NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello there, I would like to discuss my proposal on Animal Rights. I say that we need to do something about that nations that are harnessing dog fighting and advertising it in the streets. When people visit your nation and see this they wouldn't be too pleased with it. By accepting this, we could keep populations up and have the situation under control. If we don't stop this, people may start training their animals to be weapons.

What do you think about this?

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


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: United Animal Kingdom

Description: All around your nation you see many dogs being tortured or beaten. Without food and supplies normal living things would need. You often see you signs that read "dog fighting shows, place your bid here!" For on this would not look good from visitors and it's not right to be fighting living things.
This would say that all WA nations must enforce laws on Animal Rights including a Animal Police force to monitor the problems. If we don't fix this it will get out of control and people may start using trained animals as weapons.
If people are caught they must be treated as a normal people would offending normal people.
When this is resolved... and if... then our towns and cities will look better and the animal population will increase. Never more will animal species be in danger of extinction.

Thank you if you read this far, I would also like to tell you to please contact me if I did something wrong or left something out because I think this would be something nice to hold a discussion over.

UAK

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 92 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 9 2008

A copy, for people to discuss.

Description: All around your nation you see many dogs being tortured or beaten. Without food and supplies normal living things would need. You often see you signs that read "dog fighting shows, place your bid here!" For on this would not look good from visitors and it's not right to be fighting living things.

This is not true of our nation or a lot of nations within the WA.

This would say that all WA nations must enforce laws on Animal Rights including a Animal Police force to monitor the problems. If we don't fix this it will get out of control and people may start using trained animals as weapons.

What laws? Some nations may have laws mandating that three cows must be beaten to death on national television daily. This proposal does not address that.

If people are caught they must be treated as a normal people would offending normal people.
When this is resolved... and if... then our towns and cities will look better and the animal population will increase. Never more will animal species be in danger of extinction.

Not really. I have in front of me a report that suggests density of animals in certain areas can easily become high enough to cause massive diseases. Sometimes, you want to decrease or eliminate part of the animal population in an area to better serve the species as a whole.

Sorry. Animal population is a hobby of mine. If I had been bought by the House of Cats, I would have tried for one of their animal science divisions.

Thank you if you read this far, I would also like to tell you to please contact me if I did something wrong or left something out because I think this would be something nice to hold a discussion over.

UAK

I, er... Look, this is outright illegal because of the branding regulations.

Temporary Diplomat Asuka Felna

Wow, you took my tongue out of my mouth. Maybe my future proposals will turn out better? Thanks for teaching me some good things (V)^_^(V)

And while you're learning things, reas this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) so you won't make similar mistakes in the future.

Bob Flibble
WA Represetative

Valerian Zorin, Chief of the Videtta Delegation

We are completely against this, we have people starving and being enslaved and exploited and you shall worry about animals, this is absurd. Also, this better threatment of animals will make meet prices escalate and harm the poorest people in the world, we are completely against this!

Your most basic problem, I'm afraid, is that this is an essay. That's all well and good, but it's supposed to be a law. You talk a lot about things that should or shouldn't be done in fairly wide and sweeping terms, which is just fine for justifying why a resolution should exist. You don't however say a thing about what will or must happen in detail, which is the important bit for the statue books.

Thank you all for all your help... I have a new idea, so I'll wait to see by any luck I may get if my issue will pass, then I will make my new one with all of your great advice.

Can I change something about my proposal, I know how to make it better now XD.

Can I change something about my proposal, I know how to make it better now XD.

Proposals can't be edited, only deleted. Your existing proposal has been removed for the aforementioned Branding violation.

If you want to work on it more, I strongly suggest you post your draft changes here and debate it for a week or two. Don't post drafts (or even what you think are final versions) before getting helpful advice from your fellow Ambassadors.

Thank you, I shall start posting right away. (V)^_^(V)

Okay, here's what I think so far:

Description- To enforce more rights for animals including the following: protection and better standards.

Recognizing- That animals are just like people and deserve better treatment that may be given.

This establishes- laws in which people must obey like normal laws for animals

1. If person found accused of abuse by a judge with the option of a jury trial or not.
(A) Charged with domestic violence
I. However nation deals with this offense will be settled upon the accused

2. Kidnapping of any type of animal
(A) Be charged with kidnapping of a live species
I. Same charges to be applied like a normal case
(B) Be titled as an Animal Endanger

3. Illegal Fighting of any type of breed of animal
(A) Be charged with violence
I. treat like a normal case of this cause
(B) Be charged with endangerment of a living species
I. Be treated like a normal cause

4. Accused of murder of one or more animals
(A) Be held in trial in front of a Jury
I. Shall have a normal case with a lawyer
II. Has all normal rights
III. Jury shall decided his fate
(B) Depending on amount of murders decides verdict.
I. One to three animals should be dealt as for at least 5-9 years in prison, chance of parole.
II. Four to Six animals should be around 10-20 years in prison following classes, chance of parole.
III. Seven to ten animals should be around 25-40 years in prison following classes, no chance of parole.
IV. Eleven animals and up should be around the life sentence and/or death.
__________________________________________________________________________

This defines- That something must be done about this problem that could arouse.

Requires- that all WA nations take immediate action to form new forces and crack down on the law breakers.

Suggests- that part of the funding should come from the defense and social welfare.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, if I used those words wrong in some way, sorry... I'm barely a teenager and I don't still quite understand how to use them... now I'm making myself sound stupid... I just don't see how the authors get the paragraphs from for those words XD.
But that's what i think so far.

POST!

What exactly is Animal Murder , honoured Ambassador? And how would this resolution not ban the eating of meat? And why should our courts treat crimes against animals similarly to crimes against humans?

yours e.t.c. ,

Animal Murder would be deaths caused to animals for no reason at all.

As for you say eating meat, I believe we could grant people special permits to make it. Which forth protects them from the crime for a certain amount of meat making.

We should treat these crims because the nations need to learn what needs to be done about this, they must learn that all living things are to be treated fairly. It's basically like saying let's kill and eat black people, but the white and other colored skins can stay alive.

1. If person found accused of abuse by a judge with the option of a jury trial or not.
(A) Charged with domestic violence
I. However nation deals with this offense will be settled upon the accused

2. Kidnapping of any type of animal
(A) Be charged with kidnapping of a live species
I. Same charges to be applied like a normal case
(B) Be titled as an Animal Endanger

3. Illegal Fighting of any type of breed of animal
(A) Be charged with violence
I. treat like a normal case of this cause
(B) Be charged with endangerment of a living species
I. Be treated like a normal cause

4. Accused of murder of one or more animals
(A) Be held in trial in front of a Jury
I. Shall have a normal case with a lawyer
II. Has all normal rights
III. Jury shall decided his fate
(B) Depending on amount of murders decides verdict.
I. One to three animals should be dealt as for at least 5-9 years in prison, chance of parole.
II. Four to Six animals should be around 10-20 years in prison following classes, chance of parole.
III. Seven to ten animals should be around 25-40 years in prison following classes, no chance of parole.
IV. Eleven animals and up should be around the life sentence and/or death.

5. Eating of meat products
(A) For the demand mean people must apply for a permit to make it.
I. People will have a set amount depending on the area and their family of how much meat to make.
II. IF person does more then the limit you can have your property taken away and will be treated as a normal murder. --Look back to section 4--
(B) Meat eating is to be taken care of by the Nation in which the people live in.
I. Eating meat is perfectly fine, that is not a crime and you shall not be punished for it.
__________________________________________________________________________

Edited Version****

1. If person found accused of abuse by a judge with the option of a jury trial or not.
(A) Charged with domestic violence
I. However nation deals with this offense will be settled upon the accused

Not all nations have a jury system for trials.

2. Kidnapping of any type of animal
(A) Be charged with kidnapping of a live species
I. Same charges to be applied like a normal case
(B) Be titled as an Animal Endanger

Um... We only charge for kidnapping if it's a sentient. Otherwise, it's theft of property.

3. Illegal Fighting of any type of breed of animal
(A) Be charged with violence
I. treat like a normal case of this cause
(B) Be charged with endangerment of a living species
I. Be treated like a normal cause

4. Accused of murder of one or more animals
(A) Be held in trial in front of a Jury
I. Shall have a normal case with a lawyer
II. Has all normal rights
III. Jury shall decided his fate
(B) Depending on amount of murders decides verdict.
I. One to three animals should be dealt as for at least 5-9 years in prison, chance of parole.
II. Four to Six animals should be around 10-20 years in prison following classes, chance of parole.
III. Seven to ten animals should be around 25-40 years in prison following classes, no chance of parole.
IV. Eleven animals and up should be around the life sentence and/or death.

I am going to have to oppose all sentencing or trial items in this draft. It is in violation, I believe, of the spirit of Fair Criminal Trial, which was to establish a set of international laws that govern how trials are run without violating the nation's rights to set laws and establish a court system based upon their culture. Considering the jury and sentencing requirements, this will, if you will excuse the image, pretty much rape that spirit. And I'm not even sure how one would proceed with litigation over spirit rape.

Secondly, none of your terms are defined. What is illegal fighting? What counts as murder? Kidnapping? Abuse? If I go by my nation's laws, then most of those will never get prosecuted for and will be nothing more than puzzling entries in international legislation.

5. Eating of meat products
(A) For the demand mean people must apply for a permit to make it.
I. People will have a set amount depending on the area and their family of how much meat to make.
II. IF person does more then the limit you can have your property taken away and will be treated as a normal murder. --Look back to section 4--
(B) Meat eating is to be taken care of by the Nation in which the people live in.
I. Eating meat is perfectly fine, that is not a crime and you shall not be punished for it.

Irreversibly opposed to this section. Corporations should not be punished for overproducing a product that is partially necessary for human health.

To number one- it would be dealt with however nations deals with the selection.

To number three & four- same way, nation should deal with the problem like they normally do.

To number five- but you set an amount that would be needed, so, there would be no reason in over producing. If you have 100 people, you don't need to kill a million cows to feed them for a few months.

This is very basic answering, sorry, I can't stay on long, tomorrow I will edit the whole thing.

To number one- it would be dealt with however nations deals with the selection.

To number three & four- same way, nation should deal with the problem like they normally do.

It's easy to edit it to account for that. If you want some suggestions, I'm willing to help.

To number five- but you set an amount that would be needed, so, there would be no reason in over producing. If you have 100 people, you don't need to kill a million cows to feed them for a few months.

This is very basic answering, sorry, I can't stay on long, tomorrow I will edit the whole thing.

Beef can also be traded. Or used in tourism. The economy typically prevents too much overproduction, since overproducing beef on the scale you're talking about would force the company to pretty much hand it out to people.

I don't understand your conclusion, sorry. But about tourism, there's no real problem-- wait, I got it. We do reasearch to figure out the average amount of tourists that come to the nation, adding a tad bit more to make sure you don't run out of supplies.

It's simple economics. Too much supply = no profit. No profit = company going under.

You're micromanaging. Worse, you're micromanaging with poorly-defined terms, immense emotional baggage, and a distinct chance of conflicting with Fair Criminal Trial.

A pro-animal rights has a fair chance of getting a sympathetic response from Gobbannium, but not if it tries to dictate prison terms as a sentence for anything. We have no prisons, and we'd rather not build anything so inefficient now either, thank you very much.

This bans hunting. Therefore, I'm against it.

1. If a person/persons is accused of violating the rights of animals, they shall be punished by the court system of the nation in which they live in.
(A) Person must be convicted by the court system of the nation.
*I. There must be pure evidence to show the offense he has done.
*II. For any searches you must have a warrant from the judge of the city it's taking place in.
*III. If evidence is found while in search, animal rights officers have full permission to arrest you for questioning.
*(B) Person has the right to a fair trial and a lawyer. They also do not have to speak of anything they do not wish.
*I. If chose to be seen by only a judge, there will be no public audience of any kind.
*II. If chose to be seen by a jury committee then there will be a jury including public audience as long a violator is over the legal age of consent.
(C) In case of hunting special species will be selected for hunting sports. In this you will only be allow to kill animals on the list and with a license during the correct season.
*I. If violator is accused of killing an animal that was not on the list, the case shall increase to murder charges.
*II. If violator is found without a license hunting animals that may/may not be on the list, person will be charged for I.A.H (Illegal Animal Hunting) and should be charged with classes to attend for a year on Animal Rights.
*II. If person is found with a license that does not belong to them and/ or it is fraudulent; person should be charged with (what would you charge for that?)
II. If person is found guilty of hunting out of season, nation shall deal to them however their court system may handle it. Though, person should be made to attend classes for hunting rights/ animal rights.

2. If violator is accused of theft of property then violator must be tended to the ways of the nation in which he/she lives in.
(A) If animal is found seriously harmed or dead the charges in the case will increase to murder and nation will deal with it they way they normally do.
*(B) As for putting a live species in danger if species is found harmed or killed, it should go on his life record so people could know what he's done


That's all right now, I want to see what people think before I go on.

1. If a person/persons is accused of violating the rights of animals, they shall be punished by the court system of the nation in which they live in.
(A) Person must be convicted by the court system of the nation.
*I. There must be pure evidence to show the offense he has done.
*II. For any searches you must have a warrant from the judge of the city it's taking place in.
*III. If evidence is found while in search, animal rights officers have full permission to arrest you for questioning.
*(B) Person has the right to a fair trial and a lawyer. They also do not have to speak of anything they do not wish.
*I. If chose to be seen by only a judge, there will be no public audience of any kind.
*II. If chose to be seen by a jury committee then there will be a jury including public audience as long a violator is over the legal age of consent.
(C) In case of hunting special species will be selected for hunting sports. In this you will only be allow to kill animals on the list and with a license during the correct season.
*I. If violator is accused of killing an animal that was not on the list, the case shall increase to murder charges.
*II. If violator is found without a license hunting animals that may/may not be on the list, person will be charged for I.A.H (Illegal Animal Hunting) and should be charged with classes to attend for a year on Animal Rights.
*II. If person is found with a license that does not belong to them and/ or it is fraudulent; person should be charged with (what would you charge for that?)
II. If person is found guilty of hunting out of season, nation shall deal to them however their court system may handle it. Though, person should be made to attend classes for hunting rights/ animal rights.

2. If violator is accused of theft of property then violator must be tended to the ways of the nation in which he/she lives in.
(A) If animal is found seriously harmed or dead the charges in the case will increase to murder and nation will deal with it they way they normally do.
*(B) As for putting a live species in danger if species is found harmed or killed, it should go on his life record so people could know what he's done


That's all right now, I want to see what people think before I go on.

*ponders it for a bit*

I think you're missing the point.

In any case, you do not define, properly, exactly what is illegal. Under the current way this is written, it sounds like a supple... er... supporting law for laws already passed. On its own, it does nothing of any real worth to this assembly and covers items that are best left in the hands of individual nations.

Have you tried first defining what animal abuse actually is?

I'm starting to think myself that I'm just wasting my time o.o

It can be frustrating.

What you first need to do is think about what actions you are making illegal. Get a list going. It may be a good idea to look through the old UN resolutions for ideas about possibly basing your proposal on one that had passed them. That's what Xen did for the Diplomat Protection Act.

Okay, I'll try that, I guess it'll be better then animals o.o
Thank you so much for all your help... I'm adding you to my dossier

Please don't base this on the UN's not-so-old animal rights resolution. It was crap.

Kay, I couldn't find one I liked so I think I'll make one on Child Support... my dad can tell me loads of things how corrupt it is.

OOC: The thing you have to remember is that you aren't dealing with the child welfare system of you-the-player's home nation, with all its good points and faults, you're dealing with thousands of different child welfare systems -- some good, some bad, most mixed -- and hundreds of nations with no trace of a welfare system at all. You need to think very carefully about what you want to do, and how it can be made to apply across all those systems and lack of systems.

That's why drafting resolutions is a long, tedious process, I'm afraid. The resolution currently at vote spent a couple of weeks being nit-picked by nations with setups that I hadn't taken into account. Sometimes it survived, sometimes large chunks had to change. It's better for all of that, that much I'm sure of.

OOC: One other thing is that, sometimes, you have to convince people to support it.

For example, look at Gobbannaen's resolution. If you look, at one point I ICly opposed it. It was during the discussion over that opposition that I came to ICly support it, since Gobbannaen made some very good points on poverty level that I, as the player, had not stopped to think about that much. Thus, support started.

In the end, you need to think big, and you may have to simply keep trying topics until you get lucky. My own Diplomat Protection Act is actually the seventh topic for a proposal; you can see the failed first on this forum if you go back far enough, and I started on several others, only to reject them quickly. Happening upon that one was mostly a result of repetitive attempts until I simply found one that worked.

I know this is a long, difficult, and frustrating process. Unfortunately, it has to be that way to keep people from submitting items that would rip apart the WA quickly. And, sometimes, people will be a little rough in how they handle you. Don't let it get to you; honestly, it's nothing personal, and the people treating you roughly now may be the ones you're allied with the next time around.

Okay, I've been working on this, and since somebody told me to make it into a form of debation, I thought this might be good
--------------------------------------------------------

Summary-
Animals, in some way, may be treated cruel and unjust.
URGING all WA Nations to enforce Animal Protection Acts.

This decree does not ban the supply demand for food (meaning any animal officaly ment for eating is allowed to be killed for the only reason of food) or does it ban the sport of hunting. Since citizens, in some nations, enjoy the sport of hunting special hunting species shall be allowed to be killed for the reason of sport.

RECONGIZING that animals are a part of this world, and they, too deserve fair treatment, just as man asks for.
__________________________________________________________________________

Illegal animal fighting may take place in nations. No matter the way the nation runs, should animals be treated this way, for humans are not made to fight to the death aginst their will.

RECONGIZING that laws being made to enforce this should help everybody in a way, either for those animal lovers or a chance to find a new cure.

This is making sure that everybody knows new laws will not endanger hunting sports or food demand in any way.

**Though, in killing a hunting species hunting laws will still have to follow, meaning, no killing out of season, since during this time is when the species re-grows, and for food deman, the killing is only allowed for special species.

Though, this UNDERSTANDS that humas come before animals meaning that nothing should be changed of the way humans NEED to live in making animals more safe in the naions.

If a nation has banned meat eating all together then the food laws do not effect you, as they only mean meat- eating.

Any animal of an endangered or protected species will not be allowed to be killed without a certian reason that is issued by the officals of the nation. If an animal of an endangered speciels or protected on eis found killed and evidence suggests that there is a person that did it and it can be proven nation should deal with the case as a normal murder, but loosen the carge to a small jail time.

If any animal if found dangrous to the human species or animal populaton (not including the circle of life, meaning that, a wolf kills a rabbit to feed itself) the animal causing the problem shall be killed to protect the species all together.

As a finial statement this decree URGES all WA Nations toenforce animal protecting for the better good of life in our nations.


I think this might be right? I'm ready for a beat down so law it on me. Right now I'm not at my normal computer, so I did not do a spell check, sorry for my stupid mistakes if you find them.

UAK (V)^_^(V)

Summary-
Animals, in some way, may be treated cruel and unjust.
URGING all WA Nations to enforce Animal Protection Acts.

This decree does not ban the supply demand for food (meaning any animal officaly ment for eating is allowed to be killed for the only reason of food) or does it ban the sport of hunting. Since citizens, in some nations, enjoy the sport of hunting special hunting species shall be allowed to be killed for the reason of sport.

RECONGIZING that animals are a part of this world, and they, too deserve fair treatment, just as man asks for.

You're going to get into heavy religious arguments with the highlighted statement. Just a fair warning.

Illegal animal fighting may take place in nations. No matter the way the nation runs, should animals be treated this way, for humans are not made to fight to the death aginst their will.

Humans fight to death against their will all the time. It's called war.

RECONGIZING that laws being made to enforce this should help everybody in a way, either for those animal lovers or a chance to find a new cure.

This is making sure that everybody knows new laws will not endanger hunting sports or food demand in any way.

**Though, in killing a hunting species hunting laws will still have to follow, meaning, no killing out of season, since during this time is when the species re-grows, and for food deman, the killing is only allowed for special species.

Though, this UNDERSTANDS that humas come before animals meaning that nothing should be changed of the way humans NEED to live in making animals more safe in the naions.

If a nation has banned meat eating all together then the food laws do not effect you, as they only mean meat- eating.

Any animal of an endangered or protected species will not be allowed to be killed without a certian reason that is issued by the officals of the nation. If an animal of an endangered speciels or protected on eis found killed and evidence suggests that there is a person that did it and it can be proven nation should deal with the case as a normal murder, but loosen the carge to a small jail time.

If any animal if found dangrous to the human species or animal populaton (not including the circle of life, meaning that, a wolf kills a rabbit to feed itself) the animal causing the problem shall be killed to protect the species all together.

As a finial statement this decree URGES all WA Nations toenforce animal protecting for the better good of life in our nations.

Needs some editting, but I'm done with what I can come up with at this moment. Mainly, most of it just needs grammar editting, as far as I can tell.