[Draft] Against Abusive Families

[Losthaven]

There's the question of whether the extra rights given to children in this situation are outweighed by the requirement that all child abusers (not just ones involved in this situation) forfeit custodial rights to the extent that the proper category should be 'Moral Decency' instead, which I'm still inclined to think should be the case.... and whether the balance between those two factors justifies actually an overall strength of 'Strong', rather than 'Significant' instead.

I'm inclined to agree with Bears Armed that this ought to be a Moral Decency proposal, as framed. According to the rules if a proposal requires WA members to exert more "control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens" it's Moral Decency. Civil Rights proposals, on the other hand, are proposals which give citizens greater choice in how they live their lives.

This proposal's primary purpose and effect is to require member nations to exert more control over how parents live their lives - specifically in how they must regard the gender identity of their children - and it imposes substantial punishment on parents that don't fall into line. Conversely, it does nothing to provide anyone greater choice in how they live their lives, except perhaps by some inference that by restricting how parents are permitted to think and act would have some beneficial effects on others.

[Araraukar]

restricting how parents are permitted to think

OOC: Think? No. Act? Yes, because that's what all resolutions do. "You can believe what you want but not do what you want" applies to most legislation.

[Losthaven]

restricting how parents are permitted to think

OOC: Think? No. Act? Yes, because that's what all resolutions do. "You can believe what you want but not do what you want" applies to most legislation.

1. As I've stated time and again, one can "deliberately reject" something purely by thinking it, much as I am presently deliberately rejecting the idea of having Lima beans with dinner tonight.

2. In any case, a resolution built around restricting what parents are allowed to do (if that's more agreeable terminology for you) and punishing them for doing otherwise is more in the vein of exercising "control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens" a la Moral Decency.

Put differently: The reasoning of the proposal is that prohibiting parents from doing a thing (deliberately rejecting gender identity) and taking away the children of parents who refuse to comply will avoid harm to the children (or, at least, will do less harm to the children then leaving them with their parents under those circumstances). Putting aside the dubiousness of that premise, it is a classic "think of the children" proposal to restrict what people can do in the name of moral decency.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Do you have a timescale on a preamble?)

“The ‘prohibits’ clause allows no concept of rehabilitation. If somebody acted in the way that you define as child abuse thirty years ago, but has since repented and now advocates for LGBTI+ rights, then there is no reason for continued punishment.”

[Bananaistan]

OOC: My opinion as regards GAR#222 is as previously stated: ok. I agree that the category should be moral decency. BA also raises a fair point about the definition of child abuse which leads into Kenmoria's point just above this one. IMO this proposal would mean that anyone convicted of child abuse for any reason including those outside the scope of this proposal would have their children removed from their care forever with no hope of rehabilitation.

[Araraukar]

“The ‘prohibits’ clause allows no concept of rehabilitation. If somebody acted in the way that you define as child abuse thirty years ago, but has since repented and now advocates for LGBTI+ rights, then there is no reason for continued punishment.”

"Does your nation hold this same view on "cured" pedophiles as well?"

OOC EDIT: I know I know, not the same thing, but Araraukar is a bit fanatic about providing children good homes/families/childhoods.

[Kenmoria]

“The ‘prohibits’ clause allows no concept of rehabilitation. If somebody acted in the way that you define as child abuse thirty years ago, but has since repented and now advocates for LGBTI+ rights, then there is no reason for continued punishment.”

"Does your nation hold this same view on "cured" pedophiles as well?"

OOC EDIT: I know I know, not the same thing, but Araraukar is a bit fanatic about providing children good homes/families/childhoods.

“If they have rehabilitated and are judged unlikely to offend again, then yes. Since pedophilia can’t really be cured, this is a condition that almost certainly can’t be met. However, if advances in medicine created a working treatment, then there is no need for continued punishment.”

[Bananaistan]

“The ‘prohibits’ clause allows no concept of rehabilitation. If somebody acted in the way that you define as child abuse thirty years ago, but has since repented and now advocates for LGBTI+ rights, then there is no reason for continued punishment.”

"Does your nation hold this same view on "cured" pedophiles as well?"

OOC EDIT: I know I know, not the same thing, but Araraukar is a bit fanatic about providing children good homes/families/childhoods.

"Depends whether they've actually committed a crime or not. And terminology is important so if merely being a paedophile is against the law in some member states, as opposed to actual action which harms children, we'd have to reassess our position on the current freedom of conscience proposal by the United Commonwealth of Imperium Anglorum."

[Aclion]

OOC: Re: GAR#436. See section 3: "Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation". Effectively no restriction of expression in a proposal can ever contradict GAR#436.

Proposals aren't WA legislation.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Re: GAR#436. See section 3: "Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation". Effectively no restriction of expression in a proposal can ever contradict GAR#436.

Proposals aren't WA legislation.

OOC: And? Effectively no proposal can be declared illegal or otherwise prevented from becoming WA legislation, on the grounds that it suppresses free expression. This is quite explicit. There is no #436 contradiction here.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Proposals are not resolutions" implies proposals are not international law. And then poof, we have the absurd conclusion that GA 2 blocks all laws in its national sovereignty clause. Discard absurd interpretations.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"While we vehemently support the general concept behind this, ambassador, we would need to see a more concrete idea of what is meant by 'rejection' before we could recommend submission. I eagerly await your next draft."