[CRL] The Sentient Rights Act

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Whereas, it can be said that one objective in granting rights is to reduce suffering and enhance flourishing, so the use of sentience as the main characteristic may be more appropriate, and

Whereas, it was the trailblazing philosopher Jeremy Bentham who wrote in 1879, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?", and

Whereas, sentience is the characteristic of consciousness whereby an organism has a sufficient level of awareness to experience suffering, and

Whereas, sentience has been proven to be a characteristic not exclusive to homo sapiens sapiens, and

Whereas, it is therefore a fact that the restriction of the normative and legal discussion and codification of rights to humankind is an unacceptable case of anthropocentric speciesism.

Therefore, be it enacted that El Lex 5.3.13 which currently reads:

10 December. Human Rights Day. A suggested method to celebrate Human Rights Day is reviewing Article XI of The Organic Law and/or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Is amended to read as:

10 December. Sentient Rights Day. A day to celebrate the dignity and honor the rights of all sentient beings.

Therefore, be it further enacted, that the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, adds a new section to El Lex F as follows:

F. 43 The Kingdom of Talossa endorses the transition in considerations from a legal and moral regime prioritising the protection of the rights of humankind to one that seeks the protection of the rights of all sentient beings.

Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Seneschal)

Ready for your review, esteemed committee members: @Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu @Sir Lüc @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

[esbornatfiglheu]

From a CRL standpoint, I believe that this bill would function as intended.  Though would not an amendment to the orglaw be appropriate as well, specifying the expansion of rights?

Looks fine, Clark it

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

From a CRL standpoint, I believe that this bill would function as intended.  Though would not an amendment to the orglaw be appropriate as well, specifying the expansion of rights?

Looks fine, Clark it

Nice. @Sir Lüc @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

[Sir Lüc]

No need to tag me twice in 20 hours :) Besides, what's the rush? The current Clark isn't even over yet.

From a strictly CRL standpoint, approved.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

No need to tag me twice in 20 hours :) Besides, what's the rush? The current Clark isn't even over yet.

From a strictly CRL standpoint, approved.

This was a pleasantly curmudgeonly approval. Thanks Sir Luc!

[Sir Lüc]

I should have specified -- I wasn't saying this out of annoyance at all.

It's only that, I suppose, you *could* let the bill sit in the Hopper for exactly ten days and then rush the CRL to lock it in ASAP.

But IMO that doesn't mean you *should*, especially when the deadline for Clarking it is still relatively far away, since asking the CRL to act on a bill effectively signals that the proponent wants to end debate on the merits of the bill (rather than its form).

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I should have specified -- I wasn't saying this out of annoyance at all.

It's only that, I suppose, you *could* let the bill sit in the Hopper for exactly ten days and then rush the CRL to lock it in ASAP.

But IMO that doesn't mean you *should*, especially when the deadline for Clarking it is still relatively far away, since asking the CRL to act on a bill effectively signals that the proponent wants to end debate on the merits of the bill (rather than its form).

Thank you for pointing that out! That seems like an uncharitable interpretation of intent. And I am not sure what evidence or history justifies such an interpretation since people are not prohibited from continuing to comment even once the bill has moved to the CRL. In any event, for the record, that is not the intent rather I tend to try and move through procedures with alacrity.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Looks good; approved.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Looks good; approved.

Thanks AD!

[Sir Lüc]

I should have specified -- I wasn't saying this out of annoyance at all.

It's only that, I suppose, you *could* let the bill sit in the Hopper for exactly ten days and then rush the CRL to lock it in ASAP.

But IMO that doesn't mean you *should*, especially when the deadline for Clarking it is still relatively far away, since asking the CRL to act on a bill effectively signals that the proponent wants to end debate on the merits of the bill (rather than its form).

Thank you for pointing that out! That seems like an uncharitable interpretation of intent. And I am not sure what evidence or history justifies such an interpretation since people are not prohibited from continuing to comment even once the bill has moved to the CRL. In any event, for the record, that is not the intent rather I tend to try and move through procedures with alacrity.

Fair enough!