NationStates Jolt Archive

At the moment my Right to Education and the Right to Worship proposals do not look as if they will achieve quorum; however, I do plan on resubmitting them. I at the same time would like to look into implementing a resolution to protect the children of nationstates. I think parts of this may seem to go a bit too far, but at times the simple demand that access be provided I think may satisfy both sides.


Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,

Whereas mankind owes to the child the best it has to give,

Therefore the United Nations proclaims this Declaration of the Rights of the Child to the end that he may have a happy childhood and enjoy for his own good and for the good of society the rights and freedoms herein set forth, and calls upon parents, upon men and women as individuals, and upon voluntary organizations, local authorities and national governments to recognize these rights and strive for their observance by legislative and other measures progressively taken in accordance with the following principles:

1. The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, color, sex, language, religion, sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.

2. The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

3. The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.

4. The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services.

5. The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required by his particular condition.

6. The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of state and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

7. The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory, until the age of 18. He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities, his individual judgment, and his sense of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member of society.

8. The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.

9. The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities, shall endeavor to promote the enjoyment of this right.

10. The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. He shall not be the subject of traffic, in any form.

11. The child shall not be admitted to employment before an appropriate minimum age; he shall in no case be caused or permitted to engage in any occupation or employment which would prejudice his health or education, or interfere with his physical, mental or moral development.

12. The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

Ooooh, yummy.


Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,

Alright.



Whereas mankind owes to the child the best it has to give,

Bullpucky.



Therefore the United Nations proclaims this Declaration of the Rights of the Child to the end that he may have a happy childhood and enjoy for his own good and for the good of society the rights and freedoms herein set forth, and calls upon parents, upon men and women as individuals, and upon voluntary organizations, local authorities and national governments to recognize these rights and strive for their observance by legislative and other measures progressively taken in accordance with the following principles:


Boilerplate.



1. The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, color, sex, language, religion, sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.

Alright.



2. The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

No. We do execute children and will continue to do so, in the interests of the State, which are paramount.



3. The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.

Alright.



4. The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services.

We categorically deny any right to "prenatal" care - during that period, there is no legal child, there is a parasite. It has no rights.

We also refuse to pay for everyone's health care. We are not the parent of the planet.



5. The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required by his particular condition.

Alright... about that funding question...



6. The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of state and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.

No. We find no reason for a mother to have preferencial condition over a father in, for example, divorce proceedings. We also repeat - we are not the caretakers of all children and see no reason those unable to pay for the children they have not to accept additional burdens in support - and jail if they cannot support them. Actions have consequences.



7. The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory, until the age of 18. He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities, his individual judgment, and his sense of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member of society.

Covered at least in part in prior resolution.



8. The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.

questionable at best.



9. The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities, shall endeavor to promote the enjoyment of this right.

The "right to play"? And shall this be used to abrogate legal responsibility?



10. The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. He shall not be the subject of traffic, in any form.

So no cars for children. Got it. :rolleyes:



11. The child shall not be admitted to employment before an appropriate minimum age; he shall in no case be caused or permitted to engage in any occupation or employment which would prejudice his health or education, or interfere with his physical, mental or moral development.

You really are hung up on this moral thing, aren't you? Already covered in another resolution.



12. The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

My, are those little birds singing in the background? This is not possible, particularly in view of #8. Far too idealistic to function in any fashion.

No support.

We categorically deny any right to "prenatal" care - during that period, there is no legal child, there is a parasite. It has no rights.

We also refuse to pay for everyone's health care. We are not the parent of the planet.

That is one of the sections I was worried about... What about right to access as compared to right to care?

No. We find no reason for a mother to have preferencial condition over a father in, for example, divorce proceedings. We also repeat - we are not the caretakers of all children and see no reason those unable to pay for the children they have not to accept additional burdens in support - and jail if they cannot support them. Actions have consequences.

Well that can be changed, but I think you could consider divorce proceedings as "exceptional" or at least that can be easily worked in. Also, state actions in the maintenance of large famillies could involve measures, that don't violate other legislation, to try to limit such families.

questionable at best. There is always concern that the state may undermine the desires of the parents. Without parental support the educational system fails, but more important the child fails to receive an education.

The "right to play"? And shall this be used to abrogate legal responsibility? Well, it is entirely possible to restrict children... child labor, govenmental organizations, etc... This is basically another protection against forced limitations.

My, are those little birds singing in the background? This is not possible, particularly in view of #8. Far too idealistic to function in any fashion. lol... Well I had to try, and well... I guess I have been called an idealist... but then again people call me a pessimist...Anyways, its not possible to really enforce the last part.. but I think its a good ending.

We categorically deny any right to "prenatal" care - during that period, there is no legal child, there is a parasite. It has no rights.

We also refuse to pay for everyone's health care. We are not the parent of the planet.

That is one of the sections I was worried about... What about right to access as compared to right to care?

Non-people have no rights. You could reword it so "pregnant beings have the right of access to...", and that would be acceptable - but the parasite has no rights.



No. We find no reason for a mother to have preferencial condition over a father in, for example, divorce proceedings. We also repeat - we are not the caretakers of all children and see no reason those unable to pay for the children they have not to accept additional burdens in support - and jail if they cannot support them. Actions have consequences.

Well that can be changed, but I think you could consider divorce proceedings as "exceptional" or at least that can be easily worked in. Also, state actions in the maintenance of large famillies could involve measures, that don't violate other legislation, to try to limit such families.

It needs to be reworked, as it cannot be later ammended.



questionable at best.

There is always concern that the state may undermine the desires of the parents. Without parental support the educational system fails, but more important the child fails to receive an education.

It is the job of the State to consider the betterment of all, not a single individual. We supply equal education - this asks us to individualize to an unacceptable degree.



The "right to play"? And shall this be used to abrogate legal responsibility?

Well, it is entirely possible to restrict children... child labor, govenmental organizations, etc... This is basically another protection against forced limitations.

It needs reworking to avoid being used as a manner to avoid prosecution for crimes.

"It's not shoplifting, it's play!"



My, are those little birds singing in the background? This is not possible, particularly in view of #8. Far too idealistic to function in any fashion.

lol... Well I had to try, and well... I guess I have been called an idealist... but then again people call me a pessimist...Anyways, its not possible to really enforce the last part.. but I think its a good ending.

We think it should be cut. It is impossible to effectively implement, and is therefore a waste of money and time.

It is the job of the State to consider the betterment of all, not a single individual. We supply equal education - this asks us to individualize to an unacceptable degree.
Perhaps... Yes, I do believe that education should be avaliable on an equal basis to everyone; however, I also believe that the guardians should have some responsibility in the education of those unable to make the choices themselves.

Also, you might want to work on the age issue. It's a big stickler due to varying rates of maturation in the UN.

Personally, I'm not a fan of gendered references such as 'he' when discussing a gender non-specific entity, but I accept I'm a finicky so-and-so.

It's a good first draft, Zadania, and I hope you're not put off by the (so far) infavourable responses to you proposals. All in all, I agree with some of the delegate from Vastiva's concerns.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Wait a minute. We determined that?
I never get the memoes.



Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth,
No, no, a thousand times no!
Life begins at birth.

The Grand Duchy of YGSM will actively oppose any proposal suggesting otherwise.



Whereas mankind owes to the child the best it has to give,
The "child"? Not the children?
What's you source for this assertion, anyway?
I don't owe other people's children.

This reeks of communist propaganda, in the classic sense.



Therefore the United Nations proclaims this Declaration of the Rights of the Child to the end that he may have a happy childhood and enjoy for his own good and for the good of society the rights and freedoms herein set forth, and calls upon parents, upon men and women as individuals, and upon voluntary organizations, local authorities and national governments to recognize these rights and strive for their observance by legislative and other measures progressively taken in accordance with the following principles:
Does it take a village to raise a child?
It takes parents. The responsibility is on parents, not neighbors.



1. The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, color, sex, language, religion, sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family.
Most of those are covered by previous resolutions and should not be re-legislated.
"Property"? What do you mean, discrimination on account of property?
You're trying to make personal wealth illegal.



2. The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
I can't even guess what you're on about here. You can't even guess how UN members will twist this paragraph.



3. The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.
What nationality? Don't beat around the bush on this one; it's the best clause of the entire resolution. The problem of stateless persons is due to exactly this kind of pussyfooting around.
The child shall be entitled from birth to citizenship in the country of the child's birth.
If you want to mandate that the child should also share the citizenship of the parents, do it. Whatever you do, don't leave this part vague.



4. The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services.
Strip out pre-natal. That belongs in a resolution about expectant mothers, not children.
This is a wonderful clause, and completely ridiculous. You want to, what, outlaw wars, because they'll interfere with the healthy development of the child?
You want to outlaw risky professions for mothers?
You want to outlaw famine?



5. The child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required by his particular condition.
NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. My government provides a lot of these things for handicapped children. You're trying to make it my personal responsibility too.
What's more, this clause is in direct contradictin to your no discrimination clause above.



6. The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without a family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of state and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable.
This reads like a sexist pig wrote it. What, girls aren't entitled to anything?
Wait, you want to scrap the divorce laws of my nationstate and declare that the mother should always get custody of the children?
State assistance to "maintenance[sic]" of children of large families is a prescription for failure. Why should we alow people to have children they can't support?



7. The child is entitled to receive education, which shall be free and compulsory, until the age of 18. He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity, to develop his abilities, his individual judgment, and his sense of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member of society.
1. This is a duplication of an existing resolution (well, two existing resolutions, but who's counting) and is therefore illegal.
ii) That is an amazingly condescending piece of writing. Who are the godlike individuals entitled to set themselves in judgement? Other than yourself, of course.



8. The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.
Do you have any children? Who are you to tell me what my guiding principle shall be?
Now you've managed not just to write a terrible proposal, but to insult me personally. Kudos on that.



9. The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities, shall endeavor to promote the enjoyment of this right.
Wait. You made education free and compulsory. Is recreation also now to be free and compulsory?
So, my taxes now have to subsidize free trips to LesboDisney for all children of my nationstate?



10. The child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. He shall not be the subject of traffic, in any form.
You mean child slavery, child prostitution, child labor, something like that?
Already covered by prior resolutions, and (like most of this resolution) illegal under NSUN rules.



11. The child shall not be admitted to employment before an appropriate minimum age; he shall in no case be caused or permitted to engage in any occupation or employment which would prejudice his health or education, or interfere with his physical, mental or moral development.
So education has to be provided until 18, but child labor can start when "appropriate".



12. The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.
Fascist.

No, I mean that literally.

Listen closely now: Socrates was wrong on this issue. The communists, fascists, and other collectivists were wrong on this issue.

This last clause is so morally reprehensible and violates so many resolutions I'd rather nuke you than discuss it.

I will just say that I hate this resolution.

3. The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.
Isn't that a no brainer? How can you take away somones nationality, if they were born german how can you take that away from them?

12. The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

Having this controlled is impossible, you can't control if a child will form friendships with other people and monitoring every parent with varying degrees of beliefs in raising children in thouse mentioned things. You would like have to keep away books (like the bible) that could influence them in thouse ways, simply impossible to follow.

Hey #12 is another thing i agree with ygsm on.

I would like to support this proposal, I really would. But it is horrible, so I can't.

get rid of this article
12. The child shall be protected from practices which may foster racial, religious and any other form of discrimination. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.
and all of the uses of the ambiguous term "Moral" and you just may win back my support.
The latter is a tool to be used by fascists in the future, and the former is fascist in and of itself. With article twelve, you are all but advocating that all national governments sieze the children of their citizens so as to force them to be raised in such an environment. Discrimination is bad, yes, but taking children away from their parents because you do not agree with their views is worse. Much worse. Not to mention that you would have to repeal so many resolutions, including of course resolution 80, the clause stating that no belief is better than any other.

Ya you really should do drafts before you propose stuff so you can get peoples oppinions, your wording and article #12 is going to be the reason this proposal won't pass.

I will just say that I hate this resolution.

Wow. That's the least you've ever spoken out on something.

...to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually...

This was as far as I read before I decided not to support this based solely on the fact that it uses the words "moral" and "spiritual", which are things that should be left up to the individual and definitely not brought up in the UN.

3. The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.
Isn't that a no brainer? How can you take away somones nationality, if they were born german how can you take that away from them?
This was the one thing in the proposal I thought worthy of a resolution.

There are millions of stateless people in RL. Not just the palestinians, either. Not all governments recognize birth within the borders as a basis for citizenship (Germany would be an example). Not all governments grant citizenship to the children of citizens, if they're born overseas (Australia). And when borders change, all bets are off. Istanbul is reputedly a hotbed of stateless people.

Hey #12 is another thing i agree with ygsm on.
We'll have to stop doing that.