[DRAFT] Repeal Resolution #4 Restrictions on Child Labor

[Lumingrad]

Repeal "Restrictions on Child Labor"

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#4

---

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #4: Restrictions on Child Labor (Category: Human Rights) Shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:
COMMENDING the efforts of Resolution #4 for attempting to ensure the rights and wellbeing of minors; contributing to a safer and more productive childhood;

NOTING Clause A defines a minor as “a person below the legal age of majority, as defined in their nation;”

ALSO NOTING Clause B(2) Banning employment that would require work in dangerous environments;

ALSO NOTING Clause B(3) Banning employment that would require dangerous equipment or tools;

ALSO NOTING Clause B(7) Banning employment that would restrict the pursuit of a full time education, through long hours;

BELIEVING Clause A allows for unscrupulous nations to define a minor as they so wish, with no restrictions or guidance on what constitutes a minor, permitting gross abuse and complete circumvention of this resolution;

BELIEVING Clauses B(2) and B(3) are heavily restrictive and subjective, due to the ambiguous and far reaching interpretations of what constitutes a dangerous environment, or a dangerous tool, indeed, under this resolution, every form of employment would be restricted, preventing youths who wish to work from being able to do so legally;

BELIEVING Clause B(7) prevents schools, academies, educational institutions, and parents engaging in home-education, from providing suitable apprentice style work placements, hands-on experience as part of a full and varied education, workplace safety training, and enforces a style of education based on theory and classrooms onto a populace that it may not suit;

FURTHER BELIEVING that these issues with the wording of the resolution create a dangerous level of ambiguity, potential for abuse, and rights hampering as to actually promote further harm on children, rather than protect them from harmful working environments;

UNDERSTANDING that the World Assembly interests itself with the rights and protection of children, and as such any legislation that can be used to promote the harm of children should be struck;

CONVINCED that the serious issue of the rights of a child should, and can be addressed in legislation much more descriptive, forthright, and applicable; and should see a more suitable approach to these rights made;

REPEALS Resolution #4 “Restrictions on Child Labor.”

[Excidium Planetis]

Repeal "Restrictions on Child Labor"

"This again?"

NOTING Clause A defines a minor as “a person below the legal age of majority, as defined in their nation;”

ALSO NOTING Clause B(2) Banning employment that would require work in dangerous environments;

ALSO NOTING Clause B(3) Banning employment that would require dangerous equipment or tools;

ALSO NOTING Clause B(7) Banning employment that would restrict the pursuit of a full time education, through long hours;

"All of this is completely unnecessary."

BELIEVING Clause A allows for unscrupulous nations to define a minor as they so wish, with no restrictions or guidance on what constitutes a minor, permitting gross abuse and complete circumvention of this resolution;

"If such individuals are not minors, they can can make such decisions to work in dangerous environments themselves. In democratic nations, they could legally vote. This argument ignores the fact that redefining the age of majority carries consequences."

BELIEVING Clauses B(2) and B(3) are heavily restrictive and subjective, due to the ambiguous and far reaching interpretations of what constitutes a dangerous environment, or a dangerous tool, indeed, under this resolution, every form of employment would be restricted, preventing youths who wish to work from being able to do so legally;

"That's an unreasonable interpretation."

BELIEVING Clause B(7) prevents schools, academies, educational institutions, and parents engaging in home-education, from providing suitable apprentice style work placements, hands-on experience as part of a full and varied education, workplace safety training, and enforces a style of education based on theory and classrooms onto a populace that it may not suit;

"This is a lie. Such activities as apprenticeship and homeschooling do not 'restrict the pursuit of a full time education', as they are part of a full time education."

[Lumingrad]

"If such individuals are not minors, they can can make such decisions to work in dangerous engrionments themselves. In democratic nations, they could legally vote. This argument ignores the fact that redefining the age of majority carries consequences."

BELIEVING Clause B(7) prevents schools, academies, educational institutions, and parents engaging in home-education, from providing suitable apprentice style work placements, hands-on experience as part of a full and varied education, workplace safety training, and enforces a style of education based on theory and classrooms onto a populace that it may not suit;

"This is a lie. Such activities as apprenticeship and homeschooling do not 'restrict the pursuit of a full time education', as they are part of a full time education."

"Good sir, I am representing a non-democratic nation, Should our age of majority be dropped they still cannot vote, My nation's policies are decidedly liberal and caring of civil rights, but there are other WA members who are not as caring Lumingrad. Your argument that the children can vote is a non sequitur, assuming an ideology that not all share. Further with the clumsy wording of the resolution, the only determining factors of whether employment restricts education is that of hours spent in work, having, and I quote "work which would preclude the pursuit of a full-time education" why, with this wording spending a single minute in work would preclude the pursuit of a Full-Time education. In surety I do say that this resolution serves only the wealthy and the corrupt, but the caring nations who want to do good by our children are lumbered with laws that only restrict their economic and personal freedoms."

[John Turner]

"Good sir, I am representing a non-democratic nation, Should our age of majority be dropped they still cannot vote, My nation's policies are decidedly liberal and caring of civil rights, but there are other WA members who are not as caring Lumingrad.

Good for you. You are now using a NatSov argument to back up your position. You will find that doesn't go over well. If this resolution is that big of a problem for your nation, you should probably remember that membership is voluntary.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Children should have no economic freedoms. So long as they are below the threshold of majority, they shouldn't be given the explicit freedom to do more than attend school, as that is in their own, and the international community's, best interests.

"Damn kids these days and their damn civil freedoms. Get off my damn lawn and go to school so my property taxes don't go to some small-town slumlord politician."

[Lumingrad]

Some nations are democratic, others, are not, my nation has no bearing on my care for the children, but was rather mentioned to illustrate that there are non-democratic nations in the World Assembly, and to assume that all are democratic is simply ideological.

I am happy for continued membership for I support the WA goals and aims, and no, I am not a NatSov, Lumingrad welcomes the laws and regulations of the WA; but only when they are appropriate and work as intended.

[Separatist Peoples]

Some nations are democratic, others, are not, my nation has no bearing on my care for the children, but was rather mentioned to illustrate that there are non-democratic nations in the World Assembly, and to assume that all are democratic is simply ideological.

I am happy for continued membership for I support the WA goals and aims, and no, I am not a NatSov, Lumingrad welcomes the laws and regulations of the WA; but only when they are appropriate and work as intended.

"Nobody is claiming that all nations are democratic. We know plenty of crackpot dictatorships exist. The point was that lowering the age of majority to be out of compliance carries with it legal drawbacks to the government in question. The easiest example to point out is the voting age. That it is not applicable to you in no way makes the example inapplicable in general."

[John Turner]

Lumingrad welcomes the laws and regulations of the WA; but only when they are appropriate and work as intended.

That is the very definition of a NatSov.

[Excidium Planetis]

"If such individuals are not minors, they can can make such decisions to work in dangerous engrionments themselves. In democratic nations, they could legally vote. This argument ignores the fact that redefining the age of majority carries consequences."

"Good sir, I am representing a non-democratic nation, Should our age of majority be dropped they still cannot vote, My nation's policies are decidedly liberal and caring of civil rights, but there are other WA members who are not as caring Lumingrad. Your argument that the children can vote is a non sequitur,

"It's a non-sequitur because I never said that.

"Firstly, I said those above the age of majority could vote, not children. Children are obviously below the age of majority.

"Second, I said 'In democratic nations' they could vote. I wasn't talking about you authoritarian regimes.

"Lastly, even if they are in a non-democratic nation, being of legal age still gives them all the rights of an adult, because they are an adult. So you are essentially arguing that adults should be prohibited from working in dangerous conditions, which is ridiculous."

"work which would preclude the pursuit of a full-time education" why, with this wording spending a single minute in work would preclude the pursuit of a Full-Time education.

"What the hell kind of interpretation is that? I went to work while pursuing a full time education and I certainly worked more than a minute. Working does not preclude a full time education."

[Lumingrad]

"Lastly, even if they are in a non-democratic nation, being of legal age still gives them all the rights of an adult, because they are an adult. So you are essentially arguing that adults should be prohibited from working in dangerous conditions, which is ridiculous."

"You seem to misunderstand my concerns, Adults working in dangerous conditions is not my concern, yet. My concern is that CHILDREN will be classified as adults to circumvent this resolution. If you feel that simply attaching the label 'adult' to an individual means they are an adult, then this law is even more pointless, why have child protective rights, just call them all adults and do away with children entirely, further, for the democratic nations, giving children the vote while consequential, is not as damning as you may think, unless you truly believe that the label of 'adult' is all that is required to be an adult, otherwise I shouldn't expect children to have the foresight and capability to vote, a view I hold of adults in my nation also. Children however are privy to their parents and senior's whims, what of their right to vote if it simply becomes another vote proxy in a corrupt and damaging system. I seek only to prevent this sort of harm by allowing for a better law to take this one's place."

[Lumingrad]

Lumingrad welcomes the laws and regulations of the WA; but only when they are appropriate and work as intended.

That is the very definition of a NatSov.

"I will accept but I will not welcome a flawed law, and I will use my rights to see that flawed laws are changed for the good of all that support the law's intent. You're right, I am very NatSov, I should just resign right now."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Lastly, even if they are in a non-democratic nation, being of legal age still gives them all the rights of an adult, because they are an adult. So you are essentially arguing that adults should be prohibited from working in dangerous conditions, which is ridiculous."

"You seem to misunderstand my concerns, Adults working in dangerous conditions is not my concern, yet. My concern is that CHILDREN will be classified as adults to circumvent this resolution. If you feel that simply attaching the label 'adult' to an individual means they are an adult, then this law is even more pointless, why have child protective rights, just call them all adults and do away with children entirely, further, for the democratic nations, giving children the vote while consequential, is not as damning as you may think, unless you truly believe that the label of 'adult' is all that is required to be an adult, otherwise I shouldn't expect children to have the foresight and capability to vote, a view I hold of adults in my nation also. Children however are privy to their parents and senior's whims, what of their right to vote if it simply becomes another vote proxy in a corrupt and damaging system. I seek only to prevent this sort of harm by allowing for a better law to take this one's place."

"How on earth do you expect us to prevent it when there isn't a way to enforce a universal age of majority, then?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Some nations are democratic, others, are not, my nation has no bearing on my care for the children, but was rather mentioned to illustrate that there are non-democratic nations in the World Assembly, and to assume that all are democratic is simply ideological.

I am happy for continued membership for I support the WA goals and aims, and no, I am not a NatSov, Lumingrad welcomes the laws and regulations of the WA; but only when they are appropriate and work as intended.

"Nobody is claiming that all nations are democratic. We know plenty of crackpot dictatorships exist. The point was that lowering the age of majority to be out of compliance carries with it legal drawbacks to the government in question. The easiest example to point out is the voting age. That it is not applicable to you in no way makes the example inapplicable in general."

This is correct. So far the intent of a law cannot be enforced but the text can, the creation of disutilities in changed enforcement mechanisms is the manner in which attempts to game the intent of a law. If a nation did what you stated in the post above, they would also have to change other elements which have the adult line already fixed. Thus, there is a disincentive to doing so, as weird things like children voting (and other examples) would also occur.

[Lumingrad]

"You seem to misunderstand my concerns, Adults working in dangerous conditions is not my concern, yet. My concern is that CHILDREN will be classified as adults to circumvent this resolution. If you feel that simply attaching the label 'adult' to an individual means they are an adult, then this law is even more pointless, why have child protective rights, just call them all adults and do away with children entirely, further, for the democratic nations, giving children the vote while consequential, is not as damning as you may think, unless you truly believe that the label of 'adult' is all that is required to be an adult, otherwise I shouldn't expect children to have the foresight and capability to vote, a view I hold of adults in my nation also. Children however are privy to their parents and senior's whims, what of their right to vote if it simply becomes another vote proxy in a corrupt and damaging system. I seek only to prevent this sort of harm by allowing for a better law to take this one's place."

"How on earth do you expect us to prevent it when there isn't a way to enforce a universal age of majority, then?"

"Enforce an age to which there is a right to unimpeded education, restrict specific industry types from employing from that age bracket, make employers liable for damages caused, add a defining subclause to the requirement that work not impede education by continuing on with that work encouraged by the education is an exemption, and keep the child prostitution laws.

I'd also throw out the idea of the age of majority having any weight on what determines a child, but that has nothing to do with this specific resolution."

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

I'd also throw out the idea of the age of majority having any weight on what determines a child, but that has nothing to do with this specific resolution.

ARI: What a ridiculous statement. The very concept of an age of majority is solely to distinguish between an adult and a child from a legal standpoint.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Enforce an age to which there is a right to unimpeded education,

"How? There is no appropriate universal age to that end. Not to accommodate the variety of species who are represented here."

restrict specific industry types from employing from that age bracket,

"I can't imagine an industry it is appropriate to employ children in. Moreover, I'd love to see the category that would effectively deal with some industries but not others."

make employers liable for damages caused,

"Trampling on domestic tort law, I see? Good luck not getting in the way of GAR number...what is it, 68? National Economic Freedoms."

add a defining subclause to the requirement that work not impede education by continuing on with that work encouraged by the education is an exemption,

"Maintaining a job be definition impedes on education. A child's job is to be an effective student."

and keep the child prostitution laws.

"These are covered."

I'd also throw out the idea of the age of majority having any weight on what determines a child, but that has nothing to do with this specific resolution."

"The age of majority is implicit in determining whether an individual is an adult or a child by law. It cannot be thrown out. Your entire premise is built on illegalities. You ought to give up."

[Excidium Planetis]

"You seem to misunderstand my concerns,

"No, I understand them perfectly. You just fail to realize the consequences of your concerns."

"Adults working in dangerous conditions is not my concern, yet. My concern is that CHILDREN will be classified as adults to circumvent this resolution

"It is impossible to classify children as adults. You can classify young individuals as adults, but they would not then be children."

If you feel that simply attaching the label 'adult' to an individual means they are an adult, then this law is even more pointless, why have child protective rights, just call them all adults and do away with children entirely,

"Then they have all the rights as adults, including the right to protest in applicable nations, run for political office, receive welfare, join a union, the list goes on and on. In a nation which gives its adults no rights, why bother attempting to protect the children? In a nation which gives its adults rights, then any above the age of majority are protected by their rights."

further, for the democratic nations, giving children the vote while consequential, is not as damning as you may think, unless you truly believe that the label of 'adult' is all that is required to be an adult, otherwise I shouldn't expect children to have the foresight and capability to vote,

"Then such a nation dooms itself by giving out thousands or millions of votes to incompetent voters. Do you not think that would be extremely bad for such an idiotic nation?"

Children however are privy to their parents and senior's whims, what of their right to vote if it simply becomes another vote proxy in a corrupt and damaging system. I seek only to prevent this sort of harm by allowing for a better law to take this one's place."

"You seriously underestimate the rebelliousness of youth and also their intelligence. Youth are not puppets."