NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Goobergunchia

Description: RESOLVED, That the act of sexual molestation of a pre-pubescent minor is hereby outlawed in all UN member nations.

Votes For: 11739

Votes Against: 1363

Implemented: Fri Jul 18 2003

Please excuse me if this has already come up and struck down, or if this is in the works right now, but does anybody else sense a need to reform this resolution?

Please note: I AM AGAINST PEDOPHILA IN EVERY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

With that said, I would like to add a few things.

1. It does not specify who the molestor is (agewise)...for all we know it could be a child of 10 touching a prepubescent' girl of 15 or so under a nasty loophole...

2. Does it only include molestation? How about intercourse? How about child pronography sites? How about indecent photography?

3. A 60-year old man can still do anything he wants with a pubescent 13-year old boy.

4. The issue is a bit stronger than mild.

I am thinking about repealing and remaking this, but I would appreciate some input first.

I am pretty sure its been done dear, in more then one resolution ... ( E.g. a specific one for it ... and a few bits an bobs stuck in others ) ...

Please excuse me if this has already come up and struck down, or if this is in the works right now, but does anybody else sense a need to reform this resolution?

Nope.

Please note: I AM AGAINST PEDOPHILA IN EVERY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

With that said, I would like to add a few things.

Not needed.

1. It does not specify who the molestor is (agewise)...for all we know it could be a child of 10 touching a prepubescent' girl of 15 or so under a nasty loophole...

True. But not necessarily a bad thing.

2. Does it only include molestation? How about intercourse? How about child pronography sites? How about indecent photography?

Already covered by the Child Protection Act.

3. A 60-year old man can still do anything he wants with a pubescent 13-year old boy.

Nope. See Child Protection Act.

4. The issue is a bit stronger than mild.

Not really a good reason.

I am thinking about repealing and remaking this, but I would appreciate some input first.

No changes are really necessary.

Alright I apologize. If the child protection act takes care of this, so be it, I am done.

Please note: I AM AGAINST PEDOPHILA IN EVERY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.


That's good to know :}


1. It does not specify who the molestor is (agewise)...for all we know it could be a child of 10 touching a prepubescent' girl of 15 or so under a nasty loophole...


You have read the resolution properly before you tried to repeal I take it? It does not say people have to be put in jail for this - it just says it has to be outlawed. That means while you can punish someone and put them in jail for the more serious cases, you can also just educate people why it is wrong for cases such as above.



2. Does it only include molestation? How about intercourse? How about child pronography sites? How about indecent photography?


I would say forcing sex on a child is molesting them. And forcing a child to submit to naked photography (for other than "acceptable" reasons such as medical research etc) would be molestation in my nation as well.


3. A 60-year old man can still do anything he wants with a pubescent 13-year old boy.


That is one thing that is something that could be seen as an issue. Except that no where in the resolution does it say that you have to legalize sex with minors past the age of puberty. So you can outlaw that as well - you are just not obliged to under the current resolution.


4. The issue is a bit stronger than mild.


It's not the issue that is at question but what the resolution covers. In this case it says you must outlaw the act of molestation, but it does not endeavour to cover what the punishment for such an act is. It leaves that up to the nation, which means that although it is covering a serious issue, the effect of the resolution is not as intrusive and strong as some of the other resolutions passed and in progress.


I am thinking about repealing and remaking this, but I would appreciate some input first.

Honestly I would not try it. I realise that it leaves some areas unanswered (the post-pubescent child for example), but there is nothing within the resolution itself that I find offensive, intrusive or bad.

Alright I apologize. If the child protection act takes care of this, so be it, I am done.

There you are...this effectively means that I am not going to pursue this topic.

Though I do find it rather stupid that resolutions like this exist, if most of the meaning behind them is lodged in another resolution. How was this passed in the first place? It is so incredibly vague and is filled with loopholes.

There you are...this effectively means that I am not going to pursue this topic.

Though I do find it rather stupid that resolutions like this exist, if most of the meaning behind them is lodged in another resolution. How was this passed in the first place? It is so incredibly vague and is filled with loopholes.

I think this is one of the better ones. Short, to the point and there are no loopholes that would allow people to go against what it says.

And if you read the numbers, this was passed before the Child Protection Act.