NationStates Jolt Archive

Unnecessary Animal Cruelty

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Old Argentina

Description: The United Nations,

Recognizing the cruelty and inhumane treatment to which a great number of animals are continuously and unnecessarily subject to;

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse;

Horrified by the widespread practice of so-called ‘blood sports’, such as bullfighting or dog fighting, in a legal manner;

Disgusted at how certain individuals and organizations make an economic profit from the affliction, agony, and death of animals as a public spectacle,

Not considering cultural significance as a valid argument defending the torture of animals for the purpose of entertainment or recreation, and;

In an attempt to eradicate the dispensable suffering of other living beings;

1. Defines, for the purpose of this resolution:
a) The term ''animal'' as every non-sapient, non-botanical living being except fungi and microorganisms.
b) The term ''legal biomedical research'' as the scientific tests, experiments, or investigations conducted by any individual, institution or organization which has been given permission to perform such activities by competent authorities in accordance with standing UN legislation.
c) The term ''proper shelter'' as (i) area with sufficient space to allow the animal to easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal and (ii) dwelling place which is safe and protects the animal from injury, physical suffering, and impairment of health.
d) The term ''proper veterinary care'' as any veterinary treatment needed to prevent suffering or impairment of health.

2. Mandates that:
a) The following shall be strictly prohibited:
- Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal.
- Maliciously, deliberately or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal.
- Knowingly and willfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink.
- Force-feeding any animal by any method.
- Willfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care.
- Knowingly and willfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned.

b) All public or social activities displaying, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of, the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on or the death of any animal shall be prevented and banned.

c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.
- Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.
- Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.
- The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.
- The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.

d) All forms of organized animal combat, where participating animals are forced, instigated or in any way encouraged to fight between each other, shall be prevented and banned.

3. Urges members to increase the awareness of animal cruelty and continue to instill respect for animals through education, and;

4. Further encourages the adoption of policies and regulations to preserve the basic dignity of all animals.

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

After much deliberation and debate, this proposal has finally reached quorum. It's actually been in queue for a bit now, so I finally decided to make a thread for it.

Not much of a question here. After carefully reading each clause, my government supports.


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

My government has directed me to express support for this proposal.

Intellect and Art, it's traditional (and polite) to let the author of the proposal create the Official Topic when they're active on the forums. In this case, they are. I'll leave it up to the author as to whether this thread will be closed and replaced by his own thread.

I'm sorry...I'd made one before and was unaware of the circumstances. I must have missed something when I read all the rules posts. I'll be more careful in the future.

Is it just me who's noticed this, but doesn't this turn Cavalry units from being metaphorically invulnurable to be literally invulnerable? I mean, you're not allowed to shoot at the horses with rifles, drop bombs on them or attack with artillery as that would surely count as deliberately injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing the horses, and there is no exemption for times of war. Even carrier pigeons would be un shoot-down-able, and our bomb dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog) would be unstoppable.

So, really I should be voting for. After all, most of you lot have fancy tanks, wireless satelitte interwebs and A-10 tankbusters. And we have Cavalry and carrier pigeons. But to my mind, that is really unsporting. So AGAINST!

After careful consideration on this resolution. The Democratic Republic of Zyrwick reluctantly supports.

Is it just me who's noticed this, but doesn't this turn Cavalry units from being metaphorically invulnurable to be literally invulnerable? I mean, you're not allowed to shoot at the horses with rifles, drop bombs on them or attack with artillery as that would surely count as deliberately injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing the horses, and there is no exemption for times of war. Even carrier pigeons would be un shoot-down-able, and our bomb dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog) would be unstoppable.

So, really I should be voting for. After all, most of you lot have fancy tanks, wireless satelitte interwebs and A-10 tankbusters. And we have Cavalry and carrier pigeons. But to my mind, that is really unsporting. So AGAINST!

Actually Cobdenia, we noticed it too. This proposal would make our calvary units invulnerable and therefore would mean that modernizing our military would be unnecessary.

I am sure that during the next war we are in we can put a few Cossacks on their mounts, give them a few Molotov cocktails and destroy all the enemy's tanks. Horses and glass bottles filled with ethanol and a flaming rag are much cheaper than better tanks than our enemies.

General Zahsha Kerpotnik
Zyrwickian Minister of Defense.

I am sure that during the next war we are in we can put a few Cossacks on their mounts, give them a few Molotov cocktails and destroy all the enemy's tanks. Horses and glass bottles filled with ethanol and a flaming rag are much cheaper than better tanks than our enemies.

General Zahsha Kerpotnik
Zyrwickian Minister of Defense.

As did we, and in light of it passing we've started to train our 1st and 2nd attack elephant and seagull brigades.

5Gen. Percy Fitz-Wallace
Chairman of the Committee of Commanders
The United Sates of Philimbesi

I mean, you're not allowed to shoot at the horses with rifles, drop bombs on them or attack with artillery as that would surely count as deliberately injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing the horses, and there is no exemption for times of war. Even carrier pigeons would be un shoot-down-able, and our bomb dogs would be unstoppable.

I believe clause 2.c.4. may cover that.

You, however, would no longer be allowed to use bomb dogs. Which is another good reason for voting in favour.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

[IN QUEUE!]Again?! Well, for the author's sake, I hope this version is legal.

AGAINST.

Is it just me who's noticed this, but doesn't this turn Cavalry units from being metaphorically invulnurable to be literally invulnerable?

This has long been the case for certain nations in International Incidents (notably a certain nation's Mastdons <sic>). Could be we're just expanding the protection to all nations.

Seriously, you could consider that just because something is against the law doesn't prevent people from breaking that law. The UN gnomes only do the paperwork. They don't enforce the actual laws, only the nation's compliance.

I believe clause 2.c.4. may cover that.

You, however, would no longer be allowed to use bomb dogs. Which is another good reason for voting in favour.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I can't see why; after all, it permits killing animals if it's death is instantaneous, which is pretty much guaranteed if one straps a large quanity of high explosives on top of them and detonates it.

I can't see why; after all, it permits killing animals if it's death is instantaneous, which is pretty much guaranteed if one straps a large quanity of high explosives on top of them and detonates it.

Not to mention that if your country has no other means of waging war than bomb delivery dogs then I think it would 'necessary' therefore not covered by the resolution.

Besides any dog, bomb or not the might wander in front of one of our A2 SuperTanks will have to be renamed spot. I can only warn those guys so much.

5Gen. Percy Fitz-Wallace
Chairman of the Committee of Commanders
The United Sates of Philimbesi

Despite the tongue-in-cheek comments of our Commander's Committee Chair I have been instructed to support this resolution.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

With a loud crash as the doors burst open the delegation from Complete Malevolence strolls into the chamber, rudely interrupting the debate.

What do you know, it seems I'm in time to add my opinion to the debate on this worthless resolution that isn't even worth the paper it's written on. Seriously why would the UN even be debating such a pointless issue? Why waste time debating animal rights when there are still human rights issues to be addressed, of course my nation doesn't support those either but that's beside the point.

Also what's up this little gem? "Not considering cultural significance as a valid argument..." Like the UN has any business interfering with my culture. My nation has a proud tradition of combat in the arena, and often against animals. I myself have often taken part.

There is also the first part of clause 2C regarding exemptions, "Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption." The upper class of my nation often hunts recreationally, and that would not fulfill the "required for providing food".

As far as I'm concerned this resolution is a massive intrusion into the culture of member nations. My nation will oppose it in the strongest of terms and if it passes we will not comply. Good day.

With that the delegation strolls out of the assembly.

With a loud crash as the doors burst open the delegation from Complete Malevolence strolls into the chamber, rudely interrupting the debate.

What do you know, it seems I'm in time to add my opinion to the debate on this worthless resolution that isn't even worth the paper it's written on. Seriously why would the UN even be debating such a pointless issue? Why waste time debating animal rights when there are still human rights issues to be addressed, of course my nation doesn't support those either but that's beside the point.

Also what's up this little gem? "Not considering cultural significance as a valid argument..." Like the UN has any business interfering with my culture. My nation has a proud tradition of combat in the arena, and often against animals. I myself have often taken part.

There is also the first part of clause 2C regarding exemptions, "Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption." The upper class of my nation often hunts recreationally, and that would not fulfill the "required for providing food".

As far as I'm concerned this resolution is a massive intrusion into the culture of member nations. My nation will oppose it in the strongest of terms and if it passes we will not comply. Good day.

With that the delegation strolls out of the assembly.

(Before the representative can make it out of the room Sharp Tooth leaps from his desk and closes the gap in seconds. He leaps but does not deploy his killing claw. "KKKRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" Hitting the representative in the back and bowling him over. Despite Sharp Tooths size he rolls the Rep onto his back. Sharp Tooth jumps onto his chest holding his head close and showing his teeth he speaks and his on-neck translater translates, "Hold your tongue human or I will rip it out and eat it myself." He then hops off and makes his way back to his desk.)

Many of my kinds evolutionary relatives are your "animals" my culture also relies on hunting but we only hunt when we're hungry. (Looking away from the humans in the room he says...) Only humans kill for pleasure, and what was that I heard about killing creatures for spectators (Looking at the rep on the ground.) barbarians. Only humans are so blood thirsty.:mad:

Dr. Hodz looks disapprovingly at the raptor.

"Stop threatening my regional neighbors. He was assigned a task to do in the GA and he's done it. Respect his opinion and get off of him or you will suffer consequences."

I believe clause 2.c.4. may cover that.

You, however, would no longer be allowed to use bomb dogs. Which is another good reason for voting in favour.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Ambassador Boco,

Perhaps there is a different understanding in Ariddia of the phrase public health than in Zyrwick. The military is not considered in Public health at all unless you count the duty of digging latrines.

Public health deals with such things as destroying a rabid animal, not having calvary units or strapping explosives to a dog. As such by using such weapons the enemy, should they be a UN nation would not be permitted to shoot or otherwise destroy these weapons--er--I mean animals.

Its a nice little loophole in this resolution that looks like swiss cheese if you stop and think about it. In fact it is so filled with potential unique solutions that how could we not vote in favor of it. Plus it is our hope that our support will turn many UN members off of this bill and cause it to fail.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

(Before the representative can make it out of the room Sharp Tooth leaps from his desk and closes the gap in seconds. He leaps but does not deploy his killing claw. "KKKRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" Hitting the representative in the and back bowling him over. Despite Sharp Tooths size he rolls the Rep onto his back. Sharp Tooth jumps onto his chest holding his head close and showing his teeth he speaks and his on-neck translater translates, "Hold your tongue human or I will rip it out and eat it myself." He then hops off and makes his way back to his desk.)

"Donatella stifles a laugh in her discreet way. 'Well done, and said' she thinks."

First, I'd like to acknowledge the author's perseverence, in getting this proposal to quorum three times. Sadly, I view it in the same way I do a marathon gay orgy attempting to get into the Quinness Book of Records for Longest Unbroken Spell of Triple Penetration: somewhat admirable, but nothing I'd want to get involved in.

Ok, so, having just lowered the tone below even the hearing capability of Cobdenia's bomb-dogs, I'm also going to acknowledge we are still opposed. Possibly, if this proposal were totally sound in its activating clauses, I would personally be against anything predicated on the notion of animals possessing 'basic freedoms', which I simply do not believe to be true. Nonetheless, that would not determine our nation's vote: what has determined that is that some of the operative section still suffers from errors brought up in drafting, which still stand uncorrected, and we don't believe the possible benefits of this proposal allay those.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

it permits killing animals if it's death is instantaneous

No it doesn't. See clause 2.a.2.

Not to mention that if your country has no other means of waging war than bomb delivery dogs

My honourable colleague is joking, right?

Seriously why would the UN even be debating such a pointless issue? Why waste time debating animal rights when there are still human rights issues to be addressed, of course my nation doesn't support those either but that's beside the point.


A non-argument. The one does not prevent the latter.


My nation will oppose it in the strongest of terms and if it passes we will not comply.

I'm very pleased to say that you will have no choice.


Perhaps there is a different understanding in Ariddia of the phrase public health than in Zyrwick. The military is not considered in Public health at all

Ambassador Gramiko, my point wasn't "public health", but "protecting the public" (on the same line, 2.c.4.).


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

My honourable colleague is joking, right?

Yes he was, General Fitz-Wallace was visiting for lunch and is a bit of a smart-ass forgive him and forgive me for allowing him on the GA floor.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

--snip annoying and pointless blather--
Ambassador Gramiko, my point wasn't "public health", but "protecting the public" (on the same line, 2.c.4.).


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I fail to see the military as the public. The military is a defense force, A Governmental Entity, not the population of a nation commonly referred to as "the Public" and as such is not protected under this measure. Indeed if that is the Ariddian position that the military is the public I certainly hope you lot have banned war in your country. Otherwise it would be considered murder.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

Agree with Zyrwick here, according to my dictionary "the public" in this context is defined as "ordinary people in general; the community...civilians....those outside of one's community or workplace; one's customers....; ". In fact, I can not think of an example of the term "public" used in a context that would include soldiers as seperate to civilians. And even if it were used in such a context, a cavalry horse is not a threat to the enemy. It's the bugger on top with the sabre who is...

Down in the UN Building Management's Maintence of Order Department Patrick O'Neil's phone rang. "O'Neil here. Yes, Mr. Smithers, I am aware of the actions of the rep. from The Raptor Pack in The Stranger's Bar. HE DID WHAT?!" O'Neil quickly called up the archived security camera footage.
(Before the representative can make it out of the room Sharp Tooth leaps from his desk and closes the gap in seconds. He leaps but does not deploy his killing claw. "KKKRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" Hitting the representative in the back and bowling him over. Despite Sharp Tooths size he rolls the Rep onto his back. Sharp Tooth jumps onto his chest holding his head close and showing his teeth he speaks and his on-neck translater translates, "Hold your tongue human or I will rip it out and eat it myself." He then hops off and makes his way back to his desk.) "Oh God, and here I thought they got it after the incident in the Bar. Alright, I'll dispatch a squad to keep an eye on their actions at all times. If they try something like that again, they'll take the appropiate actions.

My people often hunt dragons. We do so for two reasons. First, it reduces the number of dragons so they don't get out of control. Second, it also helps with our own over-population. If I understand correctly, this law would still allow that because it's for the health of goblins and animals, even the dragons, who would overrun their food supply and starve if they got too numerous.

Grundy Goblin, UN rep for Tired Goblins.

May I just say that the author of this proposal disgusts me with such blatant disregard for a nation's rich history, trying to ban it with a single resolution. Hundreds and hundreds of years down the toilet over what? Your personal PETA vendetta? The UN has no business mandating what culture a country can and cannot have, and the author should be ashamed for even including that in this proposal.

"Not considering cultural significance a valid argument", indeed. How about we take something that is of value to your nation's culture away because it offends some minor iota of our being and we'll see how lax you are about doing this then.

If you hadn't guessed, the Federation will be voting AGAINST and will encourage all to do the same against this ridiculous proposal.

Sincerely,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

Possibly, if this proposal were totally sound in its activating clauses, I would personally be against anything predicated on the notion of animals possessing 'basic freedoms', which I simply do not believe to be true. Nonetheless, that would not determine our nation's vote: what has determined that is that some of the operative section still suffers from errors brought up in drafting, which still stand uncorrected, and we don't believe the possible benefits of this proposal allay those.


Would our distinguished friend and colleague from Quintessence of Dust be so kind as to point out exactly which provisions of the proposal are objectionable? We're far too lazy... er... tired to pore through the drafting discussions to identify them.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Simply stated, I have been urged by my backing officials to defiantly stand against this resolution. If it was not for our annual sea-otter hunts, we would be undoubtedly overrun by the sleek, vicious, deadly creatures. We will not stand to allow our citizens to be viciously torn to shreds by rabid sea otters just so some UN nation in some backwards country has to stop kicking dogs.

-- UN Delegate Lee Menlym

The military is a defense force, A Governmental Entity, not the population of a nation commonly referred to as "the Public" and as such is not protected under this measure.

Surely Ambassador Gramiko is being deliberately obtuse? The purpose of the military is -or should be- to defend the public. Granted, this limits your ability to strike back against the defending forces of a nation which you are invading - which I see as a good thing, if it discourages wars of aggression. But it by no means prevents your military forces from defending the public of your country against an invading army.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Surely Ambassador Gramiko is being deliberately obtuse?

Obtuse? No we are not. We are reading the actual wording of the proposal instead of reading in whatever purpose we want into it. As such this proposal would prohibit the killing of animals used for military purposes such as carrying weapons or combatants.

The purpose of the military is -or should be- to defend the public.

Says whom? You? Militarys have been used in defense and invasion since time immemorial. One petty UN resolution will not change this, neither will a billion.

While the stated mission of the military is to "protect the public" it rarely is the case. Rather militarys are quite often used to suppress the public, cause invasion in imperialist expansions (mostly by capitalist nations) as well as defend the people and homelands of a nation. The real mission of the military is to follow the orders of the Leader (be it a king, General Secretary or grand poobah).

Granted, this limits your ability to strike back against the defending forces of a nation which you are invading - which I see as a good thing, if it discourages wars of aggression. But it by no means prevents your military forces from defending the public of your country against an invading army.


Actually no it doesn't do anything to the Democratic Republic itself. Rather it limits the military of the UN Mission's "Military" which consists of three drunken guards who cant shoot straight, even if they somehow managed to stay sober for a full 24 hours, and a janitor that has a rather large pointy garbage collecting stick thingy. We used to have an attack dog, but we ate it for dinner last night as the bologna shipment from Zyrwick failed to arrive.

As stated previously, we have decided to argue in support of this piece of trash in the hope that more people here will vote against it. We never had any intention whatsoever of actually voting for this tripe when it came time to actually vote. I mean seriously doesn't the UN have better things to do than concern itself with the hunting habits of goblins, or if the Zyrwickian populace enjoys watching cockfighting (which incidentally the cocks don't need to be trained to kill each other...they'll do it by pure instinct)? I mean there just are bigger issues.

Unfortunately now that I have outed myself as being actually against this proposal in such a manner that against doesn't even begin to cover the against-ness I feel for this pile of dung, I will have to report to Comrade Ulyanov that I have failed in following his orders and it is likely that I will be recalled to Zyrwick.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

Obtuse? No we are not. We are reading the actual wording of the proposal instead of reading in whatever purpose we want into it. As such this proposal would prohibit the killing of animals used for military purposes such as carrying weapons or combatants.
c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
[...]
- The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.
You need some remedial reading classes, comrade.

As stated previously, we have decided to argue in support of this piece of trash in the hope that more people here will vote against it. We never had any intention whatsoever of actually voting for this tripe when it came time to actually vote. I mean seriously doesn't the UN have better things to do than concern itself with the hunting habits of goblins, or if the Zyrwickian populace enjoys watching cockfighting (which incidentally the cocks don't need to be trained to kill each other...they'll do it by pure instinct)? I mean there just are bigger issues.
As you are making very obvious, that doesn't mean that the smaller issues aren't important.

Unfortunately now that I have outed myself as being actually against this proposal in such a manner that against doesn't even begin to cover the against-ness I feel for this pile of dung, I will have to report to Comrade Ulyanov that I have failed in following his orders and it is likely that I will be recalled to Zyrwick.
I don't suppose that this means we'll get someone sane to replace you? No, I thought that was too much to ask for.

You need some remedial reading classes, comrade.

The military is not the public and cannot be construed to be such by any rational being. Of course we are not accusing you of being one. Further all property belongs to the state in our nation and as such that definition is irrelevent. Therefore it is impossible for public health and a "bomb dog" to be even discussing on the same resolution.

On one hand the "bomb dog" calary units or whatever military application of the animal would be relevent to military fucntions. Where as this is nothing more than a pile of feel-good but meaningless fluff.

This resolution is a total peice of dung. And the smaller issues such as this one are not a matter for the UN to decide. Tell me what is something your culture holds dear? Perhaps we should design a peice of legislation to prohibit it. Would you like that? You know there is a reason that we have a UN mission rather than the actual Democratic Republic being in the UN. Because the UN resolutions are binding on everyone reguardless of whatever interpretation, and our government will not relinquish its sovereignty to any foreign power.


I don't suppose that this means we'll get someone sane to replace you? No, I thought that was too much to ask for.

That depends on one's definition of sane. But in all likelyhood you would find any replacement less agreeable. Comrade Ulyanov has a habit of appointing ideologues to high positions.

...I'm also going to acknowledge we are still opposed. Possibly, if this proposal were totally sound in its activating clauses, I would personally be against anything predicated on the notion of animals possessing 'basic freedoms', which I simply do not believe to be true.

That's enough for us. New Vandalia stands opposed, too.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

cruelty to animals is unacceptable , we support these rsolution to stop such acts

Fellow ambassadors I'm afraid my first act as new ambassador at large seems to be to reverse the opinion of my predecessor. My country has a very long list of rights that are guaranteed by it's constitution to documented citizens, however after discussing the matter further with my President it has become clear that exactly zero of those rights are set aside for our animals.

I know it will be unpopular, as animals are loved world wide, but the hard fact of the matter is, the animals we are speaking of in this proposal are simply property. They are not wild, nor are they sentient as the animals who inhabit delegations in this building. As property they enjoy no individual rights in the least. Stating that animals have 'basic freedoms' as this legislation is the top of a slippery slope, and it's a slope we have no intention of pushing the UN down, simply to appear as though we are pro-animal and keep others from being angry with us.

Therefore when this proposal goes to vote, expect the USoP to oppose it.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP United Nations Ambassador At Large

"Am I to understand that some people are suggesting that according to their interpertation of this resolution the Exploding Penguin army of the Federal Republic of OMGTKK would be illegal?" (Takes the time to study the resolution in detail.) "Apparently you're mistaken. Please stop these attempts at false hope in the future. Until then Retired Werepenguins will strongly maintain an abstain attitude!"

While some of the tangents this debate is taking are entertaining to listen to, I personally feel they are missing the point.

As I read it, this resolution isn't about giving "rights" to animals; it is about preventing things such as torture, mistreatment or abuse of animals. I cannot comprehend how any delegation representing a civilized nation can possibly be opposed to that. As to the "culture" argument, Altanar normally practices the utmost respect for other cultures, but somehow, we can't stomach extending that respect to the torture or mistreatment of animals. If humans were being subject to the same treatment this resolution would prevent, there would be a lot of opposition to the culture practicing it, perhaps even military intervention. Animals, though not necessarily sapient, are still deserving of protection, merely due to the fact they are living creatures just as we are.

Also, the military argument escapes us, frankly. If your nation depends on the use of animals to defend itself, in this day and age, you may as well just give up and surrender now. A dog, no matter what's strapped to it, isn't going to survive a bomb strike or armored assault, much less do any significant damage to the enemy. I don't see how the whole military discussion has any relevance at all, much less how it justifies torpedoing a resolution of this nature.

I also feel it's worth noting that the clause below also allows the following:

c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.
- Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.
- Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.
- The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.
- The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.

In my view, this covers every justifiable action one could commit against an animal. I have yet to see any argument in this debate so far to convince me otherwise. Unless that changes, Altanar will be voting in favor of this resolution.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Also, the military argument escapes us, frankly. If your nation depends on the use of animals to defend itself, in this day and age, you may as well just give up and surrender now. A dog, no matter what's strapped to it, isn't going to survive a bomb strike or armored assault, much less do any significant damage to the enemy. I don't see how the whole military discussion has any relevance at all, much less how it justifies torpedoing a resolution of this nature.

Not all of us are in "this day and age"; Cobdenia, as I'm sure you are well aware, is...complicated...exisisting as it does in a temporal portal to 1932. Thus, we maintain that Horse Cavalry is a damned fine weapon. Now, according to this, if we were to send the 21st St. Bartlett's Own Frontier Cavalry or the 11th Prince of Wales's Own Lancers (Frobisher's Horse) into battle against another UN nation, our enemy cannot attack the horses with artillery, bombs, or other such weapons as it may maim etc. the horses. One cannot claim the killing of the horse is for the benefit of the public, as the horse presents no harm - just the Sowar on it's back. The only way you can attack them is by sniping or otherwise killing the sowar or trooper himself, without harming the horse. This is harder then it sounds, when the chappy is notably higher then the average private, and is hiding behind a horses head...

The cold hard fact of the case is when you start passing international law recognizing an animals freedoms you are granting it rights.

I love my pet, but they are pets. On top of that how I treat my pets is a matter between myself and my pet, and in my country where we have cruelty laws my local police force. It's not a matter for my president, or legislature. Much less a world wide body. There are more important discussions of how to help mankind, and other sentient beings before we start wasting our time with fido.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP United Nations Ambassador At Large

I WOULD be for this if you changed the classification for animal. You say an animal is to be classified as non-sapient. I am non-sapient! And so are the Wolf-Men (Drools a little. Mmmmm ), the spiders of Shelob the Ancient, the cat people of the Eternal Kawaii (Mmmmm.) and many more! Are you saying we are just animals?! I admit I jumped on a couple people but I was insulted. If you humans stop calling me a lizard it won't happen again. If you propose this again defining a person by IQ and personality then I will vote for this.

I am non-sapient!

If you propose this again defining a person by IQ and personality then I will vote for this.

... mmmm, so tempting. But no.

Raptor Pack, go look up "sapient" in the dictionary please.

I must agree with the aforementioned statements against this bill. Giving an animal certain rights to life and such is akin to saying that it is of an equal social status of a human, which it obviously isn't.

The Grand Commissar of Zintharia, though notorious for his extreme endorsement of equality among social classes, does not consider a cow to have the same rights as his Undersecretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Defense, or his Admiral of The Fleet of Zintharia.

In all honesty, who here among us can actually say with a straight face that a dog deserves the same right as a human? There may not be a natural social hierarchy, but there is an evolutionary hierarchy.

On Behalf of Grand Commissar Cole,

Mikhail Lonieda
Commandant of Foreign Affairs

... mmmm, so tempting. But no.

Raptor Pack, go look up "sapient" in the dictionary please.

Your not the only one tempted to do something. You may not realize it but my kind are civilized when not insulted. You should be grateful I'm civilized enough to not eat someone. Last comment was a misunderstanding. Not that it matters but honestly. Sapient? You humans have a very high opinion of yourselves. For a species thats only survived some 100,000 years and messed up the planet, you seem to be pretty cocky.

As I read it, this resolution isn't about giving "rights" to animals; it is about preventing things such as torture, mistreatment or abuse of animals. I cannot comprehend how any delegation representing a civilized nation can possibly be opposed to that.


I agree wholeheartedly with the esteemed Ambassador Agaranth.

Giving an animal certain rights to life and such is akin to saying that it is of an equal social status of a human, which it obviously isn't.

The Grand Commissar of Zintharia, though notorious for his extreme endorsement of equality among social classes, does not consider a cow to have the same rights as his Undersecretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Defense, or his Admiral of The Fleet of Zintharia.


Ambassador Lonieda, you are completely and utterly missing the point. Tell me, what part of this proposal did you misread in order to conclude that it would grant a cow the same rights as a sapient being?


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I couldn't care less. Devon says "vote for" and Cecil says "fuck no". My actual vote will be based on that of the region, but let the record show that my personal vote is in the direction of "meh".

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Represantative

On behalf of the USSZ, I would like to ask you to pardon me.

I did read the resolution incorrectly, and due to that my train of thought derailed quite horribly so. In light of this, I would like to state my support for this resolution.

With apologies on behalf of Grand Commissar Cole,

MAJ Mikhail Lonieda
Head Commandant, Office Of Foreign Affairs
USSZ

Not all of us are in "this day and age"; Cobdenia, as I'm sure you are well aware, is...complicated...exisisting as it does in a temporal portal to 1932. Thus, we maintain that Horse Cavalry is a damned fine weapon. Now, according to this, if we were to send the 21st St. Bartlett's Own Frontier Cavalry or the 11th Prince of Wales's Own Lancers (Frobisher's Horse) into battle against another UN nation, our enemy cannot attack the horses with artillery, bombs, or other such weapons as it may maim etc. the horses. One cannot claim the killing of the horse is for the benefit of the public, as the horse presents no harm - just the Sowar on it's back. The only way you can attack them is by sniping or otherwise killing the sowar or trooper himself, without harming the horse. This is harder then it sounds, when the chappy is notably higher then the average private, and is hiding behind a horses head...

I will acknowledge the temporal situation your nation exists in, and give you the requisite credit for it. But the phrase "The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health" in clause 2c covers that adequately, in my opinion. In a military operation, you're protecting the public (your citizens) from harm, and I, for one, would be damned if I'd worry much about blowing up any animals if defending Altanar's citizenry was involved. That could be a reasonable objection, though, and perhaps clarification of this point is needed. Other than that one exception, though, I can't really see any reason why anyone should oppose what seems like perfectly reasonable legislation to protect other living creatures.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

sa·pi·ent (sā'pē-ənt)
adj.
Having great wisdom and discernment.


So at the risk of become ambassador SharpTooths newest landing pad, I believe what the esteemed delegate is trying to say is that you are indeed sapient and therefore you are covered under this law. I would hazzard a guess that you were thinking it was an abbreviated form of homosapien.

I also don't presume to speak for anyone but I can say that it doesn't state anywhere in the law that cows will have the same rights as I or you or Ambassador SharpTooth for that matter. My objection is the phrase 'freedom from', this again can put us on a slippery slope, all too often freedom leads to other freedoms, when you are speaking of sapient beings that's fine and welcomed, but when you allow those loopholes the freedom from needless torture and abuse phrase can open, to open. You open the door up to more.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP United Nations Ambassador At Large

The cold hard fact of the case is when you start passing international law recognizing an animals freedoms you are granting it rights.

That's a stretch, in my opinion. It's not as if this resolution is going to open the floodgates to cows driving, goats voting, and dogs or cats demanding welfare benefits, which is the vague fear some of my fellow delegates seem to be trying to stir up unsuccessfully. All this resolution is really saying is that the UN (if the resolution passes) does not approve of torturing or mistreating animals and will not condone such practices in member states. It's not saying that Philimbesi (for example) has to let a duck run for president.

I love my pet, but they are pets.

If you love your pets, why is a resolution that would prevent pets (among other animals) from being mistreated so objectionable to you?

On top of that how I treat my pets is a matter between myself and my pet, and in my country where we have cruelty laws my local police force. It's not a matter for my president, or legislature. Much less a world wide body.

If it's not a matter worthy of legislation, why did your country legislate "cruelty laws" into existence, to have your "local police force" enforce? That makes no sense.

There are more important discussions of how to help mankind, and other sentient beings before we start wasting our time with fido.

You are more than welcome to bring up the "more important discussions" anytime you like, by authoring resolutions to that effect. That argument is really not much of one against this resolution, frankly.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

That's a stretch, in my opinion. It's not as if this resolution is going to open the floodgates to cows driving, goats voting, and dogs or cats demanding welfare benefits, which is the vague fear some of my fellow delegates seem to be trying to stir up unsuccessfully. All this resolution is really saying is that the UN (if the resolution passes) does not approve of torturing or mistreating animals and will not condone such practices in member states. It's not saying that Philimbesi (for example) has to let a duck run for president.

Once again, I'm not claiming that this particular resolution will allow a duck to run for President. Only a dolt would say that, I'm saying that one phrase in the damned thing can be misconstruded by some, then exploited.


If you love your pets, why is a resolution that would prevent pets (among other animals) from being mistreated so objectionable to you?

A resolution that does that isn't objectionable to me. A resolution that opens the door for a broader interpretation that may cause wasted time or worse later does.

If it's not a matter worthy of legislation, why did your country legislate "cruelty laws" into existence, to have your "local police force" enforce? That makes no sense.

My country found it important, but so important that it needs to be delt with on a world wide basis?? Please.

How I treat my dog really isn't all that important in your nation, nor is how you treat yours in mine. This is not a world wide epidemic, nor is it a pressing matter to sapient life. It's a pet. It's property, and it's none of the worlds business what I do with it. If you want to treat animals nicely in your country, pass the law, we did, but in the grand scheme of things does any of this make a scrap of difference?

You are more than welcome to bring up the "more important discussions" anytime you like, by authoring resolutions to that effect. That argument is really not much of one against this resolution, frankly.

I have, and will continue to but when this prattle come up next in the voting queue I have to deal with it.

Once again, I'm not claiming that this particular resolution will allow a duck to run for President. Only a dolt would say that,

*bites tongue really hard for a second, to try to remain diplomatic*

I'm saying that one phrase in the damned thing can be misconstruded by some, then exploited.

I'm guessing you're referring to this little number:

Acknowledging animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse (emphasis mine)

This isn't even an active part of the legislation. It's only an acknowledgement. And the "basic freedom" mentioned only refers to the part I've emphasized - only the freedom to not be tortured or abused for no reason. It is an extreme stretch to claim that this one set of mere words, which clearly denote only one freedom being given to animals, is going to be the slippery slope that leads to something - anything - else.

A resolution that does that isn't objectionable to me. A resolution that opens the door for a broader interpretation that may cause wasted time or worse later does.

If that one little phrase I cited above from the resolution at vote is the door you're talking about, it's a mouse-sized door at best.

My country found it important, but so important that it needs to be delt with on a world wide basis?? Please.

Altanar is typically at the forefront of nations to dispute resolutions that do not have a legitimate international basis for being enacted. We strongly disagree with the idea that the manner in which animals are treated in all UN member states - the fate of literally millions of living creatures - is not worthy of international legislation.

How I treat my dog really isn't all that important in your nation, nor is how you treat yours in mine. This is not a world wide epidemic, nor is it a pressing matter to sapient life. It's a pet. It's property, and it's none of the worlds business what I do with it. If you want to treat animals nicely in your country, pass the law, we did, but in the grand scheme of things does any of this make a scrap of difference?

We believe that it does, for the reason we mentioned above. And we find your attitude that living creatures are merely "property" to be especially heartless and callous.

I have, and will continue to but when this prattle come up next in the voting queue I have to deal with it.

*bites tongue again, and winces a bit*

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

So, by a strict reading of this proposal, if passed, I would no longer be able to paddle a dog I'm training as discipline. Or use any variety of acknowledged training practices that involve pain or discomfort as an effect teaching tool.

Sorry, but no can do. I have no desire to be arrested just for training my dogs.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations

As has been stated the first time this piece of garbage was presented and shot down, in the Federation we have a national sport called the Phoenix Ring. Most of you are saying, "Why the hell is he telling us about this?", but please, bear with me.

The Phoenix Ring is much like this bullfighting I have heard about in other countries. Both Phoenix and "Ringer" (the human facing the Phoenix) are placed in a large circle with no means of escape. A bell is rung, and the two go at it, the human with a single, thin sword, the Phoenix with its beak.

Now, it has been shown that Phoenixes are exceptionally intelligent creatures, however, it has not been shown that they feel any pain. Evidence to support that they feel no pain comes from how a Phoenix "dies". It burst into flame, roasts itself into a pile of ashes, and is then reborn from those ashes.

And, actually, now, as I write this, I realize that the Federation will not have to ban Phoenix Rings even should this piece of trash be passed, for the sole reason that, since it hasn't been shown Phoenixes feel pain, and the fact that they technically do not die, the Phoenix Ring cannot be seen as animal cruelty.

The Federation's position remains unchanged however, and we shall still vote AGAINST.

Sincerely,
Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations and Foreign Lands
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

Opposed. Partially because I don't much care for the attitude of the author towards non-human sapients, but mostly because I don't feel this is an international issue.

Furthermore, with rights come responsibilities. Animals are incapable of honoring responsibilties (or even understanding them), and are thus undeserving of rights. I don't think they should be tortured needlessly, but that's up to nations themselves. I'm sure the fluffy elemental will pass this in a heartbeat, but I'm still opposed.

Besides, I don't have opposable thumbs, so I can't "humanely" kill my food before I cook it. And I'm sure that roasting cows and sheep alive would run afoul of this.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

After carefully reading the proposal, my government (Srbska) and Region Srbija support this resolution.

-Animals don't have rights, simply because they are animals! The thing is that morally,
we cannot afford killing and torturing living beings unnecessarily, just like we cannot afford doing it to Humans(which are living beings with Rights) -unless we don't have any other choices-.

Question... am I reading this resolution wrong, or is it actually saying our population would have to let spiders, ants, and flies, stay in their houses, denying them the legal right to kill or remove them?

Ballotonia

In my particular region we have an animal that is not extint because of what you call mistreatment. It is part of our culture to have the beast fight a man (of course the beast is put at a disadvantage so as to protect the man as best as possible). At the end of the fight the beast is then used for meat and other purposes. The use of the beast would be fine by this resolution but my regions culture is taken away as well as interest for actually keeping the beast from going extinct. Also, we have a "Running of the Beasts" where men run through the streets being chased by the beasts. In this resolution even this huge event is not allowed killing our economy by killing the tourism for the event as well as destroying part of our culture. If it weren't for our festival then these beasts would become extint. We may seem to mistreating them but isn't that better than them not existing at all?

OOC: think spain if you didnt get that.

The Great government of iblithium agrees on this issue and this resolution has mine my govenments and my peoples support.

Question... am I reading this resolution wrong, or is it actually saying our population would have to let spiders, ants, and flies, stay in their houses, denying them the legal right to kill or remove them?

Ballotonia

The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.

I would advise your government to read this part opf the statement. (above)

The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.

I would advise your government to read this part opf the statement. (above)

It is arguable whether or not killing a spider in your home would be considered protecting property or the public health, as it presents no threat to you.

Due to this and other wording that has multiple interpretations, the newly admitted nation of Emerilia chooses to vote AGAINST this proposal.

James Archer
Emerilian UN Ambassador

It is arguable whether or not killing a spider in your home would be considered protecting property or the public health, as it presents no threat to you.

Due to this and other wording that has multiple interpretations, the newly admitted nation of Emerilia chooses to vote AGAINST this proposal.

James Archer
Emerilian UN Ambassador

the ASoTE Votes against for this same reason. It is in our eyes a national matter and this bill has allot of abuses in wording and clauses that make it impossible to see if some of the things done like killing a spider which serves no cause which could be illegal or legal because it could damage your public health like poison spiders but that is very rare ofcourse.

If this was edited to be a bit more clear we will vote for it but for now AGAINST!

So am I right in thinking that all recreational hunting (i.e. fox hunting, game shooting) would not be allowed unless it was for food? Also, the proposal allows, and I quote, "Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal." so long as it is for "Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption" allowing our food industries to keep these animals in horrendous conditions?

Seeing as how the silent majority of UN members who will see this resolution and vote on it -- likely without reading past the first couple of lines to get to the rest of the shoddily-worded legislation -- will guarantee its passage, the intelligent majority of the Free Land of Denactia has voted to mark the day of resolution #150's passage as our nation's new holiday: Cruel Slaughter and Barbecue Day. This day of rounding up the majority of our nation's domesticated herds for torture, slaughter, and barbecue will be proudly celebrated annually from now until the repeal of this disgustingly shabby piece of legislation.

All citizens of other nay-voting nations are welcome to come and participate in this wonderful new holiday (but the event is strictly BYOB, ya moochers).

Defiantly looking forward to delicious herdsbeast,
UN Delegate Lee Menlym

While The Republic of Merrion Square wholeheartedly supports the humane treatment of animals, we are unable to support this proposal due to the definition of the phrase "proper shelter". Merrion Square exports live cattle and during shipping they may temporarily experience conditions which fail to meet the strict definition in the proposal.

We would urge all other nations to reject the proposal as as it is currently worded it could result in the outlawing of live animal exports, make the mass shipping of animals prohibitively costly and result in dire and unintentional economic consequences for many member nations whose animal welfare standards are otherwise of the highest caliber.

Even though the public will not be from any harm from spiders ants or flies what if people have a phobia from spiders if they have arachnaphobia (sorry if i spelt it wrong)what are we going to do then sometimes you can get ants nests built in your homes so what this law is proposing is that we cannot remove any spiders webs or ants nest as they will not be any threat to our health and the law clearly says and i quote from the Legislation:

- Willfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care.

that is destroying such as spiders webs or ants nests so what are we suppose to do if we became overrun with ants and we weren't allowed to kill them or get rid of them

So i am Clearly AGAINST

The nation of M-dan agrees with the previous comments, that while good in intention this Proposal is lacking in definition. We vote Against.

In my view, this covers every justifiable action one could commit against an animal. I have yet to see any argument in this debate so far to convince me otherwise. Unless that changes, Altanar will be voting in favor of this resolution.

In my reading, the clauses make no acceptable exception for the accidental deaths of minor animals such as ants and other insects one might step on. It also makes no acceptable exception for standard methods of euthanasia; unconsciousness is not immediate in most cases (quick, yes, but not immediate).

As such, my Federation must vote against this well-intentioned but poorly-worded proposal.


Fickle Fatalists

I will acknowledge the temporal situation your nation exists in, and give you the requisite credit for it. But the phrase "The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health" in clause 2c covers that adequately, in my opinion. In a military operation, you're protecting the public (your citizens) from harm, and I, for one, would be damned if I'd worry much about blowing up any animals if defending Altanar's citizenry was involved. That could be a reasonable objection, though, and perhaps clarification of this point is needed. Other than that one exception, though, I can't really see any reason why anyone should oppose what seems like perfectly reasonable legislation to protect other living creatures.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I must say, if there was an exemption in military circumstances or an "in times of war" clause; I would be in favour, as it is a pretty good resolution (and the first of it's nature I've seen that allows Fox hunting!). I just fear that there is enough ambiguity about conflict periods for concern . Of course, in reality, we probably wouldn't give a damn during conflict and would be blowing the buggers up left, right and centre, however, I feel that in a UN debate we have to assume full compliance in our arguements, which is where the problem arises.

I don't really mind if it passes, but would rather it didn't until this problem is explicitly approached...

What truely bothers me about this proposal is that it specifically states that cultural significance is not to be taken into account. This is a gross misstep, as nations would not only suffer the cultural loss of the practices banned, but also all things related and/or inspired.

Take for example the practice of bullfighting, which would be abolished by this proposal. Not only is bullfighting a part of Spanish culture in itself, but many great artistic works have drawn on bullfighting as inspiration.

Were this act in place in their times, we would not have many of the works of Dali or Picasso (who's late works drew heavily from bullfighting). Nor would we have Bizet's masterpiece, the opera Carmen. And there are countless other examples.

So before you vote, just think what great future works would be destroyed by the passage of this act?

Even though the public will not be from any harm from spiders

If you think spiders are harmless, apparently you've never been bitten by a black widow, brown recluse, or any other spider.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

what's next, saying that butcher shops are inhumane?
its trying to turn the world vegetarian, and i for one, won't stand for it!:headbang:

So am I right in thinking that all recreational hunting (i.e. fox hunting, game shooting) would not be allowed unless it was for food? Also, the proposal allows, and I quote, "Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal." so long as it is for "Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption" allowing our food industries to keep these animals in horrendous conditions?

Not exactly. Are those actions ''strictly required for'' the purpose mentioned? I'd guess not.

- Willfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care.

that is destroying such as spiders webs or ants nests so what are we suppose to do if we became overrun with ants and we weren't allowed to kill them or get rid of them

Read the definition of proper shelter. In simple terms, that means that one cannot place 20 horses in a space where only 5 would confortably fit. That does not include ''destroying'' the habitat of an animal (environmental issue).

It is arguable whether or not killing a spider in your home would be considered protecting property or the public health, as it presents no threat to you.

In most cases, you're not protecting yourself. But you are protecting your property from becoming inhabitable, from suffering any structural damage (termites), from decreasing its markey value... I'd say that keeping ''pests'' from invading your house is not prohibited by this proposal.

If you think spiders are harmless, apparently you've never been bitten by a black widow, brown recluse, or any other spider.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

well actually i have never been bitten by a spider as i live in britain were spiders are harmless.
but still if we are not allowed to kill the animals what happens when we are overrun them especially ants if you can't kill them they will get in your food and you drink and hey you won't be able to do anything about.
you wont be able to light a fire in the winter if you have bird's nesting in your chimney you won't be able to remove the nest.

its trying to turn the world vegetarian, and i for one, won't stand for it!:headbang:

If banging your head against walls damages your brain this much, Ambassador, perhaps you should stop.

You could also consider reading clause 2.c.1.


but still if we are not allowed to kill the animals what happens when we are overrun them especially ants if you can't kill them they will get in your food and you drink and hey you won't be able to do anything about.


I direct the honourable ambassador's attention to clause 2.c.4.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

the Omaui republic supports this act without hesitation

The Arkbird is all in.

And, since you said all sapients aren't animals, we can continue to do experiments on monkeys! Yay! Cure to random viruses, here we come!

Sanguinex is opposed to this resolution, it has almost as many holes as swiss cheese.

2. Mandates that:
a) The following shall be strictly prohibited:
- Torturing, cruelly beating, overdriving, overloading, causing substantial bodily harm or tormenting any animal.
- Maliciously, deliberately or recklessly injuring, wounding, poisoning, maiming, disfiguring, mutilating or killing any animal.
- Knowingly and willfully depriving any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink.
- Force-feeding any animal by any method.
- Willfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care.
- Knowingly and willfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned.

b) All public or social activities displaying, exhibiting or involving the substantial bodily suffering of, the intentional infliction of significant physical pain on or the death of any animal shall be prevented and banned.

c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.
- Activities conducted for purposes of legal biomedical research.
- Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.
- The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.
- The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.

Here we have the major part of the operative clauses of the proposal.

Firstly we would point out to those discussing earlier that this proposal would make their bomb-dogs/cavalry/etc. invulnerable I would argue that clause 2.c.4 does give provision for said military animals to be killed by their opponent as killing the animals would be for the purpose of protecting property, in this case the property being the opponents tanks, not to mention that the proposal would ban the use of bomb-dogs anyway.

Putting that aside on to our main point, clause 2.a provides a very (I would probably say too) exhaustive list of things that should be prohibited. Now this seems relatively OK at the moment we can live with the slight overzealousness in the prohibited acts. Clause 2.b seems perfectly fine to us as well. However it is when we get into clause 2.c that we start to have problems. The first four elements of clause 2.c are perfectly reasonable things to have exemptions for, however because of the way in which the proposal has been structured the items listed in 2.c are exempt to ALL of clause 2.a and clause 2.b, so you can do anything you like to an animal so long as the main purpose of you doing so falls under an element of clause 2.c. This in our opinion is completely daft and merits the dismissal of this proposal without further discussion. Just to add further to our unhappiness with this proposal we then have clause 2.c.5 which allows you to kill any animal you want, with no reason given, provided that you do it 'humanely'.

As a result of this, as stated above Sanguinex stands opposed to this proposal. Should a better worded proposal come along, we would be likely to vote for it, but this proposal is just not up to scratch.

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UN

what's next, saying that butcher shops are inhumane?
its trying to turn the world vegetarian, and i for one, won't stand for it!:headbang:

Did you miss this part?

c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.

So the answer to your question is No.

Lastly, defenestrated. How could you discern a Vegetarian Conspiracy™ from this proposal? The part above is the only part mentioning foodstuffs.

But I should waste my time with people who won't post again.

Akimonad has yet to decide an official stance on the resolution at vote. We need to see the debate flesh out more.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

The Jevian UN Representatives all gave this resolution a resounding "meh," but we're voting for it because we don't like abstaining. We're certainly open to bribes, we all could use a vacation.

Drew Domz
Presiding Jevian UN Representative
Delegate of the United Nations

Reluctantly AGAINST.

~S

I'm still in shock countries use horse-mounted calvary units.
In the Isles, the Calvary units are mobilized, ranging from light (utilizing HUMMER-esque vehicles) to heavy (10-ton tanks) to air (helicopters). The only horses used are the ones for parades (and the ones for long, lonely nights on watch).

Anyway.
The Isles will oppose this.
Why?
Because.


Respectfully,
The Honorable Marcus Diegaus III, KCMC, CC
Senior Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
The Royal Federation of the Genoshan Isles

My concern is that this may prevent the Federation of Serekian States from thinning population of hostile, invasive species that threaten the delicate ecosystem. Without a way to control the populations, both animal and plant growth suffers, thus hurting not only the natural world, but those in occupations dependant on the natural world, such has those in the lumber industry, fishing industry, agricultural industry, etc.

The Federation of Serekian States looks upon this proposed legislation unfavourably, although regrettably so, and does however laud the honourable intentions of the author.

- Serge Davko, Chief Ambassador to the UN, Federation of Serekian States

While we in Scotchpinestan strongly support the overall intent of the proposal (and indeed have similar laws already on our books), we believe that this is an issue best left to individual nations to decide, and therefore we are voting AGAINST.

Sammy's presidential stand-in turned away from his usual sports programming as another visitor stormed into his temporary office.

"Alex, what the fuck are you doing here?!"

"After receiving a report from Cdr. Chiang, the State Department feels that someone needs to keep an eye on you while you're here," Tehrani replied.

"What are you talking about? The commander and I get along fine."

"She says you don't ever listen to her, Mr. President," chided Tehrani. "She says you're always too busy trying to undress her with your eyes ... and your hands."

"That's preposterous. I treat the commander like I treat my own mother."

Just then Chiang entered the room, a cell-phone to her ear. "Mr. Secretary, I have the ambassador on the phone," she said as she absent-mindedly adjusted her corset with her free hand, and tugged at her chafing leather pants.

"Oh, man," the president drooled. "Let me at her!" At that, he lurched toward the mission's security director with greedy outstretched hands, but Tehrani angrily held him back.

"You can commit sexual assault later!" the secretary scolded him. "Right now we have urgent matters to discuss." Fernanda ignored him as he struggled against his grip, continuing to growl at Chiang.

Chiang, unfazed by the incident, regarded the Destructor impatiently. "I'd teach you a lesson for treating me like you do, but you'd only enjoy it."

"Yeah, punish me, baby! I've been a bad little--"

"Snap out of it, Mr. President!" Tehrani barked as he slapped Fernanda across the face.

Fernanda shook his face momentarily as he clutched his chin, noticing Tehrani standing in front of him. "Oh, it's you," he said. "What do you want?"

"Mr. President, we have to discuss the matter at vote. There seems to be some confusion about this delegation's stance. Apparently, Antigone Morgan has been distributing these fliers to UN diplomats. She seems to think they're funny as hell."

He thrust a copy at the president, whose face reddened with fury as he read it:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/animalrights.jpg

"What a biiiiitch-a-rooney-dooney," fumed the Destructor.

Chiang nodded into her cell. "Yes, sir; I'll tell him right away ... the same to you." she said, and slapped her phone shut. "Mr. Secretary," she announced, "the ambassador would like it made clear that we oppose the Unnecessary Animal Cruelty resolution, the vice president's highly amusing commentary notwithstanding."

"Actually, Commander, we might convince a few fluffies to vote against if we vote for," Tehrani quipped.

"Heh. You may be right, Mr. Secretary, but it's the principle of the thing ..."

Fernanda ignored their commentary as he angrily paced back and forth, glaring down at the his vice president's advertisement. By now he had worked himself up into a dangerous rage.

"Yo, I'ma sort this whole thing out right now!" he shouted. "I'm gonna march right down to that snakepit and tell them idiots exactly what I think of their new resolution!"

"Mr. President!" Tehrani started, but he was too late; Fernanda had already hustled out of the office.

Urgently the secretary turned to Chiang. "I gotta stop him," he said, as he started for the door.

The commander held him back. "I got this, Mr. Secretary," she said.

Minutes later, the cocky, red-faced Chief Executive, sporting his usual baggy jeans and a Defenestrators (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Palentine#Sports_and_other_Activities) jersey (which he was wearing that week after losing a football bet with Palentine Co-Empress Jhessan), had stormed into the General Assembly chamber. He charged down the aisle, and bolted a random State Department our of his chair at the Kennyites' table as the president commandeered the microphone.

"Alright, fuckers, listen up: I know that witch Antigone's been whoring for this resolution with this bullshit," he said, brandishing Morgan's flier. "But I'm here to set you straight, the Federal Republic is voting against this pile of shit, and y'all better do the same, or I'll sleep with all your wives, then fuck up all your sorry faces for good measure!--ugh!"

He suddenly grunted and grasped his neck, then collapsed to the floor unconscious.

From her vantage point at the rear of the chamber, Cdr. Chiang lowered her tranquilizer gun, just as Tehrani arrived in the hall and spotted her.

"Thanks, Commander," he said as he approached her.

"Don't worry about it, Mr. Secretary. You owe me one."

"Alright, fuckers, listen up: I know that witch Antigone's been whoring for this resolution with this bullshit," he said, brandishing Morgan's flier. "But I'm here to set you straight, the Federal Republic is voting against this pile of shit, and y'all better do the same, or I'll sleep with all your wives, then fuck up all your sorry faces for good measure!--ugh!"

He suddenly grunted and grasped his neck, then collapsed to the floor unconscious.

From her vantage point at the rear of the chamber, Cdr. Chiang lowered her tranquilizer gun, just as Tehrani arrived in the hall and spotted her.


From the Ariddian delegation, Julien Quan (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Julien_Quan) stood and applauded the commander politely.

It was as good a way as any to make his first appearance in the General Assembly. You don't get noticed very often when you're just the deputy ambassador...

Would our distinguished friend and colleague from Quintessence of Dust be so kind as to point out exactly which provisions of the proposal are objectionable? We're far too lazy... er... tired to pore through the drafting discussions to identify them.
Yes, I apologise, that was lazy on my part. I was particularly thinking of the sort of concerns repeatedly raised by Ms Talone (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12801230&postcount=42), and repeatedly stymied and ignored.

-- George Madison

The Protectorate of Planting agrees with the Sanguinoi Ambassador in that the second clause as written allows for many animal atrocities to be committed in the name of science, safety or food. Were this resolution to be reworded I've been informed that my government would support it; but as is, we must vote against.

Planting Mushrooms
Ambassador to the United Nations
Protectorate of Planting

Animal cruelty can be only be a bad influence on culture. Animal experimentation for possible positive new medical opportunities is already controversial even with its intended positive cause, now we don't need to use animals for combat and cruelty for no intended positive long term reasons. Animal cruelty can only make humans shallow barbarians in taking advantage in something weaker then them. In the long run, abolishing this cruelty will positively impact the integrity of culture.


- Bosnaeum votes FOR.



- Bosnaeum’s UN Representative

Is the LEGAL sport of dog sledding considered in-humane? Under the current wording of the resolution at hand, it seems as it would. We wouldn't rank it with bull and dog fighting, which are illegal in the ARA. So untill The ARA is informed that Dog Sledding will not be banned under this bill, we reluctantly vote against.

Also Dog Agility contests. These too would seem to be rendered null if this resolution were to pass.

The Armed Republic of Alaska1, Senior Representative

The United States of VanBuren is agreed to this proposal in principle. However concerns raised in the discussion have caused us to reconsider our approval without further review.

That said, there is a concern of our own that we would like to voice:

Namely, would sunlight be required for the care of all animals in captivity? As may or may not be well-known in the international community, circumstances forced VanBuren's founding to take place in a vast cavern two miles below the surface. While we are beginning to establish small colonies on the surface, the bulk of our population and civilization are still subterranean, and thus the requirement of sunlight would force all of our meat industry to the surface and make it nigh-inaccessible for the majority of the population.

Clarification on this matter would be appreciated.

Respectfully,
Lord Xuuxx Liuhyuvruz
Ambassador to the United Nations
The United States of VanBuren

so what will happen to all the animals who live in zoo's if their homes aren't up to scratch then what are we going to do

Yes, I apologise, that was lazy on my part. I was particularly thinking of the sort of concerns repeatedly raised by Ms Talone (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12801230&postcount=42), and repeatedly stymied and ignored.

-- George Madison

We thank the distinguished representative of Quintessence of Dust for his assistance. We examined the post referenced. While we have great respect for Ms. Talone, we do not find those arguments convincing.

Ausserland has voted FOR the resolution.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

If this passes I will reapeal it to get it removed and get it reworded

The information regarding hunting seems rather vague. The proposed resolution condemns killing animals for 'sport' but seem to be rather non-descript in regards to hunting for the sake of environmental protection. In a nation like the Federation of Serekian States, where the environment lacks any large predators. Hunting can keep the population of various smaller mammals (such as rabbits, squirrels, minks, etc) in check - that is, help balance the ecosystem in a manner favourable to the life of all creatures, both human and beast. Should this issue be addressed more clearly, I see no reason why the FSS would not support the legislation. However, provided the current text, the Environmental Ministry is advising the government of the FSS to oppose the proposed reolution.

- Valentina Ivanovna, Environmental Minister, speaking on behalf of the Environmental Ministry of the FSS

If this passes I will reapeal it to get it removed and get it reworded

I would be more then happy to help you rewrite the reapeal i completly agree that this must be reworded so that it can be fully understood

its trying to turn the world vegetarian, and i for one, won't stand for it!:headbang:

You think this is trying to turn the world vegetarian?! You should have seen one of the first proposals I argued against way back when I first came here. Now there was a proposal to force the world to be vegetarian.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

EDIT: And after much digging through the archives (when's the last time someone dusted down there anyway?) I found the proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361038) I was referring to.

Alweg officially agrees with this measure and gives it's blessing. We also believe that we should deal with human rights in a later resolution

so what will happen to all the animals who live in zoo's if their homes aren't up to scratch then what are we going to do
May I suggest givng them better homes?

Devon Rose, Ph.D.
Expert on Environmental Issues

*gasp* this is finally at vote!? Anyways Cookesland has no official position at this time, myself and Deputy Ambassador Acquerello have to check the loopholes, clauses, and assorted legal mumbo-jumbo.

Alweg officially agrees with this measure and gives it's blessing. We also believe that we should deal with human rights in a later resolution

Even though the GA is very big, we can all hear you fine. One quick question to everyone, do we already have a Human Rights Resolution?


~ R.Y.

Alweg officially agrees with this measure and gives it's blessing. We also believe that we should deal with human rights in a later resolution
OOC: We can hear you fine without the giant text.

Hooray!!! This'll finally get the poachers off my back!!! Full support for this very well-written proposal!!! And for the delegates that say it needs to be reworded: I KNOW WHERE YOU SLEEP!!! :mp5: Have a nice stay at the convention!!!

Egdak's final answer on the proposal: :)

Emperor Jolly Wally the Penguin

Arbitrarily hurting animals is a national pass-time in my nation. This act is quite frankly not acceptable. What else is there to do on Sunday afternoons?

The nation of TirDaClamh supports this UN proposal, although it does have many loopholes, to oppose it on those grounds would be like not supporting a starving family because they're gonna die anyway.

In relation to the military aspect, I do believe the clause permits the destruction of animals for public safety and enemy cavalry riding into your nation with hostile intent are definitely trying to subvert public safety and therefore would be permitted to be destroyed, it also doesn't excuse accidental harming of the animal i.e. "I was aiming for the guy on top but missed"

All creatures with nerve endings have rights, because they are capable of suffering and pain, and in the case of several species, even emotion.

To oppose this resolution is to oppose everything every nations ancestors stood for, as before we had our "all superior" technology, we all had to live in harmony with nature.

After staring at this proposal for some time and having no resulting feelings save for sheer apathy, the Republic of Qallegnia has determined that while this proposal will not cause the world to crumble around the edges and burst at its seams, it doesn't have much redeeming value either.

Because we are uncomfortable about some of the clauses, as well as the overall quality of the proposal, and the fact that it seems to ban sport hunting, we will be voting against.

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

One quick question to everyone, do we already have a Human Rights Resolution?Aside from the 51 active Human Rights resolutions (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) now on the books?

I read over this proposal twice and then again to be sure of the wording. The proposal is pretty solid except when it makes references to the parts:

"every animal" and "preserve ... dignity"

It would've been nice if the phrase preserve its dignity was defined in this resolution, but it was conveniently left out.

So, are we to arrest, detain, fine, punish, hold, or otherwise, ask payment from anyone who steps on an ant, smashes a spider, participates in a fishing contest (because the general aim is to catch a large or a large quantity of fish and not just food consumption)?

How are we to preserve an animal's basic dignity. For a human, it might mean a quick painless death or euthanasia for the terminally ill. Then perhaps a proper burial and funeral. -- Since this part of the resolution is open ended, I forsee the possibility of land developers getting put to death for upending an ant colony or doctors that perform "legal tests" getting sent to prison for not giving a huge funeral procession for the thousands of tadpoles it might have to test to produce the newest medicine.

The proper defining of the rest of the resolution becomes moot without adequately explaining that there are exceptions for certain animals that harm crops, cause infestation, or are used extensively in medicinal testing, causing a legal nightmare for nations that can't adapt.

HawaiianFreedom rejects this resolution until it has been revised to handle these situations.

HawaiianFreedom -- Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

The nation of TirDaClamh supports this UN proposal, although it does have many loopholes, to oppose it on those grounds would be like not supporting a starving family because they're gonna die anyway.

My government empathizes with your views, but believes that these loopholes are large enough to run several fleets of trade vessels through. If we allow this resolution to be passed, we are going to allow many more atrocities LEGALLY than have ever happened to date. Justifying something 'in the name of science' or any other way is not the way to outlaw cruelty.

I implore you my fellow delegates to carefully consider the resolution at hand and decide whether or not its humane to slaughter or force-feed animals for food, to do any test imaginable to an animal... in the name of science. To hunt species to extinction because they posed a security risk. For these reasons, as well as many others that our fellow delegates have mentioned, we must stop this resolution here.

After careful consideration The Holy Empire of Andyyy supports.

Aside from the 51 active Human Rights resolutions (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline) now on the books?

Wow...do...i...feel...stupid....but those are what i meant

The Empire of Tifozi, representing the region of Olympus, considers this a very important proposal.

Although there are some gaps and details that must be improved, this proposal is a great initiative to end the unnecessary cruelty against animal life.

Many of you consider yourself great nations, who above all, try to distinguish through new age ideologies and doing the right thing.

If you are a member of the United Nations, it's correct to suppose that you respect life, wether it is an animal life, or a human one.

Don't use this proposal for private interests like war, sport or even simple fun. If you are doing so, honestly, you are in wrong organization. We can shape the world into a better place for everyone, so start acting like that, and put an end to ethnocentric statements.

But, despite all these critics, we must not be hypocrites. Claiming rights against animal life, and then having government dinners feasting on animals who were cruelty treated, is just as wrong as not claiming any rights at all!


The Empire of Tifozi, representing the region of Olympus, votes in favor of this proposal.

Yes Planting, I totally agree, there are far too many loopholes in it, and pretty damned big ones at that but for now it's better than nothing.

With regard to fishing my friend, I do believe the resolutiion allows killing for food and fish caught in competitions are either eaten or in more humane competitions they are thrown back into the water immediately after being caught so in either case I think fishing would be perfectly fine.

This is very important resolution that needs to be adopted...

It is our oppinion that any species should be judged by the way it treats less evolved species, and therefore, Slobodna Vojvodina votes FOR this proposal...

Oh and as an after though, you cannot claim the consumption of animals is cruel, if that is the case then we must exterminate all predators on the planet.

As for eating animals that were kept in inhumane conditions before slaughtering for food, this resolution would prevent such treatment

So what I now have to care for every stray animal in my nation - I THINK NOT

Don't use this proposal for private interests like war, sport or even simple fun. If you are doing so, honestly, you are in wrong organization. We can shape the world into a better place for everyone, so start acting like that, and put an end to ethnocentric statements.



Hey, a loophole is a loophole, and a loophole can be exploited for fun and profit.

Incidentally, knowing that there are a lot of countries led by communist hippy fluffy types recieving their orders from the Grand High Fluffymonger General in the form of Sudoku (I'm onto you!) and that this will probably pass, Cobdenia will be hosting it's most likely final "Injure A Critter Festival" over the next few days. Highlights include the Puppy Drowning, the Owl Streching Hour, Live Moose Disembowling, Sports Vivisection and the old favourite "Rape an Ape"

People wishing to compete or attend should contact the Cobdenian League of Hurting Cute Things for Pleasure

This is one resolution I will happily vote against as a United Nations resolution which greatly oversteps its bounds by meddling in individuals' affairs. My citizens would riot in the streets at being told they could no longer pursue their own interests with regards to the animal population.

I am lodging my vote AGAINST, and abjure other nations to do the same. Should the resolution pass, it will be most happily not ratified by our citizens.

we do not support this action at this time for these reasons.

1. catagory: Moral Decency. we feel that this is just an attempt on the part of many nations to enforce their own morals upon other nations. as such we feel that it goes against the very principals of freedom and mutual understanding that I thought the U.N was supposed to uphold.

2. Restricting personal liberty. we as a nation cannot support any resolution that bases itself upon that idea, no matter how good its intentions.

3. we feel that the whole animal rights ideal only serves to make every animal be thought of as greator than any Sapient Species. we allow nations to enact draconian laws with respect to their own citizans but want to forbid them from various forms of hunting and sport due to the fact that an animal will be hurt.

4. this law only serves to harm developing nations that may still have many customs that are abhorant to more advanced nations, such as blood gathering from cows, and the religious practice of animal sacrifice. which means it also goes against the principal of Religious Freedom and Tolerance,as well as Cultural Respect.

5. Its also near imposible to enforce or fund universally, and thereby would make this resolution an unnecessary drain and burden on many smaller nations.

6. we feel that as this resolution can only cause widespread damage to the economies,agraculture,industrial,etc systems of the world and greator universe as a whole that it cannot at any cost,for any reason be supported by our nation.

7. we feel that this resolution will cause untold damage to the environment at large due to the unhindered growth of many animal populations.
[see the bullfrog and kangaroo in australia]

as such we refuse to support this resolution,and request that the noble members of this glorious body do the same.

Cobdenia will be hosting it's most likely final "Injure A Critter Festival" over the next few days. Highlights include the Puppy Drowning, the Owl Stretching Hour, Live Moose Disemboweling, Sports Vivisection and the old favourite "Rape an Ape"

People wishing to compete or attend should contact the Cobdenian League of Hurting Cute Things for Pleasure

Hmm. Tourism to Cobdenia from Akimonad just doubled. Or tripled. Or- forget it. It skyrocketed.

But, anyway.

Akimonad officially votes AGAINST. We find this proposal violates National Sovereignty on several levels. Plus it would eliminate Antarctic Oasis' beloved Exploding Penguins. We cannot allow such a travesty to occur.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

People wishing to compete or attend should contact the Cobdenian League of Hurting Cute Things for Pleasure

Cobdenia appears to be the home of the acronymically-challenged. Couldn't hurt to buy a vowel or two, CLHCTfP folks.

How the is my nation going be able to pay all those veterinary bills? Also do you expect my police force to throw kids in jail for burning ants with a magnifying glass? Come on. Until the resolution is fixed wasted fields will vote it down.

If this is going to make it so that kids will be punished for burning a stupid insect or if this will ban hunting then the Federation of Beaute is going to vote against it. Beauta will deal with animal cruelity on its own.

This resolution, while noble in intent, is poorly written both in syntax and in scope. Non-sentient animals are effectively property, and the only necessary international attention to them should be relegated to import/export, sanitation/epidemiological and endangerment/extinction concerns.

Recommend voting AGAINST.

I would be happy to vote for this if it was not for one claus. The banning of sports envolving animals. This may seem all nice and decent but it is an attack on culture. While I oppose cruelty to animals personally my nation is a confederacy of tribes. Some of these cultures have such blood sports,while removing this part of a cultural heritage may satisfy animal lovers, it can have more impact then you can imagine, especially in tribal societies. This is the kind of laws that should be passed within a country and not forced upon cultures by bleeding hearts who stand high and mighty but refuse to except cultural diffrences and instead condem .

I'm not going to read the resolution. Only thing that matters to me is that it significantly curtails civil freedoms in exchange for moral decency. Perhaps if the effect was "mild" I would have concurred, but I don't want my country to go overboard with the moral values nonsense.

I wonder if the opposing members would stil vote against this proposition, if a more advanced species appeared all of the sudden, and started hunting human race for fun and pleasure... Also, civil rights are not unlimited... Any individual is free to do whatever he or she wants, just as long as no one gets hurt with that particular action...

Personaly, and I believe I speak for most of the residents in my country, any person that willingly harasses a defenseless being, be it an insect, or an animal of some other sort, deserves to be treated the same way... Just because a being is not sentient, or not sentient enought, does not give us rights to abuse ti, on the contrary...

In order to make this world a better place to live, we all need to make sacrifices...

Schwullunde;12835287']
2. Restricting personal liberty. we as a nation cannot support any resolution that bases itself upon that idea, no matter how good its intentions.


Define what "restriction of personal liberty" means to you.


3. we feel that the whole animal rights ideal only serves to make every animal be thought of as greator than any Sapient Species.

To this, there is little I can say but: Huh??


6. we feel that as this resolution can only cause widespread damage to the economies,agraculture,industrial,etc systems of the world

And I must re-iterate: Huh???

You know, I could say that not voting for this proposal would cause the Earth to implode. It wouldn't make it true.


7. we feel that this resolution will cause untold damage to the environment at large due to the unhindered growth of many animal populations.
[see the bullfrog and kangaroo in australia]


I really think you need to actually read the proposal, Ambassador. Specifically, in this case, clauses 2.c.4. and 2.c.5.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Although we would support an animal cruelty resolution, as Mr. Royce of Intangelon has succinctly put it, this one "while noble in intent, is poorly written both in syntax and in scope."

Ambassador Agaranth opines that ...this resolution isn't about giving "rights" to animals; it is about preventing things such as torture, mistreatment or abuse of animals. I cannot comprehend how any delegation representing a civilized nation can possibly be opposed to that. The esteemed ambassador may believe the resolution is not "about" giving rights to animals; unfortunately the language (especially in light of the drafting history) belies that intent. Were the resolution truly about torture and abuse of animals, it would be able to rely on clear, sharp statements without resorting to tortuous phrasings that frankly are fraught with unintentional consequences.
If your nation depends on the use of animals to defend itself, in this day and age, you may as well just give up and surrender now. ... I don't see how the whole military discussion has any relevance at all, much less how it justifies torpedoing a resolution of this nature.This is perhaps the most telling statement in this whole debate, for it mirrors the inability of the resolution's author to conceive of other circumstances than the ones that he himself currently experiences. The Altanarans can't conceive that other nations exist in a different time stream than they do; the author of this proposal can't imagine that undeveloped (and differently developed) nations exist, and though finally acquiescing to do so, admits that he can't conceive of nonhuman sapients.

That's a stretch, in my opinion. It's not as if this resolution is going to open the floodgates to cows driving, goats voting, and dogs or cats demanding welfare benefits, which is the vague fear some of my fellow delegates seem to be trying to stir up unsuccessfully.We see that Ambassador Agaranth has been practicing strawman construction. No, the opponents of this resolution aren't afraid of flying pigs or chimps running for president. We can, however, look forward to increased judicial activity from certain sectors of our populace once this passes. What is humane? What is a justifiable protection of the public? Is the primary purpose of sport fishing provision of food? Are not all captive animals subjected to psychological torture?

Again, if this resolution were a clear statement of opposition to torture and abuse rather than a pile of poorly written crap, we would heartily support it.

We promise, we'll stop picking on the Altanarans ... as soon as they quit with the inconsistencies... And we find your attitude that living creatures are merely "property" to be especially heartless and callous.Heartless and callous it may be, but unless those living creatures are endowed with rights (which you vigorously maintain this legislation does not do), they are indeed property.

Question... am I reading this resolution wrong, or is it actually saying our population would have to let spiders, ants, and flies, stay in their houses, denying them the legal right to kill or remove them?With regard to fishing my friend, I do believe the resolutiion allows killing for food and fish caught in competitions are either eaten or in more humane competitions they are thrown backAs for spiders, ants, etc., the killing of such would depend on whether they pose a threat to public health.

We however, must disagree with the opinion of TirDaClamh on fishing and hunting. The resolution specifies that the obtaining of food must be the primary purpose of the activity. If you normally obtain your food in other ways (markets, etc.) then it is not necessary for you to fish or hunt for your food and fishing and hunting for sport become illegal.

Unless, of course, you plan on exploiting the monumental loopholes. If this passes, Rubina will be inviting the Kennyites to sully her soil and provide recommendations for the establishment of a Resolution's Alternative Implementation Department.
Ausserland has voted FOR the resolution.Although we lament not convincing Ambassador Thwerdock, we are surprised by Ausserland's abandonment of the principle of subsidiarity on this issue. Shall we set you a place at the one-worlder's table? ;)


We are regretfully voting AGAINST.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

After much thought; Harapas government is for this resolution



YEAH GO SAVE A WHALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My essteemed collegues I rise in opposition to this resolution on several grounds. I have argued those points during the polling process and have not changed my mind since. Therefore the USoP will vote against.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large

YEAH GO SAVE A WHALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You're too late, the ban on whaling was repealed weeks ago.

I really have only one thing to say:

Since when did animal rights become part of the UN's concerns. Really, shouldn't things like this be left for each nation to decide?

Animal Cruelty must be abolished on all fronts. There is no excuse for cruelty to animals and humans must learn to practice living with tolerance and respect for all living beings.

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
M. Ghandi

ARK2 encourages all to watch Earthlings to bear witness to the exploitation and cruelty to animals that must be stopped.

"Am I to understand that some people are suggesting that according to their interpertation of this resolution the Exploding Penguin army of the Federal Republic of OMGTKK would be illegal?" (Takes the time to study the resolution in detail.) "Apparently you're mistaken. Please stop these attempts at false hope in the future. Until then Retired Werepenguins will strongly maintain an abstain attitude!"

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

As a nation that has suffered at first-hand the horrors of Kennyite Exploding Penguin warfare (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10148034&postcount=21), we rise whole-heartedly in favor of this resolution. The use of animals as weapons of war is an abomination in the eyes of the Cute One and should be banned without reservation.

What a pity our exploding penguins are sapient! Your sometime "ambassador" to our nation should have realized this in all his "studies" on our penguin colonies!

We even made one of the natives our ambassador to Cobdenia ... before he too, uhh, exploded.

So there.

~Cdr. Jenny Chiang

The United States of Tarsinia already has animal protection laws on the books and we feel that it is wrong for The UN to make nations follow this law there for we are aginst this bill

Signed,
Mark Newcastle
UN Ambassador
The United States of Tarsinia

The Chaotic Fluctuation of Kesselann votes against this resolution on the grounds that the language of it is ambiguous in places and contradicts its own mandates too freely.

We note that, as a nation, we are all for the prevention of cruelty to animals but feel that it is not something that should be imposed upon the world. Each nation should have the right to define the concept of cruel treatment within the bounds of its own cultural/moral/religious foundations.

Finally, we recognize all those nations whose members are of a non-human nature as being sentient, cognizant beings worthy of consideration. We feel that, perhaps, the use of the word 'sapient' could have been considered more carefully and replaced with less confusing terms. Even some of our more intelligent governmental officials don't know what the word 'sapient' means.

Although we lament not convincing Ambassador Thwerdock, we are surprised by Ausserland's abandonment of the principle of subsidiarity on this issue. Shall we set you a place at the one-worlder's table? ;)

We are regretfully voting AGAINST.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

We have not in any way abandoned the principle of subsidiarity. It was, as always, a strong influence in our decision-making. For those not familiar with the term, subsidiarity is the principle that decisions about governance should be made at the lowest level consistent with achievement of the purpose. In the world of NationStates, there are two operative levels: national governments and the NSUN.

When we consider proposals and resolutions, a couple of factors come into play before subsidiarity is considered: is the purpose of the legislation worthwhile, and will it achieve that purpose effectively? In this case, our decision was "yes" on both counts. We believe that cruelty to animals is obnoxious and unworthy of any civilized community. And we believe that this resolution will have significant effect in eliminating it.

Now for subsidiarity.... Again, two things to consider: can individual nations achieve the purpose on their own, and will they do it? Certainly, they can do it. Will they? We'd simply invite the representative to examine some of the statements that have been made in this debate. If you believe, as we do, that cruelty to animals should be eliminated throughout the member nations of the NSUN, then the means to eliminate it must be emplaced at the international level.

Our distinguished colleague from Rubina need set no place for us at any table. We're quite capable of choosing our own eating establishments, based on what happens to be on the specific menus for the day.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

The esteemed ambassador may believe the resolution is not "about" giving rights to animals; unfortunately the language (especially in light of the drafting history) belies that intent. Were the resolution truly about torture and abuse of animals, it would be able to rely on clear, sharp statements without resorting to tortuous phrasings that frankly are fraught with unintentional consequences.

The statements in the resolution seem pretty clear to us...perhaps you should read it again. In our opinion, the argument that the resolution would bring about "unintentional consequences" is a ridiculous one, for reasons we've already stated. And scaremongering aside, we have yet to see exactly what language of the resolution would bring about the dire disaster some seem to be predicting. The resolution (again, as we read it), simply dictates that animals must be treated humanely and decently. What "rights", exactly, are being granted that offend the resolution's opponents so greatly?

This is perhaps the most telling statement in this whole debate, for it mirrors the inability of the resolution's author to conceive of other circumstances than the ones that he himself currently experiences. The Altanarans can't conceive that other nations exist in a different time stream than they do; the author of this proposal can't imagine that undeveloped (and differently developed) nations exist, and though finally acquiescing to do so, admits that he can't conceive of nonhuman sapients.

In case you did not notice, we acknowledged our mistake concerning the temporal status of certain nations earlier. Unlike some delegations, we are willing to acknowledge when we are mistaken, and in fact do not see everything as black and white. We do acknowledge, and frankly always have, that every nation is different. But as our legislative practice here will show, almost from our very arrival here, we do feel some values are more important to uphold. And ensuring a positive fate for millions of animals is definitely one of those things.

We see that Ambassador Agaranth has been practicing strawman construction. No, the opponents of this resolution aren't afraid of flying pigs or chimps running for president.

Then please explain to us why so many of this resolution's opponents are prattling on about "giving animals rights" if they are not, in fact, concerned about that.

We can, however, look forward to increased judicial activity from certain sectors of our populace once this passes. What is humane? What is a justifiable protection of the public? Is the primary purpose of sport fishing provision of food? Are not all captive animals subjected to psychological torture?

The fact that your populace (among others) may be too immature or idiotic to make a distinction between legitimate judicial actions and frivolous ones is not our concern, and is frankly a problem we're glad we don't share. We also do not consider that a valid reason to allow the continued torture and mistreatment of animals. Perhaps you'd be better served to educate your own people about what is, and isn't, legitimate judicial practice, instead of condemning millions of animals to mistreatment simply because your own people can't control themselves in a court setting.

Again, if this resolution were a clear statement of opposition to torture and abuse rather than a pile of poorly written crap, we would heartily support it.

And if you'd offer a convincing reason for us to change our vote, instead of vague accusations concerning the resolution's inadequacy, we'd consider changing it.

We promise, we'll stop picking on the Altanarans ... as soon as they quit with the inconsistencies...

Don't bother doing us any favors, as we are patently unimpressed by your 'picking on us' so far. I've heard harsher debate in our primary schools. Incidentally, it's Altanari, not "Altanarans". Perhaps, instead of lecturing us to respect the uniqueness of other nations, you could spend some time learning about the nations you're lecturing.

Heartless and callous it may be,

We're glad you can at least admit to that.

but unless those living creatures are endowed with rights (which you vigorously maintain this legislation does not do), they are indeed property.

Perhaps some explanation of how Altanar handles the matter of animals as "property" would better elucidate our stance on this resolution. In our nation, animals are not considered property. Someone who "owns" an animal is, instead, legally acknowledged as the caretaker of that animal, which means they are responsible for its welfare. They are merely taking care of the animal until its death, subsequent return to the aether, and eventual resurrection. This is based on our indigenous religion, which holds that animals are endowed with the same lifeforce as humans are. If the "owner" is using that animal for a commercial purpose (such as milk cows or horses), that is allowed, as long as the animal is not mistreated. The animal is not endowed with rights in a legal or moral sense, but the owner/caretaker is expected to treat that creature humanely, as it is a manifestation of the lifeforce of our world. In Altanar, an animal is not property per se, but is protected from harm, both from its caretaker and from anyone else, under law. That does not mean the animal is granted any "rights" under our law, except the very basic right to be mistreated. This resolution, therefore, is not inconsistent with our practice already.

As for spiders, ants, etc., the killing of such would depend on whether they pose a threat to public health.

And is that a determination your public health officials are incapable of making? Perhaps you need to train them better. We'll even send some of ours over to help you if you need it, along with some legal experts to teach your people what a frivolous lawsuit is. Consider it a humanitarian aid mission from us to a less fortunate state.

Once again, we've reviewed the arguments in opposition. Once again, we are not impressed. And once again, our vote remains in the affirmative.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

We would like to support this resolution.
If it would be addressed to handle with mamals, which seems to be the main coverage of this resolution, it would fit in most cases.

What's about all those ants you're trampling and injuring heavyly while walking along the streets? They won't die but suffer. The fly swirling around your head will be hit, its body cracks but it would take time until it dies. And why? Because you're simply not watching your steps or an insect is disturbing you personal feelings.
Under this resolution you'll be accused for unnecessary animal cruelty without doubt.
Sorry to say, but think about this and other holes within this resolution like foie gras. You want to ban those tortures but allow it a few sentences later for the sake of human foodproduction.

Please rethink this resolution as I believe that it could be a good and necessary one. But not in the proposed form.

The United States of Divisiveness are pleased to see that fungi-fights would remain legal. Unfortunately we not only allow our citizens to kill mosquitos, we urge them to do so at any cost. Since this would seem to be a violation of this resolution we have no choice but to vote against. Consider Lapis Heavens idea of changing "animals" to "mamals" and we might vote for the resolution.

Carlos Ming Morningglow
The United States of Divisiveness

One question about this law - how do we enforce it?

Are we going to fine people? Are we going to imprison them? If they challenge through the courts, who will hear such cases? What a waste of time; my constituents are waiting for real laws to be passed, something that would actually benifit them.

This law will clog up all legal systems, waste money on legal councils, not to mention clog up court times where people accused of things such as murder (Innocent or guilty), are waiting in cells to be tried.

Write a resolution that will actually protect animals - through actions, not prohibitions.

Dr M.D Tran
Republic of Doctortran

This law will clog up all legal systems, waste money on legal councils, not to mention clog up court times where people accused of things such as murder (Innocent or guilty), are waiting in cells to be tried.

The Protectorate of Planting agrees with this sentiment. Besides the various loopholes we have described before you, we also acknowledge that this legislation will cause undue stress and burden upon all member nation's legal systems. Let us solve all these problems by not passing this resolution as worded and instead turn out a resolution that protects not only animal rights, but those of the nations that must uphold it as well.

The Protectorate of Planting agrees with this sentiment. Besides the various loopholes we have described before you, we also acknowledge that this legislation will cause undue stress and burden upon all member nation's legal systems. Let us solve all these problems by not passing this resolution as worded and instead turn out a resolution that protects not only animal rights, but those of the nations that must uphold it as well.Is that a failure of the proposal, or of your legal system?

We the Nomadic People's of Pilgrimage and Sojourn, offer our humble and modest greetings to our esteemed neighbors, glorious nations, and fellow members of the UN. It is onnly in the most recent of days that we have joined that esteemed and august body and confess that we have little understanding of international politics. However, we do understand animals. As a Nomadic People much of our life and existence is interwoven with the animals we raise and nurture. A humble farmer or herder among our people would never think to harm an animal under his or her care. As people of faith we recognize animals as gifts given by God for our careful stewardship. We do not oppose the intent of this pending resolution, but our Elders after many nights of careful deliberation beneath the desert stars have decided that we have no choice but to oppose this resolution. They found the wording to be problematic and wonders if a further distinctions between categories of animals need to be made: domesticated farm animals, domesticated pets, work animals, wild animals of a docile nature, wild animals of a predatory nature, vermin, pests, etc.

Some of our goatherders are particularly concerned that they must begin providing shelter for the wild cats that often stalk their herds.

Also where do the countless numbers of insects fall in this proposal?

We desire to protect animals from cruelty, but have local laws and systems that will ensure this happens. We are not interested in seeing an International Law passed and enforced at this time.

We openly invite any delegation wishing to sincerely discuss this or any other diplomatic matter to accept our warm invitations of hospitality. It is our pleasure, although woefully ill-prepared and unequipped, to serve among such august and thoughtful notables. May your places in history be preserved with respect and honor.

What a pity our exploding penguins are sapient!

I always thought the pity was that they are generally far more intelligent than most of the people in authority in OMGTKK. If it wasn't for the fact that politics in general tends to make most sentient beings explode, only in their case literally, they would make excellent politicians.

On the other hand, I had also thought your president was sapient also. Apparently an official publication claims otherwise. But I will gladly vote for this resolution because even the wildest animal deserves respect.

Yes I do have a concern about bug zappers. I suppose it might fall under public safty however.

Then please explain to us why so many of this resolution's opponents are prattling on about "giving animals rights" if they are not, in fact, concerned about that.

I can't speak for other nations here, but our prattle as you refer to it is not with this particular resolution, it's the holes this resolution open for other to follow it.

'Freedoms' beget 'rights', believe it or accept it or not that's the way it works. What good is the freedom of the press we the USoP without the freedom of speech we have. Once you acknowledge something has a 'basic freedom' as you have in this resolution you are allowing broader interpretations and twisting of that phrase.

Of course most of that twisting can be put down in debate, when it comes up, however, why expose ourselves to it in the first place.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

I must confess a sense of bewilderment that I am being asked to vote on a resolution addressing such an inconsequential issue. My nation's position essentially boils down to this: we care not a fig for animal cruelty. I have thus placed our vote against the resolution.

Benedictions,

First off, I abhor cruelty towards animals. Having said that, I do not see this as an international issue, therefore I cast my vote AGAINST.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I do not believe that we should argue about whether animals should have freedoms or not. I believe that the only debate here is do you or do you not believe in the prevention of cruelty to animals. That is why my nation has voted for this proposal.

... Now for subsidiarity.... We thank Prime Minister Aschenbach for his explanation of Ausserland’s view of subsidiarity. We now see that, despite the similarity in terminology with other followers of that principle we have encountered, the Ausserland version avoids rigid dogma.

The statements in the resolution seem pretty clear to us...perhaps you should read it again.We can assure you, we have read it. Repeatedly. Inside and out. Perhaps it is you who have only given it a cursory glance.
In our opinion, the argument that the resolution would bring about "unintentional consequences" is a ridiculous one.So, if sport hunting is banned, as this does on a strict reading, we must presume you can't conceive that lack of support for maintenance of wildlife populations would occur. Or alternatively, that population maintenance of pest wildlife becomes more difficult and expensive.
And scaremongering aside, we have yet to see exactly what language of the resolution would bring about the dire disaster some seem to be predicting. The resolution (again, as we read it), simply dictates that animals must be treated humanely and decently. What "rights", exactly, are being granted that offend the resolution's opponents so greatly?

Then please explain to us why so many of this resolution's opponents are prattling on about "giving animals rights" if they are not, in fact, concerned about that.Ah yes, again with the strawman. One can oppose the assignment of rights by legislative fiat without predicting “dire disaster”.

We are concerned about the creation of animal rights because it speaks to the nature of rights themselves. Rights are a political construct and are accompanied by responsibilities. Non-sapient animals as such are capable neither of exercising such rights nor fulfilling the responsibilities that ensure those rights. During the drafting phase, the author was questioned about the (much more blatant0 inclusion of animal rights in this resolution; we were chided to “ignore the philosophy.” You have indicated that we should ignore statements because they appear in the preamble. Yet those statements provide the underlying argument for the entire resolution. They go on record as the will of this body just as surely as the activating clauses.

A document need not use the word “rights” to create such. And what rights does this legislation create you ask? It gives non-sapient animals the right to be free of abuse and torture (all well and good), the right to food and shelter (something this body has at times resisted extending to its sapient populations; and given that no distinction is made between domesticated animals and wildlife, we wonder at the looniness of such a provision), and the right to medical care (as if sapients had as much) to name three.
The fact that your populace (among others) may be too immature or idiotic to make a distinction between legitimate judicial actions and frivolous ones is not our concern, and is frankly a problem we're glad we don't share.So determining whether one’s livelihood is no longer legal is frivolous? Altanari may be sufficiently docile as to accept whatever the government pronounces; Rubinans not so much and we place great importance on individuals’ access to the judiciary.
We also do not consider that a valid reason to allow the continued torture and mistreatment of animals.And you continue to imply, despite our repeated statements to the contrary, that we somehow support the torture of animals. Support, or lack thereof, of this resolution is not the litmus test you’ve made it out to be. Legislation, from any level of government, should not create more problems than it attempts to solve.
As for spiders, ants, etc., the killing of such would depend on whether they pose a threat to public health.And is that a determination your public health officials are incapable of making?Surely you aren’t suggesting that every housefrau must get approval before swatting a fly? Oh wait, you are.

The saving grace of this piece of legislation is that it provides a future session of this body with sufficient material to repeal.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

The Sovereign Principality supports the intent of this resolution.

However, I have one question regarding animals in combat.

"How does that clause relate to trained police animals?"

Our Sovereign Principality routinely uses well-trained Catbois for a variety of purposes in our Police forces that protect & defend New Avarin. Catbois have enhanced senses, great agility, and are very strong (You couldn't tell by thier waifish appearance). They are also very disarming, and are very protective of thier handlers. Catbois can outrun and pin down criminals until us slower humans can catch up with them and arrest them.

This could be defined as "combat" within the scope of this resolution, and this draws our concern.

It is a very difficult resolution to vote for. I would like to hear arguments adressing this concern.

This resolution is madness. Surely it will make fishing illegal, especially when the fish is returned to the water afterwards i.e. torture?!

Citizens of Putzi like the taste of foie gras and enjoy hunting as a tradition of the countryside. This is an unnecessary infringement into their lives - there is also no evidence that many lower animals feel pain, and even for those animals that do they all suffer pain in the wild, being eaten by other animals, starving when food is scarce etc. or they grow old. Why can't we hunt a few for our entertainment? It's hardly mass murder!

Putzi will be leaving the UN if any more silly resolutions like this are suggested! The resolution needs so be made more specific so that there is some common sense contained in it! Citizens of Putzi don't like factory farming but this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut...

Putzi

After reading the proposed resolution carefully, I have decided to vote Against. The Rouge Nation of Gargoyles Keep can not vote for a resolution that would abolish the raising of livestock because 95% of all Garkeepians eat meat. I do hope that other nations do not vote for this resolution just because it makes the feel good inside. The Rouge Nation does not support the mentioned animal fights, but will not sacrifice food to ban all forms of animal slaughter.

After reading the proposed resolution carefully, I have decided to vote Against. The Rouge Nation of Gargoyles Keep can not vote for a resolution that would abolish the raising of livestock because 95% of all Garkeepians eat meat. I do hope that other nations do not vote for this resolution just because it makes the feel good inside. The Rouge Nation does not support the mentioned animal fights, but will not sacrifice food to ban all forms of animal slaughter.

Mr. Ambassador,

Respectfully, please read the resolution fully before condemning it.

c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.

This resolution clearly allows farming livestock for consumption.

Thank you.

Putzi will be leaving the UN if any more silly resolutions like this are suggested! The resolution needs so be made more specific so that there is some common sense contained in it! Citizens of Putzi don't like factory farming but this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut...

Putzi

I call dibs on his toilet when he leaves. Ours is still clogged and the freaking gnomes haven't fixed it yet, I cant I do not understand the fancy dancy bourgeois plumbing in this building. And I, poor old Vladimir Alexandrovich had to go and dig Comrade Gramiko an outhouse!

As a side note I would like to inform the Ambassador from Putzi that if he feels that the UN comes up with some off the wall resolutions perhaps he should read some of those that have been passed. Including the previous repeal which if the argument was compared with the resolution to be repealed at all would reveal that it was nothing more than pure pandering.

Believe me if it weren't for the abundance of bullshit around the UN, the Zyrwickian UN Mission would not have been able to build its wattle and daub hut. We need the bullshit to make the straw and mud stick to the wattling. Otherwise we would all freeze during winter and It would be MY fault and would probably land my poor poor babushka in a gulag or worse.

Anyway I'm rambling now so I probably need to go stab some garbage with my pointy stick thingy.

Vladimir Alexandrovich
Janitor for the Zyrwickian UN Delegation.

please allow me to answer the questions of the honorable ambasidor of Ariddia.

you asked about the following things that i have said before this hallowed gathering.

in response to my 2nd point you asked.
Define what "restriction of personal liberty" means to you.
Well I suppose that i must define personal liberty as being anything that a person may wish to do that does not cause harm to others. Now I understand that you and others may take this to include animals, this isn't how i see it. I am only including sapient species.
I understand that the way I worded this may have caused confusion because the description that is included with this resolution is,A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
As I see it civil freedoms and personal liberty are in fact the same thing or maybe i should say that in restricting one you restrict the other.

in response to my 3rd point you asked.
To this, there is little I can say but: Huh??
i cannot understand how anyone can misunderstand this. that said let me clarify using an example.
a man has a horse who has broken its leg, and he decides to put the poor beast down. before he has time to do just this someone comes along and says that he may not because this is cruelty. which is worse the cruelty of putting the animal down or the cruelty of keeping the animal alive even though it would be lame. under this law it would be unlawful to put this animal down because it is cruel. Now the owner of the animal must pay his hard earned money to keep the animal up, even though the animal in question cannot be used for any purpose due to its infermity. this of course says to me that the animal has more rights then the man.

to my 6th point again i cannot see how this could be misunderstood
is it cruel to exterminate a colony of roaches, no of course not. under this resolution it would be though. because of this roaches would quickly overwealm many locations causing desease and causing damage to property. extermination buiseness would be unlawful, this would cause unemploiment.

to the 7th point
yes you could but that would defenately not cause the planet to explode.
unfortunately in this case i am being truthful. there is very good precident for my example, it has happend before after all.

as to your other comment i would only say i have read the document in question. even though obviously some of my examples in this reply or my previous statements fall into this catagory they are just examples. that doesn't mean that in the cases of the examples this resolution would even apply. I am just making a point. please excuse my difficulty in explaining my points better, I am sorry I am not a more gifted speaker. that still doesn't mean I do not comprehend the matter, even though i might not exactily be able to explain my reasons as eloquantly as others.

I understand you and others feel that this is a good resolution, and I respect that. Unfortunately I do not. I have accepted that this resolution will pass even though its obvious that this resolution is unpopular. nothing I can possibly say or anyone else can say will change that. this is sad but true. I would again just like to ask that everyone please reconsider changing your votes to no on this resolution.

Schwullunde;12840013']I understand you and others feel that this is a good resolution, and I respect that. Unfortunately I do not. I have accepted that this resolution will pass even though its obvious that this resolution is unpopular. nothing I can possibly say or anyone else can say will change that. this is sad but true. I would again just like to ask that everyone please reconsider changing your votes to no on this resolution.

Whether they feel it is a good resolution or not is irrelevent. The reason this thing is even passing is because many many many UN nations simply read the title and not the actual resolution before voting.

Naturally to anyone who does not bother to read the actual resolution and think criticly as to what it means.... "Protect fuzzy wuzzy animals = good". A wise man once told me my friend, "Do not underestimate the power of stupidity, particularly when it is multiplied by a large number of people."

This resolution is a bad resolution and we and we hope others are already working on repeals.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

This resolution is madness. Surely it will make fishing illegal, especially when the fish is returned to the water afterwards i.e. torture?!

Citizens of Putzi like the taste of foie gras and enjoy hunting as a tradition of the countryside. This is an unnecessary infringement into their lives - there is also no evidence that many lower animals feel pain, and even for those animals that do they all suffer pain in the wild, being eaten by other animals, starving when food is scarce etc. or they grow old. Why can't we hunt a few for our entertainment? It's hardly mass murder!

Putzi will be leaving the UN if any more silly resolutions like this are suggested! The resolution needs so be made more specific so that there is some common sense contained in it! Citizens of Putzi don't like factory farming but this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut...

Putzi

I'm sorry, but that is utter bull. You frown on factory farming, yet you support foie gras? Do you even know how foie gras is made? First, we get the bird, and stuff it in a cage along thousands of others so that they can't even stand up, let alone move. Second, we walk around with gigantic blow guns, and shove down pounds and pounds and pounds of grain down their throat, often cutting the throat open and scarring the internal tissue. Third, we take them out, slaughter them inhumanely, and serve their failing bladder on a silver platter. Still think factory farming is frowned upon? Foie gras only supports factory farming.

And, honestly people, are you telling me that, with this bill, if we were to go to war, animals would be completely invulnerable? Look, I for one despise the fact that you would even consider suicide bombing animals to give your nation an edge. Think about it, the animals would be given the majority of decent rights that we so horribly take for granted. I doubt you'd like to live in Darfur, with the horrible actions that are taking place there, but that's the life of a lot of animals. Now, if they were given those decent rights, it doesn't make them invulnerable. Let's think about this... If you're in a war, and you kill a man, are you put in jail for murder? No. It's war. People are going to be killed, and I doubt the leaders will be put in jail by the UN, unless huge war crimes are committed. War wouldn't change, it'd be as horrible as usual.

We support this, even though the part about force-feeding being prohibited bothers me. What if the animal is unable to eat? :(

Hm, not bad. At least my farmers can still torture animals in the food industry.

You frown on factory farming, yet you support foie gras? Do you even know how foie gras is made? ... Still think factory farming is frowned upon? Foie gras only supports factory farming.


Firstly, how dare you presume that I don't know what Foie Gras is and exactly how it is made! I don't care if the geese suffer, it is out of sight and out of the minds of the citizens of Putzi, or they consider that the taste justifies the cruelty when made in small quantities for the gastronomes of Putzi.

I object to wholesale factory farming and prefer free range organic food; there is no reason why foie gras cannot be produced from free range organic geese, they are only force fed for the last two weeks of their lives.

Therefore one can support the production of foie gras and be critical of factory-farming. As I said the UN resolution is too wide ranging and you have proved my point in your confusion over force feeding and factory farming which you assume to be the same.

There is in fact a method of producing foie gras that does not involve forcefeeding. I forget the specifics but it involves slaughtering the geese at a certain time of year where they natually eat many times what they normally would.

In other news, the representative from Putzi has just made the most disgusting statement I've heard since before I took my break from teaching (that is, "the taste justifies the cruelty").

Devon Rose, Ph.D.
Expert on Environmental Issues

Firstly, how dare you presume that I don't know what Foie Gras is and exactly how it is made! I don't care if the geese suffer, it is out of sight and out of the minds of the citizens of Putzi, or they consider that the taste justifies the cruelty when made in small quantities for the gastronomes of Putzi.The irony is, they apparently don't know what foie gras is.

IThird, we take them out, slaughter them inhumanely, and serve their failing bladder on a silver platter.

Foie gras is the liver of a goose (or duck), not the bladder. In fact the term "foie gras" is actually French for "fat liver."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hail and Greetings, I speak for the Holy Childe Deaha in Her disapproval of this for the simple reason that it prohibits a certain sect of Our religion from participating in their masses. No further details will be made.

While the concept of such a law is noble, it is unrealistic and cannot be possibly be enforced. A compromise, however, might be made if Religious Purposes is made into an exempt clause. We would like to state, for the record, that We do not support animal cruelty for sport nor entertainment and will agree that, should such a law be passed, perpetrators will be dealt with harshly. Our Church, however, will not.

Lady Emilynn Dethre,
Ambassador of Cresea
Voice of the Childe

Forgive Us if I speak out of turn or incorrectly as We have just joined the United Nations and are not entirely aware of what is expected in a debate besides speaking Her mind.

As has been mentioned before, the proposal doesn't cover the use of animals for religious purposes.

In other cases, this could lead to such things as reservoirs and land reclamation projects within nations becoming uneconomically viable, as the nation has to relocate potentially millions of animals to other suitable locations.

As such, we will be voting against this proposal.

Keelhaul Basingstoke
UN Pirate

I will be VERY strongly opposing this resolution in my next discussion with my delegate. The very wording is self-contradictory, and until amended to correct this language, will continue to receive opposition from Yaustanastok.


- Force-feeding any animal by any method.
- Willfully depriving any animal of proper shelter or proper veterinary care.
- Knowingly and willfully causing or procuring any of the aforementioned.

In certain situations, veterinary care includes the need to force-feed an ill or uncooperative animal, be it food, medicine, water, or what have you. To NOT do so would be to willfully deprive the animal of veterinary care. By this law, anyone taking their pet or farm animal to the vet may be in breach of international law by knowingly and willfully procuring services which may lead to the force-feeding of the animal.

My vote to my regional delegate is a resounding no. :headbang:

So if this banning the sport of Hunting? When an animal is shot during a hunt it doesnt die instaneous, but it definetley isnt an inhumane and suffering death. This clarification will determine my Regoins support or dissapproval.
Cheers!
Vice president SGC(Sport & Gaming Commision),
Deiter Munz

Alright think about this okay? Are you considering the economic and cultural loss at stake? What about those nations whose food source happens to beef? They can't slaughter any of their cows because of this. Not to mention what if for recreation a culture hunts quail or deer? They can't any longer because of this stupid unthoughtful resolution. I am amazed that over 5,000 people say that this can work. Get off the damn band wagon people!

Think for one moment that countries will need the slaughter of animals or need the cultural satisfaction of hunting to keep peace in their region. Anyone ever here of animal population control? It won't exist with this resolution. Not to mention if this thing passes, and it looks like it will because you're all retarded, that any population of animal on an island nation for example would overrun the human population given a time frame?

Obviously most of you either don't care and click FOR every time. That's wrong. Read the damn things for once. It might just save us some debate time.

I AM AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION AND EVERYTHING IT STANDS FOR!

I do not believe that we should argue about whether animals should have freedoms or not. I believe that the only debate here is do you or do you not believe in the prevention of cruelty to animals. That is why my nation has voted for this proposal.

Not when the text of the proposal gives a nod to animal "freedoms." You can choose to ignore the text of the proposal if you like, though, I guess. Pretty dumb way to decide how to vote, if you ask me, just voting for the clause or two you agree with, when the rest of the text might complete garbage.

The irony is, they apparently don't know what foie gras is.



Foie gras is the liver of a goose (or duck), not the bladder. In fact the term "foie gras" is actually French for "fat liver."


Quiet, Flibble! You're going to ruin his perfectly ignorant argument!

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Hunting, including hunting with hounds, is culturally important to many peoples, including many in Chiarizio.

Bullfighting and cockfighting and dogfighting are, also, important to certain minorities here.

Probably these things should be regulated, as boxing is; but to ban them outright is wrong. If it were right, we should also ban boxing.

Imagine the uproar from the Muslim countries if we introduced a resolution to ban clitoridectomies.

If we introduced a resolution to ban circumcision, Israel would join them in their uproar.

Yet those practices are every bit as abhorrent, to some of those who don't happen to practice them, as so-called "blood sports" are.

And "blood sports" are every bit as culturally central to some countries as circumcision is to Judaism and Islam.

Chiarizio could support a resolution to help regulate blood sports; but Chiarizio can never support a resolution to ban blood sports.

Imagine the uproar from the Muslim countries if we introduced a resolution to ban clitoridectomies.

We already have one (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Female_Genital_Mutilation).

Reading is your friend.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Greetings. I would just like to put in that after discussing it within the region we are firmly AGAINST this resolution. It opens too many avenuse for PETA to stop the production of meat. And while this resolution may not stop us from doing that PETA is known for bending the law to its own purpose.

I might raise a few eyebrows with my stance against this resolution. Opposed on the grounds that animal rights/cruelty/protection isn't something that an international body, such as the UN, needs to be involved in. Not only that, but this issue is something that should, and only really can, be decided on a national level.

Yeah, that's right, I'm against for....gulp....national soverignty reasons, and not having a nat sov bone in my body, that is a very hard thing to admit. Our current animal cruelty laws suit us well, but that doesn't mean those same laws would suit the nation next door. Likewise, blanked laws at an international level fail to take into account the vast differences that apply from one nation to the next.

I fail to see the military as the public. The military is a defense force, A Governmental Entity, not the population of a nation commonly referred to as "the Public" and as such is not protected under this measure. Indeed if that is the Ariddian position that the military is the public I certainly hope you lot have banned war in your country. Otherwise it would be considered murder.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

In a country where millitary service is cumpulsory, the public is the military.

Now, on the subject of real politics, anyone who kills an animal, destroys it's heriditary line, and a triangle effect occurs.

For instance, you kill a mouse 'for the protection of humanity'.
So a mouse dies, so does it's children, and their children. In the future tenthousand mice die, which starves the dogs feeding on them.
and on, and on... and on...

Why should this stop us from killing animals?

Finally, rules are made to be broken.
Anyone who wants to kill an animal, will just say it's for food.

No enforcement policy will ever be able to fufill the goal of this resolution.

Therfore, I urge you to vote against the current UN resolution.

If you have any concerne, talk to me, and i might listen.

- Pres Scottamus, Trandaga :)

I have come to notice another problem in the language of this. While people have been a bit comical about how this prevents us crushing bugs(which seems to be the case), this can be a real problem leading to epidemics of Malaria and other diseases which will greatly threaten our nations population

So if this banning the sport of Hunting? When an animal is shot during a hunt it doesnt die instaneous, but it definetley isnt an inhumane and suffering death. This clarification will determine my Regoins support or dissapproval.
Cheers!
Vice president SGC(Sport & Gaming Commision),
Deiter MunzI believe as long as the animal is going to be eaten it would fall under one of the exemptions.

Quiet, Flibble! You're going to ruin his perfectly ignorant argument!

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UNI can't help it, I have a thing about incorrect information about food. OOC: It's probably because I work in a restaurant in RL.

Yeah, that's right, I'm against for....gulp....national soverignty reasons, and not having a nat sov bone in my body, that is a very hard thing to admit.

One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. *continues chanting*

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

In certain situations, veterinary care includes the need to force-feed an ill or uncooperative animal, be it food, medicine, water, or what have you. To NOT do so would be to willfully deprive the animal of veterinary care.
You evidently missed this bit:
c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
[...]
- Professional veterinary practices performed in the interests of an animal's health or welfare.

What about those nations whose food source happens to beef? They can't slaughter any of their cows because of this.
You evidently missed this bit:
c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- Activities conducted for the primary purpose of and strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption.
Not to mention what if for recreation a culture hunts quail or deer? They can't any longer because of this stupid unthoughtful resolution.
Nothing unthoughtful about that, mate!

Anyone ever here of animal population control? It won't exist with this resolution.
You evidently missed this bit:
c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.

Not to mention if this thing passes, and it looks like it will because you're all retarded, that any population of animal on an island nation for example would overrun the human population given a time frame?
Let's face it, you didn't read the proposal did you? And you call us retarded.

I have come to notice another problem in the language of this. While people have been a bit comical about how this prevents us crushing bugs(which seems to be the case), this can be a real problem leading to epidemics of Malaria and other diseases which will greatly threaten our nations population
You evidently missed etc etc:
c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
- The destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.

Hope that helps.

First this then PETA.
Don't let the Eco-Terrorists win! Vote AGAINST this proposition!

It seems to me there are some legitimate arguments against this resolution. Of course, there's the obvious one (what if we want to crush that annoying mosquito that's preventing us from falling asleep?!), but...

1) Using worms as bait for fishing - it's not "strictly required for providing food for human or animal consumption" (you could use a net for example) but I would say the majority of recreational fishers use worms or other small animals as bait.

2) Hunting for sport. (I guess you could argue this isn't a legitimate argument)

3) Horse racing. Now as we know, it's quite possible for a horse to break his/her leg as a direct result of horse racing (I believe that counts as "causing substantial bodily harm" to an animal). So the moment an unlucky jockey's horse suffers a broken leg or other injury due to horse racing, he has committed a crime? Also you could argue that the entire sport of horse racing has been outlawed because of the prohibition against "overdriving" an animal.

4) School laboratory experiments. For example, there is a biology experiement where you place bloodworms in water levels of varying salinity. However, some of the worms placed in extreme water salinities inevitably die, because their primitive organ systems can't handle the sudden change. Should this experiment (and the thousands of others like it - cutting flatworms to watch them regenerate, for example) be banned? By the way, I'm not a medical school student so the exception for "legal biomedical research" doesn't matter.

and finally...

5) Transfiguration. How do we know if transfiguring another animal causes bodily harm? What if we harm an Animagus - does that violate this law? This is very confusing to me :(

One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. *continues chanting*Gooble gobble, gooble gobble!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Not when the text of the proposal gives a nod to animal "freedoms." You can choose to ignore the text of the proposal if you like, though, I guess. Pretty dumb way to decide how to vote, if you ask me, just voting for the clause or two you agree with, when the rest of the text might complete garbage.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

We don't know how a resolution "gives a nod". When we examine the resolution, what we see is the prohibition of specific actions. That's not granting "freedoms" or "rights" to anyone or anything.

There is an unfortunately worded statement in the preambulatory clauses which includes the word "freedom". We wish it had been worded differently, but we understand what the author meant to say. We really think this whole business of whining about giving animals "rights" and "freedoms" is spurious and a poor excuse for voting against a sound and worthwhile resolution. The representative of New Vandalia knows full well that this delegation is full of belligerent hard-liners when it comes to proposal/resolution quality. But we don't feel that one poorly worded item in the preambulatory clauses should outweigh the quality of the rest of the resolution. Of course, if we were dead set against the resolution and wanted to reach desperately for some half-way reasonable-sounding excuse for opposing it, we'd probably latch onto this.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Having read back over previous debates, I've seen the Ausserlander delegation, on numerous occasions, point out that (and I'm paraphrasing here) the law means what the law says. This proposal acknowledges animals' "freedoms." So the law says animals have freedoms. It doesn't matter if it's in the preambulatory bit or not.

I'm pretty sure I've seen records of Ausserland voting against a repeal or two because it disagreed with the preambulatory argument. If you're going to look at just the active clauses of a proposal, at least be consistent. The only active clause in a repeal is the one that says "REPEALS UN Resolution X." By your argument here, there are plenty of repeal proposals that Ausserland should have supported, simply because the end result would be the same, but instead, Ausserland came down against a number of repeal proposals, because the argument for the repeal -- in other words, those same preambulatory arguments -- didn't sit well with the Ausserlander delegation.

Bad law is bad law. And this, by putting a statement on the books that animals have "freedoms," would be bad law, no matter how wonderful and happy the end result of the legislation.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Of course, if we were dead set against the resolution and wanted to reach desperately for some half-way reasonable-sounding excuse for opposing it, we'd probably latch onto this.No, they'd probably latch onto the fact that this isn't an international issue, no matter how much people seem to dearly wish it was.

Yes, it would be nice if people didn't walk around randomly torturing animals, but I wager many democracies here would have similar views towards dictatorships. This, simply put, is not international. If I spend twelve hours putting kittens into the Kitty Smashing Chamber(TM), I'm not affecting other nations. Hell, I'm not even affecting other people (unless I stole the kittens).

This is nothing more than forcing other nations to accept the majority's opinion on a given matter. Much like the ban on necrophilia, except that ban could appeal to public health. What's next? Banning smoking?


Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

What's next? Banning smoking?

No, trans fats are next, if you go by the debates here. Can't have any fat kids. That's an international issue, you know.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Having read back over previous debates, I've seen the Ausserlander delegation, on numerous occasions, point out that (and I'm paraphrasing here) the law means what the law says. This proposal acknowledges animals' "freedoms." So the law says animals have freedoms. It doesn't matter if it's in the preambulatory bit or not.

I'm pretty sure I've seen records of Ausserland voting against a repeal or two because it disagreed with the preambulatory argument. If you're going to look at just the active clauses of a proposal, at least be consistent. The only active clause in a repeal is the one that says "REPEALS UN Resolution X." By your argument here, there are plenty of repeal proposals that Ausserland should have supported, simply because the end result would be the same, but instead, Ausserland came down against a number of repeal proposals, because the argument for the repeal -- in other words, those same preambulatory arguments -- didn't sit well with the Ausserlander delegation.

Bad law is bad law. And this, by putting a statement on the books that animals have "freedoms," would be bad law, no matter how wonderful and happy the end result of the legislation.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Perhaps we judge each case on its own merits. Yes, we've voted against repeals which have made clearly false arguments and misrepresented the legislation they sought to repeal. We will continue to do so. But there's a substantial difference between that sort of thing and a clumsily worded statement in a preambulatory clause. We've also voted in favor of resolutions (repeals and other wise) when we were not entirely comfortable with some of the language used.

We make no apologies for our voting record or our position on this resolution. We will continue to examine each resolution and proposal individually and make our judgments on individual cases. In this, we will be consistent.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

So, if sport hunting is banned, as this does on a strict reading, we must presume you can't conceive that lack of support for maintenance of wildlife populations would occur. Or alternatively, that population maintenance of pest wildlife becomes more difficult and expensive.

Or alternatively, that eliminating sport hunting would have little effect, as clause 2c, in our determination, would still allow us to conduct population culls in order to keep these populations properly maintained. Not properly maintaining these populations would have severe consequences for the animals involved, but as 2c allows us to eliminate some animals to protect other animals, humane culling of wild populations would still be allowed by our reading.

We are concerned about the creation of animal rights because it speaks to the nature of rights themselves. Rights are a political construct and are accompanied by responsibilities. Non-sapient animals as such are capable neither of exercising such rights nor fulfilling the responsibilities that ensure those rights.

We would be concerned about that if we felt this resolution was, in fact, "creating animal rights". But we don't, and have yet to see a convincing argument otherwise. We still maintain that the clause acknowledging "animals’ basic freedom from needless torture and abuse" covers only torture and abuse on a truly strict reading. Granted, some people could try to stretch that beyond its true purpose, but anyone can do that with any resolution. We do not feel that this is sufficient reason to prevent this legislation from going forward.

During the drafting phase, the author was questioned about the (much more blatant0 inclusion of animal rights in this resolution; we were chided to “ignore the philosophy.” You have indicated that we should ignore statements because they appear in the preamble. Yet those statements provide the underlying argument for the entire resolution. They go on record as the will of this body just as surely as the activating clauses.

Perhaps, but we're not really concerned about that, as we have no issue whatsoever with anything in the preamble for reasons we've already stated.

A document need not use the word “rights” to create such. And what rights does this legislation create you ask? It gives non-sapient animals the right to be free of abuse and torture (all well and good), the right to food and shelter (something this body has at times resisted extending to its sapient populations; and given that no distinction is made between domesticated animals and wildlife, we wonder at the looniness of such a provision), and the right to medical care (as if sapients had as much) to name three.

We do not feel there is anything at all wrong with extending those protections to animals, and as we still firmly believe that this resolution does not extend any protections beyond what is strictly spelled out in the legislation, we're fine with it. As for the concern of distinguishing between domesticated animals and wildlife, we feel that activities that may adversely affect wildlife against the terms of this resolution can be resolved. For example, if activity in an area could deprive wildlife of shelter or food, then providing food or shelter in another area would resolve the issue.

So determining whether one’s livelihood is no longer legal is frivolous? Altanari may be sufficiently docile as to accept whatever the government pronounces; Rubinans not so much and we place great importance on individuals’ access to the judiciary.

We're hardly a docile people; we just don't abuse our courts. As far as determining the future of various livelihoods, we hate to break it to you, but "livelihoods" go out of existence, or are diminished, all the time. For example, one does not see a lot of establishments catering to the horse as a mode of transportation anymore in Altanar, except for rural and nomadic areas. That's because we have these nifty things called automobiles. People adapt to changes in the world and find new livelihoods all the time, and they will once this resolution passes.

Surely you aren’t suggesting that every housefrau must get approval before swatting a fly? Oh wait, you are.

In a debate with more stretches than Kyrinian saltwater taffy, that statement stands out to us as the exemplar. We've determined that flies (especially the sand flies found in certain parts of Altanar) are disease vectors. Therefore, "swatting" one would be covered under clause 2c, which allows for the destruction of animals that pose a danger to public health. The same would apply to mosquitoes, just to cite another disease vector. I doubt anyone would face any kind of prosecution based on that.

The saving grace of this piece of legislation is that it provides a future session of this body with sufficient material to repeal.

Yeah, good luck with that.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I agree with the chap from Flibbleites that this is not an international issue and so should be voted down.

Besides, I imagine that the gastronomes of Putzi will just hop over the border to one of our unsavoury (haha) non-UN neighbours for geese-stuffing orgies at the weekends. Or sign up for PHDs into "scientific research" with titles such as, 'How Much Grain Can One Force Into The Average Goose And How Does The Texture Of The Liver Vary As Measured With The Human Digestive System As A Result?' etc.

There are so many loopholes as worded it doesn't really matter if the resolution is passed for all effect it will have. No wonder the real UN is about as useful as a chocolate teapot!

The Ambassador from Putzi is delighted to have affected the Ambassador from New Anonia (#164) in such a way with his earlier comments on the taste justifying the cruelty.

Putzi

Thought for the day: "No pain, no grain." :D

If we cannot force feed geese, how are we going to make fois gras??? We vote against.

Let's try this again.

Can anyone tell me why this resolution, so poorly written in syntax and poorly conceived in scope, should pass?

Where is the need for any international regulation of non-sapient animals BEYOND:

1. Range/ecology issues: small nations needing to graze herd animals beyond boundaries and/or endangered species problems.

2. Epidemiology/health issues: Animal diseases and/or tracing the causes of epidemics to animals (when such is the case).

OR 3. Trade issues: Buying and selling of livestock or other animals across international boundaries.

This resolution is FAR too broad and unnecessary in scope. As a minor side note, the grammar is atrocious, most notably in the opening section.

I realize that the warm-fuzzies are voting for this thing without really reading it, but come on, at SOME point, the overwhelming majority of those AGAINST this unorganized and slipshod resolution in this Assembly should be reflected in the actual vote.

On a related topic, I also think up should be down and that the Cubs deserve a World Series win, but let's just take one thing at a time.

i think [UNNECACARY HARM] should be ileegal. as in cock fights or hunting just for sport. but sometimes we will have to hunt for food or to keep the population down it should not be ileegal to kill them in any way. it should be ileegal to kill them in an unecacary or particuarly cruel way. it should be ileegal even if it serves a purpose to kill in a particuarly painful way such as b0oiling a lobster alive or shooting in animals legs while hunting so they wouldent die just then. all of my family have loved to be in cock fights and torture animals so im opposing them and saying i votre for this bill

i think [UNNECACARY HARM] should be ileegal. as in cock fights or hunting just for sport. but sometimes we will have to hunt for food or to keep the population down it should not be ileegal to kill them in any way. it should be ileegal to kill them in an unecacary or particuarly cruel way. it should be ileegal even if it serves a purpose to kill in a particuarly painful way such as b0oiling a lobster alive or shooting in animals legs while hunting so they wouldent die just then. all of my family have loved to be in cock fights and torture animals so im opposing them and saying i votre for this bill

Wtf?! :confused:

I don't know but you guys but I think animal cruilty should be against the Law !

Animals did not do anything to any one, sure maybe cats scratch people or dogs bite people but what are we doing to ther Habittats and Invirerment!

OK my nation is an army nation but we doent kill animals! :mp5:

I'll let you guys decide that!

The resolution Unnecessary Animal Cruelty was passed 6,311 votes to 3,951, and implemented in all UN member nations.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"As secretary of UN affairs for the Antarctic Oasis region, it is our duty to inform that no sooner had this resolution passed than members of the region moved swiftly to defy it. Teams competing for the regional delegate position on behalf of their home nations converged upon the Yeldan Nature Preserve not too long ago, with their shotguns and their safari equipment and their insatiable bloodlust, to partake in a brutal (and highly comical) hunt for the vicious Klöllen at "Comrade Cowboy Felix's Good Ole Klöllen Hunting Guest Ranch Collective (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=518&view=findpost&p=6859422)." Remember Iron Felix? ... No? ... Well, do your cracked craniums remember him? He's back, and now he's a cowboy! And he's sponsoring a horrifying televised spectacle likely to feature repeated and grave violations of Article 2 of the resolution we just passed. But what the heck do you morons plan on doing about it? Neither Yelda nor Yeldan Nature Preserve is a member of the United Nations! Nor, technically, are Complete Malevolence or Kivisto, the two nations currently vying for delegate. By the way, the latter of the two, our current delegate seeking another term, acting with the full authority of this region and its founder, voted AGAINST this sorry excuse for a resolution. Thank you.VICTORY IS MINE!!

Fickle Fatalists is strongly considering resigning from the UN. The recent landslide passage of the poorly written "Unnecessary Animal Cruelty" resolution, despite countless legitimate arguments against it, has driven us to this point. All non-human euthanizations in Fickle Fatalists are on hold thanks to this ridiculous resolution, not to mention construction projects being held up due to concerns about what centimeter-scale life forms we might be inadvertently destroying. Our people are afraid of walking down the sidewalks lest they step on ants.

This cannot continue, and the only recourse I see is to leave the UN, which apparently can no longer be remotely considered a "deliberative" body.


FF

Fickle Fatalists;12847073']All non-human euthanizations in Fickle Fatalists are on hold thanks to this ridiculous resolution
Perhaps you should read the resolution a bit more closely:
c) The following shall be exempted from all the above clauses:
...
- The humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death.


Devon Rose, Ph.D.
Expert on Environmental Issues

Unfortunately, current methods of euthanasia used on pets involve less-than-instantaneous unconsciousness. The initial drugs administered send the animal into a deep sleep, which comes on over the space of several seconds. Until our Justice Department gets a chance to review the intended meaning of the word "instantaneous," we've had to halt all such procedures, leaving almost all terminally ill pets and many terminally ill livestock in pain.

And of course, there is still the issue that the resolution makes no exception for insects and other minuscule animals whose deaths may be completely accidental but not entirely instantaneous.


FF