Prohibiting Animal Abuse

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Losthaven

Description: The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Recognizing that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing stress, fear, and pain;

Convinced that there is no just cause for intentionally abusing an animal, and that animals should be cared for in ways that support a healthy life free from suffering;

Resolved that animal abuse is utterly unjustifiable and should be universally condemned and prohibited;

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby enacts the following provisions, subject to the rules and laws set by earlier WA resolutions that are still in force:

1. Defines an "animal" for the purposes of this resolution as any non-person species of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish.

2. Prohibits the intentional abuse of animals, including:

• causing an animal serious and debilitating bodily disfigurement;
  
• inflicting physical trauma or intense pain on an animal;
  
• recklessly abandoning an animal or otherwise placing the animal at grave risk of death, injury, disfigurement or disease;
  
• torturing an animal;
  
• sexually assaulting an animal; and
  
• maliciously or cruelly killing an animal;
  

3. Clarifies that the following acts do not constitute abuse and are not prohibited by this resolution:

• acts of veterinary medicine - including the acts of a licensed veterinarian taken in the course of caring for an animal, emergency aid provided to an animal in distress, and any other acts based on sound veterinary science;
  
• animal research that is conducted for a legitimate scientific purpose and does not needlessly inflict pain or suffering;
  
• butchering, slaughtering, or killing an animal for food or other consumption, so long as the methods used are not cruel and the animal is killed as swiftly and painlessly as possible;
  
• acts of pest control, including any reasonable method of dealing with pests that is not unnecessarily cruel,
  
• the employment of properly trained animals in potentially dangerous situations or occupations - such as law enforcement animals, guard dogs, war horses, and other service animals - so long as the animal is adequately handled for use in such situations and the intent is to avoid harm to the animal,
  
• acts based on the science of animal breeding and appropriate care;
  

4. Outlaws the use of animals in fighting sports, or any other exhibition where the purpose, theme, or substance of the exhibition endangers the long term health and safety of the animal;

5. Requires that any person who keeps an animal - whether commercially, as a pet, or for any other purpose - must provide that animal with reasonable and appropriate care, including:

• food of appropriate quantity and quality to keep the animal healthy,
  
• access to a sufficient quantity of clean water to satisfy the animal's needs,
  
• sufficient space for exercise as necessary for the health of the animal,
  
• regular maintenance of the animal's space to keep it reasonably free of debris, waste, and disease, if the animal is kept in an enclosure,
  
• shelter, refuge, or other appropriate protective barriers that supply reasonable protection from weather and injury, and
  
• adequate personal attention and care necessary to keep the animal free from distress, injury, neglect and disease;
  

6. Further requires that any person who keeps an animal must, to the best of their means and ability, provide the animal with access to professional veterinary care deemed necessary to relieve the animal from distress, injury, neglect or disease.

This is the discussion thread. For voting, please click here.

Advisory Opinion:
This proposal attempts to address national concerns on the international stage. As one concerned ambassador noted: "It is rather unbelievable that anyone wants the WA to get involved in how often people change their cat's kitty litter." Another person expressed how "Losthaven's morals are not [their] morals [and] are not the entire world's morals". Although it is seemingly well-written, this proposal does not belong in the World Assembly.

Advisory Vote: Nay

A Lovely Insane Sòlda Mèt 

Sòlda Mèt of the South Pacific Special Forces
Former World Assembly Advisor

(This post was last modified: 07-11-2015, 05:38 PM by LEWDUN of Amereian state.)

Reply

[On the contrary, Alisa, I think that this issue is worthy of being discussed on a global platform.]
[//run.NatOpinion.exe//]
[All living things are worthy of being treated with dignity and respect, not necessarily just for the sake of domestic animals, but for all.]
[//run.Conclude.exe//]
[Setting an example that life is sacred and not to be trifled with is worthy of being set into motion.]

Reply

Oh, the WA; priorities at their finest.

Also, as Alisa said, this is a clear violation of national sovereignty based on a matter that does not directly affect nor endanger other nations at all. If you want this set of rules, you are more than welcome to implement them on your own nation and constitution, but don't impose it on other sovereign lands.

---

---

---

<33

Reply

I'm not keen on the commentary added to the voting options thread for this motion. It's one thing to debate it here and express opinions but if we're going to have a voting thread that should be neutral. As it was I voted on Aye but by doing so accepted a commentary that I feel misrepresents my position.

(This post was last modified: 07-11-2015, 07:19 PM by Overseer Staedtler.)

Reply

I'm not keen on the commentary added to the voting options thread for this motion. It's one thing to debate it here and express opinions but if we're going to have a voting thread that should be neutral. As it was I voted on Aye but by doing so accepted a commentary that I feel misrepresents my position.

Noted for next time. Perhaps I shall put "cheese" for all three options. :wink:

A Lovely Insane Sòlda Mèt 

Sòlda Mèt of the South Pacific Special Forces
Former World Assembly Advisor

Reply

I'm not keen on the commentary added to the voting options thread for this motion. It's one thing to debate it here and express opinions but if we're going to have a voting thread that should be neutral. As it was I voted on Aye but by doing so accepted a commentary that I feel misrepresents my position.

Noted for next time. Perhaps I shall put "cheese" for all three options. :wink:

A sensible solution. :hehe!:

Reply