NationStates Jolt Archive

Renegade, the Leetonian Prime Minister, along with 2 dangerous looking men, one bearing a striking resemblance to a ninja, the other wearing a red trenchcoat, a matching sunhat, and shades, as well as a dorky looking fellow, strolls in, carrying a sheet of paper in his hand. He stops at a high traffic area and takes the paper and pins it up using a few daggers.Outlaw Child Pornography (5th draft)
A resolution to restrict civil rights in interest of morality.

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the continued proliferation and distribution of pornographic material featuring minors by member nations.

CONDEMNING such practices by all nations, especially member nations.

NOTING WITH SATISFACTION that the greater assembly has already passed a resolution banning child molestation.

1) CALLS UPON the greater assembly to, effective immediately, ban the sale, publication, and distribution of all forms of child pornography.

2a) DEFINING “child pornography” as any media, including, but not limited to, photos, videos, and digital media, featuring a minor involved in a sexual situation, including, but not limited to, masturbation, fondling, any form of penetration (excluding consumption of food), or depiction of a minor in a state of sexual arousal.
2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause.

3a) DESIGNATES the right to decide upon the definition of “minor” to each individual member nation, on the condition that all non-minors be considered adults in the eyes of the law.
3b) SETS the minimum acceptable age at which one becomes an adult to 12

4) NOTES that exempt from clause 2b of this resolution are any media recognized by a private board assembled by the respective peoples of the individual member nation as documentary or informative in nature.Renegade then sits down and looks around, "Questions, comments, offers for sex?" The individual in the sunhat throws Renegade a glance, to which he replies, "Kidding."
(OOC: This is not a strict RP thread, I just wanted a more creative way to post this sucker)

We still have issues with 2b.

You do not have my support.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151465&highlight=)

Edited to add: I just got the telegram

Yeah, like the telegram said, I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to let LEGITIMATE artistic fiction through, but still catch stuff like "A fictional account of 20 year old man having sex with his 5 year old daughter" I know the timeline there is weird, but just deal

I guess lots of people are at work or something...

What about if you were to say that written material like this was banned in predominately sxual books or magazines.

For example, a novel, story, or any kind of "normal" reading material can use the material they want.

On the other hand, a sexual magazine, web page, book, or anything, is not alowed to do so.

You might have to have all writers and companies to register in one category or the other to help this.

What about if you were to say that written material like this was banned in predominately sxual books or magazines.

For example, a novel, story, or any kind of "normal" reading material can use the material they want.

On the other hand, a sexual magazine, web page, book, or anything, is not alowed to do so.

You might have to have all writers and companies to register in one category or the other to help this.few problems with this. One, it ignores non-published material completely (such as online content) 2, big loophole, a artist could write 150 pages of porn and call it a novel if he wanted to.

Oop, just noticed a loophole that NOONE has pointed out. I'm going to add "possession" to clause 1

In clause 3b, You state that "the minimum acceptable age at which one becomes an adult to 12". The USSC does not see 12 as a reasonable age. We suggest that this be raised or the USSC will not be able to support your resolution.


Sincerly,

Dr. Demetri Visto
Minister of Human Well-Being
The United States of Sonora Capita

In clause 3b, You state that "the minimum acceptable age at which one becomes an adult to 12". The USSC does not see 12 as a reasonable age. We suggest that this be raised or the USSC will not be able to support your resolution.


Sincerly,

Dr. Demetri Visto
Minister of Human Well-Being
The United States of Sonora Capita

Outlaw Child Pornography (5th draft)
A resolution to restrict civil rights in interest of morality.

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the continued proliferation and distribution of pornographic material featuring minors by member nations.

CONDEMNING such practices by all nations, especially member nations.

NOTING WITH SATISFACTION that the greater assembly has already passed a resolution banning child molestation.

1) CALLS UPON the greater assembly to, effective immediately, ban the sale, publication, and distribution of all forms of child pornography.

2a) DEFINING “child pornography” as any media, including, but not limited to, photos, videos, and digital media, featuring a minor involved in a sexual situation, including, but not limited to, masturbation, fondling, any form of penetration (excluding consumption of food), or depiction of a minor in a state of sexual arousal.
2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause.

3a) DESIGNATES the right to decide upon the definition of “minor” to each individual member nation, on the condition that all non-minors be considered adults in the eyes of the law.
3b) SETS the minimum acceptable age at which one becomes an adult to 12

4) NOTES that exempt from clause 2b of this resolution are any media recognized by a private board assembled by the respective peoples of the individual member nation as documentary or informative in nature.
I'm sorry, but I'm a delegate, and I have to oppose this. Its not because I like child pornography, or think that people's freedoms should come above a child's security, its because its a reactionary issue. Whenever anything like this comes up, almost invariably no provisions are provided for the defination of child pornography (creating a situation where effectively you're saying little more than "Bogglywoggly: BAD!!!" without anyone knowing what Bogglywoggly is.) This resolution isn't too bad on that front, but I'm still not happy with the definitions, they are too broad-encompassing and would allow people to be prosecuted for, for example, pictures of their own young children naked which most parent possesses, or photographic art collections such as Jock Sturges', who is an artist who has had a lot of trouble with people trying to get him prosecuted for his art. To say that these photos would not be "erotic" is quite frankly, not in the UN's remit. Its not up to the UN to define art (not within this resolution anyway), or to perscribe how people ought to feel when they look at a picture or read an article.

There are also no provisions for accidental possession of material, through an unspecified download, as in a fairly recent case in the UK. Nor are there provisions for pictures of people of questionable age; the difference between an erotic or pornographic photo of a less developed person over the age of 12 and a more developed 11 year old is impossible to define without locating the model. (In this resolution the minimum age limit is 12, but any age can be used here, and personally I would set it higher.) To take, for example, the fact that a website or video company claims that all their models are of a legal age is clearly not enough of a gaurentee (as they could be lying or misinformed), and it is not clear in a case such as this whether the person who viewed images which they believed to be legal would be prosecuted if they didn't know, it is impossible to tell whether or not they did know, and it is difficult or impossible to tell whether or not the company or individual providing the images knew, did not know, was misled or did not ask, so who is to blame in such cases is not easy to define.

It is also possible for a company to advertise images as "under age", when they are in fact not. Would they be punished in that case? Would a viewer or reader be breaking the law if they intended to take material which was illegal but was in fact not?

The aim of the resolution is important here as well, and while extremely admirable, I do not believe that it fulfils it's own goal. Say for example I set the age of majority at 18 in my country. Imagine someone who consented to have a photo taken of them at the age of 17, and who consented again when they were 18 for that photo to remain or be put in whatever form of media distribution it was placed in. Surely there can be no suggestion that the person in question has been exploited? They have consented when the picture was taken, they have consented when it is to be distributed. What purpose does it serve to criminalise the distributer, viewer or participant of this photo? Protection of the subject? Protection of the moral fabric of society? No.

Furthermore, I can think of at least one work of literature which is about sexual acts with a minor, is a fictional account so neither informative nor documentary and would be rendered illegal by this resolution. I am referring of course to Lolita. Would every individual or organisation owning a copy of this book held accountable under this resolution? Currently, I believe they would be. The Silver State of Spoffin would in fact be forced to prosecute its own leader, as I have read the book and own a copy.

In short, I'm voting no because the resolution does not achieve what it sets out to do, and I don't think that any amount of amendments or rewording can change that.

It is sex-negative attitudes that are to blame. They cause us to warp our sexualities to submit to the demands of authority. Sexuality then becomes something twisted and unwholesome.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I'm sorry, but I'm a delegate, and I have to oppose this. Its not because I like child pornography, or think that people's freedoms should come above a child's security, its because its a reactionary issue. Whenever anything like this comes up, almost invariably no provisions are provided for the defination of child pornography (creating a situation where effectively you're saying little more than "Bogglywoggly: BAD!!!" without anyone knowing what Bogglywoggly is.) This resolution isn't too bad on that front, but I'm still not happy with the definitions, they are too broad-encompassing and would allow people to be prosecuted for, for example, pictures of their own young children naked which most parent possesses, or photographic art collections such as Jock Sturges', who is an artist who has had a lot of trouble with people trying to get him prosecuted for his art. To say that these photos would not be "erotic" is quite frankly, not in the UN's remit. Its not up to the UN to define art (not within this resolution anyway), or to perscribe how people ought to feel when they look at a picture or read an article.

There are also no provisions for accidental possession of material, through an unspecified download, as in a fairly recent case in the UK. Nor are there provisions for pictures of people of questionable age; the difference between an erotic or pornographic photo of a less developed person over the age of 12 and a more developed 11 year old is impossible to define without locating the model. (In this resolution the minimum age limit is 12, but any age can be used here, and personally I would set it higher.) To take, for example, the fact that a website or video company claims that all their models are of a legal age is clearly not enough of a gaurentee (as they could be lying or misinformed), and it is not clear in a case such as this whether the person who viewed images which they believed to be legal would be prosecuted if they didn't know, it is impossible to tell whether or not they did know, and it is difficult or impossible to tell whether or not the company or individual providing the images knew, did not know, was misled or did not ask, so who is to blame in such cases is not easy to define.

It is also possible for a company to advertise images as "under age", when they are in fact not. Would they be punished in that case? Would a viewer or reader be breaking the law if they intended to take material which was illegal but was in fact not?

The aim of the resolution is important here as well, and while extremely admirable, I do not believe that it fulfils it's own goal. Say for example I set the age of majority at 18 in my country. Imagine someone who consented to have a photo taken of them at the age of 17, and who consented again when they were 18 for that photo to remain or be put in whatever form of media distribution it was placed in. Surely there can be no suggestion that the person in question has been exploited? They have consented when the picture was taken, they have consented when it is to be distributed. What purpose does it serve to criminalise the distributer, viewer or participant of this photo? Protection of the subject? Protection of the moral fabric of society? No.

Furthermore, I can think of at least one work of literature which is about sexual acts with a minor, is a fictional account so neither informative nor documentary and would be rendered illegal by this resolution. I am referring of course to Lolita. Would every individual or organisation owning a copy of this book held accountable under this resolution? Currently, I believe they would be. The Silver State of Spoffin would in fact be forced to prosecute its own leader, as I have read the book and own a copy.

In short, I'm voting no because the resolution does not achieve what it sets out to do, and I don't think that any amount of amendments or rewording can change that.

Regarding your first argument, I have to disagree, you'll note the definition does not mention "nudity" it specifies a SEXUAL situation, as such, naked baby taking a bath doesn't qualify. I _specifically_ wrote clause 2 to allow for such artistic photos, such as the ones in any family album or on websites such as MET. And the 2nd arguement is valid, and can easily be remedied by adding the word "knowing" to clause 1. Finally, as for acts of fiction, it has already been taken care of in a draft that has yet to be posted, but will be as soon as it is ready for public viewing (most likely in 3 minutes)

Renegade finishes writting on a second sheet of paper. He tears down the first sheet and pins up the second.
Outlaw Child Pornography (Draft 6)
A resolution to restrict civil rights in interest of morality.

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the continued proliferation and distribution of pornographic material featuring minors by member nations.

CONDEMNING such practices by all nations, especially member nations.

NOTING WITH SATISFACTION that the greater assembly has already passed a resolution banning child molestation.

1) CALLS UPON the greater assembly to, effective immediately, ban the knowing sale, publication, distribution, and/or possession of all forms of child pornography.

2a) DEFINING “child pornography” as any media, including, but not limited to, photos, videos, and digital media, featuring a minor involved in a sexual situation, including, but not limited to, masturbation, fondling, any form of penetration (excluding consumption of food), or depiction of a minor in a state of sexual arousal.
2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause.

3a) DESIGNATES the right to decide upon the definition of “minor” to each individual member nation, on the condition that all non-minors be considered adults in the eyes of the law.
3b) SETS the minimum acceptable age at which one becomes an adult to 12

4a) NOTES that exempt from clause 2b of this resolution are any media recognized by a private board assembled by the respective peoples of the individual member nation as documentary or informative in nature.
4b) DECLARES that also exempt from clause 2b are all works that did not require the use of a child model and are works of written fiction.

5) DECLARES that the trade of materials such as the ones described in clauses 2 and 4 from a nation in which they are considered legal to one in which they are illegal is illegal and will be punished just as if the origin was in the receiving country. Okay, new draft up, have at her.

2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause

What does this clause do now that fiction, police reports, documentaries and the like are allowed?

Regarding your first argument, I have to disagree, you'll note the definition does not mention "nudity" it specifies a SEXUAL situation, as such, naked baby taking a bath doesn't qualify. I _specifically_ wrote clause 2 to allow for such artistic photos, such as the ones in any family album or on websites such as MET. And the 2nd arguement is valid, and can easily be remedied by adding the word "knowing" to clause 1. Finally, as for acts of fiction, it has already been taken care of in a draft that has yet to be posted, but will be as soon as it is ready for public viewing (most likely in 3 minutes)What makes me uneasy is that there is still a dilemma. I don't think that this resolution's aim is to define art. However, with adult nudity, there has always been an issue as to whether the nakedness counts as art or whether it is pornography; not a particularly material debate when both are legal, but some way of defining art from porn is important in the case where one is allowed and one will land you in jail.

And theres still nothing pertaining to consentual/non abusive situations, or the age boundary issue I highlighted earlier.

I'll go over this draft in more detail tommorow

Furthermore, I can think of at least one work of literature which is about sexual acts with a minor, is a fictional account so neither informative nor documentary and would be rendered illegal by this resolution. I am referring of course to Lolita. Would every individual or organisation owning a copy of this book held accountable under this resolution? Currently, I believe they would be. The Silver State of Spoffin would in fact be forced to prosecute its own leader, as I have read the book and own a copy.

So? Let's pass this resolution and get rid of Spoffin's leader! It's brilliant. Now we just have to get some other books banned and anarchism will spread. I realize it's stupid to use the state against itself, Letila is desparate.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause

What does this clause do now that fiction, police reports, documentaries and the like are allowed?Thats what clause 4 (both parts) is for. It allows documentaries, informative documents, and fictional works to slip through, why (hopefully) catching the porn. Also, regarding your second post, I'd like the point out that we are not refering to Adult Pornography in any form, this is about protecting young children. Its up to individual governments to decide when a person is old enough to be able to make a descision such as appearing in pornographic materials, which I personally believe is one of the greater strengths of this proposal. Its effective, while avoiding overly-interfering with National Sovereignty

2b) INCLUDING, in the definition presented in clause 2a, any written media featuring detailed accounts of acts described in aforementioned clause

What does this clause do now that fiction, police reports, documentaries and the like are allowed?Thats what clause 4 (both parts) is for. It allows documentaries, informative documents, and fictional works to slip through, why (hopefully) catching the porn. Also, regarding your second post, I'd like the point out that we are not refering to Adult Pornography in any form, this is about protecting young children. Its up to individual governments to decide when a person is old enough to be able to make a descision such as appearing in pornographic materials, which I personally believe is one of the greater strengths of this proposal. Its effective, while avoiding overly-interfering with National SovereigntyYou say "catch the porn", but what written work still falls into this category?

You say "catch the porn", but what written work still falls into this category?In all honesty, not much, but thats the problem with trying to limit written works, if you open the door just a little, they all can fit through, and there is no way to limit based on the authors intent because there is no REAL way to tell. (OOC: I even think the US government gave up trying to limit pornography in its written form) But at least, if you ban works requiring a child model, you avoid exploiting the child.

I strongly support this resolution. The possible reprecutions to the artistic market are pretty insignificant and only likely to be an issue if the member country tends towards such an interpertation anyway, in which case they could take such action if they saw fit regardless of the presense or absense of a bill of this nature.

The only complaint Geektonia has is the minumum age for an adult; why should we set our standards to the lowest standards possible. 16 is what this region would approve of.

Having done some studies on previous resolutions I note that the legal age of an adult has already been set to eighteen by the UN. Please see Article 1 of the resolution entitled “The Child Protection Act”, passed August 2nd, 2003. By changing the age to twelve as proposed here, we will effectively be repealing this article in the previous resolution. My legal interpretation may be wrong here, but under current legislation it seems to me that sex is illegal with anyone under the age of eighteen.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

I strongly support this resolution. The possible reprecutions to the artistic market are pretty insignificant and only likely to be an issue if the member country tends towards such an interpertation anyway, in which case they could take such action if they saw fit regardless of the presense or absense of a bill of this nature.

The only complaint Geektonia has is the minumum age for an adult; why should we set our standards to the lowest standards possible. 16 is what this region would approve of.I don't think people are reading it closely enough. It is up to each individual nation to decide what they will consider an adult, as long as it is no lower than 12, you could set the legal age to 5002.5 if you wanted to. Now if you'll excuse me, big storm coming through, shutting down until is blows over.

Well, either way it's sick...I'm for this proposal all the way

Okay, storms gone, so i'm back until Detective Conan comes on. Okay, so i take it this new draft has lots of support, I'm gonna leave it up for another day or so, so that it can be strategically placed to have 2 days left when the next resolution expires. (only time delegates seem to endorse the things >.<)

The Theocracy of Rajaria opposes this resolution but reasons different than expressed by other delegates. Having a society religiously built on social darwinianism we simply don't see why children should be given rights different from adults. The same way you wouldn't want restrictions on the hours or conditions of child labor in relation adults.

We are sympathetic however to restricting pornography or any material which promotes excessive non-faith/non-governmental based happiness. We enter this debate with mixed feelings.

The Theocracy of Rajaria opposes this resolution but reasons different than expressed by other delegates. Having a society religiously built on social darwinianism we simply don't see why children should be given rights different from adults. The same way you wouldn't want restrictions on the hours or conditions of child labor in relation adults.

We are sympathetic however to restricting pornography or any material which promotes excessive non-faith/non-governmental based happiness. We enter this debate with mixed feelings.I know where you're coming from, and most of the time, I'd probably agree with you, but the thing is, as much as I hate to admit it, children are just that, children, they don't have the life experience to make certain descisions for themselves yet. For instance, if we let my little niece choose what she would eat, she'd eat nothing but cookies and icecream. That is one of the reasons why I set the minimum acceptable age for the minor/adult barrier where I did. By age 12 a child has enough life experience to start making semi-major descisions for themselves.

You have my support, please telegram me when it is submitted.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Many people seem to have a problem with what is art and what is pornography. After much research, I seem to fine that there is a very fine line. Some things that they pass off as "art" is merely nude pictures of our youth. If they aren't in sexully explicit situations, does that still make it right? I think not. These children are still being exploited, whether they are in sexual situations or not. By defining child pornography as " as any media, including, but not limited to, photos, videos, and digital media, featuring a minor involved in a sexual situation, including, but not limited to, masturbation, fondling, any form of penetration (excluding consumption of food), or depiction of a minor in a state of sexual arousal."
You leave a large loophole for this so-called "art". They are still being exploited, even though they aren't in any sexual situation.



Dr. Demetri Visto
Minister of Human Well-Being
The united States of Sonorus Capita

If I didn't leave that loophole, stuff like family photo albums would suddenly become illegal. Every parent has at least one naked baby picture. Besides, as you have seen, people do want art protected.

I agree, but some of this so-called "art" would take no artistic talent whatsoever. The loophole you left allows many things beside embarassing baby pictures. It would allow pictures of innocent children that were clearly not meant to go in the family photo album. But to be misused by people who find nude pictures of small children to some sort of turn-on.



Dr. Demetri Visto
Minister of Human Well-Being
The United States of Sonorus Capita

I agree with this all the way. child porno is so wrong. That way sick and twisted men wont terrize little kids...

I like the concept of your proposal, but 12 is too young. Until the minimum age is set to 18, you do not have my support.

I agree, but some of this so-called "art" would take no artistic talent whatsoever. The loophole you left allows many things beside embarassing baby pictures. It would allow pictures of innocent children that were clearly not meant to go in the family photo album. But to be misused by people who find nude pictures of small children to some sort of turn-on.



Dr. Demetri Visto
Minister of Human Well-Being
The United States of Sonorus CapitaSome people find a woman drinking a bottle of water to be a turn-on, face it, people can get horny off anything, I know, I have a 10 year old brother.

Sixteen at a minimum.

2b is a problem for me.

Seeing that there is no negotiating to be done, I hereby declare all my former issues dissolved and will support what this proposal does outlaw.
Thank-you Leetonia for this wonderful proposal to outlaw this horrible crime.





Dr. Demertri Visto
Minister of Human Well-Being
The United States of Sonorus Capita

We of Letila feel that a complete ban on kiddie porn, while nice, would limit military operations. Some forms of hentai (often accused of being pædophilic) are some of the most effective military weapons in existance, more so even than the hydrogen bomb when used against conservatives. Is this really the sort of thing you want to ban?

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

We of Letila feel that a complete ban on kiddie porn, while nice, would limit military operations. Some forms of hentai (often accused of being pædophilic) are some of the most effective military weapons in existance, more so even than the hydrogen bomb when used against conservatives. Is this really the sort of thing you want to ban?

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpgCheck my telegram on the subject, you'll be happy with its contents. BTW, I find airdropping bisexual nudist catgirls in heat is a LOT more effective than any "Please Teach Me" doujinshi (Yes, I speak your language)

Check my telegram on the subject, you'll be happy with its contents. BTW, I find airdropping bisexual nudist catgirls in heat is a LOT more effective than any "Please Teach Me" doujinshi (Yes, I speak your language)

OOC: You think I'm Japanese! :lol: I'm better at this psychology stuff than I thought.

-----------------------------------------
"Basically, claims that the Holocaust didn't happen are as stupid as saying the Sun is made from Cheese."-English Republicans
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I know where you're coming from, and most of the time, I'd probably agree with you, but the thing is, as much as I hate to admit it, children are just that, children, they don't have the life experience to make certain descisions for themselves yet. For instance, if we let my little niece choose what she would eat, she'd eat nothing but cookies and icecream. That is one of the reasons why I set the minimum acceptable age for the minor/adult barrier where I did. By age 12 a child has enough life experience to start making semi-major descisions for themselves.

We thank you for your reply and on further reflection we can support your proposal. We still maintain that children should not be given special privileges and should not be shielded from any of the responsibilities that are thrust upon adults. But a separation between young children and teenagers is a reality. Even if we see that separation as artificial because the restrictions a parent would place on small children the state must impose on its citizens to guide them between right and wrong.

First the very youngest children, then the adults. That can work for us.

Behold, the proposal has been submitted, please, help ban this horrific practice by contacting your delegates, or if you are a delegate, please endorse and tell all your friends.