NationStates Jolt Archive

My attempt to craft a decent repeal proposal...

Resolution 22 is not needed because it is redundant. Resolution #25 (Child Protection Act) already states...

"ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)"

I just want to add that before people attack this proposed repeal to eliminate Res. #22, please, take a careful look at this as it does make sense technically-speaking. I do, now, support this repeal and have begun working with HadleysHope to craft a proper document to go about this.

Okay, I'm going with my morals on this one.

I don't care how logical, how well thought-out, how well supported by evidence you are, I'm still opposing this repeal.

My attempt to craft a decent repeal proposal...

Resolution 22 is not needed because it is redundant. Resolution #25 (Child Protection Act) already states...

"ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)"

Technically this does not cover people who kidnap children to have sex with them. It only says "while in the care" and that could be seen as not applying to those who kidnap children.

Okay, I'm going with my morals on this one.

I don't care how logical, how well thought-out, how well supported by evidence you are, I'm still opposing this repeal.

OK, then think of it this way (if you're just going with your morals) - having a law specifically outlawing "sexual molestation" against children implies that it's OK for adults to do that to each other.

Technically this does not cover people who kidnap children to have sex with them. It only says "while in the care" and that could be seen as not applying to those who kidnap children.

Would Resolution 53, Section 5-a be better?

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies"

Would Resolution 53, Section 5-a be better?

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies"

That is still a local resolution. So if the current resolution was repealed, TilEnca could easily open up a child prostitution business that would in no way be contrary to any laws in the world.

You think that is a good idea?

That is still a local resolution. So if the current resolution was repealed, TilEnca could easily open up a child prostitution business that would in no way be contrary to any laws in the world.

You think that is a good idea?

No, but if "children" choose to...

Of course if you're concerned about that then refer to Res. 53 5-b...

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

b) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State"

Basically, it's the parents' problem, not something the government should have to worry about.

No, but if "children" choose to...

Of course if you're concerned about that then refer to Res. 53 5-b...

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

b) The legal guardian of any minor or physically or mentally incapable individual, the latter as defined in the Resolution "Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill", remains responsible to make informed choices and decisions on their behalf, in accordance with any applicable rights and health and safety legislation laid down by the State"

Basically, it's the parents' problem, not something the government should have to worry about.

And you are still not seeing a problem with allowing child prostitution to flourish across the UN? Just because the parents let them do it (and by extention parents could "co-erce" the children in to it) it doesn't make child prostitution acceptable, does it?

And you are still not seeing a problem with allowing child prostitution to flourish across the UN? Just because the parents let them do it (and by extention parents could "co-erce" the children in to it) it doesn't make child prostitution acceptable, does it?

I don't see "child prostitution" as being any worse than "regular prostitution" (which I do believe to be completely wrong anyway).

I don't see "child prostitution" as being any worse than "regular prostitution" (which I do believe to be completely wrong anyway).

Seriously? You don't see the difference between someone paying a 25 year old woman (who consents) to sleep with you and paying the same woman to sleep with her five year old daughter?

OK, then think of it this way (if you're just going with your morals) - having a law specifically outlawing "sexual molestation" against children implies that it's OK for adults to do that to each other.

Most adults in my nation carry around military-grade assault rifles. Unwilling sexual molestation is not that much of a problem.

Having a law specifically outlawing it, combined with other laws as well, means more chances of a conviction of people who actually commit it.

While I admit I was concerned about this before, I looked through some of the other proposals currently pending in the list, and - well


Repeal "CHILD LABOR"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #14


Proposed by: HadleysHope

Description: UN Resolution #14: CHILD LABOR (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Here are the problems with this resolution:

1. If the child is intelligent enough to know the potential problems but still wants to work, then it should be up to the parents to determine whether it should be allowed.

2. Most of the potential problems are already covered under Resolution #25, Child Protection Act.

3. The same issues are also covered in Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), sections 5-a and 5-b.

I personally disagree with stepping in to tell anyone (minors or not) that they cannot work in a particular profession. Even if you do not however, it is clear that Resolution #14 is redundant at this point and is no longer needed.

Approvals: 3 (Extreme Darwinists, JS Nijmegen, WZ Forums)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 138 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Dec 4 2004


Now I admit it is possible I am jumping to conclusions, but you want to repeal two resolutions pertaining to children - one that stops people having sex with them, and one that stops them working.

If you combine those two idea it means that children would legally be able to gets jobs having sex with people.

Or is it just co-incidence these two repeals showed up at the same time?

While I admit I was concerned about this before, I looked through some of the other proposals currently pending in the list, and - well



Now I admit it is possible I am jumping to conclusions, but you want to repeal two resolutions pertaining to children - one that stops people having sex with them, and one that stops them working.

If you combine those two idea it means that children would legally be able to gets jobs having sex with people.

Or is it just co-incidence these two repeals showed up at the same time?

Yes, it is just coincidence. Yes, I did say that it should be up to the parents to raise their kids as far as the "child prostitution" thing, but that thought really never occured to me until someone else brought it up. It's not the government's job to raise kids.

Yes, it is just coincidence. Yes, I did say that it should be up to the parents to raise their kids as far as the "child prostitution" thing, but that thought really never occured to me until someone else brought it up. It's not the government's job to raise kids.

Still - I think that saying it is not the government's job to protect children from being sexually exploited is somewhat ill advised.

Most adults in my nation carry around military-grade assault rifles. Unwilling sexual molestation is not that much of a problem.

This is not necessarily true in all other nations.

Besides, (I'm starting to sound like a broken record) if children don't have guns to protect them then their parents can do that for them.

Still - I think that saying it is not the government's job to protect children from being sexually exploited is somewhat ill advised.

Depends on what you mean by "exploited". If it's that person's choice you really can't say they were "exploited". If not then I have already said it should be illegal (for *anyone*, not just children).

Besides, (I'm starting to sound like a broken record) if children don't have guns to protect them then their parents can do that for them.

But what if the parents are the ones that want to sell their children to the highest bidder for one night of passion?

The government should have the right to step in to protect the children against it's parents. They are about the only people who can.

And, if I haven't mentioned it before, repealing this resolution would open up the potential for a child sex industry the likes of which even The Powers have never seen. Which is NOT a good thing.

But what if the parents are the ones that want to sell their children to the highest bidder for one night of passion?

The government should have the right to step in to protect the children against it's parents. They are about the only people who can.

And, if I haven't mentioned it before, repealing this resolution would open up the potential for a child sex industry the likes of which even The Powers have never seen. Which is NOT a good thing.

*sigh* Yes, but (here we go again) in that case the child is clearly the victim of unwanted sexual assualt and that should be considered illegal by the existing laws stated above. Let me reiterate that I *DO* believe it is wrong but I still do not see the need for an *additional* law specifically for children.

Seriously? You don't see the difference between someone paying a 25 year old woman (who consents) to sleep with you and paying the same woman to sleep with her five year old daughter?

I noticed you didn't specify "who consents" in the case of the five year-old daughter, in which case it would clearly be wrong anyway. And no (assuming consent), I do not see the difference, in the sense that I believe *neither* should be allowed.

*sigh* Yes, but (here we go again) in that case the child is clearly the victim of unwanted sexual assualt and that should be considered illegal by the existing laws stated above. Let me reiterate that I *DO* believe it is wrong but I still do not see the need for an *additional* law specifically for children.

Generally when the child is not permitted to consent to something, the parent is permitted to consent (surgery, school etc). So why can this not extend to sex? A child below the age of consent can have consent from the parents to be a sexual object.

And if it isn't, but it's parents say it is, and it is scared of the parents, would it argue?

Without a law protecting children from sexual molestation (which btw is a polite way of saying rape) then they will be open up to abuse of almost any type if the government has the same niave view of the world as you appear to.

I noticed you didn't specify "who consents" in the case of the five year-old daughter, in which case it would clearly be wrong anyway. And no (assuming consent), I do not see the difference, in the sense that I believe *neither* should be allowed.

Four options in the case of the daughter.

1) Neither consent. This would be rape, and would most likely get prosecuted (assuming there are laws against rape in a nation)
2) The mother consents, the child doesn't. This would also be rape, but if it comes to court and the mother INSISTS that the child consented, as does the man, who would the court believe? And if the kid is scared of the mother then it might just say it did anyway.
3) The mother doesn't consent, but the child does. This would not be rape, except that since the mother can say it is she can lure someone in to sex with the child and then get him banged up for ever and day.
4) They both consent. Again the child might just do it because they are scared of the mother.

This resolution is very important - it protects children from those who would abuse them in a way that no other law in the UN does. It closes all the loopholes that the others leave ope, because they were not designed to deal with children as sex objects.

I know - the resolution doesn't say that you can't have sex with other people. But what resolution would? You can put up a proposal saying rape is illegal throughout the UN, but I am not sure where it would pass.

This resolution was designed to stop children being exploited by the sex industry. Just because it doesn't protect anyone else is no reason to repeal it.

Generally when the child is not permitted to consent to something, the parent is permitted to consent (surgery, school etc). So why can this not extend to sex? A child below the age of consent can have consent from the parents to be a sexual object.

And if it isn't, but it's parents say it is, and it is scared of the parents, would it argue?

Without a law protecting children from sexual molestation (which btw is a polite way of saying rape) then they will be open up to abuse of almost any type if the government has the same niave view of the world as you appear to.

I am not "naive", but it does seem that I am guilty of not having a grasp of technical legal issues.

Come to think of it, resolution 22 does not protect against this anyway. "Sexual molestation" creates, for me, the implication of a complete lack of consent (by the parents or otherwise), in which case (as I have stated before) it is already covered by res. 53. This goes back to my original point - that res. 22 should be repealed because it really accomplishes nothing. I can certainly add to the repeal proposal a new, replacement, proposal that outlaws all sex with children.

This is not necessarily true in all other nations.

Not my problem.

Besides, (I'm starting to sound like a broken record) if children don't have guns to protect them then their parents can do that for them.

Not if the parents are doing the exploiting or willing to allow it to happen.

I am not "naive", but it does seem that I am guilty of not having a grasp of technical legal issues.


My apologies over my choice of words then :}


Come to think of it, resolution 22 does not protect against this anyway. "Sexual molestation" creates, for me, the implication of a complete lack of consent (by the parents or otherwise), in which case (as I have stated before) it is already covered by res. 53. This goes back to my original point - that res. 22 should be repealed because it really accomplishes nothing. I can certainly add to the repeal proposal a new, replacement, proposal that outlaws all sex with children.

Actually I have to disagree. In matters of sex, parents should not be permitted to consent for their children. And since children below the age of consent can not consent, whether they say they do or not, any time someone has sex with a child, whether the child is willing or not, whether the parents have consented or not, it is an act of sexual molestation, and should be treated as such.

I am not convinced that however tightly worded Protection of Children is that there will not be loopholes that will allow bad things to happen.

My apologies over my choice of words then :}



Actually I have to disagree. In matters of sex, parents should not be permitted to consent for their children. And since children below the age of consent can not consent, whether they say they do or not, any time someone has sex with a child, whether the child is willing or not, whether the parents have consented or not, it is an act of sexual molestation, and should be treated as such.

I am not convinced that however tightly worded Protection of Children is that there will not be loopholes that will allow bad things to happen.

And Res. 22 doesn't do *anything* to keep bad things from happening. It also does not define "sexual molestation" so while your interpretation may be valid it is entirely possible for a nation to create their own. To go with your definition you should create a new proposal (after #22 has been repealed) specifically stating that any sex with minors is outlawed.

Hmmm, where did all those posts by "Beakeran" come from? (yes, that's me - another (non-UN) nation of mine) Guess I shouldn't log in and out of NS while these forums are open...

Hmmm, where did all those posts by "Beakeran" come from? (yes, that's me - another (non-UN) nation of mine) Guess I shouldn't log in and out of NS while these forums are open...

If you remove the email address, it can't post.

Okay, I'm going with my morals on this one.

I don't care how logical, how well thought-out, how well supported by evidence you are, I'm still opposing this repeal.

So, your morals are not logical, well thought out, or supported by evidence.

Pretty bold statement.:)

You scare me DemonLordEnigma.;)

So, your morals are not logical, well thought out, or supported by evidence.

Pretty bold statement.:)

You scare me DemonLordEnigma.;)

Heh. You have me there. I'll admit they are not. ;)

My attempt to craft a decent repeal proposal...

Resolution 22 is not needed because it is redundant. Resolution #25 (Child Protection Act) already states...

"ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)"

Technically this does not cover people who kidnap children to have sex with them. It only says "while in the care" and that could be seen as not applying to those who kidnap children.

This remains Vastiva's issue with the repeal proposed.

Four options in the case of the daughter.

1) Neither consent. This would be rape, and would most likely get prosecuted (assuming there are laws against rape in a nation)
2) The mother consents, the child doesn't. This would also be rape, but if it comes to court and the mother INSISTS that the child consented, as does the man, who would the court believe? And if the kid is scared of the mother then it might just say it did anyway.
3) The mother doesn't consent, but the child does. This would not be rape, except that since the mother can say it is she can lure someone in to sex with the child and then get him banged up for ever and day.
4) They both consent. Again the child might just do it because they are scared of the mother.

This resolution is very important - it protects children from those who would abuse them in a way that no other law in the UN does. It closes all the loopholes that the others leave ope, because they were not designed to deal with children as sex objects.

I know - the resolution doesn't say that you can't have sex with other people. But what resolution would? You can put up a proposal saying rape is illegal throughout the UN, but I am not sure where it would pass.

This resolution was designed to stop children being exploited by the sex industry. Just because it doesn't protect anyone else is no reason to repeal it.

Children can't consent, they're minors. I know theres something in the Resolutions about minors being cared for... bleh, too tired to look it up.

This remains Vastiva's issue with the repeal proposed.

That is what Resolution 53, 5-a is for...

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies"

As stated above, no this does not cover instances in which children might consent to it (or rather, the parents consent for the children) but then Res. 22 doesn't do anything to prevent that anyway.

That is what Resolution 53, 5-a is for...

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies"

As stated above, no this does not cover instances in which children might consent to it (or rather, the parents consent for the children) but then Res. 22 doesn't do anything to prevent that anyway.

However, the original overrides the consent issue in entirety. Its illegal. Period. No discussion, no loopholes. This makes it actually the better law because of that absolutist tendency.

HadleysHope, you seem to have failed to take into account that many people do see the sexual molestation of a child to be worse than that of an adult. This is not to say that the sexual molestation of adults is fine, far from it, but simply that many regard them as different things.

HadleysHope, you seem to have failed to take into account that many people do see the sexual molestation of a child to be worse than that of an adult. This is not to say that the sexual molestation of adults is fine, far from it, but simply that many regard them as different things.

Yes, I know what you mean, but I have never said that molestation should be allowed. I think I've said this before, but that depends on what you mean by "molestation". Does "molestation" imply consent or not? I thought it didn't - am I wrong?

And again I'll repeat myself - if you want to outlaw "sex with children" period, then res. 22 does not do this. You said that many people may interpret it that way, but it should be clearer than it is.

Children under the age of consent are, by definition, unable to consent. Thus the issue of consent is moot.

Perhaps I'm just being sentimental, but I would really prefer knowing that paedophilia is outlawed in all UN nations, which is what Resolution 22 is about. I cannot envisage myself supporting any repeal of this resolution.

Children under the age of consent are, by definition, unable to consent. Thus the issue of consent is moot.

Perhaps I'm just being sentimental, but I would really prefer knowing that paedophilia is outlawed in all UN nations, which is what Resolution 22 is about. I cannot envisage myself supporting any repeal of this resolution.

If the issue of consent is moot, then res. 22 simply doesn't do anything that isn't already done by res. 25 and 53. Res. 53 already protects against anything that someone might do that inflicts "physical or psychological harm on others".

OK, I think I've said enough. It looks like there is just too much opposition to this proposal to be worth trying to put through.

Before you get completely discouraged - it was a good attempt, it was a nice idea. You did your research, and you had good points.

You just happened to pick a topic no one wants to repeal because allowing even the slightest loophole is unthinkable.

So do not take this as a defeat, but a learning experience. You done good work. Keep going.

Just not on that one.

Having read most of what has been said, any resolution that prevents child abuse, in whatever category that may be, has to be a major plus for any nation. You've raised many issues, even though from my point of view, some do not coincide with each other.

If the law, in any nation or any country, provides protection from any predator, whether it be members of the family, a friend and or even worse still, a complete stranger, then it is up to the law of that country to punish those predators to the full extent of the law, allowable.

Having said that, I do realise that there are those within their own nations that will continue to flout and manipulate the law for their own personal gains.

Child abuse, whether it be mentally, physically or emotionally will continue to grow in greater numbers in years to come, while us leaders argue the point over what resolution should or should not be repealed.

It has become beyond the necessity to cease talking about this issue and to take positive steps to ensure the safety of our children. If that means, the law enforcement agencies have to carry guns and rifles around, then so be it.
To ignore the crying needs of our children can only be disastrous for any country.