[DRAFT #4] End Corporal Punishment

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 2,725
Word count: 437

IC: now in the custody of Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly.

OOC 1: Drafts 1 and 2 can be found here. I will be submitting this proposal immediately after the passage of "LEO Force Restrictions" "Police Accountability Act".

OOC 2, and all stats were accurate as of me posting this OP:

• 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.)

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

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Reaffirming the principles of GA#7xx "Police Accountability Act," which prohibits on-duty police officers from using excessive force,

Noting that corporal punishment is a form of violence which, despite being disproportionately carried out against children, can affect almost anyone, and

Believing that - for the sake of all inhabitants of the World Assembly's member states, especially the most vulnerable - it is imperative that this body forbid such forms of violence as soon as possible...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines "corporal punishment" as causing physical harm or pain to any person in order to punish any person, where such punishment is delivered without the consent of either the person harmed or the person intended to be punished,
2. requires members to outlaw corporal punishment, and to abolish all defences to the same, where such punishment manifests itself as:
   
   1. a school authority or teacher causing physical harm or pain to a child, pupil or student for pedagogy,
   2. a state, polity, judicial body, or anyone acting on their behalf causing physical harm or pain to any person for judicial punishment, or
   3. any person otherwise causing physical harm or pain to a child,
3. strongly encourages members to forbid corporal punishment in all contexts not listed in Article b,
4. mandates that:
   
   1. all primary and secondary schools (or equivalent) in each member state educate all of their pupils on Article a, and those contexts in Articles b and c in which that member forbids corporal punishment,
   2. each member regularly raise awareness of Article a, and those contexts in Articles b and c in which they forbid corporal punishment, among all individuals whose job requires them to regularly interact with children,
   3. members forbid the guardians of a person without legal competence (including parents of children) from granting consent for that person to be subject to corporal punishment in any context, and that
   4. all clauses in all contracts in force while this resolution is in effect which have the effect of allowing any direct or indirect party to that contract to be subject to corporal punishment be immediately voided and not enforced by any party,
5. clarifies that this resolution does not affect any requirement for any person to engage in reasonable physical activity that harms no other person as a condition of their being employed at any institution or being a student at any school (including, but not limited to, soldiers 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
6. urges members to promote non-violent ways of raising children.

Co-authors: Greater Cesnica, Feyrisshire

Reaffirming the principles of GA#7xx "Police Accountability Act," which prohibits on-duty police officers from using excessive force,

Noting that corporal punishment is a form of violence which, despite being disproportionately carried out against children, can affect almost anyone, and

Believing that - for the sake of all inhabitants of the World Assembly's member states, especially the most vulnerable - it is imperative that this body forbid such forms of violence as soon as possible...

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 primary and secondary schools (or equivalent) in member states educate all of their pupils on Articles a and b,
   2. members regularly raise awareness of Articles a and b among all individuals whose job requires them to regularly interact with children,
   3. members forbid the guardians of a person without legal competence (including parents of children) from granting consent for that person to be subject to corporal punishment in any context, and that
   4. all clauses in all contracts in force while this resolution is in effect which have the effect of allowing any direct or indirect party to that contract to be subject to corporal punishment be immediately voided and not enforced by any party,
4. clarifies that this resolution does not affect any requirement for any person to engage in reasonable physical activity that harms no other person as a condition of their being employed at any institution or being a student at any school (including, but not limited to, soldiers 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.

Co-author: Greater Cesnica

[Waldenes]

“I think it goes without saying that you have our full support on this one, Ambassador.”

[Jedinsto]

As a co-author of this proposal, I also support.

[Kenmoria]

“Clause d-i seems excessive, especially in primary schools. I do not think that very young children are all too concerned with the maximum penalties permitted by law for anything. I have no other issues with this proposal.”

[Thermodolian WA Mission]

Against

[Daarwyrth]

Jylien Barwald, Press Secretary: "The Daarwyrthian delegation is in support of this proposal, just as it was a supporter of the proposal currently at vote. Corporal punishment is a practice that must be put to a permanent stop, and we believe this proposal draft addresses the concerns around the proposal at vote at the moment."

[Jedinsto]

As of right now, I am leaving it completely up to Tinhampton whether or not she wants to leave my name on as a co-author or not

[Ancapimania]

Support

[Tinhampton]

Jedinsto will be retained as a co-author. The recent PRA incident was unfortunate but I have every confidence that he will educate himself about and ultimately ally with - rather than denigrate - trans people.

The actual draft will not be updated until I can get consensus from GC and Jed about what to change, if anything - which may take a few weeks. I reaffirm my pledge not to submit this before LEO Force Restrictions passes.

[Wallenburg]

"Soft, so fucking soft. You wouldn't last a day in the real world, Mister Smith. I'll show you just what I mean, if you ever want to take up that offer." Ogenbond bends his fingers backwards, popping the knuckles.

[Bananaistan]

"While smacking children is obviously something only an imperialist would resort to, it's hardly worthy of this assembly's time. Opposed."

[Wallenburg]

"While smacking children is obviously something only an imperialist would resort to, it's hardly worthy of this assembly's time. Opposed."

"Resisting capitalism requires strong youth. You can only produce strong youth by instilling in them a system of self-discipline. Self-discipline is only developed through discipline by authority figures. Good luck fighting back the international capitalist empire without punishing bad behavior during childhood."

[Tinhampton]

Jedinsto - who no longer believes that his contributions merit co-authorship - has been accordingly delisted.

Any more thoughts? I'm still not submitting this before LEO Force Restrictions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What we have here is Tinhampton giving a whole pile of UN reports that say that children ought not to be beaten. Then she writes a proposal saying that nobody anywhere is to be beaten. Do we not see how the former does not support the latter?

[Tinhampton]

I have broadened the scope of Article c(iii) so that - for example - those with power of attorney over persons with "immaturity [or] very low intelligence" (see GA#299) can no longer provide consent for those persons to be subject to corporal punishment.

---

What we have here is Tinhampton giving a whole pile of UN reports that say that children ought not to be beaten. Then she writes a proposal saying that nobody anywhere is to be beaten. Do we not see how the former does not support the latter?

The CRC's definition of "corporal punishment" - see paragraph 11 of its General Comment 8 - is a general description that can be interpreted as applying to all persons regardless of age, even if this was not the CRC's intention. I further quote from paragraph 34 of the same:

...explicit prohibition of corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment, in their civil or criminal legislation, is required in order to make it absolutely clear that it is as unlawful to hit or “smack” or “spank” a child as to do so to an adult, and that the criminal law on assault does apply equally to such violence, regardless of whether it is termed “discipline” or “reasonable correction”.

In any event, an actually universal bar on corporal punishment that doesn't contain contract-based workarounds makes sense... it'll make even more sense once I get the LEO thing over the line. You should know this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I have broadened the scope of Article c(iii) so that - for example - those with power of attorney over persons with "immaturity [or] very low intelligence" (see GA#299) can no longer provide consent for those persons to be subject to corporal punishment.

---

What we have here is Tinhampton giving a whole pile of UN reports that say that children ought not to be beaten. Then she writes a proposal saying that nobody anywhere is to be beaten. Do we not see how the former does not support the latter?

The CRC's definition of "corporal punishment" - see paragraph 11 of its General Comment 8 - is a general description that can be interpreted as applying to all persons regardless of age, even if this was not the CRC's intention. I further quote from paragraph 34 of the same:

...explicit prohibition of corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment, in their civil or criminal legislation, is required in order to make it absolutely clear that it is as unlawful to hit or “smack” or “spank” a child as to do so to an adult, and that the criminal law on assault does apply equally to such violence, regardless of whether it is termed “discipline” or “reasonable correction”.

In any event, an actually universal bar on corporal punishment that doesn't contain contract-based workarounds makes sense... it'll make even more sense once I get the LEO thing over the line. You should know this.

Quoting my previous opinion isn't a gotcha in the way you think, especially if I made the same point earlier. Quoting what I wrote:

However, the proposal's banning of all infliction of physical harm or pain without consent on any person, with some minor exceptions, vastly exceeds the law's stated purpose in a misleading manner. It does not logically follow that a proposal setting out to protect children would ban the penalisation of adults as well.

The other thing is that context definitely matters in legal interpretation. You wouldn't say that any person holding the title of "Director" is able to regulate drug policy in Singapore. "Director" refers to the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau. Moreover, you need to make a compelling case for your policy, not just quote UN institutions. Are there criminologists who agree? Is there empirical evidence supporting your position? Are there arguments in general that establish it? Quotation of conclusory assertions from the UN is insufficient.

[Tinhampton]

...Moreover, you need to make a compelling case for your policy, not just quote UN institutions. Are there criminologists who agree? Is there empirical evidence supporting your position? Are there arguments in general that establish it? Quotation of conclusory assertions from the UN is insufficient.

These are not simple "conclusory assertations from the UN" - these are fundamental matters of universal sapient rights. Protecting those rights is my overriding interest in drafting proposals like this. What is the World Assembly if it cannot, or will not, stand up for them?

[Republic Of Ludwigsburg]

Against, what if your executing a crime boss, or a terrorist? Then corporal punishment is needed. And also what about crime? Can't you tickle someone to get truth out of them? I feel like the WA is not ready for a resolution like this yet.

[Tinhampton]

Against, what if your executing a crime boss, or a terrorist?

Literally unpossible.

I feel like the WA is not ready for a resolution like this yet.

It still won't be time in 2755 if we're carrying on like this. =P

[WayNeacTia]

This got caned pretty hard the first time, and you really want to go for round two?

[Tinhampton]

This got caned pretty hard the first time, and you really want to go for round two?

Yes.

[Deacarsia]

I strongly oppose this proposal. Corporal punishment is moral, simple, and useful for the promotion of good behavior.

[WayNeacTia]

This got caned pretty hard the first time, and you really want to go for round two?

Yes.

What makes you think FI will vote any different than McMasterdonia? What makes you believe IA will change his vote on the matter?

[Tinhampton]

This will be submitted in 2022.

Yes.

What makes you think FI will vote any different than McMasterdonia? What makes you believe IA will change his vote on the matter?

TNP said:

Banning the corporal punishment of minors is certainly a noble pursuit and one which this proposal executes competently enough. However, the resolution's banning of punitive infliction of physical harm or pain without consent on any person, albeit with exceptions, vastly exceeds the law's stated purpose in a misleading manner. It does not logically follow that a proposal setting out to protect children would ban the penalization of adults as well, especially in situations where such penalization can be beneficial, such as punishment for certain offenses such as vandalism. The proposal's extensive list of exceptions makes this overreach even more apparent. Notably, the resolution permits the excessive use of force during the arrest of criminal suspects, essentially permitting police brutality during arrests. Such an exception is disturbing, and by itself gives sufficient reason to oppose this proposal.

Europe said:

...implementation of the policy is competent enough [edit. apparently unable to prevent guardians from consenting to physical punishment on behalf of their wards, meaning that domestic corporal punishment (or even that in schools securing the proper consent forms) is entirely unprohibited]. However, the proposal's banning of all infliction of physical harm or pain without consent on any person, with some minor exceptions, vastly exceeds the law's stated purpose in a misleading manner. It does not logically follow that a proposal setting out to protect children would ban the penalisation of adults as well. The proposal's extensive list of exceptions makes this overreach even more apparent.

We also are disappointed the proposal's exceptions clause permitting the use of excessive force in police arrests, essentially permitting police brutality during arrests. Police services ought to use a proportionate level of force to the threat while endeavouring to capture suspects alive. Giving them free licence to beat suspects into unconsciousness seems an overwhelming oversight.

It seems to us that the proposal is detailed and imposes substantial levels of micromanagement, yes, but in the wrong ways. We also are concerned with the misleading nature of the proposal's arguments. GA authors can dissemble or act self-servingly, but "think of the children" really is the oldest one in the book...

The two IFVs are remarkably similar and come from two of the largest opponents of my Draft 2. (North Pacifican and European support would likely have led to the passage of CPB in the first instance. You may note that I enlisted Greater Cesnica and Jedinsto to help out with my two current proposals on use of force precisely because of their assistance with these IFVs.)

So what do we have here?

1. The proposal does more than it promises! The preamble of the current draft has been significantly(?) beefed up and its scope broadened. If you have any suggestions for even further broadening - or about anything else - do reply.
2. Caning for vandals is somehow a good thing! Singapore is one of the few countries in the real world to insist upon - never mind permit - corporal punishment for crimes; at least it's the only one I can think of right now. For that, the Asian city-state has gotten significant stick from human rights treaty bodies in regards to all three UN HR treaties it has received concluding observations on:
   
   1. the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (paragraphs 20e and 21f: "The Committee remains concerned about [t]he fact that corporal punishment continues to be legal under section 89 of the Penal Code, section 64 the Women’s Charter, section 27 of the Children and Young Persons (Licensing of Homes) Regulations 2011 and section 24 of the Children and Young Persons (Government Homes) Regulations 2011... [and] recommends that the State party [r]evise section 89 of the Penal Code, section 64 of the Women’s Charter, section 27 of the Children and Young Persons (Licensing of Homes) Regulations 2011 and section 24 of the Children and Young Persons (Government Homes) Regulations 2011 to prohibit and eliminate the corporal punishment of children, including girls, in all settings.")
   2. the Convention on the Rights of the Child (paragraphs 26 and 27a; emphasis mine: "corporal punishment remains legal in all settings, except in early childhood development centres... the Committee urges the State party to [a]dopt, without further delay, legislation explicitly and unconditionally prohibiting all forms of corporal punishment of children in all settings, namely in the home, at school, in alternative care settings and in the administration of justice"
   3. and the CRC's optional protocol on children in armed conflict (paragraphs 20-21: "The Committee regrets the imposition of caning on members of the armed forces, including underage volunteers, for various offences under the Singapore Armed Forces Act... [and] urges the State party to take prompt measures to amend its legislation in order to unequivocally prohibit by law all forms of corporal punishment, including caning, in all settings.")
   Do you support human rights violations?
   
   
3. The proposal allows police officers to kill or serious harm people during arrests! LEO Force Restrictions now exists. I'm still not submitting this until that gets the nod from the international community. (Not least to mention that if "it doesn't restrict use of force by LEOs" is an appropriate principle to determine by itself whether or not a resolution is okay, then every resolution - even the Convention Against Genocide - should be repealed.)
4. What Sanctaria said about parents consenting to their children getting caned! See Articles c(iii) and maybe c(iv).

Also, haachama chama! :chamaJAM:

[Tinhampton]

Further comments on the proposal you see in the OP remain welcome, obviously.

More updates about Singapore, human rights and corporal punishment - for what they're worth - come this time from the treaty body that oversees the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Paragraphs 21 and 22a: "The Committee is concerned by the information that persons belonging to ethnic minorities, particularly Malays, are disproportionately overrepresented in the criminal justice system, especially among [...] those who are subjected to corporal punishment, such as caning... [and] calls upon the State party to take concrete and effective steps to eliminate racial disparities at all stages of the criminal justice system by [p]rohibiting the use of corporal punishment, such as caning."