08-25-2005, 06:39 PM
I'm still fiercely for the repeal, also because I never supported the dolphin resolution in the first place.
Okay, first the argument that dolphins are intelligent. I think that's not an argument. An animal is an animal, a living being, and that alone should mean that it has to be treated well.
Secondly, the repeal text. It's not how I would have written it, and I have in fact telegrammed with the author of the repeal explaining why I couldn't support his repeal. However, now that it's hit the floor, the possibility of repealing the dolphin resolution is more important to me than the argument, which has no influence on future resolutions.
As for protecting animals, there are several proposals in queue of which one has already reached quorum and will be up next, outlining protection of species, a UN agency to oversee that and most importantly, sanctions against countries violating the rules. Exactly what we need.
By supporting the dolphin resolution, you're basically saying that the UN should protect animals species by species. Now, on a scale of 35.000 UN members, with associated wildlife crossing borders and swimming in international waters, this is going to take quite a few resolutions to protect them all. And that could mean that some cuddly little animal might be protected, but a hugely important (and rather ugly) species of cockroach might not. Undesirable, in my opinion.
The dolphin resolution is exactly what I dislike about the UN at the moment. UN resolutions that fail to cover a wide scope, and instead micromanaging issues up to (in the Sex Education) the classroom. It is, like I said on the forum, like the greengocers worrying about their shops while it's the street they're in that matters. We need a firm signal against crappy proposals. One is by writing good proposals ourselves (and we have 3 on the line), the other it by repealing undesirable legislation.
That's why I, despite the obvious flaws, maintain my FOR vote.
Okay, first the argument that dolphins are intelligent. I think that's not an argument. An animal is an animal, a living being, and that alone should mean that it has to be treated well.
Secondly, the repeal text. It's not how I would have written it, and I have in fact telegrammed with the author of the repeal explaining why I couldn't support his repeal. However, now that it's hit the floor, the possibility of repealing the dolphin resolution is more important to me than the argument, which has no influence on future resolutions.
As for protecting animals, there are several proposals in queue of which one has already reached quorum and will be up next, outlining protection of species, a UN agency to oversee that and most importantly, sanctions against countries violating the rules. Exactly what we need.
By supporting the dolphin resolution, you're basically saying that the UN should protect animals species by species. Now, on a scale of 35.000 UN members, with associated wildlife crossing borders and swimming in international waters, this is going to take quite a few resolutions to protect them all. And that could mean that some cuddly little animal might be protected, but a hugely important (and rather ugly) species of cockroach might not. Undesirable, in my opinion.
The dolphin resolution is exactly what I dislike about the UN at the moment. UN resolutions that fail to cover a wide scope, and instead micromanaging issues up to (in the Sex Education) the classroom. It is, like I said on the forum, like the greengocers worrying about their shops while it's the street they're in that matters. We need a firm signal against crappy proposals. One is by writing good proposals ourselves (and we have 3 on the line), the other it by repealing undesirable legislation.
That's why I, despite the obvious flaws, maintain my FOR vote.