NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

This is the first proposal I have written and I would like any feedback or advice you are willing to spare!

Thanks,
Courtney



ANIMAL WELFARE


DESCRIPTION: To protect all animals from deliberate torture, undue harm, or malicious acts against them.

GIVEN the fact that as people we are protected against torture and undue harm, it should be extended towards animals,

REALIZING that some species of animals are used as food, and therefore humane ways of putting animals to death will be enforced,

1. Definitions
i) “Torture” is defined as purposefully causing physical pain, mental pain or death upon a pet, farm animal or wild animal for entertainment
ii) “Undue Harm” is defined as causing mental or physical harm by keeping a pet or farm animal in unhealthy conditions, not providing the necessities of life or general health care, as well as causing bodily harm for punishment or training
iii) “Bodily Harm” is defined as broken bones, intentional cuts burns, or bruising
a. With the exception of branding cattle or horses
iv) A “pet” is defined as any animal kept for the enjoyment and entertainment of a person
v) A “farm animal” is defined as any animal kept by a person to help said person, supply a food supply, or to generate income
vi) A “wild animal” is any animal not confined by, or maintained by, a person
vii) “Slaughter House” is defined as any place where animals are killed for food
viii) “Humane Method” is the quickest method for an animal to die


2. Animal Welfare Task Force
i) the AWTF will be apart of existing police forces in each nation
ii) the AWTF will be responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of animal cruelty
iii) the AWTF will be responsible for routine inspections of slaughter houses and will be responsible for prosecution of said slaughter houses should they not be using a humane method to kill an animal for food
iv) the AWTF will be responsible for a Slaughter House registration program which will insure that slaughter houses are up to date with the most humane method of killing an animal

Under article 8 of part 1, change the definition of "Humane Method" from "The quickest method for an animal to die" to "The quickest and most painless way for an animal to die".

Thanks for pointing that out.

:)

Hello,

The people of the Commonwealth of Walkendalia believe in the absolute right to religious expression. While not a large percentage of Walkendalians actively subscribe to animal sacrifice we believe that we must defend even the most extreme religious practices, even if they may injure or kill animals.

Will this proposal prevent these citizens from killing kittens during the annual Mismass Festival?

Article 3, Section 1, you left out a comma between "cuts" and "burns".

Walkendali, I wouldn't imagine it would, this is about the cause of harm for enterainment, and from inadequate living conditions.

While we are a small (and new) nation, our region believes in limiting the power of the UN and allowing the individual nations to make decesions like these. The UN should focus on implementing and supporting global issues. The recent resolution regarding HIV is a good (albiet expensive) resolution we whole-heartedly supported. This is not a common belief among the UN delegations, but it is one we hope to encourage others to think about before agreeing to resolutions.

In short, while I agree in principle with your resolution, I do not feel it would be in the best interests of the UN member nations to enact this resolution. I am confident my delegate and its members would vote against this resolution.

Kingdom of Donega
The Penguin Region

Donega: While we are a small (and new) nation, our region believes in limiting the power of the UN and allowing the individual nations to make decesions like these. The UN should focus on implementing and supporting global issues. The recent resolution regarding HIV is a good (albiet expensive) resolution we whole-heartedly supported. This is not a common belief among the UN delegations, but it is one we hope to encourage others to think about before agreeing to resolutions.

In short, while I agree in principle with your resolution, I do not feel it would be in the best interests of the UN member nations to enact this resolution. I am confident my delegate and its members would vote against this resolution.

Kingdom of Donega
The Penguin Region


How is this resolution any different from the Universal Bill of Rights, or the Child Protection Act?

It is naive to think that the UN will pass resolutions without affecting a nation and their people's practices.

Walkendalia: Will this proposal prevent these citizens from killing kittens during the annual Mismass Festival?

Yes. Much like human sacrifices were phased out - and replaced by animals iin some cases- your nation's sacrfice of kittens will be phased out as well with the passing of this resolution.

With the "downed animal" crisis appearing as a result of factory farming as industry develops, I can say for certain that I would be in favor of the spirit of this resolution regarding this matter.

As far as animals being used for economic purposes, it would be very costly, and the cost of affording medicines and suitable living conditions (whatever those are) would be included in the sale of their products.

That being said, one should only vote on this resolution if industrialized economies can maintain the desire and ability of demand for animal products. But I don't suppose that would be too unreasonable for my nation whose economy is strong.

Walkendalia has a point, however. There will be those nations that do not regard animals as having rights enough to be protected under international legislation. But it appears you are preparing this proposal to ignore it.

I have one further question: how would TESTING on animals (and by that I mean for medicinal research rather than cosmetics and such) be considered under this proposal?

That being said, one should only vote on this resolution if industrialized economies can maintain the desire and ability of demand for animal products. But I don't suppose that would be too unreasonable for my nation whose economy is strong.

I would like to add that with the implementation of humane slaughter standards, and inspections of slaughter houses, will also raise the health of the people who eat the animal products because slaughter houses will have to maintain a standard for their animals. With the reduction of health hazards, such as salmonella and other such diseases caused by unhealthy environments, will come the reduction of health costs replacing the money spent on setting up and implementing these standards.

Walkendalia has a point, however. There will be those nations that do not regard animals as having rights enough to be protected under international legislation. But it appears you are preparing this proposal to ignore it.

I have thought about this, and in my revision I plan to address this situation. The sacrifice of animals for religious beliefs could be compared to the female genital mutilation, which is a religious practice in some nations now abolished because of the resolution preventing it. It was resolved by the UN to get rid of FGM because it was sometimes performed on women against their will, and because it caused health problems in the future. I'm sure a kitten, if it could comunicate, would say that its sacrfice is against its will, and a beaten dog would have further health problems.

Considering that forcing conformant is out of the question, it would be neccesary to phase out such religious sacrifices through education with the aid of religious leaders and the governments, as well as alternatives to the sacrifices which are particulary gruesome and malicious.

Not all sacrifices are overally painful to the animal, and as such if said sacrifices should be in the range of humane conditions than the sacrifice may continue.

I have one further question: how would TESTING on animals (and by that I mean for medicinal research rather than cosmetics and such) be considered under this proposal?

This is a good point, thank you for bringing this up.

The degree of animal testing is important in making a decision. Some testing is done in improper conditions for the animal. I think that testing should continue, as long as the animal is cared for and made as comfortable as possible. This I will also revise into my proposal.

Also, what kind of testing should be allowed? While I agree with testing on animals for new medication or medical procedures, I don't agree with hygeine products - such as shampoo, hair dye, facial products - because it could be tested on voluntary humans without much harm since these products have been around for a long time and scientists are quite knowledgable in which active agents would cause serious harm and therefore do not use them in their products.

While we are a small (and new) nation, our region believes in limiting the power of the UN and allowing the individual nations to make decesions like these. The UN should focus on implementing and supporting global issues. The recent resolution regarding HIV is a good (albiet expensive) resolution we whole-heartedly supported. This is not a common belief among the UN delegations, but it is one we hope to encourage others to think about before agreeing to resolutions.

In short, while I agree in principle with your resolution, I do not feel it would be in the best interests of the UN member nations to enact this resolution. I am confident my delegate and its members would vote against this resolution.

Kingdom of Donega
The Penguin Region

Animals don't recognize or understand the national borders we place on the world. And if you kill the last rabbit in your country, then realise it was the last rabbit in the world, then you will have made it extinct not just in your nation but in the whole world as well.

Which makes it an international issue.

I would like to add that with the implementation of humane slaughter standards, and inspections of slaughter houses, will also raise the health of the people who eat the animal products because slaughter houses will have to maintain a standard for their animals. With the reduction of health hazards, such as salmonella and other such diseases caused by unhealthy environments, will come the reduction of health costs replacing the money spent on setting up and implementing these standards.

Ah, I do see the logical economic effect in this, certainly. Remember, however, that food is a funny thing when it comes to demand: if people are able, they will buy, for instance, steaks instead of ground chuck. Same animal, different cuts. Additionally, it will be interesting to see how different animal products, such as chicken breasts and hamburger, will compete against each other.

And a tax on those who don't cook the meat properly! :D

I have thought about this, and in my revision I plan to address this situation. The sacrifice of animals for religious beliefs could be compared to the female genital mutilation, which is a religious practice in some nations now abolished because of the resolution preventing it. It was resolved by the UN to get rid of FGM because it was sometimes performed on women against their will, and because it caused health problems in the future. I'm sure a kitten, if it could comunicate, would say that its sacrfice is against its will, and a beaten dog would have further health problems.

Considering that forcing conformant is out of the question, it would be neccesary to phase out such religious sacrifices through education with the aid of religious leaders and the governments, as well as alternatives to the sacrifices which are particulary gruesome and malicious.

Not all sacrifices are overally painful to the animal, and as such if said sacrifices should be in the range of humane conditions than the sacrifice may continue.

I only brought it up because while my nation is not particularly devout and places no spiritual status upon animals, I do encourage my people to be tolerant of other faiths. I would be tolerant of nations who decide to sacrifice animals for a ritual, but I would have to agree that I do not find such a practice particularly civilized. I don't venture to call such practices Dark Age, but my nation would encourage the cultivation of worship within the mind, not on how red you can turn the soil.

This is a good point, thank you for bringing this up.

The degree of animal testing is important in making a decision. Some testing is done in improper conditions for the animal. I think that testing should continue, as long as the animal is cared for and made as comfortable as possible. This I will also revise into my proposal.

Also, what kind of testing should be allowed? While I agree with testing on animals for new medication or medical procedures, I don't agree with hygeine products - such as shampoo, hair dye, facial products - because it could be tested on voluntary humans without much harm since these products have been around for a long time and scientists are quite knowledgable in which active agents would cause serious harm and therefore do not use them in their products.

Hehe, for some reason I'm imagining a bunny reclining with a masseuse next to his jacuzzi with a carrot daquiri in paw, when SNATCH it's time to put mascara in his eye...lol.

But I think we are in agreement here, however. Testing for medicine = good if animal receives care within the standards of the Animal Welfare Task Force, but testing for make-up, etc = bad and unnecessary altogether.

Thanks for answering my questions. I wish it luck to its reaching quorum.

You define "slaughter house" as any place animals are killed for food.

Does this mean that all hunters have to be supervised by a AWTF team every time they shoot a deer? Do their hunting grounds, whether on public or private property, need to be registered as "slaughterhouses"? Does every farmer or anyone in the country who raises animals for food need to be registered? And "regularly inspected"?

According to this proposal, yes.

This is a complete waste of time and resources. I won't support this proposal without a better description of "slaughterhouse".

Also, it needs to be pointed out that "pet", "wild animal" and "farm animal" are defined, but never used in the proposal.

This proposal needs to be rewritten.

You define "slaughter house" as any place animals are killed for food.

Does this mean that all hunters have to be supervised by a AWTF team every time they shoot a deer? Do their hunting grounds, whether on public or private property, need to be registered as "slaughterhouses"? Does every farmer or anyone in the country who raises animals for food need to be registered? And "regularly inspected"?

According to this proposal, yes.

This is a complete waste of time and resources. I won't support this proposal without a better description of "slaughterhouse".

Also, it needs to be pointed out that "pet", "wild animal" and "farm animal" are defined, but never used in the proposal.

This proposal needs to be rewritten.

This is why I have first put a draft proposal up on the forum before submitting it as an actual proposal. I am but one person with an idea, but it takes a team to expand and specify the idea, to pass it, and then to enforce it.

Thank you for your contribution, and I will address the hunting aspect in my next draft which I am preparing tonight. To let you know what I plan for this part of the proposal, Hunting will be regulated to ensure that the meat is properly handled after the kill. This means that hunters will have to bring their kill to a registered slaughter house for the bleeding process, and to a registered butcher to ensure the cuts are proper.

I would also like to address your question regarding regular inspections on farmers or those who raise animals for food. Usually, a farmer would take his animals to a slaughter house when the time has come for them to be sold as meat. If a farmer chooses to slaughter his own animals, than yes he will have to be registered and be regularly inspected. Only slaughter houses will be regularly inspected, otherwise it is left up to the investigators to find out any person(s) who are abusing animals. I will specify this more in my next revision, sorry for any confusion.