[Draft] Right to A Free Childhood Act

[Icezealand]

Right to A Free Childhood Act
Category: General Assembly - Human Rights; Strength: Significant; Author: Icezealand

The World Assembly hereby,

RESOLVES to advocate and consolidate the human rights to young citizen's free thought, in particular, freedom from government or corporation influence at an age where their minds are malleable. As well, to outlaw the use of minor leaders for the purpose of public leverage or minor labor.

MANDATES all member states without laws concerning ages of majority to consult with scholars within their nation to determine at what age their average resident can show sufficient cognitive and intellectual planning and critical thinking, as well as emotional stability, and constitute said age as an age of majority for purposes of differentiating minors from adults.

REALIZES that minors under the age of majority are vulnerable in mental faculties as well as physical, and that some malevolent forces would use said vulnerability to breed ideology, religion, fanaticism, hatred, or otherwise into a succeeding generation.

OUTLAWS the following for citizens under the established age of majority inside of member states:
1a. Indoctrination of an ideology, religion, or hatred on any type of government funded grounds or government sanctioned text, or by a government official in any form
2a. Using minors in political or religious advertisements or propaganda to gain leverage by guilt or morality
3a. The forcing of minors to advocate, participate, or advertise for any ideology or religion through the use of abuse, coercion, or mental manipulation
4a. Allowing a minor to participate in government voting practices if applicable, whether elective or compulsory; as well as allowing a minor to run for public office
5a. The use of minors in non-peaceful rebellions against the government, or to raise a minor to the front of a monarchy or dictatorship where the situation can be avoided.

ESTABLISHES the following to amend, clarify or elaborate the prior statements:
1b. Optional schools built to preach religion or support political beliefs may continue to be in service, but attendance to these must be both voluntary and consented to by a parental figure, and may not be funded by money collected with government taxes.
2b. Primary, government-funded schools may mention and study religious or political beliefs as long as at least one opposing belief is represented equally in time and tone.
3b. Students may express their religion or ideology so long as it is not persuasive, invasive, or threatening - situations that may be defined by the member state.
4b. Any new dictatorship or monarchy built with a minor leading it shall not be recognized as a legal state by the World Assembly.
5b. Monarchies that pass down the royal role to a minor remain valid, but the member state is urged to appoint caretakers and advisers to help or act for the minor royal.

SUGGESTS member states use the newly founded age of majority to regulate other acts such as prosecution leinency and the purchase of goods at their own discretion, but does not require such in this resolution nor restrict member states to only one age of majority in their national laws.

The nation has struck and added at least 10 laws in and out trying to dodge redundancy with Resolutions #4 and #19, so the most petty observations are welcome. This will be the nation's first Assembly proposal, so all suggestions are welcomed as well. I hope the community finds the draft decent and the Icezealand national delegation looks forward to hearing your critique.

_{- Ambassador Grace Thatcher}

[South Lorenya]

You left about the part where children are free from being forced to follow specific religions.

[Icezealand]

Sadly, I did, which is probably one of the most important parts. I've edited the outlawing section to include that note now!

_{- Ambassador Grace Thatcher}

[Qumkent]

Large parts of this either conflict with or duplicate in part, a number of already extant resolutions. We strongly recommend the honoured Ambassador thoroughly familiarise themselves with the relevant statutes in question including but not limited to the Child Protection act.


Yours,

[Bears Armed]

(Purely OOC...)

1. This doesn't allow for the fact that some people within some WA member nations come from species whose normal lifespans are significantly different from the Humans' one.
2. All that stuff about barring children from ruling as monarchs, or in other official positions, is both meddling in nations' political systems to an extent that I suspect few government will find acceptable and possibly illegal under the 'no ideological bans' rule: for one thing, what about any Lamaistic Buddhist nations whose leaders reincarnate?

[Icezealand]

Ah, I apologize profusely Bears Armed, I wasn't aware that there were nations ruled by non-humans. A big new nation mistake for me. The provision regarding government affiliated corporations was more of loophole block for heavily privatized nations, but I suppose it would be wise to change it or delete it if it sounds too heavy-handed. I'll get to running through the resolutions and looking around for continuity errors right now. Thanks for the feedback.

_{- Ambassador Grace Thatcher}

[Gobbannium]

Many thanks for presenting this proposal for our consideration, Ambassador Grace. There is considerable meat here for our collective cogitations that we have not yet had time to digest, but one clause leaps out at us for immediate comment.

MANDATES all member states to establish a legally-binding minimum age of consent in their own government - or semblance of a governing body - no younger than thirteen (13) years and no older than twenty-one (21) years, if not already present.

We believe we already heard someone mention the number of members of this august body whose citizenry include non-human races whose lifespans are not compatible with the above age range (OOC: in other words, here, have a reason to have heard IC what Bears Armed said OOC). We would like to note that the more usual term for what you are seeking to define is the "Age of Majority"; the "Age of Consent" is normally considered to be the age at which a person can legally consent to sexual practices.

Amazingly, despite this obvious and generally made distinction as evidence, a great number of representatives in this hall seem incapable of grasping the fact that the Age of Majority is not a single age. By choice, Gobbannaen law takes into account the differing requirements of physical, intellectual and emotional maturity required by different rights, roles and responsibilities, bestowing them at appropriate ages with reasonable attempts to allow for those who are exceptionally mature or immature, rather than pretending that "one size fits all" is remotely applicable. We recognise that we are somewhat sophisticated in this regard, but for us the requirement of a single defined Age of Majority would be a massively retrograde step.

The WA already attempts to do this through the unhelpfully inflexible wording of the otherwise excellent resolution 4, Restrictions on Child Labor. Fortunately at present we are able to define the term to be zero and not otherwise use it in our lawbooks, which at least involved minimal changes for us. We would beseech the respected ambassador not to force such inflexibility on us again.

[Rutianas]

Interesting proposal. However, I can see a couple issues that concerns me greatly. The wording of 'Age of Consent' for one. I do believe this has been mentioned by others, but I'll do it again. One of our three main races only live an average of ten years, with different laws governing their ages of consent and majority. See the problem? Other nations may have similar issues.

Second, Age of Consent is typically the age at which a person may consent to sexual acts. Many nations may have different ages of majority. The Imperial Republic has several ages of majority, the most important of which is age twelve. However, our Age of Consent is seventeen. These three sections trouble us greatly.

OUTLAWS the following for citizens under the established age of consent:
--snip--
4a. Allowing a child to participate in government voting practices if applicable, whether elective or compulsory
5a. Rule a nation through monarchy or dictatorship
6a. Sitting on or being elected into a governing body's lawmaking system or judicial system, or owning a business that directly affects either of the systems.

All of these would be outlawed. Here's our problem with it.

A person may vote at age twelve.
Our Emperor or Empress may take the throne at age twelve.
You can run for office at age twelve.

Because those would be outlawed, we would have to either reduce our age of consent, or raise our age of majority. I'm sure there are other nations with the same predicament. It's best to use the wording 'age of majority' for that one, or define exactly what you mean by 'age of consent'.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Icezealand]

Overhauled a lot of the wording, I hope the populace will find it a fairer document now. List of the changes:
- All mentions of the poorly thought-out "age of consent" have been replaced with the correct "age of majority"
- Most, if not all, uses of the word "child" have been replaced with "minor"
- "Resolves" section states the purpose of the bill more clearly
- "Mandates" no longer is restricted to human lifespans, and has been clarified in a way nations harboring other races and species hopefully would find appropriate
- "Acknowledges & Reasserts" struck because of the confusion regarding prior resolution redundancy, replaced by a "Realizes" section which puts forth the urgency of the resolution
- "Outlaws": 1 reworded, 4 added to, 5 is redone; provisions restricting the rightful inheritance of monarchies has been struck
- "Establishes": 1 reworded, 3 - now assures minors' right to freedom of expression, 4 changed - now only restricts newly founded monarchies/dictatorships based on minors instead of inherited ones, 5 changed - adviser provisions regarding child heirs changed from a mandate to a recommendation
Thank you for all the constructive criticism, it has been very helpful so far.

_{- Ambassador Grace Thatcher}

[Gobbannium]

We must note that while this is a significant improvement on the previous draft, it still appears to require nations to nominate a single Age of Majority and force that one age to legally fit all situations. It will not do so. We beg again that the honoured ambassador allow reasonable latitude for the differing requirements of different rights and responsibilities.

We must confess that this whole proposal makes us somewhat uneasy. We appreciate the desire to safeguard the young, but we are not sure that it is truly achievable. The education restrictions, for instance, appear to rest on the concept that there exists pure knowledge, inherently unbiased, that can be taught. This is almost entirely true of mathematics; fairly true of the hard sciences; somewhat true of the soft sciences, history and similar; and rarely true of politics, literature and art. We aren't even sure that it is possible to agree where religious instruction should be put on such a spectrum. Clause 2b has a well-meaning if impossible to fulfill allowance for even-handedness in the case of religion and politics, but no other subjective matter can be taught.

[Icezealand]

SUGGESTS member states use the newly founded age of majority to regulate other acts such as prosecution leinency and the purchase of goods at their own discretion, but does not require such in this resolution nor restrict member states to only one age of majority in their national laws.

I believe this new clause will ease your concerns about one age of majority, honorable ambassador.

However, I find myself somewhat confused regarding your statement about knowledge. The concern in this proposal is more towards preventing the government from influencing textbooks to change the course of their nations history in retrospect, or to turn students into blind supporters of a government or faith through a biased curriculum. I would assume artistic works such as paintings and literature that would criticize or glorify an opinion would be protected under the Freedom of Expression resolution, unless I am mistaken. The nation would urge in this proposal, at the risk of seeming invasive, to teach publicly educated students the history of the religions, rather than the subjective content within the belief.

_{- Ambassador Grace Thatcher}

[Qumkent]

SUGGESTS member states use the newly founded age of majority to regulate other acts such as prosecution leinency and the purchase of goods at their own discretion, but does not require such in this resolution nor restrict member states to only one age of majority in their national laws.

I believe this new clause will ease your concerns about one age of majority, honorable ambassador.

However, I find myself somewhat confused regarding your statement about knowledge. The concern in this proposal is more towards preventing the government from influencing textbooks to change the course of their nations history in retrospect, or to turn students into blind supporters of a government or faith through a biased curriculum. I would assume artistic works such as paintings and literature that would criticize or glorify an opinion would be protected under the Freedom of Expression resolution, unless I am mistaken. The nation would urge in this proposal, at the risk of seeming invasive, to teach publicly educated students the history of the religions, rather than the subjective content within the belief.

_{- Ambassador Grace Thatcher}

Your Excellency seems to be labouring under the false impression that a non-biased education in any of the non-physical sciences, and the arts is actually possible. In any case why does your Excellency believe that most if not all of what this statute proposes to do is not covered by other resolutions, more subtly and more intelligently so at that ?

Is this an Education statute, or a Human Rights law, or indeed a Social Justice resolution ? This draft is confused and wooly, and seems to have no specific aim whatsoever, other than the vaguest possible aspirations about an imaginary and impossible "free childhood".


Yours,

[Icezealand]

SUGGESTS member states use the newly founded age of majority to regulate other acts such as prosecution leinency and the purchase of goods at their own discretion, but does not require such in this resolution nor restrict member states to only one age of majority in their national laws.

I believe this new clause will ease your concerns about one age of majority, honorable ambassador.

However, I find myself somewhat confused regarding your statement about knowledge. The concern in this proposal is more towards preventing the government from influencing textbooks to change the course of their nations history in retrospect, or to turn students into blind supporters of a government or faith through a biased curriculum. I would assume artistic works such as paintings and literature that would criticize or glorify an opinion would be protected under the Freedom of Expression resolution, unless I am mistaken. The nation would urge in this proposal, at the risk of seeming invasive, to teach publicly educated students the history of the religions, rather than the subjective content within the belief.

_{- Ambassador Grace Thatcher}

Your Excellency seems to be labouring under the false impression that a non-biased education in any of the non-physical sciences, and the arts is actually possible. In any case why does your Excellency believe that most if not all of what this statute proposes to do is not covered by other resolutions, more subtly and more intelligently so at that ?

Is this an Education statute, or a Human Rights law, or indeed a Social Justice resolution ? This draft is confused and wooly, and seems to have no specific aim whatsoever, other than the vaguest possible aspirations about an imaginary and impossible "free childhood".

Surely an institution as wide and cultured as the World Assembly could provide enough art and literature to represent the views of government and the world around us in more than a single way. We would imagine that for countries running a theocracy or dictatorship would find it difficult to present a fair education in such a way, but we would request that they do their best to do so; the governments are free to make secondary education that allows controversial teaching (as stated by 1b) more available in national programs.

The aim of this proposal is to calm or ease teachings that some parents would find controversial or biased, to a way which is purely scientific, evenly stated, and brief. As stated in resolution #4, Restrictions on Child Labor, the use of minors in armed forces is illegal; however, if a malevolent member was to break the resolution and train children to willingly participate in combat, a fair amount of time dedicated to mental manipulation or indoctrination would need to take place. Such acts could go under the radar of the W.A. for years, a situation this provision wishes to crack down on. If the honorable ambassador believes that this is in fact an Education-based resolution, or if the strength should be altered, I would just as easily change it in the text.

_{- Ambassador Grace Thatcher}
^{W.A. Emissary for the Sovereign Republic of Icezealand}

[Qumkent]

Surely an institution as wide and cultured as the World Assembly could provide enough art and literature to represent the views of government and the world around us in more than a single way. We would imagine that for countries running a theocracy or dictatorship would find it difficult to present a fair education in such a way, but we would request that they do their best to do so; the governments are free to make secondary education that allows controversial teaching (as stated by 1b) more available in national programs.

The WA does not provide education to the citizens of its member states, national governments of those member states do, and the provision of multiple views would not include a bias in deciding which of these views to make available ? Or is your Excellency suggesting that every single possible view on any topic be made available? If so then one's education would take a tremedously long time, perhaps even longer than the span of one's life. There is no evidence that Theocracies and Dictatorships fail to educate their people well, that is a monstrous bias on your Excellency's part we fear.

The aim of this proposal is to calm or ease teachings that some parents would find controversial or biased, to a way which is purely scientific, evenly stated, and brief.

"Purely Scientific" surely this represents another very serious bias no ? What does "evenly stated" mean your Excellency ? And surely an education taught briefly is an education taught poorly no ?

There are several other resolutions, including the execrable "Access to Science in Schools" which already fully deal with mosts aspects of this issue your Excellency, is this statute really necessary ?

We applaud the aims of this statute and we admire its authors for their commitment to this cause but we are quite certain that this statute has been preempted.

Yours,

[Icezealand]

There is no evidence that Theocracies and Dictatorships fail to educate their people well, that is a monstrous bias on your Excellency's part we fear.

The ambassador did not intend to disparage the efficiencies of theocracies or dictatorships in the regard of education, especially in the concerns of core knowledge such as mathematics and science, but rather highlight where children may be given political vocation or religious heavy teachings. It was incorrect to word it in a way that would seem a personal attack on any type of nation or ideology, and the nation of Icezealand would like to retract the statement and reassure the assembly that we do not wish to infringe on other nation's rights to a different government model than ours.

There are several other resolutions, including the execrable "Access to Science in Schools" which already fully deal with mosts aspects of this issue your Excellency, is this statute really necessary ?
We applaud the aims of this statute and we admire its authors for their commitment to this cause but we are quite certain that this statute has been preempted.

Unfortunately, our scribing team did not take an extensive look at the resolution you highlighted above and we now do see the similarities in text of the resolution and the proposal. This, along with the overwhelming dissent against the proposal highlighted in this board, has driven the Icezealandian Cabinet to decide to abandon the suggested proposal. Our nation thanks you and the other countries who inputted on the proposal for an educational experience thus far, and hope to collaborate with you again. We hereby dismiss our proposal to be stricken from the record or to fall into obscurity.

_{With gratitude,
Secretary Lamont Stone}
^{Icezealandian Cabinet Member of Defense and Foreign Affairs.}

[Quelesh]

We have several problems with this proposal.

MANDATES all member states without laws concerning ages of majority to consult with scholars within their nation to determine at what age their average resident can show sufficient cognitive and intellectual planning and critical thinking, as well as emotional stability, and constitute said age as an age of majority for purposes of differentiating minors from adults.

Sufficient for what? Many different tasks require widely varying levels of "cognitive and intellectual planning and critical thinking." This resolution would also be extremely inflexible in that it requires all member states to establish an age of majority, when many member states already quite successfully use a measure other than age to ensure that only the competent perform certain vital tasks.

2a. Using minors in political or religious advertisements or propaganda to gain leverage by guilt or morality

What if the minors genuinely consent, without coercion, to being in such advertisements? And does this clause prohibit only governments of member states from using minors in such advertisements/propaganda, or does it require member states to prohibit any entity, organization or individual within their nation from using minors in such advertisements and to prohibit minors themselves from appearing in them?

4a. Allowing a minor to participate in government voting practices if applicable, whether elective or compulsory; as well as allowing a minor to run for public office

Why should the World Assembly prohibit "minors," vaguely defined, everywhere in every member state, from voting? What of the many nations in the WA, of which Quelesh is one, that have no minimum voting age and have experienced no harm as a result? Why should these nations suddenly be required to prohibit an entire class of their citizens from participating in their democracy? And what is the benefit of prohibiting an entire class of individuals, in every single member state, from holding any public office?

1b. Optional schools built to preach religion or support political beliefs may continue to be in service, but attendance to these must be both voluntary and consented to by a parental figure, and may not be funded by money collected with government taxes.

What if a "parental figure" consents to the minor attending such a religous school, but the minor himself does not consent to it? Would that not be using coercion or manipulation to subject a minor to religious indoctrination (albeit with parental consent)? Also, many nations with an age of majority have a system of legal emancipation in place in which certain minors can attain the rights and responsibilities of majority before reaching the defined age. What of emancipated minors in these nations? For that matter, will such emancipated minors be able to vote and run for public office, or appear in religious advertisements?

2b. Primary, government-funded schools may mention and study religious or political beliefs as long as at least one opposing belief is represented equally in time and tone.

We agree with the esteemed ambassadors who have pointed out the unworkability of this clause.

3b. Students may express their religion or ideology so long as it is not persuasive, invasive, or threatening - situations that may be defined by the member state.

Does this apply only to "students" in a school setting, or to "minors" as a whole? Does it mean only that, while in school, students may not be persuasive on religious or ideological topics, or that all member states must prohibit all minors from ever attempting to persuade any other person on a religious or ideological topic? If the former, what of nations with no formal public schooling? If the latter, how do you expect the police forces of every member state to enforce such an overbroad requirement upon the entire minor populace of their nations?

4b. Any new dictatorship or monarchy built with a minor leading it shall not be recognized as a legal state by the World Assembly.

Does this refer only to non-member states, or to member states as well? Will a WA member state ruled by a minor at the head of a monarchy be expelled from the WA? If not, will said state continue to have voting privileges in the WA? Are all WA member states required to dismantle embassies in all such minor-ruled monarchy nations and expel those nations' ambassadors? Are WA member states prohibited from engaging in trade with minor-ruled monarchies, granting aid to them or accepting aid from them, or allying with them militarily?

More broadly, how does the World Assembly have the right to regulate, so invasively, the political and social policy of every member state? What benefit is to be gained from this? This proposal would be harmful to the citizens of Quelesh and many other nations, and we doubt that it could be revised sufficiently to earn our support.