NationStates Jolt Archive

While the law itself has a fundamentally good message, it is nowhere near detailed enough to remain a UN mandated law. The resolution itself is barly one sentence, and needs to be completley rewritten to include minors that consent to sexual activities with adults, as well as set a UN mandated punishment for those that engage in sexually explicit acts with minors, and set an age of what a minor is.

While the law itself has a fundamentally good message,

Agreed

it is nowhere near detailed enough to remain a UN mandated law.

Debatable

The resolution itself is barly one sentence, and needs to be completley rewritten to include minors that consent to sexual activities with adults,

NAY. The entire belief of pediophilia is that those children are unable to make that decision. I will not protect an adult's right to have sex with a child if he can pressure the child to agree ("hey, I'll give you candy if you'll let me stick this thing in that hole down there!", "Let daddy do this or no TV for a week")

as well as set a UN mandated punishment for those that engage in sexually explicit acts with minors,

We've had UN mandated punishments for anything yet?

and set an age of what a minor is.

Nay. Too many RP issues not to mention that this age is different in different countries in RL - from 14 to 18. Considering that some nations don't have any citizens that are alive by the time their 18 (due to species' average lifespan being quite a bit shorter than that of a human), and others where the children haven't even hit puberty by then.....setting an actual age is ridiculous.

While the law itself has a fundamentally good message, it is nowhere near detailed enough to remain a UN mandated law. The resolution itself is barly one sentence, and needs to be completley rewritten to include minors that consent to sexual activities with adults, as well as set a UN mandated punishment for those that engage in sexually explicit acts with minors, and set an age of what a minor is.


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


Minors can't consent to sex with adults - that is why most nations have an age of consent.
Secondly the UN has NO business deciding what punishments are set. Because some nations will want the death penalty, others will want castration and yet others will want life in prison (none of which is acceptable to my country by the way).
And thirdly if you try to set an international age of consent then you have no idea of the chaos you will cause.
And finally the fact it is one sentence doesn't matter - you can write damn good laws with one sentence :}

The only issue I have with it is that it goes out of it's way to say "pre-pubescent minors" - meaning that if a child reaches puberty before they reach the age of majority, it can be argued they are exempt from the protection of this resolution. Which is kind of a serious loophole :}

But if you take out "prepubescent" then it's a very good resolution - short, to the point, doesn't over-reach. What a resolution should be.

having looked at the original resolution the Empire of Kirisubo is content for this to stay as is it.

as regards punishments its up to the country concerned and the age of consent is different in each country.

for example in Kirisubo people can be married at 16 years of age and its an ancient tradition for us.

Let each country apply this their way and lets get back to some proper business!

No, the resolution was adaquate and I would dislike getting into the practice of creating a specific definition for everything that might leave loopholes to allow paedophiles to practice their sick peversion.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The only issue I have with it is that it goes out of it's way to say "pre-pubescent minors" - meaning that if a child reaches puberty before they reach the age of majority, it can be argued they are exempt from the protection of this resolution. Which is kind of a serious loophole :}

It's because in many nations, the age of consent is lower than that of majority (e.g. in reality, the UK has majority at 18, consent at 16. In the Netherlands, I think you can consent to sex with those 16 and under from the age of 12, and consent to sex with adults from age 16, while the age of majority is, I believe, 18).

It's because in many nations, the age of consent is lower than that of majority (e.g. in reality, the UK has majority at 18, consent at 16. In the Netherlands, I think you can consent to sex with those 16 and under from the age of 12, and consent to sex with adults from age 16, while the age of majority is, I believe, 18).

And I have no problem with doing that, but what if a country has an age of majority of 18, but children reach purberty by the age of 9? Should people be permitted, under UN law, to have sex with nine year old kids cause they are post-pubescent?

Anyways... I have no desire to repeal the law cause it would lead to all sorts of things, probably bad things. I am just having a binge of questioning all resolutions, on the assumption that blind acceptance of laws makes us the hapless puppets of governments :}

OOC: I wish more people in reality would take that stance and keep it.

And I have no problem with doing that, but what if a country has an age of majority of 18, but children reach purberty by the age of 9? Should people be permitted, under UN law, to have sex with nine year old kids cause they are post-pubescent?

It is the view of Stealthmunchkania that such cases are best left to the discretion of individual member states. It is reasonable that all or most pre-pubescents (in species which have puberty) below the age of majority are incapable of informed consent. It is however also reasonable that there are cases where post-pubescent minors are capable of such, and this should be left to the discretion of the individual state.

Anyways... I have no desire to repeal the law cause it would lead to all sorts of things, probably bad things. I am just having a binge of questioning all resolutions, on the assumption that blind acceptance of laws makes us the hapless puppets of governments :}

And this is something which Stealthmunchkania applauds profusely.

The people of Cluichstan join our friends in Stealthmunchkania in their applause.

OOC: I wish more people in reality would take that stance and keep it.

(ooc) Me too :}

You couldn't get a repeal of this resolution if you were snorting crushed repeals off the back of a 10 year old boy named Repeal with a repeal in each hand.

Seriously, do you have any idea of what most people will think when they see someone trying to repeal an "Outlaw pedophilia" resolution? =p

You couldn't get a repeal of this resolution if you were snorting crushed repeals off the back of a 10 year old boy named Repeal with a repeal in each hand.

Seriously, do you have any idea of what most people will think when they see someone trying to repeal an "Outlaw pedophilia" resolution? =p

(grin). And given that one of the reasons for the repeal is to deal with the issue of minors who consent to sex with adults, I think most people's fears would be well grounded.

And I have no problem with doing that, but what if a country has an age of majority of 18, but children reach purberty by the age of 9? Should people be permitted, under UN law, to have sex with nine year old kids cause they are post-pubescent?


There is elsewhere a draft for setting a majority which would set it at 16 as it is on another tract in forum..

As for this we feel that the current proposal on Pedophilia is good and needs no changes to it. As our age for males to be fully legal citizens is ten and females is twelve thus they can marry thus sex is legal for them as married couples. We also have strict laws on rape and abuse of any nature against another person regardless of their age. Thus we feel we need no help or input from UN on how to deal with anyone who might assault another person in any way. We have little need for the UN to come in a tell us when to hang a rapist, as we have ropes and trees always available for such........persons as might violate another person.....

"NAY. The entire belief of pediophilia is that those children are unable to make that decision."

no. pedophilia simply means adults are attracted to kids. it does not mean all attracted people become abusive. it does not mean all kids are morons. how you
FEEL about pedophilia has nothing to do with reality.

"I will not protect an adult's right to have sex with a child if he can pressure the child to agree ("hey, I'll give you candy if you'll let me stick this thing in that hole down there!", "Let daddy do this or no TV for a week")"

yes,and it ALWAYS happens that way,right? after all,the media tells us so,and our neighbors all have a degree in spychology right?

a minor who shows maturity and wit should have the right to choose his/her own partner,and the proposal kills this off. a nation can and does get judged by how it treats the least of its citizens. you need a realistic law(s) that will punish the ones who actually rape kids,not the ones who were chosen by the minors. denying kids their god given sexuality is a form of mind control and/or
slavery. punish the ones who really hurt kids,not the ones who befriend them.

a 14year old is not equal to a 2year old. give the young citizens some credit. do like the dutch do and let the child decide if they have been abused...

"NAY. The entire belief of pediophilia is that those children are unable to make that decision."

no. pedophilia simply means adults are attracted to kids. it does not mean all attracted people become abusive. it does not mean all kids are morons. how you
FEEL about pedophilia has nothing to do with reality.

"I will not protect an adult's right to have sex with a child if he can pressure the child to agree ("hey, I'll give you candy if you'll let me stick this thing in that hole down there!", "Let daddy do this or no TV for a week")"

yes,and it ALWAYS happens that way,right? after all,the media tells us so,and our neighbors all have a degree in spychology right?

a minor who shows maturity and wit should have the right to choose his/her own partner,and the proposal kills this off. a nation can and does get judged by how it treats the least of its citizens. you need a realistic law(s) that will punish the ones who actually rape kids,not the ones who were chosen by the minors. denying kids their god given sexuality is a form of mind control and/or
slavery. punish the ones who really hurt kids,not the ones who befriend them.

a 14year old is not equal to a 2year old. give the young citizens some credit. do like the dutch do and let the child decide if they have been abused...

Wow...such vitriol...

We've either got a kid on our hands or a pedophile.

a 14year old is not equal to a 2year old. give the young citizens some credit. do like the dutch do and let the child decide if they have been abused...

A 14 year old is not (usually) pre-pubescent, so under the current legislation, your nation is free to give them the right to consent to sex.

You cannot reasonably give children the right to consent to sex before they reach puberty. You might be catering for one or two extraordinary kids like this, but many many more will suffer abuse which they simply can't understand at this age.

"NAY. The entire belief of pediophilia is that those children are unable to make that decision."

no. pedophilia simply means adults are attracted to kids. it does not mean all attracted people become abusive. it does not mean all kids are morons. how you
FEEL about pedophilia has nothing to do with reality.

"I will not protect an adult's right to have sex with a child if he can pressure the child to agree ("hey, I'll give you candy if you'll let me stick this thing in that hole down there!", "Let daddy do this or no TV for a week")"

yes,and it ALWAYS happens that way,right? after all,the media tells us so,and our neighbors all have a degree in spychology right?

a minor who shows maturity and wit should have the right to choose his/her own partner,and the proposal kills this off. a nation can and does get judged by how it treats the least of its citizens. you need a realistic law(s) that will punish the ones who actually rape kids,not the ones who were chosen by the minors. denying kids their god given sexuality is a form of mind control and/or
slavery. punish the ones who really hurt kids,not the ones who befriend them.

a 14year old is not equal to a 2year old. give the young citizens some credit. do like the dutch do and let the child decide if they have been abused...
Wow... just..wow........ :|


Wow...such vitriol...

We've either got a kid on our hands or a pedophile.
My thoughts exactly.

"NAY. The entire belief of pediophilia is that those children are unable to make that decision."

no. pedophilia simply means adults are attracted to kids. it does not mean all attracted people become abusive. it does not mean all kids are morons. how you
FEEL about pedophilia has nothing to do with reality.

"I will not protect an adult's right to have sex with a child if he can pressure the child to agree ("hey, I'll give you candy if you'll let me stick this thing in that hole down there!", "Let daddy do this or no TV for a week")"

yes,and it ALWAYS happens that way,right? after all,the media tells us so,and our neighbors all have a degree in spychology right?

a minor who shows maturity and wit should have the right to choose his/her own partner,and the proposal kills this off. a nation can and does get judged by how it treats the least of its citizens. you need a realistic law(s) that will punish the ones who actually rape kids,not the ones who were chosen by the minors. denying kids their god given sexuality is a form of mind control and/or
slavery. punish the ones who really hurt kids,not the ones who befriend them.

a 14year old is not equal to a 2year old. give the young citizens some credit. do like the dutch do and let the child decide if they have been abused...

On the same basis would you be willing to see minors executed for crimes they committed? Would you be willing to see minors entering in to business contracts, buying houses, doing full times jobs and so forth? Would you be willing to see a minor running a country, making life and death decisions every day? Cause if you can argue that a child can be "mature enough to have sex" you can argue they are mature enough to be executed for a crime, and to lead the country.

Further more it would be very easy to befriend a child, and "talk them in to" having sex with no co-ercion, no punishment, no rape or abuse.

Consent has to be FULLY INFORMED consent otherwise it is not consent at all - it is co-ercion.

"I will not protect an adult's right to have sex with a child if he can pressure the child to agree ("hey, I'll give you candy if you'll let me stick this thing in that hole down there!", "Let daddy do this or no TV for a week")"

yes,and it ALWAYS happens that way,right? after all,the media tells us so,and our neighbors all have a degree in spychology right?


No - it doesn't always happen that way. I will accept that maybe a child (say a child of 9, 10) can feel love for someone, and want to show it. But maybe when they grow a little bit older (say 13, 14) they will realise it was a childish love and don't want to be involved in it any more.

(For those of you who can remember that far back, who fell in love with their first or second year teacher? Or was that just me?)

Also we have laws in our country that if you kill someone, you go to trial. Now sometimes you kill in self-defence, in which case you still go to trial, but are generally let off. But if you kill someone you ALWAYS go to trial. Why? Because sometimes killings are needed to defend yourself (very few times), and the law has no problem with that. But most of the time they are not, they are either murder or some other crime. And until the trial, you can not tell which of the two groups you fall in to - it is not up to the police who make the arrest to make that distinction.

Anyways - sometimes it happens like that - I can accept it (just about).

But what about all the other times? Adults can threaten kids to keep quiet - we have ample evidence of that. Kids might not want to see their parents go to jail, or their aunt go to jail, so they say they consented. Kids might not even understand what is happening and consent to it.

If we are - as you requested - to be judged on how we treat the least of our citizens then we should protect all of them from potential abuse. We don't allow criminals to be beaten or tortured, because they are at the mercy of the state. We don't allow the mentally ill to be made fun of, cause it would be cruel.

So why should we permit children to be raped, then co-erced in to silence, and have the government condone these actions?

As the law stands - if you have sex with someone who is underage, you go to jail. There is no way for the child to consent. If the child was really in love, and mature enough to understand the concept of sex, then they would be mature enough to wait until they grow up and pass the age of consent so that they don't get their loved one in trouble.


(Yeah - okay. I am on a rant. But seriously - I think ranting is the best way to go with this!)

I rarely support any UN proposal, but if someone writes one that mandates castration of pedophiles, I'll stump for votes. I'll also bring a sharp knife to the victory party.

AK_ID

you can argue they are mature enough to be executed for a crime...

...Happens in the US!

...Happens in the US!

Well..... yes. But even they accept kids should be protected from adults when it comes to some matters :}

On the same basis would you be willing to see minors executed for crimes they committed? Would you be willing to see minors entering in to business contracts, buying houses, doing full times jobs and so forth? Would you be willing to see a minor running a country, making life and death decisions every day? Cause if you can argue that a child can be "mature enough to have sex" you can argue they are mature enough to be executed for a crime, and to lead the country.

Can a child consent to a hug? Can a child consent to an immunization shot? Can a child consent if they are offered a glass of water? A soda? An ice cream cone? Can a child consent to learning to swim? to learning to ride a bike? to learning to play football?

Not only does our society generally allow children to consent to these things, but in some cases it even allows parents to force their children to accept or do these things - all of which carry some degree of danger (even if small). The real question is not consent (since society has consistently shown that it really doesn't give a damn about a child's consent), but whether sex is harmful to children. There is simply no convincing evidence that sex (in and of itself) is harmful to children. All we have is a lot of moralistic and religious garbage.

My question for you is: why do you associate sexuality, criminality, business, and government? (OK - I understand why you associate criminality, business, and government, but where does sexuality come in?)


Baldur of South Niflheim

Um...exceuse me, but the NAMBLA meeting is next door...

Maybe you should ask a child who has had to undergo surgery to repair the damage after being raped by an adult if sex is dangerous in and of itself to them.

Or maybe ask them about the complete loss of trust in an adult they loved and trusted who used and abused them.

Most children are able to tell when something isn't right but in the case of sexual abuse are overpowered by the adult into either believing its ok and normal, or that the people they love the most will not love them anymore if they don't do what the adult wants. Kids are very impressionable and most have a definite tendacy to believe what adults tell them.

Children don't need protection from your examples, guidance yes, but not protection. They most certainly do need protection from adult predators.

This resolution should be left alone. It does its job.

"NAY. The entire belief of pediophilia is that those children are unable to make that decision."

no. pedophilia simply means adults are attracted to kids. it does not mean all attracted people become abusive. it does not mean all kids are morons. how you
FEEL about pedophilia has nothing to do with reality.

*sighs*

1) Please check your facts:
ped·o·phil·i·a Audio pronunciation of "pedophilia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pd-fl-, pd-)
n.

The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

Considering that most people who are charged with pediophilia are either having sex with or taking nude pictures of children (specifically pre-pubescent), from a legal point of view, its when you actually conduct an ACT of pediophilia that results in actually using the child (if you masturbate to a normal picture of a child....you aren't going to get charged, but if you get their nude pictures..... - though personally I have an issue with being arrested for receiving the pictures - regardless, that part isn't covered by the resolution in question.)

2) The resolution states:
RESOLVED, That the act of sexual molestation of a pre-pubescent minor is hereby outlawed in all UN member nations.

Pretty much, you have sex with a child, you're in deep crap. I'll address the rest of the issue in a sec

"I will not protect an adult's right to have sex with a child if he can pressure the child to agree ("hey, I'll give you candy if you'll let me stick this thing in that hole down there!", "Let daddy do this or no TV for a week")"

yes,and it ALWAYS happens that way,right? after all,the media tells us so,and our neighbors all have a degree in spychology right?

Because, of course, its so easy to discern between a child consenting to sex and a child effectively being "bought".

a minor who shows maturity and wit should have the right to choose his/her own partner,and the proposal kills this off. a nation can and does get judged by how it treats the least of its citizens. you need a realistic law(s) that will punish the ones who actually rape kids,not the ones who were chosen by the minors. denying kids their god given sexuality is a form of mind control and/or
slavery. punish the ones who really hurt kids,not the ones who befriend them.

Wow, a pre-pubescent has a full-fledged sex drive? Please, think that one through a bit more.

a 14year old is not equal to a 2year old. give the young citizens some credit. do like the dutch do and let the child decide if they have been abused...

A 14 year old is not covered by this law. A 2 year old is. Know the difference. If you honestly think I'm talking about late-teens, you haven't been doing enough research.

Can a child consent to a hug? Can a child consent to an immunization shot? Can a child consent if they are offered a glass of water? A soda? An ice cream cone? Can a child consent to learning to swim? to learning to ride a bike? to learning to play football?


They can't consent it immunization shots, because it's assumed that the parent of the child knows better, and decides whether the shot is given.

The other things are all stupid examples - if they don't want a drink they don't have one, if they don't want to play football, they don't - it's very hard to force them to do it, and people who do use force against the child are generally punished.


Not only does our society generally allow children to consent to these things, but in some cases it even allows parents to force their children to accept or do these things - all of which carry some degree of danger (even if small). The real question is not consent (since society has consistently shown that it really doesn't give a damn about a child's consent), but whether sex is harmful to children. There is simply no convincing evidence that sex (in and of itself) is harmful to children. All we have is a lot of moralistic and religious garbage.


Really? No evidence that a child can be raped and molested and then be forced/blackmailed in to saying "yes I gave my consent". No evidence whether or not the consent the child gives is fully informed.

You are also quoting "children" - how young? When does it become bad thing? Are we going to say two year olds consent? Or do they have to be able to talk? How much do they have to be able to talk to understand what it is they are consenting to? Is silence acceptable consent ("she didn't object when I had sex with her so I assumed it was alright") or do they have to be able to say yes, rather than not say no. And if they are of a basic literacy level, who gets to explain what sex is? The person who wants to have sex with the kid, or an independent party?
Maybe the kid has an idea of what sex is, and thinks it is holding hands (cause the kid is misinformed). After they have been molested, the adult can still say the kid consented.

Further more there are people who are pretty damn convincing out there - they can scam old ladies out of their income, con the government out of its money. Do you honestly believe that someone like that could NOT convince a child that sex is what the child wants, even if the child has no idea what is going on?


My question for you is: why do you associate sexuality, criminality, business, and government? (OK - I understand why you associate criminality, business, and government, but where does sexuality come in?)


Because sex has to be a consenting act between two people, who fully understand what they are consenting to. As do most acts that require consent (surgery is not permitted in Pallatium unless the patient gives fully informed consent, for example).


If we accept the fact that kids don't need to be of age, or have all the information at their hands, to consent to sex, why not send them back down the mines? Why not declare them adults when they are born and kick them out of the house?

I know you hate to see responces to old posts but this one is important to me. The suggestion that NAMBLA is the only organization opposed to age of consent laws is delusional.

As some of you have asserted sexual contact isn't harmful in and of itself. It's the force that hurt's. The assertion is there when you suggest the no age of conscent makes it impossable to prosecute real rape cases.

I know you hate to see responces to old posts but this one is important to me. The suggestion that NAMBLA is the only organization opposed to age of consent laws is delusional.

As some of you have asserted sexual contact isn't harmful in and of itself. It's the force that hurt's. The assertion is there when you suggest the no age of conscent makes it impossable to prosecute real rape cases.

While you are partly right - that the force is harmful - it's also the deceit. You live the first part of your life blindly accepting that what daddy is doing is right, that he loves you and would never do anything wrong. So every night he creeps in to your room, in to your bed, and does something you don't understand - and because you don't understand it you don't realise it's wrong - that he is doing something wrong. Even when he tells you it is a secret it doesn't seem wrong - just part of a game that you and dad can play.

Or maybe he tells you that if you tell anyone, they will blame you, and kick you out of the house. That you will be the one who is punished. That you will be taken away from your family and held up as an object of ridicule.

Parents should protect their children - adults should protect the young. The young are (generally) entirely helpless in the world - they have no experiences to look back on and decide what to do - they can only go off what they are told. And for an adult to take advantage of that - to destroy a child's innocence by lying just so the adult can engage in something the kid does not understand - is dispicable behaviour.

Force - physical abuse - is one issue. But you appear to be entirely overlooking the concept of emotional abuse - that by lying, manipulating, abusing and degrading a child throughout their formative years, you are doing much, much worse damage to that kid than any physical force ever could.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

These repealers are heading in the direction of the rediculous.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

These repealers are heading in the direction of the rediculous.

As is your spelling

Sex isn't wrong

Sex is a perfectly ok thing to do. While there are risks such as STDs and pregnancy mostly in the area of intercourse risks. Much of the sex that goes on in intergenerational sex isn't intercourse but than again those acts are not covered under age of consent but other laws. I'd like to remind you that it is penises and vaginas whith some chests thrown in. No different than toes, ears, and noses. What people choose to do with them should be of no conscern to any one else less there are physical risks. There are many misconseptions about intergenerational sexual play.

Here is a good question. Do you think the student who fathered 2 children with his ex teacher than latter married her was some how harmed by the act.?

We are not worried about intergenerational sex, we're worried about pedophilia; a very different thing.
So, using your question
Do you think the student who fathered 2 children with his ex teacher than latter married her was some how harmed by the act.?
If the father was 18, no problem. If the father was four, then it would be a problem....

We are, quite frankly, shocked that this proposal repeal is even being debated by rational adults.

I rarely support any UN proposal, but if someone writes one that mandates castration of pedophiles, I'll stump for votes. I'll also bring a sharp knife to the victory party.

Perhaps the good representative from AK_ID would be interested in the Kawaiian model for dealing with such behavior. According to Our legal code, the punishment for people convicted of pedophilia is to be made the star attraction in Our highly popular televised game show, "Survivor: High Security". Basically, they are put into the general prison population and monitored with cameras 24/7. Our nation's betting parlors are then allowed to manage wagering on how long they survive and how creative a manner their demise is.

Sex isn't wrong


We are not talking about sex. We are talking about blackmail, emotional abuse, deciet, lying and ruining people's lives.

All of which ARE WRONG by any stretch of the imagination.


Sex is a perfectly ok thing to do. While there are risks such as STDs and pregnancy mostly in the area of intercourse risks. Much of the sex that goes on in intergenerational sex isn't intercourse but than again those acts are not covered under age of consent but other laws. I'd like to remind you that it is penises and vaginas whith some chests thrown in. No different than toes, ears, and noses. What people choose to do with them should be of no conscern to any one else less there are physical risks. There are many misconseptions about intergenerational sexual play.


We are not talking about sex. We are talking about blackmail, emotional abuse, deciet, lying and ruining people's lives.

All of which ARE WRONG by any stretch of the imagination.


Here is a good question. Do you think the student who fathered 2 children with his ex teacher than latter married her was some how harmed by the act.?

The teacher took advantage of her position and should be ashamed of herself, and she has been treated as such.

But here's a question - is a five year old who is forced to have sex with her father, then forced to lie about it to her mother and older sister harmed by the act?

We are, quite frankly, shocked that this proposal repeal is even being debated by rational adults.


Have a look at the nations who are arguing for it, then have a look at their region. Then you will move beyond shocked and in to scared.

Have a look at the nations who are arguing for it, then have a look at their region. Then you will move beyond shocked and in to scared.

* 17 hours ago: The Rogue Nation of Hot Little Girls arrived from DOMAI.
* 44 days ago: The Oppressed Peoples of Not4chan arrived from WTFuxLand.
* 88 days ago: The Republic of Freelovedom ceased to exist.
* 134 days ago: The Democratic Republic of Avastania ceased to exist.
* 143 days ago: The Republic of Pedownia ceased to exist.
* 188 days ago: The Empire of Saigotopia ceased to exist.
* 204 days ago: The Borderlands of Paedistan ceased to exist.
* 208 days ago: The Confederacy of Cradelia ceased to exist.
* 209 days ago: The Girlish Sultanate of Irredentist Dreamers arrived from The East Pacific.
* 211 days ago: Pedostan lost UN Delegate status.


XP

As is your spelling

I tend to be a bit careless when I am doing many things at once.

I have to say, for once I agree with Pallatium, this repeal is just stupid. First of all, why the hell would someone want to repeal a law that bans paedophilia? EI shudder to think of the atrocities happening while there is no law against it. Also, I would not like the punishments spelled out ina UN resolution. Through experience with my own proposals, I have learned most UN members dislike the sort of harsh punishment that keeps my nation organised. I would hate for the UN to tell me I cannot apply them, especially against paedophiliacs, who in Habardia are not only castrated, but gutted and impaled (Ban Barbaric Punishments does not apply to them since being convicted of paedophilia makes you lose human status in Habardia). So as you can see, there is absolutely no way in hell Habardia will approve this.

I concur with what has been said about the adequacy of the current resolution in force. By leaving it simple, countries are free to enforce the measures they find acceptable. It doesn't say that you can't go beyond it yourself and the age range of possible legality you discuss (14-18) while not considered pre-pubescent by some species, can easily be covered by domestic laws for nations that feel the neccessity. you are good to look to protect children though and we here in the nation of Kanienkha, applaud your spirit in forwarding this motion.

-Dekaniwida U.N. Delegate for Kanienkha

Have a look at the nations who are arguing for it, then have a look at their region. Then you will move beyond shocked and in to scared.

[does some searching to identify the region in question.]
[finds the region of Queen Maude Mountains.]
[ :eek: ]

We propose that this repeal be tabled, and in its place raise the question of whether NSUN nations may be given sanction to nuke the Region of Queen Maude Mountains.

[does some searching to identify the region in question.]
[finds the region of Queen Maude Mountains.]
[ :eek: ]

We propose that this repeal be tabled, and in its place raise the question of whether NSUN nations may be given sanction to nuke the Region of Queen Maude Mountains.

I would skip a proposal to nuke them and just do it. While I accept there is a degree to which roleplaying is a part of this game, I am not convinced that that is what they are doing.

I would skip a proposal to nuke them and just do it. While I accept there is a degree to which roleplaying is a part of this game, I am not convinced that that is what they are doing.
RP or not RP, I really have zero tolerance for this kind of thing. I suggest just banning them.

RP or not RP, I really have zero tolerance for this kind of thing. I suggest just banning them.
Banning them for what? They're not breaking site rules, seemingly, however offensive you may personally find them.

I would only support a repeal in the event that a replacement version was complete that changed the pre pubescent to something like banning sex with a person below age of majority or below age of being considered an adult in their nation.

I cannot find queen maude mountains. either they split up and killed the region or they were infact nuked.

{edit and correction] the middle word is Maud not Maude

I cannot find queen maude mountains. either they split up and killed the region or they were infact nuked.
Same here.
Banning them for what? They're not breaking site rules, seemingly, however offensive you may personally find them.
Maybe got carried away for a bit here. Its just a very screwed up issue that's all.

Banning them for what? They're not breaking site rules, seemingly, however offensive you may personally find them.

(grin) I was actually talking about RP nuking them - or invading the region (that's permitted, isn't it?), or something else like that.

I cannot find queen maude mountains. either they split up and killed the region or they were infact nuked.

{edit and correction] the middle word is Maud not Maude
ok.

It is a scary region.

(grin) I was actually talking about RP nuking them - or invading the region (that's permitted, isn't it?), or something else like that.

They have an active founder plus what would appear to be five natives. I doubt an invasion would last long. They'd probably ignore an RP nuclear attack. Anyway, so long as their proposal gets nowhere, I think they're best left in peace.

I think it's best that their IP addresses get tracked so that they can be located just incase they are not RPing!

I think it's best that their IP addresses get tracked so that they can be located just incase they are not RPing!

Ok. This is the UN forum. Maybe we should get back to discussing UN resolutions and proposals?

Ok. This is the UN forum. Maybe we should get back to discussing UN resolutions and proposals?
Yes. And the relevant thing is its evident we are not repealing Ban Paedophilia. Ok? Next, please.

Point taken.
I would like to reiterate my personal opinion that the repeal should only happen if a second prposal to rplace it is ready that changes the words pre pubescent to something like 'age of majority'

there is one thing i just thought of in regards to repealing resolutions like this one: if the resolution is repealed, does that invalidate the conviction of people imprisoned for violating the laws established by this resolution? if so, it could lead to costly law-suits against goverments as well

there is one thing i just thought of in regards to repealing resolutions like this one: if the resolution is repealed, does that invalidate the conviction of people imprisoned for violating the laws established by this resolution?
I don't think so. Just like when a new resolution is passed, we don't imprison all that went against it before it passed.

No as most sensible nations would still have paedophilia/child abuse laws in the statute books.
*OOC* really this would be a local or regional law at a stretch rather than international but due to people feeling strongly about protecting vulnerable people like children and minorities they still get discussed and get resolutions passed for them.

No as most sensible nations would still have paedophilia/child abuse laws in the statute books.
some might not have had them implimented before the resolution was passed, and some who have been convicted might use the fact that the resolution has been repealed to seek invalidation of their sentence and seek compensation

I don't think so. Just like when a new resolution is passed, we don't imprison all that went against it before it passed.
there is a difference between invoking a resolution retrospectivly to convict people, and convicting them after it has been enacted. those who have been convicted on the basis of this resoloution could seek repeal based simply on the fact that they were imprisoned by a law that has been repealed

there is a difference between invoking a resolution retrospectivly to convict people, and convicting them after it has been enacted. those who have been convicted on the basis of this resoloution could seek repeal based simply on the fact that they were imprisoned by a law that has been repealed
I see your point. However, when they were convicted the resolution was legal, so I don't see their argument holding up. The only problem I see would be people whose trial is under way when something is repealed.

well, there is always a chance that the precident can be set, and i dont know many nations that would want that to be allowed

well, there is always a chance that the precident can be set, and i dont know many nations that would want that to be allowed
Im not sure I get what you mean.

well, if a precident is set in a case of repealing a sentence based on the repeal of a UN resolution being succesful, and the compensation claim is successful too, then it can have rammifcations on other simmilar resolutions being repealed, as well as local laws being overturned. once someone succesfully appeals, and succesfully gains compensation, a whole floodgate could open on many levels

well, if a precident is set in a case of repealing a sentence based on the repeal of a UN resolution being succesful, and the compensation claim is successful too, then it can have rammifcations on other simmilar resolutions being repealed, as well as local laws being overturned. once someone succesfully appeals, and succesfully gains compensation, a whole floodgate could open on many levels
I see. That would be a terrible effect. However, since other laws have already been repealed and this has not happened yet, I would not worry too much about it.

To my esteemed and honored colleagues of the United Nations:

I have received word from several constitutional scholars in my home nation of Krioval, and while their information appears to be limited to our circumstances, it may be applicable in other nations as well. With regard to the possibility for releasing those convicted of pedophilia upon repeal of a United Nations resolution, it will not occur in Krioval due to our laws not being changed by such a repeal. Therefore, it stands to reason that other nations, having their own legal systems, may maintain a ban on pedophilia even if the NSUN ban were repealed. I hope this has been of some level of use to those present.

高原由
Yoshi Takahara
United Nations Ambassador
Krioval

there is a difference between invoking a resolution retrospectivly to convict people, and convicting them after it has been enacted. those who have been convicted on the basis of this resoloution could seek repeal based simply on the fact that they were imprisoned by a law that has been repealed

I would, personally, leave it up to the nation - let them decide if they should overturn any previous convictions.

As I said earlier most nations would actually have anti paedophilia laws anyway without this resolution so I doubt that this repeal would cause anyone to be freed as they would have still breached national laws. The only reason that anyone would free paedophiles is if there was a resolution protecting the right to do such a sick act which i pray would never get even one approval nevermind going to the floor.

As I said earlier most nations would actually have anti paedophilia laws anyway without this resolution so I doubt that this repeal would cause anyone to be freed as they would have still breached national laws. The only reason that anyone would free paedophiles is if there was a resolution protecting the right to do such a sick act which i pray would never get even one approval nevermind going to the floor.

Ah - but what if they only have these laws because of the UN resolution?

Example - Hyrule joined the UN right away, and consequently it only has a law against pedophillia because of the UN (it never needed to draft a local law forbidding it, because it was done at an international level).

So if this resolution is repealed, there would be a gap between this law becoming invalid, and Hyrule putting a new one in place. And in that time, technically speaking, it would be illegal to hold anyone for the crime (I am fairly sure false imprisonment is a crime in most nations).

Anyway.

Ah - but what if they only have these laws because of the UN resolution?

Example - Hyrule joined the UN right away, and consequently it only has a law against pedophillia because of the UN (it never needed to draft a local law forbidding it, because it was done at an international level).

So if this resolution is repealed, there would be a gap between this law becoming invalid, and Hyrule putting a new one in place. And in that time, technically speaking, it would be illegal to hold anyone for the crime (I am fairly sure false imprisonment is a crime in most nations).

Anyway.
But the lawmakers in Hyrule upon seeing this repeal come up for vote could preemptively decide to keep the laws against pedophilia on the books irregardless of the outcome of the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

If the effect of Resolution #22 was as its title suggests--to "outlaw pedophilia"--we would support its repeal. Pedophilia is a psychological condition, and you can't criminalize a mental state. But the resolution doesn't do that. It criminalizes a specific act: "the act of sexual molestation of a pre-pubescent minor". We see no compelling reason for its repeal. If a proposal were to be drafted establishing more definitive guidelines and accommodating some of the concerns members have expressed here, we would give it careful attention. We believe that could be easily done without repeal of Resolution #22.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

But the lawmakers in Hyrule upon seeing this repeal come up for vote could preemptively decide to keep the laws against pedophilia on the books irregardless of the outcome of the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Hopefully, but that may not be so in every member nation. Habardia already has anti-paedophilia laws (and harsher ones than the UN's at that), bt again, that might not be true of all nations. I think the safest thing to do is just not repeal this. But the issue raised is an interesting one, as it pertains to virtually any other repeal we make in the future.

Pallatium hit the nail on the head with what we were meaning. and this has rammifications for other resolutions in a similar vein (ie outlawing something, leading to encarceration and other such results) being repealed.

(OOC: i thought i would try something different for an argument, and i am surprised no one else had thought of it. with the way the RW is going atm, this could possibly happen, and i thought 'why couldnt it happen in NS as well')

Pallatium hit the nail on the head with what we were meaning. and this has rammifications for other resolutions in a similar vein (ie outlawing something, leading to encarceration and other such results) being repealed.

(OOC: i thought i would try something different for an argument, and i am surprised no one else had thought of it. with the way the RW is going atm, this could possibly happen, and i thought 'why couldnt it happen in NS as well')
Yes, but truth be told, there's not much we can do about it. All that could be done is advise member nations to keep up with UN law in their own legislature, but that is far from happening, with all the particular needs of each nation. Anything further from this would be messing with game mechanics, and the truth is resolutions are going to be repealed in the future, no doubt about it.