[PASSED] Prevention of Child Abuse

[Sanctaria]

Mousebumples made me do it. She has a very big stick and she beats me with it when I fall behind on my work

That aside though, Mouse wants to repeal the CPA and asked me to write up a replacement. Here. Maybe she'll stop beating me now.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Prevention of Child Abuse
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

The General Assembly,

COGNISANT of the inherent innocence and naivety possessed by a child,

APPALLED that individuals may sometimes violate and/or take advantage of these attributes to further their selfish enterprises,

DESIROUS of a resolution where these natural attributes are protected and violations of the same result in swift retribution,

Hereby

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,

• A guardian as any individual that is legally accountable for a child, or the biological parent in nations where such definitions do not exist,

• Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:
  
  1. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,
  2. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,
  3. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,
  4. when a guardian deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that guardian is capable of providing such;

AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;

MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;

REQUIRES nations to investigate fully, and to the best of their ability, all reports of child abuse;

INSISTS that such investigations be confidential, as well as respectful and impartial to the parties involved;

REQUIRES nations take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials without artistic merit depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes, as well as for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse;

CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution prohibits nations from enacting more stringent legislation on the subject of child abuse.

Co Author: The Dourian Embassy

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Prevention of Child Abuse
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

COGNISANT of the inherent innocence and naivety possessed by a child,

APPALLED that individuals may sometimes violate and/or take advantage of these attributes to further their selfish enterprises,

DESIROUS of a resolution where these natural attributes are protected and violations of the same result in swift retribution,

Hereby

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• A child as any individual under the national age of majority, or equivalent,

• A parent as any individual that is legally accountable for minors, or the biological parent in nations where such definitions do not exist,

• Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:
  
  1. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child,
  2. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,
  3. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,
  4. when a parent deprives, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis, if that parent is capable of providing such;

AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;

MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;

REQUIRES nations to investigate fully, and to the best of their ability, all reports of child abuse as defined by this resolution;

INSISTS that such investigations be confidential, as well as respectful and impartial to the parties involved;

REQUIRES nations take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials without artistic merit depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes, as well as for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse.

Co Author: The Dourian Embassy

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Prevention of Child Abuse
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

COGNISANT of the inherent innocence and naivety possessed by a child,

APPALLED that individuals may sometimes violate and/or take advantage of these attributes to further their selfish enterprises,

DESIROUS of a resolution where these natural attributes are protected and violations of the same result in swift retribution,

Hereby

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• A child as any individual under the national age of majority, or equivalent,

• Child abuse as any and/or all of the following:
  
  1. the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child
  2. the malicious and intentional causing the malicious, intentional, or negligent causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,
  3. any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child,
  4. depriving, intentionally or otherwise, a child of necessities such as care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis;

AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;

MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;

REQUIRES nations to investigate fully, and to the best of their ability, all reports of child abuse as defined by this resolution;

INSISTS that such investigations be confidential, as well as respectful and impartial to the parties involved;

REQUIRES nations take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes, as well as for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Prevention of Child Abuse
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Sanctaria

COGNISANT of the inherent innocence and naivety possessed by a child,

APPALLED that individuals may sometimes violate and/or take advantage of these attributes to further their selfish enterprises,

DESIROUS of a resolution where these natural attributes are protected and violations of the same result in swift retribution,

Hereby

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• A child: any individual under the national age of majority,

• Child Abuse as:
  
  1. Sexual abuse: the forcing of unwanted or nonconsensual sexual behaviour and/or desire upon a child
  2. Physical abuse: the malicious and intentional causing of physical pain, injury, and/or harm to a child,
  3. Psychological abuse: any deliberate act and/or behaviour which results in serious emotional and mental trauma in a child;
  4. Neglect: depriving, intentionally or otherwise, a child of care, nourishment, shelter, and/or healthcare on a long term or continuous basis;

AFFIRMS that all children have the right, and expectancy, to be free from all forms of child abuse;

MANDATES that all acts of child abuse be criminalised;

REQUIRES nations to investigate fully, and to the best of their ability, all reports of child abuse as defined by this resolution;

INSISTS that such investigations be private, as well as respectful and impartial to the parties involved;

EXPECTS nations to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

FORBIDS the transportation of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

PROHIBITS the creation and/or distribution of materials depicting child abuse except for those which are needed for credible and genuine educational and research purposes.

[Mousebumples]

Mousebumples made me do it. She has a very big stick and she beats me with it when I fall behind on my work

That aside though, Mouse wants to repeal the CPA and asked me to write up a replacement. Here. Maybe she'll stop beating me now.

Does that mean "Prevention of Sanctaria Abuse" will be your next opus then?

[Sanctaria]

Mousebumples made me do it. She has a very big stick and she beats me with it when I fall behind on my work

That aside though, Mouse wants to repeal the CPA and asked me to write up a replacement. Here. Maybe she'll stop beating me now.

Does that mean "Prevention of Sanctaria Abuse" will be your next opus then?

I think I'll say no. To avoid another hiding.

[The Orson Empire]

I accept this proposal.

[Sovreignry]

I could see myself supporting this if it came to vote. I would also bug my delegate about approving it when it was proposed as well. Just be sure to fight of the delegations that are going to bitch about "age of majority" being put in this resolution.

[Jefferson and Paul]

I'd include that child sexual abuse includes prolonged kissing, fondling, and excessive touching. Looking at children without clothes/photographing with the intent to be sexually aroused can also be included.

Edit: I've realized the first portion should already be covered by the definition provided, but I'm not sure if the latter is.

[Ossitania]

We are broadly supportive of this draft and feel that it is a more than adequate replacement for CPA.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Does that mean "Prevention of Sanctaria Abuse" will be your next opus then?

I think I'll say no. To avoid another hiding.

We can't have this!

So, can we make one request: that the world 'child' be omitted and replaced with 'person', except where it is part of the words 'Child Abuse', where it should be replaced with 'Abuse', and 'children' be replaced with 'persons'?

[Sanctaria]

I think I'll say no. To avoid another hiding.

We can't have this!

So, can we make one request: that the world 'child' be omitted and replaced with 'person', except where it is part of the words 'Child Abuse', where it should be replaced with 'Abuse', and 'children' be replaced with 'persons'?

No. This is about child abuse.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

But what about the editors? What about the adults?

(We support this proposal).

[Cowardly Pacifists]

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• A child: any individual under the national age of majority,

Is it heinous to wonder if we should take this opportunity to define a child with terms other than "age of majority?" I get that there is a lobby that hates the idea of the WA taking away governments' power to define childhood how they please, but for the purposes of this kind of legislation I feel that a tighter definition might be warranted. After all, it doesn't seem right that a this proposal wouldn't apply to toddlers in nations without an age of majority, or might apply to 25-year-olds in nations with a high age of majority.

Just wondering if a different definition of child that doesn't invoke the slippery concept of age of majority has been considered. Perhaps "any individual of an age spanning from birth through the end of adolescence"?

[Sanctaria]

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

• A child: any individual under the national age of majority,

Is it heinous to wonder if we should take this opportunity to define a child with terms other than "age of majority?" I get that there is a lobby that hates the idea of the WA taking away governments' power to define childhood how they please, but for the purposes of this kind of legislation I feel that a tighter definition might be warranted. After all, it doesn't seem right that a this proposal wouldn't apply to toddlers in nations without an age of majority, or might apply to 25-year-olds in nations with a high age of majority.

Just wondering if a different definition of child that doesn't invoke the slippery concept of age of majority has been considered. Perhaps "any individual of an age spanning from birth through the end of adolescence"?

Of course other definitions have been considered. They have all been found to be lacking or not very extensive. The definition you provide, for example, is just as subjective as you claim "age of majority" is. Just as a nation could make the age of majority 3, I could define adolescence as a period of 10 - 14 days after birth.

I really don't understand this Assembly's reluctance to deal with "age of majority", especially as it's already been ruled that under RNT we can, and should, proceed.

I could add "or equivalent" I guess.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Of course other definitions have been considered. They have all been found to be lacking or not very extensive. The definition you provide, for example, is just as subjective as you claim "age of majority" is. Just as a nation could make the age of majority 3, I could define adolescence as a period of 10 - 14 days after birth.

I really don't understand this Assembly's reluctance to deal with "age of majority", especially as it's already been ruled that under RNT we can, and should, proceed.

I could add "or equivalent" I guess.

I'm trying to get at the fact that the term "child" involves two distinct concepts. There's the concept of being a child "legally" and of being a child "developmentally." The preamble makes clear that this proposal is really about the later, i.e. protecting those who are still in the developmental state of childhood. Accordingly, I was just wondering if thought was given to a definition that better serves that purpose, rather than falling back on the old legal standby of "a child is a person who is not legally an adult."

P.S. "Adolescence," refers to a developmental period after puberty. It would hardly be possible to define adolescence as a period of 10-14 days after birth (unless your species really goes through puberty that fast). Age of majority, on the other hand, could be defined as a period of 10-14 days after birth, since the concept is just a legal fiction with no necessary relationship to physical or mental development. Just food for thought.

[Sanctaria]

Of course other definitions have been considered. They have all been found to be lacking or not very extensive. The definition you provide, for example, is just as subjective as you claim "age of majority" is. Just as a nation could make the age of majority 3, I could define adolescence as a period of 10 - 14 days after birth.

I really don't understand this Assembly's reluctance to deal with "age of majority", especially as it's already been ruled that under RNT we can, and should, proceed.

I could add "or equivalent" I guess.

I'm trying to get at the fact that the term "child" involves two distinct concepts. There's the concept of being a child "legally" and of being a child "developmentally." The preamble makes clear that this proposal is really about the later, i.e. protecting those who are still in the developmental state of childhood. Accordingly, I was just wondering if thought was given to a definition that better serves that purpose, rather than falling back on the old legal standby of "a child is a person who is not legally an adult."

P.S. "Adolescence," refers to a developmental period after puberty. It would hardly be possible to define adolescence as a period of 10-14 days after birth (unless your species really goes through puberty that fast). Age of majority, on the other hand, could be defined as a period of 10-14 days after birth, since the concept is just a legal fiction with no necessary relationship to physical or mental development. Just food for thought.

I'm well aware of both the concepts of being a "child" and being an "adolescence. However my point was that no matter which definition I go with, there will always be situations, or claimed to be situations, in which the definition would be either unsuitable or inapplicable.

I really don't see the problem with the definition, or theory, of a legal age of majority. A child is someone who is not an adult. Due to the constraints of this Assembly, and the variety of its membership, one cannot apply a traditional non-arbitrary method such as biology in determining who and who is not a child. As such, and as already pointed out under RNT, it's easier and far less messy to utilise the "a child is someone who is not an adult" definition.

[Mousebumples]

I'm trying to get at the fact that the term "child" involves two distinct concepts. There's the concept of being a child "legally" and of being a child "developmentally." The preamble makes clear that this proposal is really about the later, i.e. protecting those who are still in the developmental state of childhood. Accordingly, I was just wondering if thought was given to a definition that better serves that purpose, rather than falling back on the old legal standby of "a child is a person who is not legally an adult."

P.S. "Adolescence," refers to a developmental period after puberty. It would hardly be possible to define adolescence as a period of 10-14 days after birth (unless your species really goes through puberty that fast). Age of majority, on the other hand, could be defined as a period of 10-14 days after birth, since the concept is just a legal fiction with no necessary relationship to physical or mental development. Just food for thought.

If your nation wishes to set your "age of majority" at the age of adolescence, that's your call. There is nothing in this resolution that prevents you from using the human equivalent of 11 or 13 or 16 as your nation's age of majority if you so choose.

And that's the beauty of using "age of majority" (although I do like the "or equivalent" idea, I'll admit, as it makes it less loopholeable) - it makes things more adaptable to individual member states.

If your concern is regarding the sexual abuse angle, the key term "nonconsensual" in the definition should cover that as well. Your nation is also entitled to set an age of consent - as outlined in GAR#16 - Sexual Privacy Act.

I must say, I really am confused about what your concern is with "age of majority." Setting a specific age will run into the same troubles that sunk a certain "time limits" proposal that was proposed not too long ago. There are too many different nations with different types of citizens with different life spans, etc., etc. This proposal applies to all reasonable nations thanks to the Reasonable Nation Theory - and Sanct has already highlighted a previous mod ruling on the subject above.

If there's something else I'm missing, please enlighten me.

Yours in confusion,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Cowardly Pacifists]

If your nation wishes to set your "age of majority" at the age of adolescence, that's your call. There is nothing in this resolution that prevents you from using the human equivalent of 11 or 13 or 16 as your nation's age of majority if you so choose.

And that's the beauty of using "age of majority" (although I do like the "or equivalent" idea, I'll admit, as it makes it less loopholeable) - it makes things more adaptable to individual member states.

If your concern is regarding the sexual abuse angle, the key term "nonconsensual" in the definition should cover that as well. Your nation is also entitled to set an age of consent - as outlined in GAR#16 - Sexual Privacy Act.

I must say, I really am confused about what your concern is with "age of majority." Setting a specific age will run into the same troubles that sunk a certain "time limits" proposal that was proposed not too long ago. There are too many different nations with different types of citizens with different life spans, etc., etc. This proposal applies to all reasonable nations thanks to the Reasonable Nation Theory - and Sanct has already highlighted a previous mod ruling on the subject above.

If there's something else I'm missing, please enlighten me.

I think I'm being misunderstood. I am supportive of this proposal in principle and the repeal drafted by Mousebumples. This is just my way of offering constructive criticism. To the extant that Sanctaria wants to define child in terms of legal age of majority, that's just fine by me.

The proposal seems more interested in protecting "children" as defined in the developmental sense rather than the legal sense. I just thought I'd float the idea of defining child in terms of development rather than legal majority. I am known (on occasion) to draw academic distinctions. If folks think this is one of them and that there would be no real difference in how the proposal operates I can accept that.

Perhaps I need to work on my delivery... I find that even when I attempt to offer help people treat it like I'm attacking them.

[Sanctaria]

The proposal seems more interested in protecting "children" as defined in the developmental sense rather than the legal sense. I just thought I'd float the idea of defining child in terms of development rather than legal majority. I am known (on occasion) to draw academic distinctions. If folks think this is one of them and that there would be no real difference in how the proposal operates I can accept that.

While I understand there being a distinction, often the two are combined. Some nations may chose to set the legal majority at the year the average child ends their development, the conclusion of adolescence, or whatever you want to call it.

I really don't think the proposal operates any different. The meat, so to speak, is in its operative clauses. I often find the preamble to just be a background or reasoning for the legislation. What the resolution itself does is more important.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

The proposal seems more interested in protecting "children" as defined in the developmental sense rather than the legal sense. I just thought I'd float the idea of defining child in terms of development rather than legal majority. I am known (on occasion) to draw academic distinctions. If folks think this is one of them and that there would be no real difference in how the proposal operates I can accept that.

We agree. Possibly the end of legally required education would suffice? Because presumably every nation requires some sort of education standards, and by the end of it society regards them as responsible.

Perhaps I need to work on my delivery... I find that even when I attempt to offer help people treat it like I'm attacking them.

OOC: Alas, we cannot display delivery perfectly with words alone ... maybe emoticons should be encouraged?

[Mousebumples]

The proposal seems more interested in protecting "children" as defined in the developmental sense rather than the legal sense. I just thought I'd float the idea of defining child in terms of development rather than legal majority. I am known (on occasion) to draw academic distinctions. If folks think this is one of them and that there would be no real difference in how the proposal operates I can accept that.

We agree. Possibly the end of legally required education would suffice? Because presumably every nation requires some sort of education standards, and by the end of it society regards them as responsible.

I can't speak for Sanct, but I'm confused as to why you insist on trying to "fix" something that I don't think it broken.

Is there any part of the resolution that keeps your nation from defining "age of majority" as the equivalent from "age of completing school" ? *scratches head*

[Sanctaria]

The proposal seems more interested in protecting "children" as defined in the developmental sense rather than the legal sense. I just thought I'd float the idea of defining child in terms of development rather than legal majority. I am known (on occasion) to draw academic distinctions. If folks think this is one of them and that there would be no real difference in how the proposal operates I can accept that.

We agree. Possibly the end of legally required education would suffice? Because presumably every nation requires some sort of education standards, and by the end of it society regards them as responsible.

Eh, no.

I don't really intend to change the definition. It's the most used one for a reason. This debate comes up time and again whenever such a resolution is proposed and the reason that the definition I'm going along with is used is because it's the most practical. Unless a miracle happens and someone establishes a clearer definition, applicable for everyone definition, then I don't think I'll be changing it.

[Englonia]

you forgot pedophile advocacy/activism. (the art of justifying, defending, or supporting pedophiles)

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I can't speak for Sanct, but I'm confused as to why you insist on trying to "fix" something that I don't think it broken.

Is there any part of the resolution that keeps your nation from defining "age of majority" as the equivalent from "age of completing school" ? *scratches head*

All of the other resolutions which refer to the 'age of majority', perhaps?

In this proposal it is more about developmental ability rather than legal ability, so what have you got against a distinction?

[Sanctaria]

I can't speak for Sanct, but I'm confused as to why you insist on trying to "fix" something that I don't think it broken.

Is there any part of the resolution that keeps your nation from defining "age of majority" as the equivalent from "age of completing school" ? *scratches head*

All of the other resolutions which refer to the 'age of majority', perhaps?

I'm a bright guy. I wouldn't have been appointed to this job otherwise. And maybe it's because it's late (early?), but I really don't understand this response.

When asked what your problem was with my proposal using "age of majority" your response was that your problem was with ... other resolutions?

Am I missing something here? Is there a step that I'm not seeing or ... ?

[Pollepao]

Pollepao, upon considering this resolution and its wording, has to decline to support this resolution in its current form. We would request that the following clause;

EXPECTS nations to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

Be modified to;

DECLARES that nations are to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

An expectation can be broken, defied, go unfulfilled - this wording adds rather too much optionality into this clause for our taste.

[Sanctaria]

I've changed it to the following:

REQUIRES nations to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the victims of reported child abuse, both during and after such investigations;

I've also added "or equivalent" to the child definition.