[PASSED] Repeal "Animal Cruelty Prevention"

[Scion Lop On]

Ambassador Mitchell Ferris stood and presented his newest proposal for consideration by the World Assembly.

The World Assembly,

DETERMINING that "Animal Cruelty Prevention" does not address certain complexities, and that it neglects to place safeguards on certain exceptions that it grants:

• "Animal Cruelty Prevention" considers any "reasonable person" qualified to determine the degree of care appropriate for an animal, rather than relying on expert advice that might be offered by a professional, such as a veterinarian;
  
  
• Anyone is allowed to mistreat an animal, so long as the mistreatment is for religious reasons;
  
  
• The definition of domestic animals can also be applied to humans, thus legalizing the sacrifice of human beings and other sapient creatures;
  
  
• "Wild animals" may be abused or mistreated with impunity;

BELIEVING that these flaws may lead to grave and unintended consequences;

ASSERTING that it is in its best interest to repeal ineffective legislation, such as resolution #145;

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #145, "Animal Cruelty Prevention."

Co-authored by: [Nation=noflag+short]Knootoss[/nation].

The World Assembly,

1. While not necessarily opposed to preventing cruelty directed towards animals, believes that any resolution seeking to do so must also take into consideration the complexities involved with it, specifically those associated with the fields of agriculture and medicine.

2. Determines that resolution #145 lacks the necessary considerations in regards to the aforementioned topics, and as such, may incite unintended consequences,

3. Asserts that it is in its best interest to repeal ineffective legislation, such as resolution #145,

And to this ends, observes the following flaws within the resolution #145, Animal Cruelty Prevention, specifically:

- that clause 1c states that any "reasonable person" is qualified to determine the degree of care appropriate for an animal, instead of a professional, such as a veterinarian,

- that the religious exemption subverts the entire intent of the resolution by allowing anyone to mistreat an animal, so long as the mistreatment is for religious reasons,

- that the definition of domestic animal applies to humans, thus, legalizing the sacrifice of human beings and other sapient creature,

- that any animal may be euthanized to "end [its] suffering," even if the causes of such suffering can be alleviated through practical means,

- that individual's may abuse or mistreat "wild animals," as stipulated by exemption number five,

4. Desirous of a resolution that may effectively address the prevention of animal cruelty, while simultaneously taking the flaws cited within this repeal into consideration,

5. Resolves that General Assembly Resolution #145, "Animal Cruelty Prevention" is hereby repealed.

I actually plan on submitting this within the next week or so, after its accumulated enough feedback unless there's a compelling argument against it. That being said, please do comment and criticize!

Approve here!

Knootoss' replacement

[Mahaj]

Animal Cruelty Prevention stemmed from me writing failed drafts on the topic.

I support the repeal and would be willing to help on a replacement.

[Scion Lop On]

Animal Cruelty Prevention stemmed from me writing failed drafts on the topic.

I support the repeal and would be willing to help on a replacement.

I've talked to Knootoss in private about doing a repeal and replace, using his proposed replacement from a while back, so if it's an R&R you're looking for, we're a step ahead.

[Mahaj]

Animal Cruelty Prevention stemmed from me writing failed drafts on the topic.

I support the repeal and would be willing to help on a replacement.

I've talked to Knootoss in private about doing a repeal and replace, using his proposed replacement from a while back, so if it's an R&R you're looking for, we're a step ahead.

D:
i'm always a step behind

Opposed!

[Sionis Prioratus]

Hmmm. Interesting. I support this.

Yours looking for antipsychotics,

[Cinistra]

Supported.

[Alqania]

"Hmm", Lord Raekevik hummed in sceptical contemplation, "if I have understood the intentions here correctly, the idea is to replace the resolution with a harsher one? I am uncertain as to whether the Queendom would be supportive of such a replacement, perhaps we would find a simple repeal more agreeable, as we tend to dislike the moral decency category and find its resolutions rather lacking in international significance.

Since animals in agriculture, medicine, religion, hunting and so on are excluded from the resolution, could further resolutions not be made on those topics without repealing the ACP?"

[Quelesh]

ACP is a deeply flawed resolution, and I wholeheartedly support its repeal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

*Alexandria mutters under her breath a few choice words about ACP. While most is unintelligible, a few words and phrases can be made out: "fuck," "moral decency," "god damn," "moral decency," and "shit."*

[Mallorea and Riva]

The World Assembly,

1. While not necessarily opposed to preventing cruelty directed towards animals, believes that any resolution seeking to do so must also take into consideration the complexities involved with it, specifically those associated with the fields of agriculture and medicine.

2. Determines that resolution #145 lacks the necessary considerations in regards to the aforementioned topics, and as such, may incite unintended consequences,

3. Asserts that it is in its best interest to repeal ineffective legislation, such as resolution #145,

And to this ends, observes the following flaws within the resolution #145, Animal Cruelty Prevention, specifically:

1. That clause one, subclause c states that any "reasonable person" is qualified to determine the degree of care appropriate for an animal, instead of a professional, such as a veterinarian,
2. That the religious exemption subverts the entire intent of the resolution by allowing anyone to mistreat an animal, so long as the mistreatment is for religious reasons,
3. That the definition of domestic animal applies to humans, thus, legalizing the sacrifice of human beings and other sapient creature,
4. That any animal may be euthanized to "end [its] suffering," even if the causes of such suffering can be alleviated through practical means,
5. That individual's may abuse or mistreat "wild animals," as stipulated by exemption number five,

4. Desirous of a resolution that may effectively address the prevention of animal cruelty, while simultaneously taking the flaws cited within this repeal into consideration,

5. Resolves that General Assembly Resolution #145, "Animal Cruelty Prevention" is hereby repealed.

I actually plan on submitting this within the next week or so, after its accumulated enough feedback unless there's a compelling argument against it. That being said, please do comment and criticize!

Fixed some spelling errors, and made it look better according to my personal preferences. Do with it what you will.

[Of the Quendi]

Galadriel i Galadhrim Celebríaniel nos-Malréd pondered the repeal for a moment. Normally it came instinctive to her to support just about any repeal that didn't have potentially damaging effects for her homeland's economy. Still animal rights was something her state, staunchly vegan for centuries, cared about. "The People and Senate of the Quendi ... Supports, the repeal." The SMFAWA said, hesitating only briefly before offering her support. "While I do not agree with all of the repeal proposal as it currently stands, I favor the overall intents sufficiently to look past my objections."

[Naughtania]

SUPPORT.
We do need a new resolution, given the previous one's flaws.

[Scion Lop On]

"Hmm", Lord Raekevik hummed in sceptical contemplation, "if I have understood the intentions here correctly, the idea is to replace the resolution with a harsher one? I am uncertain as to whether the Queendom would be supportive of such a replacement, perhaps we would find a simple repeal more agreeable, as we tend to dislike the moral decency category and find its resolutions rather lacking in international significance.

Since animals in agriculture, medicine, religion, hunting and so on are excluded from the resolution, could further resolutions not be made on those topics without repealing the ACP?"

Well, we want a harsher replacement, inasmuch as it prevents the abuses permitted within the current text. In theory, certain aspects of the repeal could be partially addressed through another resolution, but everything included in the "exemption" section of ACP are explicitly outlined, such as the religious exemption, and the erroneous euthanasia exception. If you're interested in the proposed replacement, you can find it in the OP, or here.

Fixed some spelling errors, and made it look better according to my personal preferences. Do with it what you will.

Thanks! I think I'll keep the current format (with a few changes, perhaps), but I've changed all of the spelling mistakes.

SUPPORT.
We do need a new resolution, given the previous one's flaws.

Hmmm. Interesting. I support this.

Yours looking for antipsychotics,

Supported.

ACP is a deeply flawed resolution, and I wholeheartedly support its repeal.

Galadriel i Galadhrim Celebríaniel nos-Malréd pondered the repeal for a moment. Normally it came instinctive to her to support just about any repeal that didn't have potentially damaging effects for her homeland's economy. Still animal rights was something her state, staunchly vegan for centuries, cared about. "The People and Senate of the Quendi ... Supports, the repeal." The SMFAWA said, hesitating only briefly before offering her support. "While I do not agree with all of the repeal proposal as it currently stands, I favor the overall intents sufficiently to look past my objections."

Thank you all for the support!

[Scion Lop On]

Unless there are any objections, this will be submitted Friday.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Kill the fourth clause.

[Scion Lop On]

Kill the fourth clause.

Hmm. I suppose. It doesn't really detract from the argument made, although I do think that the repeal should mention that we're supportive of the proposed replacement.

[Camwood]

Ah I was wondering when this was going to show up! FOR the repeal. Good Idea Mate.

[Scion Lop On]

Submitted for a test run here.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Submitted for a test run here.

While I stand behind a repeal, I must stand against the currently submitted version due to the technical error in it's listing.

[Scion Lop On]

Submitted for a test run here.

While I stand behind a repeal, I must stand against the currently submitted version due to the technical error in it's listing.

I noticed it as well; this as initially going to be campaigned for, but I decided that it was too trivial to bother the mods with, so I'm using it as a quality-gauging litmus test instead. Anyway, I've changed clause four, as per your request, to something that is hopefully more palatable.

[Knootoss]

Support the cause but not the wordiness. I've polished the language a bit using my "less is better" approach:

The World Assembly,

CONSIDERING that "Animal Cruelty Prevention" does not address certain complexities:

• "Animal Cruelty Prevention" considers any "reasonable person" qualified to determine the degree of care appropriate for an animal, rather than relying on expert advice that might be offered by a professional, such as a veterinarian;
• Anyone is allowed to mistreat an animal, so long as the mistreatment is for religious reasons;
• The definition of domestic animals can also be applied to humans, thus legalizing the sacrifice of human beings and other sapient creatures;
• "Wild animals" may be abused or mistreated with impunity;

BELIEVING that these flaws may lead to grave and unintended consequences;

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #145, "Animal Cruelty Prevention".

[Scion Lop On]

Support the cause but not the wordiness. I've polished the language a bit using my "less is better" approach:

The World Assembly,

CONSIDERING that "Animal Cruelty Prevention" does not address certain complexities:

• "Animal Cruelty Prevention" considers any "reasonable person" qualified to determine the degree of care appropriate for an animal, rather than relying on expert advice that might be offered by a professional, such as a veterinarian;
• Anyone is allowed to mistreat an animal, so long as the mistreatment is for religious reasons;
• The definition of domestic animals can also be applied to humans, thus legalizing the sacrifice of human beings and other sapient creatures;
• "Wild animals" may be abused or mistreated with impunity;

BELIEVING that these flaws may lead to grave and unintended consequences;

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #145, "Animal Cruelty Prevention".

Much more succinct. I might add a bit to it, just for stylistic purposes, but overall, this is much better! Thank you!

[Knootoss]

A resolution needs to be longer for stylistic purposes? Dilutes the power of the words!

[Scion Lop On]

A resolution needs to be longer for stylistic purposes? Dilutes the power of the words!

Nowhere near as long as the original. Just a single clause at the end and a bit of spacing; shouldn't dilute the power too much.

[Knootoss]

Oh yeah, this is good.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We approve.