[DRAFT] The Ethical Killing of Animals

[Bakhton]

"This one won't be controversial at all!"

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Bakhton

The Ethical Killing of Animals

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that many nations kill animals in order to clean, process, and cook their meat for the purpose of feeding their citizens,

APPLAUDING nations’ and this assembly’s commitment to end hunger in the impoverished areas of the world as well as its endeavor to provide healthy food for all people,

CONCERNED, however, that sentient animals are legally allowed to be killed in a manner that causes them extensive and unnecessarily elongated physical pain due to the lack of international standards,

BELIEVING all unnecessary physical pain, whether from sentient or sapient lifeforms, to be a matter worthy of prevention,

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

a) ‘Sentient animals’ as species with the ability to experience sensations such as physical pain and the ability to physically react to said pain in an identifiable way,

b) ‘Cruelty’ as the act of exposing a sentient animal to physical pain for elongated and unnecessary lengths of time,

c) ‘Physical pain’ as the sensation felt by all sentient animals when exposed to physical harm damaging to their tissues or organs, internal or external, which causes intense feelings of discomfort,

MANDATES that in the legal killing of sentient animals for food, all sentient animals are to be killed in a manner avoiding cruelty and unnecessarily prolonged physical pain and that nations shall take necessary legal action against said entities that are not in compliance with these standards,

CLARIFIES that this resolution only addresses food processing industries and makes no comment on the killing of animals for religious or ritual purposes, animal testing, the right of a person to kill a sentient animal in self-defense, hunting practices, or the rights of microbial and plant life,

URGING member nations to pass more legislation to increase the ethical treatment of sentient animals.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Bakhton

The Ethical Killing of Animals

RECOGNIZING that many nations kill animals in order to clean, process, and cook their meat for the purpose of feeding their citizens,

APPLAUDING nations’ and this assembly’s commitment to end hunger in the impoverished areas of the world as well as its endeavor to provide healthy food for all people,

CONCERNED, however, that sentient animals are legally allowed to be killed in a manner that causes them extensive and unnecessarily elongated physical pain,

BELIEVING all unnecessary physical pain, whether from sentient or sapient lifeforms, to be a matter worthy of prevention,

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

a) ‘Sentient animals’ as species with the ability to experience sensations such as physical pain and the ability to physically react to said pain in an identifiable way,

b) ‘Cruelty’ as the act of exposing a sentient animal to physical pain for elongated and unnecessary lengths of time,

c) ‘Physical pain’ as the sensation felt by all sentient animals when exposed to physical harm damaging to their tissues or organs, internal or external, which causes intense feelings of discomfort,

MANDATES that in the legal killing of sentient animals for food, all sentient animals are to be killed in a manner avoiding cruelty and unnecessarily prolonged physical pain,

CLARIFIES that this resolution makes no comment on the killing of animals for religious or ritual purposes, animal testing, the right of a person to kill a sentient animal in self-defense, hunting practices, or the rights of microbial and plant life,

URGING member nations to pass more legislation to increase the ethical treatment of sentient animals.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Bakhton

The Ethical Killing of Animals

RECOGNIZING that many nations kill animals in order to clean, process, and cook their meat for the purpose of feeding their citizens,

APPLAUDING nations’ and this assembly’s commitment to end hunger in the impoverished areas of the world as well as its endeavor to provide healthy food for all people,

CONCERNED, however, that sentient animals are legally allowed to be killed in a manner that causes them extensive and unnecessarily elongated physical pain,

BELIEVING all unnecessary physical pain, whether from sentient or sapient lifeforms, to be a matter worthy of legislation in order to prevent it,

DEFINES for the purpose of this resolution:

a) ‘Sentient animals’ as species with the ability to experience sensations such as physical pain and the ability to physically react to said pain in an identifiable way,

b) ‘Cruelty’ as the act of exposing a sentient animal to physical pain for elongated and unnecessary lengths of time,

c) ‘Physical pain’ as the sensation felt by all sentient animals when exposed to physical harm damaging to their tissues or organs, internal or external, which causes intense feelings of discomfort,

MANDATES that in the legal killing of sentient animals for food or hunting purposes, all sentient animals are to be killed in a manner avoiding cruelty and unnecessarily prolonged physical pain,

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not apply for religious sacrifices or rituals.

[Tinfect]

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not apply for religious sacrifices or rituals.

Markhov enters the room wearing a Mitre, carrying a staff, upon which sat a small golden statuette of a cooked chicken. "Congratulations Ambassador, a new Religion has been established, calling themselves 'Food Processing'."

Markhov remains as such for a brief moment, before swapping the mitre off for his usual cap, and continuing, "In case this was unclear, the final clause effectively nullifies the draft."

[Aclion]

Celice watches the flagrant violation of GA#2 with interest.

[Bakhton]

Celice watches the flagrant violation of GA#2 with interest.

OOC: Which section?

#2 Rights and Duties of WA States
Description: World Assembly membership in NationStates is a choice, not a requirement. Those of us who chose to participate have certain responsibilities to ourselves, each other, and the entire NationStates community. At the same time, we as NationStates have certain rights and responsibilities that we do not willingly relinquish when we chose to join the World Assembly.
It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus international law passed by this World Assembly. This document will attempt to enumerate those most basic of rights, as they exist within and as defined by the World Assembly of NationStates.
A Declaration on Rights and Duties of WA States:
Section I:
The Principle of National Sovereignty:
Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.
Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Section II:
Rights and Duties in War:
Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.
Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. WA Member States may, at their discretion, intercede against declarations of war on behalf of NationStates who wish to avoid war.
Article 6 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.
Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.
Section III:
The Role of the World Assembly:
Article 8 § Every WA Member State has the right to equality in law with every other WA Member State.
Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.
Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.
Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

[Bakhton]

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not apply for religious sacrifices or rituals.

Markhov enters the room wearing a Mitre, carrying a staff, upon which sat a small golden statuette of a cooked chicken. "Congratulations Ambassador, a new Religion has been established, calling themselves 'Food Processing'."

Markhov remains as such for a brief moment, before swapping the mitre off for his usual cap, and continuing, "In case this was unclear, the final clause effectively nullifies the draft."

Lara raises her hands, "Would you prefer I add 'and that no such institution may be created for the sole purpose of violating this exception'?"

[Aclion]

Celice watches the flagrant violation of GA#2 with interest.

OOC: Which section?

OOC: referring to Tinfect article nine

Lara raises her hands, "Would you prefer I add 'and that no such institution may be created for the sole purpose of violating this exception'?"

bona fide religious purposes has a nice ring to it.

[Bakhton]

bona fide religious purposes has a nice ring to it.

Lara gestures at Aclion's ambassador with her pen, nodding. "I may actually add that, in more boring terms of course."

[Tinfect]

Lara raises her hands, "Would you prefer I add 'and that no such institution may be created for the sole purpose of violating this exception'?"

"No, Ambassador," starts Markhov, bashing the end of the staff against the floor, resulting in the golden statuette falling off and revealing itself as mere plastic, "There have been quite extensive debates regarding why the World Assembly may not be qualified to determine the validity of religious belief. My concern is that it would prevent the recognition of emergent beliefs with such as a tenet."

[Wallenburg]

"Due to several previous mediocre resolutions attempting to address this issue, we are almost categorically opposed to any legislation on animal abuse. Given the ambiguity of your definitions and your special exemptions for religious reasons, I see no reason to make an exception. We are opposed."

[Tinfect]

"Due to several previous mediocre resolutions attempting to address this issue, we are almost categorically opposed to any legislation on animal abuse. Given the ambiguity of your definitions and your special exemptions for religious reasons, I see no reason to make an exception. We are opposed."

Markhov points the staff at the Wallenburgian delegation, notices that the topper has fallen off, and casts it aside, "We wish to note that the Imperium is in agreement for the exact reasons stated by the delegation of Wallenburg. We see little reason to support this draft in any form; my questioning of the conclusion of the draft is merely one as to your intent."

[Bakhton]

"Due to several previous mediocre resolutions attempting to address this issue, we are almost categorically opposed to any legislation on animal abuse. Given the ambiguity of your definitions and your special exemptions for religious reasons, I see no reason to make an exception. We are opposed."

"I'm confused, what does past failed legislation have to do with the quality of this one? Do you believe a such a project could not work?"

Markhov points the staff at the Wallenburgian delegation, notices that the topper has fallen off, and casts it aside, "We wish to note that the Imperium is in agreement for the exact reasons stated by the delegation of Wallenburg. We see little reason to support this draft in any form; my questioning of the conclusion of the draft is merely one as to your intent."

"The intent of the exemption clause was to allow for religious freedom as that had been a point of contention in previous repeals of similar resolutions."

[Wallenburg]

"Due to several previous mediocre resolutions attempting to address this issue, we are almost categorically opposed to any legislation on animal abuse. Given the ambiguity of your definitions and your special exemptions for religious reasons, I see no reason to make an exception. We are opposed."

"I'm confused, what does past failed legislation have to do with the quality of this one? Do you believe a such a project could not work?"

"Failures to adequately address this topic in the past indicate that it cannot be done at all, or at least that it is extremely difficult to achieve. Your proposal fails to stand out as an exception. It doesn't have all the same drawbacks as previous attempts, but it still suffers from significant problems that could either remain objectionable or transform into new problems."

[Bakhton]

"Failures to adequately address this topic in the past indicate that it cannot be done at all, or at least that it is extremely difficult to achieve. Your proposal fails to stand out as an exception. It doesn't have all the same drawbacks as previous attempts, but it still suffers from significant problems that could either remain objectionable or transform into new problems."

"What would help this stand out? If you could describe these objectionable ideas or new problems at some point, that would be greatly helpful for the drafting process. For brevity, would you say these things are largely present and pointed out in repeals of previous attempts?"

[Wallenburg]

"Failures to adequately address this topic in the past indicate that it cannot be done at all, or at least that it is extremely difficult to achieve. Your proposal fails to stand out as an exception. It doesn't have all the same drawbacks as previous attempts, but it still suffers from significant problems that could either remain objectionable or transform into new problems."

"What would help this stand out? If you could describe these objectionable ideas or new problems at some point, that would be greatly helpful for the drafting process. For brevity, would you say these things are largely present and pointed out in repeals of previous attempts?"

"Indeed, the issues of previous attempts have been well documented in repeal efforts, such as this one and this one. Generally, our previous objections have centered upon clauses that set the rights of animals above those of sapient beings. At the moment, your clauses are ambiguous and hazy. We hope that they will not develop into the same kind of mandates that we have seen before."

[Bakhton]

"What would help this stand out? If you could describe these objectionable ideas or new problems at some point, that would be greatly helpful for the drafting process. For brevity, would you say these things are largely present and pointed out in repeals of previous attempts?"

"Indeed, the issues of previous attempts have been well documented in repeal efforts, such as this one and this one. Generally, our previous objections have centered upon clauses that set the rights of animals above those of sapient beings. At the moment, your clauses are ambiguous and hazy. We hope that they will not develop into the same kind of mandates that we have seen before."

"We assure you Ambassador, that in future drafts and revisions our staff will take every step necessary to not repeat the mistakes of the past."

Staff information on these repeals:

1. Sapient rights first.
2. No moralizing.
3. Stated no stance on religious sacrifice.
4. Allow self-defense.
5. Clarify no protection of small microbial organisms or plants.
6. Affirm the right of hunters to cull species.
7. Allow animal testing.

[Uocati et Regni Prosperitatem]

"This legislation lacks detailed clarification over 'religious rituals' and 'unnecesary cruelty'. In current state this legislation can be widely abused not only by individual nations but also by world assembly itself. Regulation should be clear so blood in nations economies(corporations) won't have problems with interpreting it. Also world assembly should be secular organisation which works for the good of the people. Religion shouldn't dictate what is legal and what is not therfore we demand clarification."

[Bakhton]

"This legislation lacks detailed clarification over 'religious rituals' and 'unnecesary cruelty'. In current state this legislation can be widely abused not only by individual nations but also by world assembly itself. Regulation should be clear so blood in nations economies(corporations) won't have problems with interpreting it. Also world assembly should be secular organisation which works for the good of the people. Religion shouldn't dictate what is legal and what is not therfore we demand clarification."

"In future drafts it will assert no opinion on religious rituals, prohibiting or allowing, leaving it to the nation to decide."

[Uocati et Regni Prosperitatem]

"This legislation lacks detailed clarification over 'religious rituals' and 'unnecesary cruelty'. In current state this legislation can be widely abused not only by individual nations but also by world assembly itself. Regulation should be clear so blood in nations economies(corporations) won't have problems with interpreting it. Also world assembly should be secular organisation which works for the good of the people. Religion shouldn't dictate what is legal and what is not therfore we demand clarification."

"In future drafts it will assert no opinion on religious rituals, prohibiting or allowing, leaving it to the nation to decide."

"If nation is freely able to interpret this law however they want, this law is completely irrelevant and will never work. Now I can say that 'I won't accept this law because my religion isn't allowing it' and therefore I can completly ignore WA legislation just because I want."

[Bakhton]

"In future drafts it will assert no opinion on religious rituals, prohibiting or allowing, leaving it to the nation to decide."

"If nation is freely able to interpret this law however they want, this law is completely irrelevant and will never work. Now I can say that 'I won't accept this law because my religion isn't allowing it' and therefore I can completly ignore WA legislation just because I want."

"This exception won't be in future drafts."

[Separatist Peoples]

"In future drafts it will assert no opinion on religious rituals, prohibiting or allowing, leaving it to the nation to decide."

"If nation is freely able to interpret this law however they want, this law is completely irrelevant and will never work. Now I can say that 'I won't accept this law because my religion isn't allowing it' and therefore I can completly ignore WA legislation just because I want."

"Nations are bound to good faith interpretations. You can't interpret it any way, merely in a reasonable way."

[Uocati et Regni Prosperitatem]

"If nation is freely able to interpret this law however they want, this law is completely irrelevant and will never work. Now I can say that 'I won't accept this law because my religion isn't allowing it' and therefore I can completly ignore WA legislation just because I want."

"This exception won't be in future drafts."

"Yes but it stands in this draft, and in this legislature therfore it is not fully clear. Legislature shouldn't be open for so much interpretation, it is difficult to predict outcomes in this manner."

[Uocati et Regni Prosperitatem]

"If nation is freely able to interpret this law however they want, this law is completely irrelevant and will never work. Now I can say that 'I won't accept this law because my religion isn't allowing it' and therefore I can completly ignore WA legislation just because I want."

"Nations are bound to good faith interpretations. You can't interpret it any way, merely in a reasonable way."

"But in current state it is easy to misinterpret it and use it for own good, instead for the good of the people."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Nations are bound to good faith interpretations. You can't interpret it any way, merely in a reasonable way."

"But in current state it is easy to misinterpret it and use it for own good, instead for the good of the people."

"The term good-faith is pretty inclusive. Its hard to interpret a resolution banning the ethical killing of animals to, in good faith, include skinning them alive just because a nation claims that they believe that to be the most humane method. Good Faith is an objective, not a subjective, standard. There is less room to wiggle than you think, and most authors craft their resolutions in such a way as to limit that."

[Uocati et Regni Prosperitatem]

"But in current state it is easy to misinterpret it and use it for own good, instead for the good of the people."

"The term good-faith is pretty inclusive. Its hard to interpret a resolution banning the ethical killing of animals to, in good faith, include skinning them alive just because a nation claims that they believe that to be the most humane method. Good Faith is an objective, not a subjective, standard. There is less room to wiggle than you think, and most authors craft their resolutions in such a way as to limit that."

"But there have to be formed a list of ethical methods for religious rituals which will limit this "religious priviledges". But in the same time this will need addictional councils and more bureaucracy which will have greater impact on budget."

[Separatist Peoples]

"The term good-faith is pretty inclusive. Its hard to interpret a resolution banning the ethical killing of animals to, in good faith, include skinning them alive just because a nation claims that they believe that to be the most humane method. Good Faith is an objective, not a subjective, standard. There is less room to wiggle than you think, and most authors craft their resolutions in such a way as to limit that."

"But there have to be formed a list of ethical methods for religious rituals which will limit this "religious priviledges". But in the same time this will need addictional councils and more bureaucracy which will have greater impact on budget."

"Bureaucracy happens. You don't like it, then maybe the WA isn't for you. Why should religious services get the opportunity to harm animals, exactly? What makes believing in a make-believe story so worthy of protection? Near as I can tell, there is no reason to allow a religious exception."