NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Gruenberg

Description: The United Nations,

Horrified by the involvement of children in the pornography industry,

Reaffirming its support for freedom of speech, expression, and media,

Recalling Clause 2 of Resolution #138, "Artistic Freedom", and its provision that work that directly harms others does not constitute protected work,

Further recalling its previous Resolutions #23, "Outlaw Pedophilia", and #25, "The Child Protection Act",

Saddened that there are those who would produce material that does harm others, especially where such harm is sexual, and involves minors,

Determining that such material is not protected from restrictions of production and distribution,

Resolving to adopt a strong stance against child pornography in all forms, and work towards eliminating this moral cancer,

Imploring all UN members to think of the children:

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
- "child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;

2. Requires member nations to prohibit:
- the possession, production, distribution and trade of child pornography;
- any act of coercing a child to participate in the production of child pornography;
- the trade of children for the purposes of the production of child pornography;

3. Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts;

4. Promotes international cooperation in:
- the capture of and facilitation of appropriate legal proceedings against those suspected of involvement in the child pornography trade;
- the seizure, and appropriate further action, such as shipment for the purposes of use as evidence, and thereafter full destruction, of all child pornography;
- the extradition of those suspected of involvement in the child pornography trade for questioning, trial, and random acts of mob brutality;
- the identification and repatriation of children taken abroad through the child pornography;
- the sharing of information on known child pornography producers and distributors between law enforcement agencies;

5. Supports all efforts at providing for the wellbeing and recovery of victims of child pornography.

This is a proposal by the Gruenberger think tank "Mothers Against Weird Stuff".

The proposal may be found here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=child).

Please approve it. After all, you don't hate children...

...do you?

Interesting that a person who has spent her time here banging on about National Sovereignty is going to leave a moral decency proposal behind as her "legacy". Rather unfitting legacy for the person in question.

Unfortunately, it is the policy of the Forgotten Territories not to change their position on an issue based upon the person or people endorsing it, no matter how vile that creature may be. We once again find ourselves unfortunately in support of the Gruenberg delegation. I would push for a new policy, but you are leaving anyways and I'm stuck here for a bit so it isn't worth ruining my reputation over.

On a side note, while this is far from a support killer, we have always had an issue with the concept of punishing someone for possession of material with no provable intent to distribute. They are not directly harming the children and so we have found that we struggle with the concept. Thankfully, our superior system of rehabilitation would be an appropriate solution for these people anyways, but that does not help the people of many other nations, especially nations which have similar concerns but not as progressive of a "punishment" system.

Interesting that a person who has spent her time here banging on about National Sovereignty is going to leave a moral decency proposal behind as her "legacy". Rather unfitting legacy for the person in question.
The only mandatory sections of this proposal apply to international trade, where national sovereignty is less applicable. You might notice, this proposal does not affect the "right" of nations to permit child pornography. Much as it disgusts that nations might allow pornography in their nation, I accept that the UN has no business forcing them not to. That's national sovereignty.

On a side note, while this is far from a support killer, we have always had an issue with the concept of punishing someone for possession of material with no provable intent to distribute. They are not directly harming the children and so we have found that we struggle with the concept. Thankfully, our superior system of rehabilitation would be an appropriate solution for these people anyways, but that does not help the people of many other nations, especially nations which have similar concerns but not as progressive of a "punishment" system.
Good luck with that rehabilitation program. Just when they reoffend, make sure they don't get anywhere near us.

2. Emphasises that the remit of this Resolution does not apply to simulations of pedophilia performed by adult actors, or to drawings, computer generated images or written work, except where the creation of such involved directly harming, sexually or otherwise, a child, or to any other expressive works, but asserts that national laws on such materials must respect any relevant past or future international law;We strenuously oppose this provision, as we can no more condone, nor allow the trade of, materials of simulated acts of child abuse than we can actual documented acts of the sort. Add to that our qualms with this resolution's tacit approval of the sale of such materials within sovereign national borders. We hold that physical and sexual assaults upon children are a legitimate human rights issue, like genocide, that transcends national boundaries (to borrow the old sovereigntist cliche), and we can only hope that present international conventions outlawing the abuse of children (including Outlaw Pedophilia) would effectively bar pornographers from preying upon minors in the name of adult "entertainment."

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child pornography" as explicit images, including film and photographs, of sexual acts or nudity performed by a child;

Would this render home movies with kids running around the backyard pool naked illegal? I've seen a few of them in the past and never really thought of them as pornography, myself.

OOC: I'm pretty sure I know what you mean by nudity, but maybe the language could be tightened somehow.

Secretary Tehrani, we will consider your comments. We had initially sought a relatively "mild" draft, acceptable to liberal child-haters, but you raise an interesting point. If they are allowed to spin human "rights" as "transcending national boundaries", then there is no reason for this resolution not to. At present, we will err on the side of sovereigntism - even if that means sanction unclean, unholy abominations against the innocent - but we will consider expanding the definitions and obligations.

Representative of Kivisto, I had considered such a possibility. My inclination is that that would be a "common sense" area, and besides, backyard home videos are not, to my knowledge, doing a roaring trade internationally. However, we will attending to the definition.

How about this:

""child pornography" as any explicit representation real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;"

Saddened that there are those who would produce material that does involve harm others, especially where such harm is sexual, and involves minors,
Something happened there.



To answer to Mr. Tehrani, the section that you find troubling is not one that ought to be changed. In a case where all of the actors in pornographic material are of age, it is not a case of child pornography. Likewise with artistic renderings (not actual depictions) of minors in explicit ways. As no child has been involved in the production of said materials, there is no crime in having questionable taste (or if there is, it is not by the UN's legislation). We make no distinction between an actor playing a minor in a pornographic manner and a murder in a movie. The instances are not real, and therefore not criminal. Just as with snuff films, unless the actor or actress is actually murdered, there is no crime but of questionable taste, and that is certainly not something the UN should have a hand in.

Is the simulation of minors in pornography deplorable? I am of the opinion that it is. But it is no more a matter for the UN to legislate than would be bad music enjoyed by only a handful of people.

I respect Mr. Tehrani and Ms. Jiffjeff's opposition to simulated child pornography, but do not feel that Clause 2 condones such acts, and therefore see no reason to remove it.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy of Norderia

We will support this proposal with the changes made to the definition, however we will be more cautious to approve of this if it becomes less natsov, as I expect some of our beliefs might collide.

""child pornography" as any explicit representation real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;"
Good. With that definition, I think we can support. Otherwise, it bans diagrams of the sexual organs of children for medical textbooks/etc.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

That second definition... What is the difference between a "real" and a "simulated" sexual act? I get simulated minor as someone who is of adult age acting a minor, but what specifically does the author have in mind with simulated sexual acts?

-The Stout

In trying to point out an alternate point of transcending national borders, I would like to note that child pornography has a rather special issue attached to it: methods of distribution. Unlike drugs, guns, money, alcohol, and people, child pornography is normally not distributed in hard form or even recorded on media. It is instead, normally, sent through digital or other, more advanced forms, of non-physical mediums. Even if you can catch the person at the border, the likes of the Internet are much harder to patrol without cooperation of the nations where the server is stored. If we find that a server is outside the catchment area, we may be hard pressed to discover who's been accessing it and attempting to shut it down. Again, there is always the concern that 3/4 of the world are non-UN nations, but shutting down more sources of the material is not, necessarily, a bad thing.

On a side note, while this is far from a support killer, we have always had an issue with the concept of punishing someone for possession of material with no provable intent to distribute. They are not directly harming the children and so we have found that we struggle with the concept.
While they might not be harming the children directly, they are harming them indirectly because without anyone wanting this stuff there would be no market for the distributers.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

While they might not be harming the children directly, they are harming them indirectly because without anyone wanting this stuff there would be no market for the distributers.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Which is why it isn't exactly worthy of a vote against. As I said, we struggle with the issue - which is more important - the removal of demand or the freedom of the individual, and could you have more success at helping these people if you made it so that porn already created just keeps getting circulated amongst these people under the watchful eye of the government, where they know who these people are and can possibly help them deal with their problem? This might even make it so that fewer minors get hurt since production of new material isn't as needed since the old material doesn't constantly get chucked out.

So many things to consider. So many ways that could possibly be used to address the same issue, and so many reasons to pick each one. As I said, we struggle with the issue.

We support the spirit of this resolution, however we are concerned with this wording:

- "child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;

We feel that such a loose definition permits a UN member to set their age of consent at whatever they wish, and thereby legally circumvent the spirit of the resolution without censure, and in effect rendering the resolution meaningless.

If the peoples of Ishtar could provide an alternative definition that would be considerate to the many species of the United Nations, we would love to hear it

We support the spirit of this resolution, however we are concerned with this wording:



We feel that such a loose definition permits a UN member to set their age of consent at whatever they wish, and thereby legally circumvent the spirit of the resolution without censure, and in effect rendering the resolution meaningless.
But if you set the age of consent really low, you would essentially be letting five-year-olds have the right to sign legally binding contracts and make all sorts of decisions you probably don't want them to make. The point is that if they can consent to other things, they can consent to being "pornographized", for lack of a better word.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Most Serene Republic would not even dare venture such an opinion, we leave it to more experienced delegates to propose a universal minimum age, if they wish to give this resolution teeth.

In the absence of UN conventions, it should be noted the Republic blocks access to sites regularly purveying images of humans under 18 and actively prosecutes our own citizens who insist on trying to circumvent our laws.

We have no case law or experience dealing with nonhuman civilizations, let alone with non-human pornography; for all practical purposes it does not exist. "Naked" animals are not considered pornographic.


Regards,

Her Serene Grace,
UN Ambassador
Lady Galadriel McGee

We feel that such a loose definition permits a UN member to set their age of consent at whatever they wish, and thereby legally circumvent the spirit of the resolution without censure, and in effect rendering the resolution meaningless.We noted this and figured this would come up with this one.. We feel that this due to the the nature of membership in regards to 'majority' is the only way the proposer could have done this. As my nation sets males age ten and females age twelve to gain limited rights of citzenship.. thus they are adults and can marry, vote, hold office, own propery, head family, carry weapons, and hold minor offices.. They don't get full citizenship until completion of National Service at age sixteen.. Thus here to gain citizenship rights they will not be entering the sex industries in question.

Also rape is a capital crime here so citizens or children don't rape but once then they serve time and if they repeat the crime they hang.

As far as the production and sale of sexual materials we ban it if those in it are under sixteen or have been forced to serve in the making of the materials; no matter what laws are in place where the materials were made.

Nations are able to set their own age limits for the "legal age". Some nations are of races that the legal age is 12 while others have it set for 24. We feel that it is not the responsibility of the United Nations to set age limits for it's member nations and that should be left to National Soverignty, thus MAW not setting an age limit for this resolution. Thus if and when this gets into the voting body of the United Nations, the Dark Empire of Shazbotdom will be voting in favor of this article.

Bob Jones,
Shazbotdom Secretriate

But if you set the age of consent really low, you would essentially be letting five-year-olds have the right to sign legally binding contracts and make all sorts of decisions you probably don't want them to make. The point is that if they can consent to other things, they can consent to being "pornographized", for lack of a better word.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

You seem to be assuming that each nation will have a single 'age of consent', or 'age of maturity', that applies in all situations... but it's not unknown for nations to specify different ages of legality for different activities, so this could indeed be a serious loophole. (OOC: Consider the RL United Kingdom, where 16 is the legal minimum age for sexual activity, purchasing tobacco, or full-time employment, but people have to wait until 18 before they're entitled to marry without parental consent, to purchase alcohol in bars, or to vote...)

I see a stink being raised over governments setting an age of consent low enough to allow young kids to star in pornography.

Are we just assuming the worst of governments in the UN, or is there someone out there with a government that supports child pornography?

(OOC: Consider the RL United Kingdom, where 16 is the legal minimum age for sexual activity, purchasing tobacco, or full-time employment, but people have to wait until 18 before they're entitled to marry without parental consent, to purchase alcohol in bars, or to vote...)
OOC: Actually unless it's been changed, you have to be 21 to buy alcohol, you also have to be 21 to gamble..

I've addressed that issue before, a long time ago, and my view hasn't changed. If a nation is going to change their entire legal concept of consent, solely to get around one resolution, then they're too weird/stupid/dedicated to loopholism to bother with. Yes, people could set their age of consent to two. I'm sure DLE did it. No, I'm not bothered by that, because they could just resign anyway and legalise child porn.

OOC: Actually unless it's been changed, you have to be 21 to buy alcohol, you also have to be 21 to gamble..

This is not true, and has not been true for as long as I have been around. And I am 41 years old. But then, it is not true that there is a single legal standard in the United Kingdom: there are wholly separate legal systems in Scotland and in the single legal entity of England and Wales, and a third in Northern Ireland. I am most acquainted with the Scottish system, under which it is not necessary to wait until eighteen to marry without parental consent. Nor is it necessary anywhere in the UK to be twenty one before purchasing any form of alcohol or gambling.

I cannot in all conscience support this resolution. While of course I am in agreement with the principle of the illegality of child pornography, the legalistic defining of terms such as "obscenity" is notoriously difficult without involving such personally subjective sentiments as "I know it when I see it," which do not in any circumstances belong in such as a United Nations resolution, and I do believe the spirit of the resolution is that of the promulgation and imposition of the religious and moral attitudes of the delegate proposing it and those supporting it, and further that that is the reason for the appallingly loose inclusion of the word "nudity" in the resolution and the extremely immoderate language in this forum regarding "liberal child-haters" and the like.

could you have more success at helping these people if you made it so that porn already created just keeps getting circulated amongst these people under the watchful eye of the government, where they know who these people are and can possibly help them deal with their problem? This might even make it so that fewer minors get hurt since production of new material isn't as needed since the old material doesn't constantly get chucked out.
.
:headbang:

But minors have still been harmed in the formation of this old porn, and eventually the stock will run out and need to be replaced, are you suggesting a Government Run program of abusing minors every ten years or so to keep the porn fresh and so the people using it don't get bored... how would you select the children for such a program???

This is not true, and has not been true for as long as I have been around.
OOC: Oops, my bad. I misread the post I was quoting to read US.

:headbang:

But minors have still been harmed in the formation of this old porn, and eventually the stock will run out and need to be replaced, are you suggesting a Government Run program of abusing minors every ten years or so to keep the porn fresh and so the people using it don't get bored... how would you select the children for such a program???

1) How would stock run out? Everything is digital these days, you can just make more copies if there's an issue of stock.
2) What damage that's been done is done. Yes, we can try to heal the damage. Yes, it was a fucking shame. However, if we remove the ability for people to access old footage and they are STILL looking for it, you have a demand for new footage, people will find a way to supply. Oh. My. God. More get hurt. It's not a matter of the fact that people got hurt, the issue is ensuring it doesn't happen again (or, at the very least, reduce the likelihood of it happening again). If we don't set up a system that tries to help bring a solution to the problem, more children will be hurt and we learnt no lessons and all of our help for the children that were already hurt will be for nothing. You tell me what's more important - ensuring those that are at risk of getting hurt are not hurt, or bitching about how the solution involves people that have already been hurt, but will not hurt them further in the process.

If the real world has proven nothing, just outlawing the damn stuff and cracking down on pedophile networks isn't working. The recent ring that has resulted in hundreds of arrests were targetting ONLY the producers and distributors. Why? Because the demand was so high that they couldn't get all of the consumers. Obviously we still have a major problem in modern society with this issue, and I'll be damned if putting stricter and stricter penalties will actually eradicate it.

A little less blind comments and a little more creative thought would be appreciated before you start rebuking my comments.

and the extremely immoderate language in this forum regarding "liberal child-haters" and the like.

When someone like Gruen, Cluich, or Kenny says something to that effect, it's best that you just ignore it. They are worth taking seriously when it comes down to the matter of a proposal, but when they whip out the language like that... Well, it doesn't even bother me anymore. I just call them xenophobic corporate conformist facists. Then they call me a dirty commie motherless pig, and it goes on. They're just side comments outside of the real debates that ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Sure, this is the United Nations, it should be taken seriously, everyone should be professional, but that doesn't mean the sense of humor should disappear. They wanna call me a drug-loving, hippie, baby killer, I'm not going to let it distract me from the real issue to take the time to prove those notions wrong. Let it go.

I just call them xenophobic corporate conformist facists.

Bah. Wenaist bitch works out to about the same and takes less time to say.

Bah. Wenaist bitch works out to about the same and takes less time to say.

That excludes Kenny and Cluich though. (Or does it?)

I don't want to open up a can of worms here, but does anyone have a quick and easy definition of obscene? Because I do, but I know there'd be arguments about how clear it is. Even though it's not designed to coincide with my own personal beliefs.

"What's the point of a piece? To arouse? Then it is 'obscene'. If someone gets aroused despite the purpose being something more serious, then that it's not." Hey, some people juggle geese!

Heh, man, I would laugh hard if this reached quorum under its current name, "Think of the Children! Act".

Heh... Oh man. That'd be glorious.

That excludes Kenny and Cluich though. (Or does it?)

Yeah, but only Jiffjeff calls others child haters.

Yeah, but only Jiffjeff calls others child haters.
I was referring to all situations, but you are correct. But I mean, how seriously can a person with four f's in their name be taken seriously?

Or an x, save for the name Xaviar.


Like Hanz Blix of RL....

He's an alien.

Kenny its better to call "Extremist in denial". Gets him nice a riled.

1) How would stock run out? Everything is digital these days, you can just make more copies if there's an issue of stock.After a few months of rubbing one off to Wet Lesbians In Space, you get a hankering for something new. I mean, it's still hot, but it's not as hot as something new.

I would assume it's the same for the creepy fuckers who want to look at kids. Depending on how much of that shit's out there, an old enough slimeball could probably start wanting something new.

Personally, I say we just get some Chibis to do fake kiddie porn for them. Close enough to the real thing, I should think, and there's got to be millions of 'em over in the HOCEK. Right?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Having Too Much Absinthe
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

...does anyone have a quick and easy definition of obscene? Because I do, but I know there'd be arguments about how clear it is. Even though it's not designed to coincide with my own personal beliefs.

"What's the point of a piece? To arouse? Then it is 'obscene'. If someone gets aroused despite the purpose being something more serious, then that it's not." Hey, some people juggle geese!As one of Rubina's more folksy judges once said. "I know it when I see it." :)

Kenny its better to call "Extremist in denial". Gets him nice a riled.On first read, I thought that said "Extremist in exile" and thought, "May grod tell us from where?" ;)

When someone like Gruen, Cluich, or Kenny says something to that effect, it's best that you just ignore it. ... I just call them xenophobic corporate conformist facists. ...[Rises from his chair with some difficulty and stumbles over to the microphone at the Kenny delegation's lectern, and begins to speak in a slightly drunken slur:]

The Department of State takes umbrage at this latest attack on our nation, and has instructed me to read an official advisory. [Shuffles papers.]

*ahem!*

"Descriptions of the Federal Republic as 'xenophobic' or 'facist' ('fascist,' even) are patently false. We are a broad-based, multi-ethnic, multicultural, multireligious, multilingual, multi-everything republic with a strong democratic tradition. Sure, we may be conservative corporate whores like Gruenberg, and horny sex-addicts like Cluichstan, but to lump us in with their curiously despotic tendencies is woefully errant. For one, we can hardly be termed 'xenophobic' when our current president is Latino, our secretary of state Muslim, our secretary of the treasury Xt'Tapolopaquetl native, and our national security adviser and vice president are both women. We're sure there's also a black guy and an Asian in their somewhere. Our commitment to the mentally ill is even evidenced by the appointment of our current UN ambassador."

["The Official Advisory can't say that," mutters an aid.]

No, no, that's what it says. And there's more: "Our military proudly employs strippers and the tone-deaf (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10120758&postcount=14), and our diplomatic corps (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454422) is appropriately diverse, currently being staffed by a porn star, a white guy who thinks he's black, Catherine Gratwick's sadistic identical second cousin, a televangelist, at least two of the president's embarrassing relatives, a goat, and an exploding penguin.

"Moreover, we cannot be called 'fascist' when we currently boast one of the finest human rights records of any non-UN state, and our Constitution protects basic fundamental rights of all our citizens. We cannot be faulted by self-righteous liberals for a disregard for human rights just because we do not consider as legitimate international issues fractious social issues such as abortion, euthanasia and the supposed 'rights' of perverts to peddle kiddie porn."

[Glares at statement strangely.]

Kiddie porn?! What the hell does that have to do with anything?

[An aid whispers in his ear.]

What?! That's what this topic is about?! OK, hang on, hang on, I'm sure there's something about that in here somewhere ...

[Frantically searches the stack of papers in front of him.]

Ah, yes. Here it is: "The Federal Republic will await future drafts of this legislation before casting judgment."

Oh, and there's some stuff about Gruenberg in here too!:

"Congratulations to Gruenberg ... new delegate for the Antarctic Oasis region ... best of luck of on all future Gruenberger initiatives ... diabolical schemes to enslave humanity ... force dangerous military buildups ... reverse all human rights conventions ... convert all peoples to the teachings of Wena ... make them all mindless servants to the Great Goat Goddess ... launch destructive world wars and trigger Armageddon ... God help us all ... warmest regards toward their new ambassador ... the sultan's daughter ... a really hot piece of ass ..." And it goes on from there.

That said, I hope our corporate sponsors won't mind if I divert from prepared remarks just to say: You pinko commie liberal child-hating nation-hating sovereignty-trampling tree-hugging poor-hating terrorist-loving protectionist international federalist bastard extremists make me sick!! Why I oughtta --

[Burps loudly and falls backward over his chair.]

George Brown
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

:D
My point exactly.


OOC: You make me happy.

OOC: This proposal is barely moderate enough (almost too conservative) to get my nation's support, but that's enough. I'll be voting FOR it if it reaches quorum.

And Kenny rocks my socks.

As one of Rubina's more folksy judges once said. "I know it when I see it." :)




See?

After a few months of rubbing one off to Wet Lesbians In Space, you get a hankering for something new. I mean, it's still hot, but it's not as hot as something new.

I would assume it's the same for the creepy fuckers who want to look at kids. Depending on how much of that shit's out there, an old enough slimeball could probably start wanting something new.

Personally, I say we just get some Chibis to do fake kiddie porn for them. Close enough to the real thing, I should think, and there's got to be millions of 'em over in the HOCEK. Right?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Having Too Much Absinthe
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Number of UN Nations X the number of new videos getting created = probably enough porn for each pedophile to watch one movie each day of his life.

Either way, still a reduction

Though again, you do make a point about alternate forms.... *shrug*. I already said there's more than one way to handle this. Who knows if my way or yours or some other that we haven't thought of works out the best.

This proposal has been substantially revised.

Love and esterel fully support this proposal.

Just, hopefully, it seems to me that:

2
-
-the trade of children for the purposes of the production of child pornography;

is already covered by

#6 End slavery
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5

- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

and

#68 Ban Trafficking in Persons
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=67
...criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers.

Yes, it is already covered, but:
- there's no harm in repetition of something that clearly should be banned (and it's only one clause out of many; shouldn't be illegal)
- both of those resolutions are of dubious quality and safety.

I cannot agree more that this should be banned.

The problem is if we begin to include in new resolution some clause of stuff already fully covered in previous one, where is the limit?

I cannot agree more that this should be banned.

The problem is if we begin to include in new resolution some clause of stuff already fully covered in previous one, where is the limit?
For this resolution, this is the limit. For others, I couldn't possibly say.

If the mods rule it's duplication, and illegal, I'll remove it.

Saddened that there are those who would produce material that does involve harm others, especially where such harm is sexual, and involves minors,

Something still off there. Omit "involve."

Freedom of thought and speech, regardless of its detestability, is paramount to Rubina. However, with certain changes, we could support this proposal.

Determined to eliminate the international trade in child pornography:We see an inherent conflict between the stated goal and the actual stipulated requirements under number 2, which are most definitely nationally focussed. Please understand I am not making a natsov argument (though it will be made at some point by someone), but pointing out that given the wording I would expect such legislation to address trade of such material between nations.

The Rubinan legislative analysts do have a problem with 1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a childWe would not be able to support this legislation with this core definition. As written, it would include complete fictional (textual or artistic) representations, and crosses the boundary of freedom of thought and expression. If the intent is to prohibit real-life (photography, film, holographic, etc.) images produced by the use of children, that distinction needs to be made clear. With that clarification, we believe we would be able to support this resolution.


Presumably typographical errors:

Saddened that there are those who would produce material that does involve harm others, especially where such harm is sexual, and involves minors Possible fixes: ...material that does harm others.... material that does involve harm to others...,
3. Strongly urges member nations to instate appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts;Possible fixes: ....member nations to institute... member nations to adopt... [instate is to install or establish in office]

Jim Jones
Rubina
Delegate, User Friendlia

Something still off there. Omit "involve."
Done.

We see an inherent conflict between the stated goal and the actual stipulated requirements under number 2, which are most definitely nationally focussed. Please understand I am not making a natsov argument (though it will be made at some point by someone), but pointing out that given the wording I would expect such legislation to address trade of such material between nations.
Agreed. I updated the operative section, but not yet the introductory. I will do so, to reflect the more overriding tone this legislation is assuming.

The Rubinan legislative analysts do have a problem with We would not be able to support this legislation with this core definition. As written, it would include complete fictional (textual or artistic) representations, and crosses the boundary of freedom of thought and expression. If the intent is to prohibit real-life (photography, film, holographic, etc.) images produced by the use of children, that distinction needs to be made clear. With that clarification, we believe we would be able to support this resolution.
There is no excuse for such abominations against innocence. We feel the prohibition must stay, although we are open to alternative wordings that would clearly delineate between that which harms a child, and that which only serves to wet the appetite of sexual predators.

Possible fixes: ....member nations to institute... member nations to adopt... [instate is to install or establish in office]
Changed.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

I'm not going to dig up the exact wording, but it mentions "real or simulated sexual acts."

Would you be so kind as to inform us as to what the difference here is?

Or is the purpose of that disjunct to make illegal the use of of-age actors/actresses in portraying minors, or illegalizing drawn images of minors?

As stated before, drawings from the imagination, or of-age actors portraying minors is a matter of questionable taste, and not anything that ought to be illegal, as no child is harmed during the making or use of such images.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

When someone like Gruen, Cluich, or Kenny says something to that effect...

How the hell did we get dragged into this? Until today, we hadn't debated anything here in a few weeks, as we were dealing with some particularly unsettling issues internally.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

How the hell did we get dragged into this? Until today, we hadn't debated anything here in a few weeks, as we were dealing with some particularly unsettling issues internally.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You have a history and I pay attention.

I don't think Kenny was involved in that either, until after I said it.

You have a history and I pay attention.

I don't think Kenny was involved in that either, until after I said it.

Silence, you pinko commie bastard! :p

Silence, you pinko commie bastard! :p

Eat me, you intollerant, hate-loving, nazi scum.

OOC: As "Individual Working Freedoms" failed to reach quorum, I will be submitting this next. Any comments on improving the text would be welcome before the weekend.

IC: We were interested in one telegrammed suggestion that some form of task force or agency be established, especially with regard to internet pornography. Whilst we would in general be suspicious of granting the UN police powers (and we could probably not do so anyway, as it would be illegal) and in general of giving too much power to unaccountable committees, perhaps some solidification of clause 4's aims is required?

We are also happy to announced that by nearly a two-thirds majority, our organization has changed its registered name to "Mothers Against Weird Stuff", as we felt this was more in-keeping with our strong stance against naughty words.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11301560&postcount=51


Perhaps your definition might be changed to include "simulated acts" only when a child has been directly involved in the rendering of such simulated acts.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

I will not change that wording. The issue is not so much that no children are harmed, but that these abominations promote impure thoughts, and cater to the desires of those likely to commit crimes against childhood (probably exacerbating their need to do so, in fact).

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

I will not change that wording. The issue is not so much that no children are harmed, but that these abominations promote impure thoughts, and cater to the desires of those likely to commit crimes against childhood (probably exacerbating their need to do so, in fact).

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

So I suppose you're against violent movies, video games, TV shows, sports, and religion then, huh?

Well, it's Jiffjeff.

If it isn't changed, we won't support it, as it is an exact parallel to saying that movies where murders are depicted cater to the desires of those likely to commit crimes against living people.

The only way your prohibition on sexual deviance would work is if people could stop feeling that way altogether. You want to force them into compliance with social norms. Wellllll, aside from an Orwellian nightmare, it won't happen. Nor should it.

Take away the placebos that these people use to relieve their tensions and you will see a myriad of do-it-yourselfers. Like people making rum in their bathtubs.

No child is harmed in the making of fake images. So including them moves this proposal beyond protecting children and into forcing an end to certain psychological behaviors.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

So I suppose you're against violent movies, video games, TV shows, sports, and religion then, huh?
Yes, yes, against violent TV shows but not against nice ones about gardening, no (it promotes moral fibre), and VERY MUCH NOT - religious devotion is the jewel in the crown of proper character.

If it isn't changed, we won't support it, as it is an exact parallel to saying that movies where murders are depicted cater to the desires of those likely to commit crimes against living people.
And I would ban those too.

Unfortunately, I do not have the authority to do so. I did consult within the Office, but have been overruled by Chief of Staff. I am sure the profitability of Gruenberg's "Hacksaw Horror" movie empire has nothing to do with this decision. But I agree, it is a shame.

The only way your prohibition on sexual deviance would work is if people could stop feeling that way altogether. You want to force them into compliance with social norms. Wellllll, aside from an Orwellian nightmare, it won't happen. Nor should it.
"Orwellian nightmare" is an oxymoron. His books present a properly ordered society. I should personally feel privileged in such a caring atmosphere.

And by "nor should it", you surely don't mean that people should be permitted to feel unnatural sexual desires towards the innocent young?

Take away the placebos that these people use to relieve their tensions and you will see a myriad of do-it-yourselfers. Like people making rum in their bathtubs.
I have an alternative. We take away the lives of these people in the first place.

No child is harmed in the making of fake images. So including them moves this proposal beyond protecting children and into forcing an end to certain psychological behaviors.
I have no problem with forcing an end to lustful destruction of childhood - why do you object to us preventing child rape? And every child is harmed in the creation of "simulated" pornography: it pollutes the world in which they live.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

Yes, yes, against violent TV shows but not against nice ones about gardening, no (it promotes moral fibre), and VERY MUCH NOT - religious devotion is the jewel in the crown of proper character.

I'm always amazed that when those jewel encrusted crowns sit on the head of a King, people goggle but when they sit on the head of a dictator, they think him the most despicable man on Earth. Personally, I think the jewels breed an arrogance and prove the evil that rests in the heart of the person wearing such a crown. If they were truly a decent person, neither the jewel nor the crown would be there.

And I would ban those too.

Unfortunately, I do not have the authority to do so. I did consult within the Office, but have been overruled by Chief of Staff. I am sure the profitability of Gruenberg's "Hacksaw Horror" movie empire has nothing to do with this decision. But I agree, it is a shame.

Your ignorance is amusing. Even moreso is your inability to see the failings of people - one thing that I respected from the first Gruenberg ambassador.

"Orwellian nightmare" is an oxymoron. His books present a properly ordered society. I should personally feel privileged in such a caring atmosphere.

One would've thought that a person that has read the works of Orwell and saw such a society as being good would've interpreted the plight of the main characters as a nightmare.

Even more amusing is that you'd consider a society with no permission to obey Wena as being a "caring" atmosphere.

Though I suppose "caring wenaist" is an oxymoron in its own right.

And by "nor should it", you surely don't mean that people should be permitted to feel unnatural sexual desires towards the innocent young

And who decides what is and isn't unnatural?

Oh wait, don't tell me, the psychic in me is getting this mental picture. She stands on one leg all the time while the other is kicking people in the ass for not being reverent enough, wearing two white wings that mock her dark demeanor. Her halo was gold but has since oxidized and now brings a sickly green color to it (which raises the question of what the substance really was), and her hair looks like it could turn into snakes at a moment's notice. The answer must be Wena, for no other woman could ever look that evil.

Er....well....fake woman, anyways....which makes one wonder how she can decide anything?

I have an alternative. We take away the lives of these people in the first place.

Didn't you just use the term caring?

I love the simplistic concept of "If our brains are too small to comprehend it, it must be destroyed". It's the same train of thought that gives you "If our brains are too small to figure out how to open it, we have to get out a hammer and smash it to bits".

I have no problem with forcing an end to lustful destruction of childhood - why do you object to us preventing child rape? And every child is harmed in the creation of "simulated" pornography: it pollutes the world in which they live.

If you checked what he said, he opposed to simulations of rape - y'know, ones that don't directly hurt someone.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"
And Queen bitch.

Yes, yes, against violent TV shows but not against nice ones about gardening, no (it promotes moral fibre), and VERY MUCH NOT - religious devotion is the jewel in the crown of proper character.
Well it certainly does go to a character that you see murder in the name of a god as proper.


And I would ban those too.

Unfortunately, I do not have the authority to do so. I did consult within the Office, but have been overruled by Chief of Staff. I am sure the profitability of Gruenberg's "Hacksaw Horror" movie empire has nothing to do with this decision. But I agree, it is a shame.
But you have the authority to ban the child pornography? I agree on the child part. Why don't you make a proposal banning the depiction of violent acts in movies and TV (save for of course those in the name of Wena, since we're being so very consistent here)? It seems to me that violent movies and TV programs are much more common, and, following your line of reasoning, conducive to the augmentation of violence in the world.


"Orwellian nightmare" is an oxymoron. His books present a properly ordered society. I should personally feel privileged in such a caring atmosphere.
Sometimes I wish you did.


And by "nor should it", you surely don't mean that people should be permitted to feel unnatural sexual desires towards the innocent young?
People should be permitted to feel however they want. Tell me, how can there be such a thing as a sexual desire that isn't natural? As far as I know, I've never known a person who could influence their hormonal discharges at will. Sexual desires should not be the aim of this proposal, stopping the exploitation of children should. Computer-drawn pictures or of-age nubiles are not children.

I have an alternative. We take away the lives of these people in the first place.
But only in the name of Wena, right? Cuz otherwise murder would be bad.


I have no problem with forcing an end to lustful destruction of childhood - why do you object to us preventing child rape?
I am 100% behind the prevention of child rape.


And every child is harmed in the creation of "simulated" pornography: it pollutes the world in which they live.
And so does your ant colony vision of a perfect world.

The idea that bad things can be completely erraticated from the world is just as damaging as those bad things. But since that's my yin-yang idea there, I don't expect many people to subscribe to it.

The only people who would see a fake pornographic image and feel the need to pursue such an interest with a real child is someone who is irrational and likely already pre-disposed towards such acts. There are many people who would have such interests in minors but enough sense to not pursue it in reality.

For example, the drink absinthe is illegal in many countries. The official reason is usually because it contains the hallucinogen, thujone. However, this same hallucinogen still shows up in such over the counter drugs as Vick's Vaporub, Absorbine Jr., and even in the commonly legal liquor, vermouth. Now, I (and 2, from whom I got the inspiration for this example) have a theory that it is actually illegal because some damn fool went and drank a whole bottle of it at some party and died. Much of the same happens with pretty much any Stella Award (http://www.stellaawards.com). Some stupid moron or mentally unstable person does something bad and suddenly the thing he or she used to do the bad thing gets shunned. Like the reaction after someone gets mauled by a lion at the zoo. "The zoo should have done something to keep people out of the cages!" Right. Like, maybe putting a big, toothy wild animal that would eat anyone who comes into the cage inside the cage?

Point is, the people who would be a danger to children will not be any less dangerous because the fake pornography is banned.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

The Federal Republic, by way of the Rogue Nation of Boricuastan, declares itself officially amused at the honorable Norderian deputy's repeated defenses of those who cater to the perverted desires of child-molesters, as well as the extraneous slander on the part of the compulsively Wena-obsessed Sec. Macdougall.

Actually, scratch that. We're not so much "officially amused" as we are completely disgusted at these recent unworthy displays. Untoward verbal assaults on upstanding members' national character and apologism for child-smut peddlers should be beneath the dignity of this Assembly. And yes, there are actions even this delegation would term undignified.

"Liberal child haters," indeed.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

The Federal Republic, by way of the Rogue Nation of Boricuastan, declares itself officially amused at the honorable Norderian deputy's repeated defenses of those who cater to the perverted desires of child-molesters, as well as the extraneous slander on the part of the compulsively Wena-obsessed Sec. Macdougall.

Actually, scratch that. We're not so much "officially amused" as we are completely disgusted at these recent unworthy displays. Untoward verbal assaults on upstanding members' national character and apologism for child-smut peddlers should be beneath the dignity of this Assembly. And yes, there are actions even this delegation would term undignified.

"Liberal child haters," indeed.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State


Take care to differentiate between child-molestors and pedophiles. There is a big difference.

Beyond that, our stance is that, distasteful though it may be, watching a pornographic video of adults playing the roles of minors, or the making of such a video does not involve children. Therefore, it is not child pornography but personal preference, and as I've maintained, personal preference in the plastic recreation of sexual acts involving minors is not criminal.

If we are child-haters, then you are to a further extent advocates of fanatical, fundamentalist single-mindedness. Deviation of any sort is criminal to you, and that is more a shame.

OOC: I can't support the revised version.

I'd like to see an end to any form of pornography that depicts children in sexual situations, whether real children are used, or substitutes are used. It is still child porn and is made to appeal to those with a sick interest in child sex. In my opinion the whole darn lot of it deserves nothing more than a very hot bonfire.

There is more than one way to protect children from sexual predators, the first is stopping them being used by the sex industry, and the other is to protect them from being watched, stalked, grabbed and raped by some pervert who has spent the morning looking at henti cartoons on the internet.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

I'd like to see an end to any form of pornography that depicts children in sexual situations, whether real children are used, or substitutes are used. It is still child porn and is made to appeal to those with a sick interest in child sex. In my opinion the whole darn lot of it deserves nothing more than a very hot bonfire.

There is more than one way to protect children from sexual predators, the first is stopping them being used by the sex industry, and the other is to protect them from being watched, stalked, grabbed and raped by some pervert who has spent the morning looking at henti cartoons on the internet.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

I will have to respectfully disagree. Sick though the interest may be, if a child is not actually used in the making of such a depiction, then there is no crime. People have seemed to readily accept the depiction of rape and murder and the pleasure achieved by the perpetrators thereof in fake movies and the like. That, all the same, is not criminal. If we are to criminalize such deeds, then we have to be prepared to be consistent in our laws. If we are to criminalize such deeds, then we are placing a criminal value on something that does not harm anybody.

If some pervert watches, stalks, and rapes a child, it is because of the layers of psychosis in that pervert's brain. Watching hentai videos on his computer all morning does not influence someone to do that. Do not commit the fallacy of the questionable cause. Watching such a video does not turn someone into a child molester.

Let us also not assume that everyone who partakes in the simulated depiction of children in sexual ways is a child molestor, or rapist. Having thoughts about doing such things is not tantamount to doing them.

There is no criminal act being done in such cases. There need not be a ban on them in the United Nations.

Edit: We are in agreement that the exploitation of children must be stopped. But videos that do not actually involve children do not therefore exploit them. Nor are they a cause or a catalyst (excepting perhaps in overhwelming amounts [but too much of anything can be harmful]) for violent crime.

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

The way I see it, simulated child sex does harm children, just as the real thing does. It tells the sickos who get off on that kind of thing that child sex is ok and normal. These simulated images are fantasies and cleverly lure the watcher into believing the people involved are children. I doubt many, if any, of them have a warning flash up every 10 seconds reminding those watching that the actors are really adults. Cartoon type is even worse because then the characters can be drawn as 10 year olds in every aspect, and that makes it more real to those watching. I have little sympathy for anyone who has any sort of sexual interest in children and certainly don't believe they have any sort of right to see these sort of images.

Child pornography, all versions of it, victimise all children because it uses and depicts them as sex objects for the amusement of adults. The children can't fight back themselves to protect themselves from this exploitation, like adults can against depictions of rape and violence. We have to do it for them, and in this respect I think the UN does have a role to play in that protection.


Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

Honestly, the greatest emotion that floods through our hearts when we hear of those who obsess with child porn is pity. I should note that there is a grave distinction between those that watch and those that participate in production of. I find it amazing that a society that berates people harping on homosexuals for being interested in the opposite sex slanders and outcasts those who feel the same way about children. Yes, it is a different giant and yes there is no question that they should not have the ability to practice their desires, but society doesn't stop there, it goes further; society removes any outlet for their emotion, any outlet for their feelings, any outlet for their ability to even express these feelings and try and go over their emotions. (OOC: one only needs to trot over to General and state they are a pedophile to prove it). They are the scum of the Earth and given no opportunity to possibly remove themselves from the path. Everyone is so focused upon the children they hurt that they forget about the person that once existed before the monster. They shun him. They ignore him. They remove him from society, and they display nothing short of outrage if society tries to discover the man who once existed.

Yes, children need to be protected
Yes, there are many facets to this problem
Yes, these people are probably not mentally sound
However, when the issue in question does not involve directly harming a child, we need to spend more time looking at it. More must be done to help these people, to discover them, to discover where their problems stem from and heal them before they become that monster. If the solution is having an outlet for them, then that may be one we should heavily consider. If it merely drives them further in, then we must take that into consideration as well. However, those that will just wall them away and say "I know all the answers" has already proven they have not looked at these people as human beings.

We are disgusted how people who are of noble heart will gladly remove everything without a second thought when it comes to child porn. Some of the most generous and caring souls in this body have shown an absolute failure to see past the monster, and it is one of the most disheartening things.

There was a time in the history of Forgottenlands - back in the days before it held that name, this nation had a war with another that we had traded with and had great immigration from. During the war, we had camps set up well away from the border and any important installation. We removed the immigrants from their homes, sold their property, and sent them to these camps. It didn't matter how many years they had spent within our nation. It didn't even matter if they had gained citizenship status. They were all moved in. Today, it is seen as one of our most shameful times. Why? Because we forgot something important. They may have been descendants of our enemies, but they were still our people, they were still our citizens, and it was OUR job as THEIR government to protect them.

(OOC: I am, of course, alluding to the Japanese internment camps in US and Canada, which my Great-aunt wrote an award winning book about her time in those camps. She and my Grandma had both been born in Canada)

We don't feel pity for these people in Witchcliff. Disgust and anger is much more prevalent. Our nation prefers to protect our children from any form of sexual exploitation which is why the punishment for even looking at child porn, real or simulated, here is 5 years in prison. Molest a child, and the punishment is the death penalty (via mega fire spells).

Those people in our nation who recognise they have a problem with a sexual interest in children, and seek help for that are given all the assistance our nation can provide. However those that don't and instead seek to feed their disgusting habit are dealt with harshly.


Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

We don't feel pity for these people in Witchcliff. Disgust and anger is much more prevalent. Our nation prefers to protect our children from any form of sexual exploitation which is why the punishment for even looking at child porn, real or simulated, here is 5 years in prison. Molest a child, and the punishment is the death penalty (via mega fire spells).

Those people in our nation who recognise they have a problem with a sexual interest in children, and seek help for that are given all the assistance our nation can provide. However those that don't and instead seek to feed their disgusting habit are dealt with harshly.


Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

Well that truly is a pity. Protecting children is great, but when no harm comes to children from an action, how is stopping that action protecting children?

When a dam breaks, putting up sand bags, digging trenches, and reinforcing walls helps. Changing the windows on the top floors of sky scrapers to be sure they're water proof does not (unless it was a really damn big dam).

If the punishment for looking at consenting adults in a pornography portraying minors (which can be as old as up to 17 in most countries) is a long prison sentence, then I would certainly hate to see what the punishment for watching, or even creating movies where even real children are portrayed as being killed (One such example would be A History of Violence, in the opening scene). Would the representative from Witchcliff clarify if such an action is a crime, and if it is, if it is a worse one than the portrayal of adults as children in a sexual (love-making anyone?) scene?

Because if it is not, then I would like to know how one could justify the laws.

Adult portraying sex -- wholly illegal
Child being portrayed as killed -- fine

To me there seems to be a gap in the programmed responses. If it is simple a matter of finding a fetish so distasteful as to result in such punishments, then there is little I can say.

However, the matter at hand -- Is a child harmed when adults portray a sexual scene acting as minors? My answer is a firm no, for reasons I have stated throughout the last several posts.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

We don't feel pity for these people in Witchcliff. Disgust and anger is much more prevalent.

Clearly you have no understanding of what I just said. It is your people's disgust and anger that brings out my pity for these people. They are treated as nothing more than vermen when what they need is help. They are outcasted from society and their lives are destroyed simply because society is incapable of coming to terms with the fact that these people need help, that anger does nothing to help them. Sexual predators are some of the most hated people in society, and we don't think it is a cooincidence that they hold some of the highest repeat offender counts in societies that refuse to acknowledge their rights. I hear of stories of people who are wrongfully accused of being pediophiles and watch their entire lives crumble around them. I wonder if just one of these people who outcast that component society has ever stopped and asked "why?"

Our nation prefers to protect our children from any form of sexual exploitation

Ok

which is why the punishment for even looking at child porn, real or simulated, here is 5 years in prison.

Question: how is simulated porn that doesn't actually involve a single child in the process of production even sort of child exploitation of a child?

Molest a child, and the punishment is the death penalty (via mega fire spells).

*sighs*

Those people in our nation who recognise they have a problem with a sexual interest in children, and seek help for that are given all the assistance our nation can provide.

Alright everyone, what's the first path to healing? "Admitting you have a problem". When alcoholics, druggies, psychotics, and caffinne addicts spend great portions of their life suffering from their addictions because they couldn't actually complete that first step, why is it that society holds the bar higher for those that it thinks are least capable of making humanne decisions?

However those that don't and instead seek to feed their disgusting habit are dealt with harshly.

Such a despicable look upon life

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

Perhaps we were wrong about what the representatives of Witchcliff truly represent. They represent raw emotion rather than reason and compassion.

Alright everyone, what's the first path to healing? "Admitting you have a problem". When alcoholics, druggies, psychotics, and caffinne addicts spend great portions of their life suffering from their addictions because they couldn't actually complete that first step, why is it that society holds the bar higher for those that it thinks are least capable of making humanne decisions?
Or even, if they are so despicable and deserving of such horrid punishments, why then are they trusted to come forth on their own?

I should think that were I to engage in a behavior that was punished so terribly, I'd be scared shitless to step forward and admit to it based on the fact that I wouldn't be sure that I would be treated well enough to get the "help" I need. If rehabilitation is so glorified in Witchcliff, why make it so difficult to get the people who need the rehabilitation?


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

That is what this Witchcliff representative represents, the bleeing hearts are The Reformers who are trying to introduce a softer approch to all criminals and have the death penalty abolished. So far we have managed to keep the Queen onside and resist their efforts.

Our nation is still in many respects divided, and the issue of child porn is one of the biggest gulfs. There are some who, like you, don't feel simulated child sex is wrong and those that do no more than view it aren't criminals, but the majority opinion doesn't agree and until that changes, our current stand on this issue won't either.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

That is what this Witchcliff representative represents, the bleeing hearts are The Reformers who are trying to introduce a softer approch to all criminals and have the death penalty abolished. So far we have managed to keep the Queen onside and resist their efforts.

Our nation is still in many respects divided, and the issue of child porn is one of the biggest gulfs. There are some who, like you, don't feel simulated child sex is wrong and those that do no more than view it aren't criminals, but the majority opinion doesn't agree and until that changes, our current stand on this issue won't either.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.


Well, I understand that representation must reflect the will of the people, so I cannot, and will not argue against that. I am disappointed, however, in the lack of ability for the representative to present a compelling argument for the current Witchcliff attitudes, or else to admit the lack of such an argument.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

(OOC) Please give me some time here. This is the first time I've played a nasty character and it's all new to me. Am having fun with it though :p.

I'll read through all these posts again later this afternoon, and try to think up a decent arguement for you.

(OOC) Please give me some time here. This is the first time I've played a nasty character and it's all new to me. Am having fun with it though :p.

I'll read through all these posts again later this afternoon, and try to think up a decent arguement for you.

(OOC: Nah, it's cool. This is one of the rare times that I'm talking a debate seriously enough to be cogent. And Juhani is doing most of the talking. He's my serious guy.





Yup. MPD written all over it.)

Edit: Oh, wait, they changed it to DID.... Fuckin quacks.

We in Dashanzi hold the creative arts in the highest esteem. This proposal, while mostly worthy in intent, deliberately sets out to shackle artists who dare to tackle uncomfortable and controversial themes. Artistic licence is paramount and we will not accept any attempt to undermine it.

We in Dashanzi hold the creative arts in the highest esteem. This proposal, while mostly worthy in intent, deliberately sets out to shackle artists who dare to tackle uncomfortable and controversial themes. Artistic licence is paramount and we will not accept any attempt to undermine it.

Child pornography goes far beyond "uncomfortable and controversial."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Mrs Jiffjeff has had to leave the General Assembly, as she was becoming distressed by the overly personal nature some comments, supposedly on the proposal, were taking. I will be filling in for her for the time being.

Simulations of child pornography serve only to pander to the sexual interests of those who would commit crimes against children.

Nonetheless, we will consider adapting the prohibition on them, making their production a question of legality on the national level, but will retain prohibitions on international distribution of them.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Mrs Jiffjeff has had to leave the General Assembly, as she was becoming distressed by the overly personal nature some comments, supposedly on the proposal, were taking. I will be filling in for her for the time being.

Simulations of child pornography serve only to pander to the sexual interests of those who would commit crimes against children.

Nonetheless, we will consider adapting the prohibition on them, making their production a question of legality on the national level, but will retain prohibitions on international distribution of them.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

We are disappointed by Mrs. Jiffjeff's temporary departure (and I personally by the fact that she's a Mrs.), but we are more disappointed by the comments that were, in fact, personal and had nothing to do with the proposal being discussed here. We wish her the best and sincerely hope she will return soon.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Sexual predators are some of the most hated people in society, and we don't think it is a cooincidence that they hold some of the highest repeat offender counts in societies that refuse to acknowledge their rights.

Molest a child, and the punishment is the death penalty (via mega fire spells).

*sighs*

Well, the death penalty does reduce the chance of them becoming repeat offenders...

Child pornography goes far beyond "uncomfortable and controversial."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Agreed, not that the comment is particularly relevant.

Agreed, not that the comment is particularly relevant.

It's absolutely relevant. You defended artists adressing "uncomfortable and controversial" subjects. I said child pornography goes far beyond that. You agreed. Care to retract your implicit defense of child pornography then?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It's absolutely relevant. You defended artists adressing "uncomfortable and controversial" subjects. I said child pornography goes far beyond that. You agreed. Care to retract your implicit defense of child pornography then?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
No. My comment was only "implicit defense" if you take the definition presented in the proposal as gospel. I do not agree with the definition, thus there is no defence - implicit or explicit - of child pornography.

Simulations, even for sexual purposes, should not be condemned in this manner.

I have two questions for the author of this proposal. They come from our Ministry for Justice.

"We believe some of those who have waxed eloquent in opposition to the resolution haven't read the definition correctly.

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
- "child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;

Since the phrase "performed by a child" obviously modifies "sexual acts", the proposal is clearly limited in scope to only those portrayals in which an actual child was a participant. If an adult was impersonating a child, depiction of the act would be legal. Is this correct?

Our second question concerns the prohibition of possession of the banned items. Is it not true that this aims at deterring production of the offensive material by interdicting its marketability? This, we find, is a time-honored means of deterring the production of harmful products."

Besides passing along these questions, I also wanted to note that I found the implied equation of pedophiles with people interned solely because of their ethnic backgrounds by the person from Forgottenlands really disgusting, as well as completely irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I found the arrogant and patronizing tone of his sermonette to be rather disgusting. I realize the representative considers himself morally superior to the rest of us and far wiser, but he doesn't have to be so obvious about it.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Since the phrase "performed by a child" obviously modifies "sexual acts", the proposal is clearly limited in scope to only those portrayals in which an actual child was a participant. If an adult was impersonating a child, depiction of the act would be legal. Is this correct?
Respectfully, I disagree with your analysis of the language in this clause. I maintain that, as drafted, the statement

"Defines..."child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child"

bans adult representations of such acts. A representation of acts performed by a child may well involve no children. The language is dangerously ambiguous.

Here I'd like to point out to Ms. Thwerdock that the proposal defines child porn as "real or simulated." I'd also like to thank her for restoring some relevance to this debate.

The Federal Republic hereby declares its unconditional support for this bill, but unfortunately we will withdraw from this discussion at this time, for the thought of certain national delegations aligning themselves with child molesters -- not just free speech, not free markets, not even free love, but with the actual child molesters -- makes us ill. However, we would be willing to help telegram for this article, as the self-righteous sermonizing offered by those in contra really makes us want to see this proposal succeed. It really does.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

OOC: I may end up ducking out of this thread 'cause I am really struggling here.

Pediophilia is one area where irrationality is accepted by society as the determination of judgement. I note that the connotation of irrationality I'm trying not to bring into play here because I cannot actually say that the irrationality is necessarily a bad thing. Rather, I'm using irrationality to indicate the fact that we remove reason and logic and give way to emotion - protective emotions for the children. It is here where I find myself struggling, for while I debate this here, the rational and irrational part are duking it out in my head.

It would be inconsistent of my beliefs to support this proposal. As I said, much time must be spent considering areas that don't directly hurt children. I can't support a proposal that doesn't take that time

Since the phrase "performed by a child" obviously modifies "sexual acts", the proposal is clearly limited in scope to only those portrayals in which an actual child was a participant. If an adult was impersonating a child, depiction of the act would be legal. Is this correct?
We are inclined to think so - but I'm not personally sure this is the major gripe people have with the definition. I think they're talking more about drawings, CGI, or writings, where no child is involved at all - but the work still depicts a child performing sexual acts. At present, that would be illegal under this; some are suggesting only acts that directly affect children should be.

Our second question concerns the prohibition of possession of the banned items. Is it not true that this aims at deterring production of the offensive material by interdicting its marketability? This, we find, is a time-honored means of deterring the production of harmful products.
Quite true. Speaking personally, I don't believe governments have the right to know what I keep in my bottom drawer. However, by prohibiting possession, we accomplish two things: for one, we reduce the incentive to produce child pornography in the first place, and for two, law enforcement agencies would be given an opportunity to arrest those possessing child pornography and gain from them information about suppliers.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Respectfully, I disagree with your analysis of the language in this clause. I maintain that, as drafted, the statement

"Defines..."child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child"

bans adult representations of such acts. A representation of acts performed by a child may well involve no children. The language is dangerously ambiguous.


I think the interepretation that you're getting would read more like

"...any real or simulated sexual acts performed by a real or simulated child."

This has once again come back to my question:

What is meant by a simulated sexual act, one that is not real, as mandated by the disjunct "or" if it involves a child? Because I don't know what that would be.

When the word simulated is in there, it leads me to think that it is a simulated child, as I can understand that as being a drawing, or an of-age actor.

But what is a simulated sexual act? Can someone present me with an example?


And once again, I am pressed to remind the delegations of the difference between non-violent pedophiles and unstable, violently pre-disposed child molesters. Anyone who performs a violent, atrocious, and criminal act against a child is the result of myriad other problems, mental, social, and otherwise. A graphic depiction of a nude child is no more likely to stir up the need to commit such an act as is a murder scene on TV or in a movie. Again, Norderia repeats its stance that child pornography that uses actual children ought to be illegal. We will not be cowed by the constant mantra that we support child rapers and hate children. The notion is absurd, as is the method well-known in the world as demonizing opposition by straw-manning their arguments. If no mature arguments are going to be put forth, then I see no reason to continue to justify my own.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Nonetheless, we will consider adapting the prohibition on them, making their production a question of legality on the national level, but will retain prohibitions on international distribution of them.A good compromise leaves both sides dissatisfied.

I would think that both sides could agree to banning international trade of the materials in question while leaving domestic enforcement up to national governments, along with one of those handy "STRONGLY ENCOURAGES, NO, REALLY, WE MEAN IT, MAN; IF THIS SUCKER WAS ANY STRONGER, IT'D BE 'MANDATES'" clauses.

I'm kind of surprized at the resistance to "simulated" (ie: fictional stories, drawings, animations, and adults pretending) would be such a sticking point, but I guess that should have been expected when dealing with nations that only see absolutes.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Wondering If 16 Is Legal In This Country
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Well, I understand that representation must reflect the will of the people, so I cannot, and will not argue against that. I am disappointed, however, in the lack of ability for the representative to present a compelling argument for the current Witchcliff attitudes, or else to admit the lack of such an argument.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Sorry it has taken me a while to repond to this (OOC had to really think about it).

I'll try to explain why our nation feels so strongly about child porn and why our attitudes against those adults who paticipate in it, the real or simulated versions, are so set in stone.

Witchcliff suffered through a violent anarchy period just after the rebirth, and one of our greatest shames from that time was the abuse and deaths of children. It is estimated that over one fifth of our children under the age of 13 had been killed either by accident or deliberetly by adults. They were easy prey because a young persons powers don't emerge until they are between the ages of 16 and 21.

Out of the horror and shame of what had happened, grew our nation's love of all children, and our fierce will to protect them. They are our most precious assets and not even the life of the Queen is held in higher regard here than the life of a child. Perhaps it is the guilt that got to us, the realisation of just what we had lost, or a combination of both, but now, anyone who harms a child in any way in our nation is punished very harshly. That isn't because we are barbarians, but because of the very high status children hold in our society.

It is hard to explain, and I'm probably not making much sense, but we believe child porn, any version of it, is an assult on all children because it makes them nothing more than sex objects. In our eyes, it is exactly the same as taking their innocence and dragging it through a sewer.

I hope this helps you understand a little why we feel so strongly about this issue on our nation and why we fully support this proposal, and I hope the author does keep at least an international ban on simulated child porn in it.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

A good compromise leaves both sides dissatisfied.
Yeah, I know.

We're going to submit the proposal as is. We haven't been convinced by the case for allowing certain forms of simulations: those really desperate to do so might still be able to find loopholes through which to legalise them. We're at a loss as to why they should want to do so.

The proposal can be found here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=child).

The proposal can be found here (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=child).

Approved.

Update: Approval withdrawn, because we just noticed this line (in which I've highlighted the section to which we object) _

- the extradition of those suspected of involvement in the child pornography trade for questioning, trial, and random acts of mob brutality;

Grrr.

But that is only a "supports" clause. It's not mandatory.

I still think you shouldn't have changed the title.

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep. (pro-tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

Yeah I'd really get the mods to delete this one and resubmit. [restrained chortling]

Yeah I'd really get the mods to delete this one and resubmit. [restrained chortling]
I'd like to see how many approvals it garners, and from whom.

Sorry it has taken me a while to repond to this (OOC had to really think about it).

I'll try to explain why our nation feels so strongly about child porn and why our attitudes against those adults who paticipate in it, the real or simulated versions, are so set in stone.

Witchcliff suffered through a violent anarchy period just after the rebirth, and one of our greatest shames from that time was the abuse and deaths of children. It is estimated that over one fifth of our children under the age of 13 had been killed either by accident or deliberetly by adults. They were easy prey because a young persons powers don't emerge until they are between the ages of 16 and 21.

Out of the horror and shame of what had happened, grew our nation's love of all children, and our fierce will to protect them. They are our most precious assets and not even the life of the Queen is held in higher regard here than the life of a child. Perhaps it is the guilt that got to us, the realisation of just what we had lost, or a combination of both, but now, anyone who harms a child in any way in our nation is punished very harshly. That isn't because we are barbarians, but because of the very high status children hold in our society.

It is hard to explain, and I'm probably not making much sense, but we believe child porn, any version of it, is an assult on all children because it makes them nothing more than sex objects. In our eyes, it is exactly the same as taking their innocence and dragging it through a sewer.

I hope this helps you understand a little why we feel so strongly about this issue on our nation and why we fully support this proposal, and I hope the author does keep at least an international ban on simulated child porn in it.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN.

It is certainly noble to protect children.

However, it appears that that reaction was extreme, as it applies to cases where children are not harmed.


I challenge the writers and supporters to preset a counterpoint to my point about the stability of a person who commits acts of violence against children as being weak at best. Anybody who is going to commit such acts would have already been too far gone to stop.

So I do not buy that child pornography makes a person violent.

So how then, does pornography that doesn't even involve children harm children?

And again, would somebody mind telling me what a simulated sexual act is, since it allegedly involves children? This is a question that has continually gone unanswered.

If the author is not convinced by the arguments presented by the opposition, it is because the author is not clarifying statements in order to allow the opposition to respond to what the author feels is the core of the subject.

A perfectly noble proposal idea is being ruined by clauses that support "random acts of mob violence" and surpress art forms that don't involve children, tasteless though they may be.

I'd like to see how many approvals it garners, and from whom.Yes, 'twould be useful (and fun) to find out how many delegates support random acts of mob violence against child pornographers. 29 so far! http://70.85.169.212/6802/45/emo/cobdenia%5B1%5D.gif

A perfectly noble proposal idea is being ruined by clauses that support "random acts of mob violence" and surpress art forms that don't involve children, tasteless though they may be.We agree completely. The unwillingness of the author to compromise on intellectual freedom issues and the inclusion of hateful language make it impossible for us to support what could have been an excellent opportunity to improve the status of children in all nations of the UN.

And again, would somebody mind telling me what a simulated sexual act is, since it allegedly involves children? This is a question that has continually gone unanswered.Although I cannot speak for what was in the author's mind, if anything, at time of writing, an example of a simulated sex act would be one in which a child actor was filmed in such a manner as to lead one to believe that that child was performing a sex act without requiring the child to actually do so. Our sources in the film industry indicate that this can be done using any number of techniques including certain camera angles, stop-motion photography, the substitution of non-child actors at the critical moment and the like. Because a real child is involved and could suffer harm to reputation and career at a later date, these simulations are problematic and some feel should be prohibited even though the harm is not necessarily direct.

We haven't been convinced by the case for allowing certain forms of simulations...
I think they're talking more about drawings, CGI, or writings, where no child is involved at all - but the work still depicts a child performing sexual acts. At present, that would be illegal under this...Perhaps an example or two from Rubinan literature would be helpful.

We are blessed with a highly-lauded work of semi-autobiographical fiction, which is frequently taught at the young adult level. Within that work is an explicit depiction of the molestation of the central character when she was a young girl by an uncle. The molestation is central in understanding the development of the character of the girl. The realism of the scene is necessary to convey the horror of the event. You claim such would be illegal under this proposal.

There is an artistic masterpiece hung in the Halls of Justice in the capital of my fair nation that depicts in quite clear detail the rape of young children of a village by ravening marauders. It is historically accurate and reminds us of dark times in our history. It too, you would ban, either intentionally or unintentionally.

We are certain that Rubina is not the only nation that has such works of art that would be mislabeled as child pornography by those pushing an absolutist ban such as this one.

And an aside...
I'd like to see how many approvals it garners, and from whom.
Yes, 'twould be useful (and fun) to find out how many delegates support random acts of mob violence against child pornographers. 29 so far!But how will you tell whether it's a list of the violent or a list of those who simply don't read proposals before supporting them? ;)


Jim Jones,
NSUN Mouthpiece for User Friendlia

But what is a simulated sexual act? Can someone present me with an example?



In much soft core porn, those portraying the sexual acts are not actually engaging in intercourse. They are in roughly the right positions, emulating the basic motions and the like, but there is no penetration. That would be a simulated sex act.

It is certainly noble to protect children.

Agreed.

However, it appears that that reaction was extreme, as it applies to cases where children are not harmed.

So you think it's possible for a child to be involved in pornography without it being harmful to the child in some way?......uhhhh.....right.....moving on.

I challenge the writers and supporters to preset a counterpoint to my point about the stability of a person who commits acts of violence against children as being weak at best.

They could be quite stable. Their mentality could well be unhealthy but free from wild swings, which would render it stable.

Anybody who is going to commit such acts would have already been too far gone to stop.

I'm not arguing that point.

So I do not buy that child pornography makes a person violent.

I'm not saying that it definitely will, but it bears the potential.

So how then, does pornography that doesn't even involve children harm children?

If it doesn't involve children, then it wouldn't be child pornography. This strikes me as being a common sense point. I'm rather surprised that it isn't for so many.

And again, would somebody mind telling me what a simulated sexual act is, since it allegedly involves children? This is a question that has continually gone unanswered.

See above post by Karmicaria, it's been covered.

If the author is not convinced by the arguments presented by the opposition, it is because the author is not clarifying statements in order to allow the opposition to respond to what the author feels is the core of the subject.

Actually, it's because the opposition has latched onto one or two points and is refusing to see reason when it is presented to them in a simple and plain format.

A perfectly noble proposal idea is being ruined by clauses that support "random acts of mob violence" and surpress art forms that don't involve children, tasteless though they may be.

See above arguments.

Adressed to the UN and its member states:

Juli 16th, 2006 - Jurion

Although not a member of the UN, the governement of Eurime rejects this resolution and any resolution that attempts to limit, regulate or outlaw an individuals rights. We also ask that the the members of the UN nations recognise artistic freedom, as long as no-one is harmed in the proces. The governement of Eurime advices the UN to agree on a resolution that allows for nudity in general as long as no-one is harmed in the proces. The governement of Eurime strongly rejects any action that results in harm of individuals.

Vincent Yvain
Secretary of External Affairs

Sunita Saundra
Secretary of Justice & Human Rights

Oonto Kelsi
Secretary of Culture

Adressed to the UN and its member states:

Juli 16th, 2006 - Jurion

Although not a member of the UN, the governement of Eurime rejects this resolution and any resolution that attempts to limit, regulate or outlaw an individuals rights. We also ask that the the members of the UN nations recognise artistic freedom, as long as no-one is harmed in the proces. The governement of Eurime advices the UN to agree on a resolution that allows for nudity in general as long as no-one is harmed in the proces. The governement of Eurime strongly rejects any action that results in harm of individuals.

Vincent Yvain
Secretary of External Affairs

Sunita Saundra
Secretary of Justice & Human Rights

Oonto Kelsi
Secretary of Culture

Ok, let's see.

1) You are an absolute nobody
2) You are not a member of the UN
3) You contribute not advice nor anything of substance to the debate
4) You post the same static message on 3 different threads thus far (and I wouldn't be surprised if you post it on more still)

Why the hell would we care? If you want to participate, participate. If you want to troll, general is thataway.

Ok, let's see.

1) You are an absolute nobody
2) You are not a member of the UN
3) You contribute not advice nor anything of substance to the debate
4) You post the same static message on 3 different threads thus far (and I wouldn't be surprised if you post it on more still)

Why the hell would we care? If you want to participate, participate. If you want to troll, general is thataway.

Off-topic: I am not new to these forums, yet I recognise this nation is new. My messages are only static in their layout, however the contents are to the point and on-topic. My contributions to the topic can be read in the content of each memo, I try to give an advice, without forcing it on anyone, knowing that Eurime is not, and will never be, a member of the UN.

You are free to ignore me, ofcourse.

All you do is give your personal politics. That is NOT the same as contributing to a debate. The fact that you don't even give us enough respect to word your argument differently in each debate makes your entire contribution absolutely worthless. I know that Kenny is a member of the NSO and believes heavily in National Sovereignty, but I still enjoy reading what he has to say. Same with many others.

Stop wasting our time. If you want to contribute, CONTRIBUTE. You made your speech, once was enough. Kenny and myself are not (with these accounts) members of the UN, nor are many others that participate on the forums. However, they are still welcome to contribute.

My messages are only static in their layout, however the contents are to the point and on-topic. My contributions to the topic can be read in the content of each memo, I try to give an advice, without forcing it on anyone, knowing that Eurime is not, and will never be, a member of the UN.

You are free to ignore me, ofcourse.
Consider yourself warned for spamming the same cut-and-paste template with only one or two changed words. Knock it off. It's not RP, it's spam.

You are NOT free to ignore me, of course.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Consider yourself warned for spamming the same cut-and-paste template with only one or two changed words. Knock it off. It's not RP, it's spam.

You are NOT free to ignore me, of course.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

One or two words? ... Nevermind. *sigh* Since you guys seem to have a monopoly on RP-rules, I won't discuss any further. But if would be kind of you guys if in the future you would bother to apply some friendlyness to your critism...

So you think it's possible for a child to be involved in pornography without it being harmful to the child in some way?......uhhhh.....right.....moving on.Perhaps you are confused. Norderia was referring to Witchcliff's inclusion in the category of child pornography pornography that doesn't include children at all.

I'm not saying that it definitely will [ETA: pornography making a person violent], but it bears the potential.And you have objective evidence of this? As others have asked, do violent games lead to violence? Should we not be banning videogames? Many things have potential of various untoward effects. We generally don't legislate on "maybe"s and try especially hard not to legislate based on unfounded fears.

If it doesn't involve children, then it wouldn't be child pornography. This strikes me as being a common sense point. I'm rather surprised that it isn't for so many.Again, Norderia was speaking to Witchcliff and a specific, very inclusive definition of child pornography. On the other hand, we refer you to the author's comment that by this proposal's definition, direct involvement of children isn't necessary for a work to be deemed illegal as child pornography.

Actually, it's because the opposition has latched onto one or two points and is refusing to see reasonPerhaps it is because "the opposition" is concerned with the untoward effects this proposal (and others equally one-sided) would have on our societies. Once burned, twice shy.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece

I thank Rubina for assisting. I keep odd hours at work and generally don't have the opportunity to respond quickly enough.

So you think it's possible for a child to be involved in pornography without it being harmful to the child in some way?......uhhhh.....right.....moving on.
Rubina is right. If the child is involved, clearly there is harm being done. That has been my stance continually. However there are those that seek to ban such instances that don't involve children.

They could be quite stable. Their mentality could well be unhealthy but free from wild swings, which would render it stable.
Amended. Stable and healthy.

I'm not saying that it definitely will, but it bears the potential.
Rubina is right again. If the vague potential is what is to be legislated on, then I think pornography is the least we should be concerned with.

If it doesn't involve children, then it wouldn't be child pornography. This strikes me as being a common sense point. I'm rather surprised that it isn't for so many.
Then you should be against the provision in this that still bans pornographic material that doesn't actually involve children.

See above post by Karmicaria, it's been covered
I take issue with that definition.

In much soft core porn, those portraying the sexual acts are not actually engaging in intercourse. They are in roughly the right positions, emulating the basic motions and the like, but there is no penetration. That would be a simulated sex act.
The term "sexual" does not necessarily have to include penetration. For instance, nude, solo modeling of a sexual theme doesn't necessarily have any penetration at all. Dry-humping (forgive the crude term) is considered a sexual act, though clothes remain on, and no penetration occurs. "Simulated" would be getting the look of a sexual act without there occuring an actual sexual act. So, perhaps someone moaning in pain (or playing tennis) and leaning in front of someone adjusting the fly on their pants with the view obscured. That mayhaps would be a definition of simulated sexual acts. I'll say more on this in a moment.

Actually, it's because the opposition has latched onto one or two points and is refusing to see reason when it is presented to them in a simple and plain format.
The opposition will not move on from one or two points until they are answered. So far, they have either been ignored, dismissed, or answered to dissatisfaction.

If, perhaps, the authors would expressly exclude from this proposal such pornographic material that does not involve children, but may feature people acting as minors, or drawn figures of children, then I could be satisfied. Child pornography is atrocious, but so is an attempt to ban deviant art under the guise of protecting children.

Also, the clause about random acts of violence has to go.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Then you should be against the provision in this that still bans pornographic material that doesn't actually involve children.
Of course it involves children. They are the subjects of these pieces, and they are sexualised into objects of desire for predators.

The opposition will not move on from one or two points until they are answered. So far, they have either been ignored, dismissed, or answered to dissatisfaction.
Don't presume to speak for "the opposition".

I'll listen to the words coming out of your mouth, not the ones you put in others'.

If, perhaps, the authors would expressly exclude from this proposal such pornographic material that does not involve children, but may feature people acting as minors, or drawn figures of children, then I could be satisfied. Child pornography is atrocious, but so is an attempt to ban deviant art under the guise of protecting children.
Fortunately, this isn't just about protecting children: it's also about taking a stance against those who would commit sexual attacks on them. The material you are describing exists for one reason alone: to act as fodder for the urges of paedophiles (if it doesn't, then it's not banned). There is no justification for the allowance of such.

Also, the clause about random acts of violence has to go.
Yes, the "I'll huff and I'll puff..." reaction of those implacably opposed to banning images of children being sadistically brutalised amused me, insofar as it locked their eyes to tunnel vision. The clause about random acts of mob violence wasn't a new inclusion: it's been in the draft for several days. No one noticed, they were too busy trying to defend pederastic urges.

But it will be excluded from the final version.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I thank Rubina for assisting. I keep odd hours at work and generally don't have the opportunity to respond quickly enough.

I can empathize with that.

Rubina is right. If the child is involved, clearly there is harm being done. That has been my stance continually. However there are those that seek to ban such instances that don't involve children.

Misunderstood. My bad.

Amended. Stable and healthy.
Rubina is right again. If the vague potential is what is to be legislated on, then I think pornography is the least we should be concerned with.

I agree. I simply wanted to nod aknowledgement at the possibility. Such things should not be discounted.

Then you should be against the provision in this that still bans pornographic material that doesn't actually involve children.

I just don't read that clause that way. I fear that, as a semantic issue, we may not be able to convince each other to see it differently.

I take issue with that definition.

The term "sexual" does not necessarily have to include penetration. For instance, nude, solo modeling of a sexual theme doesn't necessarily have any penetration at all. Dry-humping (forgive the crude term) is considered a sexual act, though clothes remain on, and no penetration occurs. "Simulated" would be getting the look of a sexual act without there occuring an actual sexual act. So, perhaps someone moaning in pain (or playing tennis) and leaning in front of someone adjusting the fly on their pants with the view obscured. That mayhaps would be a definition of simulated sexual acts. I'll say more on this in a moment.

The proposaed legislation doesn't actually use the word 'sexual'. It uses the word 'sex'. Makes a rather large difference in this case. I still hold that if it was intended to refer to simulated children, it should read 'real or simulated children' instead of 'real or simulated sex'. As a little side note, if you already had these handy examples of a simulated sexual act, why keep asking others to provide one for you? Just curious.

The opposition will not move on from one or two points until they are answered. So far, they have either been ignored, dismissed, or answered to dissatisfaction.

They have been answered by a number of people. You are simply dismissing their responses as they do not fit into your paradigm of how things should work.

If, perhaps, the authors would expressly exclude from this proposal such pornographic material that does not involve children, but may feature people acting as minors, or drawn figures of children, then I could be satisfied. Child pornography is atrocious, but so is an attempt to ban deviant art under the guise of protecting children.

I pretty much have to leave this alone. I didn't write it and won't speak for them.

Also, the clause about random acts of violence has to go.

WOW! Good eye. I actually missed that line. I don't know, I kinda like it.;)

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

OOC:you have no idea how much it threw me off to see somebody using my RL first name for one of their characters. It's not an uncommon name, by any stretch....if you live in Finland. This side of the Atlantic doesn't see quite as many.

Of course it involves children. They are the subjects of these pieces, and they are sexualised into objects of desire for predators.
Again, you're miscategorizing everyone who sees such pornographic material as predators.

Don't presume to speak for "the opposition".

I'll listen to the words coming out of your mouth, not the ones you put in others'.
Someone used "the opposition" to refer to me, so I did as well to follow in the same suit. I of course don't presume to speak for everyone else though, so I concede.

Fortunately, this isn't just about protecting children: it's also about taking a stance against those who would commit sexual attacks on them.
Banning pornography isn't going to do that.

The material you are describing exists for one reason alone: to act as fodder for the urges of paedophiles (if it doesn't, then it's not banned)
Well, then here we have a disjunct. You want to do more than just ban pornography, whether or not it includes real children. You want also to deal with pedophiles, and as would be expected from two countries like us, we disagree on how they would have to be dealt with. I cannot in good conscience support this legislation.

Yes, the "I'll huff and I'll puff..." reaction of those implacably opposed to banning images of children being sadistically brutalised amused me, insofar as it locked their eyes to tunnel vision.
:rolleyes:

The clause about random acts of mob violence wasn't a new inclusion: it's been in the draft for several days. No one noticed, they were too busy trying to defend pederastic urges.
I shall have to reread the draft, since it's been updated more often than I thought. I'm not even going to justify the "pederastic urges" comment with a response.

The proposaed legislation doesn't actually use the word 'sexual'. It uses the word 'sex'. Makes a rather large difference in this case.
No, it says sexual.

"child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;

As a little side note, if you already had these handy examples of a simulated sexual act, why keep asking others to provide one for you? Just curious.
Because I didn't have one until I read one in here.

I am rereading the proposal. I'll make notes as I go. Some trivial, some important.

Gods, I hate the word "moral."

The clause before the operatives is pointless. "Think of the children!" is in no way professional or concise. Just stop with the appeals to emotions.

Definition of "simulated sexual act" ought to be included. Say, something along the lines of, "editing, doctoring, enhancing, or changing of audio or visual segments of children in non-sexual behaviors to create the likeness of sexual acts."

Other than that, everything is good.

Now that someone has taken the time to illustrate to me that a simulated sexual act is not, as I had originally thought, a computer generated image or an of-age actor/actress, I am not so concerned with the phrase, pending of course the clarification regarding the definition of simulated in the proposal.

However, now the word "representation" has come to my thoughts. This does include anything that is not real.

I do not buy that pornographic material makes a person do violent and horrid things. Nor do I buy that it sustains such violent and horrid things. There may be cases, certainly, but definitly not enough, and not on a scale large enough to warrant UN intervention. Each country has their own ways of dealing with psychotic, and violent people. Because the victims are children, it is especially touchy, however that does not negate the fact.

A proposal to protect children from being used in pornographic material is noble goal, and I can support that.

A proposal to mandate a way to punish criminals is not something I can support. I am certain that Gruenberg would not appreciate a proposal by me or Forgottenlands to establish mental hospitals for rehabilitation instead of prison time.

So in an odd move, I protest this proposal on grounds of NatSov. A ban on child pornography would be great. But since even pornographic materials that do not include real children is being banned by this proposal, for reasons of intervening with local child molestors, it is unsupportable.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Interesting. All this proposal requires is that nations "prohibit" certain behaviors and apply appropriately tough penalties for them -- meanwhile, the counterterrorism proposal currently in queue does exactly the same thing: it requires nations to criminalize certain terrorist activities and to punish such crimes appropriately. We find both proposals acceptable, yet your delegation professes to endorse one and condemn the other as unnecessarily infringing upon "national sovereignty."

Selective "sovereigntists" really ruffle our feathers.

Moreover, since you obviously didn't even notice these provisions in the bill till now, it seems the Gruenberger representative was absolutely correct in his assertion that your contingent has been so obsessed with assuring that pedophiles have access to simulated child porn that you have neglected to analyze the rest of the proposal. Quite curious.

[Suddenly notices that all the seats at the Kennyites' table are empty.]

Hey! Where'd everybody go?

~some State Department hack

The counterterrorism proposal deals with terrorism that crosses international borders and doesn't apply a mandate for how to punish or prevent terrorism.

This proposal states that even articles that do not contain real children are prohibited, and the reasons given for such a prohibition is because they are "food" for child molestors. So, in effect, it is stating that pedophiles are to be punished and prevented through this specific means.

The two proposals are vastly different.

And for the last time, I am not ensuring that pedophiles have access to child porn. I am ensuring that works that do not make use of children are not prohibited by a prohibition on child pornography. The idea I am advocating is the protection of children, NOT the punishment of pedophiles.

We will not have the UN dictating the means we use to deter local criminal behavior, and that is that.

Resubmitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=child).

Sadly, this time the mobs are to be denied. No other changes made.

Resubmitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=child).

Sadly, this time the mobs are to be denied. No other changes made.

Damn, we rather liked the bit about the mobs.

No other changes made.

You're really blowing it here.

Just as you would not have the UN choosing a form of punishment for any of your criminals, Norderia will not either.

I thought it'd be a cold day in Hell before I opposed a Proposal because of a NatSov issue, but there you have it:

This Proposal prohibits pornographic material that does not include real children, so it goes beyond protecting children. That prohibition is said to be a way to punish local pedophiles. We in Norderia do not use such measures to punish people who are not even necessarily violent criminals. The UN would be specifying that we do so.

Counterterrorism deals only in international terrorism. To say that I am inconsistent in that I support one and not the other is incorrect.

Resubmitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=child).

Sadly, this time the mobs are to be denied. No other changes made.

Read carefully.
This time, without the mobs, approved.

You're really blowing it here.
Unlikely.

Just as you would not have the UN choosing a form of punishment for any of your criminals, Norderia will not either.
Hmm, I see your point. Do you think we should remove the part mandating you execute child pornographers?

Except, of course, it's not there (despite the protestations of Mrs Jiffjeff). What is there is:
3. Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts;
The burden of interpretation lies with the nation: it's up to you to decide what 'appropriately tough' would mean.

So, this isn't the UN choosing a form of punishment for your criminals.

I thought it'd be a cold day in Hell before I opposed a Proposal because of a NatSov issue, but there you have it
If it's made you realize the value of national sovereignty, then it's all worth it.

This Proposal prohibits pornographic material that does not include real children, so it goes beyond protecting children. That prohibition is said to be a way to punish local pedophiles. We in Norderia do not use such measures to punish people who are not even necessarily violent criminals. The UN would be specifying that we do so.
The prohibition of pornographic material is not a punitive one: it's not intended to "punish" pedophiles, it's intended to stop them. One could even argue it's a measure of the form of "rehabilitation" so beloved of the liberals - by removing their temptation, they'll become normal.

Still, if you really oppose banning child pornography that much, there's little I'll be able to say to convince you that children shouldn't be raped for the entertainment of recidivist perverts.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: And dammit. People have got me spelling it "pedophiles". Ugh.

OOC: And dammit. People have got me spelling it "pedophiles". Ugh.[OOC: Well, how are you supposed to spell it? Or do you mean the British spell it differently?]

[OOC: Well, how are you supposed to spell it? Or do you mean the British spell it differently?]
The prefix is "paedo-" in British English.

And unlike words like fetus or sulfur, people would generally still use the British version.

But anyway.

Hm. Technically, shouldn't it be 'æ'?

Ooo... could we debate "aluminum" vs. "aluminium"?

sorry

The burden of interpretation lies with the nation: it's up to you to decide what 'appropriately tough' would mean.
That isn't the clause I have a problem with.

The prohibition of pornographic material is not a punitive one: it's not intended to "punish" pedophiles, it's intended to stop them. One could even argue it's a measure of the form of "rehabilitation" so beloved of the liberals - by removing their temptation, they'll become normal.
That isn't what you were saying, however.
Fortunately, this isn't just about protecting children: it's also about taking a stance against those who would commit sexual attacks on them.
Perhaps the word punish was hastily chosen. I can amend the use of it, but that quote there shows that this is indeed intended to target pedophiles (being frequently miscategorized as child molesters). Your intended stance is to eradicate pedophiles by removing anything that might get a pedophile off. We are in disagreement as to how that can be done. I am all for the ban of child pornography (seems like I have to say it in every post). I am all for preventing violent criminals from committing heinous acts. However, when you say "temptation" you have to understand that minors are their temptation, and you cannot remove those. In fact, you run the risk of leaving no other outlet for those people.

The effort I advocate is removing children from pornography. Just like I would advocate removing real murder from a violent movie. However, where children are not involved, I shan't ask for a ban.

We cannot ban something simply because we don't agree with its content. Perhaps you in your country would, but I certainly would not. People are no more influenced to have sex with children because of child-less child pornography than they are to murder people because of violent movies.

And if a person is influenced by it, then they are not sound of mind, and we all have our own ways of dealing with them. I'm willing to allow you to have yours, but not to adopt it.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy
=======================

Still, if you really oppose banning child pornography that much, there's little I'll be able to say to convince you that children shouldn't be raped for the entertainment of recidivist perverts.
I'm going to hit you.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

I'm going to hit you.


Y'know, as rabidly as I've argued with other represetatives in this austere body, I've never resorted to threats of bodily harm...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

P.S. It's "pedophile." There's no need for the "a." We're not speaking Greek.

*runs off to recycle some aluminium cans*

Y'know, as rabidly as I've argued with other represetatives in this austere body, I've never resorted to threats of bodily harm...

Consider it my response to the constant accusation that because I oppose this proposal, I enjoy the rape of children and want to protect such criminal acts, an accusation that is both absurd and very insulting. A toothless threat of minor violence is hardly an equivalent response. Rather, I'm more inclined to caning, but I know better. I certainly should think the delegation from Gruenberg would know better as well.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We just feel child pornography should be banned.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. We just feel child pornography should be banned.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

So do I.

But you're not just banning child pornography. You're banning things that don't even include children, just because you find it in bad taste.

So do I.

But you're not just banning child pornography. You're banning things that don't even include children, just because you find it in bad taste.
We're banning child pornography. Logic dictates you're either with us, or against us.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I personally think child porn should be legal as LONG AS THEY HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE CHILD/REN, and the child/ren know/s the possible dangers of child pornography, or the dangers of sexual intercourse.

Harrada']I personally think child porn should be legal as LONG AS THEY HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE CHILD/REN, and the child/ren know/s the possible dangers of child pornography, or the dangers of sexual intercourse.
Given children are defined as being below the age of consent, your suggestion is impossible.

Down from 97 to 95.

Hmm...

P.S. It's "pedophile." There's no need for the "a." We're not speaking Greek.
Bah - you speak bollocks!

*runs off to recycle some aluminium cans*
Rah - you speak truth!

Um...

Harrada']I personally think child porn should be legal as LONG AS THEY HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE CHILD/REN, and the child/ren know/s the possible dangers of child pornography, or the dangers of sexual intercourse.

Ummm.....Errrrr.......Uhhhhhhh......No. No, I can't do it. I can't actually begin to even count the number of things that are so wrong with this statement that it actually sickens me. Trust me, that takes alot. Bathing in the intestinal juices of a White Rhino recently choked to death on the body of a stangled puppy doesn't raise the bile in my throat, but this does.

Wow.....just.....just wow. Inconceivable.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/smilies/violent/killtard.gif

I personally think child porn should be legal as LONG AS THEY HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE CHILD/REN, and the child/ren know/s the possible dangers of child pornography, or the dangers of sexual intercourse.

I've seens some ugly, sickening things posted on these boards. But you, you have set a new low standard with that comment. Shame, shame, shame a thousands times more.

May the curses of our otters be upon you.

There is one thing I feel has been left out (and I apologise if I have duplicated any earlier discussion on this matter in this thread). What about the issue of adults pretending to be children during a pornographic production? Shouldn't this be prohibited too? It is disturbing and deeply suspect in my opinion and worth fighting against, merely because it sends the wrong message about the vile act of child abuse.

May the blessings of our otters be upon those debating seriously upon this sensitive topic.

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

That was actually one of the sticking points for a few nations, and probably still is. They feel that if kids aren't involved directly, then it shouldn't be an issue at all. It's nice to hear that others aren't quite so liberal as all that.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/a655.gif

Love and esterel support this proposal.

It's to late, sorry about that, but even if that doesn't prevent our support, we just regret the absence of encouraged communication on the topic (to explain and explain and explain why child pornography arms children)

Also I'm not sure about that but I tend to think that maybe available talk for people only using such materials and wanting volontary to go out of this may be useful.

I think that because, it seems to me that sex drive is so powerful (there is an evolutionnary cause to this as the more a species is drived by sex, the more it may reproduce...) that convincing one person to stop to do that may often need many times repeated messages (from a strategical point of view)

I will try a parallel about strategy and time for convincing someone about something, one cannot convince in 1 day someone with strong prejugés on homosexuality, it will takes in average 6 months or one year for his/her prejugés to disapear, because it's not easy to shift. (I hope I'm not too much unclear and that nobody with misinterpret what I'm saying)

We're banning child pornography. Logic dictates you're either with us, or against us.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of StaffVery poor logic, Mr. Pyandran, but I suppose we'll let you bastardize the word. One does not need to support this over-broad and misguided proposal in order to be against child pornography.

You have been quite upfront that the intent of your proposal goes beyond the prohibition of such and is a blatant attempt to attack non-active pedophiles.
this isn't just about protecting children: it's also about taking a stance against those who would commit sexual attacks on them. The material you are describing exists for one reason alone: to act as fodder for the urges of paedophiles (if it doesn't, then it's not banned). There is no justification for the allowance of such.
[and]
The prohibition of pornographic material is not a punitive one: it's not intended to "punish" pedophiles, it's intended to stop them. One could even argue it's a measure of the form of "rehabilitation" so beloved of the liberals - by removing their temptation, they'll become normal.
In so saying, you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge concerning pedophiles, their paraphilia, their prognosis, and the actual constitution of child molestors. You shy away from the word punish, but based on your actual statements, that's just splitting hairs.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Rubina

Fortunately, the delegates of the UN disagree with those who oppose banning child pornography, and have taken this moral proposal to quorum. Hopefully it will stay there, and go on to be voted on.

Fortunately, the delegates of the UN disagree with those who oppose banning child pornography, and have taken this moral proposal to quorum. Hopefully it will stay there, and go on to be voted on.

And when it passes, we're nuking Harrada.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Fortunately, the delegates of the UN disagree with those who oppose banning child pornography, and have taken this moral proposal to quorum. Hopefully it will stay there, and go on to be voted on.Pfft. The Gruenberg delegation is quite aware, and has bitched mightily in the past, that little more than the title is read of proposals.

It is good to see that you continue to feel that you must mischaracterize the objections to your little morality play in order to bolster your argument.

Bravo. *gentle clapping of hands* (OOC: Both hands you closet perv. ;) )

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Rubina

Ummm.....Errrrr.......Uhhhhhhh......No. No, I can't do it. I can't actually begin to even count the number of things that are so wrong with this statement that it actually sickens me. Trust me, that takes alot. Bathing in the intestinal juices of a White Rhino recently choked to death on the body of a stangled puppy doesn't raise the bile in my throat, but this does.

Wow.....just.....just wow. Inconceivable.


If the government of Kuraurisand may have the floor for a moment, I have the Chancellor's discretion to weigh in on several of the issues facing quorum in the United Nations, and this one holds as close to our core values as it is possible to.

The honorable delegation from Kivisto's personal bowel movements notwithstanding, Kuraurisand's diplomatic position is closer to Harrada's than any other position we have heard on the issue thus far. Our society believes, first and foremost, in the absolute equality of all human beings, regardless of any demographical characteristic, including age. Thus we have no "age of consent", as you would term it, nor do we have any age-related restrictions regarding the use of tobacco, alcohol, suffrage, motor vehicles, or any other activity within our national borders. (We do feel the need, lest someone consider us an immoral people, to assure the global community that we DO have appropriate laws in place regarding nonconsensual sex, and they are enforced rigorously regardless of the age of the victim or the amount of force used. While we recognize that a majority of young people can be coerced into a sexual relationship, we find that our non-prohibitive stance creates an open dialogue where a young person is free to ask the advice of others in the community without fear of an overreaction or persecution on the part of the State.) The proposal, as submitted, seems to assume an age of consent law, and makes no provisions for what nations such as our own would be required to do in the event of our joining: would we disregard the resolution entirely? Would we be expected to set a standard that falls in line with the majority of member nations? We would encourage the honorable delegate from The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg to refine the proposal to include guidance for those nations who don't conform to "typical" standards of legislation.

That said, should the government of Kuraurisand enter the United Nations, we will still vote against this proposal, as the wishes of the youthful party are not addressed by the legislation, and are thus an infringement on their individual rights.

On a side note, this seems to be as good a place as any to ask - is there a simple, no-nonsense list of exactly what resolutions are still in effect today and what they entail? Our government has been attempting to review what commitments we would be making if we applied for UN membership, and we must confess that even the sticky post in the UN hallway is not succinct or clear enough for us at this time. We do not relish spending the next week trying to pour over every resolution in detail, taking notes and scratching them out all the way.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

You might try the list of resolutions, though I wouldn't suggest wanking your way around all of them. :rolleyes:

I have decided to take preemptive action against any nation who opposes this sensible resolution, by making an addition to the World Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List#The_List).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I have decided to take preemptive action against any nation who opposes this sensible resolution, by making an addition to the World Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List#The_List).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Mmmm. This would explain why so many UN member states were trying to get lumber contracts from my nation before we considered joining.

Well, seeing as we're now on the list by default, we'll have to turn to (other) non-member states for our lumber and coal needs. Ironically, this would be more economically crippling if we were unable to pay them with the latest child pornography proceeds. :)

Mmmm. This would explain why so many UN member states were trying to get lumber contracts from my nation before we considered joining.

Well, seeing as we're now on the list by default, we'll have to turn to (other) non-member states for our lumber and coal needs. Ironically, this would be more economically crippling if we were unable to pay them with the latest child pornography proceeds. :)
Well then, you better make your money while you can then because soon that won't be a viable option.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well then, you better make your money while you can then because soon that won't be a viable option.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Why not?

Why not?
Because once this resolution passes, your nation won't be able to distribute child porn.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Because once this resolution passes, your nation won't be able to distribute child porn.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Errr, ignoring for the moment that Kuraurisand hasn't formally entered the United Nations, I would respectfully point out to the delegate that the resolution specifically defines "child" by the age of consent in the member country; Kuraurisand, as stated in our formal position address earlier, has no age of consent.

Furthermore, it relies on that definition to require the prohibition of distribution of child pornography, so Kuraurisand would, by the resolution's current wording, even remain free to distribute the material to nations with higher ages of consent, as the standard set forth in the resolution is that of the /producing/ nation, not that of the recipient nation.

Mmm. That's another thing the drafter might want to fix, I'd think.

Thus we have no "age of consent", as you would term it, nor do we have any age-related restrictions regarding the use of tobacco, alcohol, suffrage, motor vehicles, or any other activity within our national borders.Two years olds driving! Babies voting the Tellitubbies into higher office! Fucking brilliant! Is your entire nation run by thirteen year olds, or were your laws just written by them? Age of consent laws exist for a reason, you know.

How many five year olds in your nation have signed away all their future earnings for a candy bar?

On a side note, this seems to be as good a place as any to ask - is there a simple, no-nonsense list of exactly what resolutions are still in effect today and what they entail?Why, yes. (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Two years olds driving!

Our scientific and research teams are working on automated cars to prevent traffic accidents; the thought is that, eventually, we can have cars that drive themselves, with collision sensors, and at that point, yes, it would not be surprising to have children as young as two successfully operating them.

However, at present, we DO still have somewhat "traditional" licensing practices, and the youngest driver to have passed both the written and road tests is nine-year-old Linsday Haskel of Kuraurisand's Tyco province, and she is admittedly the only person of her age to have passed. While it is true that a lot of accidents in Kuraurisand happen among drivers age 12-15, it is also true that 16-18 year old drivers in our country statistically drive 20 times better than their counterparts in traditionally age-restricted countries, which has led us to conclude that it is the years of experience on the road, and not the age of the driver, which account for other countries' youth accident rates.

Babies voting the Tellitubbies into higher office! Fucking brilliant!

Again, while this is theoretically possible, and we do not deny that the Tellitubbies received roughly 20000 votes in our last provincial election, I'm sure you will be pleased to know that more mature voices in the community have prevailed, many of those voices children as well.

OOC: Irresponsible voting is hardly an age-related phenomonon, look at the Governator!

Is your entire nation run by thirteen year olds, or were your laws just written by them?

Our laws emphasize a simple, primary principle - that all human beings are created equal, and their voices carry equal weight within our society. Yes, there have been periods in our history when children have held office, and although there has never been a child named Chancellor, I can assure you that the people of Kuraurisand would accept such a candidate if he or she demonstrated along the campaign trail that s/he was the most qualified for the position.

Age of consent laws exist for a reason, you know.

As do capital punishment laws, anti-euthanasia laws, and a plethora of other legislations which societies have enacted over the centuries to reflect their values and beliefs. Kuraurisand understands the rationale behind the age of consent laws passed by other nations; we simply do not share those beliefs. In our opinion, the supression of individual freedoms, particularly in the name of "protection" based on the concept of "knowing what's in their best interests [better than they do]", is an unacceptable, unethical abuse of authority, and there are simply better ways to offer that protection without assuming that type of control over other human beings.

How many five year olds in your nation have signed away all their future earnings for a candy bar?

Quite a few have lost significant amounts of money in casinos, I'm afraid. To a certain extent, such exploitation in a society that values individual freedom is inevitable. However, no citizen of Kuraurisand, even an adult, would be able to enter into a credit-based agreement for anything other than a house or a car, and there are government industry controls in place to prevent gross abuse of the system. Our position merely requires that the regulations be the same for all; it does not bind our hands against making any such regulations.

If you are interested in learning more about the government of Kuraurisand, I would certainly encourage you to inquire more in your nearest local embassy, as this forum is probably inappropriate.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Our laws emphasize a simple, primary principle - that all human beings are created equal, and their voices carry equal weight within our society. Yes, there have been periods in our history when children have held office, and although there has never been a child named Chancellor, I can assure you that the people of Kuraurisand would accept such a candidate if he or she demonstrated along the campaign trail that s/he was the most qualified for the position.

I am 14 at the moment I know more about my politcs I'd say then the average adult. But do I think I should be allowed to vote?NO I don't I know that if I was allowed to vote so would alot of my class. Most of my class has no idea about politics at all. They don't know what district they are in they don't know who is running in that district. They know the major parties and there leaders but that is it. Do I expect them to way in the consequences of lower taxes vs better service? NO Do I expect them to look at our debt and wether or not it is a problem NO.

I am 14 and my class in the majority does not do that. So think about a 6 year old. They have no Idea. At that age I couldn't spell liberal let alone make an informed choice on how good they are for the country. Ages of consent are very important.

I am 14 at the moment I know more about my politcs I'd say then the average adult. But do I think I should be allowed to vote?NO <snip> Ages of consent are very important.
Are you Kuraurisandian? Only by having the same cultural, social and genetic background would comparisons between Newfoundcanadians and Kuraurisandians be relevant. Because of certain nuclear power mishaps in our distant past, Rubinans mature much earlier than other humanoids. Thus our age of consent is set at 10. In contrast, I represent a nation in which the age of consent is much later, approximately 26. Our many differences make bright line moral legislation difficult.

[OOC: RL debate is thataway ▼. ]

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Rubina

Are you Kuraurisandian? Only by having the same cultural, social and genetic background would comparisons between Newfoundcanadians and Kuraurisandians be relevant. Because of certain nuclear power mishaps in our distant past, Rubinans mature much earlier than other humanoids. Thus our age of consent is set at 10. In contrast, I represent a nation in which the age of consent is much later, approximately 26. Our many differences make bright line moral legislation difficult.

[OOC: RL debate is thataway ▼. ]

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Rubina
I am doing RL debates and you are doing silly differnt species things. Everyone citizens has to be assumed to be a normal type in the UN. Only because once you start letting people say things like Rubinans mature earlier then it confuses every resolution. If a resolution says everyone must have a gun(just an example) then I could say Newfoundcanadians are deathly allergic to guns. Or I could Newfoundcandians all kill themsleves whenever the UN repeals somehthing. Like really it is just silly.

Once one person does it more do and soon no resolution can be passed. If you want to legalize prostitution in all nations then people can say that there people whenever they have sex become mutated mass-murder's.

I am doing RL debates and you are doing silly differnt species things. Everyone citizens has to be assumed to be a normal type in the UN. Only because once you start letting people say things like Rubinans mature earlier then it confuses every resolution. If a resolution says everyone must have a gun(just an example) then I could say Newfoundcanadians are deathly allergic to guns. Or I could Newfoundcandians all kill themsleves whenever the UN repeals somehthing. Like really it is just silly.

Once one person does it more do and soon no resolution can be passed. If you want to legalize prostitution in all nations then people can say that there people whenever they have sex become mutated mass-murder's.
Yes, it can go too far. But I think that saying an education system is so good that people mature a little earlier isn't too much of an overstep.

Yes, it can go too far. But I think that saying an education system is so good that people mature a little earlier isn't too much of an overstep.
Oh sure that kind of thing can happen... a little earlier 26-10 that is not a little bit.

I won't accept any differnt species of course. I also think "Because of certain nuclear power mishaps in our distant past" is a bit crazy as what he was talking about.

Oh sure that kind of thing can happen... a little earlier 26-10 that is not a little bit.

I won't accept any differnt species of course. I also think "Because of certain nuclear power mishaps in our distant past" is a bit crazy as what he was talking about.

Well, so to is your assumption that a majority of adults know any better than the rest of your class. That's what democracy is, buddy.

Now, if a country finds its 10 year olds mature enough to deal with such matters, then so be it. They haven't proven themselves incapable at this point, so I'm not going to pass judgement.

When I say that Resolutions themselves need to be given some lee-way, that's in dealing with the different species. We can say humans in a Resolution and it is assumed that it refers to all sentient, nation-borne life forms, so we don't have to say "humans and <insert list of all other sentient beings in the UN".

OOC: This is a roleplaying community, however, so there's no denying what another player has done with their country. Cobdenia has successfully made a past tech nation. Zeldon is on another planet. St. Edmund is another species. If someone comes along and says they have a bomb that can blow up 10 Earths, and that they just used it, well, we can say "IGNORED" because that's absurd. So play along.

IC: Since I don't see any chance of this Resolution (because it's a Resolution now that it has achieved quorum) failing in the GA, I'm going to protest the subjective, Wenaist morality prohibition on certain types of art (tasteless in though they may be) in another form.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

IC: Since I don't see any chance of this Resolution (because it's a Resolution now that it has achieved quorum) failing in the GA, I'm going to protest the subjective, Wenaist morality prohibition on certain types of art (tasteless in though they may be) in another form.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

No, it's still a proposal. It's only a resolution once it passes a floor vote.

No, it's still a proposal. It's only a resolution once it passes a floor vote.Once it hits quorum, it really doesn't matter if it's termed a proposal or a resolution. Tomato Tomahto.

Once it hits quorum, it really doesn't matter if it's termed a proposal or a resolution.

But it is only a resolution if it has passed a floor vote. :p

But it is only a resolution if it has passed a floor vote. :p

No no, I'm fairly sure that it is a Resolution once it is up for vote. I read that somewhere... I'll go dig it up.

No no, I'm fairly sure that it is a Resolution once it is up for vote. I read that somewhere... I'll go dig it up.

Yup. I am correct. Behold:

The following are proposals for UN resolutions. Any UN member nation with at least two endorsements can make a proposal, but it will only become a resolution (to be voted on by the entire UN) if it is approved by at least 6% of UN Regional Delegates.

Yup. I am correct. Behold:

The following are proposals for UN resolutions. Any UN member nation with at least two endorsements can make a proposal, but it will only become a resolution (to be voted on by the entire UN) if it is approved by at least 6% of UN Regional Delegates.

Bah, that's just a poorly constructed sentence.

No, it's still a proposal. It's only a resolution once it passes a floor vote.

Wrong. A proposal becomes a resolution when it comes before the Assembly for a vote. To quote the United Nations page:

The following resolution is being debated by the UN. If it passes, it will immediately take effect in all UN member nations. [Emphasis added]

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Wrong. A proposal becomes a resolution when it comes before the Assembly for a vote. To quote the United Nations page:



Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

Then what what resolution number is this one, eh?

Then what what resolution number is this one, eh?

It hasn't passed yet. It doesn't get a number until it is voted in.

It hasn't passed yet. It doesn't get a number until it is voted in.

Because it's not a resolution. :p

Because it's not a resolution. :p

I'll eat your soul.

I'll eat your soul.

You're gonna go hungry. I haven't got one. :p

I am 14 at the moment I know more about my politcs I'd say then the average adult. But do I think I should be allowed to vote?NO I don't I know that if I was allowed to vote so would alot of my class. Most of my class has no idea about politics at all. They don't know what district they are in they don't know who is running in that district. They know the major parties and there leaders but that is it. Do I expect them to way in the consequences of lower taxes vs better service? NO Do I expect them to look at our debt and wether or not it is a problem NO.

I am 14 and my class in the majority does not do that. So think about a 6 year old. They have no Idea. At that age I couldn't spell liberal let alone make an informed choice on how good they are for the country. Ages of consent are very important.

I'm afraid that the government of Kuraurisand must wholeheartedly agree with the observation made by the Norderians: adults in the community are not required to make their voting decisions in any kind of intelligent, rational manner. The only requirement is citizenship. Why, then, should children be denied the right to suffrage just because they are presumed to lack said intelligence? (OOC: this is, frankly, my RL viewpoint as well as my country's IC viewpoint.) Experience has a qualitative as well as a quantitative aspect to it: for example, who would you want to perform at a musical concert, a 12 year old with 4 years of piano lessons or an adult who has never touched the piano? Obviously, the more experienced player is the more effective one, regardless of age. By your own admission, you are undoubtedly more versed in political subjects than many adults in your community. Why do their half-baked opinions matter, while your thoroughly researched viewpoint is silenced, just because your peers might not put as much thought into their decisions? Don't forget, your peers have been subjected to years of being told that their opinion is worthless, that they are expected to sit down, shut up and leave the decision-making to their "betters". I would assert that, if their society sought out their opinions more frequently, if they felt respected and valuable, then perhaps their reactions would be more like your own. In fact, many adults in modern societies tend to feel very low self-esteem, and Kuraurisand is of the opinion that this is a direct result of the negative conditioning they experience while they are children.

Perhaps you are right, and there should be an intelligence requirement installed in the voting process. Kuraurisand has considered such legislation in the past. However, that is a seperate issue - currently the only requirement is citizenship, and we consider our children to be legitimate citizens in their own right, and not just the property of their parents.

Given your obvious intelligence and your determination to stand up for your viewpoints, we would urge you to consider demanding the same rights in your own society, lest your government be denied your unique perspectives and insights. Such would truly be a substantial loss.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

P.S. Our envoys eagerly await the blessings or curses of the Compadrian otters. We find that practice incredibly awesome, and we are considering exterminating our platypi and negotiating with Compadria for the import of some otters to our community.

To tackle this from a slightly different angle, any nation that does not have any age of consent laws in place will not be affected by this at all. If the individual is full entitled to all of the rights and priviledges that adults are entitled to and they are not legally viewed as a "child", unable of consent, then this resolution will not be applicable to them. Keep in mind that the instance pornographic material involving them travels to another nation where age of consent laws differ from yours (ie-they exist), such material will be viewed as child pornography in said nation and will be considered an illicit product.

To tackle this from a slightly different angle, any nation that does not have any age of consent laws in place will not be affected by this at all. If the individual is full entitled to all of the rights and priviledges that adults are entitled to and they are not legally viewed as a "child", unable of consent, then this resolution will not be applicable to them. Keep in mind that the instance pornographic material involving them travels to another nation where age of consent laws differ from yours (ie-they exist), such material will be viewed as child pornography in said nation and will be considered an illicit product.

Well, as pointed out earlier, the resolution leans on the /producing/ member nation's definition of "child" in order to properly define "child pornography". So I would submit that, as written, material crossing the border would be judged by that standard, and would not, in fact, be child pornography (at least by this resolution's standards) as it crossed the border.

The government of Kuraurisand would suggest changing the definition in section 1 of the resolution to instead define "child pornography" as "any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a human underneath the age of consent in the nationality where the material is being transported to or from (whichever is higher), or any explicit image of the sexual organs of such a person, for primarily sexual purposes." We believe this would effectively close the loophole.

Ah. I see. I misunderstood your issue.

Ah. I see. I misunderstood your issue.

No, you understood correctly. I merely had more than one point. :)

P.S. Our envoys eagerly await the blessings or curses of the Compadrian otters. We find that practice incredibly awesome, and we are considering exterminating our platypi and negotiating with Compadria for the import of some otters to our community.

Whilst we wouldn't want to be seen as condoning extinction, we'd be more than happy to do some reciprocal trading, with otters as our trading commodity.

Oh and the text gets a more or less automatic otter-blessing. Curses are reserved for:

a). Grave insults to the Compadrian people or nationstate.
b). Insults to otters.
c). Stupid/disturbing posts.
d). People who accuse us of being "fluffy".

The blessing comes from the ancient Compadrian tradition of always trying to respect one's opponent and blessing them shows that whilst you may violently disagree with their point of view, you should only react when they transgress the moral boundaries set out above or when you feel they are merely using abuse for abuse's sake. Otherwise, keeping one's cool and remaining courteous are considered paramount in debate.

That said, it was an interesting post, although I don't quite agree with the implications. I personally think that child-immaturity and adult-maturity are different things, with different connotations, so prohibiting adults from voting on these grounds, as well as being a bugger to define without any clear benefit that could result from it, would be undemocratic and unfair.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Fluffy bastage. :p

Then what what resolution number is this one, eh?

It's unnumbered until it's passed. But that doesn't mean it's not a resolution. A proposal becomes a resolution when the game says it does. And the game clearly refers to items at vote as resolutions.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

I've been pretty quiet in this thread (except in my heated, life-or-death debate with Cluich) but I just wanna make it clear that I am no less off-put by this Resolution-in-waiting.

It bans images that don't actually include children.

This is exactly the same as would a Resolution about murder banning fake murders, as seen, for instance, in violent movies, or dramatic plays. Or even National Geographic.

It's a subtle attempt at subjecting the UN to Wenaist morals.

It's banning something simply because it is in bad taste.

It stinks, good sirs, it stinks.



And there ain't a chance in hell of it failing once it hits the floor...

It's unnumbered until it's passed. But that doesn't mean it's not a resolution. A proposal becomes a resolution when the game says it does. And the game clearly refers to items at vote as resolutions.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United NationsFor shame, Lorelei, trying to pass yourself off as Thwerdock. :p

And the game clearly refers to items at vote as resolutions.The game is clearly wrong. >_>

The game is clearly wrong. >_>

wouldn't be the first time. ;)

OOC: This is a roleplaying community, however, so there's no denying what another player has done with their country. Cobdenia has successfully made a past tech nation. Zeldon is on another planet. St. Edmund is another species.

St Edmund's population is mostly Human, actually, it's just that the small minority of Ouphs & Ouph/Human hybrids is disproportionately influential (for historical reasons) so that their interests have to be taken into account.
(And then of course, although fortunately Ambassador Riley doesn't seem to have noticed the fact yet, there are the Talking Cats... ;) )

Fluffy bastage. :p

The U.N. debating hall suddenly and mysteriously was plunged into darkness. As the startled delegates looked at one another, the emergency exit was throw open and a small, wizened figure, surrounded by a cascade of bright light, entered the room. He. for it soon becomes clear that the stunningly back-light entity was a man, walked towards the Cluichistani representative, who was mouthing something silently all the while, probably a slightly confused "what the fuck?"

"Are you the Cluichistani ambassador", asked the man in a tremulous voice. Then before letting himself be answered, he drew himself up and crashed down his staff upon the floor of the U.N. and in a thunderous roar cried:

"Henceforth, for a period of 16 lunar cycles, the curses of the entire Compadrian otter population, shall falll upon you".

He paused and suddenly looked at everyone else in the assembly room.

"And the rest of you better watch it. Even you Otterby, I've got my eyes fixed on you, remember those Tiger Otters under your desk. I can cast spells to make them go wild with murderous, vicious rage and you'll be their first victim."

He laughed evilly, but had to stop after a few seconds due a coughing fit. He then shuffled out and flicked on the light switch as he left.

[President Fernanda, having made another unauthorized visit to UN Headquarters, tears a corner off one of Sec. Tehrani's briefing papers, stuffs it in his mouth to forge a missile, raises a straw to his lips, and fires the projectile at the back of Ottarkus' head as the otter-god exits.]

May the pummeling of my fists be upon you, bitch!

[President Fernanda, having made another unauthorized visit to UN Headquarters, tears a corner off one of Sec. Tehrani's briefing papers, stuffs it in his mouth to forge a missile, raises a straw to his lips, and fires the projectile at the back of Ottarku's head as the otter-god exits.]

May the pummeling of my fists be upon you, bitch!

Otterby collapsed to the desk, clutching the back of his head. Holt, although seemingly quite cheerful at this turn of events, turned to Fernanda and replied "And may the jaws of our tiger otters seize upon your groin Ferny-boy" and promptly tossed a large, snarling creature at him, from a sack under Otterby's desk.

[OOC: That spitball was meant for the otter-god, not Otterby!] .

[Fernanda swerves just in time to miss the creature, which grazes the president's ear, and lands on Shirley Jackson's face. Fernanda jumps to help her, but stops himself:

["She's the one who supports kiddie porn, right?" he asks Sec. Tehrani as the shrieking Jackson grabs the otter and tries to pull it off her.

["Yes, Mr. President. She also opposes this resolution, and has secretly been trading communiques with Norderia about it."

["She hates Cluichstan, too, right?"

["Right. She's also been pushing for your impeachment for months now."

[Fernanda smiles satisfactorily to himself as Jackson's screams continue. "Good," he says as he turns toward the exit. "I'm likin' the Compadrians more and more everyday!"

[Just then, Jackson manages to yank the otter off her face and fling it into the aisle. It lands gingerly on its feet and hurries toward the double doors, several ambassadors alarmingly pulling their feet out of the aisle as it goes.]

[Kuraurisand's envoy glares back and forth between the combatants.]

Given that this in the only proposal in the queue to have reached quorum, it would seem that a return to debate on the issue would be the wisest course of action.

By all means yes, let us return to the discussion about your nation's age-of-consent laws. :rolleyes:

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

[Kuraurisand's envoy glares back and forth between the combatants.]

Given that this in the only proposal in the queue to have reached quorum, it would seem that a return to debate on the issue would be the wisest course of action.

Yes, sorry, by all means let's.

Otterby turns to Holt and gesticulates at him.

"Anthony, could you take over the debate please".

Otterby excuses himself and leaves the debate chamber calling "here Tarka, here boy, be a nice boy..."

Thank you honourable delegates, where were we in our discussion. Oh, yes, we were discussing the age of consent were we not? Oh well, failing that, I'll take to task one of Norderia's points.

It bans images that don't actually include children.

This is perfectly logical. By using adults to depict those under the age of consent (for instance), they are encouraging a weakening of the laws in this regard. Of course, freedom of actions and speech are important and simulation should not normally be considered the real thing. But the acts in question are connected to acts so vile and because they are pornographic in nature have no social or moral commentary attached to them which indicates that they (at the very least) may not be the most respectable activity to engage in. It would therefore be an ommission to overlook the simulation of acts where child actors are themselves simulated, which would amount to the same thing, with only a flimsy cover to seemingly conceal the act for what it truly represents. Can anyone really say, in full honesty, that they would not find that sort of behaviour disturbing? Sending out the wrong messages? Encouraging very serious violations of law and human rights?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

But the acts in question are connected to acts so vile

It never ceases to amaze our government how many other societies view sexual exploitation as more vile than torture and murder. An abused child has the opportunity to come to terms with what happened and reclaim his or her life; a murdered child most certainly does not have that opportunity.

Likewise, there is no discussion here regarding the ban of images roleplaying adult rape. It has been argued by many psychological communities that children are /more/ capable of recovering from traumatic experiences than adults; why, then, would banning such simulations not be an even higher priority?

and because they are pornographic in nature have no social or moral commentary attached to them

I would assert that pornography sends a VERY clear moral commentary, if not always a good one.

Can anyone really say, in full honesty, that they would not find that sort of behaviour disturbing?

Yes.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

By all means yes, let us return to the discussion about your nation's age-of-consent laws. :rolleyes:

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

We have attempted to keep our own age-of-consent considerations secondary in our viewpoints, Mr. Secretary... we have made suggestions to close loopholes in this resolution and make it even more likely to pass than the knee-jerk reactions of most UN members, who will not read a word of this debate, already near-guarantee. Frankly, we do this because there are enough problems with the resolution on it's tightened wording and more extremist notions WITHOUT getting into the concept that the whole idea is bad on it's face.

If the Secretary would like to engage in a discussion regarding the oppression of so-called "minors" and it's comparison, in the Kuraurisandian mindset, to other oppressed minorities being treated like property since the dawn of time, you will find us more than willing to do so.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

It never ceases to amaze our government how many other societies view sexual exploitation as more vile than torture and murder. An abused child has the opportunity to come to terms with what happened and reclaim his or her life; a murdered child most certainly does not have that opportunity.

Likewise, there is no discussion here regarding the ban of images roleplaying adult rape. It has been argued by many psychological communities that children are /more/ capable of recovering from traumatic experiences than adults; why, then, would banning such simulations not be an even higher priority?

Well firstly I don't have a grading scale on these sorts of acts. Sexual exploitation is neither worse nor better than torture or murder, they're all vile acts and deserve to be legislated against. Abused children may come to terms with abuse, but this doesn't mean that we should ignore the matter, nor, considering that children don't so much come to terms with things, rather they bury them away in their subconcious, would it be advisible that we took that approach when it comes to child-abuse.

Secondly, the adults in this kind of pornography will almost always be willing, so the question of trauma for them is limited. Children are far more vulnerable to 'imprinting', being harmed by the effects of such behaviour and its wider social ramifications. Banning it along with other necessary measures, would reduce incentives for people to indulge these sorts of fantasies, especially since they are distinctly unhealthy.

I would assert that pornography sends a VERY clear moral commentary, if not always a good one.

Pornography isn't so much promoting a morality as simply depicting an amoral situation, i.e. one involving sex, but which can involve moral dimensions. For normal, adult pornography, the dimension is whether or not the social implications of pornography override the individual right to produce it. This is mitigated by the fact that it involves consenting adults, who have chosen to engage in such acts of their own volition. A child, or people mimicking chid behaviour, would not be able to, or would refrain from, having the same amount of consent or ability to understand the ramifications of the act.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: Yeah, I feel a little dirty going where I'm about to go. *shudder* Ah, the joys of carrying out RP to it's logical places.



Well firstly I don't have a grading scale on these sorts of acts. Sexual exploitation is neither worse nor better than torture or murder, they're all vile acts and deserve to be legislated against. Abused children may come to terms with abuse, but this doesn't mean that we should ignore the matter, nor, considering that children don't so much come to terms with things, rather they bury them away in their subconcious, would it be advisible that we took that approach when it comes to child-abuse.

Secondly, the adults in this kind of pornography will almost always be willing, so the question of trauma for them is limited. Children are far more vulnerable to 'imprinting', being harmed by the effects of such behaviour and its wider social ramifications. Banning it along with other necessary measures, would reduce incentives for people to indulge these sorts of fantasies, especially since they are distinctly unhealthy.

Compadria seems to be changing it's arguments to fit the moments, Ambassador. Your original argument was that /adults/ portraying themselves as children in sexual situations should be included in this prohibition because, and I quote, "It would... be an ommission to overlook the simulation of acts where child actors are themselves simulated, which would amount to the same thing, with only a flimsy cover to seemingly conceal the act for what it truly represents." My response to you was based on that argument, pointing out to you, as many others have, that it does not do to be inconsistent in the application of our laws. If you think simulated actions of rape (adult and child) and murder should be banned, this government would be happy to address that argument in a seperate resolution. There is no place for such a prohibition in this resolution, as it singles out one type of "offense" (which we still maintain is not always justifiably classified as such) while ignoring others of the same type, some of which are arguably higher priority.

Pornography isn't so much promoting a morality as simply depicting an amoral situation, i.e. one involving sex, but which can involve moral dimensions. For normal, adult pornography, the dimension is whether or not the social implications of pornography override the individual right to produce it.

There are many ways to address this point: for the purposes of discussion, let us temporarily cede that all pornography produced purely for sexual gratification is without artistic merit or moral message (we do not really agree, but it is irrelevant to the current discussion).

Let us look at an example circulating in Kuraurisand at this moment, a movie by the name of Double-Edged Sword, which was released roughly two years ago. Sparing the graphic details, the movie follows three boys in a local middle school, two of whom are lovers. The third has an interest in the first, but the first refuses his advances and states that he is already in a committed relationship. The third then concocts an elaborate revenge scheme by seducing and using the second, and the story ends in tragedy. There are two graphic sex scenes within the work - one of the two boys in the loving relationship, and the other between the coercive antagonist and his victim. (It should be noted that the latter is a depiction of a crime by Kuraurisandian law, as sexual manipulation with purely malicious intent is a felony of the second degree, and in "real life", if enough evidence were available to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the antagonist had no legitimate interest in his victim, he could be subject to criminal penalties.)

The sex scenes are roughly four minutes in length each, and the running time of the entire film is nearly two hours. The artist insisted that the graphic sex scenes were necessary "to drive home the stark contrast between a committed, loving relationship and sex for it's own sake", and states that his intent is to encourage people of all ages to make sexual decisions with care and consideration. Could the point be driven home without the graphical details? Perhaps. But, to quote the author, "There is a uniqueness in the act of sexual intimacy that, when shared on the camera, bares the souls of the participants to the viewers. The point would not be as strong if it weren't for the performances of the actors, particularly the spectacular performance given by John [the victim] during the infidelitous sexual encounter, which lets the audience feel his subsequent breakdown and pleading for forgiveness in a way that would be lost if the scene weren't shown."

The film, while arousing to those who find such things arousing, is clearly made with a more artistic mindset, and yet would be declared child pornography by your resolution. (Well, correction, it would /not/ be declared child pornography by the resolution as it's /currently/ written, since the resolution uses the age of consent of the producing country to define what is a "child", and there are no age-of-consent laws in Kuraurisand. But the spirit of the law seems intended to prohibit this kind of thing, so the example is still relevant.)

This is mitigated by the fact that it involves consenting adults, who have chosen to engage in such acts of their own volition. A child, or people mimicking chid behaviour, would not be able to, or would refrain from, having the same amount of consent or ability to understand the ramifications of the act.

I submit to you that this premise is simply false. There is no great mystery to love - every child lucky enough to have loving parents can feel that love before they can even express it in words. Nor is there any great mystery to sex or it's consequences - the /typical/ six year old can understand the mechanical concepts, and the potential threats of STDs and pregnancy [when applicable], with no more difficulty than they understand the mechanics and risks involved in crossing the street. They will certainly not always use the best judgement when making such decisions, and there will be some regrets, but these phenomenon transcend age, as evidenced by the adult divorce rates in countries with even the most rigid age of consent laws.

You will have to prove that all children inherently lack such consent capabilities - you cannot simply declare that it is so.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

This is perfectly logical.
Certainly it is. If you wish to ban something simple because it is in bad taste. The depiction of a vile act cannot be made illegal (cannot here being used as a stronger form of should not). It is simply a depiction. Just as I am certain that this body will not ban torture, murder, and rape scenes in a movie, nor should it ban the depiction (even a hand drawn, grossly disproportionate, overly colored anime depiction) of minors in sexual acts or poses.

Why is it going to?

Because it is unpopular. The oxytosin in the brain shoots off and screams "PROTECT THE CHILDREN!" even when there are no children to protect. The only way that the ban of childless child pornography could be justified is if it is proven to cause people to commit a vile act. And it certainly is not. I am reminded of the RL Alexander Hamilton (and if I'm wrong, correct me, but I think it was in the Federalist Papers) who said that the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no way that an image of a minor in a sexual act can harm anyone. There is no sound reason to ban an image because it represents something that we disagree with.

"I would rather let a thousand guilty men go free than imprison an innocent man" is coming to mind. Only it seems to me that the phrase is being changed around -- Some here would rather imprison a thousand innocent (read: non-violent, non-predatory) men than let one guilty man go free.

It is abhorrent to censor disagreeable material. To regulate it, I can understand. We have a rating system for movies. Many nations have age limits for viewing pornography.

If a fake murder occurs in a pornography, will such images be banned as well, by another proposal? Does the pornographic nature of such criminal, vile acts make them censorable, where motion pictures do not?

(I totally got caught up in writing this that I forgot I was quoting someone.... Gotta snip a lot... heh)
By using adults to depict those under the age of consent (for instance), they are encouraging a weakening of the laws in this regard. Of course, freedom of actions and speech are important and simulation should not normally be considered the real thing. But the acts in question are connected to acts so vile and because they are pornographic in nature have no social or moral commentary attached to them which indicates that they (at the very least) may not be the most respectable activity to engage in. That may make it obscene, but it does not warrant a ban.

Can anyone really say, in full honesty, that they would not find that sort of behaviour disturbing?
I'm sure someone can. Just because I find it disturbing, it does not give me the right to say that other people cannot see it.

Sending out the wrong messages? Encouraging very serious violations of law and human rights?
Does anybody see murder in movies in this light? Violence on TV? We would not ban those, and yet, because something actually sickens us, we have to ban it? No.

The UN is overstepping here.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

The UN is overstepping here.You have continued to argue that you would support this bill if it allowed simulations. How can the one be overstepping, and the other not? Or is this yet another case of selective sovereignty?: The UN has every right to tell nations they must legalize euthanasia, but God forbid they should ever tell them to ban child porn!

Compadria seems to be changing it's arguments to fit the moments, Ambassador. Your original argument was that /adults/ portraying themselves as children in sexual situations should be included in this prohibition because, and I quote, "It would... be an ommission to overlook the simulation of acts where child actors are themselves simulated, which would amount to the same thing, with only a flimsy cover to seemingly conceal the act for what it truly represents." My response to you was based on that argument, pointing out to you, as many others have, that it does not do to be inconsistent in the application of our laws. If you think simulated actions of rape (adult and child) and murder should be banned, this government would be happy to address that argument in a seperate resolution. There is no place for such a prohibition in this resolution, as it singles out one type of "offense" (which we still maintain is not always justifiably classified as such) while ignoring others of the same type, some of which are arguably higher priority.

Beyond a certain point, 'higher priority', becomes meaningless. The truth of the matter is that there are acts which we recognise as evil in their own right and sufficiently so that to try and categorise them according to a scale would be pointless. That is the gist of our nation's position. We do not object to, for example, simulated murder in equivalent blanket terms to simulated child or child-imitatory sex, because the contexts in which simulated murder takes place are normally far different to those in which child pornography or simulated child pornography would occur. Addressing it in another resolution would be needless, as the prohibition still fits the spirit of this resolution, in that it is targeting real or simulated child pornography. Putting it elsewhere would be bureaucratic and take up too much time.

There are many ways to address this point: for the purposes of discussion, let us temporarily cede that all pornography produced purely for sexual gratification is without artistic merit or moral message (we do not really agree, but it is irrelevant to the current discussion).

Ok, I won't continue the argument, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the semantics for the time being.

Let us look at an example circulating in Kuraurisand at this moment, a movie by the name of Double-Edged Sword, which was released roughly two years ago. Sparing the graphic details, the movie follows three boys in a local middle school, two of whom are lovers. The third has an interest in the first, but the first refuses his advances and states that he is already in a committed relationship. The third then concocts an elaborate revenge scheme by seducing and using the second, and the story ends in tragedy. There are two graphic sex scenes within the work - one of the two boys in the loving relationship, and the other between the coercive antagonist and his victim. (It should be noted that the latter is a depiction of a crime by Kuraurisandian law, as sexual manipulation with purely malicious intent is a felony of the second degree, and in "real life", if enough evidence were available to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the antagonist had no legitimate interest in his victim, he could be subject to criminal penalties.)

The sex scenes are roughly four minutes in length each, and the running time of the entire film is nearly two hours. The artist insisted that the graphic sex scenes were necessary "to drive home the stark contrast between a committed, loving relationship and sex for it's own sake", and states that his intent is to encourage people of all ages to make sexual decisions with care and consideration. Could the point be driven home without the graphical details? Perhaps. But, to quote the author, "There is a uniqueness in the act of sexual intimacy that, when shared on the camera, bares the souls of the participants to the viewers. The point would not be as strong if it weren't for the performances of the actors, particularly the spectacular performance given by John [the victim] during the infidelitous sexual encounter, which lets the audience feel his subsequent breakdown and pleading for forgiveness in a way that would be lost if the scene weren't shown."

That isn't pornography according to our definitiosn, since, if I read your synopsis of the material correctly, it isn't conducted for a primarily sexual purpose. So it won't be affected in my opinion. However, I still find the details of that film disturbing and troubling. It seems that the message, whilst being valid, could be conveyed through implication. Certainly the Compadrian Film and Television Board would be hard pressed to approve such material.

I submit to you that this premise is simply false. There is no great mystery to love - every child lucky enough to have loving parents can feel that love before they can even express it in words. Nor is there any great mystery to sex or it's consequences - the /typical/ six year old can understand the mechanical concepts, and the potential threats of STDs and pregnancy [when applicable], with no more difficulty than they understand the mechanics and risks involved in crossing the street. They will certainly not always use the best judgement when making such decisions, and there will be some regrets, but these phenomenon transcend age, as evidenced by the adult divorce rates in countries with even the most rigid age of consent laws.

'Love' is not simple. It is mysterious and it is, to quote the film title, a "Many-Splendoured Thing". The fact is that a child may understand parental love, love in terms of attachment. But can a child understand passion? romantic love in its true sense? Can he understand and differentiate between infatuation and genuine committment which characterises love? Limerence? Can a six year old truly handle the accompanying emotions of the sexual act? Not at all. It would be foolish in the extreme and destructive to their welfare, to permit their exploitation in this manner. Sexual behaviour of the adult variety is not natural in a child and should not be normalised, as the honourable delegate is suggesting.

You will have to prove that all children inherently lack such consent capabilities - you cannot simply declare that it is so.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

And you have postulated that they can consent. They cannot, because they cannot truly, in the case of the overwhelmingly vast majority, understand the ramifications, dimensions and potential problems involved with the sexual act or the act of true, adult love.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

You have continued to argue that you would support this bill if it allowed simulations. How can the one be overstepping, and the other not? Or is this yet another case of selective sovereignty?: The UN has every right to tell nations they must legalize euthanasia, but God forbid they should ever tell them to ban child porn!

I side with human rights. Euthanasia is seen by plenty as a human right. And I'm not going to argue about that. Children being used in porn doesn't have anything to do with human rights. What does have to do with human (or rather, civil) rights is the freedom to look at unpopular things, so long as no one is getting hurt.

I said I was using a sovereigntist argument, not that I myself am a sovereigntist. A firefighter grabbing a pair of handcuffs and arresting a crook isn't a cop. He's a firefighter doing what a cop does.

Certainly it is. If you wish to ban something simple because it is in bad taste. The depiction of a vile act cannot be made illegal (cannot here being used as a stronger form of should not). It is simply a depiction. Just as I am certain that this body will not ban torture, murder, and rape scenes in a movie, nor should it ban the depiction (even a hand drawn, grossly disproportionate, overly colored anime depiction) of minors in sexual acts or poses.

Let us be clear, we are discussing child pornography. Not drama, or the documentary depiction of child-molestation. Pornography as defined for a primarily sexual purpose, not informative or condemnatory. Certainly, if torture, rape and murder were depicted for primarily tiltiliating purposes and/or a non-consensual manner, then they should be banned too, not because it is an affront to morality, but because innocents had to be abused for this form of entertainment.

Why is it going to?

Because it is unpopular. The oxytosin in the brain shoots off and screams "PROTECT THE CHILDREN!" even when there are no children to protect. The only way that the ban of childless child pornography could be justified is if it is proven to cause people to commit a vile act. And it certainly is not. I am reminded of the RL Alexander Hamilton (and if I'm wrong, correct me, but I think it was in the Federalist Papers) who said that the minority must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no way that an image of a minor in a sexual act can harm anyone. There is no sound reason to ban an image because it represents something that we disagree with.

"I would rather let a thousand guilty men go free than imprison an innocent man" is coming to mind. Only it seems to me that the phrase is being changed around -- Some here would rather imprison a thousand innocent (read: non-violent, non-predatory) men than let one guilty man go free.

It is abhorrent to censor disagreeable material. To regulate it, I can understand. We have a rating system for movies. Many nations have age limits for viewing pornography.

To say "I am not a molestor, I only looked at the image/watched the video/etc", is to ignore the fact that innocent children had to suffer for your perverted pleasure. It is turning a blind eye to evil.

If a fake murder occurs in a pornography, will such images be banned as well, by another proposal? Does the pornographic nature of such criminal, vile acts make them censorable, where motion pictures do not?

(I totally got caught up in writing this that I forgot I was quoting someone.... Gotta snip a lot... heh)
That may make it obscene, but it does not warrant a ban.

If the murder is intended to tiltiliate, then yes, it should be banned.

I'm sure someone can. Just because I find it disturbing, it does not give me the right to say that other people cannot see it.

I agree fully, but the fact that it is disturbing is not the sole reason we are banning child pornography.

Does anybody see murder in movies in this light? Violence on TV? We would not ban those, and yet, because something actually sickens us, we have to ban it? No.

The UN is overstepping here.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Firstly, refer to the fact that their depiction is not a criteria for banning them.

Secondly, nothing is outside the perogative of the U.N.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I side with human rights. Euthanasia is seen by plenty as a human right. And I'm not going to argue about that. Children being used in porn doesn't have anything to do with human rights.Oh, so you don't think children should have the right not to be exploited for perverts' viewing pleasure? Let me ask once more: Would you support this bill if it outlawed only actual documentations of child abuse, and not also simulations of such acts? Because I'm getting confused here.

I said I was using a sovereigntist argument, not that I myself am a sovereigntist. A firefighter grabbing a pair of handcuffs and arresting a crook isn't a cop. He's a firefighter doing what a cop does.If you're not a sovereigntist, my dear, don't brush aside sovereigntist arguments when the UN does something you like, and embrace such arguments when it does something you don't. Rejection of sovereigntism does not give you the right to be inconstant.

~Some State Department hack

Beyond a certain point, 'higher priority', becomes meaningless.

Okay, we can cede that. However, our basic complaint remains unchanged - if this were a bill to, say, execute all car thieves, you would undoubtedly see absurdity of singling out car thieves in particular as opposed to a legislation that addressed all forms of robbery. By the same token, outlawing the simulated portrayal of children abused in sexual situations without addressing all the other reprehensible acts that are simulated is irresponsible government. It's a side issue, and it belongs in another resolution - it's as simple as that.

We do not object to, for example, simulated murder in equivalent blanket terms to simulated child or child-imitatory sex, because the contexts in which simulated murder takes place are normally far different to those in which child pornography or simulated child pornography would occur. Addressing it in another resolution would be needless, as the prohibition still fits the spirit of this resolution, in that it is targeting real or simulated child pornography. Putting it elsewhere would be bureaucratic and take up too much time.

Our point here would be mostly redundant. Please clarify your position, though: we do not understand your meaning when you say you would not object to simulated murder because "the contexts... are normally far different".

That isn't pornography according to our definitiosn, since, if I read your synopsis of the material correctly, it isn't conducted for a primarily sexual purpose.

Perhaps the movie as a whole is not. The scenes in question are highly erotic to the pedophilic community, however, and undoubtedly there are some out there who own the movie primarily for it's sex scenes. It would be dangerous to draw the line where you're drawing it, otherwise aren't you really just requiring that pornography should have plot? (Now there's a regulation that would get our wholehearted support.)

So it won't be affected in my opinion.

It would be interesting to see what kind of case law is generated on those grounds. I imagine it's going to be up to the interpretation of the individual judge. That, alone, makes it clear that the current wording of the legislation should be scrapped, and a new resolution drafted, at the very least.

However, I still find the details of that film disturbing and troubling. It seems that the message, whilst being valid, could be conveyed through implication. Certainly the Compadrian Film and Television Board would be hard pressed to approve such material.

Admittedly, most foreign screenings edit out the scenes in question. As the author predicted, the impact of the film seemed generally blunted to them, although that could just be the cultural differences. John's decision to drop out of school and take up an apprenticeship, for example, is not an option available in most countries, and his ability to make the decision over his parents' objections seems to be unheard of elsewhere.

'Love' is not simple. It is mysterious and it is, to quote the film title, a "Many-Splendoured Thing". The fact is that a child may understand parental love, love in terms of attachment. But can a child understand passion? romantic love in its true sense? Can he understand and differentiate between infatuation and genuine committment which characterises love? Limerence? Can a six year old truly handle the accompanying emotions of the sexual act? Not at all. It would be foolish in the extreme and destructive to their welfare, to permit their exploitation in this manner. Sexual behaviour of the adult variety is not natural in a child and should not be normalised, as the honourable delegate is suggesting.

Well, there is a two-pronged difficulty with this argument. The first is the assumption that the true agape love in a committed relationship is the only legitimate form of sexual expression. Certainly, Double-Edged Sword was trying to tout that value, and nationally, it is considered to be the highest and most valuable of relationships, worth reaching for. However, old fashioned decadent roll-in-the-hay casual sex requires neither love nor even friendship, and a casual relationship which clearly expressed such boundries would not have to deal with "passion" or any other emotional context. Such expressions are /very/ natural, and have occured both with and without adult intervention since the dawn of time. Other countries call this "playing doctor" syndrome or something of the like - our culture is somewhat more blunt on the subject, and when two of our children are caught fooling around in public, we merely emphasize the need for privacy and direct them to their rooms. (We tend to save the more formalized talk regarding the dangers of the behaviour for afterwards, when they'll be much more likely to listen without distraction).

The other prong, of course, is a disagreement with your assertion that children cannot, in fact, handle such loving and passionate feelings in their relationships. It would seem you made enough of that point for us:

And you have postulated that they can consent. They cannot, because they cannot truly, in the case of the overwhelmingly vast majority [emphasis mine], understand the ramifications, dimensions and potential problems involved with the sexual act or the act of true, adult love.

By your own admission, there is a minority, even in your own lands, who would, in fact, be mature enough to understand the ramifications. With proper education and openness, I would assert that that minority would grow significantly, but even if it didn't, is it not the responsibility of a free society to protect the rights of the individual? If there's even one in the world with both the ability and desire to engage in such activity, do our laws not need to take that into account? Aren't there other ways to protect the majority without drawing a blanket line in the stand and impugning individual rights?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Indeed, and may the succulent taste of our platypi grace your dinner table. (We recently approved marketing of the overpopulation of platypus as a food source. We are eager to use the free land to make room for some Compadrian otters, if you're still amenable.)

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Let us be clear, we are discussing child pornography. Not drama, or the documentary depiction of child-molestation. Pornography as defined for a primarily sexual purpose, not informative or condemnatory. Certainly, if torture, rape and murder were depicted for primarily tiltiliating purposes and/or a non-consensual manner, then they should be banned too, not because it is an affront to morality, but because innocents had to be abused for this form of entertainment.
So because something makes someone feel giddy in the pants, we have to ban it, but when it's intended to make us feel shocked, frightened, disgusted, or disturbed, as such a torture, rape, and murder scene in a movie is, its fine?

Why on earth is sex so much worse?


To say "I am not a molestor, I only looked at the image/watched the video/etc", is to ignore the fact that innocent children had to suffer for your perverted pleasure. It is turning a blind eye to evil.
First, a molestor is someone who performs a criminally sexual act against someone. Some college guy who gets off to his computer science model of a high school girl is not a molestor.

Second, and for the umpteenth time in this thread, I will restate my position:
Pornography that involves a legal minor should be banned. Pornography that does not involve a legal minor should not. No innocent (or even guilty) child had to suffer for a hand drawn image, or a young looking adult performing the dirty act of sexual stimulation (the concept of which is completely ridiculous, but I'm letting that slide. As Carlin said "I'd rather show my kid a movie with two people making love than two people beating eachother to death." Doesn't make any kind of sense to demonize sex...). Therefore, there is no victim.

If the murder is intended to tiltiliate, then yes, it should be banned. As I said before... Make people horny = bad, but make people feel frightened, shocked, or whatever else a murder scene in a movie does = not as bad? Flies in the face of any kind of sense. 'Cept maybe for this Wenaist morality.


I agree fully, but the fact that it is disturbing is not the sole reason we are banning child pornography. And it isn't a ban child pornography that I oppose. Beside that, there has been only conjecture that such pornography would make people go out, find a child and grope them. And I continue to say, it isn't child pornography that makes a child molestor.

Firstly, refer to the fact that their depiction is not a criteria for banning them. Do you mean in this Resolution?
Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes; Emphasis added.
Representation would include things that don't use children, but portray them.

Secondly, nothing is outside the perogative of the U.N.
No, but there're going to be things that we won't let the UN do.



Oh, so you don't think children should have the right not to be exploited for perverts' viewing pleasure?
Incorrect.

Let me ask once more: Would you support this bill if it outlawed only actual documentations of child abuse, and not also simulations of such acts?
I would support this if it did not include such depictions that did not actually include children. A hand-drawn, or computer animated high schooler is not an actual child. A legal adult portraying a minor is not an actual child. There is no logical reason to ban such childless depictions in the name of protecting children. Only because we are disgusted by pedophilia is there a push for their inclusion in the ban. Well I am not going to think with my emotions, or my disgust.

If you're not a sovereigntist, my dear, don't brush aside sovereigntist arguments when the UN does something you like, and embrace such arguments when it does something you don't. Rejection of sovereigntism does not give you the right to be inconstant.
Certainly The Stout may have more than necessarily opposed sovereigntist views in the past. I won't make excuses for the man. And you can be sure that more careful consideration will be taken in the future. However, if people were not allowed to be inconstant, no one would ever change their mind. Your point is taken.

OOC: I'm sorry not to respond to a lot of this. Some interesting debate here, but I was out for two days, and I can't catch up on all this (I'm not Fishyguy). However, over the coming week I will be debating the proposal once it comes to vote.

IC: I am pleased to announce that Mrs Jiffjeff will be rejoining the General Assembly for discussion of her proposal. She "hopes that when it goes to vote tomorrow, the UN will promote true freedom of speech, by acting against filthy degradation of innocence".

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

if this were a bill to, say, execute all car thieves, you would undoubtedly see absurdity of singling out car thieves in particular as opposed to a legislation that addressed all forms of robbery.

I wonder whether the legal code of Hotroddia differentiates between types of thief in that way?

I wonder whether the legal code of Hotroddia differentiates between types of thief in that way?

Perhaps. :) It seems with nearly every argument, you can find an exception somewhere in this august Assembly. Which is precisely the point - we have an obligation to lean towards the permissive in all things, lest the unique culture and heritage of every nation be stamped out by a single carbon brand way of doing things.

OOC: I just finished writing a mega long response to Kuraurisand and Norderia's points and the whole bloody post gets lost when I try and post it. That has to be the most fucking irritating thing in the world, so Kuraurisand and Norderia, I'll reply to your posts a little later when I've recovered from my depression.

IC: I'm sorry fellow delegates, we've had a few technical problems at our work-desk here. Normal service will resume shortly and just remember that for now.

Child Abuse = Very Bad
Resolution = Very Good
People Supporting = Great Scions of Morality and Justice
People Opposed = Evil Degenerates Corrupting our Children

;)

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

I wonder whether the legal code of Hotroddia differentiates between types of thief in that way?

It used to, back when we actually had a government and laws and such.

People Supporting = Great Scions of Morality and JusticeHey! We'a like that, Mr. Otterby! Just'a for that, I'm'a makin' you an honorary Pope'a for the day!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/FatherGuidoSarducci.jpg
Father Guido Sarducci
SortaVoice of the Moral Majority
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Hey! We'a like that, Mr. Otterby! Just'a for that, I'm'a makin' you an honorary Pope'a for the day!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/FatherGuidoSarducci.jpg
Father Guido Sarducci
SortaVoice of the Moral Majority
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OOC: That's outstanding! :D

OOC: Does this mean that people are required to call me "His Holiness the Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria"? :D

Okay, we can cede that. However, our basic complaint remains unchanged - if this were a bill to, say, execute all car thieves, you would undoubtedly see absurdity of singling out car thieves in particular as opposed to a legislation that addressed all forms of robbery. By the same token, outlawing the simulated portrayal of children abused in sexual situations without addressing all the other reprehensible acts that are simulated is irresponsible government. It's a side issue, and it belongs in another resolution - it's as simple as that.

We would oppose singling out car-thieves, bastards that they may be, because there would be no clear rationale, as I can see it, for the U.N. to intervene, as it is unlikely they would be able to ameliorate the situation with regard to that issue beyond the sanctions and measures already existent in international law. Some crimes such as rape, murder and enslavement, do deserve to be legislated upon, due to the failure of many U.N. governments to fully punish those responsible for such evils, due to differing social interpretations. These are broad areas of scope however, not overly precise, such as is the case with car thieves and car theft. The U.N.'s influence on the welfare of the citizens of its constituent states would therefore be limited in that example. As for the matter of reprehensible crimes, I hope the honourable delegate appreciates the link between simulated abuse and actual abuse, in that it can have an acclimatising effect and that, since it is created for the purposes of pure titillation and the provision of distinctly unhealthy sexual gratification, there is no social benefit to permitting its portrayal in a pornographic situation. Not that pornography is inherently socially beneficial, but normal pornography, depicting consenting, unrelated adults, is unlikely to be damaging, in the sense that depicting criminality for pornographic purposes is.

Our point here would be mostly redundant. Please clarify your position, though: we do not understand your meaning when you say you would not object to simulated murder because "the contexts... are normally far different".

The context of this resolution is pornography, for a principally sexual purpose. Murder, rape, etc, are normally depicted only within the confines of documentary purposes or dramatic ones. The context is one of condemnation normally or offering a social commentary to analyse a social matter at the heart of the criminal act, which is not exonerated despite the mitigating circumstances. Pornography is created for pure lust, visual pleasure and indulging oneself in eroticism. It is unlikely to take the same stance as pertaining to a drama or social commentary, thus child abuse within that medium (of pornography) is indeed in a different context. Similarly, should murder and rape be depicted for a primarily sexual or viewing pleasure purpose exclusively, then they too should be subject to sanctions.

Perhaps the movie as a whole is not. The scenes in question are highly erotic to the pedophilic community, however, and undoubtedly there are some out there who own the movie primarily for it's sex scenes. It would be dangerous to draw the line where you're drawing it, otherwise aren't you really just requiring that pornography should have plot? (Now there's a regulation that would get our wholehearted support.)

The definition concerns the intent of the creator, not the consumer. If child-molesters gain pleasure from watching this film , then that is regrettable yet difficult to avoid. However the film was not created for that purpose and unless shown to be otherwise, shouldn't be banned, legally speaking.

It would be interesting to see what kind of case law is generated on those grounds. I imagine it's going to be up to the interpretation of the individual judge. That, alone, makes it clear that the current wording of the legislation should be scrapped, and a new resolution drafted, at the very least.

If the judge is unable to make a decision based on the simple dictates of this resolution, then he needs re-training, not the scrapping of the legislation.

Admittedly, most foreign screenings edit out the scenes in question. As the author predicted, the impact of the film seemed generally blunted to them, although that could just be the cultural differences. John's decision to drop out of school and take up an apprenticeship, for example, is not an option available in most countries, and his ability to make the decision over his parents' objections seems to be unheard of elsewhere.

True, fair point.

Well, there is a two-pronged difficulty with this argument. The first is the assumption that the true agape love in a committed relationship is the only legitimate form of sexual expression. Certainly, Double-Edged Sword was trying to tout that value, and nationally, it is considered to be the highest and most valuable of relationships, worth reaching for. However, old fashioned decadent roll-in-the-hay casual sex requires neither love nor even friendship, and a casual relationship which clearly expressed such boundries would not have to deal with "passion" or any other emotional context. Such expressions are /very/ natural, and have occured both with and without adult intervention since the dawn of time. Other countries call this "playing doctor" syndrome or something of the like - our culture is somewhat more blunt on the subject, and when two of our children are caught fooling around in public, we merely emphasize the need for privacy and direct them to their rooms. (We tend to save the more formalized talk regarding the dangers of the behaviour for afterwards, when they'll be much more likely to listen without distraction).

The other prong, of course, is a disagreement with your assertion that children cannot, in fact, handle such loving and passionate feelings in their relationships. It would seem you made enough of that point for us:

I would view "old fashioned roll-in-the-hay casual sex" as lust driven and that is unlike love. Lust can be extremely destructive and we should discourage our children from acting upon their still forming sexual emotions until we can be sure that it would not be damaging to their welfare to do so. Agape love is of course desirable, yet even that is unlikely to manifest the same way in children as it does in adults. Rather it would take different outlets, different forms of behaviour, which wouldn't necessarily be primarily sexual in purpose and nature.

By your own admission, there is a minority, even in your own lands, who would, in fact, be mature enough to understand the ramifications. With proper education and openness, I would assert that that minority would grow significantly, but even if it didn't, is it not the responsibility of a free society to protect the rights of the individual? If there's even one in the world with both the ability and desire to engage in such activity, do our laws not need to take that into account? Aren't there other ways to protect the majority without drawing a blanket line in the stand and impugning individual rights?

To put it bluntly, they will have to wait. Children are not fully formed individuals and they are still in need of societal and legal protection from exploitation or from promotion of acts that could lead to their exploitation. The majority should respect the minority's right to difference, but the minority must respect the majority's welfare and well-being as being equal to their own. As such, it is often necessary to curtail individual freedom to protect the individual from them self.

Indeed, and may the succulent taste of our platypi grace your dinner table. (We recently approved marketing of the overpopulation of platypus as a food source. We are eager to use the free land to make room for some Compadrian otters, if you're still amenable.)

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

We would be more than amenable, contact our Foreign Office for more details and we would be happy to organise an exchange. The platypus became extinct in Compadria 500 years ago and we would be delighted to re-introduce it if possible.

So because something makes someone feel giddy in the pants, we have to ban it, but when it's intended to make us feel shocked, frightened, disgusted, or disturbed, as such a torture, rape, and murder scene in a movie is, its fine?

Why on earth is sex so much worse?

It's not worse, merely as bad. Certainly to include a rape, torture, murder, etc, scene in a film purely for the purposes of titillation is wrong and should be acted against, as should be the case with child pornography.

First, a molestor is someone who performs a criminally sexual act against someone. Some college guy who gets off to his computer science model of a high school girl is not a molestor.

He's as guilty. He supports the abuse, indirectly though it may be, which makes him barely any better than the actual criminal.

Second, and for the umpteenth time in this thread, I will restate my position:
Pornography that involves a legal minor should be banned. Pornography that does not involve a legal minor should not. No innocent (or even guilty) child had to suffer for a hand drawn image, or a young looking adult performing the dirty act of sexual stimulation (the concept of which is completely ridiculous, but I'm letting that slide. As Carlin said "I'd rather show my kid a movie with two people making love than two people beating eachother to death." Doesn't make any kind of sense to demonize sex...). Therefore, there is no victim.

The victim is society, society suffers for leaving a gateway, a venue for the expression of this behaviour which should be acted against on all levels. Those who recognise the evil of their inclination prior to abuse should be rehabilitated. Those who act should be punished and forcibly subjected to therapy. Simulation is a means of allowing molesters to get away with simulating abuse for the purposes of entertainment, which is not something a civilised society should permit.

As I said before... Make people horny = bad, but make people feel frightened, shocked, or whatever else a murder scene in a movie does = not as bad? Flies in the face of any kind of sense. 'Cept maybe for this Wenaist morality.

I'm not Wenaist. Compadria has opposed previous instances of Wenaist morality as wrong and crudely reactionary. We support them here because we agree on the intrinsic evil of child abuse and child pornography.

And it isn't a ban child pornography that I oppose. Beside that, there has been only conjecture that such pornography would make people go out, find a child and grope them. And I continue to say, it isn't child pornography that makes a child molestor.

No, but it feeds the habit, which is bad enough.

May the blessings of our otters be upon both of you.

His Holiness Pope Otterby I
Supremely Holy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

It's not worse, merely as bad. Certainly to include a rape, torture, murder, etc, scene in a film purely for the purposes of titillation is wrong and should be acted against, as should be the case with child pornography.

"Sex is as bad as rape, murder, and torture."
Why? Why, why why? I think many of us should have a look back and figure out why we find sex to be such a disturbing, horrible thing. You folks who use religion to tell you what's right and wrong might as well not.

Making people horny is worse than scaring them crapless? How does that make sense?

He's as guilty. He supports the abuse, indirectly though it may be, which makes him barely any better than the actual criminal.

"Getting off to a picture is tantamount to cheering on child molestors, and makes one just as guilty."


The victim is society, society suffers for leaving a gateway, a venue for the expression of this behaviour which should be acted against on all levels. Those who recognise the evil of their inclination prior to abuse should be rehabilitated. Those who act should be punished and forcibly subjected to therapy. Simulation is a means of allowing molesters to get away with simulating abuse for the purposes of entertainment, which is not something a civilised society should permit.

"Society suffers when people masturbate."
I'm not going to argue that it's good to get off on pictures of minors, or even fake minors. But it just does not follow that some harmless, nerdy shmuck with a fetish is going to ruin society. I agree completely that people who pose an actual threat to children should be dealt with. But some computer geek making drawings of his high school sweetheart is as benign as a bandaid brandishing a tulip. I maintain that it is absurd to think that anyone is being hurt by drawings of age-play. That such animations are going to make a person snap and go out and hump little Billy. We're all disgusted by it, yes, I see that, but y'all have got to realize that bad taste doesn't make a criminal.


I'm not Wenaist. Compadria has opposed previous instances of Wenaist morality as wrong and crudely reactionary. We support them here because we agree on the intrinsic evil of child abuse and child pornography.
Nah, but the author is. I would gladly support a ban on child abuse, molestation, and pornography. But I can't support this because it bans something that is little more than a fetish just because the author and many of its supporters are disgusted by it.


No, but it feeds the habit, which is bad enough.
If it keeps people inside staring at their computer screen rather than outside watching kids on a playground, or soccer practice outside of the high school, I think it's fine by me. It buys them time to come to terms and seek therapy.


May the blessings of our otters be upon both of you.

And the wind be at your back.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

"Sex is as bad as rape, murder, and torture."
Why? Why, why why? I think many of us should have a look back and figure out why we find sex to be such a disturbing, horrible thing. You folks who use religion to tell you what's right and wrong might as well not.

Making people horny is worse than scaring them crapless? How does that make sense?

No I didn't say that, didn't imply, didn't even come close to advocating it. I said that I would find paedophilic sex as disturbing and bad as rape (which it essentially is), murder and torture.


"Getting off to a picture is tantamount to cheering on child molestors, and makes one just as guilty."

Yes, that's what I said.

"Society suffers when people masturbate."
I'm not going to argue that it's good to get off on pictures of minors, or even fake minors. But it just does not follow that some harmless, nerdy shmuck with a fetish is going to ruin society. I agree completely that people who pose an actual threat to children should be dealt with. But some computer geek making drawings of his high school sweetheart is as benign as a bandaid brandishing a tulip. I maintain that it is absurd to think that anyone is being hurt by drawings of age-play. That such animations are going to make a person snap and go out and hump little Billy. We're all disgusted by it, yes, I see that, but y'all have got to realize that bad taste doesn't make a criminal.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. Needless to say, I still find think the practice is a gateway one to child abuse.

Nah, but the author is. I would gladly support a ban on child abuse, molestation, and pornography. But I can't support this because it bans something that is little more than a fetish just because the author and many of its supporters are disgusted by it.

Again, agree to disagree.

If it keeps people inside staring at their computer screen rather than outside watching kids on a playground, or soccer practice outside of the high school, I think it's fine by me. It buys them time to come to terms and seek therapy.

Hardly a healthy habit though. And it does encourage them to start watching.

And the wind be at your back.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

"I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky..."

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Honorary Pope Otterby I
Temporary Supreme Holy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Just a nudge to keep things somewhat on topic:

Bringing up parallels to other crimes or censorable acts is wasting space, time, effort, and breath. Were those other things to be legislated upon, they could be considered on the merits of that piece of legislation. This legislation does not deal with them, nor should it. From the very title of it, it is evident what the purpose of this proposal is. It's intent obviously has nothing to do with car theives or murder, and attempting to create any form of moral equivalence or equation to compare the varied situations is rhetorical wanking.

Just as freedom fighters are not terrorists, murderers are not pornographers. That's not to say that there is no overlap within criminals, simply that there is no need to bring them up unless this proposal actually has something to do with them.

Just a nudge to keep things somewhat on topic:

Bringing up parallels to other crimes or censorable acts is wasting space, time, effort, and breath. Were those other things to be legislated upon, they could be considered on the merits of that piece of legislation. This legislation does not deal with them, nor should it. From the very title of it, it is evident what the purpose of this proposal is. It's intent obviously has nothing to do with car theives or murder, and attempting to create any form of moral equivalence or equation to compare the varied situations is rhetorical wanking.

My use of the examples illustrates the double standard. I shall continue.

No I didn't say that, didn't imply, didn't even come close to advocating it. I said that I would find paedophilic sex as disturbing and bad as rape (which it essentially is), murder and torture.

Ah, yes, I can agree there. However, I am not talking about pedophilic sex. I think we're miscommunicating.

I say that faking a minor is no different than faking a murder in a movie. I am seeing the double standard -- you maintain that watching pornography (not including real children) will encourage a person to become criminally pedophilic. However, I highly doubt anyone in their right mind would say that watching a murder scene in a movie, and enjoying the movie, or even just the scene, will encourage a person to copycat it.

And if somebody IS messed up enough to do that, then that's because they're wrong in the head, or just plain stupid. The fact that laws get made because of a handful of dumbasses drives me crazy. "Peter got mauled by a lion? Well those stupid zookeepers should put up something that'll keep people out of the cages!" How about a big lion that'll maul people if they go inside the cage!? Honestly, we can't let every bone-headed move make us legislate ourselves til we're blue in the face. It's just not possible to protect everyone unless we're going to ban everything that smells of deviation. Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than imprison one innocent, kinda thing.

Yes, that's what I said.
Well that's just plain harsh. I disagree entirely.

snip snip

And it does encourage them to start watching.
Just like furry porn encourages Big Jim to look at his dog and think unsavory thoughts, right? Bologna.

"I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky..."
Fine. I won't offer you fine words anymore.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Just like furry porn encourages Big Jim to look at his dog and think unsavory thoughts, right?
Huh. I'm beginning to understand the opposition to this proposal. If the representative of Norderia regards children as equal to dogs, then it is little wonder he is so uninterested in protecting them from the evils of sexual abuse.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

My use of the examples illustrates the double standard. I shall continue.

Ah, yes, I can agree there. However, I am not talking about pedophilic sex. I think we're miscommunicating.

I say that faking a minor is no different than faking a murder in a movie. I am seeing the double standard -- you maintain that watching pornography (not including real children) will encourage a person to become criminally pedophilic. However, I highly doubt anyone in their right mind would say that watching a murder scene in a movie, and enjoying the movie, or even just the scene, will encourage a person to copycat it.

Why they enjoy the murder scene is important though. My statement on pornography was that those with pre-existing tendencies and/or those who have considered acting on such tendencies, could take influence from the pornography which would aggravate their existing condition. If someone enjoys a murder scene for its dramatic value, comic value (if it's done tongue-in-cheek) or any other value apart from actively relishing and enjoying the prospect of murder and or committing a murder, then it isn't quite the same as the context with which I make reference to child pornography.

And if somebody IS messed up enough to do that, then that's because they're wrong in the head, or just plain stupid. The fact that laws get made because of a handful of dumbasses drives me crazy. "Peter got mauled by a lion? Well those stupid zookeepers should put up something that'll keep people out of the cages!" How about a big lion that'll maul people if they go inside the cage!? Honestly, we can't let every bone-headed move make us legislate ourselves til we're blue in the face. It's just not possible to protect everyone unless we're going to ban everything that smells of deviation. Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than imprison one innocent, kinda thing.

We need to protect potential victims and if that means clamping down on 'deviation', then so be it.

Well that's just plain harsh. I disagree entirely.

I thought you would.

Just like furry porn encourages Big Jim to look at his dog and think unsavory thoughts, right? Bologna.

Only if Big Jim had pre-existing tendencies and what would he be doing watching that sort of pornography anyway? It sounds distinctly suspicious to me.

Fine. I won't offer you fine words anymore.

But those were the words of a sacred and beautiful hymn, recounting the epic tale of the hero Roveselly who attempts to take to the heavens to reach the sun and is guided by "the wind on his back", yet ultimately falls to a tragic demise.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Honorary Pope Otterby I
Temporary Supreme Holy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Well as long as we're going to be using examples that have nothing to do with pornography, let me have a try at it....

So there's a heroin addict. He's been addicted for years and has just recently entered into rehabilitation to try to stop this incredibly destructive and dangerous habit. He still feels cravings, and longs to go out and get himself a hit, but he knows that it's very wrong, so he resists. He does fine for a while. He still feels the urge but he has learned to control them and resist temptation. Then, one day, he's over a friends place to watch a movie. It's Trainspotting, a movie about a bunch of Scottish heroin junkies. At first he thinks that he'll be fine. It's just a movie. That's not even real heroin that they're shooting up with. He's wrong. By half-way through the movie, the cravings have gotten so bad that he can barely stand it. The sight of Rents and Sick Boy in the ecstatic embrace of H has him reminiscing about how good it felt as the needle slipped into his vein, how all your worries drift into oblivion as you empty the syringe. By the end of the flick, his friends are wondering what happened to him. He's gone. He snuck out to head to his old hang-out. He knows his old dealer will be there. He's got the cash. Back down the spiral he goes.

Should such movies be banned? Maybe. Not for this piece of legislation to decide. Irrelevant postulating since the situations aren't truly comparable. Destoy your own life with heroin or rape a child. I don't know which I would choose. Both are detestable options. Which is worse? Who cares? One of these can be eliminated. Work on the other scenarios with other bits of law.

Or don't. Continue to claim that no children are directly harmed by certain things so there is no way that they could possibly be bad. Freeing all the animals at the zoo didn't hurt anyone, so it can't be that bad, even though the lions, tigers, and bears did begin mauling children in a terrified stampede to freedom. But we shouldn't stop people from showing how much fun was had by all while releasing these animals into the streets. That would by restricting their freedom of artistic expression and that would be bad. Lord knows that glorifying despicable acts should be a protected right all across, not just the UN, but the whole world.

No true offense intended, but are you really that myopic?

Just a nudge to keep things somewhat on topic:

Bringing up parallels to other crimes or censorable acts is wasting space, time, effort, and breath. Were those other things to be legislated upon, they could be considered on the merits of that piece of legislation. This legislation does not deal with them, nor should it. From the very title of it, it is evident what the purpose of this proposal is. It's intent obviously has nothing to do with car theives or murder, and attempting to create any form of moral equivalence or equation to compare the varied situations is rhetorical wanking.

Just as freedom fighters are not terrorists, murderers are not pornographers. That's not to say that there is no overlap within criminals, simply that there is no need to bring them up unless this proposal actually has something to do with them.

Perhaps the good delegate from Kivisto does not understand the relevance. It is a question of boundries, sir - it is imperative that resolutions brought before this assembly focus on one issue at a time. Would you consider it fair game, hypothetically, to encounter a resolution that attempted both to universally outlaw the intentional spread of sexual diseases AND simultaneously require that governments allow unilateral extradition of suspected criminals? It is very possible that a majority of nations, experiencing a knee-jerk reaction to their disgust at those who would deliberately murder someone by knowingly transmitting a disease to them, would wind up passing the law without considering the more controversial proposal of unilateral extradition. Some might even wind up voting in favor solely out of fear, scared to be seen as condoning the transfer of disease by speaking out against the extradition clause.

Simply put, they don't belong together and have nothing to do with each other, and they need to be two seperate resolutions.

In this case, some might make the claim that banning simulated sex scenes does have something to do with banning child pornography. However, those who have spoken out are trying to drive home the point that they are seperate issues, and compiling them together is going to get the more controversial proposal, which might well have been defeated on it's own, through the assembly on the coattails of a proposal that few will even take the time to consider opposing, and fewer still have the courage to stand against.

It's bad politics, sir, and it needs to be spoken out against.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

It's bad politics, sir, and it needs to be spoken out against.
Incorrect. It's - arguably - bad government, or bad legislative practice. But I think including the provision in the bill is exceptionally good "politics", if I do say so myself, because it ties a controversial issue to a settled one, aiding the former's passage.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

Well as long as we're going to be using examples that have nothing to do with pornography, let me have a try at it....

You did well! Very succinct analogy, easy to follow. Highfive.

So there's a heroin addict. He's been addicted for years and has just recently entered into rehabilitation to try to stop this incredibly destructive and dangerous habit. He still feels cravings, and longs to go out and get himself a hit, but he knows that it's very wrong, so he resists. He does fine for a while. He still feels the urge but he has learned to control them and resist temptation.

Hmmmm.... the fundamental problem with this analogy is that it only compares to someone that has /actually/ had sex with a child at some point in the past. This Ambassador would not claim expertise on the subject, but if it's anything like other forms of sexuality, we can assert from personal experience that the craving is far more mute and controllable before the first successful expression. Ergo while we might be willing to cede, based on your argument, that what other societies would term a "reformed sex offender" might fall down the slippery slope by being exposed to simulated child pornography, it does not adequately address the impact on someone who has never "offended". (Nor, frankly, does it matter - people who buy guns might be tempted to commit murder, but we don't outlaw the /gun/, just the act. And for that matter, we're not talking about just restricting past offenders from accessing this material [which may be a very good idea], but restricting the entire population.)

Should such movies be banned? Maybe. Not for this piece of legislation to decide.

WOW! You DO understand the concept of two seperate resolutions for two seperate concepts! Is it such a leap from here to see that banning simulations is a seperate concept from banning the real thing?

Or don't. Continue to claim that no children are directly harmed by certain things so there is no way that they could possibly be bad.

Actually, the only person in the entire assembly claiming that it could possibly be anything other than bad is myself. Everyone else is fully acknowledging that it's bad.

Unless you're prepared to start drafting legislation to universally outlaw table salt, cigarettes and ice cream, the UN should not be in the business of outlawing things solely because they're "bad".

Freeing all the animals at the zoo didn't hurt anyone, so it can't be that bad, even though the lions, tigers, and bears did begin mauling children in a terrified stampede to freedom.

See, it's always the children people use to get knee-jerk emotional responses. Like the adults who would be mauled in such a scenario aren't even worth mentioning? :P

Irregardless, no one is arguing that actions do not have consequences. There are two types - direct and indirect. Letting violent animals loose, knowing that they will eat people, is a direct consequence, becuase you know what they're going to do if you let them loose on the world.

Now, you /could/ argue, legitimately, that letting a pedophile have access to child pornography is analogous - don't we "know" what they'll do to children once they get such material? Frankly, no, we don't. Even the pedophilic community itself is divided on this issue - some say that the pornographic images provide an outlet that keeps them from offending, while others admit that access to such material drives them towards offense. Since the result is not clearly guaranteed and depends on the individual, then there is no guaranteed direct consequence to allowing the material to be accessed (at least not where chances of causing offense are concerned).

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Incorrect. It's - arguably - bad government, or bad legislative practice. But I think including the provision in the bill is exceptionally good "politics", if I do say so myself, because it ties a controversial issue to a settled one, aiding the former's passage.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

Touché.

I must say, though, that if you did such a thing on purpose, you should reconsider your position as a champion of moral decency. Your methods should be beyond reproach if you are to serve as an example to others.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Touché.

I must say, though, that if you did such a thing on purpose, you should reconsider your position as a champion of moral decency. Your methods should be beyond reproach if you are to serve as an example to others.
Actually, I didn't do it on purpose. It simply didn't occur to me people would so strenuously oppose banning child pornography.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

We would oppose singling out car-thieves, bastards that they may be, because there would be no clear rationale, as I can see it, for the U.N. to intervene, as it is unlikely they would be able to ameliorate the situation with regard to that issue beyond the sanctions and measures already existent in international law.

Ambassador, work with me here. We're aware that the analogy is not a true international issue. The nuances of the example aren't the point, the point is that legislation focusing on a subtype of crime is sloppy work at best, prejudicial at worst. If we're going to talk about blocking simulations because of the potential link to criminal activity, then let's talk about it -- every aspect of it, in another resolution, seperate from this one.

Some crimes such as rape, murder and enslavement, do deserve to be legislated upon, due to the failure of many U.N. governments to fully punish those responsible for such evils, due to differing social interpretations.

So, some things should be declared universally bad because there are people out there who don't think they're bad? After some thought, we can get behind this concept, but at first the thought was cringing, for as a freedom-loving people respectful of diversity, we would abhor the imposition of our own culture upon any other nation, or vice versa. However, such a concern is balanced against our intrinsic responsibilities as human beings - do we stand by and blindly allow genocide or slavery in the name of noninterference? No. We agree with you, most honorable delegate, that there must be a point at which we have a duty to throw tolerance to the wind and act on behalf of our suffering brothers and sisters.

The natural question, then, is where to draw the line. Where does that duty end and tolerance begin? Our answer: It is unjust to take action on behalf of a people who accept their own cultural traditions. There are still some countries, for example, in which women and men are denied equal opportunity under the law. Modern mindset would consider the more subservient gender (usually women, but we've heard of the reverse) to be oppressed, and demand that such behaviour change. And yet when you ASK the subservient gender in that same society, overwhelmingly you find that they support their way of life, and even take pride in it. Where we see captives without freedom, they see their discipline as a type of liberty.

Don't worry, I'm coming to a point. :) This legislation is fairly open-ended in a lot of ways. It defines the material to be banned based on the standards of the producing nation, and in doing so it respects the internal politics of all world nations. In a way, that invalidates your argument here because it is NOT forcing any U.N. government to punish any kind of evil that it does not already perceive to be such. (In fact, if you think about it, take out the simulation clause and you have a law which simply states, "If it's illegal in your country, don't ship it to ours." One wonders whether such an idea really accomplishes anything.) The spirit of the resolution, however, is to protect a group of people who, if given a voice in their respective nations, would very likely argue against such protections, in favor of their right to choose. Our point is that this particular instance does not fall under our duty to right the wrongs of the world - if anything, we should be moving in the opposite direction.

As for the matter of reprehensible crimes, I hope the honourable delegate appreciates the link between simulated abuse and actual abuse, in that it can have an acclimatising effect and that, since it is created for the purposes of pure titillation and the provision of distinctly unhealthy sexual gratification, there is no social benefit to permitting its portrayal in a pornographic situation.

We would remind the Ambassador that our society does not consider this form of sexual gratification inherently "unhealthy". Regardless, similar arguments have been used in attempts to ban violent video games, and courts around the world have reaffirmed the rights of individuals (even children) to enjoy such simulations anyway. In such opinions, the courts have compared these violent video games to classic literature which depicted violence, citing that such themes have "always been and remain a central interest of humankind... To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Likewise, it is foolish to remove simulations of sexual situations. Hell, imagine how therapeutic it could be for a child rape survivor to have previously seen a documentary in which a child actor is "raped", survives the experience and learns to come to terms with what happened? It is human nature to feel better about a misery shared, and being able to identify with a story character could be the difference between recovery and suicide for such a child. (Yes, I know someone here's going to say that's not for a primarily sexual purpose. We remain unconvinced that the resolution would not be used to ban it anyway. And besides - isn't helping a child recover from sexual abuse technically a "sexual" purpose? Not a gratifying purpose, but a sexual one nonetheless?)


OOC: I know that RL isn't supposed to bleed into here, but just for anyone's interest, the above argument is based on actual RL case law, made by the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. You can check out the decision here: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/003643.html
For the purposes of RP, we'll say the quote came from some random NPC court.

Not that pornography is inherently socially beneficial, but normal pornography, depicting consenting, unrelated adults, is unlikely to be damaging, in the sense that depicting criminality for pornographic purposes is.

Which is why you immediately argued for the inclusion of adult rape and snuff films as soon as the proposal was announced. You say you give a crap about criminality in pornography? ALL criminality? Prove it. Encourage this proposal to be dismissed in favor of a more appropriate legislation, one which addresses all sexually criminal behaviour equally.

The definition concerns the intent of the creator, not the consumer.

So in order to enforce this resolution, you will be stopping all videos with underage sex at your borders, contacting their authors to see what they intended, and then allowing those who had other motivations to come in?

Intent is not really legislatible. Not until we invent mind-reading devices.

I would view "old fashioned roll-in-the-hay casual sex" as lust driven and that is unlike love. Lust can be extremely destructive and we should discourage our children from acting upon their still forming sexual emotions until we can be sure that it would not be damaging to their welfare to do so.

We can agree with that, at least in a moral sense. But discouragement and prohibition are two VERY different things, Ambassador, and this resolution is more symptomatic of the latter.

Agape love is of course desirable, yet even that is unlikely to manifest the same way in children as it does in adults.

You keep proving my point, Ambassador. The word "unlikely" has another implied word that goes with it: possible. We maintain that individual rights must take precedence in the mindset of this assembly.

To put it bluntly, they will have to wait. Children are not fully formed individuals and they are still in need of societal and legal protection from exploitation or from promotion of acts that could lead to their exploitation. The majority should respect the minority's right to difference, but the minority must respect the majority's welfare and well-being as being equal to their own. As such, it is often necessary to curtail individual freedom to protect the individual from them self.

Again, there are so many assumptions here that it is hard to know where to start. The assumption that one must be a "fully formed individual" in order to engage in sexual activity. The assumption that every person identified by the resolution as a "child" (some even as old as 17!) is not a "fully formed individual". The assumption that waiting is even an option - I guess a terminally ill child is just out of luck, then? And who are we to tell two competent, rational, mature individuals in the throes of a loving relationship that they must delay physical expression of that love because their next door neighbor couldn't handle it?

Hell, why stop at children? Why not force every immigrant to adhere to interference in their personal affairs until they obtain citizenship? After all, they don't have the experience of a native, so therefore we know what's better for them, right?

We would be more than amenable, contact our Foreign Office for more details and we would be happy to organise an exchange. The platypus became extinct in Compadria 500 years ago and we would be delighted to re-introduce it if possible.

Ahhh, Ambassador. It is comforting, after such intense debate, to return to this more pleasant issue. Perhaps you would accept an invitation to a formal state dinner? We could exchange one otter and one platypus symbolically during the meal. (Mind you, the Chancellor's chief of staff is a "minor", by your standards, so I hope you'll be able to put aside any prejudices you might have when he offers you a tour of the Grand Conclave.)

He's as guilty. He supports the abuse, indirectly though it may be, which makes him barely any better than the actual criminal.

The victim is society, society suffers for leaving a gateway, a venue for the expression of this behaviour which should be acted against on all levels.

We will try not to take that sentiment personally. Naturally, we encourage all foreign citizens to obey the laws of their nation while protesting for change in a lawful, civilized way. One cannot use disagreement with a law to justify violating it. However, we recognize the inherent damage in denying /any/ behaviour a legitimate outlet, as it is the nature of human beings to follow the law until they feel they have no other recourse.

Those who recognise the evil of their inclination prior to abuse should be rehabilitated. Those who act should be punished and forcibly subjected to therapy. Simulation is a means of allowing molesters to get away with simulating abuse for the purposes of entertainment, which is not something a civilised society should permit.

I hate to be redundant, but there's an aspect to this that bears repeating: civilized societies find ALL sorts of ways to make the illegal permissible in entertainment. Roller coasters take us to speeds our cars aren't allowed to go, video games and sports like boxing let us assault others legally, and literature and media extol the virtues of "noble" thieves in stories and movies. One of the PURPOSES of entertainment is to express things that would be wrong to express in reality.

No, but it feeds the habit, which is bad enough.

People seem to like the drug analogy. Frankly, if a picture of fake crack would be enough to keep even one addict from actually touching the stuff, I say bring it on.

His Holiness Pope Otterby I
Supremely Holy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Congratulations on the title, Your Eminence.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Ah, righty-ho! Once more unto the breach dear friends!

Ambassador, work with me here. We're aware that the analogy is not a true international issue. The nuances of the example aren't the point, the point is that legislation focusing on a subtype of crime is sloppy work at best, prejudicial at worst. If we're going to talk about blocking simulations because of the potential link to criminal activity, then let's talk about it -- every aspect of it, in another resolution, seperate from this one.

No, the nuance is everything. The fact is that comparing car-thieves to child pornography demeans the latter as a criminal offence and also misses the point concerning the point I was making. I disagree that this is a sub-type of crime. Child molestation and abuse are heavily involved in child pornography, indeed intrinsic to the process. Trying to disassociate the two is to turn a blind eye to criminal activity. And we're not talking about potential link, the very act of child pornography and viewing it are and should be criminal activites, not potentially criminal, but criminal. Simulations are a gateway to the criminal offence and offer it legitimacy, when they are presented in a pornographic format.

So, some things should be declared universally bad because there are people out there who don't think they're bad? After some thought, we can get behind this concept, but at first the thought was cringing, for as a freedom-loving people respectful of diversity, we would abhor the imposition of our own culture upon any other nation, or vice versa. However, such a concern is balanced against our intrinsic responsibilities as human beings - do we stand by and blindly allow genocide or slavery in the name of noninterference? No. We agree with you, most honorable delegate, that there must be a point at which we have a duty to throw tolerance to the wind and act on behalf of our suffering brothers and sisters.

I'm glad we concur and I too share the abhorrence of imposing the cultural values of one nation on another.

The natural question, then, is where to draw the line. Where does that duty end and tolerance begin? Our answer: It is unjust to take action on behalf of a people who accept their own cultural traditions. There are still some countries, for example, in which women and men are denied equal opportunity under the law. Modern mindset would consider the more subservient gender (usually women, but we've heard of the reverse) to be oppressed, and demand that such behaviour change. And yet when you ASK the subservient gender in that same society, overwhelmingly you find that they support their way of life, and even take pride in it. Where we see captives without freedom, they see their discipline as a type of liberty.

And you see honourable delegate, that is where we have to differ. Acceptance of a cultural tradition does not legitimise it and does not exonerate it from being incorrect, should that be the case. Certain international values of decency and civilised conduct must be established. We do not defend non-voluntary human sacrifice on the grounds of diversity (or at least I hope not) because we affirm that murder is wrong and should be legislated against and it is my hope that a sensible resolution setting out flexible, yet firm guidlines for the establishment of sanctions against murder be set out.

Don't worry, I'm coming to a point. :) This legislation is fairly open-ended in a lot of ways. It defines the material to be banned based on the standards of the producing nation, and in doing so it respects the internal politics of all world nations. In a way, that invalidates your argument here because it is NOT forcing any U.N. government to punish any kind of evil that it does not already perceive to be such. (In fact, if you think about it, take out the simulation clause and you have a law which simply states, "If it's illegal in your country, don't ship it to ours." One wonders whether such an idea really accomplishes anything.) The spirit of the resolution, however, is to protect a group of people who, if given a voice in their respective nations, would very likely argue against such protections, in favor of their right to choose. Our point is that this particular instance does not fall under our duty to right the wrongs of the world - if anything, we should be moving in the opposite direction.

I do not understand where you derive this assumption that children are so keen to engage in sexual activity or be exploited. If it is not our duty to protect them, then to whom shall this duty fall? Can we stand by and let abuse happen because we clung to the caveats of "cultural diversity", "individual rights", without setting out a clear context? I honestly feel it is unfortunate to try and eliminate the differences between child and adult with regards to this matter, indeed deeply wrong in my opinion. I respect the honourable delegate's sincere and articulately set out beliefs, but I cannot say I share his faith in the overwhelming logic and sanctity of individual freedom above all other factors.

We would remind the Ambassador that our society does not consider this form of sexual gratification inherently "unhealthy". Regardless, similar arguments have been used in attempts to ban violent video games, and courts around the world have reaffirmed the rights of individuals (even children) to enjoy such simulations anyway. In such opinions, the courts have compared these violent video games to classic literature which depicted violence, citing that such themes have "always been and remain a central interest of humankind... To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Likewise, it is foolish to remove simulations of sexual situations. Hell, imagine how therapeutic it could be for a child rape survivor to have previously seen a documentary in which a child actor is "raped", survives the experience and learns to come to terms with what happened? It is human nature to feel better about a misery shared, and being able to identify with a story character could be the difference between recovery and suicide for such a child. (Yes, I know someone here's going to say that's not for a primarily sexual purpose. We remain unconvinced that the resolution would not be used to ban it anyway. And besides - isn't helping a child recover from sexual abuse technically a "sexual" purpose? Not a gratifying purpose, but a sexual one nonetheless?)

No and I still cite the primary purpose argument, because I feel it rebutts your concerns about other media and examples.

Here is the simple truth that I feel should be noted: The material in question must be primarily sexual and targeted according to this purpose and this purpose alone at its consumers.

OOC: I know that RL isn't supposed to bleed into here, but just for anyone's interest, the above argument is based on actual RL case law, made by the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. You can check out the decision here: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/003643.html
For the purposes of RP, we'll say the quote came from some random NPC court.

OOC: Thanks, I'll look that up.

Which is why you immediately argued for the inclusion of adult rape and snuff films as soon as the proposal was announced. You say you give a crap about criminality in pornography? ALL criminality? Prove it. Encourage this proposal to be dismissed in favor of a more appropriate legislation, one which addresses all sexually criminal behaviour equally.

No, that would be ludicrously long-winded and overly bureaucratic. These matters are sensitive and difficult to come to consensus on, so throwing thema all together would neither serve the causes of justice nor aid the victims of these acts. The link between molestation and pornography has been debated and established.

So in order to enforce this resolution, you will be stopping all videos with underage sex at your borders, contacting their authors to see what they intended, and then allowing those who had other motivations to come in?

I base this on the following little logical equation:

1). Depicting child eroticism and sexual conduct will result in questions being asked to the director when the film is commercially released.

And/Or:

1a). The national film classification board will need to approve the material and classify it, which would require further questioning.

2). The number of films depicting underage sex, as a percentage, is unlikely to be extremely high.

3). I consider the protection of the welfare of children as more important than the complexity of the matter. It is possible and assuming cooperation between nations (a key part of this proposal) it should become a matter of course for all such material.

We can agree with that, at least in a moral sense. But discouragement and prohibition are two VERY different things, Ambassador, and this resolution is more symptomatic of the latter.

Sometimes the two must be mixed for optimal effect.

You keep proving my point, Ambassador. The word "unlikely" has another implied word that goes with it: possible. We maintain that individual rights must take precedence in the mindset of this assembly.

Possible, hypothetical, etc. Are we to say that the smallest of minorities, those children who actually want to engage in consensual sex (an impossibility given their age and immaturity) must take precedence over the rights of other children to be protected? I know minorities must be protected, it is something that must be passionately pursued, but we are talking about a minority for a matter where I find it better to enshrine the majority than shield the minority, especially when I doubt the exist of the minority in question. I am not dogmatic, I will vary my ideological stance depending on the issue, but for this I cannot but say that no, I will not hold the rights of an alleged minority over the rights of an enormous majority.

Again, there are so many assumptions here that it is hard to know where to start. The assumption that one must be a "fully formed individual" in order to engage in sexual activity. The assumption that every person identified by the resolution as a "child" (some even as old as 17!) is not a "fully formed individual". The assumption that waiting is even an option - I guess a terminally ill child is just out of luck, then? And who are we to tell two competent, rational, mature individuals in the throes of a loving relationship that they must delay physical expression of that love because their next door neighbor couldn't handle it?

Those that engage in premature sexual activity will find themselves questioning the act, being damaged by its repurcussions. I do not think a "child" can really understand what sex involves or what it symbolises. I do not think people should jump to assumptions based upon a minority and most of all I do not think that the two competent rational mature individuals you cite would exist under the aegis of this proposal.

Hell, why stop at children? Why not force every immigrant to adhere to interference in their personal affairs until they obtain citizenship? After all, they don't have the experience of a native, so therefore we know what's better for them, right?

I think decent conduct towards immigrants is essential and the free-movement of people enshrined. For citizenship, one must be cautious and sure that they are not becoming a citizen for pure convenience, something I abhorr. Yet we are going off on a tangent and one not particularly connected to the issue at hand.


Ahhh, Ambassador. It is comforting, after such intense debate, to return to this more pleasant issue. Perhaps you would accept an invitation to a formal state dinner? We could exchange one otter and one platypus symbolically during the meal. (Mind you, the Chancellor's chief of staff is a "minor", by your standards, so I hope you'll be able to put aside any prejudices you might have when he offers you a tour of the Grand Conclave.)

And I agree sir, I do not enjoy discussing child molestation and child pornography, even in the context of banning them. I prefer free trade, environmental protections (stopping the reactionary-led attempt to repeal the FFRA) and worker's rights issues (Putting the 40 Hour Week back on the statute books). Your chief of staff will be greeted cordially, though we express surprise at his position at such a young age. All diplomatic courteousy will be observed however. A state dinner would be most pleasant and our foreign secretary and Luris (prime minister, literally "High Otter" in ancient Compadros Latin) would be honoured to attend. We await further discussion with much anticipation and hope that a burgeoning diplomatic and commercial relationship shall be established between our two nations, in spite of our differences in this debate.

We will try not to take that sentiment personally. Naturally, we encourage all foreign citizens to obey the laws of their nation while protesting for change in a lawful, civilized way. One cannot use disagreement with a law to justify violating it. However, we recognize the inherent damage in denying /any/ behaviour a legitimate outlet, as it is the nature of human beings to follow the law until they feel they have no other recourse.

I did not intend it personally, I apologise if you felt that was the case. I understand that denying behaviour a legitimate outlet can be immensely damaging, but when the behaviour is damaging itself then perhaps it is better not to let the Djinn out of the bottle, so to speak.

I hate to be redundant, but there's an aspect to this that bears repeating: civilized societies find ALL sorts of ways to make the illegal permissible in entertainment. Roller coasters take us to speeds our cars aren't allowed to go, video games and sports like boxing let us assault others legally, and literature and media extol the virtues of "noble" thieves in stories and movies. One of the PURPOSES of entertainment is to express things that would be wrong to express in reality.

Yes, but that does not make it right. Those outlets do not encourage simulation as much as child abuse would to those susceptible to it, as depicted in pornography. Besides, the "noble" thieves are operating within the context of a wider story and their thievery is not the sole focus of the tale in question, unlike a pornographic film, where sex is the sole and primary focus.

People seem to like the drug analogy. Frankly, if a picture of fake crack would be enough to keep even one addict from actually touching the stuff, I say bring it on.

Another context, another matter. Only as part of rehabilitation would I agree with that statement and only within very tightly set limits.

Congratulations on the title, Your Eminence.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Thank you. 'Tis but for a day though and this shall be the last time I am permitted to use it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Honorary Pope Otterby I
Temporary Supreme Holy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Actually, I didn't do it on purpose. It simply didn't occur to me people would so strenuously oppose banning child pornography.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

OOC: Try checking out how often some people are more than happy to defend pedophiles in NS General. :mad:

OOC: Try checking out how often some people are more than happy to defend pedophiles in NS General. :mad:

OOC: That's why we try to stay away from general. It's no place for those who wish to keep their head from exploding. Just an opinion.

OOC: That's why we try to stay away from general. It's no place for those who wish to keep their head from exploding. Just an opinion.

OOC: General is for those of us who have already abandoned sanity. And like it.

OOC: General is for those of us who have already abandoned sanity. And like it.

OOC: I guess that's why I can't handle the general forums. I still have some of my sanity in tact. Huh. I have two small children. Complete loss of sanity can't be far.:cool:

It seems to me that the disjunct between me and the supporters of the Resolution stems from one clear difference.

I make a distinction between pedophiles and child molesters, and some others don't.

Cluich, from what I've seen, they defend the pedophile, and not pedophilia. And it's clear that more people are doing the attacking than defending.

Compadria, I read your response, but I've not got the time or even the will to respond anymore. You make good points (specifically the one about the reasons why a person enjoys a murder scene) and while I don't disagree with you, I still don't think a ban on murder scenes (where a person is not actually killed) or minor pornography (where a minor is not actually used) is warranted.

Jiffjeff, I just don't respect you anymore. Your McCarthy-esque miscategorization of your opponents arguments makes me ill in the soul, and I wish you a tasteless meal in the morning.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Jiffjeff, I just don't respect you anymore. Your McCarthy-esque miscategorization of your opponents arguments makes me ill in the soul, and I wish you a tasteless meal in the morning.Shredded Wheat?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
He Who's Signature Is Longer Than His Statement
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Shredded Wheat?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
He Who's Signature Is Longer Than His Statement
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I was thinking undercooked omlette, or burnt waffles, but....

Man, shredded wheat really sucks.

Shredded Wheat?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
He Who's Signature Is Longer Than His Statement
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Or even worse, Cream of Wheat.

I was thinking undercooked omelette, or burnt waffles, but....

Man, shredded wheat really sucks.

Edit: Did I spell meal-consisting-of-eggs-and-stuff wrong?


Yeah you did. It's spelt omlette. No biggy though. :D

Yeah you did. It's spelt omlette. No biggy though. :D
Actually I think that both spelling are acceptable, or at least I've seen it spelled both ways.

Anyone else notice that we seem to be talking about food a lot in these official threads recently, there was the "battle of culinary metaphors" in the last one and now we're discussing bland breakfasts.

Please approve it. After all, you don't hate children......do you?

In the fair Empire of Karbakirb, we enjoy extensive civil rights.

If our citizens wish to hate their children, they are free to do so.

Pillbottom Bilgerbuff
UnderMinister of Snipe Remarks
Holy Empire of Karbakirb

Might I point out, this bill prohibits any explicit representation of sexual acts among children, and does not necessarily entail that real children ever be involved. The depection could be hand-drawn, for instance.

In the fair Empire of Karbakirb, we enjoy extensive civil rights.

If our citizens wish to hate their children, they are free to do so.
Freedom to sexually abuse a child is not a civil right.

Might I point out, this bill prohibits any explicit representation of sexual acts among children
This is not true. The representations must be for primarily sexual purposes; drawn art would not be prohibited.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

OOC: Oops, my bad. I misread the post I was quoting to read US.
in almost every state in the us it's 21 to purchase alcohol. with a few exceptions. i don't remember which. funny though, because in most states at 18 you're old enough to make the decision that you can die for your country if necessary, but you still can't have a beer....

As others have made fine points and I represent a kingdom fairly new to the United Nations, I will attempt to be brief. Earlier in this conversation, the speaker for the Republic of Daisetta noted that they could not support this resolution due to its apparently-intentional vague verbiage. The speaker for the Cold Shores of Norderia noted that banning images, documents, or videoes that do not involve children in any way, shape, or form only serve to ban thoughts, thus likening it to settings from famed author George Orwell.

Other speakers for republics, kingdoms, and nations have made similar statements. As Official Speaker for His Majesty the King of Thylonia, I am authorized to officially announce that we cannot, and will not, approve this resolution. We believe, passionately, in the resolution's spirit, but not its implementation. As the verbiage of the resolution is, now, we feel it infringes too much upon the King's subjects' right to personal privacy, the right to personal freedom. The King is notorious for allowing all to believe, and act, however they wish, especially in the privacy of their own homes. We do not, then, see enjoyment of false acts of sexuality involving children as, inherently, a negative thing.

We feel that we are doing all that we can to keep children safe, especially from sexual predators. We have a Zero Tolerance policy for all sexual predators, against women, children, or other humans (the legalities of beastility are still being resolved). If found guilty, there is no prison term to serve. They are killed in as painful of ways as the King can imagine. And the King has an active imagination.

We feel that such a policy helps to stem the tide of sexual predation as much as possible. Thus, they are allowed the personal freedom to explore whatever sexual fantasy they wish, as long as it remains fantasy. If it becomes reality, the person or persons in possession of "true" child pornography is seen as no better than the person or persons who created the pornography with the children.

I apologize for my apparent inability to be as brief as I wished, but sincerely hope that my points, if not agreed with, are understandable.

Compadria, I read your response, but I've not got the time or even the will to respond anymore. You make good points (specifically the one about the reasons why a person enjoys a murder scene) and while I don't disagree with you, I still don't think a ban on murder scenes (where a person is not actually killed) or minor pornography (where a minor is not actually used) is warranted.

Woo-hoo! Mission Accomplished! I have successfully stone-walled an opponent into surrender.:D

What I meant about the murder scenes was not actually opposition to dramatic depictions of murder, but more opposition to "snuff" films, if you get the RL reference.

And to include my quote from the UNOG.

"Oh, I could spend my life having this conversation - look - please try to understand before one of us dies".

-John Cleese

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Witchcliff fully supports this resolution, and has voted for.

It is our nation's belief that any form of representation of children in sexual acts is reprehensible, and hope for the passage of this legislation so the trade in this filth can be greatly slowed down, if not stopped altogether.

Panyer
The Preservers
Witchcliff representative to the UN

Firstly, welcome to the halls of the UN, Speaker Walker.

The speaker for the Cold Shores of Norderia noted that banning images, documents, or videoes that do not involve children in any way, shape, or form only serve to ban thoughts, thus likening it to settings from famed author George Orwell.
The difference being this proposal does NOT ban thoughts. In suggesting that in some way this is a prohibition of pure fantasy, you're omitting to mention that only concrete depictions of these despicable acts are prohibited. Thinking impurely is not outlawed by this proposal. Creating an image depicting such isoutlawed, because it has moved from the mental and fantastical, to an actual expression of such beliefs.

We have no interest in banning thoughts. We've tried - but it didn't work. We're content to stick to banning actions - and depicting paedophilia for the purposes of sexual pleasure is an unacceptable action.

We feel that such a policy helps to stem the tide of sexual predation as much as possible. Thus, they are allowed the personal freedom to explore whatever sexual fantasy they wish, as long as it remains fantasy. If it becomes reality, the person or persons in possession of "true" child pornography is seen as no better than the person or persons who created the pornography with the children.
Fully agreed - with the qualification that creating child pornography is no longer fantasy, and is an actual criminal act against innocence. This proposal permits the exploration of fantasy, so long as it remains fantasy; it prohibits actively acting upon those fantasties.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

I was thinking undercooked omlette, or burnt waffles, but....

Man, shredded wheat really sucks.

If you dislike it so much, might I suggest you submit a proposal banning shredded wheat? :D

I think that'd be too specialised. However, it might fit well as part of a "Proper Breakfast Act".

This resolution adds very little to the existing framework for the protection of children, particularly, resolutions 14, 25, 68 and 92).

Recall that according to Resolution 25, '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)'

Also, Resolution 68 on trafficking clearly covers the exploitation of children not only as regards prostitution but any activity involved in the sex industry, including pornography, obviously.

In Papanique, all kinds of child labor, exploitation and abuse (including waged labor) are outlawed, the products of these activities are also intercepted as proceeds of crime. We also provide full health and social care for victims of such criminal activities, regardless of nationality (a residence permit is automatically issued)

We are also considering a ban on all imported products and services, which have involved at any stage work by minors.

Papanique will follow with great interest the debate on this resolution before reaching a voting decision towards the end of the week.

I think that'd be too specialised. However, it might fit well as part of a "Proper Breakfast Act".

Something like this? :D

RECOGNISING that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, both for one's health and one's productivity

RECOGNISING that one should try to eat 1/4 to 1/3 of one's total daily calories at breakfast

ESTABLISHES the Proper Breakfast, which shall consist of two eggs (cooked any style), two slices of buttered toast or two pancakes or waffles with butter and maple syrup, four pieces of bacon or four sausages, homefries, a glass of milk, a glass of juice, and a bottomless cup of coffee

CLEARLY STATES that shredded wheat is RIGHT OUT

MANDATES that all citizens of UN member nations begin each day with the Proper Breakfast

Just took a look at the delegate voting on this so far.


Votes Against: 108: , Gussiver[2], Zechiland[2], Child Care Workers[8], , Compulsoria[17], New Old New New York[5].

Uh... :confused: