Animal Rights Bill

[skegnezz]

Greetings all.

There seems to be a lack of legislation for the protection of animals in the World Assembly (apologies if I've missed it, I did try to wade through all the resolutions thus far to make sure!).

I was wondering how many of you might support a resolution to protect domestic and wild animals by:

(1) Prohibiting cruelty and the causing of prolonged and unnecessary suffering through any wilful act; and

(2) Prohibiting the causing of suffering through negligence where the person/s concerned could reasonably be expected to act to prevent it.

Exemptions would be made in cases where nations endorse the hunting of animals as a sport or for food, but only if such methods are swift and humane (thus, not causing prolonged and unnecessary suffering).

[Silvermain]

I would definitely support this! Now if only they could implement something like this in the real world...

Just make sure you ask some older nations for help editing your proposal before you submit it to the WA. I'd hate for it to lose votes because it's not written as well as it could be.

[Cerb]

To play the devils advocate:
My people have performed a ritual hunt and sacrifice of our native creatures. The rite appears to be barbaric to those who are not part of our culture.

Would you take away my religious rights to torture animals?

________
My people have the yellow goober fever and the only way of culturing a vaccine is by strengthening the viron in pigs. The pigs inevitably catch and die from the disease which is a long torturous death. Should my people die?


When measuring world level legislation, you must consider all of the potential nations in the world. While the two examples above to not support my own views, I think they are legitimate arguments that could hamper the passage of such legislation without careful wording.

[skegnezz]

Yes I see those points.

Since my proposal is/would be aimed largely at preventing senseless suffering (e.g. the sadist who simply likes hurting animals, the negligent pet owner who lets his pet die because he can't be bothered to look after it properly), I think perhaps a clause could be added to the effect that each member Government is free to enforce its own exemptions to this law so long as it can show that they are on religious and/or medical and/or any other such grounds (open to suggestions).

Do you think that might appease those who may hold the views you mentioned?

[Cerb]

I think it may well do so. Such a measure will reduce it's impact but such is the way of much worldwide legislation.

[Smugglers and Mercs]

i'd support this too.

[Guy]

Well, then it's time to get drafting! Post an initial draft at the GA board on the NS forums, and you'll get advice from veteran resolution-writers. Personally, I'm not good at writing resolutions, but there may be someone willing to help you in the region.

[Coltonians]

I would support it if and only if it excluded food processing plants. It is somethimes more efficient and cheap to do it the inhumane way.

[skegnezz]

I was really aiming the resolution at the needless (i.e. inflicted for no reason at all, or animals being neglected when those in charge of them should know better) suffering of animals over a prolonged period of time. I guess in food processing plants the methods would at least be quick?

I'll start drafting anyway

[Dragon Heirs]

Jun 5, 2010 11:07:37 GMT -5 Coltonians said:

I would support it if and only if it excluded food processing plants. It is somethimes more efficient and cheap to do it the inhumane way.

I don't agree with this. Profit is a poor excuse for treading on rights of any kind.

@skegnezz: No, such methods are not quick. They last the entirety of the animal's lifetime.