[DRAFT]Repeal/Replace Prevention of Child Abuse

[Ilmecith]

"My esteemed colleagues. I have the honor of presenting the first resolution to be proposed by the Republic of Ilmecith. More importantly, I am honored to once again bring into this honorable body's attention the need of our children for better laws and policies that will ensure their optimal growth and protection."

Melissa Delacourt
WA Ambassador

---

DRAFT 2
Repeal "Prevention of Child Abuse"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #222
Proposed by: Ilmecith

Description: GAR#222, Prevention of Child Abuse (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
The General Assembly:

RECALLING the noble intention of GAR#222, Prevention of Child Abuse, to provide appropriate protections for children;

MINDFUL of the particular vulnerability of children and the continuing challenge to protect their interests;

ALARMED that certain Members of this Assembly, or offenders residing therein, have found and utilized loopholes to continue perpetrating acts that have further endangered the welfare of children and denied them of their dignity such as:

(1) By prohibiting only "the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child", the resolution failed to address situations where child victims from poor and depressed communities are lured into prostitution, slavery and or trafficking by promises of sums of money or other forms of payment, thus ostensibly granting consent and giving such ventures the appearance of voluntariness.

(2) By prohibiting only "the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying", the resolution overlooked the plight of child offenders who suffer cruel, oppressive and inhumane punishment which are excused under the guise of being lawfully sanctioned.

(3) By penalizing only a guardian who "deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such" the resolution allowed for the denial of children of their right to education or to be supported for their education.

(4) While penalizing all forms of child abuse, the resolution provided for a definition of child abuse which has been found to be limited.

(5) While prohibiting "the creation and/or distribution of materials without artistic merit 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" the resolution does not address the need for guidelines in situations wherein the creation and or distribution of such materials are allowed, and where the participation of a child is needed for their creation or production.

NOTING FURTHER the need to include a provision which can cover instances of similar abuses against children to provide the widest coverage for their benefit;

COMMITTED to replacing the resolution with a more forceful and comprehensive document which will safeguard the welfare and interests of children, promote their dignity and self-wroth and allow them to realize their fullest potentials.

HEREBY REPEALS GAR#222, Prevention of Child Abuse

The General Assembly:

RECALLING the noble intention of GAR#222, Prevention of Child Abuse, to provide appropriate protections for children;

MINDFUL of the particular vulnerability of children and the continuing challenge to protect their interests;

ALARMED that certain Members of this Assembly, or offenders residing therein, have found and utilized loopholes to continue perpetrating acts that have further endangered the welfare of children and denied them of their dignity such as:

(1) That by defining a child as "any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent", the resolution failed to extend the benefits of its protection to individuals above such threshold but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

(2) By prohibiting only "the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child", the resolution failed to address situations where child victims from poor and depressed communities are lured into prostitution, slavery and or trafficking by promises of sums of money or other forms of payment, thus ostensibly granting consent and giving such ventures the appearance of voluntariness.

(3) By prohibiting only "the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying", the resolution overlooked the plight of child offenders who suffer cruel, oppressive and inhumane punishment which are excused under the guise of being lawfully sanctioned.

(4) By penalizing only a guardian who "deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such" the resolution allowed for the denial of children of their right to education or to be supported for their education.

(5) While penalizing all forms of child abuse, the resolution provided for a definition of child abuse which has been found to be limited.

(6) While prohibiting "the creation and/or distribution of materials without artistic merit 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" the resolution does not address the need for guidelines in situations wherein the creation and or distribution of such materials are allowed, and where the participation of a child is needed for their creation or production.

NOTING FURTHER the need to include a provision which can cover instances of similar abuses against children to provide the widest coverage for their benefit;

COMMITTED to replacing the resolution with a more forceful and comprehensive document which will safeguard the welfare and interests of children, promote their dignity and self-wroth and allow them to realize their fullest potentials.

HEREBY REPEALS GAR#222, Prevention of Child Abuse

[The New California Republic]

(1) That by defining a child as "any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent", the resolution failed to extend the benefits of its protection to individuals above such threshold but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

OOC: Why on earth should it be extended to people who are not children? The resolution is literally entitled "Prevention of Child Abuse", not "Prevention of Child/Adolescent/Adult/Elder Abuse"...

[Ilmecith]

(1) That by defining a child as "any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent", the resolution failed to extend the benefits of its protection to individuals above such threshold but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

OOC: Why on earth should it be extended to people who are not children? The resolution is literally entitled "Prevention of Child Abuse", not "Prevention of Child/Adolescent/Adult/Elder Abuse"...

"The intention is to include in its protection, individuals who have exceeded the age threshold, but are of a psychological or mental condition that gives them the mental faculties or comprehension of a child. We are willing to amend the clause to better capture that intention."

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Why on earth should it be extended to people who are not children? The resolution is literally entitled "Prevention of Child Abuse", not "Prevention of Child/Adolescent/Adult/Elder Abuse"...

"The intention is to include in its protection, individuals who have exceeded the age threshold, but are of a psychological or mental condition that gives them the mental faculties or comprehension of a child."

OOC: But that doesn't make them a child. The title is "Prevention of Child Abuse". The Resolution doesn't aim to cover psychological or mental disorders or people past a certain age, so using that as a criticism against it is a bit ridiculous, as it never set out to address those issues in the first place. Why should it have included those things, as the intention of the Resolution was clearly indicated in the title...

[Imperial Polk County]

OOC: Why on earth should it be extended to people who are not children? The resolution is literally entitled "Prevention of Child Abuse", not "Prevention of Child/Adolescent/Adult/Elder Abuse"...

"The intention is to include in its protection, individuals who have exceeded the age threshold, but are of a psychological or mental condition that gives them the mental faculties or comprehension of a child. We are willing to amend the clause to better capture that intention."

"If you want to protect older teens, young adults, and those who are mentally disabled, there's no reason why you can't write a separate proposal to cover them. It won't duplicate or contradict this resolution, since this one is specific to children."

[Ilmecith]

"The intention is to include in its protection, individuals who have exceeded the age threshold, but are of a psychological or mental condition that gives them the mental faculties or comprehension of a child."

OOC: But that doesn't make them a child. The title is "Prevention of Child Abuse". The Resolution doesn't aim to cover psychological or mental disorders or people past a certain age, so using that as a criticism against it is a bit ridiculous, as it never set out to address those issues in the first place. Why should it have included those things, as the intention of the Resolution was clearly indicated in the title...

OOC. Yes, I agree that GAR#222 does not aim to cover all psychological or mental disorders or people past a certain age, but considering its very purpose is to cover child/children, I would think there is merit in including an individual who is afflicted by a psychological or mental disorder that makes them all but in age, a child. A person can be 40 years old yet think and act like a 5 year old because of some psychological or mental condition. Yet he or she is still exposed to the same dangers, the same perils and the same limitations because of his or her personal circumstances.

[Ilmecith]

"The intention is to include in its protection, individuals who have exceeded the age threshold, but are of a psychological or mental condition that gives them the mental faculties or comprehension of a child. We are willing to amend the clause to better capture that intention."

"If you want to protect older teens, young adults, and those who are mentally disabled, there's no reason why you can't write a separate proposal to cover them. It won't duplicate or contradict this resolution, since this one is specific to children."

"Thank you. As this is still a draft, we are very much open to adding and removing clauses. If removing the clause which alludes to the age threshold is what is needed to get this to the floor and eventually passed, Ilmecith is happy to adjust accordingly."

[The New California Republic]

OOC: But that doesn't make them a child. The title is "Prevention of Child Abuse". The Resolution doesn't aim to cover psychological or mental disorders or people past a certain age, so using that as a criticism against it is a bit ridiculous, as it never set out to address those issues in the first place. Why should it have included those things, as the intention of the Resolution was clearly indicated in the title...

OOC. Yes, I agree that GAR#222 does not aim to cover all psychological or mental disorders or people past a certain age, but considering its very purpose is to cover child/children, I would think there is merit in including an individual who is afflicted by a psychological or mental disorder that makes them all but in age, a child. A person can be 40 years old yet think and act like a 5 year old because of some psychological or mental condition. Yet he or she is still exposed to the same dangers, the same perils and the same limitations because of his or her personal circumstances.

OOC: But you can include those things in a separate Proposal, you do not need to repeal GAR #222...

[Imperial Polk County]

"If you want to protect older teens, young adults, and those who are mentally disabled, there's no reason why you can't write a separate proposal to cover them. It won't duplicate or contradict this resolution, since this one is specific to children."

"Thank you. As this is still a draft, we are very much open to adding and removing clauses. If removing the clause which alludes to the age threshold is what is needed to get this to the floor and eventually passed, Ilmecith is happy to adjust accordingly."

Drane furrows his brow, then nods. "Okay. You should remove clause (1) for the reason I've specified. You should remove clause (2) because 'age of consent' is defined in GAR#383, which means that children under that age cannot voluntarily consent for any reason. Also, slavery is already outlawed by GAR#23, child pornography is already outlawed by GAR#300, etc., thus adequately protecting children from those abuses. You should also remove clause (3) as 'cruel, oppressive and inhumane punishment' does indeed fit the definition of 'excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent'. Unless you are trying to outlaw spanking. Clause (4), you should remove that as well. A child's right to basic primary education is already granted by GAR#80. That leaves you with clauses (5) and (6), which, frankly, are insufficient reasons to repeal this resolution. The definition of child abuse is adequate, and nations or even local jurisdictions can set their own guidelines for producing educational and research material and investigative aids. Bottom line, I see no reason why this fine piece of legislation should be repealed. I cannot support this."

[Ilmecith]

OOC. Yes, I agree that GAR#222 does not aim to cover all psychological or mental disorders or people past a certain age, but considering its very purpose is to cover child/children, I would think there is merit in including an individual who is afflicted by a psychological or mental disorder that makes them all but in age, a child. A person can be 40 years old yet think and act like a 5 year old because of some psychological or mental condition. Yet he or she is still exposed to the same dangers, the same perils and the same limitations because of his or her personal circumstances.

OOC: But you can include those things in a separate Proposal, you do not need to repeal GAR #222...

OOC: What I'm trying to include here are not just any person afflicted by psychological or mental disorders. Not just teens or adults with child-like tantrums or behavior from time to time. Clearly, that is appropriate for a separate Proposal, because then there is no child to speak of. But since there are psychological or mental disorders that are specific in nature, to the extent that they effectively limit a person to functioning as if he or she is really a child in all aspects save for the age, I saw no need for a separate resolution. Because then, these individuals can be considered children, and should be covered by the protection as well. Though again, as I've said, if it will be needed that the reference to including people beyond the age requirement be discarded, it's something I can let go.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: But you can include those things in a separate Proposal, you do not need to repeal GAR #222...

OOC: What I'm trying to include here are not just any person afflicted by psychological or mental disorders. Not just teens or adults with child-like tantrums or behavior from time to time. Clearly, that is appropriate for a separate Proposal, because then there is no child to speak of. But since there are psychological or mental disorders that are specific in nature, to the extent that they effectively limit a person to functioning as if he or she is really a child in all aspects save for the age, I saw no need for a separate resolution. Because then, these individuals can be considered children, and should be covered by the protection as well. Though again, as I've said, if it will be needed that the reference to including people beyond the age requirement be discarded, it's something I can let go.

OOC: So...what is the conclusion from this? Are you going to scrap the repeal attempt, and try to draft a fresh Proposal that includes some of the points you have mentioned? As we have already said, it seems that a repeal at this point is irrelevant, as GAR #222 and the things that you want do not seem to be in direct contradiction with one another, as you want to create a Resolution that deals with adults that have the mental capacity of children, not children per se...

[Bears Armed]

OOC: So...what is the conclusion from this? Are you going to scrap the repeal attempt, and try to draft a fresh Proposal that includes some of the points you have mentioned? As we have already said, it seems that a repeal at this point is irrelevant, as GAR #222 and the things that you want do not seem to be in direct contradiction with one another, as you want to create a Resolution that deals with adults that have the mental capacity of children, not children per se...

OOC: which would be "adults who are not classed as legally competent"?

[The New California Republic]

OOC: So...what is the conclusion from this? Are you going to scrap the repeal attempt, and try to draft a fresh Proposal that includes some of the points you have mentioned? As we have already said, it seems that a repeal at this point is irrelevant, as GAR #222 and the things that you want do not seem to be in direct contradiction with one another, as you want to create a Resolution that deals with adults that have the mental capacity of children, not children per se...

OOC: which would be "adults who are not classed as legally competent"?

OOC: Yes.

[Ilmecith]

"Thank you. As this is still a draft, we are very much open to adding and removing clauses. If removing the clause which alludes to the age threshold is what is needed to get this to the floor and eventually passed, Ilmecith is happy to adjust accordingly."

Drane furrows his brow, then nods. "Okay. You should remove clause (1) for the reason I've specified. You should remove clause (2) because 'age of consent' is defined in GAR#383, which means that children under that age cannot voluntarily consent for any reason. Also, slavery is already outlawed by GAR#23, child pornography is already outlawed by GAR#300, etc., thus adequately protecting children from those abuses. You should also remove clause (3) as 'cruel, oppressive and inhumane punishment' does indeed fit the definition of 'excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent'. Unless you are trying to outlaw spanking. Clause (4), you should remove that as well. A child's right to basic primary education is already granted by GAR#80. That leaves you with clauses (5) and (6), which, frankly, are insufficient reasons to repeal this resolution. The definition of child abuse is adequate, and nations or even local jurisdictions can set their own guidelines for producing educational and research material and investigative aids. Bottom line, I see no reason why this fine piece of legislation should be repealed. I cannot support this."

"It is indeed a fine piece of legislation. We are merely trying to reinforce it. Allow me now to address your points:

remove (2) because 'age of consent' is defined in GAR#383, which means that children under that age cannot voluntarily consent for any reason.

The thing is GAR#383 left to member-states the determination of what constitutes the age of consent, or more specifically, 'informed consent to participation in sexual activities'. Which is actually more problematic, because one WA member can consider 13 years old as an appropriate age from which one may engage in sexual activities, yet under GAR#222 he or she may be used in prostitution because there is no forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child in such instances. What the repeal seeks to point out is rather than focusing on an age of consent, or even the presence of consent, the very activity of using, soliciting or enticing children to engage in prostitution or exploit them in slavery should be penalized.

Also, slavery is already outlawed by GAR#23, child pornography is already outlawed by GAR#300, etc., thus adequately protecting children from those abuses.

GAR#23 does indeed punish slavery, what we seek to establish is that slavery is also a form of child abuse. GAR#23 does not provide that. In view of the special needs of children and the priority the international community puts on their wellbeing, the WA would only be strengthening the protection of children by providing for more laws for their benefit.

remove clause (3) as 'cruel, oppressive and inhumane punishment' does indeed fit the definition of 'excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent'. Unless you are trying to outlaw spanking.

We disagree that 'cruel, oppressive and inhumane punishment' is already covered by the definition of 'excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent'. As we tried to explain in the clause, the qualification of the phrase "with a malicious intent" allows member states to continue punishing children as long as that is the legal penalty provided in their jurisdiction. Therefore, the requirement of having a malicious intent is dispensed with, legitimizing the use of cruel, oppressive and inhumane punishment on children.

Clause (4), you should remove that as well. A child's right to basic primary education is already granted by GAR#80

Yes, GAR#80 grants the right to education or be educated. The point of our repeal does not dispute that. Our purpose is precisely to classify the denial of such right as a form of child abuse, which is not covered by GAR#222 or indeed GAR#80.

That leaves you with clauses (5) and (6), which, frankly, are insufficient reasons to repeal this resolution. The definition of child abuse is adequate, and nations or even local jurisdictions can set their own guidelines for producing educational and research material and investigative aids.

The definition is not adequate for reasons already indicated. And if the argument is only "nations or even local jurisdictions can set their own guidelines for producing educational and research material and investigative aids", certainly that also applies to child abuse laws, yet we still have GAR#222.

We find an allowance for the 'creation and/or distribution of materials without artistic merit depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes' without an accompanying duty to ensure the rights and welfare of the child who may be required to participate as concerning. A group or institution may act under the pretense of producing a genuine educational video related to child abuse yet use that occasion to assault a child.

[Ilmecith]

OOC: What I'm trying to include here are not just any person afflicted by psychological or mental disorders. Not just teens or adults with child-like tantrums or behavior from time to time. Clearly, that is appropriate for a separate Proposal, because then there is no child to speak of. But since there are psychological or mental disorders that are specific in nature, to the extent that they effectively limit a person to functioning as if he or she is really a child in all aspects save for the age, I saw no need for a separate resolution. Because then, these individuals can be considered children, and should be covered by the protection as well. Though again, as I've said, if it will be needed that the reference to including people beyond the age requirement be discarded, it's something I can let go.

OOC: So...what is the conclusion from this? Are you going to scrap the repeal attempt, and try to draft a fresh Proposal that includes some of the points you have mentioned? As we have already said, it seems that a repeal at this point is irrelevant, as GAR #222 and the things that you want do not seem to be in direct contradiction with one another, as you want to create a Resolution that deals with adults that have the mental capacity of children, not children per se...

OOC: I'm not scrapping the repeal attempt. I disagree that there is direct contradiction for the inclusion of those individuals, for reasons I've already explained. But to remove confusion, I will be dropping clause 1. I have amended the draft accordingly.

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan are appalled that anyone could seriously countenance the repeal of this fine resolution. We are completely and utterly opposed.

"To specifically address your "loopholes". The first falls on account of a number of pieces of existing WA legislation which complement the target. GAR#23 outright bans slavery and trafficking for all individuals regardless of age. This resolution does not need to address these concerns when they were already addressed.

"Regarding the prostitution argument and further comments made by the proposer relating to the age of consent, the WA can take no action on the age of consent without first also repealing GAR#299 and GAR#383. GAR#299 specifically states that member states are responsible for setting all ages of responsiblity within their jurisdiction. The WA in any potential replacement cannot interfere with this. GAR#383 reinforces this by issuing a mandate to member states to set an age of consent and issuing guidelines around it. The best any replacement could do would be to duplicate section 7 of GAR#383 as no new resolution can contradict GAR#299 by having the WA itself set the age of consent.

"The second loophole is also false and is a misinterpretation of the target. The target does not lawfully sanction peer to peer bullying. It merely excludes it from its scope, and rightly so. You are free to propose international law against bullying should you wish, Ambassador. This resolution does not prevent you from doing so. But I suspect that many other ambassadors would not see a law on bullying as a worthwhile use of this assembly's time or resources nor would too many want to criminalise childhood bullying.

"The third loophole also falls down account of other international law. GAR#80 sets out an outright right to education for all citizens. But once again, you could propose something specifically criminalising the denial of education to a child. The fourth "loophole" is merely a summation of author's misinterpretation of the definition laid out in the previous three "loopholes". You possibly have a point with your fifth loophole but once again, as this was not addressed here it can be addressed elsewhere without repealing this.

"I have no idea what your "noting further" clause means.

"Now having said that, we do not hold absolute opinions on resolutions in case someone should point a "fatal" flaw. I just don't see that you have here. Some of your arguments are, in my opinion, misinterpretations. Others, arguing about the omissions, are barking up the wrong tree. If something was omitted here, and not included in the definition of child abuse which is criminalised here, they can easily be dealt with in another resolution.

"We would also need to see this mooted replacement before voting in favour of repeal."

- Ted

[Araraukar]

OOC: A random, amusing fact I just realized; the concept of "teens" doesn't exist in WA legislation (for good reasons, I admit); you've got "people under the age of majority" which are children, and "people over the age of majority" which are adults. Teenagers as the term is most commonly understood in RL fall into the first group and are children for all purposes of WA legislation. Some RL nations (where at least to my knowledge only humans get human rights and are considered "people", thus making it a much easier problem to solve) consider anyone under 20 ("teens" refers to either 13-19, if you want to be pedantic like my brain, or 11-19, if you want to be thorough) to be a child for legislative purposes.

Since in NS each WA nation can decide its own age of majority, people are, according to the resolutions, either children or adults. There is no middle ground.

*goes back to bed* (In case someone's been wondering why I haven't been around (other than to post a Christmas calendar story piece in some people's cases), let's just call that "lots of RL reasons that decided to all happen at the same time". Nothing alarming, just, meh, time-eating. I'll come back to terrorize you all soon enough.)

[The New California Republic]

OOC: A random, amusing fact I just realized; the concept of "teens" doesn't exist in WA legislation (for good reasons, I admit); you've got "people under the age of majority" which are children, and "people over the age of majority" which are adults. Teenagers as the term is most commonly understood in RL fall into the first group and are children for all purposes of WA legislation. Some RL nations (where at least to my knowledge only humans get human rights and are considered "people", thus making it a much easier problem to solve) consider anyone under 20 ("teens" refers to either 13-19, if you want to be pedantic like my brain, or 11-19, if you want to be thorough) to be a child for legislative purposes.

Since in NS each WA nation can decide its own age of majority, people are, according to the resolutions, either children or adults. There is no middle ground.

OOC: I noticed this as well, but I never wanted to point it out for fear of being called stupid or something, in case there was some blindingly obvious reason or precedent for it that I missed.

[Ilmecith]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan are appalled that anyone could seriously countenance the repeal of this fine resolution. We are completely and utterly opposed.

"To specifically address your "loopholes". The first falls on account of a number of pieces of existing WA legislation which complement the target. GAR#23 outright bans slavery and trafficking for all individuals regardless of age. This resolution does not need to address these concerns when they were already addressed.

"Regarding the prostitution argument and further comments made by the proposer relating to the age of consent, the WA can take no action on the age of consent without first also repealing GAR#299 and GAR#383. GAR#299 specifically states that member states are responsible for setting all ages of responsiblity within their jurisdiction. The WA in any potential replacement cannot interfere with this. GAR#383 reinforces this by issuing a mandate to member states to set an age of consent and issuing guidelines around it. The best any replacement could do would be to duplicate section 7 of GAR#383 as no new resolution can contradict GAR#299 by having the WA itself set the age of consent.

"The second loophole is also false and is a misinterpretation of the target. The target does not lawfully sanction peer to peer bullying. It merely excludes it from its scope, and rightly so. You are free to propose international law against bullying should you wish, Ambassador. This resolution does not prevent you from doing so. But I suspect that many other ambassadors would not see a law on bullying as a worthwhile use of this assembly's time or resources nor would too many want to criminalise childhood bullying.

"The third loophole also falls down account of other international law. GAR#80 sets out an outright right to education for all citizens. But once again, you could propose something specifically criminalising the denial of education to a child. The fourth "loophole" is merely a summation of author's misinterpretation of the definition laid out in the previous three "loopholes". You possibly have a point with your fifth loophole but once again, as this was not addressed here it can be addressed elsewhere without repealing this.

"I have no idea what your "noting further" clause means.

"Now having said that, we do not hold absolute opinions on resolutions in case someone should point a "fatal" flaw. I just don't see that you have here. Some of your arguments are, in my opinion, misinterpretations. Others, arguing about the omissions, are barking up the wrong tree. If something was omitted here, and not included in the definition of child abuse which is criminalised here, they can easily be dealt with in another resolution.

"We would also need to see this mooted replacement before voting in favour of repeal."

- Ted

"Ambassador Hornwood, thank you for your comments. Permit me to offer our reply to each one of them,

"To specifically address your "loopholes". The first falls on account of a number of pieces of existing WA legislation which complement the target. GAR#23 outright bans slavery and trafficking for all individuals regardless of age. This resolution does not need to address these concerns when they were already addressed.

We are aware that slavery and trafficking are banned by GAR#23. What we are proposing is in addition to these activities being penalized as such, they should also be considered instances of child abuse when committed against children which is not provided for by GAR#23 or GAR#222. One act can give rise to two or more separate offenses. We must not be content with the convenience GAR#23 offers, the convenience that child slavery or child trafficking is simply lumped into the general provisions of the resolution. Doing so fails to recognize that when one exploits a child for slavery or trafficking, it is not just slavery or trafficking, but it is a form of child abuse. It is preying of the innocence and vulnerabilities of a child. It diminishes their intrinsic dignity. It stigmatizes and traumatizes them. GAR#222 as the resolution defining and banning child abuse should have recognized and included that.

"Regarding the prostitution argument and further comments made by the proposer relating to the age of consent, the WA can take no action on the age of consent without first also repealing GAR#299 and GAR#383. GAR#299 specifically states that member states are responsible for setting all ages of responsiblity within their jurisdiction. The WA in any potential replacement cannot interfere with this. GAR#383 reinforces this by issuing a mandate to member states to set an age of consent and issuing guidelines around it. The best any replacement could do would be to duplicate section 7 of GAR#383 as no new resolution can contradict GAR#299 by having the WA itself set the age of consent.

Precisely, we recognize the strength and efficacy of both GAR#299 and GAR#383 which call upon countries to set the legal age within their jurisdiction. Which is why GAR#222 can be muted by an argument that a child is already considered legally capacitated to participate in consensual sexual activities in one jurisdiction, allowing for the enticement and or exploitation of children in prostitution, slavery or trafficking. Must we then turn a blind eye, or close our ears to a 13 year old child who is lured to live a life of prostitution because he or she attained the age of consent or majority in his or her jurisdiction and is thus legally capacitated to engage in sexual activities? Is that child's plight so different from one who is under the age of consent or majority, and therefore covered by 'unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child' as is suggested by GAR#222?

In addition, because GAR#222 requires excessive physical pain, injury or harm to be with a malicious intent, a country's officials and or agents can be excused to impose excessive penalties which can inflict serious physical pain to children, under the guise of some lawful state sanction. In fact, this is what we wanted to focus on in the repeal.

The second loophole is also false and is a misinterpretation of the target. The target does not lawfully sanction peer to peer bullying. It merely excludes it from its scope, and rightly so. You are free to propose international law against bullying should you wish, Ambassador. This resolution does not prevent you from doing so. But I suspect that many other ambassadors would not see a law on bullying as a worthwhile use of this assembly's time or resources nor would too many want to criminalise childhood bullying.

We made no mention of peer to peer bullying, nor have we made it a ground for the repeal. Instead, what we are referring to are cases of possible abuse by governments in the imposition or allowance of excessive penalties against children involving excessive physical pain, cruelty etc as we have discussed above.

"The third loophole also falls down account of other international law. GAR#80 sets out an outright right to education for all citizens. But once again, you could propose something specifically criminalising the denial of education to a child.

As we said, GAR#80 does propose a right to education, and we recognize that. But a deprivation of such right is not only a violation of GAR#80 but should also be considered a form of child abuse. The latter is not provided by either GAR#80 or GAR#222. Rather than proposing a separate resolution just to criminalize the denial of education to a child, we feel it better to treat the same as a form of child abuse and include it in a reinforced resolution for the protection of children against child abuse.

The fourth "loophole" is merely a summation of author's misinterpretation of the definition laid out in the previous three "loopholes".

We do not agree that the summation is a wrongful interpretation of the three previous loopholes you referred to. As we have tried to establish, GAR#222 still fails to address other forms of offenses committed against children which should also be considered as child abuse. While these offenses may have already been prohibited by some existing resolution; the same resolutions fail to take into account the fact violations thereof are in fact instances or forms of child abuse when committed against a child. GAR#222 being the resolution which defined child abuse and offered protections for children, should have included them.

You possibly have a point with your fifth loophole but once again, as this was not addressed here it can be addressed elsewhere without repealing this.

Rather than proposing a separate resolution just to criminalize the violation of the rights of children who participate in the creation, production or distribution of educational material regarding child abuse, we feel it better if not appropriate include it in a reinforced resolution for the protection of children against child abuse, also considering that GAR#222 have allowed for the creation, production or distribution of educational material regarding child abuse.

As you have said,what was omitted by GAR#222 can easily be dealt with another resolution. But to do so would then be a case of duplication, as others can easily say that it would have been addressed by GAR#222 under the general invocation of 'child abuse'. So rather than separating like or similar offenses which are forms of child abuse, why not consider a repeal of the resolution and make a more comprehensive one to be a more defining framework regarding the subject, as was intended by GAR#222 the first place?

"I have no idea what your "noting further" clause means.

Apologies, it is something that we need to tweak, yes. What we meant was to craft sort of a catch all provision which can be applied to a scenario which - while not strictly falling under the definition of child abuse or a form thereof - is of a similar or like nature, making it a form of child abuse.

GAR#222 sought to ban all child abuse, but was based on a definition which did not cover all possible forms of child abuse. It's efficacy is therefore eroded by simply requiring a technical application of the resolution, which as we have discussed and illustrated above, will offer no protection to cases not covered or defined by the resolution but are nonetheless child abuse.

[Ilmecith]

OOC: A random, amusing fact I just realized; the concept of "teens" doesn't exist in WA legislation (for good reasons, I admit); you've got "people under the age of majority" which are children, and "people over the age of majority" which are adults. Teenagers as the term is most commonly understood in RL fall into the first group and are children for all purposes of WA legislation. Some RL nations (where at least to my knowledge only humans get human rights and are considered "people", thus making it a much easier problem to solve) consider anyone under 20 ("teens" refers to either 13-19, if you want to be pedantic like my brain, or 11-19, if you want to be thorough) to be a child for legislative purposes.

Since in NS each WA nation can decide its own age of majority, people are, according to the resolutions, either children or adults. There is no middle ground.

*goes back to bed* (In case someone's been wondering why I haven't been around (other than to post a Christmas calendar story piece in some people's cases), let's just call that "lots of RL reasons that decided to all happen at the same time". Nothing alarming, just, meh, time-eating. I'll come back to terrorize you all soon enough.)

OOC: Yes, definitely I agree. And I think this is a flaw for some resolutions which have a reference to age of consent or majority, such as GAR#222. Because they leave the determination of the age for legal capacity to each and every WA member, you'll have a scenario where a 10 year old can be considered legally capacitated or competent to engage in sexual activities, thus allowing their exploitation. Therefore, the intended resolutions for the protection of someone who, say would be biologically or naturally considered a child, is removed from their purview by the expedience of legal fiction. Not that I'm for the imposition of a uniform age of consent or majority for the WA.

[Araraukar]

OOC: ... Because they leave the determination of the age for legal capacity to each and every WA member, you'll have a scenario where a 10 year old can be considered legally capacitated or competent to engage in sexual activities

OOC: You do realize that not all nations in Real Life agree what age a human is adult/able to consent/drive a car/drink alcohol legally/vote/etc.? And that's just with one world and one species.

I have another, pure RP account, that has no humans (currently, which reminds me I own Wallenburg a TG...) as inhabitants, and the sapient species becomes sexually adult (and, due to biological reasons, has to mate soonafter) at 8 years old. (Granted, the timing of "years" of the Tikrr homeworld is a good question, as it's not actually the planet going around its own sun, but their 8 years roughly correspond to RL 8-9 years.)

The age-related resolutions are what they are to allow for roleplay that's not set in the RL world and nations.

Also, do take into account that if 10-yo humans are adults in some NS nation, it gives them all the other adult rights that the other ~200 resolutions outline.

[Alpha Cassiopeiae]

I do not see the need to repeal GAR 222 to accomplish your goals, Ambassador.