[DROPPED - DO NOT POST] Childrens' Right to Expression

[Darenjo]

Ok. Well, since i'm a varied person, and because it looks like Nuclear Testing Safety either won't be an issue for a while or will be at vote soon and i'll have to be involved in that, I decided to come up with this. It does stand as a response to Family and Religion, but since that soon-to-be resolution actually does something good, i didn't want to go insta-repeal like Canadian Pacific (aka Canadai) did.

Childrens' Right to Expression

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Darenjo

The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING the right to Freedom of Expression,

RECOGNIZING that children constitute a large portion of the population of WA member states,

ALSO RECOGNIZING that in many cases children are as intelligent as adults and able to make the same decisions,

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution,
• 'Child' as one who has not yet surpassed the Threshold of Majority,
• 'Philosophy' as a study of general and fundamental questions on a variety of topics, characterized by usage of rational thought and argument,
• 'Religion' as a specific set of beliefs and practices adhered to by a group of people, characterized by the presence of supernatural entities, places, concepts, and/or forces,
• and 'Political Ideology' as a set of beliefs regarding the amount of civil, economic, and political freedoms given to society,

REAFFIRMING the right of a family to pass down religion, philosophy, and political ideology,

BUT SEEKING to ensure the same rights of expression to all residents of WA states,

Hereby institutes the following:

DECLARES that children shall hold the same amount of Freedom of Expression as adults;

ALLOWS schools to limit a child's Freedom of Expression in cases where the safety of others is in question or where the education of a child is compromised;

DECLARES that children retain the right to reject the religion, philosophy, and political ideology or lack thereof, and choose their own, or lack thereof;

MANDATES that public libraries must have available to children access to information about religions, philosophies, and political ideologies through books, magazines, internet access, encyclopedias, and other commonly used mediums of information;

ALLOWS libraries to block certain books, magazines, encyclopedias, or websites that incite hatred, openly mock certain religions, philosophies, ideologies, or other groups of people, and websites directly related to or run by religions, philosophies, and ideologies;

[Holy Roman Confederate]

The HRC stands in strong support of this proposal. We commend you on a well written and timely piece of legislation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The last thing Glen-Rhodes needs are children claiming freedom of expression in the classroom.

[Lowell Leber]

This would most likely lead to tyranny in the classroom by the students, a case of the "inmates running the assylum". Needs some work to be acceptable.

With Regards,
Ms. Abigail McGuire.
High Commissoner for WA Affairs,
The Empire of Lowell Leber.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Not in all situations, honoured ambassador... school discipline will suffer if this passes.

[Cardoness]

Why would "holy books" be exempt?

[Darenjo]

Well, in response to these first few comments:

1. Thank you HRC
2. Yeah, i figured that this would need work. I'll add a clause regarding schools. Also, i'm sorta banking on Threshold of Majority passing, since i do need a definition for 'child'.
3. Holy books would be exempt simply because i do not think that you could find a holy book that would be unbiased or that openly mocks other religions.

[Grays Harbor]

3. Holy books would be exempt simply because i do not think that you could find a holy book that would be unbiased or that openly mocks other religions.

So, in other words, you only want information accessible that YOU deem acceptable. That in itself seems rather discriminitory. Either make it ALL accessible, or just admit to blatant hypocrisy. Quite simple, really.

[Grays Harbor]

The last thing Glen-Rhodes needs are children claiming freedom of expression in the classroom.

This would most likely lead to tyranny in the classroom by the students, a case of the "inmates running the assylum". Needs some work to be acceptable.

With Regards,
Ms. Abigail McGuire.
High Commissoner for WA Affairs,
The Empire of Lowell Leber.

Not in all situations, honoured ambassador... school discipline will suffer if this passes.

We must agree with our 3 colleagues. This will cause chaos in virtually every school.

This entire idea is poorly thought out, and rushes forward with little or no regard for consequences.

[Embolalia]

2. Yeah, i figured that this would need work. I'll add a clause regarding schools. Also, i'm sorta banking on Threshold of Majority passing, since i do need a definition for 'child'.

It might be worthwhile to be more general. Rather than specifying that schools are exempt, perhaps do a damned good job defining "disruptive expression". Easier said than done, of course. Although, the title would suggest this is about choice (of religion, presumably), but the proposal is about more general expression.

3. Holy books would be exempt simply because i do not think that you could find a holy book that would be unbiased or that openly mocks other religions.

You could simply limit the mandate to non-fiction...[/troll]

[Cardoness]

Well, in response to these first few comments:

1. Thank you HRC
2. Yeah, i figured that this would need work. I'll add a clause regarding schools. Also, i'm sorta banking on Threshold of Majority passing, since i do need a definition for 'child'.
3. Holy books would be exempt simply because i do not think that you could find a holy book that would be unbiased or that openly mocks other religions.

I agree that a "holy book" would not be unbiased, but no book is unbiased. As fair as an author tries to be, one will always have an opinion on the issue one is writing about and the opinion is bound to come out to some degree in the writings. In addition, by exempting these "holy books" you are denying a child of the source work behind the other books and mediums. If you truly want to give a child a fair playing field and allow it to make up it's own mind, you would give it the source material for each religion, or anti-religion, and allow it to read what it will and choose which path it wants to take. Also, by exempting "holy books" you, unintentionally I'm sure, skew the playing field against organized religion and in favor of fringe or non-religious advocates, as such groups wont have "holy books" to exempt. The Kingdom of Cardoness would like to see this last clause removed.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Sadly we feel that mandating right to access unbiased non-fiction would not make the draft better. This is because it would deny certain sides, even non-violent ones, the right to spread their opinion in a particular issue.

[Darenjo]

Sadly we feel that mandating right to access unbiased non-fiction would not make the draft better. This is because it would deny certain sides, even non-violent ones, the right to spread their opinion in a particular issue.

Well, the proposal does mandate access to the internet (or, in the case of a really thought-out FT nation, 'other commonly used mediums of information'). Also, like said earlier, non-fiction doesn't mean unbiased.

How about 'relatively unbiased', which would pretty much mean anything considered usable as a textbook? Yes, it would mean that there would be some bias (for a RL example, there is almost no mention of the Americas, or Africa besides Egypt and how we evolved in American schools before 6th grade), but at least the bias would be minimized.

Also, as to the school limit, how about adding a phrase allowing libraries to block certain websites (such as hate sites)?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

But Resolution #30 applies to everyone... including children.

[Darenjo]

Okay, i took out 'unbiased' from the info access clause. I do intend to put something back into that clause like that, but i need that clause and the one below it to agree.

Speaking of the below clause, i replaced it with a clause allowing libraries to block access to certain things if they:
a. incite hatred towards a specific group of people - offensive things that incite or encourage violence
b. openly mock a religion/philosophy/ideology - this pretty much means the same thing as the above, except for that they don't openly encourage violence
c. are run by a religion/philosophy/ideology - this means the websites of political parties or those of organized religions

NOTE: forum posts will NOT be able to be used to get a site banned. I'll put that into the proposal if i have to.

Also, i did add a clause regarding schools allowing them to limit a child's Freedom of Expression in the interest of safety of others and making sure they actually get an education.

[Darenjo]

But Resolution #30 applies to everyone... including children.

Well, quite a few nations don't see it that way. Also, it doesn't apply to illegal immigrants either. Apparently no resolutions apply to illegals. Also, if it did, then basically all school rules regarding speech, dress code, etc, would be illegal.

EDIT: Then wouldn't Family and Religion conflict with Freedom of Expression as well? It pretty much gives parents free reign with their kids' religion/beliefs, and treats children like they're unintelligent. Since i'm still in high school, forgive me if i don't like that. Keep in mind that this proposal is a response to Family and Religion. If F&R fails to pass, I'll happily drop this proposal.

[Grays Harbor]

You made a minor concession as far as schools go, but what about family? This draft proposal appears to not only permit, but actively encourages, children to disregard their parents whenever the mood strikes them. This doesn't seem to be very well thought out.

[Darenjo]

You made a minor concession as far as schools go, but what about family? This draft proposal appears to not only permit, but actively encourages, children to disregard their parents whenever the mood strikes them. This doesn't seem to be very well thought out.

Just see the above edit.

[Grays Harbor]

But Resolution #30 applies to everyone... including children.

Well, quite a few nations don't see it that way. Also, it doesn't apply to illegal immigrants either. Apparently no resolutions apply to illegals. Also, if it did, then basically all school rules regarding speech, dress code, etc, would be illegal.

Oh for the love of...

If each and every group, minority, species, age group, class, etc, etc, etc was spelled out in detail as to who it includes in every resolution preamble there would be no room for the actual text!

[Mesogiria]

What business of it is the WA what is stocked in Mesogiria's libraries? If you want to go around demanding that we provide books on religions and philosophies to children, then write them up and pay for them yourselves, by which I mean the WA itself.

[Grays Harbor]

I'll happily drop this proposal.

This would be the recommended course of action for this.

[Darenjo]

Well, quite a few nations don't see it that way. Also, it doesn't apply to illegal immigrants either. Apparently no resolutions apply to illegals. Also, if it did, then basically all school rules regarding speech, dress code, etc, would be illegal.

Oh for the love of...

If each and every group, minority, species, age group, class, etc, etc, etc was spelled out in detail as to who it includes in every resolution preamble there would be no room for the actual text!

But that does give nations a way out. Also, because each and every group wasn't spelled out, that did give the WA the ability to say that these resolutions don't apply to illegal immigrants. That, simply because of WA action, leaves a huge loophole for nations to exploit.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Oh for the love of pancakes...

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Honoured ambassador, this clause clearly makes the need for the Childrens' Right to Expression clearly redundant.

Besides, there is no point in giving away concessions and exemptions like candies to make it sound better.

[Grays Harbor]

Oh for the love of...

If each and every group, minority, species, age group, class, etc, etc, etc was spelled out in detail as to who it includes in every resolution preamble there would be no room for the actual text!

But that does give nations a way out. Also, because each and every group wasn't spelled out, that did give the WA the ability to say that these resolutions don't apply to illegal immigrants. That, simply because of WA action, leaves a huge loophole for nations to exploit.

These resolutions also do not specifically state they apply to Harberians, so does that mean we are not covered by them? Inference as an argument is very unconvincing.

[Darenjo]

Very well, since the honored ambassadors feel that this is already covered by Freedom of Expression, Darenjo will drop this proposal.