[PASSED] Prevention of Child Abuse

[Ossitania]

Actually considering there's something similar in the CPA, which is still in force, I'm pretty sure all WA nations would have the same law as mine in this regard.

With respect, the CPA only covers materials depecting sexual abuse, the clause you have included would expand this and depending on how one chooses to define depection of acts could result in a great many more materials being banned.

(Stupid OOC example: Harry Potter was living in conditions that would likely cause serious emotional harm, the story holds no educational, research or investigative purpose. Thus this resolution would currently make JK Rowling a very poor woman.)

I don't know how your legal system functions, ambassador, but in my country, our judiciary is capable of distinguishing between materials which depict child abuse and materials which depict a fictional representation of child abuse.

OOC: Very stupid example, since it's fiction and doesn't depict actual child abuse.

Edit:

Unless you want child porn legal in your nation?

Again this is not all your proposal bans and it is quite disturbing that you seem to be jumping to this conclusion.

Deputy Ambassador Saunders

It's not the only thing but it will proportionally be the most prohibited item, since there's far more incentive to produce and distribute child pornography than images of non-sexual child abuse, as the latter doesn't have the same gratification factor as the other. Either way, I don't see what's "disturbing" about it, unless you're terrified of your incompetent judicial system interpreting the clause overly broadly, which is not Dr. Ferguson's problem.

[Cenetra]

This doesn't change the fact that the WA has no business instituting mandatory censorship.

The WA through the Freedom of Expression allows nations to restrict pornographic materials which may be grossly explicit and/or offensive. I'm confident child sex abuse falls under grossly explicit and offensive.

Unless you want child porn legal in your nation?

The key word there is "allows" as opposed to "forces."

[Ossitania]

The WA through the Freedom of Expression allows nations to restrict pornographic materials which may be grossly explicit and/or offensive. I'm confident child sex abuse falls under grossly explicit and offensive.

Unless you want child porn legal in your nation?

The key word there is "allows" as opposed to "forces."

The problem, ambassador, is that you have yet to provide a compelling reason not to ban these materials, while many compelling reasons are available as to why we should ban it.

[Quelesh]

About the definition of child:

A child as any individual under the national age of majority, or equivalent,

This clause is still my primary objection to this proposal. I could not support any proposal that attempts to mandate discrimination on the basis of chronological age. Further, this proposal provides no protection whatsoever to incompetent people who have reached a nation's AoM. The purpose of this proposal should be to protect incompetent people, regardless of whether or not they're minors, not to protect minors, regardless of whether or not they're incompetent. Also, this definition makes no allowance whatsoever for emancipated minors.

Change this to "any individual who is incapable of making rational decisions regarding his or her own wellbeing," or something similar. Alternatively, use the idea put forth by the Luxian ambassador: "a person who is not an adult" or "a person who has not reached a nation's threshold of majority" or similar, though I much prefer my idea.

About the sexuality subclause:

the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child

I don't actually object to this, per se. After all, I can support prohibiting unwanted sexual contact against anyone. I just think it's entirely unnecessary given GAR16, and I also think that, if the WA is going to address sexual consent law, it should be done in its own resolution.

However, this, in and of itself, would not cause me to oppose this proposal. I do, though, find the inclusion of "and/or desire" a bit confusing. What, exactly, would be criminalized here that is not a "behaviour"? Is this intended to criminalize the feeling of sexual desire for a child, in and of itself?

About the censorship clause:

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials 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 my secondary objection to this proposal, and I object to it for multiple reasons.

1. It requires the criminalization of the distribution of child pornography. Nations should be free to devote law enforcement resources to stopping actual harms, not just to arresting and prosecuting people who send pictures to each other.

2. It does not distinguish between the depiction of the rape of a toddler, on the one hand, and the depiction of more ambiguous activities involving, e.g., teenagers younger than a nation's AoM, on the other hand. This objection is somewhat mollified, however, by the fact that the sexuality subclause of the child abuse definition limits itself to unwanted sexual behavior, meaning that depictions of consensual teenage sex would not necessarily be prohibited.

3. It criminalizes far more than just child pornography in the conventional sense. Not only could it be read as criminalizing lolicon and other such material, it also criminalizes any media, including non-erotic media and including written works, that depict child abuse.

For example, if a person writes a non-fiction book, an autobiography, in which she recounts in detail being beaten as a child, she is committing a crime by creating material depicting child abuse. If she publishes it, the publisher is committing a crime by distributing such material. The printer is committing the same crime, as is the shipper, the retailer, and the sales clerk who completes the purchase. If Person A purchases the book and gives it to Person B as a gift, Person A is also committing a crime by distributing the material.

As another example: A minor is frequently beaten by her father. She sets up a hidden video camera in her bedroom that records the next beating. The minor is committing a crime by creating material depicting child abuse. She then posts this video on the Internet to expose her father's crimes. She is committing another crime by distributing material depicting child abuse, as are the owners and operators of the website hosting the video.

Yet another example: Say that Child A is teasing, insulting and bullying Child B, causing Child B serious emotional or mental trauma. Child C is a bystander, and is recording the events on her cell phone. Child C is committing a crime by creating material depicting child abuse. If Child C gives/shows the video to her parents, Child C is committing another crime by distributing the material. If Child C's parents send the video to Child A's parents, to inform them of what Child A has done, then Child C's parents are committing a crime by distributing the material. If Child A's parents show the video to Child A and confront her about it, then Child A's parents are committing the same crime.

For these reasons, the mandatory censorship clause should be removed.

If the definition of child were revised appropriately to protect all incompetent people while not encompassing competent people, and if the censorship clause were removed, I could tentatively support this proposal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Sanctaria]

Why is the Queleshian Ambassador repeating herself? Does she not think we heard her the previous few times she's spoken?

[Cenetra]

The key word there is "allows" as opposed to "forces."

The problem, ambassador, is that you have yet to provide a compelling reason not to ban these materials, while many compelling reasons are available as to why we should ban it.

Since you are the one suggesting a ban which violates a nation's ability to choose how to regulate "explicit and offensive" material, the burden of proof is on you.

Kindly share your "many compelling reasons" for the benefit of the General Assembly.

[Ossitania]

The problem, ambassador, is that you have yet to provide a compelling reason not to ban these materials, while many compelling reasons are available as to why we should ban it.

Since you are the one suggesting a ban which violates a nation's ability to choose how to regulate "explicit and offensive" material, the burden of proof is on you.

Kindly share your "many compelling reasons" for the benefit of the General Assembly.

With pleasure.

1. Allowing these materials to be created or distributed is a violation of the privacy of the victim and forces them to undergo the eternal mental and emotional torment of knowing that there are people out there gaining (often sexual) gratification from viewing their abuse, which must surely be considered abusive in itself.
2. Allowing these materials to be created would reduce the number of criminal offences that an abuser who creates the materials could potentially be charged with, thus reducing the incentive to not commit the crimes.
3. Allowing these materials to be created or distributed would allow people to profit monetarily from the suffering of the victim, which must surely be considered abusive in itself.
4. Allowing these materials to be created or distributed would provide a large body of material from which future abusers could learn and thus better avoid detection by law enforcement.
5. Allowing these materials to be created or distributed makes the acts they depict appear to be more socially acceptable than they ever should be and would reduce the social disincentive to abuse.

[Cenetra]

1. Allowing these materials to be created or distributed is a violation of the privacy of the victim and forces them to undergo the eternal mental and emotional torment of knowing that there are people out there gaining (often sexual) gratification from viewing their abuse, which must surely be considered abusive in itself.

This is in fact a good argument. Privacy of the victims is an important concern. Unfortunately, the logic doesn't hold up. Aside from the obvious issue that this fails to distinguish between fictional and nonfictional material, and therefore there isn't necessarily a victim whose privacy may be violated, the logic fails under a small change of degree. Consider a video showing an army unit accidentally driving over an IED. The survivors, now suffering from PTSD, are troubled by the possibility that civilians who sympathize with the enemy might gain gratification from viewing the deaths of their comrades. Should the video be banned and anyone who ever watched it imprisoned?

Allowing these materials to be created would reduce the number of criminal offences that an abuser who creates the materials could potentially be charged with, thus reducing the incentive to not commit the crimes.

This can be broken down into two cases. In the case of "creation," we see no need for the WA to support a technique used by prosecution to weasel around presumption of innocence, especially as such a practice is not necessarily legal or useful in all nations. In the case of "distribution," "viewing," and "possession," your argument is irrelevant as the defendant would not be charged with any other crime.

Allowing these materials to be created or distributed would allow people to profit monetarily from the suffering of the victim, which must surely be considered abusive in itself.

Actually, intellectual property laws can typically handle this. For example, if the material is left as the intellectual property of the original criminal, and existing laws prohibit profiting from a crime, then said "monetary profit" is already illegal. Also note that there is a difference between commercial and noncommercial use, both legally and morally.

Allowing these materials to be created or distributed would provide a large body of material from which future abusers could learn and thus better avoid detection by law enforcement.

In that case, a "Democratia's Stupidest Criminals" video should be illegal because future criminals could learn from it and not try to rob a gun store armed with a knife.

Allowing these materials to be created or distributed makes the acts they depict appear to be more socially acceptable than they ever should be and would reduce the social disincentive to abuse.

Again, with all due respect, this is garbage. By this logic, a movie in which the heroes perform a daring heist on a corrupt bank should be banned because it makes armed robbery "appear to be more socially acceptable than it ever should be."

[Albioney]

Shouldn't something be added about Child Labor? I feel like that should be included in this, as child labour could be interpreted as child abuse.

[Pollepao]

Child labour is already (mostly) outlawed by GA #4 "Restrictions on Child Labor".

[Ossitania]

This is in fact a good argument. Privacy of the victims is an important concern. Unfortunately, the logic doesn't hold up. Aside from the obvious issue that this fails to distinguish between fictional and nonfictional material, and therefore there isn't necessarily a victim whose privacy may be violated, the logic fails under a small change of degree. Consider a video showing an army unit accidentally driving over an IED. The survivors, now suffering from PTSD, are troubled by the possibility that civilians who sympathize with the enemy might gain gratification from viewing the deaths of their comrades. Should the video be banned and anyone who ever watched it imprisoned?

I'd argue that since the prohibition is on depictions of child abuse, not depictions of fictional representations of child abuse, it does distinguish between fictional and nonfictional material. Additionally, I would actually vehemently argue for those soldiers' rights to have that video removed from the public sphere if they want, but I wouldn't expect any civilised country to prosecute anyone who watched it before it was banned, especially not WA member-states, since we do have a ban on ex post facto laws.

This can be broken down into two cases. In the case of "creation," we see no need for the WA to support a technique used by prosecution to weasel around presumption of innocence, especially as such a practice is not necessarily legal or useful in all nations. In the case of "distribution," "viewing," and "possession," your argument is irrelevant as the defendant would not be charged with any other crime.

I actually only put down "creation" for that point, so actually, your argument about distribution is irrelevant because I never made that one in the first place. However, it's also flawed in that the distribution of the video would enable the continued violation of the victim's privacy. And I don't see it as a way around presumption of innocence, I see it as a proper crime that needs punishment - surely if the victim's privacy is being violated, the perpetrator should be prosecuted for that crime in addition to the others?

Actually, intellectual property laws can typically handle this. For example, if the material is left as the intellectual property of the original criminal, and existing laws prohibit profiting from a crime, then said "monetary profit" is already illegal. Also note that there is a difference between commercial and noncommercial use, both legally and morally.

Of course, we wouldn't be leaving the material as the property of the criminal, would we, ambassador? Surely, if anyone, they should be the property of victim, but, of course, I'm sure the victim would much prefer if the materials had never been created in the first place, which is more likely to be the case if the creation of the video is also a crime, since the criminal would be deterred from committing an additional criminal offence.

In that case, a "Democratia's Stupidest Criminals" video should be illegal because future criminals could learn from it and not try to rob a gun store armed with a knife.

We're not talking about appropriately censored videos prepared for television viewing here, ambassador, we're talking about uncensored videos of child abuse and I am still fascinated to hear your justification for why the eternal victimisation of child abuse victims is justified outside the spare exceptions offered by Dr. Ferguson.

Again, with all due respect, this is garbage. By this logic, a movie in which the heroes perform a daring heist on a corrupt bank should be banned because it makes armed robbery "appear to be more socially acceptable than it ever should be."

There is a difference between reality and fiction, if the ambassador from Cenetra has failed to notice and there's a hell of a difference between filming a crime movie for entertainment purposes and allowing a child abuse victim's privacy to be violated over and over with the tacit approval of the government.

[Loli Pangaea]

I'm seeing a few slight issues with this. Allow me to edit it for you (strikes/bold suggest changes, italics are personal notes):

COGNISANT of the inherent innocence and naivety possessed by a child,

APPALLED that individuals may sometimes violate and/or take advantage of these attributes to further their selfish enterprises,

DESIROUS of a resolution where these natural attributes are protected and violations of the same result in swift retribution,

Hereby

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

A child as any individual under the national age of majority, or equivalent,

Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:
the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child Performing sex acts on a child the current clause would mean that children, regardless of age requirements, etc may still have sex if they are consenting or at least believed to be consenting; "desire" implies that it would be illegal to be attracted to minors, regardless of whether or not that individual acts on it
the malicious and intentional causing the malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,
any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,
depriving, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis;


AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;

MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;

REQUIRES nations to investigate fully, and to the best of their ability, all reports of child abuse as defined by this resolution;

INSISTS that such investigations be confidential, as well as respectful and impartial to the parties involved;

REQUIRES nations take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

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

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes if something is needed for scientific purposes, it would likely just be either a CGI image (such as one that shows an inside view of the genitals), or just a non-sexual picture of a child (such as one needed to assess the medical needs of an individual child); there is no valid scientific or medical reason to have a photograph of someone raping a child, as well as for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse.

We also need a way to address the fact that member states can set their age of consent to 0. Not sure how to tackle this.

[Englonia]

Hello, what about my suggestion to the list of offenses.

The suggestion in question:

you forgot pedophile advocacy/activism. (the art of justifying, defending, or supporting pedophiles)

Being a paedophile isn't, and shouldn't, be a crime. Acting on it, however, should be. The sexual abuse of children will be criminalised by this proposal.

being a pedo isnt a crime? sanctaria, WTF are you thinking!?!?! They are criminals it's super mega ultra hyper obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ossitania]

The suggestion in question:

Being a paedophile isn't, and shouldn't, be a crime. Acting on it, however, should be. The sexual abuse of children will be criminalised by this proposal.

being a pedo isnt a crime? sanctaria, WTF are you thinking!?!?! They are criminals it's super mega ultra hyper obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wanting to steal is not a crime. Stealing is a crime.
Wanting to kill is not a crime. Killing is a crime.
Wanting to have sex with children is not a crime. Having sex with children is a crime.

[Englonia]

being a pedo isnt a crime? sanctaria, WTF are you thinking!?!?! They are criminals it's super mega ultra hyper obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wanting to steal is not a crime. Stealing is a crime.
Wanting to kill is not a crime. Killing is a crime.
Wanting to have sex with children is not a crime. Having sex with children is a crime.

there's wanting to kill or steal, and theres NAMBLA, you dig? thats why pedophile advocacy must be included.

[Sineurin]

Wanting to steal is not a crime. Stealing is a crime.
Wanting to kill is not a crime. Killing is a crime.
Wanting to have sex with children is not a crime. Having sex with children is a crime.

there's wanting to kill or steal, and theres NAMBLA, you dig? thats why pedophile advocacy must be included.

The point is, these people don't choose to have these desires etc. so why should they be criminalised for having desires and urges they can't help having. They can choose whether to act on those desires or not, which is where it becomes criminalised, acting on, or attempting to act on those desires should be illegal, perhaps even intent to act on them (IF it could be proven), but having them and choosing not to act on them should not.

Hence, having a violent urge, but not acting on it is legal, having one and acting on it by shooting your neighbour in the head for no reason, on the other hand is not legal (in most places anyway )

[Ossitania]

Wanting to steal is not a crime. Stealing is a crime.
Wanting to kill is not a crime. Killing is a crime.
Wanting to have sex with children is not a crime. Having sex with children is a crime.

there's wanting to kill or steal, and theres NAMBLA, you dig? thats why pedophile advocacy must be included.

So any group pressuring for something illegal to be made legal must be outlawed? It's fine if you want to have a ridiculous form of government where everything stays illegal forever, but that's not going into international law.

[Englonia]

there's wanting to kill or steal, and theres NAMBLA, you dig? thats why pedophile advocacy must be included.

So any group pressuring for something illegal to be made legal must be outlawed? It's fine if you want to have a ridiculous form of government where everything stays illegal forever, but that's not going into international law.

Sure but that also means everything stays legal forever just like everything stays illegal forever. the status quo shall be superior.

[Flibbleites]

So any group pressuring for something illegal to be made legal must be outlawed? It's fine if you want to have a ridiculous form of government where everything stays illegal forever, but that's not going into international law.

Sure but that also means everything stays legal forever just like everything stays illegal forever. the status quo shall be superior.

The status quo once said that interracial marriage was illegal, are you implying that that shouldn't have changed?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Viritica]

"We are curious... does this proposal imply that something as simple as slapping a child on the butt be considered child abuse?" - Alexander Tarkulič, Viritican representative to the World Assembly

[Linux and the X]

"We are curious... does this proposal imply that something as simple as slapping a child on the butt be considered child abuse?" - Alexander Tarkulič, Viritican representative to the World Assembly

No, common sense does that.

[Bibleblacks]

"We are curious... does this proposal imply that something as simple as slapping a child on the butt be considered child abuse?" - Alexander Tarkulič, Viritican representative to the World Assembly

No, common sense does that.

Since when has common sense ever been a major factor to Governing politics. Their are plenty of advocacy groups in every country moving to outlaw spanking, yelling, and such. A study put out in the US yesterday showed a strong connection between these common sense acts.


http://jezebel.com/5923223/spanking-your-kids-could-leave-a-permanent-psychological-mark

[Englonia]

Sure but that also means everything stays legal forever just like everything stays illegal forever. the status quo shall be superior.

The status quo once said that interracial marriage was illegal, are you implying that that shouldn't have changed?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Thats way too prior, maybe the status quo from bush's era?

[Ossitania]

The status quo once said that interracial marriage was illegal, are you implying that that shouldn't have changed?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Thats way too prior, maybe the status quo from bush's era?

First of all, NS =/= RL and RL =/= America.

Second of all, which Bush?

Third of all, either way, that status quo and the status quo to the present day within America excludes gay people from marrying in the majority of the country, a right which the majority in this Assembly have voted into law.

Fourth of all, in a general sense, since nothing is ever perfect, the status quo can always be improved upon, so maintaining it is grossly irresponsible when the possibility to improve on it exists.

[Englonia]

Thats way too prior, maybe the status quo from bush's era?

First of all, NS =/= RL and RL =/= America.

Second of all, which Bush?

Third of all, either way, that status quo and the status quo to the present day within America excludes gay people from marrying in the majority of the country, a right which the majority in this Assembly have voted into law.

Fourth of all, in a general sense, since nothing is ever perfect, the status quo can always be improved upon, so maintaining it is grossly irresponsible when the possibility to improve on it exists.

Dubya, anything from the time of his administration is perfect.