NationStates

---

IC: authored by Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador. Subsequently taken over by understudy Jimmy McTernan after Venkman's suspension from the delegation.

OOC:

• All member states of the Unutilised Nukes except the United States of America (as well as four non-members: Palestine, the Holy See, the Cook Islands and Niue) have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention).
• The Useless Newspapers' Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has issued two general comments with at least some focus on corporal punishment. General Comment 8 (2007) targets itself mainly at corporal punishment, which the CRC "defines... as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light" (paragraph 11). The CRC further asserts that corporal punishment falls under the umbrella of the Convention's bar on "all forms of physical or mental violence" [Article 19] and must therefore be "eliminate[d]" (paragraph 18).
• General Comment 13 (2011) is focused on violence in general, especially Article 19 of the Convention, and says much less about corporal punishment. Yet the CRC reaffirms that "all forms of violence against children, however light, are unacceptable" (paragraph 17, No exceptions) and that "[a]ll corporal punishment" can be classed as physical violence to that effect (paragraph 22, Physical violence) and as a harmful practice (paragraph 29, Harmful practices).
• Examples of the CRC urging nations to enact a blanket ban on corporal punishment in their concluding observations thereto are legion - it admits in Paragraph 5 of its General Comment 8 that it has addressed "more than 130 States in all continents" about this matter (and heaven knows how many more in the decade-and-a-bit since) - and shall not be reproduced here for reasons of space. Suffice to say that the United Kingdom has not "adopt[ed] legislation throughout the State party to remove the “reasonable chastisement” defence and prohibit all corporal punishment in the family and in any other contexts not covered by existing legislation", let alone "[w]ith urgency", 6,751 days on from the CRC's request to that effect. (NationStates was created 6,711 days ago.)

Corporal Punishment Ban
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising corporal punishment to be a form of violence which is disproportionately carried out against children, and

Believing that this body should prohibit such forms of violence...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines "corporal punishment" as causing physical harm or pain to any person in order to penalise any person, where such punishment is delivered without the consent of either the person harmed or the person intended to be penalised,
2. requires members to outlaw corporal punishment, regardless of where it occurs, and to abolish all defences to the same,
3. mandates that:
   
   1. all schools in member states inform all of their pupils about Articles a and b, as well as the maximum penalty established for corporal punishment by law, prominently and (where possible) on a regular basis, and
   2. members regularly raise awareness about Articles a and b among all people whose employment requires them to regularly and intentionally interact with children,
4. clarifies that this resolution does not affect:
   
   1. the use of force in self-defence, while defending others, in the course of organised armed conflict, during sexual activity by consenting adults, or while arresting a suspected criminal, nor
   2. any requirement for any person to engage in reasonable physical activity that does not harm any other person as a condition of their being employed at any institution or a student at any primary or secondary school (including, but not limited to, new military recruits being required to complete a fitness course at a training camp as a condition of remaining a member of the military they serve in), and
5. urges members to promote non-violent ways of raising children.

I planned to do this myself and, not exactly like this, but I support. I have an issue with the fact that this would include assault as a being corporal punishment, you should change the definition to specify that it must be a punitive measure.

Your definition is too broad.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Your definition is too broad.

How broad, on a scale from Stuart to barn door?

Tinhampton wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Your definition is too broad.

How broad, on a scale from Stuart to barn door?

"Well, Ms. Venkman, your definition appears to outlaw things such as physical education teachers or coaches slapping the backs of their students or athletes to get a rise out of them, something which was fairly common in my day, and in fact is still quite common nowadays."

"Why not include the physical harm must be done as a punitive measure? This would solve the issues brought up by Ambassador McCooley, and still have the intended effect."

Absolutely not. I've had enough of the W.A. banning punishment forms, even if they are distasteful. I am not allowing this to take place.

Assistant Venkman: Thank you, Ambassadors DuBois and McCooley and perhaps Elsie, I think, I'm not entirely sure about that - Articles a and b have been slightly expanded to take account of your concerns.

"Full support. I do not know whether this is entirely necessary, but I would suggest removing 'with the aim of making that person uncomfortable.' Physical violence could also be used as punishment on a more methodical basis, i.e., whipping one disobedient schoolchild to show the entire class, not just that one poor soul, the punishment for disobedience. That would be a punishment--or, at least, a threat--to the entire class, and would go beyond making a single person uncomfortable."

Tinhampton wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Your definition is too broad.

How broad, on a scale from Stuart to barn door?

OOC: By "Stuart," do you mean Stuart Little or the Stuart dynasty's definition of treason? One is far broader than the other.

Barfleur wrote:"Full support. I do not know whether this is entirely necessary, but I would suggest removing 'with the aim of making that person uncomfortable.' Physical violence could also be used as punishment on a more methodical basis, i.e., whipping one disobedient schoolchild to show the entire class, not just that one poor soul, the punishment for disobedience. That would be a punishment--or, at least, a threat--to the entire class, and would go beyond making a single person uncomfortable."

Assistant Venkman: Thank you, Ambassador MacGeorge. As regards your point about Article a, the example you give does in fact count as corporal punishment under our definition: it physically hurts another person in order to punish and to discomfort that person. Other individuals who it may frighten are not taken into account here.

Barfleur wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:How broad, on a scale from Stuart to barn door?

OOC: By "Stuart," do you mean Stuart Little or the Stuart dynasty's definition of treason? One is far broader than the other.

Stuart Broad

ArenaC wrote:Absolutely not. I've had enough of the W.A. banning punishment forms, even if they are distasteful. I am not allowing this to take place.

" 'Abusing children is distasteful but I don't wanna ban it. Waaah!' " McCooley rolls his eyes. "Ambassador, the World Assembly exists as a vehicle to reach a group consensus and instill the viewpoint of the global community upon the those who have voluntarily joined this esteemed Assembly. If you're opposed to child abuse, you'd accept this as a welcome path forward. But are you opposed to child abuse?"

Greater Cesnica wrote:

ArenaC wrote:Absolutely not. I've had enough of the W.A. banning punishment forms, even if they are distasteful. I am not allowing this to take place.

" 'Abusing children is distasteful but I don't wanna ban it. Waaah!' " McCooley rolls his eyes. "Ambassador, the World Assembly exists as a vehicle to reach a group consensus and instill the viewpoint of the global community upon the those who have voluntarily joined this esteemed Assembly. If you're opposed to child abuse, you'd accept this as a welcome path forward. But are opposed to child abuse?"

“This isn’t an international issue ambassador. This is a national issue not one for the WA to keep poking its nose where it doesn’t belong”

Thermodolia wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:" 'Abusing children is distasteful but I don't wanna ban it. Waaah!' " McCooley rolls his eyes. "Ambassador, the World Assembly exists as a vehicle to reach a group consensus and instill the viewpoint of the global community upon the those who have voluntarily joined this esteemed Assembly. If you're opposed to child abuse, you'd accept this as a welcome path forward. But are opposed to child abuse?"

“This isn’t an international issue ambassador. This is a national issue not one for the WA to keep poking its nose where it doesn’t belong”

OOC: which ambassador is saying this

IC: "Alas, we have a difference of opinion here. There are certainly areas where we agree the WA should butt out of, namely firearms, but this is not one of those issues."

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:“This isn’t an international issue ambassador. This is a national issue not one for the WA to keep poking its nose where it doesn’t belong”

OOC: which ambassador is saying this

IC: "Alas, we have a difference of opinion here. There are certainly areas where we agree the WA should butt out of, namely firearms, but this is not one of those issues."

OOC: Eve Šanœ, she’s the asshole who might be criminally insane. Jon is just an idiot with a rabbit

“Yes I quite agree that the WA should but out of firearms but they should also but out of punishment too!” Eve nearly yelled, “if I want to smack a kid upside the head for being an idiot I should be able to! And it should be up to my nation if they want to punish me, either by jail time or”, she visibly shudders “sending me to the WA!!”

Thermodolia wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:" 'Abusing children is distasteful but I don't wanna ban it. Waaah!' " McCooley rolls his eyes. "Ambassador, the World Assembly exists as a vehicle to reach a group consensus and instill the viewpoint of the global community upon the those who have voluntarily joined this esteemed Assembly. If you're opposed to child abuse, you'd accept this as a welcome path forward. But are opposed to child abuse?"

“This isn’t an international issue ambassador. This is a national issue not one for the WA to keep poking its nose where it doesn’t belong”

"Civil rights and moral decency are always international issues. Period."

Jedinsto wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:“This isn’t an international issue ambassador. This is a national issue not one for the WA to keep poking its nose where it doesn’t belong”

"Civil rights and moral decency are always international issues. Period."

“It’s my right ambassador to punish my kids as I see fit ambassador!” Eve says indignantly “And I don’t need some moral busybody telling me what to do!!”

Thermodolia wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: which ambassador is saying this

IC: "Alas, we have a difference of opinion here. There are certainly areas where we agree the WA should butt out of, namely firearms, but this is not one of those issues."

OOC: Eve Šanœ, she’s the asshole who might be criminally insane. Jon is just an idiot with a rabbit

“Yes I quite agree that the WA should but out of firearms but they should also but out of punishment too!” Eve nearly yelled, “if I want to smack a kid upside the head for being an idiot I should be able to! And it should be up to my nation if they want to punish me, either by jail time or”, she visibly shudders “sending me to the WA!!”

McCooley leans back. "Ma'am..." he begins slowly, before reconsidering. "Actually, you know what? Would you care to join me at the Bar? Perhaps we can discuss this in a more... calmer manner." He shrugs passively.

I believe that the definition is too broad and you only focus on schools, what about corporal punishment in the prisons?

Nondenominational Christian Commonwealth wrote:I believe that the definition is too broad and you only focus on schools, what about corporal punishment in the prisons?

"I am Groot," Groot says thoughtfully, as he wonders if NCC's children get sent to prison if they talk back to their moms or their rooms are messy.

Nondenominational Christian Commonwealth wrote:you only focus on schools

This is untrue. Article b requires that member states "outlaw corporal punishment, regardless of where it occurs."

Maria vyn Nysen reads through the draft and nods approvingly. "Yes, I find myself very much in support of this. Corporal punishment has absolutely no place in the raising of a child. Corporal punishment, especially on minors, is already considered a crime under the law of the Royal State, so it is a wondrous development to see steps being taken to have the heinous practice banned across the World Assembly. You can be assured of Daarwyrth's vote 'for' when it comes to a vote, Delegate-Ambassador."

Anybody who reads this somewhat closely will see that it actually operates in all places, not just schools, so you should be okay. I like short preambles for common sense proposals.

Jedinsto wrote:Anybody who reads this somewhat closely will see that it actually operates in all places, not just schools, so you should be okay. I like short preambles for common sense proposals.

OOC: Exactly my thoughts as well.

"Are there any examples of violence being inflicted as a punishment without the aim of making the victim uncomfortable? It'd be nice to weigh up what's being excluded here."

Bananaistan wrote:"Are there any examples of violence being inflicted as a punishment without the aim of making the victim uncomfortable? It'd be nice to weigh up what's being excluded here."

"What comes to mind for me is BDSM punishment, which is the punishment/torture of the person to inflict sexual pleasure on them."