[PASSED] Prevention of Child Abuse

[Southern Patriots]

The Sexual Privacy Act?

I'm assuming he meant the CPA.

Ah, of course.

That said, spanking does not appear banned on it. Doesn't harm, it gets attention. Unless someone uses an object. Now that's excessive. "Causing harm" is such a flimsy line anyway. Getting a shot hurts.

And this proposal also appears not to ban spanking, considering discipline isn't "malicious".

[Sanctaria]

And this proposal also appears not to ban spanking, considering discipline isn't "malicious".

O...kay then?

[Southern Patriots]

O...kay then?

S....ure?

[Sanctaria]

O...kay then?

S....ure?

I don't know what you're trying to get at ... is that a bad thing, a good thing ... what?

[Southern Patriots]

S....ure?

I don't know what you're trying to get at ... is that a bad thing, a good thing ... what?

Do you think it's a good thing?

I'm not certain if you're being deliberately obtuse. Better wording that makes the conditions non-dependent. Maybe "malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child," rather than just "malicious AND intentional..." for example.
Someone says it doesn't prevent a form of abuse you claim it prevents, and you just "oh".

[Sanctaria]

I'm not certain if you're being deliberately obtuse. Better wording that makes the conditions non-dependent. Maybe "malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child," rather than just "malicious AND intentional..." for example.
Someone says it doesn't prevent a form of abuse you claim it prevents, and you just "oh".

You could have just suggested that in the first place. I genuinely didn't know what you were getting at.

Suggestion implemented.

[Grays Harbor]

the malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,

So, we have: No spanking, No accidents, No mishaps, No contact sports. Lets just wrap them in a bubble until they are 30 years old, then set them free, shall we?

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

Rather vague, which makes it a dangerous definition. Something as minor as having a cellphone taken away for an hour could be described as "emotional and mental trauma", depending on the philosophical bent of the psychologist making the determination. In fact, pretty much anything can be described as causing "emotional and mental trauma" depending on what definition you care to use.



This whole thing, if passed, will do little more than start wholescale "witchhunts" against anybody and everybody, all sanctioned by the WA, in a misguided attempt to Think of The Children and/or Protect the Children.

[Sanctaria]

the malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,

So, we have: No spanking, No accidents, No mishaps, No contact sports. Lets just wrap them in a bubble until they are 30 years old, then set them free, shall we?

I see the Ambassador doesn't have a clue what negligent actually means.

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

Rather vague, which makes it a dangerous definition. Something as minor as having a cellphone taken away for an hour could be described as "emotional and mental trauma", depending on the philosophical bent of the psychologist making the determination. In fact, pretty much anything can be described as causing "emotional and mental trauma" depending on what definition you care to use.

If your child is getting serious emotional trauma from something as trivial as having their mobile taken off them, then I don't think a psychologist will be finding the child abused but rather a perfect candidate for a mental house.

This whole thing, if passed, will do little more than start wholescale "witchhunts" against anybody and everybody, all sanctioned by the WA, in a misguided attempt to Think of The Children and/or Protect the Children.

I disagree. Further, this Ambassador just loves reporting submitted proposals that haven't been proposed on the forum for "discussion". I find it therefore odd when a proposal is posted for discussion, he treats it like it has been submitted and just points out apparent flaws and fails to suggest any remedies.

Of course, the Ambassador probably doesn't consider Child Abuse an international issue. I'll go register my disagreement with him via letter sent by the WA Post Office.

[Grays Harbor]

So, we have: No spanking, No accidents, No mishaps, No contact sports. Lets just wrap them in a bubble until they are 30 years old, then set them free, shall we?

I see the Ambassador doesn't have a clue what negligent actually means.

We do understand "negligent" quite well. We also understand "Intentional", which most, if not all, contact sports involve, which is intentional contact. Show me a painless cross-check in hockey or a painless tackle in football, and we may agree with you.

We're waiting.

[Sanctaria]

I see the Ambassador doesn't have a clue what negligent actually means.

We do understand "negligent" quite well. We also understand "Intentional", which most, if not all, contact sports involve, which is intentional contact. Show me a painless cross-check in hockey or a painless tackle in football, and we may agree with you.

We're waiting.

In most contact sports, the intention is to get the ball, not cause contact. Contact is just a legitimate way of getting the ball, or the game's equivalent. You may have a point when it comes to wrestling/boxing though.

I will revisit the definitions though to try and tighten things up.

[Yandera]

The Nation of Yandera supports this replacement resolution.

Rep. of the Nation of Yandera and Founder of the Union of Yandera,
Megan T. Hall

[Geilinor]

I'm trying to get at the fact that the term "child" involves two distinct concepts. There's the concept of being a child "legally" and of being a child "developmentally." The preamble makes clear that this proposal is really about the later, i.e. protecting those who are still in the developmental state of childhood. Accordingly, I was just wondering if thought was given to a definition that better serves that purpose, rather than falling back on the old legal standby of "a child is a person who is not legally an adult."

P.S. "Adolescence," refers to a developmental period after puberty. It would hardly be possible to define adolescence as a period of 10-14 days after birth (unless your species really goes through puberty that fast). Age of majority, on the other hand, could be defined as a period of 10-14 days after birth, since the concept is just a legal fiction with no necessary relationship to physical or mental development. Just food for thought.

If your nation wishes to set your "age of majority" at the age of adolescence, that's your call. There is nothing in this resolution that prevents you from using the human equivalent of 11 or 13 or 16 as your nation's age of majority if you so choose.

And that's the beauty of using "age of majority" (although I do like the "or equivalent" idea, I'll admit, as it makes it less loopholeable) - it makes things more adaptable to individual member states.

If your concern is regarding the sexual abuse angle, the key term "nonconsensual" in the definition should cover that as well. Your nation is also entitled to set an age of consent - as outlined in GAR#16 - Sexual Privacy Act.

I must say, I really am confused about what your concern is with "age of majority." Setting a specific age will run into the same troubles that sunk a certain "time limits" proposal that was proposed not too long ago. There are too many different nations with different types of citizens with different life spans, etc., etc. This proposal applies to all reasonable nations thanks to the Reasonable Nation Theory - and Sanct has already highlighted a previous mod ruling on the subject above.

If there's something else I'm missing, please enlighten me.

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

"There are also nations with different species, making defining a specific age of majority impossible."

WA Ambassador Gerhard Schauble

[Linux and the X]

That's definitely abusive, but the problem with requiring unintended consequences to be criminalised is that sometimes severe trauma is caused by things that really cannot be expected to do so. If someone wears a Halloween costume that traumatises an unusually sensitive child, should that be a crime? If they knew the child was unusually sensitive and wore the costume to cause trauma, calling it abusive would be reasonable, but unintended and unexpected consequences are, of course, unintended and unexpected. An important purpose of criminalisation is to discourage behaviour. A person cannot be discouraged from doing something unintentionally.
Still, if you want to keep the wording of that clause, it can work, but the physical abuse clause should also cover unintended consequences.

I don't think you're appreciating the distinction, ambassador. There is lots of abusive behaviour that is not intended to cause psychological harm. The way you seem to want things, this legislation would only cover the psychopathic (physically abusive or deliberate psychological abusers) and apathetic (those who neglect), and people who are just shitty parents would get a free ride because they weren't intending to cause psychological harm, they were trying to "build character" or "teach him not to be such a fag-loving pussy" or whatever.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Obviously, such actions should be classified as abusive. On the other hand, actions which legitimately cannot be expected to cause harm should not be considered abusive, and certainly criminally abusive. This is why we suggested making the standard higher. However, our main concern was the different standards for physical (which requires the harm be intentional) and psychological abuse (which does not). We could accept either standard if consistently applied.

The prohibition on creation of such materials would only apply within member states as well, though, and doing so would require performing child abuse, which would already be illegal. Prohibiting distribution of the material does not seem to have any legitimate protective effect. In fact, we've had several abuse cases (including, but not exclusively, what would be considered child abuse under this proposal) that were uncovered and proven because of the distribution of video recordings.

So we should allow the creation and distribution of child pornography? That seems to be what the ambassador is suggesting here. Of course cases have been uncovered thanks to the distribution of video recordings but I don't personally see why the victims of the abuse should have to live with knowing that people are still distributing and still watching those recordings years after the abuse occurred. It seems to me that it would only prolong the abuse, really.

We find ourselves in such profound disagreement with this logic that we cannot reasonably argue on the matter.

[Linux and the X]

the malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,

So, we have: No spanking,

Good.

No accidents, No mishaps,

Those are synonymous, and are, obviously, not intentional.

No contact sports.

Participation in which is (or at least should be) voluntary? Participation in a potentially harmful activity is generally considered acceptance of reasonably foreseeable harm.

[Grays Harbor]

Participation in which is (or at least should be) voluntary? Participation in a potentially harmful activity is generally considered acceptance of reasonably foreseeable harm.

True, but "reasonable and/or voluntary" and "lawsuit and/or overzealous enforcement" have rarely ever had more than just a passing acquaintance.

[Pollepao]

So, we have: No spanking,

Good.

No accidents, No mishaps,

Those are synonymous, and are, obviously, not intentional.

No contact sports.

Participation in which is (or at least should be) voluntary? Participation in a potentially harmful activity is generally considered acceptance of reasonably foreseeable harm.

Dear Linux and X's Ambassador, we suggest that you take the time to read the definition of negligent. Negligent means to "Failing to take proper care in doing something". This means, that hypothetically, if someone doesn't take the care to put a helmet on their child before he or she or miscellaneous gender goes on a bike ride, and then the child falls over and hits their head on a rock, they have committed child abuse.

Also note that that it says;

the malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,

This does not say "intentional AND negligent", it says Intentional OR negligent.

We of Pollepao are very worried at this current change of wording and would oppose the resolution in its current form.

[Sanctaria]

Good.


Those are synonymous, and are, obviously, not intentional.


Participation in which is (or at least should be) voluntary? Participation in a potentially harmful activity is generally considered acceptance of reasonably foreseeable harm.

Dear Linux and X's Ambassador, we suggest that you take the time to read the definition of negligent. Negligent means to "Failing to take proper care in doing something". This means, that hypothetically, if someone doesn't take the care to put a helmet on their child before he or she or miscellaneous gender goes on a bike ride, and then the child falls over and hits their head on a rock, they have committed child abuse.

Also note that that it says;

the malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,

This does not say "intentional AND negligent", it says Intentional OR negligent.

We of Pollepao are very worried at this current change of wording and would oppose the resolution in its current form.

You forgot one little thing in your "definition". Negligence implies something not done on a continuous or regular basis.

I've already said I'm taking another look at the definitions. What's the rush? There's been no headway on the repeal yet either.

Patience, my padawan.

[Quelesh]

I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of a resolution protecting vulnerable individuals, though I am skeptical of this draft. I could be convinced to support it, though, if certain changes are made.

My comments follow:

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

I could not possibly support this definition, and would certainly oppose this proposal so long as this definition is present. I cannot support any mention of an age of majority in international law.

This definition would replicate one of the major flaws of GAR19: it attempts to force member states to discriminate on the basis of chronological age, and chronological age alone, to the exclusion of any other basis for a determination of competence. This provides no protection to incompetent people above the AoM, while placing undue restrictions on competent people under the AoM - in this sense it is both underinclusive and overinclusive. Member states should be able to use bases other than chronological age in their determinations of competence.

I recommend "A child as any individual who is not competent to manage his or her own affairs," or "A child as any individual who is not competent to make rational decisions regarding his or her own wellbeing," or something similar. This would require member states to protect incompetent individuals (as the current definition does not), but would leave the method for making determinations of competence to member states. Member states would still be able to use a flat age limit (e.g. an age of majority) if they think it appropriate, but would not be required to do so, so long as incompetent people are protected as required by the resolution.

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

This duplicates GAR16, and is therefore entirely unnecessary. GAR16's treatment of sexual consent law is highly problematic, in my opinion, and I think that GAR16 should be repealed. If both GAR19 and GAR16 were repealed, then theoretically a good sexual consent resolution could be passed (though I won't hold my breath). So long as GAR16 is on the books, though, this clause is meaningless and duplicative.

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

This is just an oddity, rather than something I really object to: why "expectancy"? I think "the right" is sufficient.

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.

I appreciate that this clause does not require the criminalization of the mere possession of such materials, but I still find it problematic.

First, member states should not be required to criminalize child pornography (I'll limit this point to child porn for now, though your definition is so broad that many other materials are included in it - I'll address that in a bit). Member states should be able to treat child pornography as evidence of a crime, rather than as a crime in itself, and therefore to devote their limited law enforcement resources to tracking down and catching people who actually abuse children, rather than those who merely send a picture to someone. I am not proposing that this Assembly require that such materials be legal - merely that it not require that they be criminalized, allowing law enforcement to pursue higher priorities like actually stopping child abuse.

Second, this definition is extremely broad. "Child abuse" is, in your definition, not at all limited to "sexual activity involving a child." This means that a video depicting one child (or, under the existing problematic definition, one person younger than the AoM, even if she is not actually a child) insulting and laughing at another is included in the definition and it is therefore a crime to distribute it. There is also no requirement that the depiction be photographic - the distribution of textual descriptions of child abuse would also be criminalized. This is not limited to erotic stories involving children (textual child porn), but also includes any non-erotic book or essay, for example, describing child abuse (and to the extent that it requires the criminalization of the distribution of a book in which the author recounts being beaten as a child, it likely contradicts GAR30, Freedom of Expression). It may also (depending on the interpretation of "depicting") require the criminalization of so-called "virtual child pornography," lolicon, etc.

So, my recommendations again in brief:

1. Change the definition of "child" to "A child as any individual who is not competent to manage his or her own affairs," or "A child as any individual who is not competent to make rational decisions regarding his or her own wellbeing," or something similar, to ensure the protection of incompetent individuals while allowing member states to use bases other than chronological age to make determinations of competence.

2. Remove the sexual behavior clause from the definition of "child abuse," as it is unnecessarily duplicative.

3. Remove the "materials depicting child abuse" clause, to allow member states to expend their limited law enforcement resources on actually stopping child abuse.

If these changes are made (at a minimum recommendations 1 and 3), I can tentatively support this proposal.

My responses to other ambassadors follow:

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• A child: any individual under the national age of majority,

Is it heinous to wonder if we should take this opportunity to define a child with terms other than "age of majority?" I get that there is a lobby that hates the idea of the WA taking away governments' power to define childhood how they please, but for the purposes of this kind of legislation I feel that a tighter definition might be warranted. After all, it doesn't seem right that a this proposal wouldn't apply to toddlers in nations without an age of majority, or might apply to 25-year-olds in nations with a high age of majority.

Just wondering if a different definition of child that doesn't invoke the slippery concept of age of majority has been considered. Perhaps "any individual of an age spanning from birth through the end of adolescence"?

I agree with your questioning of the inclusion of an "age of majority," but I would oppose any definition that attempts to mandate discrimination on the basis of chronological age rather than other bases. "Child" should be defined as a person who is incompetent to make rational decisions about his or her own wellbeing, or something similar. This would protect incompetent people, but it would not require member states to place restrictions on competent people under an arbitrary age. Member states would still be able to use a flat age limit if they think it appropriate.

As such, and as already pointed out under RNT, it's easier and far less messy to utilise the "a child is someone who is not an adult" definition.

At least within the context of the majority/minority dichotomy (which I also find silly, but that so far is beyond the scope of this discussion), that definition would make sense, but that is not the definition you use in your current draft. You refer to an age of majority, rather than simply referring to people who are not adults. "An individual who is not legally considered an adult" would be better, but the true purpose of this is to protect incompetent individuals, so the definition should limit itself to incompetent individuals, regardless of age or legal status.

Regardless, I've already produced the ruling from the Secretariat saying one should proceed on these kinds of resolutions under the RNT theory. If I remember correctly, Quelesh doesn't have children in their nation, so obviously this, and all other resolutions dealing with children, does not apply to them.

We do have children, developmentally speaking. We do not, however, have any "children" under the legal definitions used in extant WA resolutions such as GAR19.

I actually think that that should change. Not that the definitions should be made "more strict" from a chronological age standpoint, but that they should simply encompass the set of incompetent people, while excluding the set of competent people, regardless of chronological age. Member states would then be able to choose their own methods for making determinations of competence, including chronological age limits if they think it appropriate.

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

Perhaps this would be better worded as "any individual who has not passed the jurisdictional threshold of majority". This would avoid emphasising any particular method of determining majority as well as allowing subdivisions of nations to have individual thresholds. (OOC:As examples, Scotland has a different AoM than the rest of the UK, Gibraltar different from whoever you agree owns them, US states pick their own ages and early emancipation requirements, etc.)

I wouldn't object to that definition, and it would be enough to cause me to tentatively support this proposal (assuming the "materials depicting child abuse" clause were also removed), but I still think that the definition should refer to actual competence rather than a legal threshold or to majority. This isn't about protecting "minors" per se; it's about protecting incompetent people.

The different standards here are odd. For physical abuse, the causation of harm must be intentional, whereas for psychological harm, only the act need be intentional. We suggest the following:

[*]Physical abuse: the intentional performance of an act intended to cause physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,
[*]Psychological abuse: the intentional performance of an act intended to cause serious emotional and/or mental trauma to a child;

If you would prefer to combine these definitions (given their similar wording) the most difficult part would be deciding a term for the combination.

There is reasoning behind the wording of these clauses. Under your proposed definition, causing psychological harm must be the intended end result for it to be regarded as psychological abuse. That would not be the case under the current proposed definition. One can be intentionally or deliberately abusive without intending to cause serious emotional and/or mental trauma, and that's what this proposal seeks to address.

For example, parents intentionally putting down/insulting their children in order to teach them a lesson or perhaps to persuade them to abandon a certain lifestyle may not intend for them to be emotionally traumatised, but that doesn't mean that what they are doing is not abuse, especially if the child does end up with serious mental trauma as a result.

So member states should be required to criminalize the accidental infliction of emotional trauma, but should not be required to criminalize the accidental infliction of physical trauma?

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

OOC:

Prohibiting distribution of the material does not seem to have any legitimate protective effect. In fact, we've had several abuse cases (including, but not exclusively, what would be considered child abuse under this proposal) that were uncovered and proven because of the distribution of video recordings.

The William Adams case in Texas comes to mind. If distributing that video had been a crime, the young woman may never have posted it online and her father's crime would never have been discovered (unfortunately he couldn't actually be charged with the assault because the statute of limitations had expired).

[Sionis Prioratus]

I recommend "A child as any individual who is not competent to manage his or her own affairs,"

I'm afraid this would include all the ambassadors to the World Assembly.

Yours,

[Quelesh]

I recommend "A child as any individual who is not competent to manage his or her own affairs,"

I'm afraid this would include all the ambassadors to the World Assembly.

Perhaps so!

I would favor "not competent to make rational decisions regarding his or her own wellbeing," personally, but regardless, the point is that member states would be able to decide how best to determine whether a person is competent, and would not be limited to a single, and in my view highly flawed, method.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Pollepao]

snip

You forgot one little thing in your "definition". Negligence implies something not done on a continuous or regular basis.

I've already said I'm taking another look at the definitions. What's the rush? There's been no headway on the repeal yet either.

Patience, my padawan.

May we politely request an explanation as to what something not being done on a continuous basis has to do with our point?

But while we don't grasp what that actually has to do with anything, we do concede that as you say, negligence does imply that it is something not done on a regular basis. But we find that just reaffirms our point.

[Sanctaria]

You forgot one little thing in your "definition". Negligence implies something not done on a continuous or regular basis.

I've already said I'm taking another look at the definitions. What's the rush? There's been no headway on the repeal yet either.

Patience, my padawan.

May we politely request an explanation as to what something not being done on a continuous basis has to do with our point?

But while we don't grasp what that actually has to do with anything, we do concede that as you say, negligence does imply that it is something not done on a regular basis. But we find that just reaffirms our point.

Really? It reaffirms this?

This means, that hypothetically, if someone doesn't take the care to put a helmet on their child before he or she or miscellaneous gender goes on a bike ride, and then the child falls over and hits their head on a rock, they have committed child abuse.

[Pollepao]

May we politely request an explanation as to what something not being done on a continuous basis has to do with our point?

But while we don't grasp what that actually has to do with anything, we do concede that as you say, negligence does imply that it is something not done on a regular basis. But we find that just reaffirms our point.

Really? It reaffirms this?

This means, that hypothetically, if someone doesn't take the care to put a helmet on their child before he or she or miscellaneous gender goes on a bike ride, and then the child falls over and hits their head on a rock, they have committed child abuse.

Is custom for people to forget regularly or continuously the same thing? Otherwise, we see no reason why the current wording would not perfectly act to our hypothetical situation.

While we do understand the reasoning behind the wording (negligence in feeding or caring for a child) and it is certainly an honorable objective, to outlaw such acts, the current words outlaw much more. Please remember, that World Assembly resolutions are applied to the word - their intent is not applied, but their exact literal meaning.

[Sanctaria]

Is custom for people to forget regularly or continuously the same thing?

I don't think parents are going to forget to put their helmet on a child should they fall of and cut their head the first time. I'm going to take it you don't have children, Ambassador.

EDIT: Besides, if parents do keep forgetting to protect their children then they're not proving very good parents, are they. If they're not protecting their children, and their children are being hurt/put in danger because of this, you'd still advocate keeping the child (who is continuously getting hurt due to their parent's negligence) with their parents then?

Please remember, that World Assembly resolutions are applied to the word - their intent is not applied, but their exact literal meaning.

I've been around a while, Ambassador. I've written a few resolutions. I think I know how the World Assembly works at this stage.

[Pollepao]

I would assume you would know, Ambassador, as you are far more experienced than us. However what I see as the problem is that, since resolutions work through their word and not intent, that first time the child falls it has already become child abuse.

We would suggest changing the wording of subclause 2 of the definition clause to "continuous negligence leading to physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child" or similar. We are sure someone more eloquent could write that better, but that would be the gist of the change.