[Draft] Animal Rights Act

Eyes that do not Lie

Eyes that do not Lie

TNPer
Draft no. 4:
Animal Rights Act
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant​

The World Assembly,

Considering that the promotion of animal welfare requires collective action inasmuch as animals and the products they provide travel all across member nations,

Recognizing that animals are sentient beings,

Further recognizing that their well-being is an issue of international import because the services, products and companionship animals offer are an asset to all member nations and therefore all member states bear a moral responsibility,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, animal as an animated being endowed with the ability to experience pain and to move of its own accord, excluding humans and those animals who are limited in those abilities as a result of their physiology;

2. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, mistreatment as inflicting pain or injury or impairing healthiness or well-being;

3. Prohibits the mistreatment of any animal without reasonable goal or with exceedance of that which is allowable in order to achieve said goal;

4. Requires that all owners and caretakers of animals provide said animals, in order to ensure the well-being of said animals, with:

a. medical care if deemed necessary by a licensed veterinary expert,

b. adequate amounts of healthy food and water,

c. reasonable protection from unnecessary suffering caused by other animals, and

d. reasonably comfortable, clean and adequate living space;

5. Prohibits the premeditated killing of any animal that has an owner, with the consent of said owner, excluding:

a. euthanasia with the consent of a licensed veterinary expert, and

b. killing for the commercial production of animal products.

6. Encourages all member states to strive for having any animal that has an owner be free from hunger, thirst and improper nutrition, both physical and physiological discommodity, pain, injury and diseases, fear and chronic stress, and restriction of their natural behavior.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there are some improvements to be made here, so I'm looking forward to your feedback. :)

Animal Rights Act
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant​

The World Assembly,

Considering the silence around animal rights in its current legislation,

Further considering that the promotion of animal welfare requires collective action,

Recognizing that animals are sentient beings and that their well-being is an issue of import for all member states,

Hereby:

1. Defines mistreatment as inflicting pain or injury or impairing healthiness or well-being.

2. Prohibits the mistreatment, either directly or remotely, of any animal without reasonable goal or with exceedance of that which is allowable in order to achieve said goal;

3. Requires that all owners and caretakers of animals provide said animals, in order to ensure the healthiness and advance the welfare of said animals, with:

a. medical care if deemed necessary by a licensed veterinary expert,

b. healthy food and water in adequate amounts,

c. a reasonable protection from unnecessary suffering caused by other persons and animals, and

d. a reasonable comfortable and clean and adequately sized living space;

4. Prohibits the premeditated killing of any animal that has an owner, excluding:

a. euthanasia with the consent of a licensed veterinary expert and the owner of the animal, and

b. killing for the commercial production of animal products with the consent of the owner of the animal;

5. Encourages all member states to strive for having all animals be free from hunger, thirst and improper nutrition, both physical and physiological discommodity, pain, injury and diseases, fear and chronic stress, and restriction of their natural behavior.
Click to expand...
Draft no. 2:
Animal Rights Act
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant​

The World Assembly,

Considering the silence around animal rights in its current legislation,

Further considering that the promotion of animal welfare requires collective action,

Recognizing that animals are sentient beings and that their well-being is an issue of import for all member states,

Hereby:

1. Defines mistreatment as inflicting pain or injury or impairing healthiness or well-being.

2. Prohibits the mistreatment, either directly or remotely, of any animal without reasonable goal or with exceedance of that which is allowable in order to achieve said goal;

3. Requires that all owners and caretakers of animals provide said animals, in order to ensure the healthiness and advance the welfare of said animals, with:

a. medical care if deemed necessary by a licensed veterinary expert,

b. healthy food and water in adequate amounts,

c. a reasonable protection from unnecessary suffering caused by other persons and animals, and

d. a reasonable comfortable and clean and adequately sized living space;

4. Prohibits the murdering of any animal that has an owner, excluding euthanasia with the consent of a licensed veterinary expert, and killing for the commmercial production of animal products;

5. Encourages all member states to strive for having all animals be free from hunger, thirst and improper nutrition, both physical and physiological discommodity, pain, injury and diseases, fear and chronic stress, and restriction of their natural behavior.
Click to expand...
Animal Rights Act
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant​

The World Assembly,

Considering the silence around animal rights in its current legislation,

Further considering that the promotion of animal welfare requires collective action,

Recognizing that animals are sentient beings and that their well-being is an issue of import for all member states,

Hereby:

1. Defines mistreatment as inflicting pain or injury or impairing healthiness or well-being;

2. Prohibits the mistreatment, either directly or remotely, of any animal without reasonable goal or with exceedance of that which is allowable in order to achieve said goal;

3. Requires that all owners or by the owner appointed caretakers of one or multiple animals provide said animals, by holding said owners and/or caretakers legally responsible, in order to ensure the healthiness and advance the welfare of said animals, with:

a. medical care if deemed necessary by a licensed veterinary expert,

b. healthy food and water in adequate amounts,

c. a reasonable protection from unnecessary suffering caused by other persons and animals, and

d. a reasonable comfortable and clean and adequately sized living space;

4. Prohibits the killing of any animal that has an owner, excluding euthanasia with the consent of a licensed veterinary expert, and killing for the commmercial production of animal products;

5. Encourages all member states to strive for having any animal free from hunger, thirst and improper nutrition, both physical and physiologic discommodity, pain, injury and diseases, fear and chronic stress, and restriction of their natural behavior.
Click to expand...
 
My biggest issue with the proposal is this line:

"by the owner appointed..."

I think you could reword that phrase , and probably the whole line itself, to read a bit better.

Not sure if you saw the controversy over the last animal rights resolutions the GA debated, they got hung up over the concepts of sentience/sapience, and the fact that this would restrict animal testing even for medicine and good causes. If you are trying to stop animal testing entirely then obviously this is not a concern for you, but that could sink this proposal. I think the clause about taking reasonable care covers this, but it was enough of a debate that it led to a repeal.

I would have definitions of those terms ready to go, but I don't necessarily think they have to be included.
 
Pallaith:
My biggest issue with the proposal is this line:
"by the owner appointed..."
Click to expand...
I don't see a problem with this specific phrase content-wise, but I think I can get rid of 'by the owner appointed'; it's quite unnecessary. GA#145 Animal Cruelty Prevention used 'owners, overseers and caretakers'. I think that is clearer though overseers might be redundant. I'll change it to owners and caretakers.
Pallaith:
I think you could reword that phrase , and probably the whole line itself, to read a bit better.
Click to expand...
I don't really see a good way to reword it. However I can make it less verbose by leaving out 'by holding said owners and/or caretakers legally responsible'. Also I'll remove 'one or multiple'. Not sure though if that makes correct English.
Yalkan:
Don't like 4th clause. What about self defense or accidents.
Click to expand...
I think I can solve this problem by changing 'killing' to 'murdering'. Because murder is the killing of another human without justification or valid excuse and with premeditation. And, in the case of both self-defense and an accident, there is no premeditation involved. (I know this is RL law and concerns humans, so it's not right to apply this here, but I think my point still stands.)
 
Would you be opposed to sharing this with the other members of WALL? We can bring it to that Discord.
 
Can you provide an example of a "reasonable goal" as described in Clause 2? As a pet owner, I can't think of any reason or circumstance to condone the mistreatment of an animal. I think the rest of it looks good though.

Although, I might recommend a small change to clause 5, to read:
5. Encourages all member states to strive for having any all animals be free from hunger, thirst and improper nutrition, both physical and physiological discommodity, pain, injury and diseases, fear and chronic stress, and restriction of their natural behavior.
 
Sil Dorsett:
Can you provide an example of a "reasonable goal" as described in Clause 2? As a pet owner, I can't think of any reason or circumstance to condone the mistreatment of an animal. I think the rest of it looks good though.

Although, I might recommend a small change to clause 5, to read:
5. Encourages all member states to strive for having any all animals be free from hunger, thirst and improper nutrition, both physical and physiological discommodity, pain, injury and diseases, fear and chronic stress, and restriction of their natural behavior.
Click to expand...
Animal testing is an example, already referenced earlier in this thread, of a reasonable goal. So is putting an animal under the knife in order to smoothen the process of a delivery.

As for the changes in clause 5, my understanding of the English language is insufficient to assess whether your version is an improvement, so I'm going to assume that you're right.
 
Eyes that do not lie::
Animal testing is an example, already referenced earlier in this thread, of a reasonable goal. So is putting an animal under the knife in order to smoothen the process of a delivery.

As for the changes in clause 5, my understanding of the English language is insufficient to assess whether your version is an improvement, so I'm going to assume that you're right.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification on reasonable goals. I withdraw my objection to that clause.

For clause 5, my intent wasn't a grammatical correction. I think both versions are fine. Only grammatical question would be "physiologic" versus "physiological," which I would need another opinion on. I did get "exalt" and "exult" wrong after all.

I was trying to raise the goal from "any animal," which would technically be satisfied after accomplishing the goal for one animal, to "all animals," which, although it may never be fully accomplished, would keep nations working on that goal, improving the lives of as many animals as each nation can. It is up to you which version of the clause to include. I would support it either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top