NationStates Jolt Archive

Given the input received on the draft presented on this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433032), we hereby inform that the proposal was submitted, present the final resolution text and kindly request UN delegates' support and approval. Any final comments on this are always welcome.




---------------------- Animal Protection ------------------------


KEEPING IN MIND that the majority of the human kind consumes meat and requires certain species of animals for medical experimentation.

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain.

NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival.


This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:

1a) the infliction of corporal or psichologycal damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets


2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, is hereby outlawed and is to be punished by UN member nations.


3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, by humans, as long as:

3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider swift and painless execution techniques.


4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:

4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.

I waited for this one. Am on my way to approve! Good job. You made the best of the contratictory input you recieved.

The Republic of Cally24, UN-Delegate of the "Democrates", applauds!

We thank Cally24 and all the delegates who helped improve the proposal, and hope that the resolution reaches quorum :)

You have The Republic of BlueTiger's full support.

OCC: Why in the world didn't I think of this?

Everyone will be utterly unsurprised to hear that I'm opposed to this proposal on the grounds of national sovereignty, though I agree with the sentiments expressed within it.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Doesn't the UN seem less active than usual? The resolution at vote has so few votes...I take it it's due to the vacation period :confused: Perhaps our timing on submitting the proposal wasn't so good...

We have a major problem with this part (1b) of the resolution.

“1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.”

That alone is serious enough to prevent us from supporting this resolution and forces us to appose it instead.

We would like to ask why James_xenoland finds that artical offensive. We would like to point out is only a used to help descire what is considered to be a part of the mistreatment of animals, and therfore, is not promoting such acctivity.

Allan Smith.

Right on. Be Bold.

We have a major problem with this part (1b) of the resolution.

“1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.”

That alone is serious enough to prevent us from supporting this resolution and forces us to appose it instead.
If only you'd have said that while this proposal was being discussed...it's impossible to change it now.

If only you'd have said that while this proposal was being discussed...it's impossible to change it now.
Didn't I suggest that you add a clause that states a habitat made me destroyed if needed for expansion?

Didn't I suggest that you add a clause that states a habitat made me destroyed if needed for expansion?
Such a clause would only be a cause for our nation to reject this excellent proposition!

:sniper: :mp5: Given the input received on the draft presented on this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433032), we hereby inform that the proposal was submitted, present the final resolution text and kindly request UN delegates' support and approval. Any final comments on this are always welcome.




---------------------- Animal Protection ------------------------


KEEPING IN MIND that the majority of the human kind consumes meat and requires certain species of animals for medical experimentation.

CONVINCED that it is possible and acceptable to consume animal products required for human subsistence, without putting animals through unnecessary pain.

NOTING WITH REGRET that, all around the World, animals are injured, mistreated, tortured and randomly murdered with no intent of defense or survival.


This proposal:

1) DESIGNATES "mistreatment of animals" as:

1a) the infliction of corporal or psichologycal damage on an animal, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1b) The deliberate destruction of animals' habitat, when the animal poses no relevant threat to an animal of another kind (humans included), namely to it's health or life.
1c) Abandoning animals that were treated as pets


2) PROCLAIMS that the mistreatment of animals, regarding the exceptions mentioned in points 3 and 4, is hereby outlawed and is to be punished by UN member nations.


3) APPROVES that animals are killed for food, by humans, as long as:

3a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
3b) They are executed using a painless method. Science and mechanics have evolved enough for nations to consider swift and painless execution techniques.


4) APPROVES that animals are used in medical research (cosmetics are not included) and/or study if, and only if:

4a) The animals aren't put through unnecessary pain, aren't subject to aggression and have the best life conditions possible
4b) The research has the purpose of solving problems related to human health (cure diseases, discover treatments)
4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.









why do you care so much about things that have no feelings likechickens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OOC: Hey, if all your going to do is flame, I'd sugjest you don't post. Not only are you just getting people pissed at you, do it enough and you get banned from posting, possibly the UN if it's bad enough.

I'd sugest that if you don't like a proposal, then simply state so, and try to get other nations to support your views.

Right on.


Like this one a lot.

An excellent idea; one that Compadria heartly endorses. We will express our support when the time comes.

May the blessings of our otters be with you!

Long live animal-cruelty free Compadria!

Greetings,

As it seems that in this vacation period many nations and delegates aren't active on the United Nations, Fair Progress will wait for a more propitious time to resubmit this proposal to the UN. In the meanwhile, we will once again examine carefully the input we received on the draft discussion thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433032) and see if the resolution can be changed to fit the ideals of the delegates who approved it and those who didn't.
Once again, we thank all the delegates who took their time to help improve this proposal.


Thank you,
Fair Progress

This is worse than the "Save the Dolphins" Act, a law we adamantly opposed and strive tirelessly to repeal.

I just wish you had included a clause stating that habitat destruction is warranted when a population needs to expand.

Greetings,

As it seems that in this vacation period many nations and delegates aren't active on the United Nations, Fair Progress will wait for a more propitious time to resubmit this proposal to the UN. In the meanwhile, we will once again examine carefully the input we received on the draft discussion thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433032) and see if the resolution can be changed to fit the ideals of the delegates who approved it and those who didn't.
Once again, we thank all the delegates who took their time to help improve this proposal.


Thank you,
Fair Progress

The only thing that I would like to see is, a qualified reason to protect the animals.


To explain, unless you expect the the entire UN to become Vegetarians you need to come up with "Why" and "which".


For example, a Domestic Animal Protection (any animal that cohabitant and not used as food) or an Endangered Species Act or A Solely endogenous Species Act (where a certain species ONLY lives in a certain place Ergo Marsupials in Australia).


Or even have a fair trade act where Species have dietary rights.


Meaning STOP FEEDING COWS BEEF PROTEIN you sick money grubbing Ranchers...



Or a ban on slaughtering pregnant Feed stock (that's one I believe the Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choices can both agree on).


In short, all you really need to do is qualify your proposal and I believe you will see the support follow.

4c) If their life is to end, the animals have to be executed using a painless method.


I'm glad to see a proposal that might help the Humans but find that this will keep us from hanging them so we must oppose it...

Amazingly, I'm actually in agreement with James_Xenoland. I take issue with 1b as it makes it impossible to do any industrial activity within any woodland area (so bye bye logging). If you mean where the sole or primary purpose is to destroy the habitat (eg: clear the land), then I could understand, but that's not what it says and that's not what Cally24 is indicating. As such, right there I can't support the resolution

Additionally, I am concerned about 3b. While I acknowledge this is a preferable option, I am concerned about whether such a drug (as there is no physical method to do this) will not have a lasting effect upon the food it produces. Further, I feel it discriminates against past-tech nations as they may have very few ways of doing such a thing without resorting to poisons - ones that quite simply would effect the people that consume the animal.

As such, I cannot support this resolution in its current form.

i like your proposition
i was just wondering if it's possible to add 2 ideas:

encourages the creation of “Protected Areas”, “National Parks”, “Natural Reserves”, Wildlife Sanctuaries” for endengered species and special habitat, and encourages eco-tourism

to encourages and funds scientific research on some animals which have special communication skills, special perception skills, special social behaviour.....

thanks

I like the proposition; animals need not be put through unnessecery pain and cruelty... However, I beleive a nation has its own right to decide whether they abuse their creatures or not. I feel sorry for those who think they need to abuse the animals, but they have the right to do this, even if someone else is strongly against it, for it is their own nation.