At Vote: Repeal Animal Protection Act [Complete] [Complete]

[mcmasterdonia]

Vote Aye Nay or Abstain

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #228: Animal Protection Act (Category: Moral Decency; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly:

Accepting the noble intent inherent to GA#228, to protect animals,

Deploring however, that GA#228 is subject to many flaws and errors which make it more difficult to achieve many of the goals set out in the resolution itself,

Understanding that the restrictive definition of pain in GA#228 does little to limit suffering nor does it prohibit non-painful forms of abuse,

Noting that the long periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are a detriment to the protection it is intended to provide,

Trusting that certain forms of entertainment involving the well regulated use of animals should be legal, and regretting that this act makes such activities a crime,

Disagreeing that ownership of and responsibility for an animal should be acquired with any animal that any person attempts to care for even temporarily,

Regretting that this resolution's many flaws are a hindrance to the members of the World Assembly, rather than a boon,

Hereby repeals GA# 228, the "Animal Protection Act".

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Review By the WA Ministry

It is important for all those who are new to the General Assembly to note that this proposal is a repeal of previous legislation. As such, the only effect it will have is to cancel out the legislation that it seeks to repeal should it pass. The legislation in question is GAR #228 Animal Protection Act. There are two schools of thought regarding repeals: those who believe that the text of a repeal is irrelevant since all that matters is that it repeals its target, and those who acknowledge that while this may be the only effect that is felt, there is still a certain level of quality that must be met for a repeal to merit passing. As such this review will cover both of these perspectives.

From the standpoint of the first option, one does not need to read the repeal at all in order to determine how to vote. If one disagreed with the resolution on its passing, or finds it disagreeable for any reason, and you fall into the first school of thought, by all means vote for. If one agreed with the resolution on its passing, or simply does not want it repealed, vote against.

Now to examine the content of the repeal.

The repeal is based upon four arguments, to be analyzed below:

Understanding that the restrictive definition of pain in GA#228 does little to limit suffering nor does it prohibit non-painful forms of abuse,

This is certainly a point to consider. The original resolution defines pain to include only tissue damage, meaning any kind of emotional or psychological abuse inflicted upon animals is left out.

Noting that the long periods of time between PAWS Committee meetings are a detriment to the protection it is intended to provide,

This is open to debate. A one year gap between meetings is a considerably long time, although the author could argue that the gaps are necessary to gather data. Conversely, data could be relayed in as it is gathered to more frequent meetings.

Trusting that certain forms of entertainment involving the well regulated use of animals should be legal, and regretting that this act makes such activities a crime,

This is a line in the proposal which could have used greater detail. It is referring to the following operative clause of the APA 4. FORBIDDING forms of entertainment that require or involve the infliction of pain or suffering on animals,. The problem is that it is not made clear in the resolution what the author is referring to in terms of entertainment, although one could assume it is events such as bullfighting or cockfighting. This is a values question for each individual to answer, are these activities wrong and should the WA restrict them?

Disagreeing that ownership of and responsibility for an animal should be acquired with any animal that any person attempts to care for even temporarily,

The 31 day ownership line that the resolution imposes might very well discourage individuals from taking in animals on a temporary basis, so there is a solid logic behind this clause.

Ultimately there are problems with the APA, that much is relatively clear. The repeal touches upon a few of these issues, however how severe the problems are is difficult to measure. Nations should take the overall balance of the resolution into consideration and make a judgment based upon the above outline of the arguments when casting their vote.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

This is now at vote

This resolution is currently up for vote in the WA.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below.

 

[Cove]

Against.

 

[Lord Byron]

Against

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Lodged a vote of against.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.