[Draft] Prohibiting Animal Cruelty

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Prohibiting Animal Cruelty
A Resolution on Health/Bioethics

Recalling our past commitments to animal welfare through such resolutions as GAR#267 (Sensible Limits on Hunting), GAR#465 (Preventing Species Extinction), GAR#498 (Ban on Forced Blood Sports); and GAR#489 (Ethical Treatment of Animals in Research);

Convinced that it is inherently wrong to subject sentient creatures to unnecessary and unjustifiable pain and suffering;

Aware that people who commit cruel or malicious acts toward animals desensitize themselves and become statistically more likely to commit child abuse, domestic violence, elder abuse and other violent behaviors;

Committed to eradicating cruelty in all its forms;

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines an "animal" for the purposes of this resolution as: any member of a non-person species capable of experiencing pain and suffering, as determined by modern science.

Tasks the World Assembly Science Program with the following duties:

• Cataloging all of the species which meet the definition of "animal" given above;
• Publishing and regularly updating a comprehensive, easy-to-reference list of such species; and
• Making that list readily available in a convenient format to every member nation.

Declares that it is unlawful to cruelly inflict pain or suffering on an animal. In this context, "cruelly" means inflicting pain or suffering:

• without any purpose, or solely to cause pain or suffering;
• to derive delight, entertainment, or pleasure from causing pain or suffering;
• regardless of purpose, if it would be practicable to accomplish that purpose without causing pain or suffering, or with less pain or suffering.

Prohibiting Animal Cruelty
A Resolution on Health/Bioethics

Recalling our longstanding commitment to animal welfare, through resolutions such as GAR#199 (the Sustainable Fishing Act), GAR#224 (Promotion of Beekeeping), GAR#267 (Sensible Limits on Hunting), GAR#290 (Protecting Migratory Animals), GAR#403 (Trade Of Endangered Organisms), GAR#409 (Ocean Noise Reduction), GAR#414 (Wetland Protection Protocol), and many others;

Committed to eradicating cruelty in all its forms;

The World Assembly hereby:

Establishes the following definitions for this resolutions:

1. An "animal" is any non-person mammal (such as dogs, cats, and horses), bird (such as eagles, penguins, and meadowlarks), reptile (such as chameleons and turtles), amphibian (such as frogs and salamanders), or fish (such as manta rays, dolphins and salmon).

2. "Cruelty" is intentional or callous behavior which inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering. Pain or suffering is "unnecessary" when (1) there is no reasonable purpose for the behavior other than to inflict pain or suffering, or (2) the behavior inflicts pain or suffering which could have been reasonably avoided under the circumstances while still accomplishing the behavior's purpose.

Declares that animal cruelty is unlawful within all member nations.

Prohibiting Animal Cruelty
A Resolution on Health/Bioethics

Recalling our longstanding commitment to animal welfare, through resolutions such as GAR#199 (the Sustainable Fishing Act), GAR#224 (Promotion of Beekeeping), GAR#267 (Sensible Limits on Hunting), GAR#290 (Protecting Migratory Animals), GAR#403 (Trade Of Endangered Organisms), GAR#409 (Ocean Noise Reduction), GAR#414 (Wetland Protection Protocol), and many others;

Committed to eradicating cruelty in all its forms;

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines cruelty as the intentional or callous infliction of pain or suffering.

Declares that animal cruelty is prohibited within all member nations.

[Minskiev]

For this resolution, what is an animal? Are humans animals?

[Untecna]

Needs better definition of "animal", and we can't really guarantee an entire ban. I'd say revise this to prevent it instead. I say that because anything involving animals and nations probably can't cover everything and prohibit something entirely, yet.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. The interests of animals should always be subordinate to the interest of sapient people, even where cruelty is involved."

[WayNeacTia]

"Opposed. The interests of animals should always be subordinate to the interest of sapient people, even where cruelty is involved."

Why?

[Untecna]

"Opposed. The interests of animals should always be subordinate to the interest of sapient people, even where cruelty is involved."

"While the Ambassador here is throwing out his disgusting point, I'd like to mention that animals are what we are, inherently, and so his point is contradictory. While we may be sapient, the animal brethren we have should not be disrespected in such fashion."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. The interests of animals should always be subordinate to the interest of sapient people, even where cruelty is involved."

Why?

"Sapient creatures are innately more valuable, as being capable of higher reasoning. That, among other reason, is why it's murder to shoot a person and not an animal."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. The interests of animals should always be subordinate to the interest of sapient people, even where cruelty is involved."

"While the Ambassador here is throwing out his disgusting point, I'd like to mention that animals are what we are, inherently, and so his point is contradictory. While we may be sapient, the animal brethren we have should not be disrespected in such fashion."

"If the ambassador were paying attention, the difference between people and animals was explicit in my comment. It's diffuclt to take your delegation seriously when it disregards explicit statements."

[WayNeacTia]

Why?

"Sapient creatures are innately more valuable, as being capable of higher reasoning. That, among other reason, is why it's murder to shoot a person and not an animal."

Hunting is one thing, as is meat processing. The animal is killed instantly, no suffering. I was questioning your statement "even where cruelty is involved".

[Untecna]

"While the Ambassador here is throwing out his disgusting point, I'd like to mention that animals are what we are, inherently, and so his point is contradictory. While we may be sapient, the animal brethren we have should not be disrespected in such fashion."

"If the ambassador were paying attention, the difference between people and animals was explicit in my comment. It's diffuclt to take your delegation seriously when it disregards explicit statements."

"Ambassador, Bell, was it? You dismiss it with a preschool comment about 'people vs. animals'. I should make myself clear here: all life constituted under animal would include sapient life, therefore placing sapient in front of animals just means we are throwing ourself into a paradox of sorts, because we are animals, though we have higher reasoning. This is basic biology."

[WayNeacTia]

"If the ambassador were paying attention, the difference between people and animals was explicit in my comment. It's diffuclt to take your delegation seriously when it disregards explicit statements."

"Ambassador, Bell, was it? You dismiss it with a preschool comment about 'people vs. animals'. I should make myself clear here: all life constituted under animal would include sapient life, therefore placing sapient in front of animals just means we are throwing ourself into a paradox of sorts, because we are animals, though we have higher reasoning. This is basic biology."

It's really going to devolve into this, so soon?

[Untecna]

"Ambassador, Bell, was it? You dismiss it with a preschool comment about 'people vs. animals'. I should make myself clear here: all life constituted under animal would include sapient life, therefore placing sapient in front of animals just means we are throwing ourself into a paradox of sorts, because we are animals, though we have higher reasoning. This is basic biology."

It's really going to devolve into this, so soon?

OOC: Perhaps.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Sapient creatures are innately more valuable, as being capable of higher reasoning. That, among other reason, is why it's murder to shoot a person and not an animal."

Hunting is one thing, as is meat processing. The animal is killed instantly, no suffering. I was questioning your statement "even where cruelty is involved".

"Many would argue that slaughter is innately cruel. Despite that, we continue to slaughter animals for food, ambassador."

"If the ambassador were paying attention, the difference between people and animals was explicit in my comment. It's diffuclt to take your delegation seriously when it disregards explicit statements."

"Ambassador, Bell, was it? You dismiss it with a preschool comment about 'people vs. animals'. I should make myself clear here: all life constituted under animal would include sapient life, therefore placing sapient in front of animals just means we are throwing ourself into a paradox of sorts, because we are animals, though we have higher reasoning. This is basic biology."

"Again, ambassador, your inability to interpret explicit statements is not our failing. I made the distinction between sapient and non-sapient by qualifying 'people'. This is a tiresome, yet constant, failing of your delegation."

[Untecna]

Hunting is one thing, as is meat processing. The animal is killed instantly, no suffering. I was questioning your statement "even where cruelty is involved".

"Many would argue that slaughter is innately cruel. Despite that, we continue to slaughter animals for food, ambassador."

"Ambassador, Bell, was it? You dismiss it with a preschool comment about 'people vs. animals'. I should make myself clear here: all life constituted under animal would include sapient life, therefore placing sapient in front of animals just means we are throwing ourself into a paradox of sorts, because we are animals, though we have higher reasoning. This is basic biology."

"Again, ambassador, your inability to interpret explicit statements is not our failing. I made the distinction between sapient and non-sapient by qualifying 'people'. This is a tiresome, yet constant, failing of your delegation."

"May I also point out you made no mention as to why we should let these bretheren of ours suffer? They have the gift of life, just as us, shouldn't we consider them lucky? Perhaps they deserve more respect than you perceive them to need..."

[WayNeacTia]

Hunting is one thing, as is meat processing. The animal is killed instantly, no suffering. I was questioning your statement "even where cruelty is involved".

"Many would argue that slaughter is innately cruel. Despite that, we continue to slaughter animals for food, ambassador."

And many would be wrong, but I digress. Either way, I do not believe that you believe that wanton cruelty to animals is necessary in any way.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Many would argue that slaughter is innately cruel. Despite that, we continue to slaughter animals for food, ambassador."


"Again, ambassador, your inability to interpret explicit statements is not our failing. I made the distinction between sapient and non-sapient by qualifying 'people'. This is a tiresome, yet constant, failing of your delegation."

"May I also point out you made no mention as to why we should let these bretheren of ours suffer? They have the gift of life, just as us, shouldn't we consider them lucky? Perhaps they deserve more respect than you perceive them to need..."

"Only insofar as the interests of respecting them does not conflict with the interests of persons. All activity where persons' interests conflict with that of animals' are resolved in favor of persons. That's why we tolerate pest extermination for the health and comfort of persons, why we use beasts of burden for their labor without compensation, why we slaughter animals, raised in pens, for flesh and hide. The superiority of person is essential to the premise of universal human rights, since what matters morally is merely personhood. Without that essentialism, there is no normative principal on which to protect human rights."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Many would argue that slaughter is innately cruel. Despite that, we continue to slaughter animals for food, ambassador."

And many would be wrong, but I digress. Either way, I do not believe that you believe that wanton cruelty to animals is necessary in any way.

"I cannot think of a situation where wanton cruelty is necessary, but, then, is not that innately subjective, ambassador? Vegans would call slaughter of a chicken for meat wantonly cruel."

[Apatosaurus]

Ambassador Scott "The Apatosaurusian Delegation maintains a strong stance in support of non-sapient animal rights, and as such, we are fully supportive of the principle. However, we believe that this resolution is not sufficient for the standards of this institution. Firstly, define an "animal" as per what Wallace Russell said. Secondly, the definition of "cruelty" is very vague -- swatting a fly likely causes pain to that fly, but should not be prohibited by international law for obvious reasons, for example."

OOC: Besides those points, you really seem like a puppet of somebody? If so, who?

[Comfed]

Meh. What does “intentional and callous” even mean? This should really get into specifics rather than a very vague blanket ban.

[Honeydewistania]

Spraying water at an insect in the shower = breaking international law

[ImARealPerson]

Because of the ambiguity of the definition of "cruelty," one might argue that harvesting animals for food would be banned under this proposal. This needs to be refined to clear up any confusion. Ultimately, my support wanes on what "cruelty" would be banned. Should hunting be banned under this proposal? The harvesting of meat? The breeding of animals? The use of animals in experiments? Do not take it lightly that the WA hosts a plethora of nations, many that find it agreeable to disregard the welfare of animals to a significant degree; this issue to them might seem little more than trite. Even with a better definition of cruelty, I cannot see this proposal getting through the GA.

[Texkentuck]

I remember back in the WA we put fourth rules on humane treatment of farm animals. The proposal had to do with agriculture and animals. None of my suggestions went through or were read. It went from making sure farm animals were not moved with cattle prongs. Also prevented horrible forms of slaughter. I don't remember what the proposal was but it was weak in nature to protecting the farm animals.

Perhaps make it a proposal in how farm animals are protected and humanely processed. It's moderate because everyone will get their meat. Also add in farm animals can not be given a drug that makes them grow bigger un-naturally for the sake of profit. No one wants to eat fake meat.

In addition add in that computer chips can do aniamal research. No reason to torture dogs in cages with flies eating their flesh or lab rats put to death for no real reason when it can be all researched by technology on a computer...

Pres. Schirkophf
UCCR

[Xanthorrhoea]

Perhaps make it a proposal in how farm animals are protected and humanely processed. It's moderate because everyone will get their meat. Also add in farm animals can not be given a drug that makes them grow bigger un-naturally for the sake of profit. No one wants to eat fake meat.

In addition add in that computer chips can do aniamal research. No reason to torture dogs in cages with flies eating their flesh or lab rats put to death for no real reason when it can be all researched by technology on a computer...

Pres. Schirkophf
UCCR

What would your definition of 'unnatural' be? Adding certain hormones to animals will make them grow differently, but such hormones are naturally produced to some degree by the animals anyway. If you ban exogenous hormones, what about breeding animals to produce more endogenous ones to achieve a similar effect. 'Unnatural' is a completely meaningless term when it comes to farming, eclipsed maybe only by words such as 'organic' or 'chemicals.'

What kind of animal research are you proposing can be done by computers? IRL technology is nowhere near that level, and we need to maintain some connection to the real world as a baseline for discussion. Otherwise trying to legislate for magical fantasy realms, extreme sci-fi empires, or nations full of eldrich abominations that defy the laws of physics beccomes rather pointless.

I do agree in principle however that this needs better definition. 'Callous or intentional' is too broad a standard. I'd suggest inccluding some kind of provision requiring minimal suffering wherever possible, and banning inflicting sufferring for it's own sake.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The debate thus far demonstrates my point. Sapient persons commit acts of cruelty that can be wanton by many standards all the time. The overriding concern ultimately collepses to utility: whether the usefulness of that infliction outweighs other considerations. Killing an animal for no reason is wrong, but killing an animal to use it or to prevent harm to sapient people or their resources is not. Any law governing animal treatment necessarily must balance utility of animal treatment against morality."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I've made revisions to the draft in response to the comments so far. I hear people saying that, to even begin to debate this meaningfully, they want definitions for "animal" and "cruelty." Nobody actually suggested anything, of course, so I couldn't accommodate anyone else's views on those subjects. I provided my own thoughts, but I'm open to proposed modifications.

I do think SP's comment about needing to balance "utility" and "morality" is interesting. I've defined cruelty in a way that recognizes inflicting pain on an animal might be necessary to serve a legitimate end (suffering... I'm really not so sure). Prodding a cow to get them to move is perhaps a good, light example. In my view, inflicting pain is not cruel if it has a reasonable purpose apart from inflicting pain, and there were no less-painful reasonable alternatives under the circumstances. I think that's a fair balance that serves the purpose of this law while still allowing nations to act reasonably with respect to their use of animals. I'm certainly open to further amendments.

Some people have also stated general support for the principle but indicated that the proposal is "not sufficient for the standards of this institution" (what standards?) or "should really get into specifics rather than a very vague blanket ban." I don't know what these things mean or want from me. If you provide substantive feedback on what's missing or where this should go, I'm very much open to your input.