provide reasonable protection from harm by other animals and persons.

"poses" -> possesses.
This clause is really convoluted - it should read something like "REQUIRING that an individual or group possessing legal rights (under their nation's law) to an animal, must provide that animal a reasonable level of protection from harm by other animals or persons".

4. FORBIDING any individual or group to use animals for the express purpose of inflicting pain and suffering on them as a form of entertainment.

"FORBIDING" -> FORBIDDING.
I can see what is intended here but the clause isn't watertight. Suppose that you want to outlaw bullfighting. You argue that it's a cruel practice in which bulls suffer horribly for the entertainment of an audience. However, the people who organise the fights tell you that the express purpose of the fights is to provide entertainment - it's not to inflict suffering. The suffering comes about as a byproduct of the practice. You can see that the clause would not allow you to forbid bullfighting if this argument were put forwards.

5. ESTABLISHES the World Sentient Beings Convention (WSBC), with diverse volunteers from the scientific community that will meet annually at the WAHQ or another suitably neutral site to create and edit a list of sentient species protected under this legislation and determine whether an action is necessary or reasonable if the national governments are unable to come to a consensus or if blatant violations occur.

This sounds a lot like a sort of International Animal Cruelty Court. I think in practice it would rapidly get bogged down with trivial cases and would not function well as an arbiter of when actions are necessary or reasonable. Only the magical perfect implementation ability of the WA saves this suggestion IMHO.

Short version:

• Writing quality needs improving.
• Looks like it will destroy farming and fishing industries.
• Loophole in clause 4 makes cruel practices impossible to prohibit.
• WSBC sounds impractical.

Consequently I will be opposing the proposal as it currently stands. Future support is not out of the question, though.

[Ghorunda]

The domestic limitation. One could argue a possible loophole through non-domestic animals; snakes, racoons, lions, tigers, other circus animals, and so-on.