[DEFEATED] Self-Defence Education Compact

[Tinhampton]

This resolution was at vote between the 9th and 13th of December, 2021.
It was defeated by a margin of 10,216 votes (about 68%) to 4,878 (about 32%).

---

This proposal has been filed to the General Assembly Education and Creativity Board.
NOTE: at 0203 GMT on the 2nd of December 2021, this proposal reached quorum with Willtechia's approval, the 59th all told.
NOTE 2: at 0622 GMT on the 6th of December 2021, this proposal won its 118th approval - twice the number required for quorum - from Islan Messh.

---

Character count: 1,276
Word count: 208

Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: This absolutely has to happen.
OOC: This absolutely has to happen. Once again, almost no preamble as is my usual style ;p

Self-Defence Education Compact
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Educational and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Aware that people who are both above and below the age of majority can and do fall victim to violent crime, and

Believing that the ability to defend oneself from such horrors as and when they happen is a skill that ought to be endowed not just on those of us alive today, but also upon the next generation, and the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that, and...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines a "school," for the purposes of this resolution, as a primary or secondary educational establishment in a member state which does not specialise in any subject,
2. requires all schools to educate all of their students, in theory and in practice, on the importance of remaining physically fit, active, and able to participate in team and individual sports, henceforth "physical education,"
3. mandates that schools, as part of their physical education curriculum, deliver practical lessons to all of their students on the importance and safe execution of basic unarmed self-defence, de-escalating and preventing small-scale conflict situations, and escape from life-threatening situations, and
4. suggests that those being taught self-defence under Article c also receive similar instruction about more advanced forms of self-defence.

[Scalizagasti]

"Is there any particular reason why you have chosen to exempt specialized schools?"

[Tinhampton]

"Is there any particular reason why you have chosen to exempt specialized schools?"

Assistant Venkman: For the same reason that Ambassador Lewitt did.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Unnecessary. Opposed."

[Jedinsto]

"Unnecessary. Opposed."

"What makes you believe this is unnecessary, ambassador? Plenty of nations refrain from teaching self-defense, and this would finally put a stop to that. Why should our citizens not have a chance to be prepared for reasonable self-defense?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Unnecessary. Opposed."

"What makes you believe this is unnecessary, ambassador? Plenty of nations refrain from teaching self-defense, and this would finally put a stop to that. Why should our citizens not have a chance to be prepared for reasonable self-defense?"

"Individuals interested in learning may make efforts to seek that training out. Those with no interest needn't learn. Not to mention the liability issues of teaching children to hit each other in school."

[Tinfect]

"What does competition or sport have to do with education? We understand the desire for self-defensive education; sport has nothing to do with such, or the purpose of educational facilities in the first place."

[Untecna]

"What makes you believe this is unnecessary, ambassador? Plenty of nations refrain from teaching self-defense, and this would finally put a stop to that. Why should our citizens not have a chance to be prepared for reasonable self-defense?"

"Individuals interested in learning may make efforts to seek that training out. Those with no interest needn't learn. Not to mention the liability issues of teaching children to hit each other in school."

"Agreed, ambassador, and to add on, not all nations need such a thing, in regards to crime rates and safety."

[Barfleur]

OOC: I don't know if the article you posted counts as a BBC hatepost, but it does shed light on an issue I had never really thought about.

IC: "We support this proposal. People interested in causing harm to their fellow man will go out of their way to learn how best to do so; it is necessary for self-defense strategies to become public knowledge in order to level the playing field and--hopefully--save lives."

[The Langburn Islands]

"Assistant Venkman, this is a proposal that makes little sense and is a flagrant breach of national sovereignty.

What business does the World Assembly have in legislating on self-defence programs? This is a clear responsibility of national governments and should remain as such.

The Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands is firmly opposed to this proposal and no amendments will cause us to change our position".

The Honourable John David
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly
The Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands

[Tinhampton]

This proposal has been taken over by Lydia Anderson... and definitely not in light of a certain repeal draft, either.

OOC: I don't know if the article you posted counts as a BBC hatepost

No, it wasn't (and still isn't)

[Tinhampton]

This proposal has most certainly not vanished into the aether!

[Barfleur]

OOC: Supported it in February and still support it now.

"Assistant Venkman, this is a proposal that makes little sense and is a flagrant breach of national sovereignty.

What business does the World Assembly have in legislating on self-defence programs? This is a clear responsibility of national governments and should remain as such.

The Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands is firmly opposed to this proposal and no amendments will cause us to change our position".

The Honourable John David
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly
The Commonwealth of the Langburn Islands

"Ambassador, protecting the youth from violence is certainly a worthwhile use of this Assembly's time, certainly more so than the umpteenth business or arbitration proposal."

[Tinhampton]

Anderson (since promoted to Assistant): Article c - which formerly encouraged instruction "in armed self-defence (i.e. firearms training) and more advanced unarmed self-defence" - now makes reference to instruction "about more advanced forms of self-defence," after some negotiations with Ambrose Scott of Apatosaurus.

[Wallenburg]

"While Wallenburgian culture values a familiarity with violence and means to control it from a young age, this is wholly unnecessary in those member states whose cultures experience different environmental pressures. My office will oppose this."

[Bananaistan]

"Opposed. The root idea in section a is sensible policy but it should not a requirement at third level, and it should be a requirement for those who are educated other than in "educational establishments", such as those who are home-schooled."

[Xanthorrhoea]

I’m not much of an expert on the issue, but will this actually make anyone safer? When you’re in a dangerous situation, self defence training is of limited use. There’s a reason hospitals and the like train their staff in de-escalation vs self defence. Physical fighting should be a last resort, by which time you’re already stuffed. Unless your skill level vastly exceeds that of your opponent, the person who is bigger/stronger/gets the first hit is going to win.

This proposal aims to give everyone the same level of training. I don’t have statistics, so please feel free to correct me on this if someone has them, but I rather suspect the majority of violent attacks are by people who are also untrained. Therefore implementing this proposal would change the situation from untrained vs untrained to trained vs trained. i.e. nothing has changed in people’s relative skill level.

Yes, you may reduce the number of trained vs untrained encounters, but that’s (I suspect) a tiny minority of cases, and therefore doesn’t do much to fix the issue the proposal is trying to fix.

A more effective proposal in my mind would require training on how to recognise and avoid dangerous situations, and how to de-escalate and escape, rather than how to fight. If you’re in a fight, you’ve already lost.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I’m not much of an expert on the issue, but will this actually make anyone safer? When you’re in a dangerous situation, self defence training is of limited use. There’s a reason hospitals and the like train their staff in de-escalation vs self defence. Physical fighting should be a last resort, by which time you’re already stuffed. Unless your skill level vastly exceeds that of your opponent, the person who is bigger/stronger/gets the first hit is going to win.

This proposal aims to give everyone the same level of training. I don’t have statistics, so please feel free to correct me on this if someone has them, but I rather suspect the majority of violent attacks are by people who are also untrained. Therefore implementing this proposal would change the situation from untrained vs untrained to trained vs trained. i.e. nothing has changed in people’s relative skill level.

Yes, you may reduce the number of trained vs untrained encounters, but that’s (I suspect) a tiny minority of cases, and therefore doesn’t do much to fix the issue the proposal is trying to fix.

A more effective proposal in my mind would require training on how to recognise and avoid dangerous situations, and how to de-escalate and escape, rather than how to fight. If you’re in a fight, you’ve already lost.

OOC: In real life, conflict avoidance, de-escalation, and escape are foundational principles of pretty much any well-recognized art used for self-defense which I am aware of. Anyone instructing any kind of "self-defense" curriculum that does not cover those basics is unqualified to be an instructor at best, and more likely a dangerous fraud. Perhaps the authors could make this explicit in the text for good measure.

Also, OOC, absolute full support for the idea of including this as a mandatory part of curricula through the end of secondary school. For IC reasons, I would still vote against it if it were to ever make quorum.

IC: While we sympathize with the goal of this text, and encourage all states to properly educate their citizens on when, why, and how to appropriately use physical force and violence in the defense of self, family, and country, along with the philosophical underpinnings thereof and the manifest failure and immorality of all forms of pacifism, we continue to maintain that curricula in member states are the purely internal affairs of member states and ought to be completely free of the interference of this most shameful and dishonourable assembly. We, therefore, encourage refusal to endorse this text.

[Tinhampton]

I'm very much with D&B on this one.

Some changes have been made.

[Polomon Islands]

Educating all of the students to stay fit and partake in physical activities is one way for obesity to drop.

Also, teaching students on self defense could be helpful in their future.

[Wallenburg]

Educating all of the students to stay fit and partake in physical activities is one way for obesity to drop.

"Do children in your country not engage in athletics? Perhaps a school athletics program would assist better."

[Polomon Islands]

Educating all of the students to stay fit and partake in physical activities is one way for obesity to drop.

"Do children in your country not engage in athletics? Perhaps a school athletics program would assist better."

They do.

[WayNeacTia]

"Is this a physical education bill or a self defense bill? I can't tell."

Wayne

[Polomon Islands]

"Is this a physical education bill or a self defense bill? I can't tell."

Wayne

Is it both?

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

"Is this a physical education bill or a self defense bill? I can't tell."

Wayne

Is it both?

Probably