NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] The Children Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

Is the Act legal?

Poll ended at Mon Dec 20, 2021 2:08 pm

Yes - no more edits
1
100%
No - man, you've got more to do
0
No votes
Yes - under moral decency, strong
0
No votes
Yes - under moral decency, significant
0
No votes
No - the category must be... Post it.
0
No votes
Does it matter, it will get voted down, anyway?
0
No votes
Other - post on board
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 1

User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Diplomat
 
Posts: 511
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Sun Dec 12, 2021 7:38 pm

It would be extremely helpful if you updated the first post to contain your most recent draft and spoilered the prior drafts. As it is, I am not sure what the current text you are asking for feedback on is.
N’oubliez pas l’hospitalité car, grâce à elle, certains, sans le savoir, ont accueilli des anges.

User avatar
Telgan Alpha
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: May 24, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Telgan Alpha » Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:21 am

New version edited on the first post.
Cheers.

User avatar
Indo States
Minister
 
Posts: 2917
Founded: Jan 05, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Indo States » Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:26 am

"The Children Act" should be named as the "Treaty for Children", in which it would be Perfect for this Draft to be Named for, and also, the Fatimanian Ambassador to the World Assembly was happy to Comment about this bill, but they said that it needs major improvements, including with the Addition that Children should have a Access to Education and Leisure for them, including Sport Activities, Playgrounds and Basketball Courts, and also to protect from Children from being Recruited by Terrorists or by the State to be the Child Soldier or to engage in a Conflict, whatever if it is against the Government or if not. i would be happy if you take my suggestion.
Fédération Fatimanienné - Fatiman Federation
Country of Freedom and Education


I DO NOT USE NATIONSTATES STATS

User avatar
Telgan Alpha
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: May 24, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Telgan Alpha » Mon Dec 13, 2021 9:50 am

I get what you're saying regarding a whole wellbeing approach. But, that would, I think, need a second document to outline what exactly wellbeing is and how this is enshrined properly. We have taken a broader safeguarding and welfare approach instead. Happy to look into wellbeing in another document if this, by any luck, passes the GA floor. Best
Last edited by Telgan Alpha on Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11312
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:05 pm

.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Apatosaurus
Diplomat
 
Posts: 854
Founded: Jul 17, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Apatosaurus » Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:15 pm

A legality challenge has been submitted against this proposal.

EDIT: Sorry for not pointing this out earlier, I only noticed this proposal and the illegality when it was submitted and had to submit the challenge earlier than I wanted with this getting to quorum before this did.
Last edited by Apatosaurus on Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Hey there! :D Have a great day!~
6x WA Author | I've done stuff | WA Delegation | Factbook | He/Him
I wish i could be quoted in a forum sig v_v - Alfonzo
The difference between an invader and an imperialist is that...the imperialist will write several paragraphs about how the region's poll officer's cousin's friend's soccer coach once arranged his fridge magnets to spell out FRA and this is therefore a great leap forward in their war effort - Altmoras
I'm happy to accept an ideological ban rule where Max lists every single ideology and tells us whether every single policy does or does not ban every possible ideology - Imperium Anglorum
That's like saying that gasoline tastes better than diesel when cheesecake is on the menu - Separatist Peoples

User avatar
Telgan Alpha
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: May 24, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Telgan Alpha » Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:49 pm

New version in FIRST post. Any help or comments welcome.
Anything regarding any legal challenge is welcome. I do not wish to have a never ending submitting, deleting, submitting. This will be the last time I attempt to get this on to the WA floor. So any comments will be enacted with any reference to any legality issues.

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 117
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:32 am

I'm the sort that could definitely support an effort like this, but I feel like the current version tries to do A LOT without allowing sufficient time for careful circumspection and editing. It's only been a month since this was first brought up for drafting. I noticed several problematic provisions in the current draft, but I'll just point to one for now:
Telgan Alpha wrote:3. Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must:... faciliate social and other developmental pursuits,
...
5. Member States shall ensure the welfare of the child is protected through the legal system, which:... act as an arbitrator in regards to Section 3.

Let's put aside the grammatical problems ("member states" is a plural noun so "it must" should be "they must," and "the legal system, which act as" is bad grammar). This allows kids who don't make the varsity football team to sue because their right to "other developmental pursuits" was not respected or sufficiently facilitated. Or because there aren't any violin tutors in their area. Or because they didn't get into the public university they wanted.

Edit: I noticed that the submitted draft was slightly different from what is posted in OP, so I edited to take that into account.
Last edited by Princess Rainbow Sparkles on Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:51 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11312
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:25 am

Is the following clause—

Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must enshrine ... ensure children are empowered to state their views,

compatible with Protecting Free Expression sections 2–4, which

2. Permits member nations to enact reasonable restrictions on peaceful free expression in those cases where the expression constitutes:
  1. defamation, as defined in section 1b,
  2. blatant and explicit pornographic material,
  3. an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness,
  4. a threat to civilian or military health or safety,
  5. perjury or any other threat to the functioning of judicial proceedings,
  6. the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest,
  7. an infringement on private or intellectual property rights,
  8. a violation of prior, unrepealed international legislation,
3. Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation,

4. Permits member states to enact reasonable restrictions in educational settings in order to better advance the functionality, safety, and effectiveness of the learning environment, presuming said restrictions are the least restrictive means by which to advance that goal,

If member nations are permitted to make content regulations (eg 'We should overthrow Parliament! Ride now, ride now, ride! Ride for ruin and the world's ending!') on speech – without respect to age – surely those regulations apply also to minors. Section 3 is a catch-all clause, but on first glance but it allows the WA to pass further speech regulations (not create exceptions to ones already written into PFE). Section 4 creates a general ability for member nations to regulate speech in schools, which is presumably associated with speech by minors.

A few other issues that I think would be worth exploring: To what extent does 'reasonable' in PFE insulate this proposal? What does it mean to 'empower'? (I think 'empower' is a positive right that also subsumes a negative one, the state needs to actively ensure rather than merely prohibit restrictions.)

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 117
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:41 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:*snip*

I don't have much of an opinion on whether the proposal conflicts with PFE, but I think empowering children to state their views as a general matter doesn't necessarily conflict with imposing reasonable restrictions. The two seem compatible to me in theory. Empowering children to state their views could be no more than a suggestion box where they state their views about abolishing parliament, etc.

I don't think the use of "reasonable" in PFE does anything to "insulate" the current proposal. If anything, it makes the current proposal more likely to be viewed as a contradiction, because it could be (but does not need to be) interpreted as requiring children to be empowered to state their views despite reasonable regulations established under PFE.

I've already indicated above that "empower" can mean a lot of things. I don't think it necessarily implies the existence of a right possessed by children. It's more like a mandate that member nations create a process aimed at supporting children in expressing their views.

That's my opinion. Reasonable minds can differ here. If they're allowed to.
Last edited by Princess Rainbow Sparkles on Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:42 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11312
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:56 am

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:I don't have much of an opinion on whether the proposal conflicts with PFE, but I think empowering children to state their views as a general matter doesn't necessarily conflict with imposing reasonable restrictions. The two seem compatible to me in theory. Empowering children to state their views could be no more than a suggestion box where they state their views about abolishing parliament, etc.

I don't think the use of "reasonable" in PFE does anything to "insulate" the current proposal. If anything, it makes the current proposal more likely to be viewed as a contradiction, because it could be (but does not need to be) interpreted as requiring children to be empowered to state their views despite reasonable regulations established under PFE.

I've already indicated above that "empower" can mean a lot of things. I don't think it necessarily implies the existence of a right possessed by children. It's more like a mandate that member nations create a process aimed at supporting children in expressing their views.

For myself, I think it goes the other way (re legality) on both points.

Empowering. If people are empowered to do something, is there a predicate act to allow them to do that thing? If so, then that would require nations to affirmatively deconstruct or exempt people from the regulations they are, under PFE s 2, permitted to create. Someone can't be empowered to state their views if, for example, those views are something like 'Let's take the mob we are currently part of, storm the Forum, and kill the praetors' when inciting people to violence or widespread lawlessness is illegal.

Reasonable. If the regulations under PFE s 2 are confined under 'reasonable', can it be 'reasonable' for those regulations to violate GA law? Drawing an analogy, a clause empowering someone to create reasonable secondary legislation doesn't allow them to create regulations that otherwise violate statute law. Read maximally, such a permissions clause with 'reasonable' would be subject to future GA legislation.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 117
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Dec 24, 2021 12:36 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Empowering. If people are empowered to do something, is there a predicate act to allow them to do that thing? If so, then that would require nations to affirmatively deconstruct or exempt people from the regulations they are, under PFE s 2, permitted to create. Someone can't be empowered to state their views if, for example, those views are something like 'Let's take the mob we are currently part of, storm the Forum, and kill the praetors' when inciting people to violence or widespread lawlessness is illegal.

It doesn't have to be interpreted the way you're interpreting it. A quick look for definitions of "empowered" include such benign things as "make (someone) stronger and more confident," and " to promote the self-actualization or influence of." In context, I think that's the safer interpretation about what is proposed when someone talks of empowering children.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Reasonable. If the regulations under PFE s 2 are confined under 'reasonable', can it be 'reasonable' for those regulations to violate GA law? Drawing an analogy, a clause empowering someone to create reasonable secondary legislation doesn't allow them to create regulations that otherwise violate statute law. Read maximally, such a permissions clause with 'reasonable' would be subject to future GA legislation.

Granting a WA nation the authority to act in reasonable ways seems to confer a substantive right on the governments of those nations; one which cannot be implicitly overridden, trampled, or conflicted by future resolutions. Historically, WA nations have seemed to understand this and have used explicit clauses to signal what kinds of further laws on the subject may be permitted.

Anyway, I still think the tension disappears as soon as you stop interpreting "empowered" in a way that possibly brings it into conflict with other laws. Real courts regularly employ a maxim whereby they will interpret provisions in a way that avoids a conflict with existing law whenever possible. That's certainly possible here.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11312
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 24, 2021 1:58 pm

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Empowering. If people are empowered to do something, is there a predicate act to allow them to do that thing? If so, then that would require nations to affirmatively deconstruct or exempt people from the regulations they are, under PFE s 2, permitted to create. Someone can't be empowered to state their views if, for example, those views are something like 'Let's take the mob we are currently part of, storm the Forum, and kill the praetors' when inciting people to violence or widespread lawlessness is illegal.

It doesn't have to be interpreted the way you're interpreting it. A quick look for definitions of "empowered" include such benign things as "make (someone) stronger and more confident," and " to promote the self-actualization or influence of." In context, I think that's the safer interpretation about what is proposed when someone talks of empowering children.

I think from the context of the other subsections, the only consistent reading is that of the main definition: the others all relate to securing some kind of positive or negative right that member nations must facilitate. This too must go with those which it keeps its company with.

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Anyway, I still think the tension disappears as soon as you stop interpreting "empowered" in a way that possibly brings it into conflict with other laws. Real courts regularly employ a maxim whereby they will interpret provisions in a way that avoids a conflict with existing law whenever possible. That's certainly possible here.

I'm well aware of the validity canon.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 117
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Fri Dec 24, 2021 4:43 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think from the context of the other subsections, the only consistent reading is that of the main definition: the others all relate to securing some kind of positive or negative right that member nations must facilitate. This too must go with those which it keeps its company with.

Look, I'm not saying your interpretation is unreasonable. And I'm definitely not saying this should pass. It's riddled with grammar and spelling errors ("guarntee"!) and rife with absurd implications - but that seems to be par for the course lately from what I've seen.

I see what you see, I think. The Section we're discussing (Section 3) begins with, "Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must." So I can see why you are reasoning the way you do. But, I ask you, is that the only reasonable interpretation? Maybe the right the proposal refers to is what you say: a right of children to speak their views however they want, other reasonable regulations be damned.

But maybe, just maybe, it's more about defining the parameters of a child's amorphous right to have a government that is responsive to their needs. A government that empowers them to speak their mind, ensures their protection, facilitates their development, etc. That's what I see the author trying to do, and I think that's a reasonable interpretation of those clauses. One which does not bring this proposal into conflict with other laws (or, at least, the one we're currently discussing - I admit I haven't looked hard for other possible conflicts). Consider that.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Anyway, I still think the tension disappears as soon as you stop interpreting "empowered" in a way that possibly brings it into conflict with other laws. Real courts regularly employ a maxim whereby they will interpret provisions in a way that avoids a conflict with existing law whenever possible. That's certainly possible here.

I'm well aware of the validity canon.

Great, then follow it or don't.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11312
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:50 pm

Okay, I'm satisfied it is legal, though on the 'reasonable' grounds – ie a permissions clause with 'reasonable' can't permit violations, even prospective, of WA law – rather than on the 'empowered' grounds. So voted on the proposals page.

Mobile.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13761
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:01 pm

Given the broad definitions and provisions along with numerous grammar mistakes, opposed.
I don't stand with Ukraine. I don't stand with Russia. I don't stand with the US, NATO, or EU. I stand with the innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire while the politicians, the media, and weapons manufacturers continue to stoke division and conflict in their geopolitical chess games and treat the people of Ukraine as mere pawns. Zelensky is a corrupt, opportunist oligarchic politician who is not fit to lead Ukraine through anything and wants to inflate his own ego and offshore accounts.

User avatar
Telgan Alpha
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: May 24, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Telgan Alpha » Wed Dec 29, 2021 5:01 pm

The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls. ;)
Last edited by Telgan Alpha on Wed Dec 29, 2021 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11312
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Dec 29, 2021 6:31 pm

Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls. ;)

What does this mean?

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Xanthorrhoea
Envoy
 
Posts: 251
Founded: Aug 22, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Xanthorrhoea » Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:34 pm

I’m still a fan of the principle of this, but it needs more cooking. At a minimum, it needed to lose the typos and grammatical errors, but I also have some problems with how the wording effects certain clauses. I should have given this feedback earlier of course, but I’ve been a bit neglectful over Christmas and haven’t been able to keep up with all of the threads I was following. I’m especially bothered by clause 5aiii, which (unlike the two clauses immediately prior) carries no maturity caveat. This means a 2 year old can request a lawyer because they sound fun, and nations have to provide one.

I’m a fan of the principle, and the approach is relatively sound, but the execution needs more work.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13761
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:40 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls. ;)

What does this mean?

Looks like an attempt to RP why there were typos and errors.
I don't stand with Ukraine. I don't stand with Russia. I don't stand with the US, NATO, or EU. I stand with the innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire while the politicians, the media, and weapons manufacturers continue to stoke division and conflict in their geopolitical chess games and treat the people of Ukraine as mere pawns. Zelensky is a corrupt, opportunist oligarchic politician who is not fit to lead Ukraine through anything and wants to inflate his own ego and offshore accounts.

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 117
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:41 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Telgan Alpha wrote:The typo in fact was a coffee spill when the hot wax from my midnight candle had been blown away by an open window... The resulting mess was coffee and wax all over my papers. Due to rising inflation, we had no other choice, but to just accept the result. The WA really needs to invest in the printing press rather than scrolls. ;)

What does this mean?

It's an IC excuse for poor proofreading prior to submission, and an attempt at humorously shirking the possibility of pulling the proposal for correction.

Telgan Alpha: there were multiple errors buddy. Looking for them is like trying to find Waldo in the Land of Waldos. I pointed out one thinking you'd take some pride in your work, ask to pull it, look for the rest, and submit a correct draft. Alas. Here, I'll point out two more: "faciliate" needs an extra "t" in there for it to be an English word.

Question: Am I being too harsh? It is a game for children. But then again it's also a game celebrating the written word. Given the modest character limits shouldn't we be trying harder to submit error-free copy?

Edit: Point above sniped by Outer Sparta.
Last edited by Princess Rainbow Sparkles on Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Outer Sparta
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13761
Founded: Dec 26, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Outer Sparta » Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:53 pm

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:What does this mean?

It's an IC excuse for poor proofreading prior to submission, and an attempt at humorously shirking the possibility of pulling the proposal for correction.

Telgan Alpha: there were multiple errors buddy. Looking for them is like trying to find Waldo in the Land of Waldos. I pointed out one thinking you'd take some pride in your work, ask to pull it, look for the rest, and submit a correct draft. Alas. Here, I'll point out two more: "faciliate" needs an extra "t" in there for it to be an English word.

Question: Am I being too harsh? It is a game for children. But then again it's also a game celebrating the written word. Given the modest character limits shouldn't we be trying harder to submit error-free copy?

Edit: Point above sniped by Outer Sparta.

You are correct that it's an IC excuse of poor proofreading. Given the poor execution of the concept as well as aforementioned proofreading errors, that's enough to prevent me from support it.
I don't stand with Ukraine. I don't stand with Russia. I don't stand with the US, NATO, or EU. I stand with the innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire while the politicians, the media, and weapons manufacturers continue to stoke division and conflict in their geopolitical chess games and treat the people of Ukraine as mere pawns. Zelensky is a corrupt, opportunist oligarchic politician who is not fit to lead Ukraine through anything and wants to inflate his own ego and offshore accounts.

User avatar
Milorum
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Nov 29, 2020
Anarchy

Postby Milorum » Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:19 pm

Image
The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, "The Children Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

Greater Cesnica's Europeian nation.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 11312
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:45 pm

C Marcius Blythe. I'm disappointed that a delegation which (hopefully) aspires to be counted among the serious authors would include their names in such a poorly-drafted proposal.

As to this rubbish about wax, I hope that the main authoring delegation is aware that there are multiple computer labs in the complex. There are word processing applications installed on those computer labs, including such things as Sicromoft Word, Pages, PordWerfect, and Platex.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 44 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Gaius Marcius Blythe; OOC unless so indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Goolistan
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Oct 13, 2021
Father Knows Best State

Postby Goolistan » Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:05 pm

You didn't define what the "age of majority" is after defining a child as any person under the age of majority.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Wrapper

Advertisement

Remove ads