NationStates Jolt Archive

Animal Welfare Act
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Jeianga

Description: DESCRIPTION: To protect all animals from undue harm

CONSIDERING animals have enriched our lives through companionship, aid of the elderly and disabled, and labor for only the basic necessities in return,

RECOGNIZING that some species of animals are used as food and/or religious practices

1. DETERMINES all animals must receive the basic rights of protection against torture, neglect and undue harm

2. DEFINES:

2.1 “Torture” as purposefully causing death, physical, or mental pain
2.2 “Undue Harm” as causing mental or physical harm by keeping a pet or farm animal in unhealthy conditions, and/or causing bodily harm for punishment/excessive training
2.3 “Bodily Harm” as broken bones, intentional cuts, burns, or excessive bruising
2.3.1 With the exception of marking farm animals for identification purposes that includes but is not limited to branding, tagging, and tattooing; marking pets for identification purposes is limited to tattooing, and electronic tagging
2.4 “Neglect” as not providing the necessities of life, including but not limited to water, food, shelter, and basic medical care
2.5 A “pet” as animal(s) kept for the enjoyment or companionship
2.6 A “farm animal” as animal(s) kept by a person to help a person, supply food, or to generate income
2.7 A “wild animal” as any animal not confined or maintained by a person

ENFORCES these rights by:

1 ~ the Animal Welfare Task Force is set up in the existing police force in each nation
1.1 the AWTF works with the government to set punishments for offenders
1.2 the AWTF is responsible investigating and the prosecution of animal cruelty
1.2.1 the AWTF does not have the right to force an inspection of any house, farm, or land privately owned unless the AWTF has obtained a warrant
1.2.1.1 sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant is defined as photographs or videotaped evidence provided by a citizen or at least three (3) eye witness accounts of animal cruelty

2 ~ the AWTF is responsible for the inspection of sacrificial animal(s) prior to the sacrifice, in the animal’s living environment
2.1 any neglect or abuse noted by the AWTF of the sacrificial animal(s) allows the prosecution of the people in charge of the sacrificial animal(s)
2.2.1 the AWTF is responsible for removing neglected and/or abused animals to an animal refuge site

3 ~ Animal Testing is only allowed for medical research
3.1 the animal being used must be provided with the necessities of life

4 ~ Hunting is allowed, but restricted to wild animals

5 ~ Animal Sacrifice is for religious practices only
5.1 the sacrificial animal is protected by the AWA before its death
5.2 the person(s) responsible for the animal sacrifice will be charged if the animal is sacrificed before it is inspected by AWTF

6 ~ Dangerous Animals is defined as any animal that poses a significant threat to humans or property owned by humans
6.1 a significant threat against a human includes life or death situations, or health hazards
6.1.1 any force necessary is allowed in a life or death situation
6.1.2 a health hazard is defined as any creature living in close proximity to a person that causes a decline in health
6.1.2.1 reasonable force used to remove or exterminate the creature
6.1.3 a significant threat to property includes damage to a building, damage to farm or home equipment, damage to crops or livestock, or damage to a water source
6.1.3.1 reasonable force used to remove or exterminate the creature

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 146 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Feb 9 2005


I have just submitted my proposal, and will begin a telegraming campaign immediatly.

If anybody would like to help with gathering support for this resolution, please contact me.

Thank you everyone, for helping to shape this proposal!

You've whacked euthanasia for suffering pets in 2.1

As such, a cancer-ridden dalmation cannot be humanely put to rest, but must suffer.

Beyond that, we accept.

Actually it is accepted as medical care, which is protected by 2.4, which outlines what Neglect is - which includes basic medical care. A vet can decide whether euthenasia is right for the animal or not. "we're bored of Fluffy, lets have him put to sleep" euthenasia is not protected.


But thank you, :)

*makes notes*

Alright, we'll support.

You never cleary define what scrificing an animal is. Although i think u mean a quick death it is not explictly clear what sacrificing an animal is. If an animal is killed by having it's flesh flayed from it alive for a religous cermony would you still allow that? In additon, what is to keep someone form making up a religon too get around this law. I create a religon where dogs are to be made fight in a ring as a scrafice to me. There will be betting on this ect. You need to somehow close this loop hole. Also, i think you will encounter complains from peopel asking about cultural animal scarifice i.e. bull fights in Spain. In addition, what if for sientific reaserch an animal must be deprive of food or water ect. This could become a contradiciton.

Wang Chun observes that people who are bored of Fluffy and are not allowed to euthenize Fluffy will simply abandon Fluffy.

This also effectively prevents shelters from euthenizing unwanted pets.

Followed to its logical conclusion, this means that accepting a pet bonds a person to a lifetime of committment of caring for that pet, or of finding a suitable replacement home for it. This will prove to be unenforceable in areas afflicted with poverty...people forced to choose between allocating scarce resources to care for pets and allocating those same resources to care for needy humans will choose to care for humans, especially family members.

This needs some serious rework...specifically, some sort of acceptable "escape clause" that allows someone to deal with an animal for which they have responsibility, but for whom they are no longer able to meet that responsibility.

I like it, though the level of detail is pretty high. I've got the feeling that I could say the same in half the space.

I'm also wondering whether this proposal actually gives more rights and protection to animals than humans currently have from UN law...

This has been brought up before if I remember correctly? And I'll say it again. In my opinion, animals should not have 'rights'. Does a bull, sheep, pig, goat etc. have rights when you slaughter it has rip out a nice juicy loin to eat? Didn't think so. Enough said.

It has, in certain countries.

While some animals are bred to be eaten, that doesn't mean they deserve a good treatment. No long transports, for example. Pets are there for company, not food (usually), and they deserve a good treatment. People who starve their animals should be punished (and are, in the PRoGG.).

The way a person treats their animals says a lot about their personality, in my opinion.

You never cleary define what scrificing an animal is. Although i think u mean a quick death it is not explictly clear what sacrificing an animal is. If an animal is killed by having it's flesh flayed from it alive for a religous cermony would you still allow that? In additon, what is to keep someone form making up a religon too get around this law. I create a religon where dogs are to be made fight in a ring as a scrafice to me. There will be betting on this ect. You need to somehow close this loop hole.

I cannot specify what a religious sacrifice is, and nor do I think it will be a quick and painless death.

If I were to specifiy what religious sacrifice were to be, I would have to ask every nation what their religious practices currently are, and combine everything into one clause.

Religion is protected by UN resolutions, and I must abide by that as well. It is unfortunate that such a loop hole will exist, but I am sure the individual nations will deal with such "made up" religions when they appear.

Also, i think you will encounter complains from peopel asking about cultural animal scarifice i.e. bull fights in Spain. In addition, what if for sientific reaserch an animal must be deprive of food or water ect. This could become a contradiciton.

This is not a contridiction. Although this is a reference to the Real World, I will address it. The Bull is eaten in a bull fight in spain, making him a farm animal.

This needs some serious rework...specifically, some sort of acceptable "escape clause" that allows someone to deal with an animal for which they have responsibility, but for whom they are no longer able to meet that responsibility.

I don't want people to escape the responsibilities of pet ownership. If they abandon the pet, they can be charged with neglect.

What about the euthenasia of strays? if I am reading this correctly communities will not be able to control the population of stray animals via euthenasia. This will cause a population explosion of stray dogs, cats and ferrits in any areas. This leads to unhealthy conditions that will affect the local floral and fauna, not to mention people. And think of the cost in trying to house and feed all these strays if a community choses to try and at least control them, without the ability to do away with these unwanted animals? Not all cultures find Fido Tar Tar a delicacy, so using them as a food source is not always a solution.

I think you need to place a amendment in this proposal that takes into consideration population controls for stray pets that allow for the use of Euthenasia for these sad animals.

I still will not support this anti-human proposal on the following grounds:

1: The only animals with rights are the ones who can vote.

ii. It is, at base, misogynistic to outlaw cosmetics testing on animals.

C) This proposal would lead to increased abandonment of pets.

IV It sets up an extra-govenrmental UN police force in each country. RED FLAG!

@# It sets up an extra-governmental judiciary in each country to issue warrants. RED FLAG!

8(*) You didn't finish writing it. You define torture, bodily harm, and neglect - then you don't outlaw them. Then you outlaw cruelty, but you never define it.

>> It's either an unwarranted invasion of religious rights, or an establishment of state religion. It's so poorly written I can't tell which one. Either one is bad.

What about the euthenasia of strays? if I am reading this correctly communities will not be able to control the population of stray animals via euthenasia. This will cause a population explosion of stray dogs, cats and ferrits in any areas. This leads to unhealthy conditions that will affect the local floral and fauna, not to mention people.

They would then fall into the Dangerous Animal clause, which allows the use of force to remove such animals that are a danger to our health or to us financially.

Please read the Animal Welfare Act in its entirety.

IV It sets up an extra-govenrmental UN police force in each country. RED FLAG!

@# It sets up an extra-governmental judiciary in each country to issue warrants. RED FLAG!

It wouldn't be extra, it would be a part of your current police force as I have stated several times to you and others before.

The warrant process would remain in the already formed judicial system that your nation has.

8(*) You didn't finish writing it. You define torture, bodily harm, and neglect - then you don't outlaw them. Then you outlaw cruelty, but you never define it.

I think you are stretching for reasons not to support this proposal. I do not need your support, so you do not need to make up reasons.

If you have anything that is worthwhile, please add to this debate.

I think you are stretching for reasons not to support this proposal. I do not need your support, so you do not need to make up reasons.

If you have anything that is worthwhile, please add to this debate.
For the record, most people here won't bother to make up reasons not to support a proposal. It's not like everyone's sitting around going, "Nargopia voted CON? Why did he do that? We'll investigate immediately!" Usually people only post if they see something that needs changing. In this case, Asshelmetta proposed two simple changes that we see as very worthwile. We would like to formally thank Asshelmetta for bringing this to our attention. If these suggestions are heeded, then we will support the proposal.

Because of his previous responses to my proposal, I seriously doubt his responses to anything.

If these suggestions are heeded, then we will support the proposal.

What suggestions?

Asshelmenta believes that animals should not have any rights. I have deduced from his responses that he believes animals to be worthless and highly expendable. No testing on them is unjust.

I am not adjusting my proposal to the suggestion that animal's are worthless and don't deserve to be protected, just a little bit.

His concerns about the extra policing and judicial forces needed are unfounded, as I have written in my proposal that they would be a part of the existing forces. Unfounded, and Yup, he didn't supply a suggestion anyway.

The entire proposal outlaws torture, neglect, bodily and undue harm, yet he claims that I haven't outlawed them. Yet again, unfounded and without a suggestion to fix it.

He can't even be bothered to choose what offense against religion I have made. To be fair, I have given religion Every right to do what ever they want with their sacrificial animals - all they have to do is submit to a quick inspection done in their own homes! They could spin a cat by it's tail till it was dead, if they wanted, and it would be legal unless the cat was not inspected before the sacrifice. Anyway - still no suggestion.

I have never seen him reccomend anything to me but Get Out of the UN or Scrap Your Proposal, it's Garbage (not literal quotes, obviously)

So, I choose to ignore his comments and instead focus on the members of the UN who are helpful. :)

Hope that clears things up.

1.2.1.1 sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant is defined as photographs or videotaped evidence provided by a citizen or at least three (3) eye witness accounts of animal cruelty
I would recommend allowing individual nations the privilege of setting their own warrant requirements. Or at least changing what you have now; three eyewitness accounts of any crime is an extremely rare occurrence.

I would recommend allowing individual nations the privilege of setting their own warrant requirements. Or at least changing what you have now; three eyewitness accounts of any crime is an extremely rare occurrence.

I thought about this...

I've seen one neighbour on my block, angry at another, call Child Services on that neighbour. Just one call, they show up, and even though she never lay a hand on her kids, the whole block think she beats her kids. They didn't get a warrant, obviously she just let them in cause she wasn't doing nothing wrong - but what if farmer A is mad at farmer B, farmer A calls the AWTF on farmer B, they come out and maybe farmer B refuses to let them search. He's mad, and he knows he's right. Farmer A tells the AWTF, yeah I saw him he was kickin his dog real hard, I could hear the yelps, then the AWTF runs back and gets a warrent, searches farmer B, finds nothing - but now the people living around farmer B start talking.

Like defimition of character. So, I figure, they need a little more than just one eye witness account. This is, of course, only for forced inspections. Otherwise, they just knock on the door and if they let them in, they can inspect.

What would you suggest to cover all this?

What would you suggest to cover all this?
Personally, I think that enforcement should be left up to the nations. I like the idea that this AWTF is there to monitor it, but I think that it should be just that, a monitor. Let the nations try to use their own legal systems for this, and if it doesn't work, let the AWTF recommend changes.

The nation's do set up their own punishments and standards set up around this. So, one nation says the guy who abused his dog pays a fine, another one sends him to jail. This defines how the AWTF works, what it is responsible for, and two bits on how it does it's job (to force inspection, they have to get a warrent, and that they have to inspect animal sacrifices at the animals home)

The nation's do set up their own punishments and standards set up around this. So, one nation says the guy who abused his dog pays a fine, another one sends him to jail. This defines how the AWTF works, what it is responsible for, and two bits on how it does it's job (to force inspection, they have to get a warrent, and that they have to inspect animal sacrifices at the animals home)
Yes, but you have already defined what is required for a warrant. I'm suggesting that you remove this clause and thereby avoid stepping on nations' toes. Let's face it, nations will be much more cooperative if they can incorporate their own laws and not have to enforce new ones from the AWTF.

this proposal has my delegations support.

Asshelmenta believes that animals should not have any rights. I have deduced from his responses that he believes animals to be worthless and highly expendable. No testing on them is unjust.

I am not adjusting my proposal to the suggestion that animal's are worthless and don't deserve to be protected, just a little bit.



I agree with Asshelmetta, and do not consider animals to be worthless and highly expandable.

Those beings which are incapable of excercising rights can not have them. (Concept from Roe v. Wade) A dog can not seek advice from an attorney after you kick it.

Your proposal is not granting rights to animals so much as it is establinshing a code of conduct for the treatment of animals by owners.

I agree with Asshelmetta, and do not consider animals to be worthless and highly expandable.

Those beings which are incapable of excercising rights can not have them. (Concept from Roe v. Wade) A dog can not seek advice from an attorney after you kick it.

Your proposal is not granting rights to animals so much as it is establinshing a code of conduct for the treatment of animals by owners.
Hallelujah!
Another voice of sanity in the wilderness!

A code of conduct for the treatment of animals by owners, I could possibly support.
On a national level.
I'd get laughed (or nuked) out of my region if I proposed such a thing at the regional level.
So why does it make sense at the NSUN level?

It wouldn't be extra, it would be a part of your current police force as I have stated several times to you and others before.

The warrant process would remain in the already formed judicial system that your nation has.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You have explicitly written the proposal to override individual nationstates standards of evidence. You have explicitly written the proposal so that AWTF would be separate from the government.


I think you are stretching for reasons not to support this proposal. I do not need your support, so you do not need to make up reasons.

If you have anything that is worthwhile, please add to this debate.
Claiming that I'm obstructivist doesn't change the FACT that your proposal is badly written.

1.2 the AWTF is responsible investigating and the prosecution of animal cruelty

That's the only place you specify the AWTF having jurisdiction over a crime.
Please note that "animal cruelty" is not one of the things you took the trouble to define in section II.

And, Jeianga, you have cowardly avoided my point ii.

This proposal puts the well-being of lab rats ahead of the well-being of women based on... what?

Do you feel that women who are vain enough to use cosmetics deserve to be scarred or blinded by them?

Are you an expert biochemist who can prove that all the money cosmetics companies spend on animal testing is actually counterproductive?

Are you an anti-capitalist luddite who feels that cosmetics should be taken off the markets?

Or is it really just that the suffering of rats and monkeys outweighs the suffering of human beings, in your eyes?

A dog can not seek advice from an attorney after you kick it.


Neither can a 1 day old child, yet somehow they are invested with rights.

And, Jeianga, you have cowardly avoided my point ii.

Coward?

Read my response before you start calling me names.

Your point ii was included in my response that you feel animals have no worth in society.

I saw this proposal in the queue today, and I thought you might be able to find some common ground and so broaden the pool of delegates willing to support your proposal.


I love my Pet

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Presement

Description: It's okay to love your pet, so why not LOVE your pet. Member states should legalize mariage to their pets. However we should limit this to domesticated animals, as wild animals can not truly consent to such a relationship.

Approvals: 5 (The Hollow Eye, Barbariccia, RichyWorld, Presement, WZ Forums)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 11 2005

Coward?

Read my response before you start calling me names.

Your point ii was included in my response that you feel animals have no worth in society.
1) I never said that animals have no worth in society.
ii. Stop avoiding the issue and address the questions.

This proposal puts the well-being of lab rats ahead of the well-being of women based on... what?

Do you feel that women who are vain enough to use cosmetics deserve to be scarred or blinded by them?

Are you an expert biochemist who can prove that all the money cosmetics companies spend on animal testing is actually counterproductive?

Are you an anti-capitalist luddite who feels that cosmetics should be taken off the markets?

Or is it really just that the suffering of rats and monkeys outweighs the suffering of human beings, in your eyes?

Neither can a 1 day old child, yet somehow they are invested with rights.

They are legal dependants and can not represent themselves unless special circumstances arise.

They can also recover damages and have the ability to be able to excercise rights later as they develop.

I only need 64 more approvals!

Asshelmenta, I have grown tired of being personally attacked by you and have notified the moderators.

Asshelmenta, I have grown tired of being personally attacked by you and have notified the moderators.
I have not attacked you personally, except possibly when I called it cowardly that you were avoiding my main issue.

If you are offended by that, I retract the assertion that your conduct was cowardly.

It is not a personal attack to question the basis of your ill-conceived resolution, nor is it a personal attack to re-post the questions you are avoiding on each page of the thread.

So, one more time, here is my issue, and here are my questions. If you have some other motivation for giving rights to rats that will endanger women, please tell me what it is.



This proposal puts the well-being of lab rats ahead of the well-being of women based on... what?

Do you feel that women who are vain enough to use cosmetics deserve to be scarred or blinded by them?

Are you an expert biochemist who can prove that all the money cosmetics companies spend on animal testing is actually counterproductive?

Are you an anti-capitalist luddite who feels that cosmetics should be taken off the markets?

Or is it really just that the suffering of rats and monkeys outweighs the suffering of human beings, in your eyes?

I have not attacked you personally, except possibly when I called it cowardly that you were avoiding my main issue.

If you are offended by that, I retract the assertion that your conduct was cowardly.

It is not a personal attack to question the basis of your ill-conceived resolution, nor is it a personal attack to re-post the questions you are avoiding on each page of the thread.

I was minorly offended by being called a coward. What I went to the moderators about was your suggestion that I have sex with my pets, which is a personal attack no matter how you deny it, or claim that it was directed at my proposal and not me.

As for your statements regarding the use of animals in cosmetic testing, I don't agree with it and never have. You do agree with it. You agree with it so... violently, for lack of a better word, that it is pointless to even debate the issue with you.

Actually, I think it is pointless to debate any issue regarding the welfare of animals with you because - and this is my perception, which I have gained from reading your replies to others and to myself - you are extremly oppinonated and unable to see any truth that is in opposition to your oppinions.

I am not an expert biochemist. I don't believe that anything should suffer for aesthetics. Cosmetics can be made safely without testing on animals, and has been in practice. Testing for new medicines or treatments on animals before being used on humans is a worthy cause; a new brand of lipstick is not. If you cannot see the value difference, than I do not see the value in continuing this debate with you. I respect your beliefs as your own, but I do not and will not share them ~ unless you can prove without a doubt that cosmetics improves our health, which I seriously doubt.

Why, I am shocked! shocked!* to hear that you think I recommended bestiality.
Please re-read my post; I thought I made it quite clear that I was posting it to give you access to that weirdo's approvers list.

I am passionately in favor of helping beautiful women be beautiful. Violence doesn't, and shouldn't, come into it. Neither should there be any undue risk involved in their attempts to make themselves more attractive to me.

OOC: You are factually wrong, and I don't think you are willing to consider another viewpoint. Prove me wrong. Consider this:
The major cosmetics companies spend large amounts of money on animal testing. Negative publicity about animal testing of cosmetics causes those major cosmetics companies large amounts of money in lost sales. These major cosmetics companies exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to make as much money as possible. The only reason for them to be testing cosmetics on animals is if it will make them more money than the cost of the testing plus the lost sales.

Do you dispute the accuracy of the above paragraph, or can you suggest some causal principle that would make it rational even if the testing didn't make them any money?



So, the first hurdle. You asserted that "Cosmetics can be made safely without testing on animals, and has been in practice." If your statement is true, how do you square it with the fact that animal testing of cosmetics still exists? I doubt that your statement is, in fact, true. Please prove me wrong.






* apologies to Peter Lorre

Well I would endorse it if I were a regional delegate since I created the first draft of this. Here's hoping it goes through.

(very OOC)

To Asshelmetta and Jeianga, about the cosmetic testing, it may surprise you both to learn that you are both right.

Cosmetics is a multi-billion dollar industry, testing is necessary, and animals are the cheapest, and most accepted means of carrying out that testing, but there are alternatives. The site this link leads to goes into depth on this subject, and gives (in my opinion) unbiased and fair information from both sides of the debate.

Personally, I find animal testing for cosmetics wrong, and try to only buy stuff thats marked "cruelty free", however not all people around the globe have access to cruelty free cosmetics, or can afford the extra it costs to buy it.

Alternatives to animal testing (http://www.colipa.com/alternatives.html)

An excellent resource, Crydonia, which I was too lazy to google myself.

It's maybe a little disturbing to me that the replacement strategies include in vitro tests. One can only hope those are tests using animal fetuses.

OOC

Thank you for the link. Unfortunatly, no resolution has been made to refine animal testing. I am considering drafting a proposal for this, should mine be tossed out. I am lacking only 43 approvals, but alas it is the last day of voting, and I have had only a minimum of time to telegram delegates. I think I am on page 153 of the regions... *phew*.

Again, thank you.

Well I would endorse it if I were a regional delegate since I created the first draft of this. Here's hoping it goes through

What first draft would that be? I don't think I have read it... or maybe I have... was it long ago? Can I have a link?

Basic Animal Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394466&highlight=basic+animal+rights)