Animal Rights and Animal Cruelty Act



  • Animal Rights and Cruelty Act of 2014

    Author and presenter: Manfred Schnoor

    Article I: Purposes and Definitions

    Section I:

    This act aims to help establish basic rights of animals throughout the European Union, as well as to stomp out the harsh cruelty of animals which exists.

    Section II:

    For the purposes of this act, we define the following terms as;

    (i) Animal: a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

    (ii) Animal Cruelty: the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity fornormal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death.

    (iii) Basic Needs: The needs of all multi-celled organisms, food, water, and proper shelter

    Section III:

    Nothing in this act shall prohibit member states of the European Union from taking harsher action against the acts mentioned in this act. In fact, this act encourages member states to take harsher action against animal cruelty.

    Article II: Rights of Animals

    Section I:
    Member states are to hereby recognize the following rights for animals, and are to instruct the law enforcement agency they decide on to enforce these rights.

    (i) Each animal that is owned and care for by a person or group of persons has the right to an environment suited to their needs.

    (ii) Has the right to a proper shelter if kept outdoors, which must be able to properly defend the animal(s) from the elements. This shelter must also not be overly crowded to a point it affects the animals health. This is one of the main basic needs of animals.

    (iii) Has the right to a proper amount of food and water which can keep the animal at a healthy weight. This is one of the main basic needs of animals.

    (iv) Has the right to receive checkups and other medical needs by a veterinarian.

    (v) If being transported, and an animal has specific needs for it to survive, the owner(s) shall work to their hardest to make sure the animal has all its needs to properly survive the trip and be in the same healthy state, or the animal will not be transported.

    (vi) If an animal is being used for entertainment, it shall not be overworked to the point that it causes psychological and physical pain. Owners shall not be permitted to let animals perform in an environment which will cause a great deal of stress and pain to the animal.

    (vii) No animal shall be used for monetary gain at the expense of its own life, or health. Examples of such acts are, but not limited to, bull fighting, cock fighting, and dog fighting.

    Section II:
    All animals of any size, shape, species, age, gender, health, or any other distinguishing factor are entitled to these rights.

    Article III: Animal Cruelty

    Section I:
    Knowing that there are many forms of animal cruelty, the European Union will establish a basic list ,which all member states can add too themselves, and will enforce with all the power that possess.

    Section II:
    Acts that will be considered animal cruelty, and will be subject to a variety of punishments will be listed as the following;

    (i) The encouraged and forced fighting of a variety of animals, either verses themselves or a human being. Human beings shall be excluded if acting in self-defense and can prove it in a court of law.

    (ii) The failure to meet the basic needs of animals

    (iii) The failure to knowingly and/or willingly deny an animal the rights listed in this act

    (iv) The a cruel slaughter committed purposefully, such as slitting an animal?s throat with a saw blade, using a bolt gun to slowly bleed out the animal, and/or beginning the processing with the animal still alive in some fashion.

    (v) Purposefully leaving an animal in a horrid environment as to increase ones monetary gain through less costs.

    (vi) The purposeful beating, burning, choking/suffocating, drowning, hanging, hoarding, kicking, torture/mutilation, neglect/abandonment, poisoning, shooting, stabbing, throwing, smuggling, vehicular (i.e. dragging animal behind a vehicle) of an animal.

    (vii) The euthanasia of an animal without giving proper time for an owner to retrieve said animal and/or fight the action in a court of law. Any animal shall be given a psychological evaluation by an expert who will deem the animal fit to rehabilitate or not

    Section III:

    (i) The punishments for said actions will not be any less than one year, or a fine of up to 10,000 Euros or any amount equal to 10,000 Euros.

    (ii) Member states do have the right to set higher minimum sentences, higher fines, the treatment of the rescued animals by law enforcement assigned to deal with these cases, and any other standards member states believe relates to this Act but is not specifically listed.

    Article IV: Enforcement

    Section I:
    Member states have six months to bring all laws into harmony of this act, any nation which does not harmonize this act into national law may be tried in the European Court of Justice appropriately


    Debate Phase lasts until: September 3nd, 2:27 AM, GMT
    Amendment Phase lasts until: September 5th, 2:27 AM, GMT
    Voting lasts until: September 8th, 2:27 AM GMT


  • Mass Effect RP

    Though we appreciate some of our party colleagues may have issues with certain elements of the bill, most notably Article II, Section II, part (vii), we feel this is an excellent starting point for legislation that has been conspicuous by its absence in this Union. As I said, there may be some problems with the bill that need to be addressed, but we're determined to see a bill that adequately protects the rights of our animal friends pass this chamber. I will present a more detailed response to the bill in due course.

    John Walters



  • Although I agree with the spirit of this proposition, I think it should make distinctions about domestic and wild animals and about animals which are slaughtered to be sold as meat.

    Gabriela Espinosa
    European Council Delegate



  • QUOTE

    (vii) No animal shall be used for monetary gain at the expense of its own life, or health. Examples of such acts are, but not limited to, bull fighting, cock fighting, and dog fighting.

    Does this include that we cannot kill an animal for the meat? because if so I have a big problem because of it. Our lord and savior -the flying spaghettimonster- has meatballs if we cannot make meatballs this means we cannot practice our religion fully and it would take our freedom to religion away



  • I can see a number of problems with this piece of legislation. Firstly, it appears as though the definition of 'animal' could incorporate fish and crustaceans, which is problematic for reasons I'll explain later. I agree, also, with my Northern Caesarean colleague, who points out that a clear division between wild animals, domestic pets, and livestock needs to be made. The main point I would like to make, however, is the number of things this piece of legislation seems to unintentionally, or possibly intentionally, ban. They are hunting (shooting, encouraging animals to fight other animals), shooting (take a wild guess), whips in horse racing (beating), horse or greyhound racing in general (stress, monetary gain at the expense of health), spaying or neutering (mutilation), declawing (mutilation again), certain forms of kosher or halal meat ('cruel slaughter'), foie gras (monetary gain at the expense of health), perhaps the entire meat industry (monetary gain at the expense of life), fishing with a hook (stabbing, suffocating), live boiling of crustaceans (processing while the animal's still alive), the use of rat poison (again, take a wild guess), and most uses of work animals (monetary gain at expense of health, stress). And then there's the ban on 'hoarding' animals, which makes absolutely no sense to me, and the

    And, of course, it explicitly bans bullfighting, cockfighting, and dog fighting. I don't believe any of these things need banning at the European level. There is much to be said for an Act that deals with animal rights regarding cross-border matters - smuggling, transportation, quarantine, livestock imports and exports, and so on - but this goes far, far beyond what should be Europolis' business, even ignoring the unintended consequences. In any case, I'd very strongly suggest that those who do support the spirit of this legislation amend it to sort the basic flaws out, anyway.



  • QUOTE

    Although I agree with the spirit of this proposition, I think it should make distinctions about domestic and wild animals and about animals which are slaughtered to be sold as meat.

    Gabriela Espinosa
    European Council Delegate

    I believe distinctions would be unneeded to say the least, even animals which are meant for our dinner tables have the right to a basic environment which suits their needs. May not suit the needs of corporations, but I believe this something we need.

    QUOTE

    QUOTE

    (vii) No animal shall be used for monetary gain at the expense of its own life, or health. Examples of such acts are, but not limited to, bull fighting, cock fighting, and dog fighting.

    Does this include that we cannot kill an animal for the meat? because if so I have a big problem because of it. Our lord and savior -the flying spaghettimonster- has meatballs if we cannot make meatballs this means we cannot practice our religion fully and it would take our freedom to religion away

    After some review, the section may be interpreted as a ban on meat being sold in public. So I propose the following amendment.

    QUOTE

    (vii) No animal shall be used for monetary gain at the expense of its own life, or health. Examples of such acts are, but not limited to, bull fighting, cock fighting, and dog fighting.

    (a) This section may not be interpreted as a ban on meat being sold in public markets, though the cruel slaughter of animals shall be prohibited.


  • ECoJ

    "As expressed by some councillors already, I do appreciate the core purpose of this bill. Banninh hunting, hose whips, horse racing and the beloved foie gras, however, isn't the solution. There is, as already said by my Angletarian colleague, no need in banning these practices. This act has to be amended A LOT in order to make it acceptable for Inimicus to favour it. The concept, however, is interesting and necesarry to talk about."

    Ralph Jaevons



  • I understand the worries of my colleagues from Angleter and Inimicus and present the following amendments.

    QUOTE

    Article III: Section II;(vi) The purposeful beating, burning, choking/suffocating, drowning, hanging, hoarding, kicking, torture/mutilation, neglect/abandonment, poisoning, shooting, stabbing, throwing, smuggling, vehicular (i.e. dragging animal behind a vehicle) of an animal.

    (a) For the purposes of this act, hunting laws shall be considered exempt from this section and are under the jurisdiction of member states. Hunting animals, such as dog, provided it against wild animals as defined by each member state shall be allowed to hunt other animals.

    (b)Poisoning in order to remove animals which are classified as pests, such as rats, provided they are not pets of the owners shall be exempt. The poisons allowed and the definition of pests shall be allowed to the member states. Though the definitions shall limited to small animals which may reproduce quickly.

    (c) Fishing shall be exempt from this act.

    (d)Mutilations such as neutering, declawing, and spraying shall be exempt from this act, along with other mutilations which serve to help the animal in the end and/or protect the well fair of humans who treat the animal properly. Whipping in horse racing shall be discouraged, but is exempt from this act.

    QUOTE

    Article II: Section I; (vi) If an animal is being used for entertainment, it shall not be overworked to the point that it causes psychological and physical pain. Owners shall not be permitted to let animals perform in an environment which will cause a great deal of stress and pain to the animal.

    (a)Events such as horse racing, provided they do not intend to incite violence between people and animals shall be exempt from this act.

    (b)While acknowledging that all work results in some psychological or psychical pain to an animal, owners must work their best to limit this pain or risk the punishments mentioned in this act or punishments set by the member states.

    QUOTE

    Article III: Section II; (iv) The a cruel slaughter committed purposefully, such as slitting an animal?s throat with a saw blade, using a bolt gun to slowly bleed out the animal, and/or beginning the processing with the animal still alive in some fashion.Certain actions shall be exempt from this act, such as the boiling of lobsters, though member states shall hale the right to decide what these actions are. These actions shall be limited as much as possible, and must have a good case for their exemption.

    As for hoarding animals, it makes entire sense! You can not simply through dozens of horses into a barn designed for over five can you? No! It's inhumane and because of that must be banned.



  • This is pretty much the nail on the head for us as a Nation. Icholasen prides itself in its treatment of animals. We do wish to look into the changes IPS has offered and will strongly consider voting for this bill.

    Pamela Winchell



  • On behalf of the government of Miraco, I wish to applaud the Prussian councillor for putting out such a bill and wish to fully show our support for the discussion of what the EU can do to promote animal rights. That being said I wish to concur with the points raised by my counterpart from Angleter as well as express support for the amendments put forth thus far.


  • Moderator

    I think it's about time we have finally enacted laws to protect animals from abuse and from harm. I applaud you for your hard work, Mr. Schnoor. However, this bill seems to be very broad. I'm starting to lose count of how many exceptions we plan to add to this. Some of the amendments are also potentially contradictory.

    Before I even begin, I think we should define "cruel slaughter".

    QUOTE

    Article I; Section II; (iv) Cruel slaughter: The slaughter of an animal in an inappropriate, and unconventional method with the intention of causing pain

    That could clear up any other issues I'm just about to discuss, such as slaughters that are performed in specifically religious of cultural methods.

    As the Angleteric Councillor pointed out, this act would essentially ban the practice of halal, one of the five sacred commandments of Islam. Halal practice, especially concerning meat, usually involves the slitting of an animal's throat and the draining of it's blood. I don't think your 2nd amendment covers all the holes.

    QUOTE

    Article III: Section II; (iv) The a cruel slaughter committed purposefully, such as slitting an animal?s throat with a saw blade, using a bolt gun to slowly bleed out the animal, and/or beginning the processing with the animal still alive in some fashion.Certain actions shall be exempt from this act, such as the boiling of lobsters, though member states shall hale the right to decide what these actions are. These actions shall be limited as much as possible, and must have a good case for their exemption.

    Is halal practice interpreted as a "good" cases for exemption? Also, what are these other certain actions? I'm sure boiling a lobster is most cruel to the animal, so if that is allowed, what about boiling any other live animals? I propose this amendment replaces that clause instead:

    QUOTE

    Article III: Section II; (iv) The act of cruel and unusual slaughter committed purposefully to maximise the harm to the animal.

    This amendment, along with my given definition, would cover all the holes without all the flimsy exceptions. So unless the animal isn't being slaughtered in an unconventional or cruel way (as defined by the term), then it should be allowed to slaughtered.

    Article II; Section I; iv should also be reworked. Instead of your amendment, I have another.

    QUOTE

    Article II; Section I (vii) No animal shall be used for public entertainment at the expense of its own life, or health. Examples of such acts are, but not limited to, bull fighting, cock fighting, and dog fighting.

    Again, it would save us from having to make our own interpretations and it would clearly allow animals to be sold while still making acts such as dog fighting illegal.

    Edward Firoux



  • I find this amendment in good spirit and gladly support them.



  • After some thought, I have decided to withdraw the bill from the council floor.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NS European Union was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.