[SUBTLY ABANDONED] For the Wellbeing of Future Generations

by **Tinhampton** » Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:55 pm

Character count: 985
Word count: 147

IC: Take up your quibbles with Victoria Jenkins, fourth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador (whose Social Democratic List has expressed support for a Green New Deal and net zero within twenty years, of course she'll call them "reasonable demands"). Currently in the custody of Kevin Mitchell, now fourth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador.

Now OOCly vaguely inspired by the relevant bits of Wales' Well-being of Future Generations Act... by which I mean EXTREMELY vaguely

For the Wellbeing of Future Generations
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.
Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: ~~Plain-ish~~ Mild but yeah I'm sorry I forgot this wasn't Nando's
Proposed by: Tinhampton
The General Assembly hereby:
recommends that all member states and their political subdivisions ("members"), in the process of forming any policy, consider not only the effect that enacting that policy will have on their compliance with international law and the requirements of their current residents, but also any potential negative impacts that policy (and any requirements of their current residents it affects) may have on the requirements of their future residents, and
suggests that when forming any policy with a direct impact on any particular groups possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic (including a policy that could reduce the personal, political, economic or cultural freedoms of those groups), members hold meaningful consultations with members of, and take into account the expressed best interests of, such groups; subject to existing international laws and where such policies are not enacted to ensure compliance with those laws.

by **Bananaistan** » Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:01 pm

“This is an abhorrent attack on the people’s democracies. We absolutely refuse to raise the interests of one group in society above the interests of all others. Only some sort of fascist would suggest doing so.

“I’m sure even the misguided, so-called liberal democracies who already raise the interests of globalists, exploiters and capitalists above everyone else would balk at this.

“Children should be seen and not heard. Truancy will remain a criminal offence (for the parents/guardians of the child).”

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:47 pm

"You lost me at 'the right to life,' ambassador. That is a phrase which I will quite literally die before I see ensconced in World Assembly jurisprudence and precedent."

by **Araraukar** » Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:41 pm

"The Charter of Civil Rights requires all to be equal before the law, allowing any kind of discrimination - positive or negative - only for specific compelling circumstances. "Because it may affect them" does not a compelling argument make, when the same is true for every other category of people."

by **Excidium Planetis** » Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:12 pm

Cornelia Schultz emerges from under the floorboards, where she was spying on the Ambassadors and the Tinhamptonian delegation's drafting process.

"I'm lost. What exactly is this proposal about? The title talks about Climate Strikers, but there's nothing really related to climate in this proposal and nothing related to strikes, either labor or nuclear. Instead it seems to be supporting the right of minors to ditch school, which, honestly, isn't something the World Assembly should be meddling in or even supporting."

by **Kenmoria** » Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:11 am

“I can’t see the need for this. Your clauses all provide more-or-less the same mandate roe encouragement upon member states, to consider children’s needs when voting, in democracies that include minors, this already happens. In dictatorships, this doesn’t happen for any other age group, so why should this happen specifically for minors?”

by **Tinhampton** » Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:49 am

All quotes below are In-Character and come from Victoria Jenkins, fourth-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador (unless otherwise stated).

OOCly, although all Historical Resolutions previously passed by the Ubiquitous Newspapers were repealed by GA#1, you are all reminded that this is somewhat inspired in its motivation by Article 3.1 of HR#25 "The Child Protection Act", a plagiarised and shortened version of the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Ara is also directed towards the fact that the passage of HR#99 "Discrimination Accord" (which is GOOD!!!) and HR#230 "Fairness and Equality Act" (an early forebear of CoCR) never merited the repeal of The CPA.

Bananaistan wrote:“...Children should be seen and not heard. Truancy will remain a criminal offence (for the parents/guardians of the child).”

This proposal does not concern itself with the internal policy of schools on truanting, otherwise missing lessons, or anything else.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"You lost me at 'the right to life,' ambassador. That is a phrase which I will quite literally die before I see ensconced in World Assembly jurisprudence and precedent."

I am not the ambassador - that'll be Alex[ander] Smith, who I've been reliably informed is watching too much football, eating too much carbohydrates, and drinking too much soda for his own good. Although since repealed and replaced as part of the Biomedical trilogy, resolution 175 does refer to "the inalienable right to life."

Araraukar wrote:"The Charter of Civil Rights requires all to be equal before the law, allowing any kind of discrimination - positive or negative - only for specific compelling circumstances. "Because it may affect them" does not a compelling argument make, when the same is true for every other category of people."

Firstly, positive discrimination is also outlawed by Resolution 457, the Defending Minorities one. Secondly, I apologise for the poor wording: climate change is already affecting many people, competent or otherwise, but its worse effects have not fully kicked in yet; flooding, drought, and climate wars are all undoubtedly happening somewhere at this moment, but hopefully not at the same place.

Excidium Planetis wrote:Cornelia Schultz [says:] "I'm lost. What exactly is this proposal about? The title talks about Climate Strikers, but there's nothing really related to climate in this proposal and nothing related to strikes, either labor or nuclear. Instead it seems to be supporting the right of minors to ditch school, which, honestly, isn't something the World Assembly should be meddling in or even supporting."

The "minors ditching school" that you allude to are the Climate Strikers that we allude to. The World Assembly does not necessarily congratulate these students outside the preambulatory "Hailing" clause, and nowhere in that clause or in Article d does it celebrate the act of skipping school separately from the act of protesting government inaction on the climate emergency.
For future reference, nations would be required to take the best interests of the child into account when formulating climate change-related policy in accordance with Article b. The title of this resolution, "Supporting Young Climate Strikers," is essentially supporting their end, not necessarily their means - if they want a Green New Deal or the government to be truthful about the scale of climate change, as I understand they do in Tinhampton, then the government needs to take their views into account when considering such policies,
Theresa Waterman, staffer and self-declared "Wicketkeeper-in-Chief": Prefatory clauses!

Kenmoria wrote:“I can’t see the need for this. Your clauses all provide more-or-less the same mandate roe encouragement upon member states, to consider children’s needs when voting...”

Please look more closely first, Mr Levitt. Nowhere in this proposal is any reference made to voting, only to the much broader category of official decision-making processes - through consultation, for instance. There is also a suspicious absence of any specific reference to deer in our draft. The best interests of the child must be considered in divorce custody proceedings under Resolution 39, The Right to a Legal Divorce [sic], and it makes sense that they should also be considered elsewhere.

by **Excidium Planetis** » Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:31 am

Tinhampton wrote:The "minors ditching school" that you allude to are the Climate Strikers that we allude to. The World Assembly does not necessarily congratulate these students outside the preambulatory "Hailing" clause, and nowhere in that clause or in Article d does it celebrate the act of skipping school separately from the act of protesting government inaction on the climate emergency.

"So why did you decide to call these wannabe activists 'Climate Strikers', not-Ambassador?" Schultz replies. "Morover if the proposal doesn't actually do anything other than require governments to plan for the future, something they should already be doing, and consider the view of children who ditch school only for the very specific reason of some kind of climate crisis, I must ask: why only in that case? Shouldn't the government consider the views of children protesting any serious issue and not just whatever kind of weather issue you're having? Why the special status?"

The title of this resolution, "Supporting Young Climate Strikers," is essentially supporting their end, not necessarily their means - if they want a Green New Deal or the government to be truthful about the scale of climate change, as I understand they do in Tinhampton, then the government needs to take their views into account when considering such policies

"You're saying words I recognize, not-Ambassador, but you're saying them in ways I don't recognize. Is this Green New Deal some sort of local policy? This whole proposal reads like some sort of national issue elevated to the stage of the World Assembly."

by **Araraukar** » Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:07 pm

OOC: 1. Not interested in NSUN resolutions, aside from plagiarism issues, but someone else can deal with the plagiarism as well.

2. Not all universes have buggered up Earth's natural climate changes; the one Araraukar is in, is a bit more concerned about the ice age coming back (in RL, if humans hadn't messed up the climate, it'd be about 1500 years from now - the cycle is a bit different on Araraukar's Earth, so they have less than 1000 years to go), than any kind of warming thing. So any kind of climate strikers, children or others, make no sense to them, given that ice ages are controlled by the planet's axial tilt and orbit around the Sun, neither of which they can do anything about.

3. You'd be better off if you left climate change and strikers of such out of this entirely, and tried to make this a proposal that's complementary to the current freedom of expression, only aimed at children. Such a positive discrimination would be legal, because everyone else would already be covered by the existing resolution. (You'd still need to justify the proposal otherwise, but it would be a legal explanation.)

by **Tinhampton** » Tue Feb 25, 2020 1:22 pm

In regards to Araraukar: One, please refer to Draft #3 as a potential alternative to Draft #2; two, I'm not calling for 17-year-old resolutions that have been crossreferenced elsewhere in the NSUN canon to be admin-deleted quite yet, especially since that would also mean junking Due Process and its repeal

Excidium Planetis wrote:"So why did you decide to call these wannabe activists 'Climate Strikers', not-Ambassador?"

Victoria Jenkins: That is the common parlance for them in Tinhampton, or at least the only one I could think of. Obviously, my attempt to come up with a sufficiently alluring title for those lemming ambassadors in flagrant noncompliance with Resolution 122 is failing!
Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Hold on a bit, just let me sort this out first...

Excidium Planetis wrote:"Morover if the proposal doesn't actually do anything other than require governments to plan for the future, something they should already be doing, and consider the view of children who ditch school only for the very specific reason of some kind of climate crisis, I must ask: why only in that case? Shouldn't the government consider the views of children protesting any serious issue and not just whatever kind of weather issue you're having? Why the special status?"

Jenkins: If it is so desired, I can replace "urges" with "further requires" in Article c. Furthermore, Article b makes reference to "any children" who desire to express views, not just the extremely vocal ones that have been sitting outside the gates of Saint Maggie's for the past few months; a reasonable nation already has an environmental policy, and this article would require them to consider at least a few more stakeholders.
Venkman: Title revision number one, "The Children's Compact." Better - much better... don't worry about the other changes you've suggested, Vicky, I've done them for you.

Excidium Planetis wrote:"You're saying words I recognize, not-Ambassador, but you're saying them in ways I don't recognize. Is this Green New Deal some sort of local policy? This whole proposal reads like some sort of national issue elevated to the stage of the World Assembly."

Jenkins: I am not trying to force a one-size-fits-none solution upon the nations of this honourable Assembly, or at all requiring member states to be guided solely by these schoolchildren - who are in any case mostly self-admitted relays, with a bit of extra action thrown in, for the words of bona-fide climate scientists. All I am saying is that their concerns be a primary consideration.

by **Bananaistan** » Tue Feb 25, 2020 3:41 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Bananaistan wrote:“...Children should be seen and not heard. Truancy will remain a criminal offence (for the parents/guardians of the child).”
This proposal does not concern itself with the internal policy of schools on truanting, otherwise missing lessons, or anything else.

"Perhaps it doesn't now but the draft I was originally presented with did. I quote:

... children who have freely opted to skip a day of school ...
... the views of those children who engage in mass protest or petition during school hours t ...

"If this was not an exhortation to truancy, I don't know what is."

by **Araraukar** » Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:33 pm

Tinhampton wrote:requires individual members and their agents to take the best interests of the child, and the views of any children who are willing to freely form and express them, into account when forming:
any policy with a direct impact on children, subject to prior and unrepealed WA legislation, and
environmental policy, including policy related to climate change,

OOC: On i. why? Children rarely know what's good for them, or at least rarely want to act that way, unless made to, by parents and other guardians. On ii. even more why? Most children have very little understanding of environmental issues beyond the blindingly obvious. Also, what if the best interests and the children's views conflict?

further requires courts in member states, including any courts that may be established in WA legislation, to take the best interests of the child into account in all legal proceedings relevant to that child,

As they must do for all citizens, children or not, so duplication.

suggests that schools in member states develop participatory mechanisms, such as school councils.

Unnecessary micromanagement. Also, school councils (ones with students participating) in actual schools (primary and secondary education) are not a thing over here (Finland, whose school system is still valued as the best in the world), so I remain unconvinced that they're at all necessary or do any good to begin with.

by **Tinhampton** » Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:51 am

Araraukar wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:requires individual members and their agents to take the best interests of the child, and the views of any children who are willing to freely form and express them, into account when forming:
any policy with a direct impact on children, subject to prior and unrepealed WA legislation, and
environmental policy, including policy related to climate change,

OOC: On i. why? Children rarely know what's good for them, or at least rarely want to act that way, unless made to, by parents and other guardians.

The views of any children who are willing to freely form and express them.

Araraukar wrote:On ii. even more why? Most children have very little understanding of environmental issues beyond the blindingly obvious. Also, what if the best interests and the children's views conflict?

Per GA#80, all citizens must have "[a]n accurate understanding of ecological life, nature and the environment." Furthermore, per GA#474, citizens must also be educated on "collective action problems," which IA said in the discussion thread for that resolution included climate change as one of the classic examples thereof.
I am not denying that it is possible for somebody to believe something which acts against their own interests, but then a good/half-decent administration would not make decisions based on a minority of a minority's opinion. As aforementioned, this simply means that the government must consider a few more stakeholders.

Araraukar wrote:
further requires courts blah blah blah to take the best interests of the child into account in all legal proceedings relevant to that child,

As they must do for all citizens, children or not, so duplication.

There are about 220 resolutions standing, one of which created the WA and only a few others of which have any relevance to legal proceedings. Where are member states in particular required to take any defendant's best interests into account during such proceedings - since I cannot find such a reference anywhere, even in GA#37?

Araraukar wrote:
suggests that do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti.

Unnecessary micromanagement. Also, school councils (ones with students participating) in actual schools (primary and secondary education) are not a thing over here (Finland, whose school system is still valued as the best in the world), so I remain unconvinced that they're at all necessary or do any good to begin with.

This is a SUGGESTS clause, the recommendations of which are non-binding, unlike the rest of this resolution (and which do not necessarily require any particular solution - although one is mentioned).

by **Excidium Planetis** » Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:58 am

"If you rename the proposal 'Think of the Children', I would throw my limited support behind it."

by **Araraukar** » Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:03 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: On i. why? Children rarely know what's good for them, or at least rarely want to act that way, unless made to, by parents and other guardians.
The views of any children who are willing to freely form and express them.

OOC: Yes. And?

Very real views shared by many children: not wanting to do homework, not wanting to eat healthily, not wanting to go to school, not wanting to go to dentist or have vaccinations, wanting to spend all their time playing video games, wanting to only eat sugary treats. And you're saying nations should respect such wishes, over parental rights and WA law requirements? Why?

Araraukar wrote:On ii. even more why? Most children have very little understanding of environmental issues beyond the blindingly obvious. Also, what if the best interests and the children's views conflict?
Per GA#80, all citizens must have "[a]n accurate understanding of ecological life, nature and the environment." Furthermore, per GA#474, citizens must also be educated on "collective action problems," which IA said in the discussion thread for that resolution included climate change as one of the classic examples thereof.

Yes, and guess where that information is taught? In schools. Which means children are not born with the information. And also, what most people think of with the word "child", is a pre-teen minor. Primary school kid. At the risk of repeating myself, at that age most children have very little understanding of environmental issues beyond the blindingly obvious. Can't you remember when you went to school? Didn't you have "environmental" class (for younger kids, it wasn't called biology, because it included other stuff too) as mandatory? Don't you remember how vague other kids' (who weren't interested on the subject) actual knowledge was years afterwards despite them getting good grades at the time?

I'm not pulling these arguments out of my ass. They're actually based on RL. If you wanted your draft to be called even more of a pile of what the bull ate last week, I can do it in IC based on RP evidence, but that wouldn't be very helpful.

I am not denying that it is possible for somebody to believe something which acts against their own interests, but then a good/half-decent administration would not make decisions based on a minority of a minority's opinion. As aforementioned, this simply means that the government must consider a few more stakeholders.

Why? You haven't given a single good reason why children should be set on such a pedestal when they don't even have the right to decide the details of their daily life and actions (because parental rights exist and nations are required to provide them with education, including the environmental stuff)?

Where are member states in particular required to take any defendant's best interests into account during such proceedings - since I cannot find such a reference anywhere, even in GA#37?

Impartial trials ring a bell? Nations being obliged to provide them with legal defence? Allowing appeals? If those are not "taking the defendant's best interests into account", then I don't know what you'd class as such.

Araraukar wrote:This is a SUGGESTS clause

So? It's still unnecessary micromanagement and has no place in a GA resolution.

by **Tinhampton** » Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:10 pm

Araraukar wrote:Very real views shared by many children: not wanting to do homework, not wanting to eat healthily, not wanting to go to school, not wanting to go to dentist or have vaccinations, wanting to spend all their time playing video games, wanting to only eat sugary treats. And you're saying nations should respect such wishes, over parental rights and WA law requirements? Why?

"The General Assembly hereby requires individual members and their agents to take the best interests of the child... into account when forming: any policy with a direct impact on children, subject to prior and unrepealed WA legislation."

The individual's choices as to what to eat, how to remain healthy, and how to spend their free time are not government policies; where laws exist to regulate these areas, these are generally of the form "You must not do X, Y, or Z to protect public morals" as opposed to "You must do Alpha and Beta." As for vaccinations, see GA#412, Articles 1-3.
Note the following boilerplate text which is increasingly included as the fifth bullet point in many reports of the real-world Uninterested Norwegians' Committee on the Right of the Child, or the CRC (emphasis mine):

The Committee recommends that the State party ensure the realization of children’s rights in accordance with the Convention [and its] Optional Protocol[s] throughout the process of implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It also urges the State party to ensure the meaningful participation of children in the design and implementation of policies and programmes aimed at achieving all 17 Sustainable Development Goals insofar as they concern children.

Araraukar wrote:...guess where that information [on climate change] is taught? In schools. Which means children are not born with the information. And also, what most people think of with the word "child", is a pre-teen minor. Primary school kid. At the risk of repeating myself, at that age most children have very little understanding of environmental issues beyond the blindingly obvious.

"The General Assembly hereby defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "child" as anybody who is not legally competent by virtue of their age."

I am not insinuating and was not arguing that all sapient beings were endowed by Violet with ecological knowledge, let along anything knowledge. the duty in GA#80 is to be provided to citizens through "some sort of variation of edification" (see also Article 2 thereof), while the duty in GA#474 is upon "member nations to truthfully educate all of their inhabitants" about such matters.

Araraukar wrote:Can't you remember when you went to school? Didn't you have "environmental" class (for younger kids, it wasn't called biology, because it included other stuff too) as mandatory? Don't you remember how vague other kids' (who weren't interested on the subject) actual knowledge was years afterwards despite them getting good grades at the time?

I'm not pulling these arguments out of my ass. They're actually based on RL. If you wanted your draft to be called even more of a pile of what the bull ate last week, I can do it in IC based on RP evidence, but that wouldn't be very helpful.

Yes... goodness, I'm old

Araraukar wrote:
I am not denying that it is possible for somebody to believe something which acts against their own interests, but then a good/half-decent administration would not make decisions based on a minority of a minority's opinion. As aforementioned, this simply means that the government must consider a few more stakeholders.

Why? You haven't given a single good reason why children should be set on such a pedestal when they don't even have the right to decide the details of their daily life and actions (because parental rights exist and nations are required to provide them with education, including the environmental stuff)?

My point is that children have opinions and should not be unreasonably restricted from expressing them; the restrictions in GA#436 are nominally optional, and only apply to schools and "the consumption of information."

Araraukar wrote:Impartial trials ring a bell? Nations being obliged to provide them with legal defence? Allowing appeals? If those are not "taking the defendant's best interests into account", then I don't know what you'd class as such.

Agreed; Article c will be removed, or at worst replaced, in Draft #4.

Araraukar wrote:
This is a SUGGESTS clause

So? It's still unnecessary micromanagement and has no place in a GA resolution.

Several reports from the CRC (like the one linked to in the OP) do make specific reference to "meaningful and empowered participation... in schools." It is not unreasonable that I include similar suggestions in this GA proposal.

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:30 am

subject to prior and unrepealed WA legislation

OOC
Such as the COCR? If a nation doesn't take the best interests and views of its adult nationals into account when passing legislation that would affect them then requiring it to do so for children would arguably be illegal discrimination under that resolution, meaning that with the quoted clause in place here... Would this proposal actually do anything at all?

by **Greater vakolicci haven** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:30 am

Araraukar wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:The views of any children who are willing to freely form and express them.

OOC: Yes. And?

Very real views shared by many children: not wanting to do homework, not wanting to eat healthily, not wanting to go to school, not wanting to go to dentist or have vaccinations, wanting to spend all their time playing video games, wanting to only eat sugary treats. And you're saying nations should respect such wishes, over parental rights and WA law requirements? Why?

Per GA#80, all citizens must have "[a]n accurate understanding of ecological life, nature and the environment." Furthermore, per GA#474, citizens must also be educated on "collective action problems," which IA said in the discussion thread for that resolution included climate change as one of the classic examples thereof.

Yes, and guess where that information is taught? In schools. Which means children are not born with the information. And also, what most people think of with the word "child", is a pre-teen minor. Primary school kid. At the risk of repeating myself, at that age most children have very little understanding of environmental issues beyond the blindingly obvious. Can't you remember when you went to school? Didn't you have "environmental" class (for younger kids, it wasn't called biology, because it included other stuff too) as mandatory? Don't you remember how vague other kids' (who weren't interested on the subject) actual knowledge was years afterwards despite them getting good grades at the time?

I'm not pulling these arguments out of my ass. They're actually based on RL. If you wanted your draft to be called even more of a pile of what the bull ate last week, I can do it in IC based on RP evidence, but that wouldn't be very helpful.

I am not denying that it is possible for somebody to believe something which acts against their own interests, but then a good/half-decent administration would not make decisions based on a minority of a minority's opinion. As aforementioned, this simply means that the government must consider a few more stakeholders.

Why? You haven't given a single good reason why children should be set on such a pedestal when they don't even have the right to decide the details of their daily life and actions (because parental rights exist and nations are required to provide them with education, including the environmental stuff)?

Where are member states in particular required to take any defendant's best interests into account during such proceedings - since I cannot find such a reference anywhere, even in GA#37?

Impartial trials ring a bell? Nations being obliged to provide them with legal defence? Allowing appeals? If those are not "taking the defendant's best interests into account", then I don't know what you'd class as such.

Araraukar wrote:This is a SUGGESTS clause

So? It's still unnecessary micromanagement and has no place in a GA resolution.

'Parental rights' are something of a sham anyway.

by **Island Girl Herby** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:47 am

Excidium Planetis wrote:"If you rename the proposal 'Think of the Children', I would throw my limited support behind it."

Bleeeaaaaahhhh I just threw up a little in my radiator.

Anywho.

This seems like a bad idea. If a classroom full of tiny Jettas decide that they wanna riot because the teacher’s giving ‘em too much homework an’ homework is bad for the environment we’re supposed ta just let ‘em riot?

by **Greater vakolicci haven** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:51 am

Island Girl Herby wrote:
Excidium Planetis wrote:"If you rename the proposal 'Think of the Children', I would throw my limited support behind it."

Bleeeaaaaahhhh I just threw up a little in my radiator.

Anywho.

This seems like a bad idea. If a classroom full of tiny Jettas decide that they wanna riot because the teacher’s giving ‘em too much homework an’ homework is bad for the environment we’re supposed ta just let ‘em riot?

"Silly natiohns with age of majority laws," the Vakolicci ambassador could be heard laughing, "Don't they know it's about intelligence, rather than age?"

by **Bananaistan** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:10 am

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Island Girl Herby wrote:Bleeeaaaaahhhh I just threw up a little in my radiator.

Anywho.

This seems like a bad idea. If a classroom full of tiny Jettas decide that they wanna riot because the teacher’s giving ‘em too much homework an’ homework is bad for the environment we’re supposed ta just let ‘em riot?

"Silly natiohns with age of majority laws," the Vakolicci ambassador could be heard laughing, "Don't they know it's about intelligence, rather than age?"

"Bananaistan agrees. We have a mandatory ~~party ideology indoctrination class~~ civics test which anyone over the age of 14 can take. If they pass, they can join the Party and therefore partake in democracy. If they don't, they can keep retaking it but until they pass it, they'll only get to vote in state elections and not in party candidate selection conventions."

by **Tinfect** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 10:20 am

"Ambassador," began Feren, who most definitely didn't have an embarrassing career of 'activism' in his youth, "The Imperium has one question; how is a child's opinion on environmental concerns remotely relevant?"

by **Greater vakolicci haven** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 11:55 am

Tinfect wrote:"Ambassador," began Feren, who most definitely didn't have an embarrassing career of 'activism' in his youth, "The Imperium has one question; how is a child's opinion on environmental concerns remotely relevant?"

"I feel I can answer this," the Havenic ambassador spoke up, "In many nations those below the age of majority have the terrible combination of being both unable to vote and thus influence society while also being affected most by the path the nation takes. This is definitely the case with environmental issues, which are ever-developing and only going to worsten; thus, the child has a greater level of exposure to whatever the ill effects of environmental issues are. We owe it to them to take their voices into account."

by **Araraukar** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:28 pm

Tinhampton wrote:"The General Assembly hereby"

OOC: Shouting won't change the truth. Nor have you yet given a good reason for why this should be allowed to violate CoCR. Why are children's opinions more important than adults' opinions? Answer in your own words, and without shouting, please.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"This is definitely the case with environmental issues, which are ever-developing and only going to worsten"

IC: "Presuming you meant "worsen", that's definitely not true in Araraukar; since concentrating population into large cities and centralizing food production, we've been continuously restoring ecosystems previously negatively impacted by human activities. Additionally, greentech solutions are a major Araraukarian export, and they are always priced so that they are affordable to the buyer - richer nations need to pay more - so the global dependance on fossil fuels has been steadily dropping, and some other nations have started following our example of concentrating their populations, to allow nature the chance to rebound from where it had gotten to. We as a nation aim to offer them the restorative solutions as well, as soon as possible. So all in all, environmental issues on our planet are constantly diminishing, rather than worsening."

by **Tinfect** » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:39 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"I feel I can answer this," the Havenic ambassador spoke up, "In many nations those below the age of majority have the terrible combination of being both unable to vote and thus influence society while also being affected most by the path the nation takes. This is definitely the case with environmental issues, which are ever-developing and only going to worsten; thus, the child has a greater level of exposure to whatever the ill effects of environmental issues are. We owe it to them to take their voices into account."

"Unless your Government sees fit to keep children away from interiors or safe locations, they are vastly less exposed to or understanding of environmental concerns that are best managed by qualified personnel. And, what does 'voting' have to do with anything; even democratic governments must have some means of qualification for political control. Being an actual adult is the barest measure."

[SUBTLY ABANDONED] For the Wellbeing of Future Generations

[SUBTLY ABANDONED] For the Wellbeing of Future Generations

Who is online