NationStates

It would be extremely helpful if you updated the first post to contain your most recent draft and spoilered the prior drafts. As it is, I am not sure what the current text you are asking for feedback on is.

New version edited on the first post.
Cheers.

"The Children Act" should be named as the "Treaty for Children", in which it would be Perfect for this Draft to be Named for, and also, the Fatimanian Ambassador to the World Assembly was happy to Comment about this bill, but they said that it needs major improvements, including with the Addition that Children should have a Access to Education and Leisure for them, including Sport Activities, Playgrounds and Basketball Courts, and also to protect from Children from being Recruited by Terrorists or by the State to be the Child Soldier or to engage in a Conflict, whatever if it is against the Government or if not. i would be happy if you take my suggestion.

I get what you're saying regarding a whole wellbeing approach. But, that would, I think, need a second document to outline what exactly wellbeing is and how this is enshrined properly. We have taken a broader safeguarding and welfare approach instead. Happy to look into wellbeing in another document if this, by any luck, passes the GA floor. Best

.

A legality challenge has been submitted against this proposal.

EDIT: Sorry for not pointing this out earlier, I only noticed this proposal and the illegality when it was submitted and had to submit the challenge earlier than I wanted with this getting to quorum before this did.

New version in FIRST post. Any help or comments welcome.
Anything regarding any legal challenge is welcome. I do not wish to have a never ending submitting, deleting, submitting. This will be the last time I attempt to get this on to the WA floor. So any comments will be enacted with any reference to any legality issues.

I'm the sort that could definitely support an effort like this, but I feel like the current version tries to do A LOT without allowing sufficient time for careful circumspection and editing. It's only been a month since this was first brought up for drafting. I noticed several problematic provisions in the current draft, but I'll just point to one for now:

Telgan Alpha wrote:3. Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must:... faciliate social and other developmental pursuits,
...
5. Member States shall ensure the welfare of the child is protected through the legal system, which:... act as an arbitrator in regards to Section 3.

Let's put aside the grammatical problems ("member states" is a plural noun so "it must" should be "they must," and "the legal system, which act as" is bad grammar). This allows kids who don't make the varsity football team to sue because their right to "other developmental pursuits" was not respected or sufficiently facilitated. Or because there aren't any violin tutors in their area. Or because they didn't get into the public university they wanted.

Edit: I noticed that the submitted draft was slightly different from what is posted in OP, so I edited to take that into account.

Is the following clause—


compatible with Protecting Free Expression sections 2–4, which


If member nations are permitted to make content regulations (eg 'We should overthrow Parliament! Ride now, ride now, ride! Ride for ruin and the world's ending!') on speech – without respect to age – surely those regulations apply also to minors. Section 3 is a catch-all clause, but on first glance but it allows the WA to pass further speech regulations (not create exceptions to ones already written into PFE). Section 4 creates a general ability for member nations to regulate speech in schools, which is presumably associated with speech by minors.

A few other issues that I think would be worth exploring: To what extent does 'reasonable' in PFE insulate this proposal? What does it mean to 'empower'? (I think 'empower' is a positive right that also subsumes a negative one, the state needs to actively ensure rather than merely prohibit restrictions.)

Imperium Anglorum wrote:*snip*

I don't have much of an opinion on whether the proposal conflicts with PFE, but I think empowering children to state their views as a general matter doesn't necessarily conflict with imposing reasonable restrictions. The two seem compatible to me in theory. Empowering children to state their views could be no more than a suggestion box where they state their views about abolishing parliament, etc.

I don't think the use of "reasonable" in PFE does anything to "insulate" the current proposal. If anything, it makes the current proposal more likely to be viewed as a contradiction, because it could be (but does not need to be) interpreted as requiring children to be empowered to state their views despite reasonable regulations established under PFE.

I've already indicated above that "empower" can mean a lot of things. I don't think it necessarily implies the existence of a right possessed by children. It's more like a mandate that member nations create a process aimed at supporting children in expressing their views.

That's my opinion. Reasonable minds can differ here. If they're allowed to.

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:I don't have much of an opinion on whether the proposal conflicts with PFE, but I think empowering children to state their views as a general matter doesn't necessarily conflict with imposing reasonable restrictions. The two seem compatible to me in theory. Empowering children to state their views could be no more than a suggestion box where they state their views about abolishing parliament, etc.

I don't think the use of "reasonable" in PFE does anything to "insulate" the current proposal. If anything, it makes the current proposal more likely to be viewed as a contradiction, because it could be (but does not need to be) interpreted as requiring children to be empowered to state their views despite reasonable regulations established under PFE.

I've already indicated above that "empower" can mean a lot of things. I don't think it necessarily implies the existence of a right possessed by children. It's more like a mandate that member nations create a process aimed at supporting children in expressing their views.

For myself, I think it goes the other way (re legality) on both points.

Empowering. If people are empowered to do something, is there a predicate act to allow them to do that thing? If so, then that would require nations to affirmatively deconstruct or exempt people from the regulations they are, under PFE s 2, permitted to create. Someone can't be empowered to state their views if, for example, those views are something like 'Let's take the mob we are currently part of, storm the Forum, and kill the praetors' when inciting people to violence or widespread lawlessness is illegal.

Reasonable. If the regulations under PFE s 2 are confined under 'reasonable', can it be 'reasonable' for those regulations to violate GA law? Drawing an analogy, a clause empowering someone to create reasonable secondary legislation doesn't allow them to create regulations that otherwise violate statute law. Read maximally, such a permissions clause with 'reasonable' would be subject to future GA legislation.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Empowering. If people are empowered to do something, is there a predicate act to allow them to do that thing? If so, then that would require nations to affirmatively deconstruct or exempt people from the regulations they are, under PFE s 2, permitted to create. Someone can't be empowered to state their views if, for example, those views are something like 'Let's take the mob we are currently part of, storm the Forum, and kill the praetors' when inciting people to violence or widespread lawlessness is illegal.

It doesn't have to be interpreted the way you're interpreting it. A quick look for definitions of "empowered" include such benign things as "make (someone) stronger and more confident," and " to promote the self-actualization or influence of." In context, I think that's the safer interpretation about what is proposed when someone talks of empowering children.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Reasonable. If the regulations under PFE s 2 are confined under 'reasonable', can it be 'reasonable' for those regulations to violate GA law? Drawing an analogy, a clause empowering someone to create reasonable secondary legislation doesn't allow them to create regulations that otherwise violate statute law. Read maximally, such a permissions clause with 'reasonable' would be subject to future GA legislation.

Granting a WA nation the authority to act in reasonable ways seems to confer a substantive right on the governments of those nations; one which cannot be implicitly overridden, trampled, or conflicted by future resolutions. Historically, WA nations have seemed to understand this and have used explicit clauses to signal what kinds of further laws on the subject may be permitted.

Anyway, I still think the tension disappears as soon as you stop interpreting "empowered" in a way that possibly brings it into conflict with other laws. Real courts regularly employ a maxim whereby they will interpret provisions in a way that avoids a conflict with existing law whenever possible. That's certainly possible here.

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Empowering. If people are empowered to do something, is there a predicate act to allow them to do that thing? If so, then that would require nations to affirmatively deconstruct or exempt people from the regulations they are, under PFE s 2, permitted to create. Someone can't be empowered to state their views if, for example, those views are something like 'Let's take the mob we are currently part of, storm the Forum, and kill the praetors' when inciting people to violence or widespread lawlessness is illegal.

It doesn't have to be interpreted the way you're interpreting it. A quick look for definitions of "empowered" include such benign things as "make (someone) stronger and more confident," and " to promote the self-actualization or influence of." In context, I think that's the safer interpretation about what is proposed when someone talks of empowering children.

I think from the context of the other subsections, the only consistent reading is that of the main definition: the others all relate to securing some kind of positive or negative right that member nations must facilitate. This too must go with those which it keeps its company with.

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Anyway, I still think the tension disappears as soon as you stop interpreting "empowered" in a way that possibly brings it into conflict with other laws. Real courts regularly employ a maxim whereby they will interpret provisions in a way that avoids a conflict with existing law whenever possible. That's certainly possible here.

I'm well aware of the validity canon.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think from the context of the other subsections, the only consistent reading is that of the main definition: the others all relate to securing some kind of positive or negative right that member nations must facilitate. This too must go with those which it keeps its company with.

Look, I'm not saying your interpretation is unreasonable. And I'm definitely not saying this should pass. It's riddled with grammar and spelling errors ("guarntee"!) and rife with absurd implications - but that seems to be par for the course lately from what I've seen.

I see what you see, I think. The Section we're discussing (Section 3) begins with, "Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must." So I can see why you are reasoning the way you do. But, I ask you, is that the only reasonable interpretation? Maybe the right the proposal refers to is what you say: a right of children to speak their views however they want, other reasonable regulations be damned.

But maybe, just maybe, it's more about defining the parameters of a child's amorphous right to have a government that is responsive to their needs. A government that empowers them to speak their mind, ensures their protection, facilitates their development, etc. That's what I see the author trying to do, and I think that's a reasonable interpretation of those clauses. One which does not bring this proposal into conflict with other laws (or, at least, the one we're currently discussing - I admit I haven't looked hard for other possible conflicts). Consider that.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Anyway, I still think the tension disappears as soon as you stop interpreting "empowered" in a way that possibly brings it into conflict with other laws. Real courts regularly employ a maxim whereby they will interpret provisions in a way that avoids a conflict with existing law whenever possible. That's certainly possible here.

I'm well aware of the validity canon.

Great, then follow it or don't.

Okay, I'm satisfied it is legal, though on the 'reasonable' grounds – ie a permissions clause with 'reasonable' can't permit violations, even prospective, of WA law – rather than on the 'empowered' grounds. So voted on the proposals page.

Mobile.

Given the broad definitions and provisions along with numerous grammar mistakes, opposed.

The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls.

Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls.

What does this mean?

I’m still a fan of the principle of this, but it needs more cooking. At a minimum, it needed to lose the typos and grammatical errors, but I also have some problems with how the wording effects certain clauses. I should have given this feedback earlier of course, but I’ve been a bit neglectful over Christmas and haven’t been able to keep up with all of the threads I was following. I’m especially bothered by clause 5aiii, which (unlike the two clauses immediately prior) carries no maturity caveat. This means a 2 year old can request a lawyer because they sound fun, and nations have to provide one.

I’m a fan of the principle, and the approach is relatively sound, but the execution needs more work.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls.

What does this mean?

Looks like an attempt to RP why there were typos and errors.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls.

What does this mean?

It's an IC excuse for poor proofreading prior to submission, and an attempt at humorously shirking the possibility of pulling the proposal for correction.

Telgan Alpha: there were multiple errors buddy. Looking for them is like trying to find Waldo in the Land of Waldos. I pointed out one thinking you'd take some pride in your work, ask to pull it, look for the rest, and submit a correct draft. Alas. Here, I'll point out two more: "faciliate" needs an extra "t" in there for it to be an English word.

Question: Am I being too harsh? It is a game for children. But then again it's also a game celebrating the written word. Given the modest character limits shouldn't we be trying harder to submit error-free copy?

Edit: Point above sniped by Outer Sparta.

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:What does this mean?

It's an IC excuse for poor proofreading prior to submission, and an attempt at humorously shirking the possibility of pulling the proposal for correction.

Telgan Alpha: there were multiple errors buddy. Looking for them is like trying to find Waldo in the Land of Waldos. I pointed out one thinking you'd take some pride in your work, ask to pull it, look for the rest, and submit a correct draft. Alas. Here, I'll point out two more: "faciliate" needs an extra "t" in there for it to be an English word.

Question: Am I being too harsh? It is a game for children. But then again it's also a game celebrating the written word. Given the modest character limits shouldn't we be trying harder to submit error-free copy?

Edit: Point above sniped by Outer Sparta.

You are correct that it's an IC excuse of poor proofreading. Given the poor execution of the concept as well as aforementioned proofreading errors, that's enough to prevent me from support it.

C Marcius Blythe. I'm disappointed that a delegation which (hopefully) aspires to be counted among the serious authors would include their names in such a poorly-drafted proposal.

As to this rubbish about wax, I hope that the main authoring delegation is aware that there are multiple computer labs in the complex. There are word processing applications installed on those computer labs, including such things as Sicromoft Word, Pages, PordWerfect, and Platex.

You didn't define what the "age of majority" is after defining a child as any person under the age of majority.