[DRAFT #4] End Corporal Punishment

[Unified Communist Councils]

"We are pledging our support for the termination of draconian entitlement to abuse reserved by teachers and caregivers. Children deserve better, there are alternate ways to go about rebuking your child without the need for physical violence. We decry the barbaric practice of corporal punishment and endorse the humanistic concessions that this draft proposal represents." – Secretariat Kim Dokja, Appointed Spokesperson of the Supreme Congress

[Tinhampton]

Some refinements have been made to Article c(i) after consultation with my co-author.

[Thousand Branches]

Apologies in advance Tin I really tore into some of the clauses on this one

Reaffirming the principles of GA#5xx "LEO Force Restrictions," which bans on-duty police officers from using excessive force,

Why is it “5xx”?

Comma should be after the quotation mark.

“Bans” feels like a weird wording? Maybe that’s just me.

Noting that corporal punishment is a form of violence which, while disproportionately carried out against children, can affect almost anyone of any age (usually with scant notice), and

“Noting” is sort of uninspired? This should be more grim than matter of fact imo.

“while” —> “despite being”

“almost anyone” is dumb in both that it’s a repetition with “any” and that it’s actually just anyone. I would straight up do “individuals” to replace it.

What is the parentheses bit supposed to mean?

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...

Rewrite (I just really dislike this clause):

“Believing it imperative to forbid such forms of violence in an effort to protect against abuse or mistreatment of vulnerable individuals.”

Slightly different vibes and wildly different language, but I think it works a lot better here.

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,

Actually, rewrite again (also curious little suggestion here, why is it being limited only to physical pain? I mean sure emotional/mental pain is sort of a different category, but I don’t see why it couldn’t be included.):

“defines "corporal punishment" as the act of causing any kind of non-consensual physical harm or pain to another individual as punishment,”

requires members to outlaw corporal punishment, regardless of where it occurs, and to abolish all defences to the same,

“members” —> “member states”

Commas can maybe be em dashes.

It’s unclear what “and to abolish all defences to the same” means.

Potential rewrite just for fun:

“establishes a complete prohibition of corporal punishment in member states, and abolishes all defences to the same,”

all primary and secondary 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 feasible) on a regular basis,

Repetition of “all” in the first bit, I’d recommend just nixing the opening “all” (honestly you could remove both).

“inform” —> “educate” (more fitting) Id you do take this edit, “about” —> “on”

Why is “Articles” capitalized?

“prominently… basis” either needs to be removed or reworded cuz it is gross rn

members regularly raise awareness about Articles a and b among all people whose employment requires them to regularly and intentionally interact with children,

Again, “members” —> “member states”

“about” —> “of”

“people” —> “individuals”

“and intentionally”? Ehhhhh idk, I think that could maybe be included too (wtf would unintentional consistent contact with children even be?).

members additionally forbid the guardians of a person without legal competence (including parents and carers of children) from granting consent for that person to be subject to corporal punishment in any context, and that

“members” —> “member states”

“additionally” kills flow and is not needed, kill it.

“the guardians” —> “any guardian”

“parents and” —> “parents or”

“carers of children” is in equal parts a synonym for guardian and really confusing, I’d rewrite that wording.

all clauses in all contracts in force while this resolution is in effect which have the effect of allowing any direct or indirect signatory of that contract to be subject to corporal punishment be immediately voided and not enforced by any party,

Jesus christ this took me about 8 times through to understand and I’m still not even sure I know what’s going on here. This really needs a rewrite but I don’t quite know how to write one so I’ll leave it up to you.

the use of force in defence of oneself or others, in the course of organised armed conflict, or during sexual activity by consenting adults, nor

Okay this is utterly unnecessary. Self defense is not violence as a punishment, armed conflict is not violence as a punishment unless you’re going really really indirectly, and the consensual bit was clarified already in the definition.

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 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

This clause reads really badly, and again, seems wildly unnecessary. Unless the violence is a punishment (as clarified in the definition), it doesn’t affect that. The only example of this in a military circumstance I can think of would be mildly abusive drill sergeants forcing kids to do ridiculous amounts of pushups or run a million laps, and honestly I don’t think that’s such a horrible thing to ban (and it’s not all that well covered in this clause either). If anything, I think this just allows loopholes to happen, and that doesn’t need to be a thing.

Edits done (hope they were helpful). Have a great day!

-A

[Y3K Earth]

Against

[Thamesholm and Wallborough]

Couldn’t this also affect slight infliction of judicial corporal punishment, arguably more humane than the much more drawn-out punishment of incarceration?

[Greater Cesnica]

The only example of this in a military circumstance I can think of would be mildly abusive drill sergeants forcing kids to do ridiculous amounts of pushups or run a million laps, and honestly I don’t think that’s such a horrible thing to ban

I understand why someone may come to this conclusion, but regimentation and strictness is a positive in the context of a fighting force.

[Thousand Branches]

The only example of this in a military circumstance I can think of would be mildly abusive drill sergeants forcing kids to do ridiculous amounts of pushups or run a million laps, and honestly I don’t think that’s such a horrible thing to ban

I understand why someone may come to this conclusion, but regimentation and strictness is a positive in the context of a fighting force.

Fair, if that’s what you want to legislate on, but I do think the clause could be worded a little better

[Tinhampton]

Apologies in advance Tin I really tore into some of the clauses on this one

I know, right?

Reaffirming the principles of GA#5xx "LEO Force Restrictions," which bans on-duty police officers from using excessive force,

Why is it “5xx”?

Comma should be after the quotation mark.

“Bans” feels like a weird wording? Maybe that’s just me.

1. Because LEO Force Restrictions has not yet passed and does not have a resolution number. I will edit its actual res. no. in when it looks like passing.
2. disagreed
3. "bans" ---> "prohibits"

Noting that corporal punishment is a form of violence which, while disproportionately carried out against children, can affect almost anyone of any age (usually with scant notice), and

“Noting” is sort of uninspired? This should be more grim than matter of fact imo.

“while” —> “despite being”

“almost anyone” is dumb in both that it’s a repetition with “any” and that it’s actually just anyone. I would straight up do “individuals” to replace it.

What is the parentheses bit supposed to mean?

1. I'd say it's both
2-3. Changes have been made
4. that little notice of corporal punishment is generally given to its victim - but cut.

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...

Rewrite (I just really dislike this clause):

“Believing it imperative to forbid such forms of violence in an effort to protect against abuse or mistreatment of vulnerable individuals.”

Slightly different vibes and wildly different language, but I think it works a lot better here.

I'm assuming that people will read the entire preamble (which isn't that long). People were complaining that my old-school preamble was too targetted - given that the corporal punishment, then as now, covered everyone rather than just children/the vulnerable - and I'd rather not fall into the same trap here

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,

Actually, rewrite again (also curious little suggestion here, why is it being limited only to physical pain? I mean sure emotional/mental pain is sort of a different category, but I don’t see why it couldn’t be included.):

“defines "corporal punishment" as the act of causing any kind of non-consensual physical harm or pain to another individual as punishment,”

GC doesn't really mind whether or not I adopt your version; I continue to believe that the additional clarity is necessary.

"[E]motional/mental pain" is far more subjective than physical pain - and is not the kind of harm that corporal punishment is generally intended to cause anyway. sorry =P

requires members to outlaw corporal punishment, regardless of where it occurs, and to abolish all defences to the same,

“members” —> “member states”

Commas can maybe be em dashes.

It’s unclear what “and to abolish all defences to the same” means.

Potential rewrite just for fun:

“establishes a complete prohibition of corporal punishment in member states, and abolishes all defences to the same,”

1. My general preference is to use "member states" on first mention and then "members" afterwards.
2. Mayyyyyybe... but I'm not too convinced myself lol.
3. To stop parents from saying "But it was reasonable chastisement!" in court. See OP.

all primary and secondary 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 feasible) on a regular basis,

Repetition of “all” in the first bit, I’d recommend just nixing the opening “all” (honestly you could remove both).

“inform” —> “educate” (more fitting) I[f] you do take this edit, “about” —> “on”

Why is “Articles” capitalized?

“prominently… basis” either needs to be removed or reworded cuz it is gross rn

I accidentally rewrote the entire section after GC suggested removing the maximum penalty bit. Ooooooops and I might have rewritten it again

("Articles" is generally capitalised as a matter of personal style)

members regularly raise awareness about Articles a and b among all people whose employment requires them to regularly and intentionally interact with children,

Again, “members” —> “member states”

“about” —> “of”

“people” —> “individuals”

“and intentionally”? Ehhhhh idk, I think that could maybe be included too (wtf would unintentional consistent contact with children even be?).

1. Again, personal style.
2-4. Done.

members additionally forbid the guardians of a person without legal competence (including parents and carers of children) from granting consent for that person to be subject to corporal punishment in any context, and that

“members” —> “member states”

“additionally” kills flow and is not needed, kill it.

“the guardians” —> “any guardian”

“parents and” —> “parents or”

“carers of children” is in equal parts a synonym for guardian and really confusing, I’d rewrite that wording.

1. More personal style.
2-4. Done.
5. Not everybody who is legally incompetent is a child - but I've cut it out entirely regardless.

all clauses in all contracts in force while this resolution is in effect which have the effect of allowing any direct or indirect signatory of that contract to be subject to corporal punishment be immediately voided and not enforced by any party,

Jesus christ this took me about 8 times through to understand and I’m still not even sure I know what’s going on here. This really needs a rewrite but I don’t quite know how to write one so I’ll leave it up to you.

Em said of my previous attempt at this that "I could definitely see this being taken to court time and time again over whether a private school contract allows for teachers to strike the children anyway, because it was part of the deal when the student began attending. It would also likely begin being put in contracts for a lot of things that would previously have involved physical punishment."
Article c(iv) exists mainly to satisfy her objections (as Article c(iii) does Sanctaria's). Between URA vote counts being binding (including upon Duby, GA sceptic and wielder of some 290 votes - and I'm confident that the other big URA regions will support this as they did last time), TEP switching to votes involving all citizens (guiding Albrook's 750 votes, typically in favour of all well-written proposals), and my definition of corporal punishment being exactly the same one that Boston Castle complained about last time, it is not unreasonable to imagine that Em's 80 votes could decide the fate of this resolution.

the use of force in defence of oneself or others, in the course of organised armed conflict, or during sexual activity by consenting adults, nor

Okay this is utterly unnecessary. Self defense is not violence as a punishment, armed conflict is not violence as a punishment unless you’re going really really indirectly, and the consensual bit was clarified already in the definition.

Excised. (Greater Cesnica summarises my thoughts on Article d(ii) - now just Article d - pretty well.)

Edits done (hope they were helpful). Have a great day!

-A

And you!

[Feyrisshire]

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?

OOC: I agree with this - all of the UN reports gathered and evidences cited seem to be related to children and pedagogy in general, and seems to be the general intent of the resolution as implied in Article c and e, but the definition in Article a is simply too broad.

The only examples that seem to be cited outside of pedadogy and children's rights seem to be judicial corporate punishment and caning in Singapore, but I can think of things that are unrelated to both pedadogy and children's rights and judicial corporate punishment - such as traditional cultural and religious activities that involves recreation of punishments of some kind, such as Catholic flagellations and reenactment of crucifixions, esp. in Catholic countries during Holy Week, or cultural activities, such as porn and hentai BDSM.

Article a does note the inclusion of consent, but considering how vague and over-arching its definition is, it might ban other activities that are outside the intent of this resolution such as school pedadogy or judicial corporal punishment - See above.

---

Edit: After reading the definition for a few more times, it simply is too vague and broad as the word "penalize" can mean anything, and the definition can be interpreted to mean anything from assault, to inflicting physical injuries over a minor squabble to domestic battery, etc. - meaning that this legislates on too many crimes that are far outside of the resolution's scope.

I suggest changing the definition from it to something like —> "causing physical harm or pain by a school authority or teacher to a child, pupil or student for pedagogy., a parent to a child........and a state, polity, judicial body to any criminal, accused for judicial punishment....."

Something like that, so it couldn't be interpreted to literally anything, or broadly legislate on other crimes, or ban traditional religious activities or cultural activities, etc.

[Tinhampton]

As you know, I am famous for responding to feedback as soon as I get it. I support Feyrisshire's criticisms in principle and have asked her for clarification about the circumstances in which corporal punishment ought to be impermissible beyond those she has outlined. I'll update Article a as soon as there's an obvious consensus list.

This was originally scheduled to be submitted after LEO Force Restrictions - a draft written 2y4m ago to facilitate the passage of a corporal punishment ban of some description - passed. Since the last reply was made, LEOFR passed, was repealed and I am now drafting a replacement. This will now be submitted after that replacement passes, which I expect to be at some point in November 2023, if not next year entirely. Holy mother of wild goose chases.

[Cessarea]

As you know, I am famous for responding to feedback as soon as I get it. I support Feyrisshire's criticisms in principle and have asked her for clarification about the circumstances in which corporal punishment ought to be impermissible beyond those she has outlined. I'll update Article a as soon as there's an obvious consensus list.

This was originally scheduled to be submitted after LEO Force Restrictions - a draft written 2y4m ago to facilitate the passage of a corporal punishment ban of some description - passed. Since the last reply was made, LEOFR passed, was repealed and I am now drafting a replacement. This will now be submitted after that replacement passes, which I expect to be at some point in November 2023, if not next year entirely. Holy mother of wild goose chases.

Holy passage of time, Batman! Two years! This may be a record

Will give this a read later, probably suggest a stricter definition and a few exceptions.

[Makko Oko]

"His Emperor's Government is in full solidarity and wish for this proposal's quick and hasteful enactment as soon as possible. A name change to better fit context would be helpful though. You are not ending corporal punishment completely Ambassador, but merely banning it for the abuse of children and that alone. Maybe 'End Corporal Punishment In Schooling' would be a better fit." - Minister of Health Danika Hicks

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Clause c-i seems to assume the British model of schooling. I don’t think that Americans use primary and secondary schools.)

[Tinhampton]

This resolution covers corporal punishment in many settings, not only in schools. Regarding specifics, I'm awaiting Feyrisshire's response.

I've added "(or equivalent)" to Article c(i), to reflect i.e. member states with elementary, middle and high school settings - while at the same time understanding that it may be difficult for nurseries or kindergartens, who may be caught in the simple set of "schools," to deliver the education required.

[The Ice States]

"Ambassador, this certainly appears to be a noble concept, however whether such a wholesale ban is merited would likely be a controversial subject necessitating heavy debate within our mission. I cannot say that we are necessarily opposed to the concept, however regardless, there are still matters of the proposal text itself we would seek clarification on. Particularly, could your mission provide an example of a practical application wherein a contract which would be voided under Section c.iv is likely to exist?"

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

Ooc: For reasons I'd rather not get into this is a topic I feel strongly about, and apart from my Ambassador's Ic query above I see no issues with the proposal text. Full support.

[Simone Republic]

(IC)

Bears are cannibals. We can eat our own kids under WA laws but can't beat them? Shurely shome mistake?

(OOC)

This is very culture dependent (28 jurisdictions permit judicial corporal punishment according to Wikipedia, I don't know how reliable that figure is as I think it's not a well researched article).

The resolution indirectly bans judicial corporal punishment since "anyone penalised" would include judicial by default, not just schools.

[Tinhampton]

Feyrisshire will no longer be responding, contrary to what I said earlier. However, following some conversations I've just had with her, she has: (A) given me permission to include the three example cases she listed here as specific cases where corporal punishment is forbidden (with some more expansive adaptations I made myself: all corporal punishment against children or for penal purposes is now proscribed); and (B) requested that she be listed as a co-author alongside Greatest Cesnica.

I intend to submit this in approximately two months. My intention is that the new examples - to be found in Article b - serve as building blocks, from which you can suggest potential further cases in which corporal punishment should be forbidden. Even if you cannot, I have inserted a new Article e encouraging the further eradication of corporal punishment.

[The Ice States]

Full support; I have no real objections to this as written. I would, however, suggest to make it clearer that Section b.iii applies only where that constitutes corporal punishment. I would also suggest, also for clarity, to change 'penalise' to 'punish' in the definition of CP; otherwise a (bad faith) reading would be that it means only penalties enforced by law.

[Tigrisia]

As the delegation of a nation that strives being a child-friendly nation, with childrens' rights enshrined in our constitution, including the right of every child to a non-violent upbringing, we the Delegation of Tigrisia are supporting this resolution. We will definitely vote for it.

The Tigrisian Delegation

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur strongly supports this proposal. There is no reason why a person in a position of authority in respect of another, especially a child, should be permitted to inflict physical harm or pain on that person. And from a crime-control standpoint, it is a sad but recognized fact that the children who are most subject to corporal punishment in their youth will be most represented in the justice system later on in life, due to the fact that subjecting a child to aggression alters their psychological landscape, almost entirely for the worse, and makes them more prone to engage in aggression of their own. This is a major step forward for any society that considers itself civilized."

[Tootswana]

Tootswana is opposed to this awful legislation. Spanking is a national pastime of ours.

[The Dinland]

The Dinland strongly supports this WA legislation. The right of the child should include protection from assault in the same way a legal adult is, in the conscience backed opinion of the Government.

[Tinhampton]

Full support; I have no real objections to this as written. I would, however, suggest to make it clearer that Section b.iii applies only where that constitutes corporal punishment. I would also suggest, also for clarity, to change 'penalise' to 'punish' in the definition of CP; otherwise a (bad faith) reading would be that it means only penalties enforced by law.

All of Articles b(i-iii) outline examples of corporal punishment. If anything described in those Articles is done, but it is not corporal punishment as defined in Article a, then it is patently not corporal punishment nor should it be treated as such. The other change you suggest has been made.

The old Article e ("strongly encourages members to forbid corporal punishment in all contexts not listed in Article b") is now Article c. The awareness-raising measures in what are now Articles d(i-ii) now cover Articles a, b, and c.

As always, if you have suggestions for additional manifestation of corporal punishment which you believe to be so egregious that Article b should specify them, please do let me know. I will at the very least consider them, if not discuss their potential inclusion alongside GC.

[Tinhampton]

Bump.

I will not be submitting this until there is a resolution restricting the use of force by police officers. Please read this dispatch for the rationale behind my decision.