Welcome to the Federation of Democratic Republics!
 
HomeRegisterLog in
ANNOUNCEMENT: Federation of Democratic Republics is now closed effective immediately

Share | 
 

 Animal Protection Act

View previous topic View next topic Go down 

VOTE
FOR
50%
 50% [ 1 ]
AGAINST
50%
 50% [ 1 ]
ABSTAIN
0%
 0% [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 2
 

AuthorMessage
Kingsley Bedford
Admin


Posts : 108
Join date : 2012-03-24
Age : 25
Location : Perth, Australia

PostSubject: Animal Protection Act   Thu Nov 29 2012, 04:52

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


Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Ilstoria

Description: URGING the WA to recognize that animals kept as property by people must be provided with protections as a moral responsibility;

REALIZING the importance of animals as food, clothing and medical resources that are imported and exported internationally and would thus require an international effort to prevent cruelty;

UNDERSTANDING that populations of animals sometimes require the intervention of people to prevent population growth or harm that is detrimental to the animal, environment and people, and allowing for such actions if all reasonable actions are taken to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering.

LIMITS animals in this resolution to beings that possess the scientifically demonstrated ability to feel and experience pain. Animals unable to feel pain as a result of their physiology are exempt.

LIMITS restrictions on interactions between people and animals in this resolution to include only all forms of domesticity, including farming and animal testing industries. Wild animals are exempt from this resolution as they are not a legal responsibility of owners.

DEFINES unnecessary as able to be reasonably avoided; While some industry, such as the meat industry, or fur industry, require that an animal be killed in order to create a product, which will necessitate brief pain, it is considered unavoidable. Similarly, prolonging the death of an animal because it is more cost effective is avoidable, so long as an alternative is economically feasible for that nation.

DEFINES pain and suffering as the unpleasant sensory experience associated with actual tissue damage and lasting unpleasant sensory experience as a result of prior tissue damage. Tissue damage inflicted under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian and with the use of anaesthetics to reduce or eliminate pain is reasonable.

DEFINES owners as any person who has purchased an animal or its descendants and/or has provided food or shelter or medical care to an animal on that person’s property for more than 31 days.

PROVIDES animals with the right to safety, reasonable quality of life and freedom from torture through holding owners legally responsible by:

1. PROHIBITING the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on any animal by any person either directly or remotely.

2. ENCOURAGING that domestic animals kept outside of an individual’s living space be provided with an environment that as closely resembles its natural habitat as is possible; one example would be “free range.”

3. REQUIRING that individuals or a group that possess legal rights under its nation’s law to an animal provide reasonable protection from harm by other animals and persons.

4. FORBIDDING forms of entertainment that require or involve the infliction of pain or suffering on animals,

5. ESTABLISHES the Protection of Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) that will meet annually at the WAHQ or another suitably neutral site to create and edit a list of feeling species protected under this legislation and determines whether an action is necessary or reasonable if national governments are unable to reach a decision.


Last edited by Kingsley Bedford on Fri Nov 30 2012, 01:11; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://feddemocraticrepub.forumotion.com
shul



Posts : 43
Join date : 2012-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Animal Protection Act   Thu Nov 29 2012, 17:04

Is there a reason there are three options rather than two?

Repeal doesn't seem to fit' as the measure has not yet been enacted. Since both reject and repeal could both be used to express disapproval in the measure. At this point, with only 2 people voting, it may not seem significant, but if the region population or voting participation increases this structure could make it appear that one view has a majority it truly doesn't.
Back to top Go down
Kingsley Bedford
Admin


Posts : 108
Join date : 2012-03-24
Age : 25
Location : Perth, Australia

PostSubject: Re: Animal Protection Act   Fri Nov 30 2012, 01:10

That should say abstain

My mistake.
Back to top Go down
http://feddemocraticrepub.forumotion.com
shul



Posts : 43
Join date : 2012-03-26

PostSubject: Re: Animal Protection Act   Fri Nov 30 2012, 02:06

Ah. I'm surprised that I didn't think of that. It seems like every other measure is a vote repealing a previous one. I thought maybe you were getting a head start. I also recently read a few articles about election and strategies and it just struck me as curious.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Animal Protection Act   

Back to top Go down
 
Animal Protection Act
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Stop Animal Abuse Club
» Animal ID code not working?
» HELP BABV zoo animal
» Exotic Animal
» Animal Crossing is from hell

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Federation of Democratic Republics :: Regional Government and Politics :: Office of the World Assembly Delegate-
Jump to: