Repeal "Prohibiting Animal Abuse"

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Proposal: GA#335 | Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #335: Prohibiting Animal Abuse (Category: Moral Decency; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Applauding the World Assembly’s stance on the paternal and protectively patronising treatment of animals,

Bemoaning the inherent problems and uncaught exceptions of large overreaching legislation, not matter the author, and,

Believing that the provisions set forth in this resolution are too broad and in the end, self-destructive of animal and sapient rights,

This august World Assembly;

1. Objects to the current state of affairs, where sapient beings are not given the same overarching protections as non-sapient animals;
   
   
   
2. Protests against the whiff of moral supremacy in the resolution, deciding the morals and requirements of all nations based on the morality of a subset of World Assembly members, thereby committing a crime against cultural diversity in preventing cultures from exercising their religious and societal traditions;
   
   
   
3. Considers that the resolution's prohibition of self-defence against animals as harmful to sentient populations, since:
   
   
   1. the killing of an animal which is attacking a person would clearly be an intentional actions which inflicts physical trauma or intense pain on an animal,
      
      
      
   2. this is not itself not excepted in clause (3), the clause which contains exceptions placed there to appease certain outspoken members of the World Assembly,
      
      
      
   3. and thus, prohibits the killing of an animal in the case of an attack;
   
   
4. Chuckles at the imprecision of the definition of animal in this resolution, as jellyfish, a collection of microscopic species of non-person animal, are given the protections of this resolution, even when they lack a nervous system capable of feeling pain or many other types of negative stimulus;
   
   
   
5. Seriously recognises the implications of the above clause, as this would mean that the definition of animal would include all manners of species which are poisonous, invasive, or destructive to ecosystem health and hence grant the same protections to those undesirable types of animal;
   
   
   
6. Derides the doublethink necessary to state in the same resolution that (i) all abuse of sentient non-person mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, or fish should be prohibited in clause 2, (ii) unless the animal is raised for butcher, slaughter, or the killing of persons, in clause (3).b and (3).e and thus, all right;
   
   
   
7. Observes that in cases where animal reproduction or needs is not entirely understood, putting an animal in a zoological garden is illegal, since this would endanger the 'long term health and safety of the animal' in clause 4;
   
   
   
8. Hopes that this resolution is to be replaced by a more acceptable alternative without the flaws of this current resolution;
   
   
   
9. Repeals this unfortunately flawed yet well-intentioned resolution which prohibits animal abuse.

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

Advisory Opinion:
With the intention of repealing "Prohibiting Animal Abuse", this proposal addresses the many flaws that the previously-passed bill contained, such as being attempting to internationally dictate what member-states should or should not do on a national scale.

Advisory Vote: Aye

A Lovely Insane Sòlda Mèt 

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

(This post was last modified: 07-20-2015, 12:31 AM by LEWDUN of Amereian state.)

Reply

Obviously as I voted for this first time around I'm against the repeal! :tounge: While agreeing that the original legislation could have been better written I'd have preferred to have seen a proposal for superseding legislation rather than a repeal, hence by nay (or given the subject should that be 'neigh!') vote.

Reply

Obviously as I voted for this first time around I'm against the repeal!  :tounge: While agreeing that the original legislation could have been better written I'd have preferred to have seen a proposal for superseding legislation rather than a repeal, hence by nay (or given the subject should that be 'neigh!') vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think one can write another proposal addressing the same issues without repealing the first?

A Lovely Insane Sòlda Mèt 

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

Reply

Obviously as I voted for this first time around I'm against the repeal!  :tounge: While agreeing that the original legislation could have been better written I'd have preferred to have seen a proposal for superseding legislation rather than a repeal, hence by nay (or given the subject should that be 'neigh!') vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think one can write another proposal addressing the same issues without repealing the first?

I believe you're correct on that. I voted Nay on this because the legislation in question was passed not 2 weeks ago and I don't think proposals should be passed and insta-repealed like this.

Reply