NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to thank everyone for their support thus far in this proposal. I'm hoping that, if this doesn't pass, we can discuss the reasoning for why some may have chosen to not support it. A few adjustments and/or compromises can easily push this over the edge for the future (if not this time).

Animal Rights Act

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Rukkiz

Description: BELIEVING that the world depends upon a variety of living creatures to sustain itself.

UNDERSTANDING that cultural and regional differences require varying uses and needs for animals.

The World Assembly hereby declares a level of rights and defenses for creatures who may be under harm or potential of harm.

DEFINING "living creatures" as all non-human multi-cellular organisms with a central nervous system and/or the basic instincts of self preservation.

ALL living creatures, posing no immediate threat or harm, shall be allowed to live independently without negative influence from man. This act does not include:
* Animals which are killed for man necessities (e.g. Food, Clothing, Shelter)
* Animals which are killed for sport, when in their nation's designated season. (Exception overruled when animal falls under Endangered Creature Protection or Unique Habitat Protection)

ANY Animal deemed in danger of PERMANENT EXTINCTION (as defined by an unsustainable population based upon current birth to death ratios) fall under ENDANGERED CREATURE PROTECTION. The following actions will then take place:
* CEASE all killings of this creature for recreational sport
* LIMITED killings of this creature for man essentials (e.g. Food, Clothing, Shelter)
* ALTERNATIVE methods for man essentials researched and sought after
* REMOVAL from the ENDANGERED CREATURE PROTECTION will occur when the animal maintains a positive birth to death ratio for exactly (3) census reports. (Time between reports set by nation, with minimum of (6) months in between.)

ANY Animal present in only a limited ecosystem and/or nation will fall under UNIQUE HABITAT PROTECTION. The following actions will take place:
* CEASE the destruction of the habitat (When in environments essential for national economic stability and goods production, an area of protected land proportional to the remaining population size of the animal will be set aside indefinitely.)
* ALTERNATIVE ecosystems for a stable and safe release to build a new population researched and sought after
* REMOVAL from UNIQUE HABITAT PROTECTION will occur when seemingly permanent additional ecosystems are established for the animal and habitat size remains constant or expands following (3) census reports (Time between reports set by nation, with minimum of (12) months in between.)

NATIONS found in violation to the Animal Protection Act, or deemed unresponsive in an animal's STATISTICALLY INEVITABLE PERMANENT EXTINCTION (As deemed upon by birth to death census reports and/or ecosystem to population census reports) will be asked to ALLOW REMOVAL OF ANIMALS from the nation by any OTHER NATION who is willing and able to provide a stable and safe habitat for the species.

NATIONS CAN NOT BE FORCED INTO ALLOWING ENTRY FROM ANOTHER NATION TO REMOVE THE ANIMAL.

In CLOSING,
The World Assembly must remember that although we represent ourselves, our citizens and our lands. Our decisions affect more then just each individual person. It's time we take an official stance that we represent the entire globe, and not just those who voice in this council.

Were you previously unaware of the fact that some WA member nations have various kinds of intelligent non-humans (e.g. Elves, Dwarves, Vulcans, Wookies, profanity-prone Dolphins, Talking Cats...) in their populations?

This is highly unneeded. I know you're trying to something nice but what about the violence of people killing people. Once there is no more human violence we'll worry about animal violence.

This is highly unneeded. I know you're trying to something nice but what about the violence of people killing people. Once there is no more human violence we'll worry about animal violence.

Agreed

ALL living creatures, posing no immediate threat or harm,

If you meant the underlined bit to be a condition on which living creatures we're talking about, that would be OK. Unfortunately the way you've written it is as an assertion, which is not OK. It blithely states that all living creatures pose no immediate threat or harm, which is a pretty silly thing to say really.

Nice try, no banana.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

If you meant the underlined bit to be a condition on which living creatures we're talking about, that would be OK. Unfortunately the way you've written it is as an assertion, which is not OK. It blithely states that all living creatures pose no immediate threat or harm, which is a pretty silly thing to say really.

Nice try, no banana.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I meant it as ALL living creatures, (under the condition of) posing no immediate threat or harm.

If you take it, as you asserted, as all living creatures that pose no immediate threat and harm then you should eliminate those living creatures that DO post an immediate threat and harm from the categorized definition. Therefore the rest of the conditions should stand for the sub-group of "ALL" living creatures as those who do not "pose an immediate threat or harm."

This is highly unneeded. I know you're trying to something nice but what about the violence of people killing people. Once there is no more human violence we'll worry about animal violence.

While Tucker Island's citizens may remain optimistic about the Utopian future of world peace, I think that does not mean there should be a complete ignorance of other problems in the world.

That's like saying why do our nation's scientists work to cure/prevent diseases such as the flu, or the common cold when there is AIDS and cancer. Just because there's a bigger problem doesn't mean you should ignore the minor ones.

You work on world peace. I'll work on improving animal rights. All our bases can be covered.

Were you previously unaware of the fact that some WA member nations have various kinds of intelligent non-humans (e.g. Elves, Dwarves, Vulcans, Wookies, profanity-prone Dolphins, Talking Cats...) in their populations?

Do you think these creatures would be against legislation protecting their existence? Sure they might find it demeaning to be lumped in a large generalized group but at the backbone of the resolution is the protection of their survival.

There are nations out there that treat these intelligent creatures as second class citizens and they are on the edge of extinction or their natural habitat is threatened. This can provide immediate relief to those species. I would hope that their pride would not turn them against the prolonged existence of their kind.

Humans are animals, so I see no problem including them in this resolution.

N.T

Humans are animals, so I see no problem including them in this resolution.

N.T

This resolution makes a distinction between the two, therefore they are not included. There are many other laws and resolutions towards the protection of man kind. Many of those do not include other species. You do not prosecute an instinctual animal (such as a common wild lion) for murdering another instinctual animal (such as a common wild antelope).

While I'm sure intelligent lions and, quite possibly, intelligent antelope exist in this world (while not in my region) and may be held responsible for such an act, I'm referring only to the privative creatures who do not speak, do not walk on two legs, do not wear clothes, do not smoke a cobbler pipe and do not do other unnamed things that would deem it more then a wild creature.

I have a few substantial issues with this proposition which I will outline:

ALL living creatures, posing no immediate threat or harm, shall be allowed to live independently without negative influence from man.

As the esteemed Undersecretary Coch stated, this wording effectively declares that all living creatures pose no immediate threat or harm and must be allowed to live without "negative influence from man," the scope of which is not defined and could be taken to mean any one of a great number of things, from physical influence to mental influence to spiritual or religious influence. This wording is very worrisome as, however well-meaning it may be, it can be turned to impose sanctions on governments which are not in violation of the good nature of this proposition.

Furthermore,

ANY Animal deemed in danger of PERMANENT EXTINCTION (as defined by an unsustainable population based upon current birth to death ratios) fall under ENDANGERED CREATURE PROTECTION. The following actions will then take place:
* CEASE all killings of this creature for recreational sport
* LIMITED killings of this creature for man essentials (e.g. Food, Clothing, Shelter)
* ALTERNATIVE methods for man essentials researched and sought after
* REMOVAL from the ENDANGERED CREATURE PROTECTION will occur when the animal maintains a positive birth to death ratio for exactly (3) census reports. (Time between reports set by nation, with minimum of (6) months in between.)

ANY Animal present in only a limited ecosystem and/or nation will fall under UNIQUE HABITAT PROTECTION. The following actions will take place:
* CEASE the destruction of the habitat (When in environments essential for national economic stability and goods production, an area of protected land proportional to the remaining population size of the animal will be set aside indefinitely.)
* ALTERNATIVE ecosystems for a stable and safe release to build a new population researched and sought after
* REMOVAL from UNIQUE HABITAT PROTECTION will occur when seemingly permanent additional ecosystems are established for the animal and habitat size remains constant or expands following (3) census reports (Time between reports set by nation, with minimum of (12) months in between.)

These entire sections require, by their very nature and wording, the establishment of:

- A record of all animal species within a given nation
- A census bureau to account for population data of all animal species at least biannually
- Research teams created to discover alternative animal resources
- Enforcement personnel to ensure that these sections are adequately followed within the nation
- Protective habitats for endemic animal species
- Prevention of industrial, commercial, or residential expansion into these protective habitats

The creation of these agencies can be punitively expensive and could bankrupt a developing nation. Alternatively, that same nation could choose to ignore the requirements imposed by this proposition and be therefore open to sanctions imposed by this Assembly.

In closing, the Federation of Caelapes does not and will not support this proposition until the outlined sections are amended such that the issues outlined are no longer present.

His Excellency William Simone
Representative of the Federation of Caelapes to the World Assembly
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

I meant it as ALL living creatures, (under the condition of) posing no immediate threat or harm.

Unfortunately that's not what it says. Better redraft, sunshine, and this time try not to call sentient non-humans "animals". We have a hard enough time trying to make out that they should be protected by "human rights" as it is, thank you very much.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Better redraft, sunshine, and this time try not to call sentient non-humans "animals". We have a hard enough time trying to make out that they should be protected by "human rights" as it is, thank you very much.

Maybe don't talk down to me, sunshine, and the respect will be returned by others.

Maybe you should consider who talked down to whom first. Technically, after all, my boss isn't human.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Your perception of my "talking down upon" was your misinterpretation of, I'll admit, debatable word choices. Your actions were deliberate and demeaning. If you want to turn the assembly into a school yard playground perhaps you should go outside while the grown ups discuss some things.

I agree, this would give me a chance to fix a mistake I made on the topic of deforestation for mining. My national animal, the Dmi Vyzolsht, is now teetering on extinction due to this mistake

Your perception of my "talking down upon" was your misinterpretation of, I'll admit, debatable word choices. Your actions were deliberate and demeaning.

No they weren't, but I'll let you figure that one out for yourself.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary