[SUBMITTED] Repeal "Restrictions on Child Labor"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Meta-character: Or.... how a nation could legitimately roleplay that the committee defined the term differently from how you believe it should be defined. Also known as, 'we convinced (i.e. bribed) the committee to define the 'central term' as 0 years of age'. This is both why I hate committees and why I voted for option 3 in the Committee Rule thread.

You're forgetting that a similar exploit is possible with the current resolution.

So that means that you want to create an organisation which sucks money away from state in more of these 'donations' and provides no comparatively better results at all. Fantastic. All aboard the WA money waste machine.

[New Leppikania]

You're forgetting that a similar exploit is possible with the current resolution.

So that means that you want to create an organisation which sucks money away from state in more of these 'donations' and provides no comparatively better results at all. Fantastic. All aboard the WA money waste machine.

1) could you suggest something better?
2) OOC: that last sentence is totally going in my sig.

[Imperium Anglorum]

1) could you suggest something better?

Repeal with no replacement (which, on reflection, would also doom this repeal to failure). [EDIT] Note that it is generally good form to make one thread for the repeal and a different thread for the replacement.

[Wallenburg]

1. You don't define child labor at all.
2. Congratulations. You allow parents to sign their children into employment, regardless of whether the child wishes to work or not.

1. By "central term" I meant "children/minors".

Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation.

DEFINES "child" as any citizen under the age of majority defined for them by the WAMC,

Ah, I see. So different, so much better. These are identical for all intents and purposes.

---

2. ...or out.

And in non-WA nations, people can free their slaves. That doesn't negate the moral bankruptcy of permitting slavery.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ah, I see. So different, so much better. These are identical for all intents and purposes.

I know, right! It'll even cost more money!

[Wallenburg]

Ah, I see. So different, so much better. These are identical for all intents and purposes.

I know, right! It'll even cost more money!

Actually, he's right. There is a significant difference:

Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation.

DEFINES "child" as any citizen under the age of majority defined for them by the WAMC,

Non-citizen children would be entirely unprotected under his replacement.

[John Turner]

Well, well, well.... What do we have here? Another up and comer who seems to think the best way to get what they want is to yell at people and spew arrogance everywhere? Lets go through this shall we?

*cracks knuckles*

First of all, put your repeal and replacement in separate threads. On the remote chance in hell this actually gets to vote, you will need separate threads, so you may as well do so now and avoid the unnecessary hassle.

As for the repeal:

The definition of "minors" in clause (A) is reliant on the specific nation's laws, and could easily be manipulated to undermine the entire resolution.

Natsov argument plain and simple. You do seem to realize that not all nations are on Earth, let alone in the same universe. In some nations a minor may be 400 hundred Earth years old before they even learn to walk, and in some, people may only live for 7 years, so your arguments holds about as much water as a colander.

Clause (B-3) gives no indication of what machinery, equipment, and tools are "dangerous."

Cause god forbid nations actually interpret things intelligently right? Sorry I forgot that all nations are run by capitalistic morons, who wouldn't know a backhoe from a garden spade.

Clause (B-4) gives no threshold for a "heavy" load.

See above.

Clause (B-7) is counterproductive in that not all member states require children to have a full-time education, and children that cannot afford to go to school are generally the ones that need to work the most to support their families.

Natsov argument again. Boils down to "But my nation doesn't require children to attend school".

Clause (D) does not use the previously defined term "minors," and instead uses the term "age of consent" without giving a definition.

Leave it up for nations to decide fro themselves their age of consent. Also contradicts your first argument.

Now for your "replacement":

ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Maturity Council to define an age of majority and age of sexual consent for all sapient species and subspecies involved in this Assembly,

A committee right out of the gates? Way to win supporters over.

DEFINES "child" as any citizen under the age of majority defined for them by the WAMC,

So now the WA is going to define for us what age of majority is? Hate to break it to you, but committees don't make rules, they simply implement them.

CLARIFIES the difference between "children" in this Resolution, and "minors" in internal laws of member states,

Where? Where does it clarify that? You can't just say resolution does "X" and it magically happens.

The child's parent or legal guardian has not written an official statement against it,

So let me get this straight? If I as a parent have not written a statement saying my child cannot go to work, then they can't go to work?

The child's work environment is safe,

Define "safe". You hammered on the the previous resolution for not having definitions, yet you aren't giving any definitions either. Hypocritical much?

The work the child is doing does not involve carrying burdensome loads, and

What is a burdensome load?

The child or their family is paid at least 50% the minimum wage for adults; or

Uh huh... What bout school registered apprenticeship programs or work experience programs? You are juts going to toss those out the window? Congratulations.

BANS citizens under the age of sexual consent from employment as prostitutes.

Super.... As prostitution isn't defined, we can send them to work as "masseuses" which are for all intents and purposes the same damn thing. Way to protect the children there.

So now that this has been torn to shreds, are you going to listen to what is being said to you, or would you like to go round two with your fingers in your ears?

[Shazbotdom]

I know, right! It'll even cost more money!

Actually, he's right. There is a significant difference:

Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation.

DEFINES "child" as any citizen under the age of majority defined for them by the WAMC,

Non-citizen children would be entirely unprotected under his replacement.

Hmm...

So I should make it so that children are not citizens until they are 18...

[Wallenburg]

Actually, he's right. There is a significant difference:


Non-citizen children would be entirely unprotected under his replacement.

Hmm...

So I should make it so that children are not citizens until they are 18...

Well...you shouldn't, but there's nothing on the books that says you can't.

[New Leppikania]

Well, well, well.... What do we have here? Another up and comer who seems to think the best way to get what they want is to yell at people and spew arrogance everywhere? Lets go through this shall we?

Yes.

*cracks knuckles*

*cracks own knuckles*

First of all, put your repeal and replacement in separate threads. On the remote chance in hell this actually gets to vote, you will need separate threads, so you may as well do so now and avoid the unnecessary hassle.

If only the mods could help with this...

The definition of "minors" in clause (A) is reliant on the specific nation's laws, and could easily be manipulated to undermine the entire resolution.

Natsov argument plain and simple. You do seem to realize that not all nations are on Earth, let alone in the same universe. In some nations a minor may be 400 hundred Earth years old before they even learn to walk, and in some, people may only live for 7 years, so your arguments holds about as much water as a colander.

The replacement resolution tries to fix it, at least.

Clause (B-3) gives no indication of what machinery, equipment, and tools are "dangerous."

Cause god forbid nations actually interpret things intelligently right? Sorry I forgot that all nations are run by capitalistic morons, who wouldn't know a backhoe from a garden spade.

Clause (B-4) gives no threshold for a "heavy" load.

See above.

I at least use a slightly clearer term "burdensome." I can remove that too.

Clause (B-7) is counterproductive in that not all member states require children to have a full-time education, and children that cannot afford to go to school are generally the ones that need to work the most to support their families.

Natsov argument again. Boils down to "But my nation doesn't require children to attend school".

I don't see your point here. If there was a resolution to establish free schools in member states, I would certainly support that.

Clause (D) does not use the previously defined term "minors," and instead uses the term "age of consent" without giving a definition.

Leave it up for nations to decide fro themselves their age of consent. Also contradicts your first argument.

My first one? You mean the one about the bad definition of minors, rather than the lack of a definition?

ESTABLISHES the World Assembly Maturity Council to define an age of majority and age of sexual consent for all sapient species and subspecies involved in this Assembly,

A committee right out of the gates? Way to win supporters over.

Seeing as you aren't trying to reason this over, I can't see anything wrong.

DEFINES "child" as any citizen under the age of majority defined for them by the WAMC,

So now the WA is going to define for us what age of majority is? Hate to break it to you, but committees don't make rules, they simply implement them.

Where's the rule for that?

CLARIFIES the difference between "children" in this Resolution, and "minors" in internal laws of member states,

Where? Where does it clarify that? You can't just say resolution does "X" and it magically happens.

I don't see your point. That clause is for clarification. It's fairly straightforward.

The child's parent or legal guardian has not written an official statement against it,

So let me get this straight? If I as a parent have not written a statement saying my child cannot go to work, then they can't go to work?

This is listed under the criteria that must be completed.

The child's work environment is safe,

Define "safe". You hammered on the the previous resolution for not having definitions, yet you aren't giving any definitions either. Hypocritical much?

Not for long *edits repeal*

The work the child is doing does not involve carrying burdensome loads, and

What is a burdensome load?

Heavy enough to harm one's health.

The child or their family is paid at least 50% the minimum wage for adults; or

Uh huh... What bout school registered apprenticeship programs or work experience programs? You are juts going to toss those out the window? Congratulations.

Next line:

The child's parent or legal guardian has signed a statement of informed consent.

[New Leppikania]

Edited the replacement resolution so that the informed consent of the parent can override only the 50% minimum wage.

[New Leppikania]

Also: the replacement resolution is now in a separate thread. Though I won't submit the repeal just yet, so you can keep telling me stuff to do, or that you support this.

New thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=363724

[Wrapper]

...so you can keep telling me stuff to do....

(Ari raises an eyebrow... nah, too easy, and besides, the Secretariat is listening.)

You still won't garner support from this delegation, as we do not see fault with the current resolution on the books. We'll bow out of this debate for now.

[John Turner]

Also: the replacement resolution is now in a separate thread. Though I won't submit the repeal just yet, so you can keep telling me stuff to do, or that you support this.

When does the support part start happening again?

[New Leppikania]

Is there any other feedback? 'Cause otherwise I'm just going to submit this.

[Wallenburg]

Is there any other feedback? 'Cause otherwise I'm just going to submit this.

Here's my feedback: don't submit this. Light up your fireplace and let this draft warm your abode this merry holiday season.

[New Leppikania]

Is there any other feedback? 'Cause otherwise I'm just going to submit this.

Here's my feedback: don't submit this. Light up your fireplace and let this draft warm your abode this merry holiday season.

Okay, good point. There should be at least minimal child labor restrictions for the Christmas season. I won't submit this until January 4th.

[Wrapper]

Is there any other feedback? 'Cause otherwise I'm just going to submit this.

Here's my feedback: don't submit this. Light up your fireplace and let this draft warm your abode this merry holiday season.

I disagree. Submit this now. It's not going to get any better.

[New Leppikania]

Here's my feedback: don't submit this. Light up your fireplace and let this draft warm your abode this merry holiday season.

I disagree. Submit this now. It's not going to get any better.

Well, I don't think that this is the right time of year for abolishing child labor laws, even for a few days. I'm going to wait until at least Saturday.

[Wrapper]

I disagree. Submit this now. It's not going to get any better.

Well, I don't think that this is the right time of year for abolishing child labor laws, even for a few days. I'm going to wait until at least Saturday.

Well, if that's how you really feel, maybe you should give up this silly repeal-and-replace idea of yours after all.

[New Leppikania]

Well, I don't think that this is the right time of year for abolishing child labor laws, even for a few days. I'm going to wait until at least Saturday.

Well, if that's how you really feel, maybe you should give up this silly repeal-and-replace idea of yours after all.

You know what? I'll submit it. I guess.

[Outer Sparta]

Well, if that's how you really feel, maybe you should give up this silly repeal-and-replace idea of yours after all.

You know what? I'll submit it. I guess.

Good luck, but I highly doubt that it'll garner enough support for legalizing this blasphemy. Will vote against if it comes to a quorum.

[New Leppikania]

You know what? I'll submit it. I guess.

Good luck, but I highly doubt that it'll garner enough support for legalizing this blasphemy. Will vote against if it comes to a quorum.

I have a replacement, you know.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Good luck, but I highly doubt that it'll garner enough support for legalizing this blasphemy. Will vote against if it comes to a quorum.

I have a replacement, you know.

OOC: One which the consensus finds worse than the resolution the Dourians passed...

[New Leppikania]

I have a replacement, you know.

OOC: One which the consensus finds worse than the resolution the Dourians passed...

Have you read the newest version of that? Someone suggested a definition for "children" so good I might give them co-author credit.