[PASSED] Repeal "Child Protection Act"

[Loli Pangaea]

Note that under the current CPA. member states may also set their age of consent to 0, thus nullifying the entire act (done notoriously by ex-nation Free Pangea a while back). I support it's repeal and hopefully it will be quickly replaced with something effective.

[Mousebumples]

*bumps*

I'm hoping to have time to revise and submit this at ... some point in the near future. (OOC: Flu shot season's about to get started, which may affect my free time/plans, but ... I'm hopeful, at least.)

Additional comments and concerns are, of course, welcome, as I make changes moving forward.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Quelesh]

I've said this before, but to briefly summarize arguments that I think would be good to include in the repeal:

1. The definition of "child" ambiguously mentions both the age of consent and the age of majority, leaving it unclear as to which is being referred to when "child" is used later in the resolution.

2. The definition makes no allowance whatsoever for emancipated minors, people younger than the age of majority who have been legally emancipated and have the rights of adults.

3. The section on sexual abuse makes no allowance whatsoever for any kind of close-in-age exemption or defense.

4. The resolution requires member states to criminalize unknowing involvement in sexual abuse.

I think all four of these arguments are ones that most would agree with and would be good to use in the repeal. I would personally be inclined to make a couple of additional arguments (against the inflexibility of being forced to use chronological age alone as a dividing line, and against the required criminalization of pornography involving minors), but these arguments may generate more opposition than support, and I suspect that you personally disagree with them anyway.

I hope my suggestions are helpful.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Mousebumples]

Ambassador Yadoru,

I tend to agree that your latter suggestions are (a) not ones that I necessarily agree with [and, even if I did agree, I would certainly not agree that they should be enshrined in WA law for all nations to necessarily follow] and (b) likely to make things more contentious than they would be otherwise.

I will, however, take your other suggestions under advisement for when I manage to get a redraft of this one completed. I'm afraid that my attention has been slightly ... distracted as of late by the other 5 drafts I've been managing in the interim.

My thanks for your support and suggestions,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[ForTheHorde]

I am fairly worried about what happens in the mean time while this resolution is repealed. I would like to see this as a repeal and replace type of deal where you right both a repeal and a replace at the same time, such that what little protections children are granted under the original resolution (limited though they may be, there is still some protection), and a loss of protection for children at any point is something that warrants concern. I am for the draft in principle, but I would like there to be a replacement ready to go the second after this repeal.

[Mousebumples]

I am fairly worried about what happens in the mean time while this resolution is repealed. I would like to see this as a repeal and replace type of deal where you right both a repeal and a replace at the same time, such that what little protections children are granted under the original resolution (limited though they may be, there is still some protection), and a loss of protection for children at any point is something that warrants concern. I am for the draft in principle, but I would like there to be a replacement ready to go the second after this repeal.

There is a replacement that I believe is ready to go. Please see this thread, which is also linked in the OP.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Linux and the X]

I am fairly worried about what happens in the mean time while this resolution is repealed. I would like to see this as a repeal and replace type of deal where you right both a repeal and a replace at the same time, such that what little protections children are granted under the original resolution (limited though they may be, there is still some protection), and a loss of protection for children at any point is something that warrants concern. I am for the draft in principle, but I would like there to be a replacement ready to go the second after this repeal.

There is a replacement that I believe is ready to go. Please see this thread, which is also linked in the OP.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

I believe the Ambassador is expressing concern that there will be a minimum of four days between repeal and replacement.

[The Dourian Embassy]

The line about dead parents, crypts and burying alive is probably not needed. It makes the rest of it seem sillier somehow, and will give people something to seize on and say "this isn't right". It could easily be argued that once dead they are no longer a parent, for example. It might not be a perfect argument, but it'll be the first one someone makes.

The remainder of the repeal is very strong but I see no need to include a line that will weaken the rest.

[Discoveria]

I dislike the original. The quality of language is terrible and I would love to see it repealed on that basis alone. However, I don't really like the wording of your repeal. Short version: I'd support the current repeal grudgingly; I agree just about completely with Quelesh; I'll outline how I would repeal the CPA in this thread.

Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and Pessimistic start...
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,Poor grammar invalidates this definition, in my opinion; a child is a thing, while being under the age of consent/majority is a state of being - the two cannot be equated. The definition ought to read "a child as an individual under the age..."
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sexTechnically any child that can communicate yes/no is able to assent or dissent to sex. Another terrible definition.
Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,Don't like this one either but I can't put my finger on why. I guess because independence from parents isn't the sole consideration for whether someone should be considered mature enough to vote, etc.
and
Declares;
1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority(the poor definitions start to create problems now) is defined as any act which will tend to(Stupid choice of word. Crossing the road has a tendency to cause a child physical harm, for example.) cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a childLike, I don't know, two parents divorcing? That could easily have the result of psychologically harming a child.

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

2. For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a child, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child

b) It is illegal to relocate a child to another country for the purpose to cause sexual abuse to the child

c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal

d) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used by law enforcement agencies or for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities

e) Involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal, however, if it can be proven that it was an unknowing involvement, leniency may be afforded due to the discretion of the nation’s judicial system

f) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the caseI think this amount of investigative freedom is excessive. Children shouldn't be abused with the intention of preventing some greater harm to other children.

3. A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated.

a) WA member states are urged to set up a system in which the public is notified of a kidnapped child

b) WA member states are urged to work together if a suspect and child are believed to have left the nation of the child’s residence

Accordingly, my 'ideal' repeal of the CPA would look a bit like this:

The General Assembly,
REGRETTING that "being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation" describes a condition or status, not an individual person, and is therefore an inadequate definition of a child,

ALSO REGRETTING that a child is "able to assent or dissent to sex" at a much earlier age than when sexual activity is appropriate and safe, and therefore the definition of 'age of consent' is inadequate,

BELIEVING that the definition of 'age of majority' is a complex legal status best left to member-states' legislation,

FURTHER REGRETTING that physical abuse is too broadly defined as any "act which will tend to cause a child physical harm", despite the fact that many everyday activities such as crossing a road full of traffic have a tendency to cause physical harm, and that emotional abuse is too broadly defined as "any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child", even though some common actions (such as the divorcing of two parents) are reasonably justified,

APPALLED that article 2f allows law enforcement or court officials to engage in acts of child abuse to apprehend criminals, thereby hypocritically violating the very protections afforded to the victim(s) by the resolution in an attempt to secure an uncertain benefit for other children,

OBSERVING that the only way to address these problems is to strike GAR#19: Child Protection Act from the annals of international law,

HOPING that a better resolution will be passed to secure protections and freedoms for children in all member-states,

hereby
REPEALS GAR#19: Child Protection Act.

I haven't included all of Quelesh's arguments above as I'm not sure how central they are to a repeal effort. But I do agree with them.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

ADMIRES that GAR#19, Child Protection Act, aims to protect children from abuses;

ASSERTS that physical and/or emotional abuse of children should be criminal acts within WA member states;

NOTES, however, that although this resolution states that "A child is entitled to ... not to be physically or emotionally abused" it fails to criminalize such actions;This strikes me as a slightly cheap way to attack a resolution. I can't deny that it is a problem with the CPA though.

FEELS that while giving children the right to not be abused is laudable, it does not go far enough in working to prevent such horrific actions against children;

RECOGNIZES that this resolution's text also permits the continued abuses of children;

DETAILS that Clause 3 reads: "A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated;"

OBSERVES that such wording, at minimum, permits WA member nations to leave abused children in the care of those who are abusing them until such abuse can be proven, which may result in children remaining with their abusers throughout the investigative process;I'm not sure this is that much of a problem. The child would only remain with their abusive parents if the child exercised their right to do so. Presumably the actual exercise of the right would be contingent on some concept of 'Fraser competence'. However I accept that this clause would create problems in some cases and that a better resolution would have better provisions for ensuring the child's safety during an investigation.

BELIEVES that children should be protected from those who are accused of abusing them throughout the investigative and judicial process;

REALIZES that the wording of the aforementioned Clause 3 means that children have a right to remain with their parents or guardians, which would include those who may be: The clause should have read "right to remain in the care of their parents". So I agree with this argument.
Detained in prison, for a crime unrelated to child abuse.
Fighting in a war in a foreign country.
Hospitalized for an extended period of time due to a severe illness or injury.
Deceased, which may result in children staying in crypts or being buried alive in the same coffin.Definitely remove this. When the parents die, they would in reasonable states legally cease being the child's parents. Besides, live burial of a child is currently prohibited by Article 1!
HOPES for future legislation that better ensures the true protection of children;

REPEALS GAR#19, Child Protection Act.

[Mousebumples]

Alright, updated draft! I did some minor wording changes and also added in a new clause, based on some suggestions above. However, I may not keep it in its entirety, so I'd appreciate feedback.

That section, in particular is:

PROTESTS additional aspects of this resolution that cloud the issue of child protection rather than serving to clarify it:

1. The resolution defines a child as “being under the age of consent or majority.” The use of or within this clause is ambiguous, as it may permit WA member nations to pick and choose which definition they wish to employ in a given situation, depending on what best serves the governmental interests, versus serving the best interests of the child. That's the best "explanation" that I can think off, off-hand, but I'm open to suggestions here if there's another, more "important" reason to object to that wording.
2. No exception is made for those children that have been legally emancipated. My biggest question for this is ... how is this important, with respect to the rest of this resolution? The "right to remain with his or her parents" clause is moot because such an individual would be unlikely to exercise that right. 1A might be an issue, but it doesn't stipulate who shall care for the child in such a way. Presumably, an emancipated child could care for themselves in such a way. The sexual abuse issue may still be an issue, but - potentially - nations may stipulate that even if you're emancipated, the age of sexual consent still applies. Other than "objections that emancipation isn't covered!" ... Where, within the text, is there a major "impact" of the emancipation issue not being covered? I'm, honestly, likely to cut this point unless I can think of a supporting rationale for how it impacts the interpretation and impact of this resolution.
3. No close-in-age exemption is allowed for the purposes of consentual sexual contact, if the child is legally under the age of consent.I think this one is pretty straightforward, but I wouldn't mind if someone could come up with a better version of wording so it doesn't sound like I'm trying to encourage the prevalence of sexual contact with young children within this text.

Many of the other suggestions (for additions) I feel would be more contentious than helpful. Even for those that I agree with, I'd hate to risk losing votes by introducing such arguments.

Anyhow, the complete (updated) draft will be in the OP shortly.

[Sanctaria]

There is a replacement that I believe is ready to go. Please see this thread, which is also linked in the OP.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

I believe the Ambassador is expressing concern that there will be a minimum of four days between repeal and replacement.

The Ambassador knows well that cannot be helped.

It should be remembered also, however, that just because a WA Resolution is repealed, it doesn't necessarily mean your country has to repeal it also. It can continue to stay in effect in your country if you wish it to.

[The Dourian Embassy]

A cursory glance spotted a misspelling of consensual in 3. of the PROTESTS clause. I'll wait until I get home to give it a more thorough reading.

[Mousebumples]

A cursory glance spotted a misspelling of consensual in 3. of the PROTESTS clause. I'll wait until I get home to give it a more thorough reading.

Per Wiki: consentual: Alternative spelling of consensual. ... The expression "consentual sex" is almost as common as "consensual sex"

[Mousebumples]

As an update, everyone, I may look to submit this tomorrow night or over the weekend - if there are not any major objections raised in either my thread or the replacement thread. While I understand that Sanct may still make some tweaks/etc., that replacement draft seems to be in fairly good shape to me. (Although, who knows what I might be missing. )

Any objections - i.e. there's something that needs to be changed, edited, etc., - please leave a comment in either this thread or that one. (The link is in the OP, as I'm too lazy/tired to hunt that down right now ... )

Thanks!

[Mousebumples]

This proposal has been submitted! Delegates, please approve!

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of GAR#19, Child Protection Act, which is to protect children from abuse.

REGRETS, however, that shortcomings within this resolution cause it to fall short of successfully achieving this goal.

UNDERSTANDS that repealing this resolution will not prevent WA member nations from continuing their efforts to protect children within their borders.

ACCEPTS that physical and emotional abuse of children should be considered criminal acts within WA member states.

NOTES, however, that although this resolution states that "A child is entitled to ... not to be physically or emotionally abused" it fails to criminalize such actions.

FEELS that while giving children the right to not be abused is laudable, this resolution does not go far enough in working to prevent such horrific actions against children.

RECOGNIZES that this resolution's text also permits the continued abuses of children as Clause 3 reads: "A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated".

OBSERVES that such wording, at minimum, permits WA member nations to leave abused children in the care of those who are abusing them until such abuse can be proven, which may result in children remaining with their abusers throughout the investigative process.

BELIEVES that children should be protected from those who are accused of abusing them throughout the investigative and judicial process.

REALIZES that the wording of the aforementioned Clause 3 means that children have a right to remain with their parents or guardians, which would include those who may be:

1. Detained in prison, for a crime unrelated to child abuse.
2. Fighting in a war in a foreign country.
3. Hospitalized for an extended period of time due to a severe illness or injury.

PROTESTS that this resolution clouds the issue of child protection rather than serving to clarify it through defining a child as “being under the age of consent or majority.” The wording of this clause is ambiguous, and it may permit WA member nations to pick and choose which definition they wish to employ in a given situation, depending on what best serves their governmental interests, versus serving the best interests of the child.

HOPES for future legislation that comprehensively ensures the protection of children.

REPEALS GAR#19, Child Protection Act.

The draft has changed more, again. I'm too tired at this point to update the OP, but I'll do that tomorrow. Mostly minor changes, but, anyhow, your support would be greatly appreciated!

[The Dourian Embassy]

The repeal is strong without the "PROTESTS" clause at the end, and that one has the capacity to cause endless argument. "What about nations that aren't human" they'll say. "I meant in that clause that they'll use either age of consent or age of majority, not that they didn't define the terms themselves," you'll reply. Rinse, lather, repeat. The argument itself is kinda meh, in comparison to the rest(which is excellent).

Using age of Majority where age of consent might do best, or vice versa, wouldn't, I think, grant very much advantage to the nation doing it. I could be wrong on that point, I suppose.

[Alqania]

"The Yadoru-Eberhart interpretation of the CPA definition of a child is demonstrably false", Lord Raekevik asserted. "The definition of a child as someone being under the age of consent or majority is not ambiguous at all, because it uses an inclusive disjunction:"

x = age
y = age of consent
z = age of majority
a = person
c = child
P: x < y
Q: x < z
R: a = c
∀c (P(c) V Q(c))
∀a ((P(a)) V (Q(a))) → R(a)

"That is: all children have an age which is under the age of consent or under the age of majority or under both. All persons whose age is under the age of consent or under the age of majority or under both are children.

Say we have member states A, B and C. In A, the age of consent is 14 and the age of majority is 18. In B, the age of consent is 18 and the age of majority is 14. In C, the age of consent is 18 and the age of majority is also 18. All persons who are 17 years old are considered children in A, B and C, because all of them have an age which is under the age of consent (B) or under the age of majority (A) or both (C).

I would call this an Honest Mistake and respectfully suggest Ambassador Eberhart to withdraw the proposal, so that this part of the repeal can be removed. And I do beg His Excellency to forgive me for not spotting this issue sooner."

[Discoveria]

"I must reluctantly agree with Lord Raekevik on the age of consent or majority business," said Matthew.

[Mousebumples]

Regarding the age of consent or majority business:

I understand your point, and I absolutely concede that was the intent of the author. However, it merely says "or" and - further - it says "as defined by their home nation." This is a loophole that nations could exploit. Yes, if someone is under both the age of consent *and* majority, it's simple. But, should the age of consent be 14 and the age of majority be 18, that's a 4 year gap in which there's definitely some wiggle room for nations wishing to loophole the hell out of this resolution.

Overlooking for a moment that the resolution in question doesn't criminalize child abuse, I think we could agree that most reasonable nations would have criminalized child abuse and would likely have stronger punishments in place for child abuse versus their adult equivalents. (e.g. battery) If a parent is beating up on their 16 year old child - who would be over the age of consent in this hypothetical nation - a nation could determine that "battery" is the appropriate charge, versus "physical abuse of a child." The mere use of "or" within the definition does not prevent that. I view such a circumstance as to be denying a child their right to justice under the law and one more way in which this resolution fails to properly protect the rights of children.

As a refresher, once more, the definition clause reads as follows:
Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,

A better definition (to rectify this issue) may have been:
Defines a child as being under their home nation's age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,

A definition is - and should be - ONE thing. Not an either/or situation. A good definition within this resolution would have been to use the age of majority - and to clarify the single situation in which the age of consent may be relevant. Age of consent should not be relevant to physical or emotional abuse. However, through the poor wording of the definitions, it becomes relevant and is something that is - in my opinion - among the grounds for repeal.

Perhaps I could have worded the argument more clearly in the repeal, but - in my opinion - the point still holds. Or means ... just that. OR. In a perfect, loophole-free world, nations would pick the most appropriate option (i.e. would only pick age of consent for sexual abuse issues), but that's not stated anywhere in the text of the resolution.

It's a loophole. It's a problem. While each of you are welcome to file a GHR if you think the clause makes it illegal, I'm not planning to pull the proposal on these grounds.

[The Dourian Embassy]

It's a loophole. It's a problem. While each of you are welcome to file a GHR if you think the clause makes it illegal, I'm not planning to pull the proposal on these grounds.

Nor should you, it's a bad resolution, and the rest of your arguments are very good. I was just worried that one might cause a bit of contention.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise to second the points made by the ambassadors of Cowardly Pacifists and Sanctaria:

Don't get me wrong, I think both you and Sanctaria are on the right track. I especially enjoyed your argument that CPA gives children the right to accompany their parents to jail while they serve out their armed robbery conviction - I agree that's a bizarre "right" to grant a child.

I knew it was a good idea to include that. And people called me daft...

The Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii opposes the concept put forward in the CPA that children have rights which supersede the right of the State to act in their best interest. Kawaiian law, we note, places great emphasis on the rights of parents to manage their households. Abrogating a parent's right to raise their children is an EXTREMELY grave undertaking by our government. However, if such a sad duty becomes necessary, the notion that a child is competent enough to override the State's decision and return to the parents the State deems unfit is simply absurd.

For that reason alone, we support this repeal.

[Mousebumples]

At vote BUMP!

Ambassadors, your vote IN FAVOR would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

[Discoveria]

"Regardless of our earlier views, Discoveria is now... content to support this repeal, given the sheer awfulness of the targeted resolution," said Matthew. "I hope the rest of the General Assembly will join me in continuing to celebrate the Month of Mouse by supporting this resolution enthusiastically."

[Norsklow]

'We vote against, on the nagging suspicion that any new proposal would tend to undermine the authority over life and death held by a Pater Familias even further.'

;snarled Jarl Thorfinn Bloodbeard.

[Flibbleites]

I'm afraid I must oppose this repeal because I believe that the supposed flaws are being blow out of proportion.

And yes, I realize that by saying that I just caused the temperature in Hell to drop significantly.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative