[PASSED] Prevention of Child Abuse

[Sanctaria]

this is excellent legislation with the exception of the clause that does not allow art depicting child abuse. countries should have the free right to allow their citizens freedom of expression and this is a violation of that right.

You're right. Countries should be allowed to show harrowing child abuse which could scar the subject(s) pyschologically even more than they already have been.

[The Dourian Embassy]

It becomes quite clear when the situation is examined in full that the right to free expression does not always extend to all speech or expression. If we take a moment to consider the man who cries fire in a crowded theater, or conspiracy of one kind or another to commit a crime, those are types of speech that are not protected, and will likely never be. But we are limiting the right to depict child abuse, to only in cases where no artistic merit can be found, or where there is a concrete benefit to society in their depiction.

This is not flaw, nor a mistake. We didn't fail to take this into account. We did it deliberately. Child pornography will be banned even if actual abuse of children does not occur in it's creation, and that's just how it is to be.

Censorship is only bad when it is indiscriminate or unjustified.

[True Equality]

This does not ban the actual act of physically striking a child, so long as it is not excessive, I hope? I see nothing wrong with spanking (or using the belt in extreme cases) your child in order to develop respect and discourage unruly behavior. Yes, things like blunt trauma, deliberate starvation, sexual abuse, etc. are child abuse, and I assume that is what we are trying to get rid of, not just meager acts of punishment altogether.

[Sanctaria]

This does not ban the actual act of physically striking a child, so long as it is not excessive, I hope? I see nothing wrong with spanking (or using the belt in extreme cases) your child in order to develop respect and discourage unruly behavior. Yes, things like blunt trauma, deliberate starvation, sexual abuse, etc. are child abuse, and I assume that is what we are trying to get rid of, not just meager acts of punishment altogether.

Excessive and/or malicious physical violence would be banned should this be passed, yes.

[Mayane]

Don't know if this is adressed already, but I do not agree with this one sentence:

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

I find this a major issue, because this would mean you could not go to a vacation in such nation or even work in such nation, this would mean you'd have to leave you child behind, thus neglecting it.

I think the resolution should contain that a child cannot enter a nation that has not accepted this resolution without a parent or guardian.

[Linux and the X]

Don't know if this is adressed already, but I do not agree with this one sentence:

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

I find this a major issue, because this would mean you could not go to a vacation in such nation or even work in such nation, this would mean you'd have to leave you child behind, thus neglecting it.

I think the resolution should contain that a child cannot enter a nation that has not accepted this resolution without a parent or guardian.

Did you miss the "for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution" part? There are good reasons to oppose the proposal; this is not among them.

[Sanctaria]

Don't know if this is adressed already, but I do not agree with this one sentence:

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

I find this a major issue, because this would mean you could not go to a vacation in such nation or even work in such nation, this would mean you'd have to leave you child behind, thus neglecting it.

I think the resolution should contain that a child cannot enter a nation that has not accepted this resolution without a parent or guardian.

It doesn't mean that at all.

It means you can't transport a child to a country not covered by the resolution to abuse it. Hence "for the purpose of contravening the article of this resolution".

I have no idea where you got that notion from.

[Mayane]

Don't know if this is adressed already, but I do not agree with this one sentence:

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

I find this a major issue, because this would mean you could not go to a vacation in such nation or even work in such nation, this would mean you'd have to leave you child behind, thus neglecting it.

I think the resolution should contain that a child cannot enter a nation that has not accepted this resolution without a parent or guardian.

It doesn't mean that at all.

It means you can't transport a child to a country not covered by the resolution to abuse it. Hence "for the purpose of contravening the article of this resolution".

I have no idea where you got that notion from.

Ah, now I see, I've read it wrong.

[Sanctaria]

It doesn't mean that at all.

It means you can't transport a child to a country not covered by the resolution to abuse it. Hence "for the purpose of contravening the article of this resolution".

I have no idea where you got that notion from.

Ah, now I see, I've read it wrong.

To err is human; to forgive, divine. We all make mistakes, Ambassador.

[The Laudean Republic]

Although we do not support forcing any nation into passing any unrealistic laws, TLR supports the criminalization of child abuse. That being the case we will support this measure.

[Mayane]

What I don't quite understand yet is the concept of

'ii.the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,'

and

'iii.any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,'

through: 'REQUIRES nations to investigate fully, and to the best of their ability, all reports of child abuse;'

and how this is going to get investigated, since pain and traumas cannot be observed by an outside party, only bruises can.

I am not sure how this whole World Assembly stuff works, and if it just works like the UN.
Don't know if this resolution can still be changed in any way, shape or form. But an idea for the investigation to the best of the governments ability should possibly add that civilians must report of this when they see such acts against a child.
Or is that to be desided by the Nation itself.

[Rattlestan]

The government and peoples of Rattlestan fully support the intentions of this legislation but find ourselves troubled by the use of the phrase "no artistic merit".

Who is the arbiter deciding whether a work of art is/is not possessed of artistic merit? In this instance, we fully understand the inclusion of this clause but we'd feel a whole lot better about supporting it if this phrase wasn't included. It brings to mind Bill Hicks discussing the Supreme Court's definition of pornography as being "work of no artistic merit which causes sexual thought" and stating that this applied to half the commercials on television.

Sadly, there don't appear any simple solutions to this quandary and we offer apologies if it appears we are being pedantic regarding a wholly worthwhile piece of legislation, but as a nation dedicated to the right of artistic expression, this is difficult for us. Nobody wants to see wanton images of child abuse passed off as art, but who is making the judgment call when the black and white become grey areas?

[Quelesh]

It becomes quite clear when the situation is examined in full that the right to free expression does not always extend to all speech or expression. If we take a moment to consider the man who cries fire in a crowded theater, or conspiracy of one kind or another to commit a crime, those are types of speech that are not protected, and will likely never be. But we are limiting the right to depict child abuse, to only in cases where no artistic merit can be found, or where there is a concrete benefit to society in their depiction.

This is not flaw, nor a mistake. We didn't fail to take this into account. We did it deliberately. Child pornography will be banned even if actual abuse of children does not occur in it's creation, and that's just how it is to be.

Censorship is only bad when it is indiscriminate or unjustified.

You mention child pornography here, but the clause in question does nothing to limit itself to depictions of child sexuality.

This does not ban the actual act of physically striking a child, so long as it is not excessive, I hope? I see nothing wrong with spanking (or using the belt in extreme cases) your child in order to develop respect and discourage unruly behavior. Yes, things like blunt trauma, deliberate starvation, sexual abuse, etc. are child abuse, and I assume that is what we are trying to get rid of, not just meager acts of punishment altogether.

I find it ironic that a representative from a nation named "True Equality" supports the subjugation of children and the infliction of pain upon them.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Vincetinople]

This motion is yet another of the Global Community's which in the name of some sanctimony, infringes on the Sovereign rights of the people of the Republic of Vincetinople.

Specifically:

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials without artistic merit depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes, as well as for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse;

This clause is completely unacceptable.

Deny this motion.

[Reimu]

Even if a child under the age of majority "consents" to sex, it's still child abuse.
Voting no until resolution is changed to reflect this, current wording indicates that only nonconsensual sex is abusive, wheras the point of an age of consent is to say that a child is literally incapable of giving consent until a certain age

[Seriong]

The problem is, who determines what has 'Artistic Merit' and what doesn't? It's completely subjective.

Also, on the problem of leaving a nation, to escape the law, how do you determine intent? This could cause false reports.

[New Chesterfield]

The Electoral Imperium of New Chesterfield would like to make note of the lack of awareness and disregard for religious practices. There are some religions and traditions of different culture where certain actions that may be considered "abusive" by the majority of the population. Due to the blatant generalization of this resolution, New Chesterfield will be voting against. Issues like this must be handled at the national level and not the international level.

[Damanucus]

I'll be quick with this one. I'm all for this resolution, but I do wish to bring up a question with one clause:

• Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:
  
  1. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,
  2. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,
  3. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,
  4. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;

Now, I especially want to bring into play the first subpoint. Does this mean that consensual sexual relationships with a minor could be allowed, if the nation so chooses to legalize it?

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[The Dourian Embassy]

Sadly, there don't appear any simple solutions to this quandary and we offer apologies if it appears we are being pedantic regarding a wholly worthwhile piece of legislation, but as a nation dedicated to the right of artistic expression, this is difficult for us. Nobody wants to see wanton images of child abuse passed off as art, but who is making the judgment call when the black and white become grey areas?

Your government actually. It's difficult to broadly legislate across a multitude of cultural norms, but this is the best way we figured out to legislate on this.

You mention child pornography here, but the clause in question does nothing to limit itself to depictions of child sexuality.

That's true, but the combination of the non-consensual clause and that clause effectively bans it for underage children, assuming reasonable laws concerning consent..

Even if a child under the age of majority "consents" to sex, it's still child abuse.
Voting no until resolution is changed to reflect this, current wording indicates that only nonconsensual sex is abusive, wheras the point of an age of consent is to say that a child is literally incapable of giving consent until a certain age

That is up to your own nation to decide, consent is a term that does not necessarily mean to simply acquiesce to something. You need to be legally capable of giving consent as well, which is where local law comes into account.

Now, I especially want to bring into play the first subpoint. Does this mean that consensual sexual relationships with a minor could be allowed, if the nation so chooses to legalize it?

It'll just be a pain to explain to people that the reason you couldn't go into more depth in that direction is that the SPA ties your hands a bit.

Can I just say I still stand by this statement?

[Damanucus]

Now, I especially want to bring into play the first subpoint. Does this mean that consensual sexual relationships with a minor could be allowed, if the nation so chooses to legalize it?

It'll just be a pain to explain to people that the reason you couldn't go into more depth in that direction is that the SPA ties your hands a bit.

Can I just say I still stand by this statement?

...I seriously need to start bringing a copy of the most recent compilation of WA resolutions into the debate room.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Westalio]

Westalio votes against this proposal solely due to the 11th article.

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials without artistic merit depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes, as well as for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse;

Although a child is certainly harmed in the creation of materials depicting child abuse, there is no such harm in the distribution of these materials. Our nation refuses to acknowledge intellectual property, anti-defamation laws, content regulation, or any other government intervention into the free, voluntary transactions of information between citizens. We find the distribution of already-created material depicting child abuse a victimless crime, and refuse to agree with a proposal to criminalise it.
Because of this we cannot accept the proposal as it is written.

[Mousebumples]

Now, I especially want to bring into play the first subpoint. Does this mean that consensual sexual relationships with a minor could be allowed, if the nation so chooses to legalize it?

To be technical, yes - to a point.

I believe a close-in-age exemption is possible (i.e. a 19 year old with a 16 year old), and some nations have separate ages of sexual consent and ages of majority. Therefore, someone who is technically a minor (say 17 years old, if 18 is the age-threshold) but over the age of consent (say 16 years old in Testlandia) would be a "minor" - for non-sexual purposes - that could consent to a sexual relationship.

However, as others have said, SPA works to prevent some of the more egregious "minors consenting" issues that may otherwise arise. As has been previously stated, I guess that's on the "target list" for some ambassadors, but I'll admit that that's not one of my first priorities right now, as I learn the ropes in my new position ...

Adele Hale
Interim Representative for the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
Official Gardener for the Mousebumplonian Delegation
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Mousebumples]

Westalio votes against this proposal solely due to the 11th article.

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials without artistic merit depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes, as well as for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse;

Although a child is certainly harmed in the creation of materials depicting child abuse, there is no such harm in the distribution of these materials. Our nation refuses to acknowledge intellectual property, anti-defamation laws, content regulation, or any other government intervention into the free, voluntary transactions of information between citizens. We find the distribution of already-created material depicting child abuse a victimless crime, and refuse to agree with a proposal to criminalise it.
Because of this we cannot accept the proposal as it is written.

Because the distribution of such materials does not in any way result in money being paid to the perpetrator of the crime? Because the distribution of such materials cannot continue to victimize the victim in question should they see the distributed copies?

Your logic here is beyond puzzling, Ambassador. I urge you to reconsider.

[Eireann Fae]

"Miss... Hale? Is Sir Nikolas on vacation?"

[Sarentinia]

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution ... child abuse as any and/or all of the following ... ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,

First and foremost, the Sarentinian observer mission to the WA supports the proposal at vote.

Although this is a minor issue, and one that has not influenced our continued support for this proposal, we would like to ask why this clause was worded in such a way that excludes pain, injury and/or harm occurring as a result of peer-to-peer bullying. To go off on a tangent, if school staff or parents were to write off the injury suffered through bullying, or fail to act in time to prevent the escalation of bullying into something more serious (and research does indicate that bullying tends to escalate in severity), would it meet this resolution's definition of child abuse?