[PASSED] Repeal "Contact rights between etc"

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

My response to the mass telegram asking for votes against

"For the increasingly likely event that the resolution at vote passes _"

The World Assembly,

Identifying the resolution as, while well-intentioned, fatally flawed due to its weak mandates, nearly all of which seem to allow straight-forward circumvention or be actively harmful,

Concerned that the resolution allows member nations to just rephrase any reason for removal of contact or other rights the resolution attempts to protect -- such as antiquated moral codes or political reasons -- as being for the "best interests" of the child,

Recognising that as nearly all of the resolution's mandates make an exception where a member nation's courts deem that compliance would be against the child's "best interests", this means that a member nation can easily avoid the vast majority of the resolution, rendering it ineffective to the point where its presence serves little use,

Emphasising that section 6 is also actively harmful, as it coerces member nations to recognise legal parenthood at the whims of any member nation in which said parents happen to be citizens, even if clearly harmful to the well-being of the child, opening the doors to WA-wide abuse of child's rights,

Unconvinced that a resolution that does not do anything meaningfully useful should stand, as it does not protect any rights, but instead stands in the way of legislation to properly protect the rights the resolution tries to protect,

Repeals "Contact rights between Parent and Child".

"Discuss."

[Daarwyrth]

Representative Wentapelloven adjusts her glasses and frowns while reading over the document. "Ambassador, why would the definition of "parent" be flawed? And how exactly would states circumvent this definition in a way that is detrimental to the resolution's interpretation? You don't explain these things, Ambassador, you just state them."

"Furthermore, the second argument doesn't shed much clarity either. Do we need such overregulation as you imply in this clause is necessary? Clarity, Ambassador, clarity. Define why this would be a bad thing, or what exactly is bad about it."

"Lastly, the third argument, other resolutions have relied on such language as well. You just make a statement, not an explanation as to why it is detrimental."

The Daarwyrthian representative raises her head and sighs. "Alas, but in their current form your arguments lack the power of persuasion. We see no reason why the resolution currently at vote should be opposed."

[The Orwell Society]

Opposed. I see absolutely no appeal to your argument as of now, and little reason to vote against the at-vote proposal. However, I must admire your writing.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Representative Wentapelloven adjusts her glasses and frowns while reading over the document. "Ambassador, why would the definition of "parent" be flawed? And how exactly would states circumvent this definition in a way that is detrimental to the resolution's interpretation? You don't explain these things, Ambassador, you just state them."

"By setting their laws so that (for example) a person would be denied legal parenthood "solely on the grounds of the Child being accustomed to be in the presence of only one or a specific number of the child's Parent(s)". However, I see your point, and have removed that argument."

"Furthermore, the second argument doesn't shed much clarity either. Do we need such overregulation as you imply in this clause is necessary? Clarity, Ambassador, clarity. Define why this would be a bad thing, or what exactly is bad about it."

"This has been done."

"Lastly, the third argument, other resolutions have relied on such language as well. You just make a statement, not an explanation as to why it is detrimental."

"Only two active resolutions have utilised such language, and in neither case is that language as key to so many mandates as in this."

The Daarwyrthian representative raises her head and sighs. "Alas, but in their current form your arguments lack the power of persuasion. We see no reason why the resolution currently at vote should be opposed."

"While we disagree on this matter, I thank the ambassador for their critiques and hope that the updated draft can address their concerns."

[Daarwyrth]

Wentapelloven re-reads the draft. "Unfortunately, the arguments still fail to convince me that the resolution needs to be repealed, but I do commend you for listening to the critiques given and attempting to address them. As such, I'd like to draw your attention to the first argument, 'actively harmful'. Again, you make the statement, but you don't explain how it is 'actively harmful'. If you seek to make a compelling argument, I'd advise you to come up with examples. Right now, you simply state it is 'actively harmful', but I'd recommend that you show us how it is 'actively harmful'."

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Wentapelloven re-reads the draft. "Unfortunately, the arguments still fail to convince me that the resolution needs to be repealed, but I do commend you for listening to the critiques given and attempting to address them. As such, I'd like to draw your attention to the first argument, 'actively harmful'. Again, you make the statement, but you don't explain how it is 'actively harmful'. If you seek to make a compelling argument, I'd advise you to come up with examples. Right now, you simply state it is 'actively harmful', but I'd recommend that you show us how it is 'actively harmful'."

"The final argument is what is meant as actively harmful. This should be clearer now."

[The Orwell Society]

[...]Emphasising that the resolution further explicitly lets member nations interpret for themselves what constitutes the "best interests" of a child[...]

If this is the final argument that you speak of, you're going to have a hell of a hard time getting this to pass.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

[...]Emphasising that the resolution further explicitly lets member nations interpret for themselves what constitutes the "best interests" of a child[...]

If this is the final argument that you speak of, you're going to have a hell of a hard time getting this to pass.

Stating that this also means that a member nation that sets low criteria for "best interests" or outright ignores them in determining legal parenthood can compel other member nations to recognise this legal parenthood regardless of the best interests of the child per section 6, opening the doors to abuse of child's rights by violation of their best interests,

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“This recording of me addressing Ambassador Twinklebright’s complaints in the committee room where we discussed the target proposal should explain my thoughts on your ‘Concerning’ clause:

*recording starts*

“I indeed find that most of Ambassador Twinklebright’s complaints (points 1-3a) are major flaws of the proposal. However, section B of her third complaint is unnecessary nitpicking. It is my belief that it is unnecessary for the author to be over-detailed regarding the information, and that it should be up to the discretion of the person informing the ‘parent’ and the ‘parent’ him/herself to determine the frequency/quantity of information. Since in my eyes this nitpicking slightly damages the validity of those complaints overall and since no major complaints (to my knowledge) have been brought up regarding the actual legislating portion of the final draft, the Clevesian Empire will remain just slightly in favor of this proposal.”

*recording ends*

Whilst I am still doubting if I should believe your last two clauses, for now the Clevesian Empire remains opposed to this repeal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Honeydewistania]

[...]Emphasising that the resolution further explicitly lets member nations interpret for themselves what constitutes the "best interests" of a child[...]

If this is the final argument that you speak of, you're going to have a hell of a hard time getting this to pass.

Why?

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

“This recording of me addressing Ambassador Twinklebright’s complaints in the committee room where we discussed the target proposal should explain my thoughts on your ‘Concerning’ clause:

*recording starts*

“I indeed find that most of Ambassador Twinklebright’s complaints (points 1-3a) are major flaws of the proposal. However, section B of her third complaint is unnecessary nitpicking. It is my belief that it is unnecessary for the author to be over-detailed regarding the information, and that it should be up to the discretion of the person informing the ‘parent’ and the ‘parent’ him/herself to determine the frequency/quantity of information. Since in my eyes this nitpicking slightly damages the validity of those complaints overall and since no major complaints (to my knowledge) have been brought up regarding the actual legislating portion of the final draft, the Clevesian Empire will remain just slightly in favor of this proposal.”

*recording ends*

Whilst I am still doubting if I should believe your last two clauses, for now the Clevesian Empire remains opposed to this repeal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"Nowhere does the resolution declare that the parent has the right to determine what information is provided to them, ambassador. It only mandates, as part of contact, "the provision of information to such a Parent about the child". While your nation is free to provide proper information regularly, a member nation that does not agree with the resolution is allowed to provide frivolous information and comply with this requirement without being subject to non-compliance penalties."

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“This recording of me addressing Ambassador Twinklebright’s complaints in the committee room where we discussed the target proposal should explain my thoughts on your ‘Concerning’ clause:

*recording starts*

*recording ends*

Whilst I am still doubting if I should believe your last two clauses, for now the Clevesian Empire remains opposed to this repeal.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"Nowhere does the resolution declare that the parent has the right to determine what information is provided to them, ambassador. It only mandates, as part of contact, "the provision of information to such a Parent about the child". While your nation is free to provide proper information regularly, a member nation that does not agree with the resolution is allowed to provide frivolous information and comply with this requirement without being subject to non-compliance penalties."

“I’m not necessarily saying that it is directly stated in the target proposal, but I was just stating that to get my point across. I’m pointing out that the specified clause of your repeal is basically nitpicking, given that this clause is ultimately arguing that part of the target wasn’t detailed enough and thus contributed to the justification of repealing the target. I think you can guess why an argument that is mainly based on lack of detail is such a weak argument.”

-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"That a flaw is caused by a lack of detail does not mean that it is not a flaw."

[Honeydewistania]

"Support."

[Morover]

"My nation supports repeal of the at-vote proposal, should it pass."

[The Pacific Northwest]

I would also vote to repeal should this resolution pass, but my main concern is actually with section 5, wherein there are no guidelines for what constitutes a competent child. I happen to feel strongly about this particular proposal due to personal experience. It struck a chord, and I wrote a lengthy message on my region’s message board about this which I will post (mostly) in full below.

Competent is definitely way too vague. I personally think every child able to express an opinion should be heard. Unless the child is too young to talk I feel like their opinion should at least be considered. If they really don’t want to see one of their parents ever again then they should get to say that.

I actually have a huge problem with section 5 for personal reasons. My parents divorced when I was 8 and I was not consulted at all. I was treated like property and despite it definitely not being in what I would consider to be my best interests, a judge decided joint custody would be best because “children need their parents”. At that age I already despised my dad and didn’t want to see him at all, but no one cared what I thought. Because of that I wasn’t able to get him out if my life for years.

This experience isn’t only limited to younger kids either, I have a good friend whose parents divorced when we were in high school. It was decided that joint custody was best despite her not wanting to see her mom. She was 16 at the time, which I would hope everyone can agree should be old enough to be considered competent for the purposes of deciding whether or not to have one of their parents in their life after a divorce.

It concerns me that a judge (or whatever legal authority a nation uses to make these decisions), who doesn’t know either the parents or the child personally, could just make a decision based on what they perceive to be the child’s best interests but is really personal bias on the judge’s part. And it frustrates me that they can decide a child doesn’t deserve to have what they want taken into account when they are making a potentially life changing decision about custody rights without even considering the wishes of the individual who will be impacted the most.

In short, I do not like that under this proposal nations would have the the ability to write off the wishes of children by deciding they are too incompetent to decide for themselves who they want in their lives. Parents want access to their children, yes. But I don’t think being a parent entitles you to see your child if that child does not want to see you. No parent is perfect, but some are much worse than others, and some genuinely do not realize they were horrible parents, as is the case with my situation. I’m not usually a fan of the “think of the children” argument but in this case I feel it’s warranted.

Adding onto this if a child does not want a parent to have certain (or any) information on them then they should also get a say in that. Children should have a right to privacy as well. If one of their parents does not have physical or legal custody and the child does not want them to know where they live, for instance, that should be honored.

Am I taking this way too seriously? Probably.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

LONG POST

Ooc: I strongly agree that the right to make decisions for oneself is a right and member nations setting unreasonably high thresholds for competence is a problem... I don't think that's an issue with this resolution though. "Legal Competence" sets several criteria for when a member nation can declare someone incompetent, which includes chronological age... it's blocker doesn't apply to legal competence, but member nations setting unreasonably low thresholds for legal competence isn't something that this can or should address in one line, and that would best belong in a second resolution (Legal Competence 2.0? ). So, I'll have to pass on this, sorry.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

"That a flaw is caused by a lack of detail does not mean that it is not a flaw."

“Of course, it is still a flaw. It’s just not a flaw worth pointing out in your repeal due to such nitpicking argument being a weak one. Nitpicking proposals only decrease the amount of support that it gets overall, since who approves of nitpicking arguments in this establishment? I doubt that there are a significant number of ambassadors that do support nitpicking in proposals.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[The Orwell Society]

If this is the final argument that you speak of, you're going to have a hell of a hard time getting this to pass.

Why?

Because it's just not a strong enough argument. Yes, that one clause indirectly allows each msemberstate to choose how they interpret it, but isn't that their right? And the previous arguments are just nags on the writing of the proposal.

[WayNeacTia]

Why?

Because it's just not a strong enough argument. Yes, that one clause indirectly allows each msemberstate to choose how they interpret it, but isn't that their right? And the previous arguments are just nags on the writing of the proposal.

You seem to like to make bold assertions.

[The Orwell Society]

Because it's just not a strong enough argument. Yes, that one clause indirectly allows each msemberstate to choose how they interpret it, but isn't that their right? And the previous arguments are just nags on the writing of the proposal.

You seem to like to make bold assertions.

A rather strange observation. I was just stating my thoughts.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"That a flaw is caused by a lack of detail does not mean that it is not a flaw."

“Of course, it is still a flaw. It’s just not a flaw worth pointing out in your repeal due to such nitpicking argument being a weak one. Nitpicking proposals only decrease the amount of support that it gets overall, since who approves of nitpicking arguments in this establishment? I doubt that there are a significant number of ambassadors that do support nitpicking in proposals.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"It would be nitpicking if it had little effect, but in this case, it makes one requirement entirely meaningless."

Why?

Because it's just not a strong enough argument. Yes, that one clause indirectly allows each msemberstate to choose how they interpret it, but isn't that their right? And the previous arguments are just nags on the writing of the proposal.

"Luckily, each member nation loses its right to sovereignty when it joins the World Assembly, disembodied voice, so no, it isn't their right... Leaving something up to member nations to the point where most mandates can be ignored IS a problem."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

OOC: I've been busy with work and my preschooler's summer camps, but if you hold off for just a bit - maybe another week or so - I can provide some substantive feedback to help you make the best possible repeal argument (in my opinion, of course).

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

OOC: I've been busy with work and my preschooler's summer camps, but if you hold off for just a bit - maybe another week or so - I can provide some substantive feedback to help you make the best possible repeal argument (in my opinion, of course).

Ooc: I'd honestly rather get this resolution repealed as early as possible, but if strong disagreement is raised then I'll probably wait

_{Thanks to Anne of Cleves in TNP for some final feedback}

[Tinhampton]

Why is CRBPC sufficiently bad that It Must Be Repealed Right Now?