Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:10 pm
Goolistan wrote:You didn't define what the "age of majority" is after defining a child as any person under the age of majority.
by Underwater Sovereignties » Wed Dec 29, 2021 11:53 pm
by Mally Piznoopia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:50 am
by Suratia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:56 am
by Telgan Alpha » Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:23 am
by Seppen » Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:48 am
by Draconisisia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:00 am
by The Hazar Amisnery » Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:47 am
Nationwide cyberattack devastates core government infrastructure, but we will prevail.
by Shaktirajya » Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:02 pm
by Pattevere » Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:30 pm
Suratia wrote:The nationstate of Suratia rejects this proposed legislation.
While we respect the underlying values of it, we raise the following concerns:
-- The focus of the Act is on the best interests of the children. The "best interests of the children" is subjective and not explicit. In the situation of a child's parents being separated, each parent could have conflicting opinions about what constitutes the best interests.
-- The "best interests of the children" has the potential to be used as means of leverage in arguments between separated parents, further disintegrating relationships between all parties involved.
-- Given that family members can hold a variety of personal values, any of which may be of value to the development of a child, but may not be accepted by the other parties, it is apparent that it is impossible to construct all-encompassing best interest guidelines. Therefore, any attempt to enforce such legislation is fraught with problems.
-- We consider legislation which is open to so many problems, and likely to contribute to the disintegration of families further, to be counterproductive micromanagement.
Due to the abovementioned concerns, Suratia will not support this Act.
by Underwater Sovereignties » Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:31 pm
Draconisisia wrote:I'm concerned that the requirement that parents ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met would put undue hardship on parents if the member state does not provide free healthcare, free universal education, and public housing. There are a number of member states that fail to provide these to their people and have a significant number of people living in poverty. Are they just going to imprison all poor parents now? There are already too many parents in their prisons and too many children in their foster care systems.
by Kekistoni » Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:27 pm
by Caymarnia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:41 pm
by Draconisisia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:45 pm
Underwater Sovereignties wrote:Draconisisia wrote:I'm concerned that the requirement that parents ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met would put undue hardship on parents if the member state does not provide free healthcare, free universal education, and public housing. There are a number of member states that fail to provide these to their people and have a significant number of people living in poverty. Are they just going to imprison all poor parents now? There are already too many parents in their prisons and too many children in their foster care systems.
I agree. Although the Attonesian government does provide living standards such as universal healthcare and free public education (and also requires parents to obtain a permit to have children), we agree that such legislation should not be imposed on nations that, due to a lack of resources and economic constraints, do not have the means to fully support their people. Moreover, this legislation fails to consider nations that already have extensive social service programs in place and how it would contradict their laws or policies. It is for this reason that we cannot support this proposal either.
by Collective A » Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:00 pm
by New Magadan » Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:06 pm
by Goobergunchia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 3:29 pm
New Magadan wrote:Is this thread voting broken? Why is there only one vote and I cannot vote?
by Telgan Alpha » Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:47 pm
by Draconisisia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 5:25 pm
Telgan Alpha wrote:Thank you for your contributions to all. Evidently, from the feedback, we have (I have) tried to do too much with too few words. Pithy it isn't and yet is. I will consider the feedback, and time-dependent, can consider a redraft which will need to - massively - limit the scope. It is evident from the writing of others - and I have enjoyed reading some of the comments - that there are significant deficits within the text. I will relook at this at a later date and consider if it is worthwhile to resubmit with heavy amendments \ a completely fresh copy.
Before this is even further contemplated, I ask one question: is there, in theory, enough support for a resolution like this for WA voters?
Cheers.
by Goobergunchia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 5:36 pm
by Suratia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 5:56 pm
Telgan Alpha wrote:Thank you for your contributions to all. Evidently, from the feedback, we have (I have) tried to do too much with too few words. Pithy it isn't and yet is. I will consider the feedback, and time-dependent, can consider a redraft which will need to - massively - limit the scope. It is evident from the writing of others - and I have enjoyed reading some of the comments - that there are significant deficits within the text. I will relook at this at a later date and consider if it is worthwhile to resubmit with heavy amendments \ a completely fresh copy.
Before this is even further contemplated, I ask one question: is there, in theory, enough support for a resolution like this for WA voters?
Cheers.
by Draconisisia » Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:12 pm
Suratia wrote:Telgan Alpha wrote:Thank you for your contributions to all. Evidently, from the feedback, we have (I have) tried to do too much with too few words. Pithy it isn't and yet is. I will consider the feedback, and time-dependent, can consider a redraft which will need to - massively - limit the scope. It is evident from the writing of others - and I have enjoyed reading some of the comments - that there are significant deficits within the text. I will relook at this at a later date and consider if it is worthwhile to resubmit with heavy amendments \ a completely fresh copy.
Before this is even further contemplated, I ask one question: is there, in theory, enough support for a resolution like this for WA voters?
Cheers.
I would like to see good outcomes for children and their families. Although, I can't envision an Act that would address the numerous concerns raised by various nationstates here. Furthermore, I feel that the particulars of child wellbeing are most appropriately managed at a national level. The reason being is that the nation that a person grows up in forms a significant part of their cultural identity. Culture consists of a multitude of factors, each of which shapes the overall identity. While I raised concerns about The Children Act lacking specificity, I believe that enforcing such a fine level of detail across all WA Member states is impractical micromanagement and overreaching. Perhaps the way forward is an Act comprising of less specificity; an Act which has broad achievable goals, while respecting the culture and leadership of each member state.
by Amerion » Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:11 pm
Despite a clear subject area, the at-vote resolution is not of the most esteemed quality. There are numerous spelling and grammar mistakes within the resolution (e.g. "faciliate" and "guarntee"), and the resolution has many vague mandates relying on standards such as "reasonable" and "appropriate". The resolution also fails to define the "physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs" of children, leaving that open to interpretation. Other issues in the resolution include 5iii, which in theory allows infants to be able to hire lawyers, failing to mandate how member states must "commit to ending child poverty", and 5E being overly broad. Due to these major flaws, the Office of WA Legislation strongly recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "The Children Act".
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement