[Draft 1] - Sensible Restrictions on Animal Spectacles

[Simone Republic]

[strike]This is after some back-and-forth in Discord/TGs over Magecastle's draft, as a deliberately significantly weaker draft compared to theirs (which is available here).

Draft 1

The World Assembly,

Noting the ongoing controversy regarding various activities related to cruelty to animals;

Scouting for some consensus around restricting animal related spectacles;

The WA enacts as follows:

1. Definitions.
   
   1. "Animal" refers to non-sapient animals only. It also excludes any animals deemed, by a WA state or a WA committee, to be a pest or part of an invasive species.
   2. "Spectacle" refers to any public activity involving at least one animal fighting, coursing, or baiting another, with the potential for injuries or death among animals, solely as part of organised activities for the benefit of individuals or entities.
2. Prohibition.
   
   1. No one may organise any spectacles anywhere in a WA state, or maintain facilities designed for such spectacles.
   2. No WA state may permit anyone under its jurisdiction to gamble on any spectacles, including spectacles taking place outside of WA states.
3. Release. A WA state must ensure that any animals held in captivity within its jurisdiction for the purpose of a spectacle prior to the enactment of this resolution be humanely handled as a WA state deems appropriate. Euthanasia shall only be adopted as a last resort.

Char count: 1,262.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: As mentioned during the said discussion privately; I think the prohibition on gambling is worthwhile, however it seems to allow all human-on-animal blood sports while prohibiting animal-on-animal ones which is a rather arbitrary distinction. I don't see why bullfighting should be legal while cockfighting is not. _{[The ideal regardless would be for a certain badly argued repeal not to have passed, but it is too late for that now :P]}

[Simone Republic]

Ooc: As mentioned during the said discussion privately; I think the prohibition on gambling is worthwhile, however it seems to allow all human-on-animal blood sports while prohibiting animal-on-animal ones which is a rather arbitrary distinction. I don't see why bullfighting should be legal while cockfighting is not. _{[The ideal regardless would be for a certain badly argued repeal not to have passed, but it is too late for that now ]}

(OOC)

I don't think it's an arbitrary distinction because humans that inflict cruelty on animals should be handled by domestic laws
- common assault/murder applies to human-to-human anyway, and humans accused of other forms of cruelty to animals can defend themselves in court, and we are not criminalising murder via the WA. There seems to be a stronger rationale for banning animal-to-animal cruelty across the WA.

My objections on all the previous resolutions are largely related to hunting, not to say cockfighting.

[The Ice States]

Ooc: As mentioned during the said discussion privately; I think the prohibition on gambling is worthwhile, however it seems to allow all human-on-animal blood sports while prohibiting animal-on-animal ones which is a rather arbitrary distinction. I don't see why bullfighting should be legal while cockfighting is not. _{[The ideal regardless would be for a certain badly argued repeal not to have passed, but it is too late for that now ]}

(OOC)

I don't think it's an arbitrary distinction because humans that inflict cruelty on animals should be handled by domestic laws
- common assault/murder applies to human-to-human anyway, and humans accused of other forms of cruelty to animals can defend themselves in court, and we are not criminalising murder via the WA. There seems to be a stronger rationale for banning animal-to-animal cruelty across the WA.

My objections on all the previous resolutions are largely related to hunting, not to say cockfighting.

The draft this would compete with explicitly doesn't legislate on hunting, theoretically addressing those objections. I don't think this is covered by RNT (unlike say murder) given that many real-world nations do permit human-on-animal blood sports.

[Simone Republic]

This has been withdrawn.

This has been revived. I disagree with the premise of the "competing" resolution - and it's not really competing as the scope is much narrower in this draft and no compromise is possible.