[DEFEATED] The Children Act

[Xanthorrhoea]

This is funny cause here in Aus we have a term called the Stolen Generation which refers to all the children who were taken away from their families by the government in the last century. I hope this act isn't trying to get nations to go down a similar path.

Sorry to correct you, but I think it’s a distinction worth making. The stolen generation does not refer to all the children who were taken away from their families by the government in the last century. There have been, and continue to be compelling reasons to remove children from their parents. Active physical and sexual abuse are more common than you’d think, as is simple neglect. These are legitimate issues that this resolution attempted to remedy (albeit very ambitiously and without enough drafting).

The stolen generation is a far nastier event than you’ve implied. It was the systematic, organised removal of Aboriginal children from their families by the Australian government, for the explicit purpose of suppressing and undermining Aboriginal people and their culture, and lasted up until around the 1980s. They literally wanted to breed Aboriginal people out of existence. This is not at all equivalent to removing a neglected child from an abusive parent. While the percentage of Aboriginal children in the foster system is disproportionately high, this is a direct result of the policies behind the stolen generation and similarly blatantly racist government policies, and the total shattering of trust between Aboriginal Australians and the Australian/state governments.

Children need protection, sometimes from those who should be caring from them. You should not misrepresent what was essentially an attempted genocide to undermine efforts to support them.
___________

Before this is even further contemplated, I ask one question: is there, in theory, enough support for a resolution like this for WA voters?

I would absolutely support a similar proposal. With a narrower scope and a closer attention to detail, I think it would be a worthy addition to the resolution pile.

[Caymarnia]

Children need protection, sometimes from those who should be caring from them.

[steps out of character here]

Having been a foster child myself in the mid-90s, I concur with this statement wholeheartedly. But also speaking from that experience, sometimes the system meant to protect the children can be just as abusive, if not sometimes more so, than the parents/guardians from whom the system removed the children from. I certainly had my share of emotionally, and sometimes physically, abusive foster parents, who told atrocious lies to the social workers to paint me as the real villain. And at the start, at least, the social workers tended to be just as bad as the parents; conniving sacks of pond scum, the lot of them.

Maybe I just happen to be one of those exceptions to the rule, but the question in that case would be who would protect children from the "protectors".

[Holy Thranity Xerros]

Holy Thranity Xerros stands by our stance that children are property of the state, and that the family unit is inherently flawed and untrustworthy. We believe section 4C directly combats our sovereignty, and we will be voting against this

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Holy Thranity Xerros stands by our stance that children are property of the state, and that the family unit is inherently flawed and untrustworthy. We believe section 4C directly combats our sovereignty, and we will be voting against this

I'm rethinking my vote, now that I'm apparently caucusing with the nation that was just founded today, that was just admitted to the WA today, and that speaks out for the first time to announce their national child slavery policy.

[Holy Thranity Xerros]

Holy Thranity Xerros stands by our stance that children are property of the state, and that the family unit is inherently flawed and untrustworthy. We believe section 4C directly combats our sovereignty, and we will be voting against this

I'm rethinking my vote, now that I'm apparently caucusing with the nation that was just founded today, that was just admitted to the WA today, and that speaks out for the first time to announce their national child slavery policy.

No slavery, no child labor, no imprisonment. We just don't believe that parents have an inherent right to be caregivers without a very thorough vetting and examination process.

[Telgan Alpha]

The entire extent of this law was to balance children rights and ensure autonomy, whilst seesawing the need that parents have a reasonable responsibility of their child. The state does need to play a role in this also. I think it is ridiculous otherwise. Too many comments on but what if X cannot afford it (parent to private health care, or state to universal healthcare). Is it not a fundamental tennet that a child's welfare is the responsibility of adults? Is it not also a fundamental right that a child has an independent advocate in law cases? The reason lawyer was used as opposed to advocate was based language choice and an understanding that those interpreting the law would not necessarily the have a solid understanding of advocacy services.

I understand that this is an emotive issue. It should be. It better be. There have been disasters in the past - and I fully appreciate the example given in the forgotten children fiasco. I had hoped this law read enough as to ensure that that never happens. I have read comments about how this takes away from state sovereignty, could to X, could do Y. No it couldn't. I am debating now that this will be my final attempt to enact anything meaningful. If we cannot agree that the welfare of children is more important than who funds a health system, I am no longer playing. Clearly for all points, we would be looking at creating laws which tie in to say a universal health system, and so many other things. This would then have a massive come back on state sovereignty. To this I say: yawn. The hyperbole in many of the responses borders on the neoconservative BS. Was fun for a while, but I now bow out.

Clearly, the WA is not a forum for me. I will stick to real policy in the real world. This is just ludicrous now.

Cheers.

[Draconisisia]

The entire extent of this law was to balance children rights and ensure autonomy, whilst seesawing the need that parents have a reasonable responsibility of their child. The state does need to play a role in this also. I think it is ridiculous otherwise. Too many comments on but what if X cannot afford it (parent to private health care, or state to universal healthcare). Is it not a fundamental tennet that a child's welfare is the responsibility of adults? Is it not also a fundamental right that a child has an independent advocate in law cases? The reason lawyer was used as opposed to advocate was based language choice and an understanding that those interpreting the law would not necessarily the have a solid understanding of advocacy services.

I understand that this is an emotive issue. It should be. It better be. There have been disasters in the past - and I fully appreciate the example given in the forgotten children fiasco. I had hoped this law read enough as to ensure that that never happens. I have read comments about how this takes away from state sovereignty, could to X, could do Y. No it couldn't. I am debating now that this will be my final attempt to enact anything meaningful. If we cannot agree that the welfare of children is more important than who funds a health system, I am no longer playing. Clearly for all points, we would be looking at creating laws which tie in to say a universal health system, and so many other things. This would then have a massive come back on state sovereignty. To this I say: yawn. The hyperbole in many of the responses borders on the neoconservative BS. Was fun for a while, but I now bow out.

Clearly, the WA is not a forum for me. I will stick to real policy in the real world. This is just ludicrous now.

Cheers.

I'm very sorry to see you leave. In my experience real policy in the real world is even more ludicrous. I do agree with you that the welfare of children is important and adults are responsible for that. However, I would argue that if parents can't afford health care and it is not provided by the state, and parents are obligated to provide health care, then that would be harmful to the welfare of children because they would be taken away from their parents, and their parents could face legal ramifications, for something that they have no ability to have any say in.
If this resolution fails I will be willing to help you to revise it.

[Draconisisia]

I've done some work on revising this act. You can find my revised version here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1geG ... sp=sharing

[Outer Sparta]

The WA definitely isn't for everybody, but at least you gave it a go.

[Astrobolt]

The entire extent of this law was to balance children rights and ensure autonomy, whilst seesawing the need that parents have a reasonable responsibility of their child. The state does need to play a role in this also. I think it is ridiculous otherwise. Too many comments on but what if X cannot afford it (parent to private health care, or state to universal healthcare). Is it not a fundamental tennet that a child's welfare is the responsibility of adults? Is it not also a fundamental right that a child has an independent advocate in law cases? The reason lawyer was used as opposed to advocate was based language choice and an understanding that those interpreting the law would not necessarily the have a solid understanding of advocacy services.

I understand that this is an emotive issue. It should be. It better be. There have been disasters in the past - and I fully appreciate the example given in the forgotten children fiasco. I had hoped this law read enough as to ensure that that never happens. I have read comments about how this takes away from state sovereignty, could to X, could do Y. No it couldn't. I am debating now that this will be my final attempt to enact anything meaningful. If we cannot agree that the welfare of children is more important than who funds a health system, I am no longer playing. Clearly for all points, we would be looking at creating laws which tie in to say a universal health system, and so many other things. This would then have a massive come back on state sovereignty. To this I say: yawn. The hyperbole in many of the responses borders on the neoconservative BS. Was fun for a while, but I now bow out.

Clearly, the WA is not a forum for me. I will stick to real policy in the real world. This is just ludicrous now.

Cheers.

OOC: For what its worth, much of the reason why individuals voted against wasn’t due to sovereignty or costs, but due to what was percieved as unclear policy that had flaws — which could definitely be worked on. I’ve said this a few times, but I’ll say it again, often the comments given in the thread, especially when a proposal is at vote, do not reflect the WA at large.

It always sucks when people quit the WA, I would encourage you to give it another shot. Perhaps join the WA discord or just spend time contributing to other drafts to get a better feel for the GA. Whatever you do, I wish you the best.

[Nexus City]

As edited \ amended on 18 of December 2021 to highlight new version - new Section 3, as well as, we hope, fixes the legal challenge.

Debating if strength changes from Sig to sstrong.

Any comment welcome, especially in regards to any possible legal challenge.


CURRENT / NEW version:


Understanding that children require care, guidance, and protection as they grow and develop.

Disappointed, therefore, that the rights of children have seen relatively insufficient protection from this body compared to other protected groups (despite the laudable advances delivered by GA#4 "Restrictions on Child Labor," GA#222 "Prevention of Child Abuse" and GA#297 "Child Welfare in Adoption" in these regards).

Convinced that an international, universal standard of parental rights and responsibilities, in addition to the rights of the child will act as a defence of child welfare.

Further seeking to establish the best interests of the child, least restrictive intervention, and the reciprocity of intervention as the guiding principles of child welfare.

Hoping that the aforementioned standards and principles - as well as measures to establish child welfare services and access to justice in times of absolute necessity - will provide a solid foundation for the welfare of children everywhere.

The World Assembly hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, enacts the following:

1. In this resolution:
   1. a "child" is defined as any person under the age of majority, and
   2. a "parent" is defined as any person who currently looks after any child as a consequence of birth, adoption, or court order.
2. All parents of children in member states must show due regard to their rights and responsibilities as parents. In particular, they must:
   1. ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met,
   2. ensure appropriate contact and relationship with those children, and
   3. otherwise dispense appropriate guidance and control over the welfare of those children, with due regard to their best interest, until the age of majority, and consideration given to age and maturity of said child.
3. Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must enshrine:
   1. ensure children are empowered to state their views,
   2. faciliate the right to social and familial relationships,
   3. guarntee the right to education, as to meet individual need,
   4. ensure protection from harm and exploitation,
   5. faciliate social and other developmental pursuits,
   6. commit to ending child poverty.
4. Member states must establish child welfare services, which shall:
   1. intervene where they have a reasonable belief that parents have failed to discharge their Section 2 duties, or to assist in Section 3 duties
   2. transfer a child to a safe location where they can prove significant likelihood that the failure of that child's parent(s) to discharge their Section 2 duties poses a significant risk to that child's life or development,
   3. never take any child away from their parents except in the course of a Section 4B transfer,
   4. robustly assess children and their immediate family members where those children are affected by a Section 4A intervention or Section 4B transfer,
   5. seek to work with such children and their parent(s) voluntarily (subject to Section 5C) and with as little restrictive intervention as possible, while also taking into account the expressed views of those children (with due regard to their maturity as assessed by welfare services, or by a specialist medical practitioner or judge) when making decisions,
   6. protect and support the development (including the care, guidance, and protection) of all children, whether or not they are affected by a Section 4A intervention, and
   7. ensure that their employees are qualified to discharge their duties, including by requiring them to adhere to an ethical code of conduct.
5. Member States shall ensure the welfare of the child is protected through the legal system, which:
   1. must ensure the full representation of that child, in particular by:
      1. involving the child in the decision-making process with due regard to their age and maturity,
      2. allowing that child to express their views and have them considered when decisions are made (with due regard to their maturity) unless excused to protect their psychological welfare or due to their inability to understand, and
      3. allowing that child to request and use the services of a lawyer or advocate at no cost to them or their parent(s),
   2. must adopt their rulings with enough swiftness to avoid harm to the child, having due regards for the best interests in the child, and in order to adopt the least restrictive means of harm reduction possible,
   3. act as an arbitrator in regards to Section 3,
   4. may require parents to co-operate with those child welfare services defined in Section 4, and such services to use all resources at their disposal to serve the best interests of the child,
   5. shall permit all rulings to be appealed to any higher courts that may exist, and
   6. may only remove any of a parent's rights with respect to any of their children if:
      1. it can be shown that the continued exercise of the targeted rights by that parent would beyond reasonable doubt cause significant harm to their children,
      2. all voluntary and less restrictive means of harm reduction have been exhausted, and
      3. the children and their parent(s) are informed about the rights that have been removed and the duration of their removal.

Alright guys, let’s just follow China’s example of state run parenting. 8 hours of gaming per week and no video games after 10 pm. Because we should be expected o raise the damn kids, not the actual parents. Great logic, another shitty WA bill from an equally shitty country

[Nexus City]

The WA definitely isn't for everybody, but at least you gave it a go.

This might be the most based reply out of everything here

[Tinhampton]

The Children Act does not require member states to forbid children from playing more than "8 hours of gam[es] per week [or any] video games after 10 pm." The fact that it says nothing about this matter, in fact, should be extremely telling.

[The Order of Makai]

Oh goodie, yet another Tinhampton proposal, opposed... Wait a minute that title is alarming, lets read over it...

...

You people really don't have any self-awareness do you? Did you read about the Stolen Generations and think that true Stolen Generations have never really been tried like your exalted idols of communism and socialism? What's next on the agenda? A Two Children Maximum policy? Or are you going to take the next logical step and abolish parenthood in your Brave New World? If you think I'm being unfair in this extrapolation, please self-reflect first, please consider that your progressive kind has been predictable in the pushing of any and all boundaries in the name of "progress" through constricting legislation and micromanagement of things which should never be handled by the souless state, just look at Mainland Taiwan (China) if you want to see your future.

[Outer Sparta]

Oh goodie, yet another Tinhampton proposal, opposed... Wait a minute that title is alarming, lets read over it...

...

You people really don't have any self-awareness do you? Did you read about the Stolen Generations and think that true Stolen Generations have never really been tried like your exalted idols of communism and socialism? What's next on the agenda? A Two Children Maximum policy? Or are you going to take the next logical step and abolish parenthood in your Brave New World? If you think I'm being unfair in this extrapolation, please self-reflect first, please consider that your progressive kind has been predictable in the pushing of any and all boundaries in the name of "progress" through constricting legislation and micromanagement of things which should never be handled by the souless state, just look at Mainland Taiwan (China) if you want to see your future.

Tinhampton co-authored this proposal with someone who has never dipped into the WA before. She wasn't the author.

[The Canadian Republic Colonies]

The definition of parent is far too restrictive. Leaves out people who have used surrogates, invitro, artificial insemination, etc. And allows for far too much ambiguity. Within the lines is a very likely potential of discrimination, failure to recognize those who care for children without needing a court order to "declare" them a parent. They are a parent legally. It also leaves open the possibility then of a surrogate or sperm donor to be held.legally liable as if they are a parent when they are not at that point. Could allow for needless lawsuits, taking up much needed court resources, and encroaches on a nation's culture in many aspects too. It has noble intentions, but it.is far from anywhere near ok to pass as presently written. Should it pass, my nation will openly protest this measure and fight until it's full repeal is made

As edited \ amended on 18 of December 2021 to highlight new version - new Section 3, as well as, we hope, fixes the legal challenge.

Debating if strength changes from Sig to sstrong.

Any comment welcome, especially in regards to any possible legal challenge.


CURRENT / NEW version:


Understanding that children require care, guidance, and protection as they grow and develop.

Disappointed, therefore, that the rights of children have seen relatively insufficient protection from this body compared to other protected groups (despite the laudable advances delivered by GA#4 "Restrictions on Child Labor," GA#222 "Prevention of Child Abuse" and GA#297 "Child Welfare in Adoption" in these regards).

Convinced that an international, universal standard of parental rights and responsibilities, in addition to the rights of the child will act as a defence of child welfare.

Further seeking to establish the best interests of the child, least restrictive intervention, and the reciprocity of intervention as the guiding principles of child welfare.

Hoping that the aforementioned standards and principles - as well as measures to establish child welfare services and access to justice in times of absolute necessity - will provide a solid foundation for the welfare of children everywhere.

The World Assembly hereby, subject to any limitations set by earlier resolutions that are still in force, enacts the following:

1. In this resolution:
   1. a "child" is defined as any person under the age of majority, and
   2. a "parent" is defined as any person who currently looks after any child as a consequence of birth, adoption, or court order.
2. All parents of children in member states must show due regard to their rights and responsibilities as parents. In particular, they must:
   1. ensure that the physical, emotional, psychological, medical and educational needs of those children are met,
   2. ensure appropriate contact and relationship with those children, and
   3. otherwise dispense appropriate guidance and control over the welfare of those children, with due regard to their best interest, until the age of majority, and consideration given to age and maturity of said child.
3. Member States must respect the rights of the child, in particular, it must enshrine:
   1. ensure children are empowered to state their views,
   2. faciliate the right to social and familial relationships,
   3. guarntee the right to education, as to meet individual need,
   4. ensure protection from harm and exploitation,
   5. faciliate social and other developmental pursuits,
   6. commit to ending child poverty.
4. Member states must establish child welfare services, which shall:
   1. intervene where they have a reasonable belief that parents have failed to discharge their Section 2 duties, or to assist in Section 3 duties
   2. transfer a child to a safe location where they can prove significant likelihood that the failure of that child's parent(s) to discharge their Section 2 duties poses a significant risk to that child's life or development,
   3. never take any child away from their parents except in the course of a Section 4B transfer,
   4. robustly assess children and their immediate family members where those children are affected by a Section 4A intervention or Section 4B transfer,
   5. seek to work with such children and their parent(s) voluntarily (subject to Section 5C) and with as little restrictive intervention as possible, while also taking into account the expressed views of those children (with due regard to their maturity as assessed by welfare services, or by a specialist medical practitioner or judge) when making decisions,
   6. protect and support the development (including the care, guidance, and protection) of all children, whether or not they are affected by a Section 4A intervention, and
   7. ensure that their employees are qualified to discharge their duties, including by requiring them to adhere to an ethical code of conduct.
5. Member States shall ensure the welfare of the child is protected through the legal system, which:
   1. must ensure the full representation of that child, in particular by:
      1. involving the child in the decision-making process with due regard to their age and maturity,
      2. allowing that child to express their views and have them considered when decisions are made (with due regard to their maturity) unless excused to protect their psychological welfare or due to their inability to understand, and
      3. allowing that child to request and use the services of a lawyer or advocate at no cost to them or their parent(s),
   2. must adopt their rulings with enough swiftness to avoid harm to the child, having due regards for the best interests in the child, and in order to adopt the least restrictive means of harm reduction possible,
   3. act as an arbitrator in regards to Section 3,
   4. may require parents to co-operate with those child welfare services defined in Section 4, and such services to use all resources at their disposal to serve the best interests of the child,
   5. shall permit all rulings to be appealed to any higher courts that may exist, and
   6. may only remove any of a parent's rights with respect to any of their children if:
      1. it can be shown that the continued exercise of the targeted rights by that parent would beyond reasonable doubt cause significant harm to their children,
      2. all voluntary and less restrictive means of harm reduction have been exhausted, and
      3. the children and their parent(s) are informed about the rights that have been removed and the duration of their removal.

[Jocospor]

The desperation of Tinhampton is beginning to know no bounds.

[Draconisisia]

See my proposal in another thread.

[Croanique]

The definition of parent is far too restrictive. Leaves out people who have used surrogates, invitro, artificial insemination, etc. And allows for far too much ambiguity. Within the lines is a very likely potential of discrimination, failure to recognize those who care for children without needing a court order to "declare" them a parent. They are a parent legally. It also leaves open the possibility then of a surrogate or sperm donor to be held.legally liable as if they are a parent when they are not at that point.

I agree with this criticism and would go further in that the definition of "parent" combined with sections 4B and 4C makes it far too easy to displace children from longterm guardians and return them to abusive situations. There are many cases where children, for example, stay with a relative without a court order or legal adoption to escape harmful home situations. Under this legislation, these guardians hold no legal rights for these children. For that reason, Croanique is wholeheartedly AGAINST the resolution.

[Bears Armed]

I would like to introduce this act, but I need another endorsement.
<snip>

There is a limit of 5'000 characters, including punctuation & line breaks: This looks way over that threshold.

ALSO, promoting your own proposal in the thread for another one is NOT approved behaviour.

[Tinhampton]

"The Children Act" was defeated 12,502 votes to 1,930. (13.37% support)

Telgan Alpha - wielder of about 28 votes (as the WA Delegate of Philosophers) and author - resigned from the WA about 3.5 hours before voting ended.

For: 1,930: Student Loan Debt (56), Tinhampton (44), International Socialist Union (29), Battadia (28), Zhong-guo (27), Owswaldia (24), Lys Arva (23), Castle Federation (21), Kingdom of Englands (20), Sailiopia (20), Yaxopsville (19), Ecclestia (19), Ordivus (12), Ko-oren (12), The Greastest Nation (11), The Sheika (10), Penetration Nation (10), Lawid (10), Losconia (10), Borrin Quen (10), The Unified Pumaxi (9), Lurusitania (8), Golanchia (8), Orennica (8), TheRuhr (7), Wadelhelpia (6), Unified Capitalist Kingship (5), Reultan (5), Refrigeratoria (5), Marinonia (5), Ze Faderland (5), Zeiling (5), Chap Ven (5), Baccalieu (4), Willtechia (4), Kigasan (3), Fickonong (3), Socialist Amogus (3), Blatter Land (3), Uniao Equatorial (3), Embreydo (3), Eastern Kodiak (3), Auxorii (3), South Doge Land (3), Smanson (3), No-Homo Land (3), Pan-Asiatic States (3), Langenia (3), Vipathe (3), Caliiban (3), Mint oreos (3), His Excellency (3), Vengeant Aggression (3), Littjara (3), Puppiverse (3), Wurplestan (3), Arab Darussalam (3), Scenixia (3), Goatia (3), Exzilian State (2), Cansilica (2), Yesmanland (2), Union of Noovistian (2), Prussia-Saxon (2), Himura yakumo (2), Melonsistan (2), Kopa-mona (2), Seveshka (2), Teschnaia (2), President Pro Tempore (2), Eotheood (2), Prodstrazka (2), Islands Of Ventro (2), Wisea (2), The Hanzanburg Union (2), Amorite (2), Pheonixknight (2), Infusvia (2), Finema (2), Dexian (2), Novum Orientis (2), The Ancient World (2), Czechostan (2), Ostatlantik (2), The Free Columbian States (2), and (1,302) individual member nations.

Against: 12,502: Madjack (942), Amerion (792), Albrook (748), Kethania (512), Dilber (510), Wischland (433), Imperium Anglorum (416), Duby (288), North East Somerset (280), Primorye Oblast (258), Budgie Snugglers (214), Luna State (196), Super Awesome Fun Times (164), Andusre (151), Thaelle (146), Ruinenlust (126), Bearded Dragones (122), Tevaris (119), Lesser Velutaria (111), ShrewLlamaLand (101), Sylh Alanor (82), The Glorious Hypetrain (81), Thousand Branches (77), South Boston Irishmen (64), Enlais (60), The Salaxalans (56), Mikeswill (50), Octal (46), Josephtan (44), Hindu Puri (38), Particle (38), Roma Sparta (35), Candensia (34), Yodle (34), One Small Island (33), Dabberwocky (30), New Asden (30), Sanctaria (27), NewTexas (25), The Scottish Republic (23), Cruciland (22), Potenzia (21), Orioni 2 (21), Aynia Moreaux (20), Fachumonn (20), Fluvannia (20), Americatain (17), Worldwide Chicago (17), Quinceria (17), Khovezzem (17), Herya (17), Alastair McIntyre (17), USS Juneau (16), Greater Cuba (15), Calnodia (15), Baloo Kingdom (15), Suter (15), Candanadium (14), Orca and Narwhal (12), Azgoghk (11), Santa Thereza (11), Draganisia (11), Oi Barbaroi (11), Vegaga (11), Zamastan (10), WillCo70 (10), Satn (10), Kikittaukak (10), The Heavenly Cross Federation (10), The Bolivian Socialist Falange (9), Axorian (9), Hydroponic Nation (9), Calamari Lands (9), Seludong (9), Vanshia (8), Brocklandia (8), The Candy Of Bottles (8), Hajirah (8), Gatchina (8), The Voltarum (8), Gumeus (8), Russiania (8), Aftenheim (8), The Soviet state of Svalbard (8), Trovons (8), 15th Scottish Highlanders Division (7), Lamoni (7), Kalanaria (7), Chodean Kal (7), Anglerland (7), Otaku Stratus (7), The Palentine (7), Aelythium (6), OmegaShenron (6), All Glory to God (6), Thee Imperium 0f Man (6), Libertarian Communist Planets (6), Kyuxcy (6), Dune-Aemiliana (6), Dellettia (6), The Finntopian Empire (5), Hetic South (5), Vest-Skandinavia (5), Voxija (5), New Zander (5), The Greater Hispanic State (5), The Communists of the Multiversal Empire (5), ColdHeartedBastards (5), South Sulphur (5), Wabacha (5), Arcesius (5), Cappedore (5), Wobbegong (5), Lost Village Mayohiga (5), Miseria (5), Omniabstracta (5), Sabden (4), The Goh Dynasty (4), Smiley Bob (4), Morover (4), Echoslavia (4), The Ruby Ranch Republic (4), Greater Bahland (4), Denathor (4), Bayin (4), Republic of Dixie (4), Herby (4), Onocarcass (4), Quentania (4), The Sovereign Kingdom of Immobilia (4), East Thule (3), Censia Newia (3), Tomisburg (3), Xaviet empire (3), Fossilisia (3), Transylvania Company (3), Quebec and Labrador (3), Republic of Washinton (3), Desertiania (3), Dagnia (3), Man Eaters (3), Vaarland (3), Flor-Fina (3), Jeradise (3), The Mtn Dew (3), AJ Empire (3), The Isles of Bermuda (3), Kekistanius (3), Zachtia (3), Voroslavl (3), 11 Templar Knights (3), Barak Khalad (3), Frontier Isles (3), Goudam (3), Madrocea (3), Always Winners (3), Cringes (3), Kleinekatzen (3), Polandorus (3), Repreteop (3), Skonlanda (3), Romulus III (2), Saunderania (2), Jacobopolus (2), Tarlag (2), CRGC (2), Lower Slobbovia (2), Monetar (2), Raetenor (2), Free Liberties (2), Chiakki (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Antamaran (2), Republic Of Ludwigsburg (2), Making Catgirls Real (2), Gunji-Gun (2), The Hazar Amisnery (2), FORKTASTICSTAN (2), Far Farklan (2), Dinaris (2), Cheries (2), Zombiedolphins (2), The Elite Imperial Forces (2), Social Democracy of Indochina (2), Peronlandia (2), Rolenmar (2), Davelands (2), The Furbish Islands (2), Zarnicovia nova (2), New Strixica (2), The Andoran Empire ELARIA (2), Western Taiwans (2), Sedgistan (2), Seffa (2), Wallstone (2), United Dependencies (2), The Akasha Colony (2), Lehqhbraot (2), Hyakkaou (2), South Douthres Avinietaus (2), Mount Aris (2), Adeiatic (2), Avalon Nova (2), Pastries (2), Tau Ceti Omega (2), Shnrubton (2), KurentSlavija (2), Siochania (2), Caylood Hype (2), Tsaivao (2), Vaako (2), NinjitsUtopia (2), Whitemore (2), Paragonica (2), Milkination (2), GraySoap (2), BOMBEN INC (2), Ontarra (2), The United Provinces of North America (2), Kingdom of Sealia (2), The Age of Utopia (2), Gabeonovia (2), Imperial Felchah (2), Engloscots (2), Fifth Caliphate (2), Free Woritanarbio Islands (2), Codainia (2), North Mack (2), BK04 (2), Ceneopia Hana (2), The Neolithic German Empire (2), Boarder Princes (2), Jusamaica (2), and (3,930) individual member nations.

[Indo States]

I think i can propose a repeal for "The Children Act", but i do not think it would be the same situation as this one, and i do not know which parts of this resolution was considered opposed by the majority of the wa members and delegates.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think i can propose a repeal for "The Children Act", but i do not think it would be the same situation as this one, and i do not know which parts of this resolution was considered opposed by the majority of the wa members and delegates.

I don't know how you would propose a repeal, insofar as nothing was passed.

[Indo States]

I think i can propose a repeal for "The Children Act", but i do not think it would be the same situation as this one, and i do not know which parts of this resolution was considered opposed by the majority of the wa members and delegates.

I don't know how you would propose a repeal, insofar as nothing was passed.

i am not proposing a repeal, but i am looking forward too in the future, and i am hoping that someone would repeal this, even if i would not make a repeal on this resolution. Highly unlikely that there would be no repeal for this one, as it contains nothing. just wishing for this proposal.

[Xanthorrhoea]

i am not proposing a repeal, but i am looking forward too in the future, and i am hoping that someone would repeal this, even if i would not make a repeal on this resolution. Highly unlikely that there would be no repeal for this one, as it contains nothing. just wishing for this proposal.

It didn’t pass, so there is nothing to repeal in the future. You can’t repeal something that never went into effect. If future legislation were passed on this topic, then it would be discussed and assessed on its own merits, which would have nothing to do with this proposal’s failure to pass.