[Draft] Repeal Child Protection Act (Withdrawn)

[Saltha]

[OOC:] This is my first resolution. I've looked at some of the passed resolutions, but I'm not 100% sure I've got the wording right. [/ooc]

(withdrawn as unessicery)
Repeal of Child Protection Act
Catagory: Repeal
Resolution: #19

Description: The Child protection act should be struck null and void

Argument: ACTKNOWELDGING that the protection of the rights of children in the child protection act (resolution #19) is of the upmost importance

BUTNEVERTHELESS noting that the classifications of "physical abuse" in the foreammentioned resolution is far too broad as "any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm" and infringes on the invidisual rights of parents and govements in corperal punishment in child raising and adminisstration of justice.

OBSERVING that corperal punishment can be preformed in a loving, correctional manor that is productive and not harmful for the child.

THEREBY MANDATES that resolution #19 be repeled and calls for a new resolution to be forthwith drafted that both protects the rights of children and allows for sane, controlled punishment.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

My analysis, not necessarily my final opinion yet is that if the scope of physical abuse is too narrow it could allow for undesirable loopholes. Detention is not necessarily physical abuse.

[Linux and the X]

HOPING that this Assembly neither would nor should ever support activity that is morally or legally wrong,

BELIEVING that assault is both morally and legally wrong,

NOTING that assault has been independently defined as an "attack with physical means", and

FINDING that corporal punishment therefore is assault,

THE HAPPILY DEPRESSED HACKERS OF LINUX AND THE X

DETERMINE that corporal punishment is both morally and legally wrong,

CONCLUDE that this Assembly neither would nor should support corporal punishment, and therefore

STRONGLY OPPOSE this tripe posing as a proposal.

[Rutianas]

The definition might be too broad, I'll grant that. I've considered repealing it myself due to that in order to change that wording. However, there is nothing in there that stops a nation from defining what acts would 'tend to cause a child physical harm'. In other words, the nation can decide that spanking a child does not cause physical harm unless the child is beaten so badly that there are bruises or bleeding, or the punishment is excessive. With that in mind, I chose not to pursue a repeal of my own resolution since the nation can still define 'physical harm'.

-Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

[Holy Roman Confederate]

[OOC:] This is my first resolution. I've looked at some of the passed resolutions, but I'm not 100% sure I've got the wording right. [/ooc]

Repeal of Child Protection Act
Catagory: Repeal
Resolution: #19

Description: The Child protection act should be struck null and void

Argument: ACTKNOWELDGING that the protection of the rights of children in the child protection act (resolution #19) is of the upmost importance

BUTNEVERTHELESS noting that the classifications of "physical abuse" in the foreammentioned resolution is far too broad as "any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm" and infringes on the invidisual rights of parents and govements in corperal punishment in child raising and adminisstration of justice.

OBSERVING that corperal punishment can be preformed in a loving, correctional manor that is productive and not harmful for the child.

THEREBY MANDATES that resolution #19 be repeled and calls for a new resolution to be forthwith drafted that both protects the rights of children and allows for sane, controlled punishment.

I think my favorite part was "corperal punishment can be preformed in a loving, correctional manor". Without even giving this much thought at all the HRC is against your repeal attempt.

[Saltha]

Charolette: Of course if the law is too narow it can allow for loop holes! However, the question is if it is too broad. Of course any law needs to strike the proper balance. Your comment about detention strikes me as a non-sequitor, and your comment over all as misrepresenting the proposal.

Rutianas: You have a point, "casing physical harm" still seemed so broad that it didn't allow for indivisual interpitation. if it doesn't in fact interfere with the aforementioned rights then I withdraw my proposal.

To Lunix the X: your logic is faulty in jumphing from "corperal punishment is physical" to "therefore corperal punishment is abuse". I do agree that there definitely be defined controls to protect the child. Also, your attempt to impose value systems on us that are most unwelcome. Also, you are misreresenting the propsal as "evil" when all I am calling for is a more detailoed definition of "physical abuse".

The delegate from Saltha wishes to ask the delegate from HRC: If I had struck that line, and it was simply about rewriting the CPA to define "physical abuse" would you dismiss it so quickly "without much thought"

[Jennifer Government NS]

Child Protection Act is quite good; repeal is not necessary in my opinion.

[Linux and the X]

Lunix the X:

HOLY GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING SHIT, CAN WE GET ONE DELEGATE TODAY TO SPELL OUR NATION'S NAME CORRECTLY?
*seethes*
Okay. Okay. I'm fine now. Still, just to be safe, Underling, handle the rest of this. I'm going to the office for some self-medication.
--fps

Also, your attempt to impose value systems on us that are most unwelcome. Also, you are misreresenting the propsal as "evil" when all I am calling for is a more detailoed definition of "physical abuse".

Welcome to the Festering Snakepit! I could tell you were new! *slips into a prepared, though unpracticed, speech* Here in the Festering Snakepit, nations and delegates of all sorts gather to discuss the issues of the world. We have numerous governing philosophies, personalities, and ideals. With so much competition, delegates tend towards extreme support of their nation's positions, and often will cast their opponents as the devil himself... if they believe in the devil anyway.

And, er, Fred's not usually like this. Sorry you had to meet him today.
--underling

[Saltha]

To the delegate from Linux and the X: My Apollogies on the misreading of your name.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Charolette: Of course if the law is too narow it can allow for loop holes! However, the question is if it is too broad. Of course any law needs to strike the proper balance. Your comment about detention strikes me as a non-sequitor, and your comment over all as misrepresenting the proposal.

Rutianas: You have a point, "casing physical harm" still seemed so broad that it didn't allow for indivisual interpitation. if it doesn't in fact interfere with the aforementioned rights then I withdraw my proposal.

To Lunix the X: your logic is faulty in jumphing from "corperal punishment is physical" to "therefore corperal punishment is abuse". I do agree that there definitely be defined controls to protect the child. Also, your attempt to impose value systems on us that are most unwelcome. Also, you are misreresenting the propsal as "evil" when all I am calling for is a more detailoed definition of "physical abuse".

The delegate from Saltha wishes to ask the delegate from HRC: If I had struck that line, and it was simply about rewriting the CPA to define "physical abuse" would you dismiss it so quickly "without much thought"

Honestly yes, as the HRC sees nothing in error with current legislation. So we view your repeal attempt as a moot point.

[Quelesh]

One potential argument in favor of repeal of Child Protection Act is that the wording of it seems to prohibit any close-in-age exemptions in age of consent law, assuming a nation has an age of consent.