[DRAFT] Humane Slaughter Act

[Liberatarian States]

"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."

Hmm... would you please elaborate on this "collective act"?

[Liberatarian States]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I've changed some things, how's it look now?

[Ardiveds]

"We feel like the language used in 2.ii is problematic. Instead of The animal is slaughtered by religious individuals using religious methods you could consider using The animal slaughtered for the purpose of religious ceremonies. Though one has to ask if the religious beliefs of individuals is really more important than the pain and suffering of animals."

[Tinhampton]

"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."

Hmm... would you please elaborate on this "collective act"?

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Ambassador McCooley is referring to the possibility of enacting World Assembly legislation on hunting - although I would, however, remind you that such a possibility has already been realised by Resolution Two-Hundred and Sixty-Seven, regarding Sensible Limits on Hunting.

[Rightport]

ii. The animal is slaughtered by religious individuals using religious methods, in which case animals may be slaughtered with methods not considered humane. However, individuals slaughtering animals as a religious practice are encouraged to minimise the pain animals experience, without violating their religious laws.

Rightport would definitely support the proposal however we take issue with section ii. of the draft that would exempt "religious individuals" from the requirements of said act. More in context, the main concern is that anyone can claim "religion" to carry out inhumane slaughter without being in contravention of this act.

In addition, we also question whether the beliefs of religious individuals outweighs the importance of preventing pain and suffering of animals.

Maybe other states would disagree but that's a concern for us. Despite that, we like the proposal

[Liberatarian States]

"We feel like the language used in 2.ii is problematic. Instead of The animal is slaughtered by religious individuals using religious methods you could consider using The animal slaughtered for the purpose of religious ceremonies. Though one has to ask if the religious beliefs of individuals is really more important than the pain and suffering of animals."

Agreed. Will be fixed. And in my personal opinion, no, the religious beliefs of individuals does not justify needless suffering, but I don't want this proposal to stamp out religion either. About time a third issue answer guy shows up with a compromise

[Liberatarian States]

Hmm... would you please elaborate on this "collective act"?

Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: Ambassador McCooley is referring to the possibility of enacting World Assembly legislation on hunting - although I would, however, remind you that such a possibility has already been realised by Resolution Two-Hundred and Sixty-Seven, regarding Sensible Limits on Hunting.

I'll refer to GA #267 in the hunting bit then.

[Liberatarian States]

ii. The animal is slaughtered by religious individuals using religious methods, in which case animals may be slaughtered with methods not considered humane. However, individuals slaughtering animals as a religious practice are encouraged to minimise the pain animals experience, without violating their religious laws.

Rightport would definitely support the proposal however we take issue with section ii. of the draft that would exempt "religious individuals" from the requirements of said act. More in context, the main concern is that anyone can claim "religion" to carry out inhumane slaughter without being in contravention of this act.

In addition, we also question whether the beliefs of religious individuals outweighs the importance of preventing pain and suffering of animals.

Maybe other states would disagree but that's a concern for us. Despite that, we like the proposal

This is an issue. In my personal opinion, religion should not be an exception, but I do understand if I force all butchers/hunters to slaughter animals in humane ways, a lot of religious people will get mad, and this proposal will get less approvals. So...

[Liberatarian States]

Fixed some things... is it good to go, or do you spot any more rooms for improvement? Thanks for the help

[Rightport]

This is an issue. In my personal opinion, religion should not be an exception, but I do understand if I force all butchers/hunters to slaughter animals in humane ways, a lot of religious people will get mad, and this proposal will get less approvals. So...

"Replies"

Thank you for your clarification Liberatarian States . I understand why your gov't saw the need to include section 2ii and I respect that.

In fact, I agree with you that there may be possibility for religious groups to take issue with section 2 ii but I still believe some things can be justified. I can't find any legislation that allow/make exceptions for people to murder others for religious reasons, or to commit heinous crimes for religious reasons. Such actions would go against basic fundamental rights that are guaranteed under the WA and many of our nations constitutions. If we are serious about animal rights, the way we view and respond to this matter should be no different.

Thank You

[Liberatarian States]

This is an issue. In my personal opinion, religion should not be an exception, but I do understand if I force all butchers/hunters to slaughter animals in humane ways, a lot of religious people will get mad, and this proposal will get less approvals. So...

"Replies"

Thank you for your clarification Liberatarian States . I understand why your gov't saw the need to include section 2ii and I respect that.

In fact, I agree with you that there may be possibility for religious groups to take issue with section 2 ii but I still believe some things can be justified. I can't find any legislation that allow/make exceptions for people to murder others for religious reasons, or to commit heinous crimes for religious reasons. Such actions would go against basic fundamental rights that are guaranteed under the WA and many of our nations constitutions. If we are serious about animal rights, the way we view and respond to this matter should be no different.

Thank You

I agree with you, but if I mandate that all citizens - including religious ones - of member nations are obliged to comply with article 1 and 2, people might consider it a significant and (in their opinion) unjustified restriction on civil rights. Animal rights are very important, but if I push this proposal too far, member nations (such as those with religious players roleplaying as the nation) might not like it.

[Liberatarian States]

OK... is it good for submission now?

[Greater Cesnica]

OK... is it good for submission now?

"No. Please leave it up for further debate and examination."

[Liberatarian States]

OK... is it good for submission now?

"No. Please leave it up for further debate and examination."

Sure. I'll wait a little longer.

[Araraukar]

OOC and IC as marked.

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),

OOC: At least Wiktionary defines "slaughter" as "killing animals", so by necessity this would catch all the WA-mandated things like culling invasive species, so keep that in mind. Also, fishing.

Recognising the several distinct methods of animal slaughter,

IC: "This doesn't really do anything for your proposal. You should use the preamble to address what is the problem, why it is an international problem and why in your opinion it has not been dealt with by existing legislation. I can sort of see what you think the problem is, but I don't see anything about why it is an international problem."

Noting that some nations legalise inhumane slaughtering of fully conscious animals, resulting in animals experiencing intense pain prior to death,

IC: "So you'd be fine with any slaughtering method that does not produce intense pain, even if it didn't otherwise meet your humane definition?"

OOC: Also, depending on your definition of "intense pain", sticking a needle in them to administer an anesthetic, may also count and be more painful than slitting their throat with a sharp knife.

Appalled by the unnecessary pain animals experience as a result of brutal methods of slaughtering,

IC: "Your brutal may be someone else's necessary. In a desperate starving situation a person may not consider the animal's wellbeing if they have only a short opportunity to wound it lethally, to gain food to not starve themselves. I would suggest trying to survive for a week in the arctic tundra or above treeline in the mountains, with no firearms."

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

OOC: Okay, you're going to run into issues with the "conscious", because anyone not wanting to deal with this is going to think that means sapient (like humans) instead of sentient (like cows), and talking about killing people as "slaughter", is not generally good thing.

IC: "Why do animals deserve rights? The preamble is exactly where you should spell that out."

Hereby mandates that member nations enforce the following:

OOC: Unnecessary fluff is unnecessary.

1. When slaughtering any animals animal, the animal must be rendered insensible insensitive to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other any means that is are rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut otherwise processed;

OOC: Edits to streamline it. You've left out "being skinned, ground down, pulverized, blown up" and a number of other things, so I reworded the incomplete list as "otherwise processed". Same for the too short list of pain reduction.

2. Refusing to comply with (1.) shall be deemed a criminal offence, and individuals who commit said offence shall be punished in accordance to national (?) law, unless:

IC: "Leaving out any kind of business would be dangerous in this era of automatization, if your main goal is to reduce animal suffering. I'm quite sure that for the animal it's one and same if they're being hacked to pieces when alive and conscious by a person or by a robot."

OOC: Also, what laws? National? What if the nation has no law against animal killing cruelty and thus no punishments for it? In fact, calling it animal cruelty to begin with would help to bring this even remotely in line of what's done in RL.

i. The animal is posing a potential an immediate threat to surrounding persons or animals by behaving violently people or other 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;

IC: "Those exceptions should cover most bases stemming from the need to kill a particular animal."

OOC: Think of migrating birds carrying some serious disease - you're not going to be able to catch them in most cases, and shooting birds down is rarely a clean kill. Unless we're talking of sparrows and shotguns at close range, because then they probably get vaporized...

ii. The animal slaughtered for the purpose of religious ceremonies. in which case animals may be slaughtered with methods not considered humane. However, individuals slaughtering animals as a religious practice are encouraged to minimise the pain animals experience, without violating their religious laws., 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.

IC: "Added a new subclause to account for the desperate situation where you may be stranded in the wilderness with no way to kill an animal cleanly. Though you might want to decide if you talk of killing when the animal is killed for other purposes than mass-production of meat for agricultural needs, as most people equate "slaughtering" to be used when the animal is killed and processed for food, as happens in slaughterhouses, while "killing" is when you don't necessarily process the animal for food afterwards, or at least not in the common manner."

OOC: The halal or whatever religious explanation from before would not actually be caught in exception ii, as it's not killed "for the purpose of", but "as" a religious ceremony.

IC: "So, now, how is this going to work on fishing? And I mean catching fish with a net, from a river or lake or sea or anything like that. How are you going to make them unable to feel pain before hauling them out of the water? What about accidental killing, like hitting a deer with your car, with the deer limping off before people licenced to euthanize such animals get to the scene, and later dying from its injuries? Adding a fourth exception might be necessary, something like "The animal is killed accidentally and unintentionally". If you're quarrying for rock with explosives, and some wild animal - say, a bird - is silly enough to end up getting killed in the blast despite the blaring sirens and bright blinking lights and people yelling, it is hardly the fault of the quarry workers."

OOC: But seriously, fishing? Or killing wild insects for food?

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

OOC: Use list code. If you have trouble with it, just say so.

[Vilverin]

Just a few points, not a big ol comprehensive review.

• I would probably change the resolution to only target animals that are killed in slaughterhouses or controlled environments. Having the resolution enforce controlled manners of slaughter in uncontrolled environments isn't ideal.
  
• I would change 'intense pain' to unnecessary suffering, and any other references to pain to suffering unless pain is a better descriptor.
  
• In Clause 1, captive bolt pistol should be used rather than gunshot. A gunshot will either kill the animal or cause it unnecessary suffering, whereas a captive bolt will stun it.
  
• I think that subclause ii of Clause 2 should have a caveat to say that you should strive to kill the animal as humanely as possible, even if it is being posing a threat.Although tbh I don't know how to word that lol

[Araraukar]

i. The animal is posing a potential an immediate threat to surrounding persons or animals by behaving violently people or other 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;

OOC: Small edit (in red) to what I wrote there.

[Liberatarian States]

OOC and IC as marked.

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

OOC: Use list code. If you have trouble with it, just say so.

Wow, thank you so much for the help. You remind me of my english teacher. I fixed the resolution, see how it's like now. I don't understand what you mean by list code though

Also, wanna be listed as a co-author since you helped with so much?

[Liberatarian States]

Just a few points, not a big ol comprehensive review.

• I would probably change the resolution to only target animals that are killed in slaughterhouses or controlled environments. Having the resolution enforce controlled manners of slaughter in uncontrolled environments isn't ideal.
  
• I would change 'intense pain' to unnecessary suffering, and any other references to pain to suffering unless pain is a better descriptor.
  
• In Clause 1, captive bolt pistol should be used rather than gunshot. A gunshot will either kill the animal or cause it unnecessary suffering, whereas a captive bolt will stun it.
  
• I think that subclause ii of Clause 2 should have a caveat to say that you should strive to kill the animal as humanely as possible, even if it is being posing a threat.Although tbh I don't know how to word that lol

Done, thanks.

[Liberatarian States]

I think it looks good now. I'll submit it as a proposal.

[Outer Sparta]

I think it looks good now. I'll submit it as a proposal.

I would advise against it. Keep on with the drafting process for another couple of weeks, as I don't think it's ready.

[Liberatarian States]

I think it looks good now. I'll submit it as a proposal.

I would advise against it. Keep on with the drafting process for another couple of weeks, as I don't think it's ready.

okeh

[Imperium Anglorum]

A specific fine of money that doesn't "exist" and specifying certain years which might be greatly disproportionate with other crimes of similar magnitude doesn't seem the right approach to me.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Apart from what IA said, you can't mention dollars (or any other currency that exists irl) in proposals since it's considered a rl reference rule violence.

[Liberatarian States]

A specific fine of money that doesn't "exist" and specifying certain years which might be greatly disproportionate with other crimes of similar magnitude doesn't seem the right approach to me.

The money is just the nationstates currency value. I actually drew inspiration for this proposal from the US Humane Slaughter Act, and the penalties for violation are similar to those of the Act as well. What you're suggesting is that I remove the penalties and let the nations decide their own or something?