[PASSED] Repeal: Missing Minors Act

[Sanctaria]

OOC: As much as I hate "InstaRepeals", I felt that, in this case, such an attempt was necessary. While I find the proposal, or resolution as it will become in under 2 days, totally ineffective, it's not high on my 'danger' list, as I believe the Ambassador from Mousebumples described it. Nonetheless, here is my draft.

NOTING that Missing Minors Act has good intentions;

RECOGNISING that GA#131 was intended as a replacement for a previously repealed resolution,

HOWEVER REALISING that the Act does not put in place effective measures for the finding of missing children,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

ACKNOWLEDGES the following limitations of the resolution text:

»1: there is a lack of a clear distinction between a runaway and a missing child;

»2: the safety of a missing child is put in doubt due to the lack of details regarding a database and whether the public, including child abductors, would have access;

»3: it allows nations to reclassify what constitutes a minor in their nation, thereby enabling them to bypass the creation of an MCO, the main efficacy of this Act;

»4: while individual member nations are able to apply to the WA for funds, nations are merely "recommended" to provide adequate funding for MCOs, thereby allowing nations to evade the spirit of this Act by setting a substandard level of monetary funding;

»5: the resolution only applies when the custodian is unaware of the whereabouts of the minor, oblivious to the fact that some custodians neither care nor want said minors;

»6: the resolution doesn't adequately deal with the situation when a child returns, of their own freewill or otherwise;

Hereby

REPEALS GA #131, the Missing Minors Act.

Add. 10.02.11 - Glad this passed. Thanks to all those who supported it.

[Coxnord]

§2: the safety of a missing child is put in doubt over the ambiguity of a database and whether the public, including potential peadophiles would have access;

Potential paedophiles? Dare I ask for an elaboration on this?

[Hindopia]

If this comes up for vote, you can be assured Hindopia's full support.

Ambassador Variah, for Hindopia

[Sanctaria]

§2: the safety of a missing child is put in doubt over the ambiguity of a database and whether the public, including potential peadophiles would have access;

Potential paedophiles? Dare I ask for an elaboration on this?

I made an error in my own personal draft, Ambassador, please do accept my apologies, I'm rather tired.

OOC: Sorry, I had written in Word "and whether the public, including potential child abusers and peadophiles would have access". I deleted child abusers, as I felt it was too close to peadophile, and I'd only be repeating myself, and I forgot to delete potential. Mea culpa. It's almost 6am here.

[SuperUberBob]

You have my full support in this repeal.

[Scolville Units]

Notice of intent to vote

To: General Assembly
From: The Desk of The Exalted Pep

The Heat Indexed Theocracy of Scolville Units fully supports the repeal of the poorly written Missing Minors Act. It should never have been submitted in its current state. It is simply ineffective bloat legislation that creates a drain on WA funds while not possessing the teeth to achieve its intended goal.

Truly,
Jean Claude VI

[Quelesh]

Potential paedophiles? Dare I ask for an elaboration on this?

I made an error in my own personal draft, Ambassador, please do accept my apologies, I'm rather tired.

OOC: Sorry, I had written in Word "and whether the public, including potential child abusers and peadophiles would have access". I deleted child abusers, as I felt it was too close to peadophile, and I'd only be repeating myself, and I forgot to delete potential. Mea culpa. It's almost 6am here.

I would suggest leaving "child abusers" and removing "paedophiles," instead of the other way around. In fact, "child abductors" makes more sense than "child abusers" in this context.

Neither MMA nor its predecessor, the repealed MMD, took into account the fact that abductions of children are almost always committed by a parent or other family member, and only very rarely by a stranger.

[Sanctaria]

I made an error in my own personal draft, Ambassador, please do accept my apologies, I'm rather tired.

OOC: Sorry, I had written in Word "and whether the public, including potential child abusers and peadophiles would have access". I deleted child abusers, as I felt it was too close to peadophile, and I'd only be repeating myself, and I forgot to delete potential. Mea culpa. It's almost 6am here.

I would suggest leaving "child abusers" and removing "paedophiles," instead of the other way around. In fact, "child abductors" makes more sense than "child abusers" in this context.

Neither MMA nor its predecessor, the repealed MMD, took into account the fact that abductions of children are almost always committed by a parent or other family member, and only very rarely by a stranger.

Edition made, thanks for the suggestion.

[Parti Ouvrier]

We will not cry crocodile tears if MCOs are badly funded. Having said that, the rest of the repeal makes valid points, you have our support and if it reaches quorum, we will vote for the repeal.

[Bradforsonia]

Perhaps the Missing Minors act was rushed and badly worded we agree however it also established some organization to address this problem and it should not be prudent to repeal this without first having a suitable replacement ready. However the flaws of the missing minor act are unmissable, blatant and unfortunate. Reluctantly after much thought on the manner the Federal Republic of Bradforsonia lends it's support in repealing The Missing Minors Act. That is all.

Signed, The Bradforsonian Ambassador and Representative to the World Assembly. Former Leader of Deschenek.

CarthAnne

[Darenjo]

By now, it is clear that Missing Minors was rushed. Support for the repeal is granted. However, Darenjo remains firm in its belief that the WA has to have something dealing with missing children.

- Dr. Park Si-Jung

[Quelesh]

I would be far more comfortable if any replacement dealt with missing individuals in general, without distinguishing between missing children and missing adults.

[Sanctaria]

I'd like to thank all those who have declared their support for this proposal.

With regards to a replacement, from a conversation I had with the Mahaji Ambassador, I have gathered that if this repeal were to pass, he'd be drafting a replacement, again, with all the problems rectified as best he could.

Rgds.,

[Ossitania]

I'm not convinced that this is a topic which requires WA legislation but if it is going to happen, I agree with Quelesh; take age out of it and make it a missing persons proposal.

Ossitania gives its full support to the repeal, either way.

[Parti Ouvrier]

I'm not convinced that this is a topic which requires WA legislation but if it is going to happen, I agree with Quelesh; take age out of it and make it a missing persons proposal.

Ossitania gives its full support to the repeal, either way.

You seem confused. Repeals are not proposals.

[Jesoland]

Distinguished ambassadors,
Your Excellency the Ambassador of Sanctaria,

we voted contra Missing Minor Act for a number of reasons you don't address, and we can't share almost any concerns of yours.

We deem §2 is a weird interpretation, §6 can't be helped and §7 is micromanaging, and we would feel more confortable if there were different arguments.

Altogether, we anyway would like the resolution to be repealed; so you've our support.

PRO!

[Ossitania]

You seem confused. Repeals are not proposals.

I am not confused. I was responding to comments about a potential replacement proposal, most specifically Quelesh's. I am aware of what a repeal is, I've proposed them in the past.

[Socklund]

We would also wish to again recommend that replacement legislation focus on international abductions rather than domestic affairs, and we third the suggestion from Quelesh and Ossitania that its scope not be limited to minors.

[Sanctaria]

We deem §2 is a weird interpretation

I don't think it is, considering the majority of Ambassadors to this Assembly believe it to be a flaw also.

§6 can't be helped

We never said otherwise, but the wording of the proposal brings it into play and puts countless children at risk.

§7 is micromanaging

I don't see how a repeal proposal can be micromanaging since it doesn't bring in any new legislation.

Altogether, we anyway would like the resolution to be repealed; so you've our support.

I'd like to thank the Ambassador for his support.

Rgds.,

Min. D. Gallows

[Mousebumples]

Might I suggest changing the symbol before the numbers to something different? At first glance, I read the proposal as $1 $2 $3 $4 ... etc.

(1) (2) (3) etc., may work.

Alternatively: • 1. • 2. • 3. etc., may work. And, of course, numbering may not even be necessary - although it is certainly helpful for drafting, so it's easier to reference a particular repeal argument.

Further, if you/we are looking at a more general proposal as a replacement, you may want to add an additional clause on the subject.

If you don't mind my presumption, I'm going to rework/rephrase a number of portions of the text, if you don't mind. I think that the bullet points are better suited as complete thoughts/sentences/paragraphs than what you currently have there. Obviously, feel free to completely ignore any/all that follows, if you'd like.

I also have a few questions in there since there are some repeal arguments that I don't really get. I've been mostly glossing over the At Vote thread, so I may have missed something that makes those points make sense.

NOTING that Missing Minors Act has good intentions;

RECOGNISING UNDERSTANDING that it GA#131 was intended as a replacement for a previously repealed resolution,

HOWEVER NOTING that the Act does not put in place effective measures for the finding of missing children,

REALIZING that due to a number of loopholes within the text of GA#131, the Act is unable to effectively assist missing minors as it was intended to do,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY, :

ACKNOWLEDGES that the text is unable to accomplish its intended goal due to the following limitations of the resolution text:

• 1. there is a lack of a clear distinction between a runaway and a missing child; The distinction between a runaway and a missing child is unclear and lacks specificity.

• 2. the safety of a missing child is put in doubt over the ambiguity of a database and whether the public, including child abductors would have access; The safety of missing children is in question due to a lack of details regarding the database the Act established. As written in the text, child abductors could feasibly access the database, which would endanger missing children.

• 3. if a nation reclassified what constituted a minor in their nation, they would be able to bypass the creation of an MCO; Nations can completely escape the creation of an MCO, which is important to the efficacy of this Act, by reclassifying who is considered to be a minor within their nation.

• 4. it allows for nations to tap into WA General Fund reserves to fund the creation of MCOs despite stating that whatever they deem adequate is all that is needed to fund the MCOs; (I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that this point is worthy of including for the repeal. I definitely agree that I shouldn't have to pay for your MCO - or whomever's - through the General Fund, but this doesn't really tie into the argument that this is a weakness of the proposal and prevents the Act from helping to find missing children. Honestly, I'd be more willing to believe the argument that by allowing for nations to obtain EXTRA funding, the proposal better accomplishes it's intended goal, if anything.)

• 5. MCOs could then be badly funded and unable to carry out their duties effectively; (Again, I don't get this one. If they can apply for funding from the WA General Fund, why would they be BADLY funded?? Doesn't add up, to me.)

• 6. the resolution only applies when the custodian doesn't know the whereabouts of the minor, oblivous to the fact that some custodians neither care nor want said minors; As this proposal only allows for a child's legal custodian or the individual who has legal stewardship of the child to report a child missing, there may be many children who are missing but not covered by this Act. Some custodians may not desire the responsibility of caring for a child and may view a missing child as their opportunity to be relieved of their obligations.

• 7. the resolution doesn't adequately deal with the situation when a child returns, of their own freewill or otherwise; [i](I may have missed this somewhere, but what would you have wanted the proposal to do? The Act does state that the abductor of a child must be tried on all relevant charges. It mandates an investigation and counseling and penalties for child abuse (if applicable). What else did you want covered? This doesn't seem like an appropriate/accurate argument within the repeal, to me.)

HerebyREPEALS Resolution GA#131, the Missing Minors Act

[Sanctaria]

Might I suggest changing the symbol before the numbers to something different? At first glance, I read the proposal as $1 $2 $3 $4 ... etc.

I'll think about it. I rather like those in use now, but it may be necessary.

Further, if you/we are looking at a more general proposal as a replacement, you may want to add an additional clause on the subject.

I'd rather not. I, personally, am not looking to author another proposal on the matter, and by including such a proposal I, again personally, would feel I'm mandating this Assembly to come up with one.

If you don't mind my presumption, I'm going to rework/rephrase a number of portions of the text, if you don't mind. I think that the bullet points are better suited as complete thoughts/sentences/paragraphs than what you currently have there. Obviously, feel free to completely ignore any/all that follows, if you'd like.

I also have a few questions in there since there are some repeal arguments that I don't really get. I've been mostly glossing over the At Vote thread, so I may have missed something that makes those points make sense.

No, be my guest.

(I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that this point is worthy of including for the repeal. I definitely agree that I shouldn't have to pay for your MCO - or whomever's - through the General Fund, but this doesn't really tie into the argument that this is a weakness of the proposal and prevents the Act from helping to find missing children. Honestly, I'd be more willing to believe the argument that by allowing for nations to obtain EXTRA funding, the proposal better accomplishes it's intended goal, if anything.)

(Again, I don't get this one. If they can apply for funding from the WA General Fund, why would they be BADLY funded?? Doesn't add up, to me.)

I may need to reword that one. Basically, what I was trying to get across was that by saying all that was needed to fund these MCOs was an "adequate" amount, some nations may define adequate at €1 and leave these MCOs powerless and ineffective.

At the same time, however, they're also saying that if nations deem it necessary, they can apply for funding. However, as the author had previously used "adequate" in the proposal, any application would not be neccesary. The standards for "adequate" would be objective and not laid down, so the amount requests could be astronomical and/or not even used for the furtherment of the MCOs. They could apply for funding, get it, and then reclassify adequate.

(I may have missed this somewhere, but what would you have wanted the proposal to do? The Act does state that the abductor of a child must be tried on all relevant charges. It mandates an investigation and counseling and penalties for child abuse (if applicable). What else did you want covered? This doesn't seem like an appropriate/accurate argument within the repeal, to me.)

The proposal only deals with two absolutes: when the child is found by MCOs or if the child returns when it is a runaway.

However, what if a child escapes its abudctor? Or what if the child, believed to be missing but is in fact a "runway" returns? What happens with an investigation then? Now that the child is back, do they continue to look for the abductor? The MCOs are mandated (although I have issues with if they really are mandated to do anything, but another time for that) to look for the children; the proposal never actually mandates that the abductor be found too. If a child escapes and a child abuser is left out there, this proposal is happy with the fact that countless more children are then put in danger.

I hope these clarifications help. With regards to your editing, I'll have a closer look and may implement some of the changes, though I doubt all will be included.

Rgds.,

[Mousebumples]

Further, if you/we are looking at a more general proposal as a replacement, you may want to add an additional clause on the subject.

I'd rather not. I, personally, am not looking to author another proposal on the matter, and by including such a proposal I, again personally, would feel I'm mandating this Assembly to come up with one.

Apparently I wasn't clear.

i.e. 9. This proposal is too limited in scope and doesn't allow for the methods established in this Act to be used to find any missing individual who is not a minor. The WA would be better served with a proposal that is not so narrow in focus.

I may need to reword that one. Basically, what I was trying to get across was that by saying all that was needed to fund these MCOs was an "adequate" amount, some nations may define adequate at €1 and leave these MCOs powerless and ineffective.

At the same time, however, they're also saying that if nations deem it necessary, they can apply for funding. However, as the author had previously used "adequate" in the proposal, any application would not be neccesary. The standards for "adequate" would be objective and not laid down, so the amount requests could be astronomical and/or not even used for the furtherment of the MCOs. They could apply for funding, get it, and then reclassify adequate.

Again, it seems contradictory to include both. While it's totally legal, it strikes me as similar to the On Abortion repeal, which ended up arguing all sides of the issue and not taking one particular stand. That just bothers me in general and really indicates (to me) a concern over a lack of support with actual arguments. Are you concerned about the use of WA money? Or are you more concerned with nations under-funding the MCOs? I'd pick one or the other, personally, and really work on making a persuasive case for your opinion.

The proposal only deals with two absolutes: when the child is found by MCOs or if the child returns when it is a runaway.

However, what if a child escapes its abudctor? Or what if the child, believed to be missing but is in fact a "runway" returns? What happens with an investigation then? Now that the child is back, do they continue to look for the abductor? The MCOs are mandated (although I have issues with if they really are mandated to do anything, but another time for that) to look for the children; the proposal never actually mandates that the abductor be found too. If a child escapes and a child abuser is left out there, this proposal is happy with the fact that countless more children are then put in danger.

It seems that you have a very strict reading of that last section since that's not at all how I read that. I'll run through it, line-by-line, with my interpretation.

DECLARES that if found, the abductor must be tried in court on charges of abduction of a minor, as well as others if applicable,

I read that more that if the ABDUCTOR is found. Whether the child escapes, their body is found, is found alive with the abductor, etc., if the abductor is found, they must be tried in court. (I fully acknowledge that this is terrible sentence construction, but grammatically speaking, inferred pronouns generally refer to the closest noun. In this case, that would be the abductor. It may not have been what Mahaj meant to say, but that's my reading of it.

MANDATING that after the missing child is found an investigation shall be enacted to determine the reason for the child being missing,

This could be missing for any reason - runaway or abduction or just lost - and "found" has a wider array than you are granting it, I believe. "Oh, look, I found my kid in my house! They made it back alive!" "Oh, look, we found my kid with Evil Abductor!" "Oh, look, the police 3 cities over found your kid at a shelter for runaways!" If the kid is located (even if it's the body of the kid), that counts as being "found," in my book.

REQUIRES that if the investigation concludes that the child was abducted, the abductor shall be tried under national law for these charges,

This is duplicate of the first, which seems to be a constant problem with this proposal. An argument is made. Other arguments are made. The first argument is made AGAIN, reworded, and sounding more terrible.

REQUIRES that if it is determined the child was a runaway, it shall be investigated the reason for the child running away,

This would be applicable if a runaway returns, I would think.

ORDERS that penalties shall be assessed to the parents if they were abusing,

No details are given here as to what circumstances the child must be found/recovered/etc., so this would apply in any sort of "missing minor" circumstance.

ALLOWS for a relative to have temporary custody of the child instead of the parents during this investigation,

Again, this could/would apply under any circumstances, in my view, given the wide definition of "found."

MANDATES parent-child counseling if a runaway is returned.

I'm not a fan of insisting that runaways be returned, which this line does (implicitly), but the mandating of counseling would apply to all runaway situations, I think.

---

Again, you apparently have a different reading of those lines, but I don't think they're nearly as restrictive as you make them out to be in the argument I highlighted above.

[Sanctaria]

i.e. 9. This proposal is too limited in scope and doesn't allow for the methods established in this Act to be used to find any missing individual who is not a minor. The WA would be better served with a proposal that is not so narrow in focus.

As I said, I'm not fond of including it. If other delegations believe it necessary or it would strengthen the proposal, then I'll include it. Until then, I'm not convinced.

Again, it seems contradictory to include both. While it's totally legal, it strikes me as similar to the On Abortion repeal, which ended up arguing all sides of the issue and not taking one particular stand. That just bothers me in general and really indicates (to me) a concern over a lack of support with actual arguments. Are you concerned about the use of WA money? Or are you more concerned with nations under-funding the MCOs? I'd pick one or the other, personally, and really work on making a persuasive case for your opinion.

I think the two details are too intertwined to have on without the other. If I state that MCOs could be underfunded only, then the argument could be made about the clause stating nations may apply for funding. On the otherhand, while concerned about WA money, I do think that it should be made available to countries who legitmately need it, however as I pointed out, there is confusion within the text insofar that nations have the option to set their own funding for it, as adequate to their needs, thereby having no need to approach the WA General Fund.

I can leave them out of the repeal, if you suggest it, though I'd rather the proposed text not be weakened in its standing.

It seems that you have a very strict reading of that last section since that's not at all how I read that. I'll run through it, line-by-line, with my interpretation.

I don't agree that I have a strict reading, and I'll deal with the relevent clauses below.

I read that more that if the ABDUCTOR is found. Whether the child escapes, their body is found, is found alive with the abductor, etc., if the abductor is found, they must be tried in court. (I fully acknowledge that this is terrible sentence construction, but grammatically speaking, inferred pronouns generally refer to the closest noun. In this case, that would be the abductor. It may not have been what Mahaj meant to say, but that's my reading of it.

While you read it that way, not all nations are as blessed with an official grammarian in their delegation. This resolution applies to all nations and, as it was unclear and poorly written, there is a confusion. It leaves scope open to individual nations where, in reality, there should be none. If I can read it, and thereby apply it, that MCOs are not mandated to look for the abductor if the child escapes, or is found when the abductor is absent, then I'm sure other nations will too. As there is confusion, it is a flaw, and therefore legitimate grounds to be repealed.

This could be missing for any reason - runaway or abduction or just lost - and "found" has a wider array than you are granting it, I believe.

Because both "found" and "returned" are mentioned seperately in this resolution, it's necessary I treat the two differently. I would, in any other circumstance, acknowledge that found has a wide array of meanings. However, returned is used solely in reference to runaways.

This would be applicable if a runaway returns, I would think.

As I've pointed out in the repeal text, there is a lacking of a clear defintion between a runaway and a missing child.

No details are given here as to what circumstances the child must be found/recovered/etc., so this would apply in any sort of "missing minor" circumstance.

I have no problem with this clause, or any of the following clauses you have pointed out.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I'd like to thank all those who have declared their support for this proposal.

With regards to a replacement, from a conversation I had with the Mahaji Ambassador, I have gathered that if this repeal were to pass, he'd be drafting a replacement, again, with all the problems rectified as best he could.

Rgds.,

correct.

Although, I wouldn't say it was rushed. I waited, I didn't get a lot of responses (how often is it that something that attains Quorum nearly falls off the first page?), i was told that I should submit for a test run, I did, and BAM!


I'll post a more in depth response later.

[Seperate Vermont]

»3: it allows nations to reclassified what constitutes a minor in their nation, thereby enabling them to bypass the creation of an MCO, the main efficacy of this Act;

It is best to keep it up to the determination of the nation how to implement the legal term of "minor", if at all.