NationStates Jolt Archive

Any comments, recommended changes or expressions of support most welcome.

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

DEFINITIONS

ANIMAL: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress including being in possession of a functioning neural system. THIS WOULD INCLUDE HUMANS.

PERSON: any being that is rationally self-consciousness and aware of its past and future. THIS WOULD INCLUDE MOST HUMANS.


RECOGNISING that as a species itself, humans exist within a global community of beings in possession of common characteristics, namely the ability to feel and suffer pain.

RECOGNISING that the practices of PERSONS do not always give equal consideration to this fact due to economic concerns, cultural traditions, apathy, ignorance etc.

CONCERNED that this ability to suffer is exploited and that current resolutions fail to allow some basic protections for all beings that feel pain, including relevant rights for humans.

RECOGNISING also that some suffering on the part of ANIMALS can have benefits for PERSONS.

WISHING to establish international recognition that would encourage governments and citizens to insist upon more compassionate practices.

The United Nations shall agree upon the following rights for all ANIMALS (including humans):

1. Reasonable quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises, means of transportation etc.
2. Protection from cruel practices and acts such as torture or a prolonged and painful death.

STRONGLY URGES nations to legislate appropriate laws that acknowledge these agreed rights for ANIMALS.

We would like to first commend the honorable representative of Kirmania for drafting a well-written and carefully thought out proposal. We prefer the standard legislative format, but that's a minor point.

We have two reservations. First, in Ausserland, we do not believe that animals have "rights." We believe that rights are possessed only by sapient beings. We also believe that those sapient beings have a responsibility to refrain from cruel treatment of animals and neglectful treatment of animals in their care. This is not an objection to the intent of the proposal, simply to the use of the term "rights."

We also would object to the micromanagement of purely domestic affairs that we see in the provisions regarding the UN Animal Welfare Committee. We think that having this committee make "rulings" on such things as allowable treatment of pets is overreaching. We would prefer to see the committee empowered to rule on truly international issues, such as international transport and treatment in circuses (which would most likely travel internationally). The committee could also develop guidelines for the other areas listed, which the NSUN could urge, but not require nations to adopt.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

In the Democratic Republic of Mahaliastan, we do not support animal rights. Animals are not considered to have the same rights of humans in our country, and it will remain that way. Animals do not talk to us, therefore we feel that we cannot truly know if they are "suffering" as you say. Although this proposal is well-written and admirable, we feel too strongly about such a thing that we would have to vote against it. Also given Mahaliastan's slightly barren landscape, crops and vegetables are usually limited in the off-seasons, with our nation's hungry people having to rely completely upon the animal population for their food.


Galina Chekhovskaya
Mahaliastan's Ambassador to the United Nations
Spokeswoman for the Dictator (Honorable Chancellor Mahalia Tarasova)
UN Delegate for "Uniting PRs of Uraps" region

Kirmania would like to thank the Honourable Representative Ausserland for its kind commendation and helpful recommendations.

First, in Ausserland, we do not believe that animals have "rights." We believe that rights are possessed only by sapient beings.

A valid point. However we in Kirmania do not believe any being has inherent rights. We believe that rights exist as agreement amongst persons, therefore rights can be extended to any thing seen to be in need of such recognition. We believe that to give rights to one group to animal (we believe homo sapiens is an animal) and not others denies the capacity of all animals to suffer pain and violates our notion of equality (that being recognition of equal qualities such as capacity to feel pain). Kirmania also believes in the distinction between animal and person, however the rights of personhood are seen to be covered by the Universal Bill of Rights.

We also would object to the micromanagement of purely domestic affairs that we see in the provisions regarding the UN Animal Welfare Committee. We think that having this committee make "rulings" on such things as allowable treatment of pets is overreaching.

We in Kirmania believe that if we have minimum standard of treatment in regards to the human animal that must be recognised in domestic affairs e.g. All human beings must not be subjected to torture or cruel or inhuman punishment., there is no reason why such rights should not be extended to all animals. Not to do so would violate Kirmania’s definition of equality, and be seen as an act of speciesism. Kirmania does of course recognise the difference between the rights of animals and the rights of people. I would also emphasise that these would be rulings on minimum standards. These would ensure that animals in countries where there are no such laws can be protected, as we believe all animals deserve equal protection from unnecessary pain.

Having said this Kirmania is a pragmatic and progressive nation, and if the reduction of suffering in the world requires changes to the stipulation of rights, and the delineation between international rulings and domestic guidelines, we believe that it should be considered.

Kirmania thanks the Honourable Representative of Mahaliastan for contributing.

Animals do not talk to us, therefore we feel that we cannot truly know if they are "suffering" as you say.

Kirmania would like to know therefore how citizens of Mahaliastan know if human babies and adults unable to speak can feel pain? Does your position exempt them from laws against cruel treatment? If not we suggest there is no reason why non-human animals do not deserve similar protections that take into account their capacity to feel pain.

…with our nation's hungry people having to rely completely upon the animal population for their food.

This proposal does not prevent animals from being used as a source of food. It is only concerned with ensuring animals are not forced to suffer more than is necessary if they are to be used as a food source.

Some suggestions on parts of this that could be suitable for international legislation:
- requirements for transport of animals
- exchange programs between zoos
- checks on all animals for the purposes of eliminating epidemics
- a hunting commission to collate information about hunting practices

Furthermore, this:
2. The right to a decent quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.
Has not been recognised as a human right yet. I think that should come first.

Furthermore, this:
2. The right to a decent quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.

Has not been recognised as a human right yet. I think that should come first.

Kirmania recognises that humans are animals:

Definition of Animal: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress.

Therefore this resolution would cover the rights of humans as animals.

Kirmania does believe that future amendments should be made to UN resolutions that account for the rights of persons (a person being rationally self-consciousness and aware of its past and future), as distinct from the rights of animals.

Kirmania does not see why the non-exitstence of a speciesist resolution on human rights should prevent the passing of a resolution that would define and protect the basic rights of humans as well as all other animals.

Perhaps replace human with 'sapient being' then. Accommodating the furries, fanciful populations and what not.
To get around 'right of an animal' it could be 'obligation by <humans> to ensure'

The government of St Edmund is opposed to this proposal, not just (as I expect many of you would guess I was going to say...) on the grounds that how animals are treated within each nation is not a truly 'international' matter, and therefore is not something about which the UN should be making rules, but because of the following section _

Resolving to establish a UN Animal Welfare Committee to make rulings on:

1. Minimum standards for the treatment of domestic pets.
2. Minimum standards for the treatment of livestock, including international and domestic transportation.
3. Guidelines for the use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement.
4. Minimum standards for the treatment of animals in zoos
5. Minimum standard for the treatment of animals in circuses.
6. Guidelines for hunting practices that reduce the amount of suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
7. Any future issues of concern for the welfare of animals.

Rulings by the UN Animal Welfare Committee are subject to mandatory review every 10 years in order to account for changes in industry, technology etc., however the basic rights shall remain in place.

This resolution requires that rulings by the UN Animal Welfare Committee shall be enforced in UN member states.

We reject utterly the idea of granting any such unelected body in which our nation's democratically elected government has no say the right to legislate for our nation, and of agreeing in advance to grant whatever ideas it might come up with the force of law within our territories: If the UN absolutely must legislate in this field then let it at least do so by presenting the actual laws concerned to the General Assembly for approval or rejection...

(OOC: As the proposed committee's rulings wouldn't be passing through the General Assembly we wouldn't actually be able to know what rules were supposed to be applying within our nations, and I don't like that aspect of the matter either ...)

Furthermore, I'd like to know just who is supposed to carry out the promised "mandatory review" of the proposed committee's regulations after ten years: Is that just the committee itself, or is it the General Assembly of the UN?

If the UN absolutely must legislate in this field then let it at least do so by presenting the actual laws concerned to the General Assembly for approval or rejection...

Would it be sufficient to have any outcome of the committee subject to approval by the General Assembly?

Furthermore, I'd like to know just who is supposed to carry out the promised "mandatory review" of the proposed committee's regulations after ten years: Is that just the committee itself, or is it the General Assembly of the UN?

The purpose of the review is to insure standards for the treatment of animals remain relevant and up to date, as with the progress of technology, any unforseen future complications are almost certain. With that in mind it would be the same committee’s job to ensure that past recommendations are still sufficiently capable of ensuring that all animals are protected from unnecessary pain and suffering. The outcome of any review would be subject to the same scrutiny as the initial rulings i.e. subject to approval by the General Assembly.

I am not likely to vote in favour of any sort of animal rights legislation. However, if I were, I would recommend the following changes to your proposal.

Animal Rights
Definition of Animal: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress.
Does this include plants?
Tighten this definition, as it is vague. Any living creature is simply too broad. Are you including amoeba?

1. The right to equal recognition of suffering
2. The right to a decent quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.
3. The right to protection from cruel practices and acts such as torture or a prolonged and painful death.
Proposing to establish guidelines and standards to protect animals from excessively cruel practices.
Again, you need to tighten your definitions.
What are suffering, excessively cruel, and adequate intended to mean?
I would get rid of this and possibly add a something to the section below that states that you wish to define cruel practices and the like.

Resolving to establish a UN Animal Welfare Committee to propose rulings subject to the approval of the General Assembly on:
1. Minimum standards for the treatment of domestic pets.
2. Minimum standards for the treatment of livestock, including international and domestic transportation.
3. Guidelines for the use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement.
4. Minimum standards for the treatment of animals in zoos
5. Minimum standard for the treatment of animals in circuses.
6. Guidelines for hunting practices that reduce the amount of suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
7. Any future issues of concern for the welfare of animals.

The above is pretty good.

Rulings by the UN Animal Welfare Committee are subject to mandatory review every 10 years in order to account for changes in industry, technology etc., however the basic rights shall remain in place.
This resolution requires that rulings by the UN Animal Welfare Committee shall be enforced in UN member states.

--Rooty

Animal Rights

Definition of Animal: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress.

In response to this portion of the proposal, and in deference to the honored representative for My Traveling Harem, perhaps this line could be modified to refer to creatures than have some semblance of cardio pulmonary system, no matter how nebulous?


Recognising that human practices do not always give equal consideration to this fact due to economic concerns, cultural traditions, apathy, ignorance etc.

Recognising also that some suffering on the part of animals has benefits for humans.

Resolving to enact minimum standards for the treatment of animals by humans, including that of other humans, pets, livestock, use in scientific research and hunting practices etc.

The United Nations shall endorse the following rights for all animals (including humans):

1. The right to equal recognition of the ability to feel pain.
2. The right to a decent quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.
3. The right to protection from cruel practices and acts such as torture or a prolonged and painful death.

Proposing to establish guidelines and standards to protect animals from excessively cruel practices.

Resolving to establish a UN Animal Welfare Committee to propose rulings subject to the approval of the General Assembly on:

1. Minimum standards for the treatment of domestic pets.
2. Minimum standards for the treatment of livestock, including international and domestic transportation.
3. Guidelines for the use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement.
4. Minimum standards for the treatment of animals in zoos
5. Minimum standard for the treatment of animals in circuses.
6. Guidelines for hunting practices that reduce the amount of suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
7. Any future issues of concern for the welfare of animals.

Okay, this all sounds pretty good, but it bothers me on one part. Up above you say "Recognising that human practices do not always give equal consideration to this fact due to economic concerns, cultural traditions, apathy, ignorance etc." I woory that this proposal if it became a resolution might unfairly restrict the practices of certain relions and cultures. While I have certainly never been a proponent for pain, I and my nation are supporters of religious freedom and cultural diversity.

Rulings by the UN Animal Welfare Committee are subject to mandatory review and approval by the General Assembly every 10 years in order to account for changes in industry, technology etc., however the basic rights shall remain in place.

This resolution requires that UN Animal Welfare Committee rulings approved by the General Assembly shall be enforced within UN member states.

How will this be enforced? What are the penalties?

Over all, I do support this proposal, however, I need soem clarification on these points.

OOC: as an aside, I agree with the original poster (or at least their nation) that rights exist only when granted by society. A strange position for a lefty, perhaps, but I don't believe there is such a thing as an 'inherent right'.

Anyway. I may well support a mild proposal in favour of animal rights but only if due consideration is given to societies where such rights are more of a luxury, such as NS-equivalents of some African states.

This legislation is very unrealistic. Grouping livestock with pets and scienctific experimentation is idealistic and may work in some way with people who believe in the rights of animals already but creates problems who see this as overreaching and each part of the legislation as separate issues. This looks like a handbasket of legislation and should be broken apart. If it is not broken up the legislation is most likely unpassable.

There are three separate issues:

1) Standards for the care and treatment of livestock.
2) Humane treatment of pets.
3) Animal experimentation.

Would it be sufficient to have any outcome of the committee subject to approval by the General Assembly?
The outcome of any review would be subject to the same scrutiny as the initial rulings i.e. subject to approval by the General Assembly.

OOC: That would seem a bit better to the government of St Edmund, although they still wouldn't see this as a field in which UN legislation was really desirable, but might break the rules about what resolutions can do...

I'm reserving my judgement on what is being said regarding whether this issue is International enough to warrant attention. My initial inclination is that components of it are. I do recognize the point brough up by many regarding the use of the term "rights" and suggest the use of having stuff like "shall be treated" rather than "shall have the right to be treated". Regardless, I do have a comment about a minor improvement

4. Minimum standards for the treatment of animals in zoos
5. Minimum standard for the treatment of animals in circuses

The issue within this is how limited it is. I think of various ad firms that have employed animals for their advertising, or various shows and movies - which probably should be placed under guidelines. As such, I think combining these two and throwing in the rest under a general heading of "public display" or something of a similar nature would be better

I'm reserving my judgement on what is being said regarding whether this issue is International enough to warrant attention. My initial inclination is that components of it are.

OOC_ I started work on a proposal about the welfare of animals that are being transported internationally (which the government of St Edmund would agree is an International enough matter for the UN's attention) several weeks ago, but got side-tracked by other matters (such as Murder & Manslaughter, as well as RL): I hope to get it into a complete enough form for this assembly's attention fairly soon, although it's currently only at #4 or maybe #5 on my list of planned proposals...

OOC: Just kill me now please.

Definition of Animal: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress. Recognising that as a species itself, humans exist within a global community of animals in possession of common characteristics, namely the ability to feel and suffer pain.

Are we to understand that you are considering humans outside animal and now giving just the animals rights even humans don't have now? I now see why humans are slowly killing themselves as they forget what they are and care more for things that don't care for them. Also there are more living creatures than animal and human that still don't have these rights and they are as equal to them as anything else might be. Thus when do these get their protection from abuse that this would provide animals and humans? As they are all citizens of UN member nations all far more important than some animal.. and as equal to any human in feelings as those animals.

Also we do not consider ourselves animals, rather sagaants who feel and suffer pain. So resent being placed in the same group as a dog or pig simply because we feel and suffer pain. There is a lot more to us and even humans than there is to a dog or pig...

Are we to understand that you are considering humans outside animal and now giving just the animals rights even humans don't have now?

Not at all. This resolution explicitly includes humans in its definition of animals and therefore grants right to humans that currently to not exist.

Also there are more living creatures than animal and human that still don't have these rights and they are as equal to them as anything else might be.

This resolution recognises the equal capacity of living creatures that feel pain. For the purposes of this reolution they are defined as animals. This again is explicit.

Also we do not consider ourselves animals, rather sagaants who feel and suffer pain.So resent being placed in the same group as a dog or pig simply because we feel and suffer pain.

With respect, this resolution has a specific defintion of the term animal. This is distinct from it general use. If citizens of your nation are alive and can feel pain, then this resolution will cover them. This is not to say they are the same as dogs or pigs, only that they are in the same class as living things that feel pain. Kirmania sees concideration of common characteristics as a means to true equality.

Kirmania would like to know therefore how citizens of Mahaliastan know if human babies and adults unable to speak can feel pain? Does your position exempt them from laws against cruel treatment? If not we suggest there is no reason why non-human animals do not deserve similar protections that take into account their capacity to feel pain.


Our nation does not consider human beings to be the in the same definition as animals. Animals currently have no protected rights in Mahaliastan.

Not at all. This resolution explicitly includes humans in its definition of animals and therefore grants right to humans that currently to not exist.
With respect, this resolution has a specific defintion of the term animal. This is distinct from it general use. If citizens of your nation are alive and can feel pain, then this resolution will cover them. This is not to say they are the same as dogs or pigs, only that they are in the same class as living things that feel pain. Kirmania sees concideration of common characteristics as a means to true equality.


So, if it's meant to cover humans (& other sapient beings) as well as non-sapient animals, what category are you going to place it in? The protection given to humans might suggest 'Human Rights', but the many restrictions to be set on how humans can legally treat other animals would suggest 'Moral Decency' instead... and the two clauses that I’ve placed in bold in the following quotation from the actual proposal would seem to make it cover all matters of “welfare” for humans, too, which would arguably be ‘Social Justice’.

The United Nations shall endorse the following rights for all animals (including humans):

1. The right to equal recognition of the ability to feel pain.
2. The right to a decent quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.
3. The right to protection from cruel practices and acts such as torture or a prolonged and painful death.

Proposing to establish guidelines and standards to protect animals from excessively cruel practices.

Resolving to establish a UN Animal Welfare Committee to propose rulings subject to the approval of the General Assembly on:

1. Minimum standards for the treatment of domestic pets.
2. Minimum standards for the treatment of livestock, including international and domestic transportation.
3. Guidelines for the use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement.
4. Minimum standards for the treatment of animals in zoos
5. Minimum standard for the treatment of animals in circuses.
6. Guidelines for hunting practices that reduce the amount of suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
7. Any future issues of concern for the welfare of animals.

Those two clauses would essentially give your proposed committee the authority to over-ride the national governments' policies in just about ALL matters that could be classified as 'Human Rights' or 'Social Justice', and to impose a one-size-fits-all Welfare State system on all nations that chose to remain within the UN regardless of their existing practices or the strengths of their economies. The government of St Edmund is most emphatically opposed to granting that sort of power to any such unelected committee, in whose policies (unlike those of the UN itself) we would have no say...

OOC: And as the committee's decisions would presumably be made by NPCs offstage we -- the players -- wouldn't even know what regulations it wanted our nations' governments to submit to, or which future resolutions might either contradict or duplicate any of those binding rules... I just don't see how this is supposed to be workable...

Perhaps get a sapient rights proposal through first?

I would recomend support for this resolution and i'm curious about whether or not this resolution could be a starting point for a resolution to recognise the rights of sentient beings in all UN nations? Especially since i am a non-human nation and know of several others.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich bangs his shoe on his desk.

WE WILL BURY YOU!!!

Perhaps get a sapient rights proposal through first?

…i'm curious about whether or not this resolution could be a starting point for a resolution to recognise the rights of sentient beings in all UN nations?

The intent of this resolution is to establish some basic rights for beings that feel pain that does not discriminate according to species. This means that the rights described in the resolution will not only cover humans as sapient beings, but any other species of spaient being. It will recognise that pain, no matter what the species, is still pain, and that it is a breach of equality not to acknowledge this.

The long term aim of Kirmania is to establish these fundamental rights for animals (beings that feel pain), and to further establish rights for persons (rationally self conscious or sapient). We believe that equality is best served if, for example in the case of humans, their animal characteristics are protected first (i.e. they are protected against torture, cruel acts, provided means to a decent quality of life) with a further, but separate resolution to establish their rights as persons (i.e. freedom of association, freedom of speech etc.). Not only would this ensure better consistency in terms of equality, but it would help cover circumstances where nations have sapient beings that are not human.

With this in mind, would this resolution be more acceptable if it were amended to cover just the basic rights, leaving other resolutions to cover more specific issues such as the treatment of livestock, circus animals, pets etc.?

The People of Clof recognise the experience of pain to be a potentially positive thing. An ancient Clof proverb states that in the absence of pain there will follow an absence of gain also.

Definition of Animal: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress.

Recognising that as a species itself, humans exist within a global community of animals in possession of common characteristics, namely the ability to feel and suffer pain.

I must argue that the term "believed" in this catagory makes this definition extremely vague. Some plants are capable of detecting damage and responding, some would consider this pain. Others consider the movements and cries of an injured living thing to come from shock rather than pain. Belief in this area is subjective and therefore inapropriate in this document.

Also, The People of Clof do not consider humans to be a "species" of animal and will oppose any legislation which suggests such a natralistic concept.

Also, The People of Clof do not consider humans to be a "species" of animal and will oppose any legislation which suggests such a natralistic concept.
This demonstrates that while your theory makes sense, but will have trouble going down with the average UN state leaving you going: :headbang: Remember most don't debate regulations but simply vote.

The People of Clof recognise the experience of pain to be a potentially positive thing. An ancient Clof proverb states that in the absence of pain there will follow an absence of gain also.

That point has already been recognised in the draft resolution:

Recognising also that some suffering on the part of animals has benefits for humans.

I must argue that the term "believed" in this catagory makes this definition extremely vague…Others consider the movements and cries of an injured living thing to come from shock rather than pain. Belief in this area is subjective and therefore inapropriate in this document.

It is no more subjective than a belief that human babies or mutes can feel pain. If it is appropriate to protect these beings then it is appropriate to protect others believed to have similar characteristics. As to the limits of the definition of animal, perhaps the presence of a neural system would be sufficient criteria.

Also, The People of Clof do not consider humans to be a "species" of animal and will oppose any legislation which suggests such a natralistic concept.

Do the people of Clof believe that humans can feel pain? If so, then for the purposes of this resolution they be included as animals and receive the right to have this characteristic recognised.

Definition of Animal: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress.

It is no more subjective than a belief that human babies or mutes can feel pain. If it is appropriate to protect these beings then it is appropriate to protect others believed to have similar characteristics. As to the limits of the definition of animal, perhaps the presence of a neural system would be sufficient criteria..

Due to the fact you use a limited issue like feeling pain to set what is an animal then one can later come along and say the Great Pine Tree feels pain thus is by rights included here as it's and animal. Then another can say the Stone of Justice feels psychological distress thus it to is animal. As what is needed to show these do not feel pain or PD, thus fit as animal. A pine wilts when neglected; thus is this distress of pain? A stone changes color when held; thus is this a sign of distress or pain? If so they are as defined here animals..

Also even saying they have a 'neural system' would not work since due to the many forms of life in NS not all would have one as you might define even that; yet they consider themselves animals and do feel pain and PD.

To feel pain, a creature has to have a nervous system and a brain to both transmit the pain impulses, and process them. I hardly think a plant or stone has either. I'm sure there are nations out there that will claim to have plants and rocks that are animals, but hardly think it is fair to expect proposal writers to try and take into account every single nations individual forms of role play. That is just plain impossible.

I think using the criteria of feeling pain to be a good way to seperate animals from plants ect, and applaud the writer for thinking of it. As for the proposal itself, I think it goes a bit too far in micro managing how nations will treat animals. Our nation already has adequate cruelty laws ect and this proposal would be an unwarrented intrusion. Perhaps the author could consider looking at the international trade of animals, legal and illegal, and try some guidelines for that instead.

Due to the fact you use a limited issue like feeling pain to set what is an animal then one can later come along and say the Great Pine Tree feels pain thus is by rights included here as it's and animal.I smell WHL-type abuse becoming popular...

I smell WHL-type abuse becoming popular...

My testicles feel pain when they are kicked or punched. Thus, I want them afforded legal protection as well.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Are the Sheik's testicles a significant income, uh, stream for Cluichstan? This may influence any decision to nominate them for protection.

Ahem, cough, etc.

Are the Sheik's testicles a significant income, uh, stream for Cluichstan? This may influence any decision to nominate them for protection.

Ahem, cough, etc.

Not income, no, but they have provided an outpouring of life in the form of my 42 children.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

My testicles feel pain when they are kicked or punched. Thus, I want them afforded legal protection as well.

Well you and your testicles are in luck. This resolution would help protect your testicles from any unwaranted abuse. Using this resolution people in your nation could demand such protection, providing of course you prove that your testicles have an independant pain receptor, otherwise simply protecting you as a cohesive conscious entity would probably be sufficient.

To feel pain, a creature has to have a nervous system and a brain to both transmit the pain impulses, and process them. I hardly think a plant or stone has either. I'm sure there are nations out there that will claim to have plants and rocks that are animals, but hardly think it is fair to expect proposal writers to try and take into account every single nations individual forms of role play. That is just plain impossible.

Thanks. I couldn't have put it better myself.

This demonstrates that while your theory makes sense, but will have trouble going down with the average UN state leaving you going: :headbang:

Appreciated, but that is no reason not to try. Equality is something worth pursuing, whether it be regonition of a woman's equal capacity to vote, a non-white individuals equal capacity as a person, a homosexuals equal capacity to marriage and committed relationship, or an animal's equal capacity to feel pain.

Well you and your testicles are in luck. This resolution would help protect your testicles from any unwaranted abuse. Using this resolution people in your nation could demand such protection, providing of course you prove that your testicles have an independant pain receptor, otherwise simply protecting you as a cohesive conscious entity would probably be sufficient.I don't know about you, but I don't care to examine his testicles that closely.

I will, however, grant them status as a protected environmental site (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List#The_List).

OOC: Ah; I wondered what that was doing on the WHL...

IC:
The PDSRA commends the authors of this resolution. While it establishes merely what we consider a bare minimum in terms of animal rights, we feel this resolution is well thought-out, and that it will hopefully appeal to a broad range of nations.

You have our support.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Animals are beings which eat, sleep, respire, reproduce, respond to external stimuli, and can move from one place to another on their own.

This would theoretically exclude such objects as His Excellency's testicles, and although some might argue plants sleep, I have yet to see one travel across a room without help.
However, it would exclude fungi, moulds and many molluscs such as barnacles and mussels, and of course corals and anemone - but their status as plant or animal is in doubt anyway.

although some might argue plants sleep, I have yet to see one travel across a room without help.
Plants can move. It's called tropism.

And your criteria also seem to include fire.

Fires sleep? o_O

Tropism still occurs in the same spot, it is merely the turning of the upper portion towards a stimulus, usually light or gravity. Perhaps 'travel' instead of 'move'.

Fires sleep? o_O

Tropism still occurs in the same spot, it is merely the turning of the upper portion towards a stimulus, usually light or gravity. Perhaps 'travel' instead of 'move'.
So what you're basically saying is "animals are defined as doing things which animals do; things that don't do that aren't plants". How incisive.

Well I could expand...have complex internal bodily systems ie. digestive, respiratory, circulatory, which are composed of linked organs. The ability to acquire a personality.
I could go on. Each time you increase the criteria the group contracts.

an·i·mal (n-ml)
n.
1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
3. A person who behaves in a bestial or brutish manner.
4. A human considered with respect to his or her physical, as opposed to spiritual, nature.
5. A person having a specified aptitude or set of interests: "that rarest of musical animals, an instrumentalist who is as comfortable on a podium with a stick as he is playing his instrument" Lon Tuck.

Perhaps 'travel' instead of 'move'.

Some plants can travel, although most tend to travel in an upward direction, vines can travel any way they feel inclined to go. Some (ah the tumbling tumble weed) tend to just go where the wild wind blows. (Which is true for a number of sentient animals you know.)

Sithya is thoroughly uninterested in any decrees regarding Animal Rights. So long as human beings live in poverty and ignorance, it is beyond ridiculous, in our opinion to begin legislating rights for anything beyond our species.

Any such proposal for animal rights will be voted "No" by Sithya.

If we're going to be so pedantic - can remove themselves entirely off the ground or equivalent anchoring surface and relocate if residing on the ground. If residing in the sea/lakes/rivers, but not on the seabottom - can travel against the current and/or voluntarily leave the sea/river.

Animal "rights" do not exist, and the nation of Meurtelandia stands firm on that. Any being that is lesser evolved than man is not deserving of any sort of "rights" for it equates them with man. An animal can not reason, speak, create culture, and walk up-right all the time. All men that can not do these are abnormalties so any one mentioning the metally retarded has no point. Young babies are not deveolped enough and need time to grow but all normal people have the ability to do such action as before described unless injured in an accident or stricken by a medical illness.

Sithya is thoroughly uninterested in any decrees regarding Animal Rights. So long as human beings live in poverty and ignorance, it is beyond ridiculous, in our opinion to begin legislating rights for anything beyond our species.

Any such proposal for animal rights will be voted "No" by Sithya.

Ambassador Zyryanov sighed, and stood.

"I would point out to my esteemed counterpart that legislating in favour of the protection of animals does not, in any way, manner or form, preclude us from legislating also for the well-being of our own species. Your argument is inane in the extreme."


Animal "rights" do not exist, and the nation of Meurtelandia stands firm on that.

"Neither, then, do human rights," Zyryanov pointed out patiently. "Both are social constructs born of ethics; neither concept is an absolute pre-existing society. Your point is invalid; you're confusing the notion of pre-social rights, which do not exist, with that of socially constructed rights or privileges."


Any being that is lesser evolved than man is not deserving of any sort of "rights" for it equates them with man.

"Utterly irrelevant. The ability to experience physical pain and psychological anguish is utterly distinct from any hypothetical and anthropocentric degree of evolution."

She sat back down, and waited. It was going to be a long session...

She sat back down, and waited. It was going to be a long session...
"Not really.

Ambassador Zarazarawotsit's long words are all very impressive, but they don't detract from the fact that animals are animals. They're boring unless they're on a plate, being subjected to useful (or useless but amusing) testing, being hunted, or generally being utilised for our pleasure. We are the dominant race, above animals and racial inferiors like the Gurglestanis, and it is our right to exploit to eat them, kick them, kill them, wear them, and generally do the fuck as we will with them, simply because we can say so, and they can't say otherwise. End of story."

Ambassador Bausch made a point of blowing his dolphin-scented snuff in her general direction.

Of course happy animals make better food. A starved animal's fur will be shabby and have no shine. Testing for the affects on an animal won't guarantee safety on a human. Hunting is a dangerous sport and usually results in accidents, which can be fatal. A kicked dog bites.

You see, it's far more valuable for you to look after them.

Ambassador Zyryanov sighed, and stood.

"Neither, then, do human rights," Zyryanov pointed out patiently. "Both are social constructs born of ethics; neither concept is an absolute pre-existing society. Your point is invalid; you're confusing the notion of pre-social rights, which do not exist, with that of socially constructed rights or privileges."


The Sithyan Ambassador settled for banging his shoe on the table, ala Nikita Krushchev, in reply to this pompousness and replied: You know very well that we meant that humanity has priority over animal welfare, and labouring this discussion is a distraction from other matters of genuine import.

Your attitude implies parity between human and animal issues, which is something we as a nation do not accept and posturing from any other nation aside, we will never accept. We consider it a basic part of OUR ethics that humanity comes first; if you don't like it, too bad. We sometimes wonder if the nations that get so worked up about animal rights are engaged in some sort of liberal masochism about man and nature, which is not a cultural norm in Sithya.

Finally, this issue is unimportant to us because the nation of Sithya has no animal rights activists, ever since a branch of the Animal Liberation Front tried to break into one of our mink farms. They found 10 agents of the Dark Order waiting for them, armed with automatic rifles. Sithya is proud that we are on the blacklist of nations not only for the ALF but Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc.

We will not be moved into accepting this measure. We will vote against it. Pass it, and we will not comply. Lex mala, lex nulla.

Any comments, recommended changes or expressions of support most welcome.

Animal Rights

Definition of Animal: any living creature believed capable of feeling physical pain and/or psychological distress.

Recognising that as a species itself, humans exist within a global community of animals in possession of common characteristics, namely the ability to feel and suffer pain.

Recognising that human practices do not always give equal consideration to this fact due to economic concerns, cultural traditions, apathy, ignorance etc.

Recognising also that some suffering on the part of animals has benefits for humans.

Resolving to enact minimum standards for the treatment of animals by humans, including that of other humans, pets, livestock, use in scientific research and hunting practices etc.

The United Nations shall endorse the following rights for all animals (including humans):

1. The right to equal recognition of the ability to feel pain.
2. The right to a decent quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.
3. The right to protection from cruel practices and acts such as torture or a prolonged and painful death.

Proposing to establish guidelines and standards to protect animals from excessively cruel practices.

Resolving to establish a UN Animal Welfare Committee to propose rulings subject to the approval of the General Assembly on:

1. Minimum standards for the treatment of domestic pets.
2. Minimum standards for the treatment of livestock, including international and domestic transportation.
3. Guidelines for the use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement.
4. Minimum standards for the treatment of animals in zoos
5. Minimum standard for the treatment of animals in circuses.
6. Guidelines for hunting practices that reduce the amount of suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
7. Any future issues of concern for the welfare of animals.

Rulings by the UN Animal Welfare Committee are subject to mandatory review and approval by the General Assembly every 10 years in order to account for changes in industry, technology etc., however the basic rights shall remain in place.

This resolution requires that UN Animal Welfare Committee rulings approved by the General Assembly shall be enforced within UN member states.
Quaon does not support this proposal. No offense to anyone, I respect your opinion, but "Guidelines for the use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement"? That's BS, in my opinion. If something un-sentient is in the way of scientific advancements, so be it.

"Guidelines for the use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement"? That's BS, in my opinion. If something un-sentient is in the way of scientific advancements, so be it.

This resolution does take into account that scientific testing can cause pain, but that it can also have benefits that would outweigh such effects. That is why the committee would be instructed to make produce guidelines, not specific rulings. What this resolution is trying to prevent is experiments such as this:

Dogs were placed on a metal floor that could be charged so that the dogs would be electrocuted. There was a small wall that the dogs could jump over so that they could escape the effects of the electrocution. Once this had been done a few times a clear barrier was put up to prevent the dogs from escaping the electrocution. Eventually the suffering dogs would give up trying to escape. The purpose of the experiment was to look at what it takes for an animal to succumb to pain and give up trying to escape. The results were said to be inconclusive.

Kirmania finds it hard to justify why these dogs, who's ability to feel pain would be no less than a humans, should suffer so much for an experiment for which the aim could hardly be considered that useful.

Other examples would include the practice of testing missile damage on live animals, as well as the practice of vivisection (operating on live animals without any anaesthetic).

Ambassador Zarazarawotsit's long words are all very impressive, but they don't detract from the fact that animals are animals.

And the words of Ambassador Bausch do not change the fact that under this resolution animals feel pain, thus humans are (for the purpose of this resolution) included as animals, and that these facts should be recognised by the UN.

They're boring unless they're on a plate, being subjected to useful (or useless but amusing) testing, being hunted, or generally being utilised for our pleasure.

The perceived usefulness of an animal has nothing to do with its capacity to feel pain, which is the actual focus of this resolution.

An animal can not reason, speak, create culture, and walk up-right all the time.

With all due respect, the representative for Meurtelandia has completely missed the point of the resolution which has been clearly outlined. This resolution defines animals as beings that feel pain, and offers protection under those very specific terms. Under this specific definition a human is an animal, therefore some animals can reason, speak, create culture, and walk up-right all the time.

The perceived usefulness of an animal has nothing to do with its capacity to feel pain, which is the actual focus of this resolution.
Pain is nothing. The UN has preserved the rights of nations to allow the termination of fetuses at a point at which medical science has indubitably demonstrated their ability to feel pain. It should do the same for animals.

Pain is nothing. The UN has preserved the rights of nations to allow the termination of fetuses at a point at which medical science has indubitably demonstrated their ability to feel pain. It should do the same for animals.

Pain is something. It has subjective ontology, but it is nonetheless real. A ruling on abortion does not change this fact, and would not contradict a resolution recognising this. Kirmania invites the representative of Gruenburg to show where exactly the proposal goes as far as to prevent the termination of an animal's (including a fetuses) life.

This resolution is not aimed at preventing all pain. It is designed to recognise that particular beings do feel pain, and encourage nations to concider this when creating laws.

Pain is something. It has subjective ontology, but it is nonetheless real. A ruling on abortion does not change this fact, and would not contradict a resolution recognising this. Kirmania invites the representative of Gruenburg to show where exactly the proposal goes as far as to prevent the termination of an animal's (including a fetuses) life.

This resolution is not aimed at preventing all pain. It is designed to recognise that particular beings do feel pain, and encourage nations to concider this when creating laws.

Wah-wah. Boo-hoo.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/4v2.png

:rolleyes:

The Sithyan Ambassador settled for banging his shoe on the table, ala Nikita Krushchev, in reply to this pompousness and replied: You know very well that we meant that humanity has priority over animal welfare, and labouring this discussion is a distraction from other matters of genuine import.

"My esteemed colleague from Kirmania has adequately adressed the points raised by Ambassador Bausch, so I'll address these... I see no reason why legislating for animal welfare should be seen as distracting from human welfare. The United Nations remains perfectly apt to pass legislation for the well-being of humans. As are we in Ariddia. Achieving socialism hasn't prevented us from implementing progressive legislation for the ethical treatment of animals. Or vice-versa."


Your attitude implies parity between human and animal issues,

"Not at all, as I've already explained. You haven't answered my point."


We will not be moved into accepting this measure. We will vote against it. Pass it, and we will not comply. Lex mala, lex nulla.

Zyryanov smirked.
"Fortunately, should this legislation pass, you'll have no choice but to comply."

She sat back down.

You can be as smug as you like. I will fight this tooth and nail.

OOC: Seeing as I'm going to be out of work in about a week, I'll have plenty of time on my hands for telegramming the bejeezus outta the delegates. :p

"My esteemed colleague from Kirmania has adequately adressed the points raised by Ambassador Bausch, so I'll address these... I see no reason why legislating for animal welfare should be seen as distracting from human welfare. The United Nations remains perfectly apt to pass legislation for the well-being of humans. As are we in Ariddia. Achieving socialism hasn't prevented us from implementing progressive legislation for the ethical treatment of animals. Or vice-versa."


Let's try and put this into terms of physics. By discussing this issue, you are occupying a space in time with that discussion that could be occupied by discussing things which are genuinely important. They are distracting from human welfare because those issues are put to one side when discussing animal welfare.




"Not at all, as I've already explained. You haven't answered my point."


You totally ignored the points I made. But this is typical behaviour from a socialist nation.




Zyryanov smirked.
"Fortunately, should this legislation pass, you'll have no choice but to comply."

She sat back down.

You and whose army? (Hint: The United Nations has no standing army.) We will also rally any other nation that agrees with us against your imperialist sabre rattling, which is the only reasonable interpretation for your desire to impose your will on any nation that doesn't agree with you. We do not share your values, and your attempts at imposing your values on us, smacks of elitism and racism, which every true Sithyan will resist to the last. Indeed if this imposition of values becomes the norm, then the diversity that the United Nations is supposed to represent can be said to be truly dead.

You can be as smug as you like. I will fight this tooth and nail.

OOC: Seeing as I'm going to be out of work in about a week, I'll have plenty of time on my hands for telegramming the bejeezus outta the delegates. :p

We suggest an alliance between Sithya and your nation.

Cordially,

The Empire of Sithya

Let's try and put this into terms of physics. By discussing this issue, you are occupying a space in time with that discussion that could be occupied by discussing things which are genuinely important. They are distracting from human welfare because those issues are put to one side when discussing animal welfare.


"If that is the only serious point you can raise against this proposal, then your objection is laughable. It's in the nature of this organisation to discuss a wide variety of proposals. Would you advocate automatically voting against any proposal aiming at increasing so-called economic freedoms? Our discussing this proposal in no way impedes our moving straight on to a proposal for the well-being of humans after that, and something good will have been achieved in the meantime."


You totally ignored the points I made. But this is typical behaviour from a socialist nation.


"Your silly generalisations only cast doubt on your own ability for logic," Zyryanov said, rolling her eyes.


You and whose army? (Hint: The United Nations has no standing army.) We will also rally any other nation that agrees with us against your imperialist sabre rattling, which is the only reasonable interpretation for your desire to impose your will on any nation that doesn't agree with you. We do not share your values, and your attempts at imposing your values on us, smacks of elitism and racism, which every true Sithyan will resist to the last. Indeed if this imposition of values becomes the norm, then the diversity that the United Nations is supposed to represent can be said to be truly dead.

Zyryanov smiled.
"I didn't know it was possible to accumulate so many rhetorical clichés, all of them empty of substance, in a single tirade. It would seem, my dear, that you don't understand the workings of the United Nations. Your national legislation will be brought into compliance, and it'll have nothing to do with us."

OOC: Compliance with UN legislation is mandatory. If you're going to resist it, at least be creative, like Gruenberg or OMGTKK: find a creative way to abide by the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. Or take a look at Hack's suggestion here (last lines) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10972611&postcount=100). Or do as I've done, and have your government create a "sovereign" nation to act as a mouthpiece in the UN (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ESAT). But if you claim to just ignore UN legislation, you'll be ignored in turn by most people.

We suggest an alliance between Sithya and your nation.

Cordially,

The Empire of Sithya

OOC: Check your TGs on the NS site.

"If that is the only serious point you can raise against this proposal, then your objection is laughable. It's in the nature of this organisation to discuss a wide variety of proposals. Would you advocate automatically voting against any proposal aiming at increasing so-called economic freedoms? Our discussing this proposal in no way impedes our moving straight on to a proposal for the well-being of humans after that, and something good will have been achieved in the meantime."


We suggest this is a waste of time. It is indicative of your priorities that you would force the rest of us to discuss it ad nauseam.




"Your silly generalisations only cast doubt on your own ability for logic," Zyryanov said, rolling her eyes.


Your arrogance only casts doubts on the integrity and humility of your nation. It appears that you are full of yourselves, to the point that you can only resort to childish retorts of superiority when your opinions are challenged.




Zyryanov smiled.
"I didn't know it was possible to accumulate so many rhetorical clichés, all of them empty of substance, in a single tirade. It would seem, my dear, that you don't understand the workings of the United Nations. Your national legislation will be brought into compliance, and it'll have nothing to do with us."

OOC: Compliance with UN legislation is mandatory. If you're going to resist it, at least be creative, like Gruenberg or OMGTKK: find a creative way to abide by the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. Or take a look at Hack's suggestion here (last lines) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10972611&postcount=100). Or do as I've done, and have your government create a "sovereign" nation to act as a mouthpiece in the UN (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/ESAT). But if you claim to just ignore UN legislation, you'll be ignored in turn by most people.

Sithya is an honest nation. We will not abide by any animal rights measure you pass. If they boot us out of the United Nations, so be it. If you try to impose sanctions, so be it. We are not going to even give the semblance of bending to a measure which is diametrically opposed to the interests and the ethics of our nation.

I would urge caution, however, if you embark on such a crusade. We sell uranium and arms to other member states. If you even want to be able to speak to us about it, you're better having us in than out. But no matter, you will not shove this measure down our throats. This point is rallying the citizenry of Sithya around the nation's leadership and against your point of view.

We suggest this is a waste of time. It is indicative of your priorities that you would force the rest of us to discuss it ad nauseam.


"We've already made it clear to you that addressing this issue does not deter from adressing other issues as well. Beings that suffer extreme physical and psychological pain for no reason clearly deserve some measure of protection. The resolution proposal, as it is phrased, is very mild.

I would add that we're not 'forcing' you to discuss it. Again your meaningless rhetoric. There are several doors close by that will lead you out of the General Assembly if you don't want to be here."


Your arrogance only casts doubts on the integrity and humility of your nation. It appears that you are full of yourselves, to the point that you can only resort to childish retorts of superiority when your opinions are challenged.


"Begging the honourable delegate's pardon, but... you were the one to make a sweeping and insulting comment. What you said was hardly a challenge to my opinion."


Sithya is an honest nation. We will not abide by any animal rights measure you pass. If they boot us out of the United Nations, so be it. If you try to impose sanctions, so be it. We are not going to even give the semblance of bending to a measure which is diametrically opposed to the interests and the ethics of our nation.

I would urge caution, however, if you embark on such a crusade. We sell uranium and arms to other member states. If you even want to be able to speak to us about it, you're better having us in than out. But no matter, you will not shove this measure down our throats. This point is rallying the citizenry of Sithya around the nation's leadership and against your point of view.

Zyryanov laughed out loud at that.
"I thought I'd expressed myself quite clearly," she said, amused. "We would not be doing anything. But you'll find your legislation overwritten whether you like it or not. And I would urge you to caution if you try to stop the UN Gnomes from doing what they like best. At the very least, your attempts should prove... entertaining."


OOC: Should I take it you intend to RP non-compliance? As I said earlier, compliance is mandatory on a game-mechanics level. Your nation's stats will be adjusted by the game itself, bringing you into forced compliance. I've pointed out to you the three options you can follow if you want to wriggle out of compliance, but for goodness' sake be creative about it. Nobody here likes to see someone just stamp their foot and say they refuse to comply.

"We've already made it clear to you that addressing this issue does not deter from adressing other issues as well. Beings that suffer extreme physical and psychological pain for no reason clearly deserve some measure of protection. The resolution proposal, as it is phrased, is very mild.

I would add that we're not 'forcing' you to discuss it. Again your meaningless rhetoric. There are several doors close by that will lead you out of the General Assembly if you don't want to be here."

I see. So basically the United Nations has become a talking shop for what Ariddia wants. If anyone objects, we can leave. Is that it?

The United Nations is not Ariddia. Ariddia is not the United Nations. When you get used to the idea that you're not the moral arbiter of the world, other nations might actually want to deal with you.





"Begging the honourable delegate's pardon, but... you were the one to make a sweeping and insulting comment. What you said was hardly a challenge to my opinion."



The Lord Protector of Sithya had a good laugh at this response when it was relayed by our ambassador. If there is any nation here that has been acting in a high handed manner it is Ariddia. The smug, pompous and self-righteous tone of the ambassador's verbal meanderings do no credit to this body.




Zyryanov laughed out loud at that.
"I thought I'd expressed myself quite clearly," she said, amused. "We would not be doing anything. But you'll find your legislation overwritten whether you like it or not. And I would urge you to caution if you try to stop the UN Gnomes from doing what they like best. At the very least, your attempts should prove... entertaining."



We'll take your warning with all the seriousness it deserves. Which is none whatsoever.


OOC: Should I take it you intend to RP non-compliance? As I said earlier, compliance is mandatory on a game-mechanics level. Your nation's stats will be adjusted by the game itself, bringing you into forced compliance. I've pointed out to you the three options you can follow if you want to wriggle out of compliance, but for goodness' sake be creative about it. Nobody here likes to see someone just stamp their foot and say they refuse to comply.

There are plenty of nations in the "real world" who act precisely in the same manner that Sithya does. It says much that Ariddia has to cry foul when a real world example intrudes, rather than attempt to deal with such an example as a real nation would. If you do go crying out "non-compliance" then it will be very clear that the player behind the nation simply lacks the flexibility to handle a situation they don't like without calling for the umpire.

Wah-wah. Boo-hoo.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/4v2.png

:rolleyes:
Yey! This is the first time I've seen one of mine out of that topic and not by me :D

*ahem* Carry on.

Wah-wah. Boo-hoo.

Kirmania is disapointed to see that Cluichstan has nothing more constructive to add to the debate. Kirmania does not concider this an emotional issue. We regard it as a rational implication of the principle of equality (equal concideration for equal characteristics). As such we believe our arguements have reflected this.

We suggest Cluichstan find something better to to with its time rather than misrepresenting the arguements for this proposal.

Whilst Kirmania greatly appreciates the support of Ariddia, we believe that the recent bickering between this nation and Sythia is more self indulgent than constructive. In the interest of debate we recomend a refocus on the issues related to the draft and an break from any unhelpful ad hominem arguement.

In regards to Sythia, this resolution is concerned with human rights and aims to establish rights for humans that currently do not exist. This is made explicit in the draft.

If your nation still thinks it is a waste of time despite this fact, we suggest Sythia abides by its own arguement and finds something more productive to do.

There are plenty of nations in the "real world" who act precisely in the same manner that Sithya does. It says much that Ariddia has to cry foul when a real world example intrudes, rather than attempt to deal with such an example as a real nation would. If you do go crying out "non-compliance" then it will be very clear that the player behind the nation simply lacks the flexibility to handle a situation they don't like without calling for the umpire.

OOC _
Oh, for heck's sake, read the bloody rules: They state very clearly that the NSUN does not function in the same way as the RL UN... :headbang:

respond to external stimuli, and can move from one place to another on their own..

One of these could get you into plants. As many believe that talking to them help them grow better. Some even believe that playing music to them helps. We do know that plants grow better under outside stimuli based on the color of light on them. So an external stimuli is applied.

On the stones there are stones that when held change colors based on heat.. one might claim this is a display of pain and is for sure a responce to an external stimuli regards of why.

The one that sets them aside is the ability to move on their own. Your definition of 'animal' is better than the one given in the proposal as it closes the chance of one including more stange things..

As far as a separate parts of ones body being considered a separate animal.. Beleive we would have to remove that part and then see if it still meets the ability to feel pain. So if we have any volunteers for such testing then...

I think I made it clear that it was a case of satisfying all criteria. Otherwise it would be pointless, nearly everything can satisfy at least one of those.
I know very well plants grow, that they respond to stimuli. But as I said, a plant cannot decide it would like to cross a river and a road and live in Mr McGregor's garden instead of Parsley the Lion's garden. Whereas a little bunny rabbit can.

Dogs were placed on a metal floor that could be charged so that the dogs would be electrocuted. There was a small wall that the dogs could jump over so that they could escape the effects of the electrocution. Once this had been done a few times a clear barrier was put up to prevent the dogs from escaping the electrocution. Eventually the suffering dogs would give up trying to escape. The purpose of the experiment was to look at what it takes for an animal to succumb to pain and give up trying to escape. The results were said to be inconclusive.

Kirmania finds it hard to justify why these dogs, who's ability to feel pain would be no less than a humans, should suffer so much for an experiment for which the aim could hardly be considered that useful.

Other examples would include the practice of testing missile damage on live animals, as well as the practice of vivisection (operating on live animals without any anaesthetic).

Now we see a use for this as we learned a great deal testing human in a simular manner when we first arrived in this solar system. As it showed us they could be defected should they try to abuse us. Thus our elders felt it was safe for us to settle here among them.

OOC: That was best part of Biology class cutting open a frog or rat to watch the heart beat.

IC: Had we gotten the results found with the dogs we would not even be here. As our elders would have ruled the humans savages and ordered them destroyed so that we could claim their planets. So I would think if you ask any human if our testing them was useful, considering the other possible actions.. they could see how it was.

But as I said, a plant cannot decide it would like to cross a river and a road and live in Mr McGregor's garden instead of Parsley the Lion's garden. Whereas a little bunny rabbit can.

OOC: so what about the trifids?

ooc: I only saw the Triffids and never got around to reading it...it's on my shelf somewhere.
As Triffids are close enough to animals to come into a grey area perhaps they should be covered.
Or just descriminated against as a 'pest' and therefore open for extermnation.

Kirmania is disapointed to see that Cluichstan has nothing more constructive to add to the debate. Kirmania does not concider this an emotional issue. We regard it as a rational implication of the principle of equality (equal concideration for equal characteristics). As such we believe our arguements have reflected this.

OOC: animals =/= people

OOC: animals =/= people

Kirmania whole heartedly agrees with this most salient point from Cluichstan.

OOC: I distinguish person from animal by the same means as historical and contemporary ethicists such as Kant, Locke, and Singer i.e. a person is "a rational and self-conscious being." The representative for Cluichtsan should feel honoured to be included amongst an esteemed group of academics that recognise this distinction.

IC: Kirmania has already voiced its desire to have resolution covering the rights of persons in consideration of this characteristic, however believe the more 'primitive' or basic issue of pain is best covered under the stated definition of animal. This is a definition designed only for the specific and localised objectives of the resolution and should not be considered the same as any general understanding of the term animal.

Under these definitions humans would have both their ability to feel pain and their desires as persons taken into account, without unfairly discriminating against other beings with either one or more of these characteristics.

We believe there is no sound argument for protecting against pain on any other grounds other than the ability to feel pain, just as e.g. the right to vote should be granted on the grounds that the person can function as a voter and not according to their gender or race. Hence we believe that any UN resolution that resolves to enable such protections should take this into account.

This resolution will protect humans in ways that do not yet exist (but are nonetheless necessary), and I don’t think that would be something most nations would not like to support.

Had we gotten the results found with the dogs we would not even be here. As our elders would have ruled the humans savages and ordered them destroyed so that we could claim their planets.

That but one possibility, and it does not seem very applicable. The same test would not have shown that humans are not 'savages'. Earlier you stated that these experiment were more for means of behavioural control. Therefore an intelligent nation such as yours would have been better served with a more efficient means of testing:

OOC: e.g. B.F Skinner's work on controlling the behaviour of rats or perhaps Watson's use of loud noise in the conditioning of a child to fear a white rat. Watson's experiment is now considered unethical, however I would suggest it is much better than sustained electrocution of the child. Even the children in ‘Brave New World’ were given smaller shocks rather than same sustained electrocution the dogs experienced.

IC: Electrocuting something until it surrenders to being electrocuted does nothing useful; you may as well kill the being. Nevertheless the issue is one that needs debating, and this resolution will help structure the terms of debate for the world scientists.

So I would think if you ask any human if our testing them was useful, considering the other possible actions.. they could see how it was.

I would think that any human wouldn't dare say otherwise considering such testing, and would privately prefer that a better means of testing had been devised. Surely it would be more helpful for your species for relations with humans to be one of trust and admiration not fear and loathing?

The one that sets them aside is the ability to move on their own. Your definition of 'animal' is better than the one given in the proposal as it closes the chance of one including more stange things.....

Kirmania would suggest that because this resolution is concerned with preventing pain, this point should be the focus on any definition of animal.

As far as a separate parts of ones body being considered a separate animal.. Beleive we would have to remove that part and then see if it still meets the ability to feel pain. So if we have any volunteers for such testing then...

We believe this is an excellent idea, and invite the representative for Cluichstan to nominate his own balls for removal in the interest of settling the point he himself raised.

For those interested in an amended version, the draft has now been further edited.

2. The right to a decent quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.

Thus forcing all UN nations to establish a 'welfare state' system, regardless of their politics?

RESOVLING to establish the United Nations Animal Welfare Committee (UNAWC) to propose guidelines subject to the approval of the General Assembly on issues including:

1. The treatment of humans.
2. The treatment of domestic pets.
3. The treatment of livestock, including international and domestic transportation.
4. Use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement.
5. The treatment of animals in zoos
6. The treatment of animals in circuses.
7. Guidelines for hunting practices that reduce the amount of suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
8. Any future issues of concern for the welfare of animals.

Guidelines approved by UNAWC are subject to mandatory review and approval by the General Assembly every ten (10) years in order to account for changes in industry, technology etc., however the basic rights shall remain in place.

URGES that UNAWC guidelines approved by the General Assembly should be enacted within UN member states.

The government of St Edmund will not promise to adopt all of UNAWC's proposed guidelines automatically, without considering them on a case-by-case basis, and would prefer that they be included either in this resolution or in subsequent ones rather than just promulgated in the way described here. (OOC: If we don't get told what they are, how can we roleplay compliance or noncompliance properly?) We also question whether the proposed procedure for having those guidelines approved & reviewed by the General Assembly is actually legal under the UN's rules...

Kirmania would suggest that because this resolution is concerned with preventing pain, this point should be the focus on any definition of animal.True but seeing as how many 'animals' feel pain or so we assume they do we need more to close out adding just any animal to this. As shown even some plants and other objects can be argued to react in a way that shows they feel pain and have PD.. We see the intent was more toward humans than say some lesser animals thus the definition needed to close in on them better. Now that we have debated over this we see additions have been made that narrow this down.

We believe this is an excellent idea, and invite the representative for Cluichstan to nominate his own balls for removal in the interest of settling the point he himself raised.You get the axe and collect them I'll add another tank of gas on the burner and find a lighter.

I would support an amended version of this proposal; our scientists think it is too vague and blurs the line between what is animal and what is human.

Sincerely,


Almar al-Abhdara bin Shafriq
Minister of United Nations Relations
the Government of Sudalmenia

Given your proposal is illegal at the moment, I'm fine with it.

Given your proposal is illegal at the moment, I'm fine with it.

In what way is it illegal?

In what way is it illegal?
Well, in my opinion - obviously the mods can overrule it:
1. Wrong category.
2. All it does is set up a committee.
3. Entirely optional, yet in the Significant category.
4. The whole "review and approval" process.

Thus forcing all UN nations to establish a 'welfare state' system, regardless of their politics?

The resolution no longer forces any nation to do anything. It merely acts as a form of international recognition that people within nations can use to lobby their own governments and that other nations can reference when drawing up other resolutions that deal with specific issues of animal welfare.

The resolution no longer forces any nation to do anything. It merely acts as a form of international recognition that people within nations can use to lobby their own governments and that other nations can reference when drawing up other resolutions that deal with specific issues of animal welfare.

"ENDORSE" isn't binding?

"ENDORSE" isn't binding?
No.

1. Wrong category.

It's aim is to increase basic welfare.

2. All it does is set up a committee.

It also acknowledges basic rights for animals.

3. Entirely optional, yet in the Significant category.

Agreed, and has been changed to mild.

4. The whole "review and approval" process.

Has now been removed.

It's aim is to increase basic welfare.
Ok. You'll have to get a mod opinion; I still say Human Rights.

As leader of the Commonwealth of Ontarian, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the UN in recognizing the Commonwealth of Ontarian as a peer amongst its current membership. The Commonwealth of Ontarian looks forward to assisting in addressing concerns on issues that will undoubtedly, through such a venue as the UN, help shape our world for a better tomorrow.

In response to the afformentioned proposal. Although we do not recognize, nor grant "rights" by its basic definition to animals, we certainly encourage and agree upon, a "humane" approach to their treatment. With that said, we the Commonwealth of Ontarian would support such a proposal that falls under the parameters listed herein:

RESOLVING to establish guidelines to ENCOURAGE nations to protect ANIMALS from excessively cruel practices on the part of PERSONS.

RESOLVING to establish the United Nations Animal Welfare Committee (UNAWC) to propose guidelines subject to the approval of the General Assembly on issues including:

1. The treatment of humans.
2. The treatment of domestic pets.
3. The treatment of livestock, including international and domestic transportation.
4. Use of animals (including humans) in scientific experiments that consciously weigh the suffering of animals against any scientific advancement.
5. The treatment of animals in zoos
6. The treatment of animals in circuses.
7. Guidelines for hunting practices that reduce the amount of suffering inflicted on animals by humans.
8. Any future issues of concern for the welfare of animals.

The Commonwealth of Ontarian recognizes the dangers of non-regulatory measures towards animals, and the hazards that our global ecology would face, without such legislation.

Sincerely,

Prime Minister Gibson
Commonwealth of Ontarian

Of course happy animals make better food. A starved animal's fur will be shabby and have no shine. Testing for the affects on an animal won't guarantee safety on a human. Hunting is a dangerous sport and usually results in accidents, which can be fatal. A kicked dog bites.

You see, it's far more valuable for you to look after them.We would agree here with you on this as if you depend on an animal for something then to abuse them gains nothing toward you getting it. Even the pretense of one abusing slaves comes under this as to treat a slave poorly means they are not able to do their duties for their masters. On the kicked dog bites... not if you kick their teeth out then they may gum ya.

Also on the hunting being dangerous.. about everything one does has some rish of danger to the person doing it. Thus one must educated them on doing it properly to avoid the dangers and getting hurt doing it.

3. The right to protection from cruel practices and acts such as torture or a prolonged and painful death.

Very good you make EUTHANASIA (prolonged painful death) legal in this one.... but believe that already been done but wait and see where the repeal goes. We may need this.. Also may have banned ABORTION (cruel practices) and ended all DEATH PENALIES (torture). All in one line in a single proposal.

"Human Rights" is shakey as this has nothing to do with humans. Social Justice isn't much better. "A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare." I tend to take a literal view of that "and", meaning the Proposal needs both sides of the equation.

Currently, I'm kinda leaning towards Moral Decency.

"Human Rights" is shakey as this has nothing to do with humans.
Can I disagree:
1. It does include humans in some of its provisions.
2. "Equality for All" and "Rights of Biological Sapients" were both non-human, but were in the HR category.

EDIT: Scratch that. Thinking about it, this isn't about "civil rights", so perhaps you're right.

Very good you make EUTHANASIA (prolonged painful death) legal in this one.... but believe that already been done but wait and see where the repeal goes.

Since euthanasia is already legal, there's no problem.


Also may have banned ABORTION (cruel practices)


I would be very curious to see you try and justify that abortion is a "cruel practice".


and ended all DEATH PENALIES (torture). All in one line in a single proposal.

Although Ariddia objects to the death penalty, it may be argued that it does not constitute torture if death is inflicted as swiftly and painlessly as possible. Please note that this resolution does not make it illegal to put animals to death. Therefore you have no basis for claiming it makes it illegal to put humans to death.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I would be very curious to see you try and justify that abortion is a "cruel practice".
Partial birth involves half-delivering the fetus, by this point indubitably capable of feeling pain and possessing the sensory awareness of a newborn baby, and almost certainly possessing the full cognitive range of a baby, and sticking forceps into its neck to suck out its brains.

Yum.

Partial birth involves half-delivering the fetus, by this point indubitably capable of feeling pain and possessing the sensory awareness of a newborn baby, and almost certainly possessing the full cognitive range of a baby, and sticking forceps into its neck to suck out its brains.

Yum.

Point taken. In that case, perhaps what we need would be a resolution restricting abortion once a foetus is able to experience pain, in a way which does not contravene resolution #147. (For example, state that nations remain free to legalise or illegalise abortion, but not to legalise it past a certain number of weeks after conception, except to save the mother's life or other such extreme circumstances.)

That would make abortion compatible with this resolution.

Point taken. In that case, perhaps what we need would be a resolution restricting abortion once a foetus is able to experience pain, in a way which does not contravene resolution #147. (For example, state that nations remain free to legalise or illegalise abortion, but not to legalise it past a certain number of weeks after conception, except to save the mother's life or other such extreme circumstances.)

That would make abortion compatible with this resolution.
I disagree. It should be for each nation to legislate.

We didn't pass ALC because we wanted to ban abortion: we passed it because we didn't think it was an international issue. That goes both ways.

I disagree. It should be for each nation to legislate.

We didn't pass ALC because we wanted to ban abortion: we passed it because we didn't think it was an international issue. That goes both ways.

Yes, I'm well aware of why ALC was passed, and I agree with it. The matter of legalising abortion or not is best left to each nation. But, unless I'm mistaken, there is currently no UN legislation that would prevent a baby from being aborted after eight months and three weeks, or even at the moment of birth (if it's "aborted" before it emerges from the mother). I'd argue that legislation on this matter would be justified (again, as long as it doesn't contradict the ACL).

Yes, I'm well aware of why ALC was passed, and I agree with it. The matter of legalising abortion or not is best left to each nation. But, unless I'm mistaken, there is currently no UN legislation that would prevent a baby from being aborted after eight months and three weeks, or even at the moment of birth (if it's "aborted" before it emerges from the mother). I'd argue that legislation on this matter would be justified (again, as long as it doesn't contradict the ACL).
The ALC contains language urging, but not requiring, a partial birth ban. Given there is no actual thing as "partial birth", or at least not recognised as such in the medical community, it would imply that late term abortions in general are frowned upon.

So, you're correct, but I don't see it as a point for concern. There is no UN ban on murder: why should things that aren't even human - sorry, why should unborn children - be special cases?

The ALC contains language urging, but not requiring, a partial birth ban. Given there is no actual thing as "partial birth", or at least not recognised as such in the medical community, it would imply that late term abortions in general are frowned upon.

So, you're correct, but I don't see it as a point for concern. There is no UN ban on murder: why should things that aren't even human - sorry, why should unborn children - be special cases?

Put that way, you're probably right. The wording of the ALC should be enough to make a specific resolution unecessary, or at least not particularly urgent.

Regarding the resolution we're discussing in this thread, and the objection raised by Zeldon 6229 Nodlez, perhaps a line could be added pointing to the ALC... although even that isn't really needed, since it would be illegal for any UN nation to interpret Animal Rights as authorising a ban on abortions.

Very good you make EUTHANASIA (prolonged painful death) legal in this one...

It may encourage laws on euthanasia, but it doesn’t make them compulsory.

Also may have banned ABORTION (cruel practices)...

It would only encourage laws against abortion procedures that cause excessive harm (not all abortion practices), and yes excessive is a vague term, that's why it should be up to individual nations to rule on specifics.

...and ended all DEATH PENALIES (torture).

It would only encourage the ending of cruel practices relating to the death penalty, not the death penalty itself.

All in one line in a single proposal.

Then what an efficient resolution this could be.

"Human Rights" is shakey as this has nothing to do with humans.

It has a lot to do with humans i.e. humans are included within the definition and would also be recognised under the rights of animals.

Thinking about it, this isn't about "civil rights", so perhaps you're right.

Many nations consider their citizens non-human beings. Therefore this proposal would cover human and civil rights. Will the moderators reconsider their thoughts on this, or will Moral Decency remain the only viable category?

So the revised proposal does not differ between animals and human beings...we do not like that - human beings are created different from other animals.

Okay, looking things over...


The United Nations shall agree upon the following rights for all ANIMALS (including humans):

1. The right to equal recognition of the ability to feel pain.
2. The right to an reasonable quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.
3. The right to protection from cruel practices and acts such as torture or a prolonged and painful death.Clause 1 does nothing; clause 2 is at least partially covered in other Resolutions; clause 3 is also covered in previous Resolutions (ie: End Barbaric Punishments).

RESOLVING to establish guidelines to ENCOURAGE nations to protect ANIMALS from excessively cruel practices on the part of PERSONS.Well, this does absolutely nothing. You've simply resolved to do something in the future. Creating a law that says you will create a law seems a little... superfluous.

RESOVLING to establish the United Nations Animal Welfare Committee (UNAWC) to propose guidelines subject to the approval of the General Assembly on issues including:[snip]And... a committee...

URGES that UNAWC guidelines approved by the General Assembly be enacted within UN member states.And here's your only truly active clause that directly impacts nations. Unfortunately, at the passing of this bill, there won't be any guidelines, as the UNAWC will be just starting up.

I think this still needs some work. Currently, it seems to just reheat previous Resolutions, and then promise to do something, sometime in the future. Where I was heading with the Moral Decency is that it seems to be more focusing on what people can't do, as opposed to what they can. Human Rights tends to limit the actions of governments.

Although, currently, I can't see this sucker actually doing a damn thing, so it's hard to place.

Since euthanasia is already legal, there's no problem.Yes it now is legal but serval efforts are on the table to change that and repeal R43. So it may not be for long depending on what comes to replace R43 if any repeal is passed. Also it may be 'legal' but to what level is still left up to each nation to decide... so simply making it legal to do something keeps no nation from places restrictions on when, where, how it will be used. Look at those nations that owning weapons is legal.. If your use one to murder somebody you don't hang for owning the weapon you do for the murder with it.
I would be very curious to see you try and justify that abortion is a "cruel practice".I almost put this as Torture and cruel practice with Death Penality. As you see from the post on this already made before this folks will find a connection.

Although Ariddia objects to the death penalty, it may be argued that it does not constitute torture if death is inflicted as swiftly and painlessly as possible. Please note that this resolution does not make it illegal to put animals to death. Therefore you have no basis for claiming it makes it illegal to put humans to death.but it does protect them from certain things that as you see others might connect to protection from Abortion or Hanging even Euthanasia; depending on what side of fence you are on with these. Even the legal process might be torture to some as we keep a personn hoping for freedom then they go through several failures in trying to gain this.. ending up years later with what they want. Death or Freedom but they are under stress all those years to see what the outcome will be. Thus to me it would be a form of torture over several years.

Clause 1 does nothing; clause 2 is at least partially covered in other Resolutions; clause 3 is also covered in previous Resolutions (ie: End Barbaric Punishments).

Clause 1 has gone. What was clause 2 may be partially covered by other Resolutions, but not completely, and not in terms of beings that need the protection (i.e. only for humans). End Barbaric Punishments only covers witnesses and punishments for crimes, it does not protect all beings that can be tortured from being tortured for whatever purpose e.g. fun.

And... a committee...

Has also been removed.

The objective of the resolution should now clearly be to establish agreed rights that protect beings that feel pain, and urge UN nations to adopt laws that at least go someway to protecting these rights.

Clause 1 does nothing; clause 2 is at least partially covered in other Resolutions; clause 3 is also covered in previous Resolutions (ie: End Barbaric Punishments).


Actually, by my reading, the second clause establishes certain rights for animals (including humans) that would necessitate the creation of a welfare state (in nations that don't have one already) to guarantee things like housing.

Actually, by my reading, the second clause establishes certain rights for animals (including humans) that would necessitate the creation of a welfare state (in nations that don't have one already) to guarantee things like housing.Hm. Expand, please.

The latest draft's final clause _ URGES nations to legislate appropriate laws for ANIMALS that acknowledge these agreed rights. seems slightly ambiguous to me: Is it urging us to pass laws that acknowledge these rights for all] animals, or only for those animals "that acknowledge these agreed rights"?

Hm. Expand, please.

The United Nations shall agree upon the following rights for all ANIMALS (including humans):

[...]
2. The right to an reasonable quality of life i.e. adequate food, water, living premises etc.

It establishes a right to the things listed right there. It requires, therefore, that governments provide all humans and animals with them. Now, if it said "access to food, water, living premises, etc.," that would be a different story, but as written, it's mandating the provision of these things.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I think of it like this: the US Constitution grants the right to bear arms, not the right to arms, so in other words, you have a right to own/possess a gun but not a right to the gun itself.

Hm. Yes, I see what you're saying. I must have just glossed over that. Didn't make the connection between those being rights and the government being responsible.

Holy Hell... that's... kinda major, really. Could almost see this as Social Justice: Strong with that interpretation...

I don't think it forces a welfare state. It's a "right" - nothing more. "Keep the World Disease Free!" or whatever it's called establishes a right to a toilet; it doesn't mean the state has to provide, just that it can't prevent. By actively denying someone food and housing and so on, you'd be denying them their rights. However, I don't see anywhere that establishes that the state must provide them.

Consider the right to an attorney as well. If one cannot afford an attorney, the state has to provide one.

Under Cluichstani law, maybe. Under UN law, not that I'm aware of.

Under Cluichstani law, maybe. Under UN law, not that I'm aware of.

I'm speaking generally (and slightly OOC, it would seem -- sorry!).

Under Cluichstani law, maybe. Under UN law, not that I'm aware of.Well, yes, but I believe he's speaking in a more general way about how states interpret rights; like he said with the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, to counter this, one could easily look at the 1st. People are given the right to free speach, but the government doesn't have to provide an outlet. Freedom of the press, but the press itself isn't guarenteed by the government. Same for right to assemble and right to petition the government for redress of wrongs. Religion, of course, isn't provided by the state. [Yay! I know all five rights in the 1st Amendment!]

So now we're stuck with a matter of how to interpret that particular clause. Mainly, is it mandating the the government not prevent people from having housing and such, or is it mandating that the government provide said things (presumably if the people cannot afford it).

Normally, I would leave this up to individual nations to decide, but since it controls what category this is submitted under, it's largely up to the author. If he places it in Social Justice (Signifigant or Strong), then states are mandated. If he places it elsewhere, than states are simply prohibitted from stopping access. I guess that in that case, it would be Human Rights (Mild).

Thoughts?

Well, yes, but I believe he's speaking in a more general way about how states interpret rights; like he said with the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, to counter this, one could easily look at the 1st. People are given the right to free speach, but the government doesn't have to provide an outlet. Freedom of the press, but the press itself isn't guarenteed by the government. Same for right to assemble and right to petition the government for redress of wrongs. Religion, of course, isn't provided by the state. [Yay! I know all five rights in the 1st Amendment!]

Yes, but most of those are intangibles, like speech.

So now we're stuck with a matter of how to interpret that particular clause. Mainly, is it mandating the the government not prevent people from having housing and such, or is it mandating that the government provide said things (presumably if the people cannot afford it).

I think we need to be very careful about wording when it comes to doling out "rights." Like I said, a right to "access to housing" would be fine, but a "right to housing"? Eek.

Normally, I would leave this up to individual nations to decide, but since it controls what category this is submitted under, it's largely up to the author. If he places it in Social Justice (Signifigant or Strong), then states are mandated. If he places it elsewhere, than states are simply prohibitted from stopping access. I guess that in that case, it would be Human Rights (Mild).

Thoughts?

But this sounds fair enough. However, I refer to my previous comment about great care being taken when establishing "rights" to anything.

However, I refer to my previous comment about great care being taken when establishing "rights" to anything.Ah, but that's a matter of what people want the bill to do; your territory. My work (usually) stops once legality has been hashed out. ;)