NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings all Members.

The people of Sirloinia has demanded I propose the following resolution. I would request your comments on it.

I have also received notice from several nations a number of proposed amendments, considered additionally below.

A RESOLUTION TO BAN IMMORAL PRACTICES INVOLVING ANIMALS

Proposed Category: Moral Decency
Proposed Strength: Strong

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

ANIMALS (IMMORAL USES) RESOLUTION

WHEREAS certain member states permit immoral activities
WHEREAS certain member states, through their laws, promote such activities
WHEREAS these activities harm public morals,

DEMANDS

THAT Member States Introduce the following law:-

a) no individual may engage in sexual relations with an animal subject to penalties to be determined by each member state.
b) that the General Assembly enforce this resolution with any further legislation as seems necessary

I have also received notice by telegram that the following amendments have been tabled to the draft:

AMENDMENT 1: That the following words be inserted:

NEW CLAUSE c)that hybrid human/animal species be held in special institutions for the purposes of monitoring by the security services of the Member State, in specialist hospitals established for the purpose.

AMENDMENT 2: That the following words be inserted:

NEW CLAUSE d) no individual may disguise himself/herself as an animal for the purposes of committing a sexual act.

AMENDMENT 3: That the following words be inserted:

In a) between animal and subject insert "or simulated animal*".

*A simulated animal shall refer to any inanimate object that takes the place of an animal.

------


I believe that such a resolution is necessary in order to protect public morals, especially in the light of the recent scandals which have rocked my country. As for the amendments, the subject matter does not directly concern my country, the relevent activities already being illegal. I personally do not object to the inclusion of the said amendments to the draft.

Sirloinia will not accept the existence of animal molesters. I commend this resolution to the Assembly. I commend also the adoption of all three amendments. I wish to know the views of others before my region proposes it.

The Ambassador from the Commonwealth of Sirloinia, on behalf of the petitions committee of the Sirloinian House of Peers

Greetings all Members.

The people of Sirloinia has demanded I propose the following resolution. I would request your comments on it.

I have also received notice from several nations a number of proposed amendments, considered additionally below.

A RESOLUTION TO BAN IMMORAL PRACTICES INVOLVING ANIMALS

Proposed Category: Moral Decency
Proposed Strength: Strong

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

ANIMALS (IMMORAL USES) RESOLUTION

WHEREAS certain member states permit immoral activities
WHEREAS certain member states, through their laws, promote such activities
WHEREAS these activities harm public morals,

DEMANDS

THAT Member States Introduce the following law:-

a) no individual may engage in sexual relations with an animal subject to penalties to be determined by each member state.
b) that the General Assembly enforce this resolution with any further legislation as seems necessary

I have also received notice by telegram that the following amendments have been tabled to the draft:

AMENDMENT 1: That the following words be inserted:

NEW CLAUSE c)that hybrid human/animal species be held in special institutions for the purposes of monitoring by the security services of the Member State, in specialist hospitals established for the purpose.

AMENDMENT 2: That the following words be inserted:

NEW CLAUSE d) no individual may disguise himself/herself as an animal for the purposes of committing a sexual act.

AMENDMENT 3: That the following words be inserted:

In a) between animal and subject insert "or simulated animal*".

*A simulated animal shall refer to any inanimate object that takes the place of an animal.

------


I believe that such a resolution is necessary in order to protect public morals, especially in the light of the recent scandals which have rocked my country. As for the amendments, the subject matter does not directly concern my country, the relevent activities already being illegal. I personally do not object to the inclusion of the said amendments to the draft.

Sirloinia will not accept the existence of animal molesters. I commend this resolution to the Assembly. I commend also the adoption of all three amendments. I wish to know the views of others before my region proposes it.

The Ambassador from the Commonwealth of Sirloinia, on behalf of the petitions committee of the Sirloinian House of Peers


I do not claim to be an expert on UN Law, but why exactly should the UN decide what is immoral in relation to animals in my Nation?

And the amendments that prevent someone from disguising themselves as animals, or using a simulated animal, are, with all due respect - ridiculous.

I am also not happy about part (b) - "that the General Assembly enforce this resolution with any further legislation as seems necessary" - as this opens the door for the UN to do whatever it desires under the guise of adding to this resolution.

I support this proposal fully

I wish to thank the Ambassadors for their interventions.

Firstly, to the ambassador for TilEnca

>I do not claim to be an expert on UN Law, but why exactly should the UN
>decide what is immoral in relation to animals in my Nation?

The United Nations must take a stand for the same reason there are proposed resolutions on the protection of children. It outrageous that member states can encourage individuals to act in an abusive manner towards non-sentient beings. If the UN can properly intervene in matters such as Abortion and child abuse, then equally it must act to protect animals. For every human has a duty to minimise animal suffering.

>And the amendments that prevent someone from disguising themselves as
>animals, or using a simulated animal, are, with all due respect - ridiculous.

This is a fair point. Indeed, if it were not for the constitutional provisions of the Sirloinian constitution, we might have omitted these. Constitutionally, however, I am duty bound to defend them. (SEE BELOW) The purpose of the two amendments are to ensure that the legal acts created are sufficiently water tight. We have had a case in our country in which an individual killed the sheep before abusing it. He escaped punishment under the law, and we were forced to adopt it. The animal disguises resolution are intended to show the strength with which the peoples of the world feel about these issue. If it is indeed a morally corrupting influence on the youth of the world, then we must act to stamp it out.

>I am also not happy about part (b) - "that the General Assembly enforce
>this resolution with any further legislation as seems necessary" - as this
>opens the door for the UN to do whatever it desires under the guise of
>adding to this resolution.

This, I feel is possibly tautologous: it does not force the UN to take any action which it would not wish to take already. However, I feel it must remain, as it emphasises the importance of the resolution in improving moral decency.

-----

Article XI of the Fundamental Laws of Sirloinia

If the People present a petition to the Chamber of Peers, the Chamber of Peers may force its consideration by the Ministers of the Crown. Failure to act fully in the pursuance of any such order shall be held as a Contempt.

-----

The support of the LLJK delegation is noted. Thank you.

I was pleased to note no objection to the Human/Hybrid species amendment. This will go down well back home.

I wish to thank the Ambassadors for their interventions.

It's a pleasure :}

The United Nations must take a stand for the same reason there are proposed resolutions on the protection of children. It outrageous that member states can encourage individuals to act in an abusive manner towards non-sentient beings. If the UN can properly intervene in matters such as Abortion and child abuse, then equally it must act to protect animals. For every human has a duty to minimise animal suffering.


I will accept that. However if you want to act in the defense of animals then you must also propose the enforcement of vegetarianism across all UN countries, ban all blood sports and enact a law to stop people dressing up dogs in odd looking jumpers. However I feel that these resolutions would impose an intolerable amount of UN intervention on the freedom of choice of my citizens.

I accept that animals have rights, but - and this will sound unfeeling and uncaring - animals have no voice at the UN, nor do they have a voice in my government. We kill them to eat them, and to make clothes out of their skins. So the idea of protecting some rights of animals and not others strikes me as a pointless waste of time.

This is a fair point. Indeed, if it were not for the constitutional provisions of the Sirloinian constitution, we might have omitted these. Constitutionally, however, I am duty bound to defend them. (SEE BELOW) The purpose of the two amendments are to ensure that the legal acts created are sufficiently water tight. We have had a case in our country in which an individual killed the sheep before abusing it. He escaped punishment under the law, and we were forced to adopt it. The animal disguises resolution are intended to show the strength with which the peoples of the world feel about these issue. If it is indeed a morally corrupting influence on the youth of the world, then we must act to stamp it out

I am confused as to what your point is here. You have laws in your country to prevent this, so why is it necessary to ask the UN to enforce these laws on all it's members? Each nation can pass laws as it sees fit, with the various amendments and alterations as that country requires.

I am also unclear as to how far the description of "animal disguise" goes. Does it apply to someone wearing bunny ears, or does their whole body have to be covered?

And finally if - as you stated - the proposal of this bill is to stop the suffering of animals, why does it need to protect a dead animal? Surely once an animal has passed beyond the veil it is incapable of suffering any more.

This, I feel is possibly tautologous: it does not force the UN to take any action which it would not wish to take already. However, I feel it must remain, as it emphasises the importance of the resolution in improving moral decency

The way it is phrased would, I believe (but I am not a lawmaker) allow the UN to add further legislation to this proposal without the necessity of a floor vote. So that, in a years time, the UN could simply tack an amendment on the end without going through the process of having it debated and voted upon by it's members. I find this to be a huge abuse of the UN's mandate and it's power.

If the People present a petition to the Chamber of Peers, the Chamber of Peers may force its consideration by the Ministers of the Crown. Failure to act fully in the pursuance of any such order shall be held as a Contempt

Again this is purely law as it relates to your country, not to the international community. And so, I feel, has no place in a body that would affect the laws of thousands of other countries.

It outrageous that member states can encourage individuals to act in an abusive manner towards non-sentient beings.

Not prohibiting something is not the same as encouraging it. I do not have a law preventing my citizens from jumping off a cliff, but not one of my citizens believes that I encourage that sort of thing.

Not prohibiting something merely means that it is not the place of the government to rule on whether it is permissible or not.

Thank you.

I believe that you misunderstand the point of the resolution. This is a moral decency resolution, and thus relates to the morally degrading treatment of animals permitted by certain member states. Animal rights do not come into it. We do not believe that animals have rights. Merely that gratuitous mistreatment of animals degrades humanity. Similarly, certain states ban the viewing (rather than the creation) of child pornography, not because the viewing of the pornography damages the rights of the child, (that lies with the creator), but because of the morally degrading nature of such material with respect to the people who watch such pornography. Drugs regulations also behave in this manner.

The reason we seek to impose this resolution on the whole of humanity is for the same reason we have voted for the current child marriage resolution, and why we will vote for LLJK's resolution on Child Sex if it comes to power. If the UN has the power to regulate, and the measure is suitably important, then we should.

I see that the amendments are unlikely to suceed. In itself, however, the substantive text of the resolution banning abuse of animals should remain uncontroversial. The abuse of dead animals equally leads to a degradation of moral behaviour world wide.

As for the "further legislation clause" any further resolution must be approved through the same procedure as any other resolution. It is by a vote of the members assembled that the General Assembly makes its will known.

The United Nations has the power to act to preseve public morals. I say it must.


NEW DRAFT RESOLUTION:

A RESOLUTION TO BAN IMMORAL PRACTICES INVOLVING ANIMALS

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

ANIMALS (IMMORAL USES) RESOLUTION

WHEREAS certain member states permit immoral activities
WHEREAS certain member states, through their laws, promote such activities
WHEREAS these activities harm public morals,

URGES Member States to Introduce the following law:-

a) no individual may engage in sexual relations with any kind of non-human animal, and that those who do so must be imprisoned, the penalty to be decided by the laws of member states.
b) any human/animal hybrids be, where possible, aborted, and if brought to term, be kept in the care of the state in hospitals specially designated for that purpose.

Merely that gratuitous mistreatment of animals degrades humanity.

I apologise - I did misunderstand it.

But now that I do understand it I am going to encourage everybody I can to vote against it, because, in my humble opinion, it is proposals like this, and like the marriage under 15 law, that are the path to absolute dictatorship. Because you will find people who would say that sex between two men degrades humanity. And sex between Elves and Dwarfs degrades humanity. And sex outside of marriage degrades humanity.

Children are sentient beings, and as such deserve respect. Which is why I support the Child Protection proposal (or I would if it came to the floor). But as children are sentient beings they have the right to make up their own minds once they reach the age of majority. So preventing them from marrying just because someone in another country finds it morally wrong is in itself morally wrong. Hence my opposition to the marriage under fifteen proposal.

BioRights Declaration

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas

Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

Votes For: 12,135
Votes Against: 4,726

Implemented: Thu May 6 2004

Locking away hybrids is a violation of their rights. Hybrids arise by genetic engineering, not by sex with animals (a person mating with a pig cannot produce a pig/human hybrid).

Also, you demand imprisonment for the offender, then say "penalty to be decided by the laws of member states", which is illogical. Cut the bit demanding imprisonment.

Axis Nova supports this proposal.

hy·brid
Pronunciation: 'hI-br&d
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin hybrida
1 : an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera.

Resolution submitted as the Human Animal Relations Act.

Love

Sirloinia

hy·brid
Pronunciation: 'hI-br&d
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin hybrida
1 : an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera.

Resolution submitted as the Human Animal Relations Act.

Love

Sirloinia

I think the issue with the hybrid part was more to do with biology than legal definition. In that humans can not have sex with a pig and make a half human/half pig baby.

This would be the case, if it were not for the certified existence of several regions which consist of human/animal hybrids. Such creatures are an abomination unto the Great God Xxabdxac and must be destroyed. So sayeth the Book of Hermaithlnyinites.

The Mighty Archbishop Hans Stelzman, of the Sirloinian Temple of Hlakem has decreed: "The ungodly must be smited, sayeth the LORD. All abominations unto Xxabdxac must be killed with fire."

Our book of Hermaithlnyinites states:

"And Xxabdxac spake unto the great leader: Cursed is the man who knows* an animal, for he defiles my people. His offspring shall be outcast, and utterly destroyed. For I am a vengeful God and verily shall I enter into the presence of the people and make my presence felt. Into the abyss shall I cast them, and there will be great tribulations."

*a euphemism in the ancient proto-Phenylalanian

As majority leader in the Sirloinian House of Peers, he controls the Foreign Affairs budget, and as such, King Brian is totally powerless to resist. Diplomacy, you must realise, is based as much on the domestic politics at home as consideration of the global good.

Indeed, given our specific instruction, we are being rather lenient. We are merely proposing that the half-human/half-animals be kept in hospitals for monitoring. Is this really so evil? Is it wrong for the UN to say that refraining from sex with animals is a requirement for entry? Should we rather kill them with fire?

Thank you.

ooc: Am I taking the role-play element too far here? I have constructed this model of how my country operates and am trying to follow it. In real life Fidel Castro is about this forthright when it comes to capitalism. etc.

This would be the case, if it were not for the certified existence of several regions which consist of human/animal hybrids. .

The Mighty Archbishop Hans Stelzman, of the Sirloinian Temple of Hlakem has decreed: "The ungodly must be smited, sayeth the LORD. All abominations unto Xxabdxac must be killed with fire."

Our book of Hermaithlnyinites states:

"And Xxabdxac spake unto the great leader: Cursed is the man who knows* an animal, for he defiles my people. His offspring shall be outcast, and utterly destroyed. For I am a vengeful God and verily shall I enter into the presence of the people and make my presence felt. Into the abyss shall I cast them, and there will be great tribulations."

*a euphemism in the ancient proto-Phenylalanian

As majority leader in the Sirloinian House of Peers, he controls the Foreign Affairs budget, and as such, King Brian is totally powerless to resist. Diplomacy, you must realise, is based as much on the domestic politics at home as consideration of the global good.

Indeed, given our specific instruction, we are being rather lenient. We are merely proposing that the half-human/half-animals be kept in hospitals for monitoring. Is this really so evil? Is it wrong for the UN to say that refraining from sex with animals is a requirement for entry? Should we rather kill them with fire?

Thank you.

ooc: Am I taking the role-play element too far here? I have constructed this model of how my country operates and am trying to follow it. In real life Fidel Castro is about this forthright when it comes to capitalism. etc.


(ooc - the role playing element seems fine. But I am pretty new to this)

(back in character)

"Such creatures are an abomination unto the Great God Xxabdxac and must be destroyed. So sayeth the Book of Hermaithlnyinites"

And this would be my point. I have never heard of your great god Xxabdxac, and I don't have a copy of the "Book of Hermaithlnyinites" in my national library. I actually don't have any religious books that lay down laws of any type in my national library, but that is besides the point.

I am all for you having the right to stop people having sex with animals in your nation, but I don't believe that you, nor the UN, should prevent me from letting my people have freedom of choice on the issue.

Having read and given consideration to this proposal, The Confederacy of Landeras rejects it. This, like so many other proposals being brought before the UN is one best determined by individual sovereign nations, and as such is outside the scope of the UN's authority.

We see no reason or necessity for a ruling by an international body, when this issue has already been adequately dealt with on a local and national level.

I can understand the secular reasoning behind a ban on sex with animals, but imprisoning sentient beings is against their rights whatever their origin (and TilEnca was exactly right on explaining my point). And any proposition to impose religion-based laws on my populace (or for that matter any populace) is simply anathema to the political spirit of _Myopia_. Provide secular justification for any law before you enact it.

Raping animals is covered by present anti animal cruelty legislation in my nation, but there is talk of banning bestiality outright, which I support. Given the difficulties in defining whether a non-sentient life form is willing to copulate or not, i advise countries to outlaw bestiality altogether.

but this does tread the line, I believe ths should be left on a national scale, rather than international legislation.

and it it is impossible to get a pig/human hybrid from sex with animals. the pig egg rejects the human sperm, not letting it fertilise.

We think sex between humans and animals is icky we're also suspicious of human/anmal hybrids. We'd never allow such things in our nation and we don't see why anybody else should be allowed to allow it. Everything the UN does restricts national sovereignty to some degree. We want larger territorial waters, some of you want to have sex with animals, but we make comprimises.

People are denying the existence of Human/animal hybrids in the nationstates. I suggest you take a closer look! Many regions clearly state their composition of such abominations! I find their existence evil.

As for secular reasoning for my law: you need not find one. Sirloinia wishes to impose its religious mores on the world. However, if you do desire a secular reason, I may give you one. I believe that sex with animals fundamentally degrades us as a species. Sex with animals is "icky" as has been mentioned.

The fact that some states *openly* declare their nature is reason enough for international action.

Would you seriously be willing to accept that nations within the NSUN would permit this degenerate activity? Yes? Then fine. But I call on your better judgement. I believe that the world should not accept that any nation that openly allows inter-species sex is fit to remain a member of this organisation.

ooc: And the REAL un imposes moral stuff all the time.

OOC: I totally agree that bestiality is sickening and should not be a practice at all, but...

IC: I have to object to this on the grounds of national sovereignty and SSA (Sheep Shaggers Anonymous).

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level
Frisbeeteria stands firmly against any and all Moral Decency proposals for this very reason. Like it, don't like it, whatever floats your boat ... but YOU don't get to decide for US what's moral.

Frisbeeteria stands firmly against any and all Moral Decency proposals for this very reason. Like it, don't like it, whatever floats your boat ... but YOU don't get to decide for US what's moral.

My government disagrees.

There are situations in which the restriction of a civil freedom (say the right to set your neighbor on fire) can reduce international tensions and save lives.

This assembly passed a passport harmonization resolution on the grounds that some standardization of international laws / transit papers is better for the common good.

My government feels its "Good Samaritan Laws" Moral Decency proposal falls into the same category.

If we were to only make blanket statements about resolution categories, my government would never have supported the "Political Stablity" classification of the Rights and Duties resolution, which does represent a "political freedom" restriction each of our governments enacted in order to promote more efficient international communication.

Lest people forget, The UN's purpose is to oversee interactions between sovereign nations, and to provide them with a forum in which to discuss their grievances short of declaring war. Its purpose is not to regulate every single facet of its members' existence.

While the Confederation is opposed to bestiality and the creation of Human/animal hybrids and or sentient bio-constructs[1], we believe that this is an issue to be decided by individual nations.
The right of nations to determine their own laws and destinies outweighs the right of the UN to enact such resolutions as would strip those nations of that right[2].





[1] The creation of such creatures is a tactic used by slavers to get around UN anti-slavery sanctions.

[2] The Abortion and Euthenasia resolutions being prime examples of the UN ruling on things best left to local governments.

But this is a doubled edged sword ...

Because the UN and international community certainly have the right to advocate that sovereign nations change their policies when they feel those policies interfere with their own affairs.

Such is the case of must all statements related to Human Rights or international laws enacted for Environmental protection. But to take a more economically driven look, "Free Trade" proposals are build upon a different idea ... namely that the standardization should be to remove barriers and laws equally.

My point here is that we shouldn't be blinded by a mere category but should always look at the language of a proposal and arguments used to support it. There are situations where every single UN resolution category is justified at an "international" level. Moral decency included.

The most recent resolution would have been OK if it allowed nations to come up with their own marriage laws, but if it also reaffirmed the rights of nations opposed to child marriages to not recognize couples travling in their country *if* they were marriaged under an age as determined by the visiting nation.

For example, when you or I travel to Hersfold, we are expected to follow Hersfolder laws. Now let's pretend that I was married and 12 years old. While your nation and my nation might have no problem with that, Herfold certainly should be under no obligation to treat me and my spouse as either legal adults or a married couple.

I think had the author of the previous resolution been a bit more careful, we could have easily had justified a moral decency proposal.

My "Good Samaritan Laws" proposal is another example of a fine use of the Moral Decency category.

I'm not suggesting that resolutions for each category are easy. They clearly aren't. But there are international issues impacting each "category", and in time I expect we'll be faced to address them all. ;)

I would point out that the resolution I have introduced is non-binding in the sense that it merely *urges* people to enact anti-zoophile laws. Perhaps I should have included a more specific *opt out* to this resolution. There is no provision for enforcement in this resolution, something I took out from the early draft after well reasoned objection. Nations which wish to opt out from the provisions of this resolution should be free to do so, provided they announce it openly, with their reasons.

I believe that the harm that is done to the human race as a species by inter-species relationships warrants international involvement.

Van by the River's citizens fully support this resolution's passing. These human-animal hybrids are disgusting creatures that roam in packs, coating everywhere they pass through with filth, waste, and KY.

We were tolerant when they first made their appearance from allah-knows-where, but have since then corralled them into reservations on land set aside (originally for nuclear waste disposal) earlier in the year. As Sultan, I did this to protect the health, safety, and morals of our citizens. I support by Brothers in Sirloinia, and this proposal.

I will be short -- plz keep your religion and morals out of my nation and plz keep religion out of the UN in general.

kthnx.

However, if you do desire a secular reason, I may give you one. I believe that sex with animals fundamentally degrades us as a species. Sex with animals is "icky" as has been mentioned.

That isn't acceptable as a reason. The only acceptable reason to _Myopia_ is that the animal is incapable of consenting (in the same sense that a child cannot conset to sex). However, this means that we support the rights of all sentient adult beings (i.e. those capable of informed, intelligent consent) to have sexual relations, whatever their species.

Spoonskia agrees with proposal. No more yiffing plz.