[DEFEATED] International Charter For Animal Welfare

[Ladratia]

I feel that this advice was correct but the emphasis should not have been on "may be the best hope of such legislation being reinstated" and, rather, that earlier bit on "what happened with the last legislation on this issue is well known". Mentioning blood sports meant that last submission was DOA.

I didn't really read anything in the GA forums while I was TNP delegate, but I would have objected strenuously to this advice had I read it before the earlier submission.

I'm sorry, but this is extremely silly. The forms of animal abuse this resolution intends to prevent include blood sports, whether or not this is explicitly stated. The only reason this is a "problem" is because of blatant rationalisations invented earlier this year to advance a personal vendetta (against either specific individuals or the institution as it exists). If the objection is that telling nations to outlaw animal abuse violates their sovereignty, then blood sports makes the least sense as the one to single out as a violation of national sovereignty. Objections along the lines of "do we really need to talk about blood sports again?" are selectively applied when legislation addresses it in a way one doesn't like, and held up as reason to advance legislation which addresses it in a way that one does like.

--------

On the actual proposal, I would honestly revert the addition of 2c, which causes more issues than it solves; it is not clear when it does apply for a particular species, when 2b's "seriously endanger the mental health of that being" was otherwise sufficient. The preamble has some odd organisation; I would merge the subordination clause into the actual enacting clause (eg "Hereby enacts the following International Charter for Animal Welfare, subject to unrepealed previous resolutions") and introduce a conjunction "and" after the penultimate preambulatory clause. Otherwise this looks good to me

My answer to your comments is yesn't. I will not under any circumstances put blood sports back in there and will leave up to obvious speculation what the resolution implies be done with it. This is because that, imo, single handedly costed me the vote. I also added 2c for the same reason, it's not necessary to put it there but it clarifies the obvious "but what about flies tho, and I wanna eat meat! this proposal gets rid of both i vote nuh uh" which is obviously not what the charter actually says or should be interpreted to say but I am 100% certain (from conversations with smaller delegates) that those reasons and those alone motivated them voting against. I agree with you on both of these points but I'd rather leave the median WA voter with some clarification than appease the WA lizard elite. I will, however, be reviewing the phrasing of 2c due to issues you pointed out. Last call, y'all, because I sure as hell am not going to make like a 100th proposal only for it to be shot down again just past the designated time for criticism (as in, if this does not go through I'm abandoning the resolution either forever or for the foreseeable future.)

[The Ice States]

I'm sorry, but this is extremely silly. The forms of animal abuse this resolution intends to prevent include blood sports, whether or not this is explicitly stated. The only reason this is a "problem" is because of blatant rationalisations invented earlier this year to advance a personal vendetta (against either specific individuals or the institution as it exists). If the objection is that telling nations to outlaw animal abuse violates their sovereignty, then blood sports makes the least sense as the one to single out as a violation of national sovereignty. Objections along the lines of "do we really need to talk about blood sports again?" are selectively applied when legislation addresses it in a way one doesn't like, and held up as reason to advance legislation which addresses it in a way that one does like.

--------

On the actual proposal, I would honestly revert the addition of 2c, which causes more issues than it solves; it is not clear when it does apply for a particular species, when 2b's "seriously endanger the mental health of that being" was otherwise sufficient. The preamble has some odd organisation; I would merge the subordination clause into the actual enacting clause (eg "Hereby enacts the following International Charter for Animal Welfare, subject to unrepealed previous resolutions") and introduce a conjunction "and" after the penultimate preambulatory clause. Otherwise this looks good to me

My answer to your comments is yesn't. I will not under any circumstances put blood sports back in there and will leave up to obvious speculation what the resolution implies be done with it. This is because that, imo, single handedly costed me the vote. I also added 2c for the same reason, it's not necessary to put it there but it clarifies the obvious "but what about flies tho, and I wanna eat meat! this proposal gets rid of both i vote nuh uh" which is obviously not what the charter actually says or should be interpreted to say but I am 100% certain (from conversations with smaller delegates) that those reasons and those alone motivated them voting against. I agree with you on both of these points but I'd rather leave the median WA voter with some clarification than appease the WA lizard elite. I will, however, be reviewing the phrasing of 2c due to issues you pointed out. Last call, y'all, because I sure as hell am not going to make like a 100th proposal only for it to be shot down again just past the designated time for criticism (as in, if this does not go through I'm abandoning the resolution either forever or for the foreseeable future.)

With regards to 2c, I would either remove it (which I think is preferable) or rephrase it to be clear as to exactly what you mean. My suggestion would be something along the lines of "aforementioned examples of abuse do not apply when they otherwise fall outside of the criteria in 2a or 2b for a particular animal (eg. it is not illegal to allow a solitary being to be alone, debeaking doesn't apply to animals without beaks, etc.)". That said, this still seems obvious to me. Resolutions are clearer and less likely to have issues if they avoid unnecessary repetitions of the obvious.

[Ladratia]

My answer to your comments is yesn't. I will not under any circumstances put blood sports back in there and will leave up to obvious speculation what the resolution implies be done with it. This is because that, imo, single handedly costed me the vote. I also added 2c for the same reason, it's not necessary to put it there but it clarifies the obvious "but what about flies tho, and I wanna eat meat! this proposal gets rid of both i vote nuh uh" which is obviously not what the charter actually says or should be interpreted to say but I am 100% certain (from conversations with smaller delegates) that those reasons and those alone motivated them voting against. I agree with you on both of these points but I'd rather leave the median WA voter with some clarification than appease the WA lizard elite. I will, however, be reviewing the phrasing of 2c due to issues you pointed out. Last call, y'all, because I sure as hell am not going to make like a 100th proposal only for it to be shot down again just past the designated time for criticism (as in, if this does not go through I'm abandoning the resolution either forever or for the foreseeable future.)

With regards to 2c, I would either remove it (which I think is preferable) or rephrase it to be clear as to exactly what you mean. My suggestion would be something along the lines of "aforementioned examples of abuse do not apply when they otherwise fall outside of the criteria in 2a or 2b for a particular animal (eg. it is not illegal to allow a solitary being to be alone, debeaking doesn't apply to animals without beaks, etc.)". That said, this still seems obvious to me. Resolutions are clearer and less likely to have issues if they avoid unnecessary repetitions of the obvious.

I'll remove it then, I trust your judgement.

[Wallenburg]

Um, was the version that went to vote destroyed?

[Imperium Anglorum]

It would seem so.

A new thread should have been created and the existing thread not overwritten.

---

The World Assembly,

Disgusted at the routine and often monumental abuse that many non-sapient species face, particularly those in the biological kingdom of Animalia, and

Believing that supplementary international legislation is needed to prevent such abuse,

Hereby enacts the following International Charter For Animal Welfare.

1. This Charter is intended for the protection of non-sapient beings, rather than that of insentient beings (such as bacteria, plants, and most small insects). For the purposes of this Charter, a "non-sapient" being is one which is not considered a sapient being (person) by legal or scientific consensus, but which is capable of having experience(s) such as feelings.
   
   
2. All non-sapient beings shall enjoy freedom from extreme and unnecessary suffering caused by sapient beings. To that end, no sapient being may abuse a non-sapient being. For the purposes of this Charter, the "abuse" of a non-sapient being:
   
   
   1. includes inflicting extremely painful acts (such as tail-docking, castration, dehorning, iron branding and debeaking) on that being, without taking steps to eliminate their suffering (such as administering anesthesia);
      
      
   2. includes acts which seriously endanger the mental health of that being, such as sensory overload; insufficient stimulation, exercise or space; blood sports involving injury to that being; and isolation from other members of one's species; and
      
      
   3. does not include any action taken by a sapient being to defend themselves or others, or where absolutely necessary for the welfare of a non-sapient being.
3. The Protection of Animal Welfare Society is hereby entrusted, subject to previous resolutions still in force, to direct funding and support to entities whose intention is to aid the welfare of non-sapient beings. This direction shall be guided by the principle of maximising positive emotions, minimising negative emotions, and eliminating the abuse of non-sapient beings.