[DRAFT] Preventing Child Exploitation

[States of Glory WA Office]

§ 2 -> 222 GA § 3-4, 222 GA § 7
§ 3 -> 312 GA § 7-8, though, I would say that § 9 would preclude its use as a contradictory.
§ 4 -> 4 GA § 2, 4 GA § 4

OOC: All the recent hooha about encouraging new players and this is the nonsense that people (who were very much involved in all that discussion) come up with. This is indecipherable nonsense: there are no numbered sections in GAR#222, nor does the sectional symbol appear in that resolution. Say what you mean and debate it, FFS.

OOC: I have to agree with Bananaistan. Speaking as someone who's new to the WA, I was just confused about IA's argument. Even after I tracked down and read all three of the resolutions, IA's weird referencing style and lack of actual comment rendered me unable to understand his point. IA, not all resolutions follow your preferred formatting style nor do they have to, so instead of giving a meaningless bunch of symbols and numbers, perhaps it would be more helpful to quote the relevant sections?

[Hannasea]

Clover nodded "Your points, answered in order. First, no, it doesn't affect goods produced by paid child labor. My point is that if a child is being paid as an employee, and protected as such under any domestic labor laws, then the product is as valid as any other. There is no reason why it is inherently 'bad' for a child to have a job."

"That's simply not something this resolution addresses, Excellency. It applies only to those forms of child labor that are already illegal under WA law. If you have a problem with what the WA has determined to be illegal as child labor, you will have to address it by repealing Resolution #4, but it's not anything this resolution can undertake.

"Now, as to the proposed revision to the language of the definition, I've come up with a possible compromise:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   
   • "goods produced through child labor" as goods in whose production and supply chain child labor is involved, where those forms of child labor would be illegal were they to take place within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly that World Assembly member nation,
     
     
   • "child sexual abuse" as a sexual encounter with a child, where that encounter would be illegal were it to take place within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly that World Assembly member nation;

"I think that makes it clearer that it's the importing nation's standards that are being applied, while doing away with any concerns about the limits of WA jurisdiction?"

Daniella Russel, MA PhD
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Bears Armed]

"So by your reckoning it's okay to import goods created using child labour that was illegal in the producing non-member nation? Hr'rmm...
"I wonder what the governments of those non-member nations would think about this point?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

It applies only to those forms of child labor that are already illegal under WA law. If you have a problem with what the WA has determined to be illegal as child labor, you will have to address it by repealing Resolution #4

Then how would this not be a house of cards?

---

PARSONS: We concur with Clover. We dispute whether (1) it is inherently a malus for a child to have a job in many situations, especially if the alternative is worse than labour, and (2) such issues regarding the application of negligence statues as noted. We would also go one step further. It isn't facilitation unless a person actively ... facilitates.

[Falcania]

The delegation from Falcania dimly recalls reading an existing GA Resolution dealing with child sexual abuse - surely we have already defined it adequately in that resolution?

I shall ask the humanoid legislation sorting machine from Imperium Anglorum to provide the specific number

[Separatist Peoples]

The delegation from Falcania dimly recalls reading an existing GA Resolution dealing with child sexual abuse - surely we have already defined it adequately in that resolution?

I shall ask the humanoid legislation sorting machine from Imperium Anglorum to provide the specific number

"GAR#300 deals with child pornography, GAR#222 prevents child abuse, and GAR#4 bans child labor."

[Falcania]

The delegation from Falcania dimly recalls reading an existing GA Resolution dealing with child sexual abuse - surely we have already defined it adequately in that resolution?

I shall ask the humanoid legislation sorting machine from Imperium Anglorum to provide the specific number

"GAR#300 deals with child pornography, GAR#222 prevents child abuse, and GAR#4 bans child labor."

The delegation from Falcania would like to point out, again, that GAR#4 does not prohibit child labour, it restricts it. Otherwise my shoes would be contraband already.

[Separatist Peoples]

"GAR#300 deals with child pornography, GAR#222 prevents child abuse, and GAR#4 bans child labor."

The delegation from Falcania would like to point out, again, that GAR#4 does not prohibit child labour, it restricts it. Otherwise my shoes would be contraband already.

"Details," Bell waves his hand dismissively. "I didn't think you wanted a 3,500 word explanation."

[Falcania]

The delegation from Falcania would like to point out, again, that GAR#4 does not prohibit child labour, it restricts it. Otherwise my shoes would be contraband already.

"Details," Bell waves his hand dismissively. "I didn't think you wanted a 3,500 word explanation."

The delegation from Falcania is under strict instructions from the Falcon's Royal Corporation Board of Directors to ensure that under no circumstances does anyone suggest that children no longer be allowed to be employed.

[Hannasea]

"So by your reckoning it's okay to import goods created using child labour that was illegal in the producing non-member nation? Hr'rmm...
"I wonder what the governments of those non-member nations would think about this point?"

"I'm afraid you're going to have to reframe this, because I don't understand the argument you're making here (although if there's a remedy to the wording that would satisfy the complaint, I'd much rather engage with that than haggle over "but what about...?"-isms).

PARSONS: We concur with Clover. We dispute whether (1) it is inherently a malus for a child to have a job in many situations, especially if the alternative is worse than labour,

"Both yourself and Ambassador Clover are free to make this argument elsewhere, but it's not relevant in the context of this proposal, which takes no position on the issue. For what it's worth, World Assembly law does agree with you that child work is legal under some circumstances."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Hannasea]

"It's been a few days now: we're still waiting on a no doubt illuminating explanation of how this duplicates Resolution #4."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Calladan]

I have a question about how exactly a "where that encounter would be illegal were it to take place within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly" is going to be defined/prosecuted.

I haven't read a lot about the other countries in The WA, but I would assume that the Age of Consent varies from country to country, probably by quite a lot in some cases.

So what age of consent applies when considering cases of "sex tourism".

The age of consent in Calladan is fifteen. Once you turn fifteen, you are considered responsible enough to have sex with whomever you want (providing it is consensual on the part of all parties involved) and doesn't violate the consanguinity laws (because the re-enforcement of recessive genes and traits is not a thing to be encouraged).

But I assume there are countries in the WA where the age of consent is higher. Sixteen, Eighteen, Twenty One, Fifty Two - whatever age the government chooses it to be.

So if someone comes from a country where the age of consent is twenty one to have sex with one of my citizens who is 16, is that a crime? Because - to me - that is discriminating against someone just because they aren't Calladanian. I am applying the laws differently to someone because of the circumstances of their birth - something I would think The WA would be violently opposed to.

Or is it only a crime if someone comes from a country and brings their sexual partner with them? To have sex within Calladan's borders when they would NOT be able to have sex legally in their own country because one of the twain is under-age in their country, even if that person is not under-age in mine?

Because while - arguably - that is still discrimination, I can see the argument for making that a criminal offence.

My next problem is that Calladan has an "innocent experimentation" clause - if both (or all) people involved in a sexual encounter are under the age of consent, the government is reluctant to prosecute those involved because sending children to jail for giving into what can be described as natural and innocent urges seems to be excessive.

And so while - technically - such an encounter would be "illegal within the jurisdiction of The WA", it would not be illegal within the borders of Calladan and we would not want that to change.

Finally - protecting my citizens when travelling abroad. As I said, the age of consent in Calladan is fifteen. So that means if my daughter and her girlfriend wish to have sex, they can, because they are both fifteen and a half.

But what if they go on holiday together to a country where the age of consent is sixteen? Would they be forbidden from having sex whilst in the borders of that country, because they are both under the age of consent? And would this proposition see them made criminals because they are in a country that does not consider them old enough to consent? Would I be forced to prosecute them when they returned because of their actions - actions that are not illegal in my country?

I understand the drive behind this proposal, but I think either I am missing an important point about "child sex tourism" or - given the wide variances of age of consent across the whole of The WA - it will prove almost entirely impractical to police.

[Araraukar]

But what if they go on holiday together to a country where the age of consent is sixteen? Would they be forbidden from having sex whilst in the borders of that country, because they are both under the age of consent? And would this proposition see them made criminals because they are in a country that does not consider them old enough to consent? Would I be forced to prosecute them when they returned because of their actions - actions that are not illegal in my country?

OOC: I think we had this discussion a couple of times in the drafting thread for the child pornography ban, if you're interested.

[Hannasea]

OOC: I'm so incredibly bored of the terrible RP etiquette prevailing in this forum. In this case I'm going to assume your comments were in-character given the tone, but I think I'm close to giving up.

---

"Thank you for your comments. I'll try to address them in order.

So if someone comes from a country where the age of consent is twenty one to have sex with one of my citizens who is 16, is that a crime?

"Yes. Going to another country to try to have sex with someone who would be below the age of consent in one's home nation? That is the very definition of child sex tourism!

Because - to me - that is discriminating against someone just because they aren't Calladanian. I am applying the laws differently to someone because of the circumstances of their birth - something I would think The WA would be violently opposed to.

"That's nonsense. Your government are not 'discriminating' against them; your government doesn't even have any obligation to take any action against them. If your laws say what they are doing is legal, why would you?

Or is it only a crime if someone comes from a country and brings their sexual partner with them? To have sex within Calladan's borders when they would NOT be able to have sex legally in their own country because one of the twain is under-age in their country, even if that person is not under-age in mine?

"I think that is arguably already illegal under existing law on transporting children for the purposes of sexual abuse - but, I've purposely tried to avoid duplication with my resolution, so it doesn't really cover that eventuality.

My next problem is that Calladan has an "innocent experimentation" clause - if both (or all) people involved in a sexual encounter are under the age of consent, the government is reluctant to prosecute those involved because sending children to jail for giving into what can be described as natural and innocent urges seems to be excessive.

And so while - technically - such an encounter would be "illegal within the jurisdiction of The WA", it would not be illegal within the borders of Calladan and we would not want that to change.

"So long as you are in compliance with existing international law on child protection, I don't see that such enforcement priorities would be changed by this resolution, either.

Finally - protecting my citizens when travelling abroad. As I said, the age of consent in Calladan is fifteen. So that means if my daughter and her girlfriend wish to have sex, they can, because they are both fifteen and a half.

But what if they go on holiday together to a country where the age of consent is sixteen? Would they be forbidden from having sex whilst in the borders of that country, because they are both under the age of consent?

"You mean - if they traveled to another country and broke that country's laws, would it be illegal? Yes - but that would already be the case, irrespective of this resolution.

And would this proposition see them made criminals because they are in a country that does not consider them old enough to consent? Would I be forced to prosecute them when they returned because of their actions - actions that are not illegal in my country?

"No, this resolution wouldn't "see them made criminals" - existing law would! The only relevant question is the final one, as to whether you would be obliged to prosecute them. No, because according to your own laws, it would not be child sexual abuse."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

[Calladan]

"Thank you for your comments. I'll try to address them in order.

So if someone comes from a country where the age of consent is twenty one to have sex with one of my citizens who is 16, is that a crime?

"Yes. Going to another country to try to have sex with someone who would be below the age of consent in one's home nation? That is the very definition of child sex tourism!

Because - to me - that is discriminating against someone just because they aren't Calladanian. I am applying the laws differently to someone because of the circumstances of their birth - something I would think The WA would be violently opposed to.

"That's nonsense. Your government are not 'discriminating' against them; your government doesn't even have any obligation to take any action against them. If your laws say what they are doing is legal, why would you?

"Okay - forgive me if I am being slow on the uptake here, but aren't those two comments in direct contradiction to each other?

If Mr Jones (aged 20, from Marryvilleland, where aoc is 16) comes to Calladan to have sex with Mr Lawson (aged 15 3/4). This would make it a case of child sex tourism. Which, if I understand the proposal correctly, would be something I would have to do something about (Provision 3)

Yet you tell me in the next breath that my government would not be obliged to take any action against them, because they are not breaking any laws.

I am not endeavouring to be difficult, I am apparently just missing something important".

Or is it only a crime if someone comes from a country and brings their sexual partner with them? To have sex within Calladan's borders when they would NOT be able to have sex legally in their own country because one of the twain is under-age in their country, even if that person is not under-age in mine?

"I think that is arguably already illegal under existing law on transporting children for the purposes of sexual abuse - but, I've purposely tried to avoid duplication with my resolution, so it doesn't really cover that eventuality.

"Fair enough".

Finally - protecting my citizens when travelling abroad. As I said, the age of consent in Calladan is fifteen. So that means if my daughter and her girlfriend wish to have sex, they can, because they are both fifteen and a half.

But what if they go on holiday together to a country where the age of consent is sixteen? Would they be forbidden from having sex whilst in the borders of that country, because they are both under the age of consent?

"You mean - if they traveled to another country and broke that country's laws, would it be illegal? Yes - but that would already be the case, irrespective of this resolution.

"That part I understand, however......."

And would this proposition see them made criminals because they are in a country that does not consider them old enough to consent? Would I be forced to prosecute them when they returned because of their actions - actions that are not illegal in my country?

"No, this resolution wouldn't "see them made criminals" - existing law would! The only relevant question is the final one, as to whether you would be obliged to prosecute them. No, because according to your own laws, it would not be child sexual abuse."

"Except, again Provision 3 suggests that what they have done has now become a crime that I would be required to prosecute, they have had under-age sex and that is now a WA wide crime that member states would have to prosecute - unless (as I said before) there is some nuance I am missing (which I will freely admit that there might be)".

OOC: I'm so incredibly bored of the terrible RP etiquette prevailing in this forum. In this case I'm going to assume your comments were in-character given the tone, but I think I'm close to giving up.

(ooc) Here's the thing - I last took part in Nation States around 12 years ago or so (I think), and back then the way I was writing in the forums seemed perfectly acceptable. I post EVERYTHING in character and I make it very, very clear when I am not doing so.

If the etiquette has changed since I was last here, I apologise for not following it, however I am really at a loss to see what I am doing wrong. I come, I post, I argue, I stay in character as Amb. McGill of Calladan and - with very few exceptions - I don't break that.

[Hannasea]

"OK, I think I see the cause of the disagreement now.

"In my interpretation of this resolution, it puts an obligation only on the nation with the higher age of consent. (Or "more stringent", for nations that don't use a set age of consent but rather some specific standard of maturity.) In the examples cited, Calladan has the lower age of consent, so they don't have any legal obligations (beyond those already established in previous resolutions) because according to their laws, it is not child sexual abuse. Marryvilleland, however, does, because their nation has the higher age of consent and the acts are thus child sexual abuse according to their laws.

"If that is not clear from the current draft, then I will try to rewrite to make that interpretation more apparent."

Daniella Russel, MA PhD
Representing the office of:
Ambassador Brittany Hepburn
Semi-Permanent Representative to the World Assembly

I wasn't on the forum 12 years ago but I can say that in general, back then there was much more of a role play community, and manual signatures were generally used. Anyway, it's not exactly your fault: we all know why things nose-dived, and my complaining isn't going to change that.

Next time I think I will make separate IC and OOC threads for my proposal so things are a bit smoother.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Next time I think I will make separate IC and OOC threads for my proposal so things are a bit smoother.

OOC: Don't. The mods would just merge them, as you're allowed one thread per proposal. It's easier to just mark OOC posts OOC and only reply in IC to other IC posts, or bits of post. I always post in-character unless marked as OOC such as this post. Or do like you just did and put OOC stuff in a spoiler. Or like me, when I'm mixing IC and OOC, I make OOC text formatting different (personally I use both the "OOC" marker and smaller font).

[Calladan]

"OK, I think I see the cause of the disagreement now.

"In my interpretation of this resolution, it puts an obligation only on the nation with the higher age of consent. (Or "more stringent", for nations that don't use a set age of consent but rather some specific standard of maturity.) In the examples cited, Calladan has the lower age of consent, so they don't have any legal obligations (beyond those already established in previous resolutions) because according to their laws, it is not child sexual abuse. Marryvilleland, however, does, because their nation has the higher age of consent and the acts are thus child sexual abuse according to their laws.

"If that is not clear from the current draft, then I will try to rewrite to make that interpretation more apparent."

"Thank you. I will reserve my judgement until after I read the next draft, but given your explanation I don't foresee that many problems.

Just to be clear - I am not in favour of child abuse. I just want to be sure that - given the age of consent in Calladan is lower than average (from what I understand at least), my citizens to not suffer from unintended side effects of newly drafted laws".

Regards,
Amb. McGill

[Herby]

"It's been a few days now: we're still waiting on a no doubt illuminating explanation of how this duplicates Resolution #4."

Ehhhhh I don't see it. I think Benny was just yankin' your chain without readin' too carefully there. Right, Benny? Right. Psst. Hey. Danny girl. A uhhhh a little too much wood alcohol affectin' his brain if ya ask me, know what I'm sayin'? Our secret. Zip zip. Anywho, looks good ta me, good luck!

[Separatist Peoples]

"It's been a few days now: we're still waiting on a no doubt illuminating explanation of how this duplicates Resolution #4."

Ehhhhh I don't see it. I think Benny was just yankin' your chain without readin' too carefully there. Right, Benny? Right. Psst. Hey. Danny girl. A uhhhh a little too much wood alcohol affectin' his brain if ya ask me, know what I'm sayin'? Our secret. Zip zip. Anywho, looks good ta me, good luck!

Bell clears his throat pointedly, "I actually opined that this did not, in fact, violate GAR#4, and was suggesting the early opponents hadn't taken the time to carefully review it, Herby."

[Herby]

Ehhhhh I don't see it. I think Benny was just yankin' your chain without readin' too carefully there. Right, Benny? Right. Psst. Hey. Danny girl. A uhhhh a little too much wood alcohol affectin' his brain if ya ask me, know what I'm sayin'? Our secret. Zip zip. Anywho, looks good ta me, good luck!

Bell clears his throat pointedly, "I actually opined that this did not, in fact, violate GAR#4, and was suggesting the early opponents hadn't taken the time to carefully review it, Herby."

OOC Wow man, that was pretty freakin' embarrassing. Sorry!

IC Ehhhh whoever. All you humans look the sa ehhhhhh never mind never mind. I'll just ehhhhhh I need air in my tires 'scuse me.

[Hannasea]

Ehhhhh I don't see it. I think Benny was just yankin' your chain without readin' too carefully there. Right, Benny? Right. Psst. Hey. Danny girl. A uhhhh a little too much wood alcohol affectin' his brain if ya ask me, know what I'm sayin'? Our secret. Zip zip. Anywho, looks good ta me, good luck!

OOC: Oh come now, that's a little unfair. You can't seriously be suggesting those who commented on this resolution did so without bothering to read or understand it!? That's only what those damned lemmings with all their silly proposals do, remember: those who visit the halls of the General Assembly are a more intellectual and superior breed, don't you know?

[Normlpeople]

Clover nodded "Your points, answered in order. First, no, it doesn't affect goods produced by paid child labor. My point is that if a child is being paid as an employee, and protected as such under any domestic labor laws, then the product is as valid as any other. There is no reason why it is inherently 'bad' for a child to have a job."

"That's simply not something this resolution addresses, Excellency. It applies only to those forms of child labor that are already illegal under WA law. If you have a problem with what the WA has determined to be illegal as child labor, you will have to address it by repealing Resolution #4, but it's not anything this resolution can undertake.

OOC: I had you pegged as a... different person. No, not that DOS guy...

IC: "Nonetheless, you are attempting to essentially force WA law on non-member nations through a loophole in compliance." Clover said "Not only is that grossly unethical, it also effectively shuts the WA nations out of doing business with a overwhelming majority of non-member nations who do not wish WA intrusion on their lands. This could ultimately lead to international incidents involving trade deals and higher prices for consumers in member nations"

"As to the age point, I shall make a concession and play the other side, just this once." Clover said with a sigh "Remember, age is just a number. Marriages, some that may have even resulted in children, could be illegal by age in other nations. I'm sure this isn't where you wished to go with this. I await the re-draft."

[Hannasea]

OOC: Not going to be actively working on this for now.