NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, welcome to the halls of the UN, Speaker Walker.

Thank you, Speaker Jiffjeff.

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're content to stick to banning actions - and depicting paedophilia for the purposes of sexual pleasure is an unacceptable action.

With respect, I am forced to disagree. Implying that all forms of child pornography, including but not limited to text-only and hand-created artwork, are not dissimilar enough from actual photographs or videoes of the same is, to the Kingdom of Thylonia, erroneous. While I must concede that such indulgence in fantasy is dangerous, it is believed that as long as it is kept to fantasy-based forms--text or hand-created artwork; things that in no way, shape, or form truly involve a child--it must be allowed.

I quote, now, from the proposal, as up-to-date as of this writing, with emphasis added:

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;

It is all too easy to take the emphasized portions to mean any representation, at all, of children in sexual situations, regardless of if the children are "real" or not. If this is not the case, I humbly and respectfully suggest an alteration to the proposal, stating concretely that this proposal only concerns videoes, pictures, or otherwise in which the physical presence of a child existed. As stories, painted artwork, or other such "imaginative" creations do not need, or even require, the physical presence of a "real" child, we feel that they must be allowed, even if they are deplored.

<...> 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.

With respect, regarding the above concerns I have outlined, I do not understand how the proposal, as it is currently worded, allows for text-based and other such forms that do not require the presence of a "real" child yet does not allow for forms which do require such a presence. As worded, and by that last statement, it seems to me that the act of even writing such a--situation--counts as an act which should be punishable.

If I have misinterpreted the statements, I offer my sincere apologies. That said, if such is the case I would still suggest an alteration to the wording, to prevent future misunderstandings by anyone else.

--Kit Walker, Official Speaker His Royal Majesty, the King of Thylonia

The Empyrean Citadel of Lydania's vote is against on this matter.

While child pornography is undoubtably harmful to the children in question, and active pedophiles should be denounced, children that do not exist cannot be harmed.

Three-dimensional renderings of children who do not exist, hand-drawn artwork of children who do not exist, and texual forms of child pornography, so long as no existing or real children have been harmed do not, in any way, cause direct harm to children.

It is the belief of my nation and its three rulers that simulations of any sort do not inherently promote 'acting out' the behaviors therein involved.

After all, if such things were true, we collectively should outlaw violent video games for fear that they promote violence. Rather, on the contrary, promoting such simulations would seem to be in order as it would promote self-gratification by not involving children that actually exist. Violent video games can be a legitimate outlet for aggression, and there is little reason to believe that simulations of child pornography would not reduce the incidence of actual child molestation.

Yours in friendship,

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

But people are getting sexual pleasure for watching children engaging in sexual acts, it doesn't matter whether they are real or not. After all, an erection is when the male body wants to have sex, so whether the child is real or not, the person watching the video/picture technically wants to have sex with children. This is of course outright peadophilia, which should be banned.

I've spent all day at work reading this thread and it appears as though we have gone round and round in circles (with a few minor deviations for otter/platypus swapping and a discussion on bland breakfast).
BUT it was a lot of fun to read and very stimulating...thankyou.

I'd just like to make another video game/sexual gratification point.



There is a computer game designed, manufactured and distributed in Xaipeteq - pronounced Kai reh tek (Greek spelling) - called "Large Stealing of Cars" (sounds better in the native language) where you are a gangster in XA (a large western city in Xaipeteq) and have to, among other things, steal cars, kill people and win ganglands.

There were a few complaints when it came out for purchase...mostly from the veterans of Xaipeteq (Praise be to they who fought bravely and with no consideration for themselves to protect our righteous land from the hideously deformed and obese purple crickets of the last world! Xai Xai Xai!)...due to it's graphic content.

BUT

The real uproar :upyours: only occured when a Mod was discovered that allowed the main character in the game to have sex (albeit with no genitalia and of the generally more acceptable girl on boy variety) and for the player to control the position, angle and speed of intercourse.

It appeared as though the general population of Xaipeteq didn't mind their children virtually maiming and smashing up the neighbourhood but refused to allow them to simulate sex on screen.:fluffle:

It highlights the absurdity with which Xaipeteq's now waning but previously dominant religion Xatholixism demonised sexual relations to such a degree that even now when the Papi of the religion is generally ignored and war sweeps the earth sex is still at the top of our list of "BIG NO NO's!":mp5:

We believe that this proposal, although feigning to be about child pornography is actually a poor attempt to pass dubious litigation that can and will be interpreted at a later date to support the consistently dated views of pilgrimesque Nations such as our friends across the pond the U.S.P.


BTW. The statement after the mention of the veterans of Xaipeteq; (Praise be to they who fought bravely and with no consideration for themselves to protect our righteous land from the hideously deformed and obese purple crickets of the last world! Xai Xai Xai!) is only four syllables long in the native text and is usually only shown using a hand symbol and the word Xai.

SO...
I will just put the symbol at the top of every post instead....

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

...the person watching the video/picture technically wants to have sex with children. This is of course outright peadophilia, which should be banned.

It is impossible to ban somebody from wanting something. Until the wonderful scientist of Xaipeteq create effective and covert mind-scanning devices we cannot even distinguish who is committing such an offence. We cannot as yet tell if the erection-blessed man in question is aroused by the fake child sex he is witnessing or the curtain in the backdrop with the ornate little Xroses...


T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

Do something about your posts. Every mention of your name doesn't require big bold blue letters.

But people are getting sexual pleasure for watching children engaging in sexual acts, it doesn't matter whether they are real or not. After all, an erection is when the male body wants to have sex, so whether the child is real or not, the person watching the video/picture technically wants to have sex with children. This is of course outright peadophilia, which should be banned.

Paedophilia is not the target of this resolution - it is child pornography.

While the two are linked, it deals specifically with child pornography, as well as some things which do not include children.

If children are not harmed, no crime has been committed in our nation, pure and simple, and we resent the stance some representatives are taking that fictional children are being harmed. The inanity of such a suggestion is beyond comprehension.

Yours in friendship,

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Do something about your posts. Every mention of your name doesn't require big bold blue letters.

Most definitely agreed.

Do something about your posts. Every mention of your name doesn't require big bold blue letters.

Sorry, I inherited this nation from the previous Xambassador who had very small hands and a sick fascination with the colour blue.

Giant bold blue letters rectified!

see..? Xaipeteq


...Magical....

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

Ausserland's vote has been cast FOR this resolution.

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

The Revolutionary Commune of Zakisra is voting against this ridiculous violation of freedom of expression.

It is a cardinal principle of decent governance that the exercise of liberty without harm to others should be aggressively protected. This resolution assumes, somewhat justifiably, that any depiction of actual children in pornography involves harm to said children, but also, without explanation, extends this ban to "any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child," regardless of whether or not real children are actually depicted.

Victimless behaviors like the production and use of virtual child pornography should go unpunished in any free society. To those who suggest that the thought is as bad as the act, we ask whether, in accordance with that logic, they would prefer to ban all video games and movies depicting violent acts.

Marus Liandor
U.N. Ambassador
Revolutionary Commune of Zakisra

Thats nice to know.

I totally agree that this proposal covers far too much ground for its own good and therfore will be granted many against votes based on freedom of expression (at least from those that read the resolutions!)

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

Your opinion is definitely notable, Madam Friedrich. Sadly, it seems that the majority of the Spokespeople and Ambassadors here are either deliberately avoiding the debate hall or are simply choosing to spend their time elsewhere until the date ballots are tallied, as if international politics will sort themselves out without any prior elucidation on the topic being discussed. Sadly, the majority of representatives seem to be nigh-illiterate, or simply skim the relevant documents, and will simply miss the specific phrases that our... 'esteemed' colleague has inserted.

This saddens us but surprises neither the Lydanian Triumvirate nor the majority of our citizens. Intellectual dishonesty and being a leader or a voice tend to go hand in hand, quite often, and with organizations like the United Nations, people are more than willing to simply behave as if they were a member of the genus 'Ovis'. Sheep, for any representative who was curious.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

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.

Oh, hardly. I agreed that if a person gets off to blood and gore, it's disturbing, but that's not the intention of a murder scene( save for snuff films, but I think I mentioned earlier that I wouldn't mind a ban on the real ones, just as I wouldn't mind a ban on real child porn). We cannot ban something that does not harm anyone, and childless porn doesn't harm anyone. If we are to suggest that because it bears the potential to influence someone into becoming a child rapist who's going to run outside, grab 40-50 babies and ravage them like a big, hairy, wild animal (and then smoke some pot, get married to a person of the same sex, drink booze on Sunday, burn a flag, and say "bad" words), it needs to be banned, then we would have to go around banning guns because they make people get better at shooting stuff and then they'll shoot people; violent movies, video games, and tv shows because they'll start beating up their wives/husbands, shooting politicians, stealing cars, and crashing them into Shamoo's tank; ban pornography that includes nuns, because it'll make people want to rape nuns; ban zoos because people want to jump into the angry bear cage to rub his belly and blow in his face; and ban lawn mowers because someone will try picking it up and using it as a hedge trimmer; because all those things bear the potential to make someone do something stupid and/or harmful!

Should pedophilia be banned? Hells no. Should it, if possible, be treated? Hells yes. Should someone who has sex with minors be considered a sex offender and be forced to register? Sure. But Billy McFratboy wacking off to his high school aged girlfriend's picture is not doing any freakin' harm! Much less, if the picture is one he drew himself of a girl he made up in his mind!

Pedophilia disgusting? Yes, but so are German shit videos, surgeries, and pictures of gaping orifices. But you don't go banning them!

Edit: and before someone goes trying to call me on it, I will remind people that I see a difference between pedophilia and child molestation, even if others don't.

Sadly, it seems that the majority of the Spokespeople and Ambassadors here are either deliberately avoiding the debate hall or are simply choosing to spend their time elsewhere until the date ballots are tallied, as if international politics will sort themselves out without any prior elucidation on the topic being discussed. Sadly, the majority of representatives seem to be nigh-illiterate, or simply skim the relevant documents, and will simply miss the specific phrases that our... 'esteemed' colleague has inserted.

Few of the actual voters come to the forum, and fewer still read further than the title. Few of the people who do read further than the title read with a magnifying glass to examine every word. And the trouble we have with this Resolution is easy to miss.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

I freely admit to using a magnifying glass on this document, like most other documents. I did this because of the importance of the issue, and as such it is felt that such a proposal needs to be no less than crystal-clear, or at least as close as possible.

As has been put forth previously by many representatives, the current wording of the proposal is such that, whether by accident or design, seems to point towards banning all forms of this particular type of pornography. That, to my King, is too tight of control. It is felt that the proposal attempts to punish those who, in the eyes of the laws of our Kingdom, have committed no true crime.

So, again, as Official Speaker His Royal Majesty, the King of Thylonia, I stand with others who felt the need to not only peer closely at this document.

<<OOC: And quite honestly, this debate is really fun to watch. I've popped in on debates of other proposals, but few seemed anywhere near as interesting as this one.>>

As my time is somewhat limited - I have to put Pippi to bed shortly - I will be relying on my colleague Mr Pyandran to respond to some of the points raised.

With respect, I am forced to disagree. Implying that all forms of child pornography, including but not limited to text-only and hand-created artwork, are not dissimilar enough from actual photographs or videoes of the same is, to the Kingdom of Thylonia, erroneous. While I must concede that such indulgence in fantasy is dangerous, it is believed that as long as it is kept to fantasy-based forms--text or hand-created artwork; things that in no way, shape, or form truly involve a child--it must be allowed.
But already, you're moving from your initial stance. You said that pure fantasy was not harmful, and should not be prohibited or regulated - on this, we agree, to an extent. But now, you are sating that "fantasy-based forms" should be allowed. And you can see our problem, because if something is taking a form, it is no longer mere fantasy, but it has been realized.

The opponents of this proposal are very keen to paint us as criminalising thoughts, when we are doing no such thing. Rather, we are drawing a stark line between thoughts, and actions. The creation of child pornography is an action; hence, it is fair game for criminalisation.

It is all too easy to take the emphasized portions to mean any representation, at all, of children in sexual situations, regardless of if the children are "real" or not. If this is not the case, I humbly and respectfully suggest an alteration to the proposal, stating concretely that this proposal only concerns videoes, pictures, or otherwise in which the physical presence of a child existed. As stories, painted artwork, or other such "imaginative" creations do not need, or even require, the physical presence of a "real" child, we feel that they must be allowed, even if they are deplored.
A proposal cannot be amended once it goes to vote. Even were your suggestion acceptable - which it is not - it would not be possible.

But, while we're doing this, I might as well play the game too.
"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;
Now I've bolded a bit!

The General Assembly coos.

"Artwork" is not prohibited by this resolution; indeed, it cannot be, as such would already be protected under "Artistic Freedom". So perhaps your concerns are misplaced.

As worded, and by that last statement, it seems to me that the act of even writing such a--situation--counts as an act which should be punishable.
Absolutely. Creating child pornography is worthy of punishment.

Should pedophilia be banned? Hells no.
I'd just like to remind everyone that this is what this proposal is about. However well-intentioned the sentiments of those voting against this proposal for fear of criminalising thoughts or art, in doing so you are playing into the child-molesting hands of those who believe that raping innocent children is acceptable, and worthy of encouragement.

Few of the actual voters come to the forum, and fewer still read further than the title. Few of the people who do read further than the title read with a magnifying glass to examine every word. And the trouble we have with this Resolution is easy to miss.
These high-and-mighty sentiments were strangely absent when "Individual Self-Determination" was at vote. Yet another example of extreme selectivity when it comes to the application of principle from the camp opposing this proposal on grounds of believing sexual abuse of minors should not be prevented.

As has been put forth previously by many representatives, the current wording of the proposal is such that, whether by accident or design, seems to point towards banning all forms of this particular type of pornography. That, to my King, is too tight of control. It is felt that the proposal attempts to punish those who, in the eyes of the laws of our Kingdom, have committed no true crime.
The problem being, those you are siding with don't want the true crime to be punished earlier - witness the Norderian delegate's statement that paedophilia should not be criminalised, at all.

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

I'd just like to remind everyone that this is what this proposal is about. However well-intentioned the sentiments of those voting against this proposal for fear of criminalising thoughts or art, in doing so you are playing into the child-molesting hands of those who believe that raping innocent children is acceptable, and worthy of encouragement.
You seem incapable of comprehending our arguments. Stop strawmanning.
Your claims are that any form of pedophilia (even the kind involving Mr. McFratboy, with his fake drawings, sexual in nature, but not involving actual minors) should be banned. Well that's just ig'nant. And I'm getting tired of writing it.

These high-and-mighty sentiments were strangely absent when "Individual Self-Determination" was at vote. Yet another example of extreme selectivity when it comes to the application of principle from the camp opposing this proposal on grounds of believing sexual abuse of minors should not be prevented.
And what about your high and mighty sentiments such as "opposing this proposal on grounds of believing sexual abuse of minors should not be prevented"? Is that EVER a load of bullshit! You do not get the play "moral high ground" here, Miss There-is-no-difference-if-I-say-there-is-no-difference. Besides, that's not so. While I supported the title Individual Self-Determination, I said that it would, while not misleading to people, glean votes. I didn't say this Resolution's title is misleading. I said people would read it and vote for it. There's nothing wrong with the title, and I didn't say there was.


The problem being, those you are siding with don't want the true crime to be punished earlier - witness the Norderian delegate's statement that paedophilia should not be criminalised, at all.
Tommo the Stout sighs, rolls his eyes, then bends his wrists, places them against his chest, and overpronounces the words
Pedophilia is not child molestation! I kick da ball and make pee pee! Dun dun naaah!


And there we have the selective use of the signature, as with Forgottenlands comment during the Repeal of 40HWW. You, Jiffjeff, are a prime example of political underhandedness. Shame on you.

Let's try this...

Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation

Do I support child molestation? No.
Do I support pedophilia? No.
What's doing the damage? Child molestation.
Therefore, what needs to be banned? Child molestation.

Pedophilia is not an action. Pedophilia is NOT an action. And yet pedophilia is your justification for banning pornographic materials that do not involve children. I don't care if it does not serve an artistic purpose. There are no children involved, and that's that! You cannot protect someone if they aren't at all involved in the things you are affecting!

The problem being, those you are siding with don't want the true crime to be punished earlier - witness the Norderian delegate's statement that paedophilia should not be criminalised, at all.
Lemme just make sure that I'm getting the point across:
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation

What is your glitch? How many times must I correct your absurd, errant notion that I think child molestation should be allowed? How many times are you going to continue contradicting that in such a slanderous manner? Child molestation should not be allowed.

But you are not even legislating on child molestation! You're banning pornography that doesn't use children because you have this absurd notion that it is tantamount to the pornography that DOES use children (which I am against) and that both of those things are tantamount to raping a child!

Some guy getting off to a minor (even a physically mature one) that was constructed with a pen or a mouse is not a criminal, and it is absolutely absurd to assert that he is. He did not film a child doing sexual acts. He did not touch a child in any way. He did not even have children within a mile of his location. He never WILL film a child doing sexual acts, and he never WILL touch a child in an inappropriate way, and yet, according to this Resolution, that guy is a sex offender. ABSURD.

It is also absolutely absurd to continue to claim that I like/support/want to legalize child molestation/pornography/rape. Knock it off.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

I must say that New Sarnath is heavily opposed to the resolution. With our national currency being the Sexual Favor, there are times when it is necessary to visually document a transaction, and this law would prohibit us doing so if one or more of the parties involved was under the age of consent in New Sarnath. Our Economy could fall to ruin in days!

Protect a nations right to use sexual favors as currency, vote against this resolution.

I must say that New Sarnath is heavily opposed to the resolution. With our national currency being the Sexual Favor, there are times when it is necessary to visually document a transaction, and this law would prohibit us doing so if one or more of the parties involved was under the age of consent in New Sarnath. Our Economy could fall to ruin in days!

Protect a nations right to use sexual favors as currency, vote against this resolution.

Man.... I needed a laugh. Thank you.

Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestation
Pedophilia =/= child molestationped·o·phil·i·a

NOUN:

The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pedophilia

- Portion of the transcript of Amb. Faisano's Federal Senate confirmation hearing in Paradise City -

Sen. Hartwick: Now, Ambassador, I'd like to turn your attention toward the resolution currently at vote in the United Nations. I'd like to ask your opinions on it.

Amb. Faisano: Just like our national delegation has indicated all along, I support the bill completely, and will be casting the Federal Republic's vote in favor.

Sen. Hartwick: And this doesn't conflict with your previously declared views about national sovereignty?

Amb. Faisano: No, sir. I feel that the sexual exploitation of children and the marketing and trafficking of depictions of such exploitation is a legitimate international issue, so national sovereignty doesn't necessarily apply here.

Sen. Hartwick: There is a fair amount of opposition to this bill however ...

Amb. Faisano: Yes, sir, and it mostly comes from nations that usually have no problem with imposing their values through international law, and it's mostly based on a single sub-clause defining child pornography as "real or simulated." These nations have made it perfectly clear they would support this bill if weren't for the word "simulated." They claim the UN should have every right to ban these materials, but then they come out with this ridiculous claim that it's "overreaching" to also ban simulations of child sex acts. Now, Senator, I don't think that children should be made to simulate sex acts for a camera any more than they should be made to perform actual sex acts, and I really don't see why a resolution can be perfectly acceptable on the whole, but the word "simulated" a dealbreaker. Do these nations really support forcing children to simulate sex acts for pedophiles' pleasure? I'd just like to say, Senator, that scuttling this legislation for the sake of perverts who want to get off on simulated child sex is just plain sick in my view.

Sen. Benson: Honestly, Mr. Faisano, banning child porn? Now why would the UN want to go and do a silly thing like that?

Amb. Faisano: Umm, because it's immoral to exploit children for sexual purposes?

Sen. Benson: And what does the UN consider a "child," Mr. Faisano?

Amb. Faisano: Whoever is below any member states' age of consent, Senator.

Sen. Benson: Oh, really? And let's say some narrow-minded member state said that 17 is a child, but 18 is fair game? What do you have to say about that?

Amb. Faisano: Are you referring to that 17-year-old intern you've been fucking?

Sen. Benson: You don't know anything about that, boy! Nicki is a beautiful woman, and she's grown-up in so many ways, ways you wouldn't even know about!

Amb. Faisano: Is that a crack about my age, Senator?

Sen. Benson: Age doesn't matter here. It's your maturity. Now, tell me why should a sniveling little punk like yourself be made our ambassador, but a wonderful woman like Nicki not be allowed to appear in pornographic videos, or photographs, or, er, digitized images ...

Amb. Faisano: She's been e-mailing you dirty pictures of herself, hasn't she?

Sen. Benson: Sent via camera-phone, smartass. And this legislation would make it illegal in the Federal Republic, I suppose?

Amb. Faisano: It's already illegal in the Federal Republic, Senator.

Sen. Benson: Don't tell me about laws, Mr. Faisano! I'm a senator; I make the laws!

Amb. Faisano: So you're allowed to break them?

Sen. Benson: Shut your insolent face, boy! You've basically admitted that this legislation is intended to persecute pedophiles!

Amb. Faisano: You don't think pedophilia should be banned?

Sen. Benson: Hells no!!

[Weeping can be heard from a 17-year-old girl in the audience.]

Sen. Benson: Oh, don't cry, baby! The world may not understand our love, but ... uhh, how does that cliche go again? ... [clears throat] And as for you, Ambassador, you have earned my opposition. I shall vote against your nomination -- well, at least I would vote against it, except I'm under investigation by the Ethics Committee, and they'll hold me in contempt if I keep skipping out on hearings. Bye!

[Races toward the exit.]

Sen. Hartwick: There is a fair amount of opposition to this bill however ...

Amb. Faisano: Yes, sir, and it mostly comes from nations that usually have no problem with imposing their values through international law, and it's mostly based on a single sub-clause defining child pornography as "real or simulated." These nations have made it perfectly clear they would support this bill if weren't for the word "simulated." They claim the UN should have every right to ban these materials, but then they come out with this ridiculous claim that it's "overreaching" to also ban simulations of child sex acts. Now, Senator, I don't think that children should be made to simulate sex acts for a camera any more than they should be made to perform actual sex acts, and I really don't see why a resolution can be perfectly acceptable on the whole, but the word "simulated" a dealbreaker. Do these nations really support forcing children to simulate sex acts for pedophiles' pleasure? I'd just like to say, Senator, that scuttling this legislation for the sake of perverts who want to get off on simulated child sex is just plain sick in my view.



I already stated that simulated is not the word I am concerned with, back when it was cleared up. The word "representation" is what troubles me.


snip
sigh

Alright... I hereby state in clarification that when I say, and have said [i]pedophilia[i] I am, was, and shall be referring to the fantasy aspect, and not the molestation aspect.

Until I can find a new word that is more concise, or make one up myself, all participants in this debate are to understand my use of the word as excluding child molestation, as was my intention.

Thank you, Kenny, for the definition. I accept the American Heritage lexicon as reliable, and amend my use of the word.

I'd just like to remind everyone that this is what this proposal is about. However well-intentioned the sentiments of those voting against this proposal for fear of criminalising thoughts or art, in doing so you are playing into the child-molesting hands of those who believe that raping innocent children is acceptable, and worthy of encouragement. ...<snip>...

The problem being, those you are siding with don't want the true crime to be punished earlier - witness the Norderian delegate's statement that paedophilia should not be criminalised, at all.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"You, Mrs. Jiffjeff, should be horsewhipped. (OOC: Film at 11 ;) ) You have consistently twisted your opponents' stands and words. You have contradicted yourself a number of times on what you, the author, believe this proposal will or will not prohibit. Either this resolution is about child pornography or it's not. If it's not then you have been misleading this esteemed body.

As an aside, paedophilia can not be criminalised without criminalising thought. You, dear, are either sorely misinformed or deliberately muddying the picture in order to win approval of this Wenaist abortion of a resolution.

Our Ministry of Justice has made it quite clear that given Rubinan court proceedings are by definition, public publications, and court officers are required to "explicity" describe into evidence the action of the accused, those court documents will be technically prohibited under this misguided resolution, making it nigh impossible in the future to convict not only child pornographers, but child molestors as well. Bravo, Mrs Jiffjeff, what a lovely quandary you've created.

Needless to say, we have recorded a very resounding "NO" to this resolution.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece
Delegate for User Friendlia

But already, you're moving from your initial stance. You said that pure fantasy was not harmful, and should not be prohibited or regulated - on this, we agree, to an extent. But now, you are sating that "fantasy-based forms" should be allowed. And you can see our problem, because if something is taking a form, it is no longer mere fantasy, but it has been realized.

I do not believe so, as it was--it was thought--understood that "fantasy-based" was used synonymously with "pure fantasy," as the context was following those very words directly: "text or hand-created artwork; things that in no way, shape, or form truly involve a child".

The opponents of this proposal are very keen to paint us as criminalising thoughts, when we are doing no such thing. Rather, we are drawing a stark line between thoughts, and actions. The creation of child pornography is an action; hence, it is fair game for criminalisation.

Were it solely centered around the creation of child pornography that involved real children in any part of the process from inception to "enjoyment," my King would be behind you one hundred per cent. But it is not.

A proposal cannot be amended once it goes to vote. Even were your suggestion acceptable - which it is not - it would not be possible.

Then please accept my apologies; my lack of knowledge on ammending proposals is inexcuseable.

"Artwork" is not prohibited by this resolution; indeed, it cannot be, as such would already be protected under "Artistic Freedom". So perhaps your concerns are misplaced.

From the verbiage of the proposal, and your continued statements to the contrary, the easiest and thus most likely inferrences that can be made are either the statement is incorrect (meaning that "artwork" is in fact prohibited by the resolution), or one does not consider--for example--oil painting of a child in a sexual act to be "art."

The problem with that last is the question of where the line is drawn. It is a moral line, and morality is subjective. Is the next thing to not be considered "art" the painting made from menstrual blood? Many find that to be vile indeed.

I'd just like to remind everyone that this is what this proposal is about. However well-intentioned the sentiments of those voting against this proposal for fear of criminalising thoughts or art, in doing so you are playing into the child-molesting hands of those who believe that raping innocent children is acceptable, and worthy of encouragement.

I must once more respectfully offer my disagreement. By not banning text-based, computer-generated-based, hand-drawn/painted-based and other such forms that do not in any form involve a real child, it is not considered tacit encouragement of "true" child pornography. Many kingdoms, nations, republics, and so forth already have ways of dealing with these things "in-house," ways of dealing with the perpetrators. I have already mentioned my own Kingdom's, as have other representatives made notes of how their lands deal with such people.

These high-and-mighty sentiments were strangely absent when "Individual Self-Determination" was at vote. Yet another example of extreme selectivity when it comes to the application of principle from the camp opposing this proposal on grounds of believing sexual abuse of minors should not be prevented.

Speaking only for myself, I was not assigned to the United Nations at that time. <<OOC: If that proposal was being considered after I signed up to the UN, I either didn't get the chance to get to the forum, didn't think about it, or just had a brain-fart.>>


The problem being, those you are siding with don't want the true crime to be punished earlier - witness the Norderian delegate's statement that paedophilia should not be criminalised, at all.

<<OOC: Edit because I realized I wasn't understanding the difference.>>
The difference that the representative has outlined, that pedophilia is the mentality/desire and child-molestation is the actual act, we agree with. One cannot punish a mentality without action, but can punish the action itself.

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to convey his disapproval of the Child Pornography Prohibition Resolution. While Regent Rudabaugh of Costa Bravo does not wish to condone the despicable actions detailed in the resolution, he does question Clause III -- Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts; -- as it provides grounds for leniency and precipitates loopholes that allow nations to circumvent the laws detailed in this resolution. Regent Rudabaugh would like for Clause III to be solidified, as "appropriately tough penalties" is inappropriately vague. Clause III would allow the most heinous of member nations to continue their endorsement of child pornography and molestation, something that the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would disapprove of.

Consequently, the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo will be voting against this resolution, in hopes that it can be fleshed out further, in order to cockblock loopholes.

Costa Bravo']The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to convey his disapproval of the Child Pornography Prohibition Resolution. While Regent Rudabaugh of Costa Bravo does not wish to condone the despicable actions detailed in the resolution, he does question Clause III -- Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts; -- as it provides grounds for leniency and precipitates loopholes that allow nations to circumvent the laws detailed in this resolution. Regent Rudabaugh would like for Clause III to be solidified, as "appropriately tough penalties" is inappropriately vague. Clause III would allow the most heinous of member nations to continue their endorsement of child pornography and molestation, something that the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would disapprove of.
It doesn't do anything about child molestation anyway.
The reason you see it in the thread here is because of the other argument, involving the word "representation," and the motivations and justifications for the word.

Oh, hardly. I agreed that if a person gets off to blood and gore, it's disturbing, but that's not the intention of a murder scene( save for snuff films, but I think I mentioned earlier that I wouldn't mind a ban on the real ones, just as I wouldn't mind a ban on real child porn). We cannot ban something that does not harm anyone, and childless porn doesn't harm anyone. If we are to suggest that because it bears the potential to influence someone into becoming a child rapist who's going to run outside, grab 40-50 babies and ravage them like a big, hairy, wild animal (and then smoke some pot, get married to a person of the same sex, drink booze on Sunday, burn a flag, and say "bad" words), it needs to be banned, then we would have to go around banning guns because they make people get better at shooting stuff and then they'll shoot people; violent movies, video games, and tv shows because they'll start beating up their wives/husbands, shooting politicians, stealing cars, and crashing them into Shamoo's tank; ban pornography that includes nuns, because it'll make people want to rape nuns; ban zoos because people want to jump into the angry bear cage to rub his belly and blow in his face; and ban lawn mowers because someone will try picking it up and using it as a hedge trimmer; because all those things bear the potential to make someone do something stupid and/or harmful!

With all due respect, the honourable delegate has misunderstood the point of the arguments in favour of banning simulation. Morally and philosophically, the individual who uses simulated material of abuse to achieve sexual satisfaction, is as guilty as any actual molester or abuser. They are condoning an act that is fundamentally wrong and evil, even if only indirectly. I do not have the intention of setting a precedent for how such morality based questions are treated. I judge on individual cases alone. In this case, the fact that the crime depicted involves real or simulated abuse of a child, one of the most vulnerable members of society, as well as the fact that such material could encourage pre-existing tendencies to surface, means that I feel we must act to prohibit it. Yes the conduct is disturbing and yes, I do not agree with banning "normal" porn, drugs, zoos, or any of the examples given, because they apply to utterly different matters. You are guilty of hyperbole. This legislation will protect the most vulnerable members of society from abuse, real or simulated. I feel that the small loss of freedom of expression, in this case, is warranted when a clear and tangible benefit is created for the vast majority of citizens. In this case, such a situation exists.

Should pedophilia be banned? Hells no. Should it, if possible, be treated? Hells yes. Should someone who has sex with minors be considered a sex offender and be forced to register? Sure. But Billy McFratboy wacking off to his high school aged girlfriend's picture is not doing any freakin' harm! Much less, if the picture is one he drew himself of a girl he made up in his mind!

Should paedophilia be banned? Hell yes. Should it, if possible, be treated? Hell yes, but only within the context of punishment and rehabilitation, not as an optional state wherby those that don't want to recognise their perversion can just go off and abuse the rights of children not to be abused.

Secondly, Bill McFratboy is guilty of pederastry. And to be honest, he's not the principal target of this resolution. He might get caught up, but to be honest, it's a small price to pay for crippling the operations of the child abusers and paedophiles out there.

Pedophilia disgusting? Yes, but so are German shit videos, surgeries, and pictures of gaping orifices. But you don't go banning them!

OOC: "German shit videos"?

IC: They aren't primarily sexual or illegal activities, they aren't valid examples.

OOC2: I base my interpretation of questionable content largely upon the RL BBFC guidlines, particularly those for pornography.

Edit: and before someone goes trying to call me on it, I will remind people that I see a difference between pedophilia and child molestation, even if others don't.

I don't. The two are the same and have the same consequence. Misery for the victims.

The problem with that last is the question of where the line is drawn. It is a moral line, and morality is subjective. Is the next thing to not be considered "art" the painting made from menstrual blood? Many find that to be vile indeed.

What will be implemented is what is authorised in this resolution. Nothing more, nothing less. Conjecture is not a valid reason to oppose.

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to convey his disapproval of the Child Pornography Prohibition Resolution. While Regent Rudabaugh of Costa Bravo does not wish to condone the despicable actions detailed in the resolution, he does question Clause III -- Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts; -- as it provides grounds for leniency and precipitates loopholes that allow nations to circumvent the laws detailed in this resolution. Regent Rudabaugh would like for Clause III to be solidified, as "appropriately tough penalties" is inappropriately vague. Clause III would allow the most heinous of member nations to continue their endorsement of child pornography and molestation, something that the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would disapprove of.

Consequently, the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo will be voting against this resolution, in hopes that it can be fleshed out further, in order to cockblock loopholes.

Trying to define a one-size-fits-all scheme, with precise details for all countries involved, would create more loopholes than this definition. It's perfectly appropriate.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

With regard to the "banning of pedophilia," ever-sovereign Regent Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to convey that it is impossible and immoral for a government to "ban" a person's sexual fantasies. Rather, it is the duty of a nation's government to prevent the actualization of said fantasies, which the resolution at hand addresses.

So, in tandem with that opinion, the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to state that they are adamantly opposed to any resolution or amendment that "bans" pedophilia.

What will be implemented is what is authorised in this resolution. Nothing more, nothing less. Conjecture is not a valid reason to oppose.

The question is not of conjecture, but one of precisely what is authorized in the resolution. It seems that what is authorized is a drawing of a moral line, which is what we oppose.

Trying to define a one-size-fits-all scheme, with precise details for all countries involved, would create more loopholes than this definition. It's perfectly appropriate.
The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to convey that he was hoping for a relatively more burlesque, well-rounded set of universally applicable parameters, with regard to the punishment of those involved in the distribution, actualization, and possession of child pornography. He did not mean to say that the resolution was in need of an amazingly thorough, exceedingly specific set of parameters, rather that it needed a basis on which member UN nations should punish heinous persons.

Now, I'm just an old sea cap'n who likes nothing better than giving child pornographers a good keelhauling, but here's my take on this whole mess.

The proposal defines 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;"

Most of the hubbub seems to have come from this definition. Using the magic of quotation marks, I'll show what I think the divergence stems from.

1. It prohibits acts and "simulations of acts" by children. If there is no real child involved, then the qualifier "by a child" is not met, so the material is not met. Thus, for example, a drawing, based entirely on a fictional event, depicting a fictional child, would not be prohibited. However, a real child miming fellatio for a child would be prohibited. This is the view I take.

2. It prohibits acts and simulations "of acts by children". Even if there is no real child involved, the material would still be prohibited, because it depicts an act by a child. A fictional story about a fictional child performing fictional acts would still be prohibited. This is, seemingly, the view the delegate of Norderia takes. It is also the view Mrs Jiffjeff takes.

At this point, I feel compelled to make several things clear:
We wrote the resolution. We don't write your laws. How you interpret and implement a resolution is up to you, not us.
The exploitation of loopholes is well-established precedent in the UN. I see no reason why those in opposition to this proposal are not availing themselves of the opportunity to do so, or at least exploring the possibility.
Moltan Bausch, Gruenberg's last ambassador to the UN, argued this strenuously during the debate of "Artistic Freedom". The tables are turned, yet the other side seems unwilling to look after their own. That to me, is odd.
It is not my place, nor the place of Mrs Jiffjeff, nor of a secretariat official (OOC: mod), nor of anyone else, to say how you interpret the definition of this resolution. That's up to your nation alone. So I can't say whether 1 or 2 is the more valid reading.

The aim of this proposal was to ban child pornography. Real, actual, indisputable child pornography. What classes as such, and to what extent "representation" and "simulation" stretches, it's not for me to say. And, it seems academic to an extent, when states intent on avoiding this legislation's provisions could circumvent it by:
- allocating very limited funds to relevant law enforcement departments
- not cooperating internationally
- applying very lenient sentences
- plenty of others no one seems willing to think up.

I won't pretend this legislation is impermeable. Much as I find it distasteful that "legit" loopholes might be exploited by states actually wanting to legalise real child porn, I admit it a possibility. Maybe if the delegates in the opposition spent one tenth time thinking creatively, rather than pouring the same tired accusations of "criminalising thoughts", they'd find this proposal less...onerous.

Yarrr.

~Captain Biggles McXiminez
Deputy Deputy Ambassador
Minister for Vomiting
Deputy Secretary of State for Penis Jokes

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.


Seconded.

In watching this debate unfold, I have become somewhat disappointed in the calibur of the arguments expressed. While the debate on whether the UN has an obligation to legislate morality or should be banned from doing so is a fine topic of discussion, it appears to me to be irrelivant to the overall big picture of this particular resolution. Rather than focus on actually important issues in teh bill such as how international exportation of child pornography will be delt with, who will foot the bill for taking care of the victims, and how the internet figures into the equation, opponents of the bill have instead fallen into to bickering about the deffinition of the word 'simulated.' I take it to mean 'pretend sex acts', as in, children pretending to have sex on camera but actually not doing so, like in adult pornography with fake orgasms and such. This, in my mind, is no different than filming actual sex, as the idea behind it is the same and it's still jsut as harmful to the child--if not more so. Other people, however, appear to be taking that to mean fake children; fictional creations of the mind, the computer keyboard, the sketch pad, the pen and paper. While I would question the sanity of anyone who writes such fictions or draws such depictions, though it is clearly of an overtly sexual nature I still feel that there is no compelling legal reason to have it banned. At most, people who create such things, or view such things, should be investigated or monitored for evidence of perpetrating actual criminal acts, but that is as far as I would be willing to go, and that is, again, a debate not for this time. Arguing the issue is pure symantics, as it is not explicitly stated in the proposed legislation that depictions of sex with fictional minors must be outlawed. Therefore, it does not have to be outlawed if you as a nationstate do not want it to be outlawed. Laws say what is ILLEGAL, not what will remain legal.

I hereby state in clarification that when I say, and have said pedophilia I am, was, and shall be referring to the fantasy aspect, and not the molestation aspect.

Until I can find a new word that is more concise, or make one up myself, all participants in this debate are to understand my use of the word as excluding child molestation, as was my intention.
The clarification is noted. It should also be noted that prior to its being offered, we were unclear on Ambassador Tommo's motives. Now we know: he doesn't condone child molestation. Just thinking about it.

You have consistently twisted your opponents' stands and words. You have contradicted yourself a number of times on what you, the author, believe this proposal will or will not prohibit. Either this resolution is about child pornography or it's not. If it's not then you have been misleading this esteemed body.
Mrs Jiffjeff was responding to a myriad of points. Not all of them were directly relevant to the proposal; there is no reason her responses were necessarily so, then, either. This resolution is about child pornography - the clue's kinda in the title. Mrs Jiffjeff believes fictional depictions of child abuse for sexual purposes should be criminalised - this is also the case under Gruenberger national law. As for the proposal...read the definition?

Our Ministry of Justice has made it quite clear that given Rubinan court proceedings are by definition, public publications, and court officers are required to "explicity" describe into evidence the action of the accused, those court documents will be technically prohibited under this misguided resolution, making it nigh impossible in the future to convict not only child pornographers, but child molestors as well. Bravo, Mrs Jiffjeff, what a lovely quandary you've created.
I'm sorry? Your courts use this material for primarily sexual purposes? That's pretty odd...I would have thought they would have used them for primarily legal, or primarily procedural, or primarily evidential, or primarily, you know, anything other than sexual, really, purposes. In which cases they would not be "technically prohibited". Why would you actively twist a resolution into being hurtful to your national laws? That's...bizarrely obtuse.

Needless to say, we have recorded a very resounding "NO" to this resolution.
That would also appear to be your answer to the question, "Have you actually read the damn thing?"

I do not believe so, as it was--it was thought--understood that "fantasy-based" was used synonymously with "pure fantasy," as the context was following those very words directly: "text or hand-created artwork; things that in no way, shape, or form truly involve a child".
No, it's a very clear move from "fantasy" to "form". Fantasy is intangible, and held purely in the mind of the beholder. Once it is written, or drawn, or whatever, then it is being acted upon.

From the verbiage of the proposal, and your continued statements to the contrary, the easiest and thus most likely inferrences that can be made are either the statement is incorrect (meaning that "artwork" is in fact prohibited by the resolution), or one does not consider--for example--oil painting of a child in a sexual act to be "art."
I do wish people would stop trying to twist the resolution in ways they dislike. Creative interpretation to get round a proposal is fine; creative interpretation to make it get in the way of you is needless, silly, and ridiculous. Let me spell it out:

If it is for primarily sexual purposes, it is banned.
If it is for primarily artistic purposes, it is permitted.

The problem with that last is the question of where the line is drawn. It is a moral line, and morality is subjective. Is the next thing to not be considered "art" the painting made from menstrual blood? Many find that to be vile indeed.
I have no idea. I'm discussing the proposal...what are you talking about?

(Although, for the record, prohibiting such painting would probably not be possible, as it would contravene "Artistic Freedom".)

I must once more respectfully offer my disagreement. By not banning text-based, computer-generated-based, hand-drawn/painted-based and other such forms that do not in any form involve a real child, it is not considered tacit encouragement of "true" child pornography. Many kingdoms, nations, republics, and so forth already have ways of dealing with these things "in-house," ways of dealing with the perpetrators. I have already mentioned my own Kingdom's, as have other representatives made notes of how their lands deal with such people.
Again with the selective sovereignty. This annoys me, not because it debases the argument - the argument's already plenty debased - but because it misses the point. This isn't your argument - you're not really talking sovereignty. You're actually taking issue with the subject - and I suspect most of those suddenly dusting off their NatSov bibles over the grey areas of this proposal would not be doing so on a proposal to legalise them. As such, arguing national sovereignty is disingenuous.

The difference that the representative has outlined, that pedophilia is the mentality/desire and child-molestation is the actual act, we agree with. One cannot punish a mentality without action, but can punish the action itself.
Yes, that was a distinction, like you, we were unaware of at the time. Consider Mrs Jiffjeff's comment retracted.

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to convey his disapproval of the Child Pornography Prohibition Resolution. While Regent Rudabaugh of Costa Bravo does not wish to condone the despicable actions detailed in the resolution, he does question Clause III -- Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts; -- as it provides grounds for leniency and precipitates loopholes that allow nations to circumvent the laws detailed in this resolution. Regent Rudabaugh would like for Clause III to be solidified, as "appropriately tough penalties" is inappropriately vague. Clause III would allow the most heinous of member nations to continue their endorsement of child pornography and molestation, something that the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would disapprove of.

Consequently, the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo will be voting against this resolution, in hopes that it can be fleshed out further, in order to cockblock loopholes.
Agreed, broadly. It is vague. Intentionally so, though. We have always strongly protested attempts by the UN to meddle in how we punish criminals - and because, unlike some here, we're willing to live by our words and accept that being selective in our application of principle is wrong, we accept that goes the other way. Just as we don't want our punishments banned, we don't want them forced on other nations. If you consider that offering too much leniency, so be it, but I won't ever sanction a proposal that forces minimums on nations: the differing legal systems and traditions are too much to account for.

I suggest you adopt diplomatic pressure on states abusing this loophole - although those who would seem likely to do so seem intent on avoiding using it, at present - to rectify their legal codes. Sorry, that's all I can offer - along with the assurance that in Gruenberg, we'll kill them twice over to make up for it.

It doesn't do anything about child molestation anyway.
Aside from banning its use as the subject of media for sexual pleasure...

So, in tandem with that opinion, the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to state that they are adamantly opposed to any resolution or amendment that "bans" pedophilia.
This doesn't do that - nor, interestingly, does Resolution #22, "Outlaw Pedophilia". So, it's not relevant to this topic.

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to convey that he was hoping for a relatively more burlesque, well-rounded set of universally applicable parameters, with regard to the punishment of those involved in the distribution, actualization, and possession of child pornography. He did not mean to say that the resolution was in need of an amazingly thorough, exceedingly specific set of parameters, rather that it needed a basis on which member UN nations should punish heinous persons.
That basis already exists - Resolution #47, "Definition of 'Fair Trial'", already makes provisions for suitable sentences being levied, whilst other resolutions prohibit excessively cruel and unusual punishments. Anything else falls to the level of domestic discretion.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

The proposal defines 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;"

Most of the hubbub seems to have come from this definition. Using the magic of quotation marks, I'll show what I think the divergence stems from.

1. It prohibits acts and "simulations of acts" by children. If there is no real child involved, then the qualifier "by a child" is not met, so the material is not met. Thus, for example, a drawing, based entirely on a fictional event, depicting a fictional child, would not be prohibited. However, a real child miming fellatio for a child would be prohibited. This is the view I take.

2. It prohibits acts and simulations "of acts by children". Even if there is no real child involved, the material would still be prohibited, because it depicts an act by a child. A fictional story about a fictional child performing fictional acts would still be prohibited. This is, seemingly, the view the delegate of Norderia takes. It is also the view Mrs Jiffjeff takes.

Well, now. That wasn't so bloody hard, now was it?

But you see, dear sir, I reject your second point out of hand, as your belief that viewing 'child' pornography (that doesn't involve children, mind - fiction, artwork, photorealism, et cetera), is bad in and of itself.

Paedophilia is a sexuality, child molestation is a crime. I'll grant you that paedophiles make up nearly the entire group of child molestors. What I will not grant you is that all paedophiles are child molestors.

Let 'a paedophile' be 'A'.
'Child molestation' would therefore be 'B'.

A person who commits 'B' is nearly always 'A'.
'A' does not necessarily commit 'B'.

It is because of this extremely simple fact that we believe that simulations, fictional children, whatever you wish to call it - children who do not exist - cannot be harmed. Simulations of sex acts involving real children are unacceptable, I will grant you that as well. But paedophiles who do not have the outlet of self-gratification using images or stories of children who do not exist may, in fact, be more likely to offend against children that do exist.

I'm certain that the good delegates from Gruenberg would not want to be directly responsible for an increase in statutory rape or child molestation in other nations through a myopic UN resolution. At least if the materials that involve the non-existant children are government controlled, the people who are consuming said materials could be tracked, and quite possibly would be more than willing to be removed from environments where they interact with children so they aren't tempted to commit the very crime you're attempting to prevent.

You see, even that makes some logical sense, rather than an irrational knee-jerk 'icky, bad' response.

I do wonder, though, if this will manage to enter your mind through your fingers and your dull 'lalalala, I'm not listening' chant.

Rain Beechwood
Magistrate of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

The question is not of conjecture, but one of precisely what is authorized in the resolution. It seems that what is authorized is a drawing of a moral line, which is what we oppose.


Almost every piece of legislation that this august body has crafted draws some form of moral line in the dirt, on paper, or in stone. It's a simple matter of deciding that certain things are not permissable and we won't allow them to happen. It doesn't make any difference what the subject matter is. As soon as we pass legislation, we decree that some things are acceptable while others aren't. A moral line has been drawn.

This particular line is being tempered by other laws that are already in existance. In any circumstance where ther might be a conflict between the two, it would be up to individual governments to decide for themselves where the line falls between them.

Pretty simple, really.

This doesn't do that - nor, interestingly, does Resolution #22, "Outlaw Pedophilia". So, it's not relevant to this topic.
The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo realizes that this resolution does not pertain to pedophilia directly, in any fashion, and he was simply offering a rebuttal to certain persons in this discussion who have said they endorse a ban on pedophilia. Nothing more.

The question is not of conjecture, but one of precisely what is authorized in the resolution. It seems that what is authorized is a drawing of a moral line, which is what we oppose.

Even if the 'moral line' is to protect innocent children from being abused. How very humanitarian of you sir. Besides, you are conjecturing a precedent which is not guaranteed to take place, which strikes me as unrealistic and unrelated to the topic at hand.

It is because of this extremely simple fact that we believe that simulations, fictional children, whatever you wish to call it - children who do not exist - cannot be harmed. Simulations of sex acts involving real children are unacceptable, I will grant you that as well. But paedophiles who do not have the outlet of self-gratification using images or stories of children who do not exist may, in fact, be more likely to offend against children that do exist.

Ah yes, I see. We should permit child pornography simulations because otherwise paedophiles will go and molest children. How wonderful, how about actually creating no abuse wherever possible and treating these perverts for what they are. Mentally-ill criminals who need forcible rehabilitation and treatment, coupled with vigorous punishment. I don't know why some delegates find the idea of letting people profit from depicting child abuse is not so reprehensible and depraved that not to ban it would be an insult to the dignity of those exploited and a betrayal of our duty towards the most vulnerable members of society.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to inform the present delegate to Compadria that it is considered immoral to punish someone for simply being a pedophile. The act of being a pedophile is not, in itself, a crime, and it is both illegal and grievously immoral for an organization to apprehend, punish, or otherwise assail any citizen of one's country, when that citizen has not duly committed a crime. You cannot, and should not, punish a citizen for their thoughts or fantasies, rather, they should be punished when, and only when, they take it upon themselves to actualize their incomprehensibly despicable fantasies.

Costa Bravo will be keeping an eye on the nation of Compadria, and will be forced to take action, diplomatic and otherwise, should the government of Compadria ever endorse the apprehension and punishment of innocents, namely pedophiles, as Costa Bravo will not stand by and allow civil rights violations to go unchallenged.

Ah yes, I see. We should permit child pornography simulations because otherwise paedophiles will go and molest children. How wonderful, how about actually creating no abuse wherever possible and treating these perverts for what they are. Mentally-ill criminals who need forcible rehabilitation and treatment, coupled with vigorous punishment. I don't know why some delegates find the idea of letting people profit from depicting child abuse is not so reprehensible and depraved that not to ban it would be an insult to the dignity of those exploited and a betrayal of our duty towards the most vulnerable members of society.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Our citizens and my compatriot rulers denounce you in the name of the Diety. I dare say that your stance against simple civil liberties where no actual harm is being caused makes you worse than a child molestor. I have the support of both of my co-rulers, Cheolean and Cheslaen Evanor, in saying this.

I will say this one final time.

If no real, actual children are being harmed or exploited, your stance is intolerable. If, in fact, the 'children' being depicted are fictional, and are being fictionally abused, who will weep? Their just-as-fictional parents? The fictional society in which they live?

Simply because your nation believes a group of citizens are perverts for simply being, and not acting on desires that are harmful does not mean that this group of citizens should be treated as any less than human. Existing does not make them degenerates. Indulging in what amounts to a 'victimless crime', where the only real person involved is themselves, does not make them criminals. So long as they do not take the step from their fiction into reality, they have done precisely nothing wrong at all.

May the Diety take pity on you for your intolerance.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

But you see, dear sir, I reject your second point out of hand, as your belief that viewing 'child' pornography (that doesn't involve children, mind - fiction, artwork, photorealism, et cetera), is bad in and of itself.
...my "second point"? I only had one point (more than one is a bit much for me to cope with): that it seems to me either of those readings is valid.

Yarrr.

~Captain Biggles McXiminez
Deputy Deputy Ambassador
Minister for Vomiting
Deputy Secretary of State for Penis Jokes

It prohibits acts and simulations "of acts by children". Even if there is no real child involved, the material would still be prohibited, because it depicts an act by a child. A fictional story about a fictional child performing fictional acts would still be prohibited. This is, seemingly, the view the delegate of Norderia takes. It is also the view Mrs Jiffjeff takes.

My apologies. This is what I reject. I specifically reject this completely out of hand, with the belief that the safety of real children is more important than one Spokesperson or even one entire nation's comfort that fake child pornography exists.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

If no real, actual children are being harmed or exploited, your stance is intolerable. If, in fact, the 'children' being depicted are fictional, and are being fictionally abused, who will weep? Their just-as-fictional parents? The fictional society in which they live?

Actually, my money would be on the child and the parents of the child that ends up getting raped as a result of the work of fiction tempting some pedophile or child molestor just that one time more than they could resist.

Anyways, the point is moot. With the wording of the proposal, you don't need to outlaw such fictional works if you do not wish to. Gruen already explained that, if you were paying attention.

Costa Bravo will be keeping an eye on the nation of Compadria, and will be forced to take action, diplomatic and otherwise, should the government of Compadria ever endorse the apprehension and punishment of innocents, namely pedophiles, as Costa Bravo will not stand by and allow civil rights violations to go unchallenged.

I feel it should be pointed out that, should you choose to infringe into the sovereign domain of any other UN nation, and impede in the workings of their government because you do not approve of the way they handle a civil rights issue, you will be opening up a can of worms you may never get closed again. Compadria has every right to legislate on a national level however they see fit. They are in compliance with all UN laws. Your threat of invasion or embargo is about two steps shy of a declaration of war. I strongly suggest you reconsider. Such things are not tolerated in polite company.

If you want to make sexual conduct with minors illegal in your nation, fine, but what on earth does -recording- that act on film or video have to do with it? Next it'll be illegal to sing songs or write stories about things that aren't okay.
Also, this doesn't mention drawings/cgi, which had damn well better stay legal.

Our citizens and my compatriot rulers denounce you in the name of the Diety. I dare say that your stance against simple civil liberties where no actual harm is being caused makes you worse than a child molestor. I have the support of both of my co-rulers, Cheolean and Cheslaen Evanor, in saying this.

Do you? Oh splendid, I'm glad I'm going to be denounced by the very elite of the elites on this matter.

First of all, don't lecture our nation on being against "simple civil liberties". We are a Civil Rights Lovefest. Our laws espouse equality betwen homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals. We don't detain people without trial, we have strong civil protections on the law-enforcement services, virtually no CCTV system to speak of, legalised drugs (with certain restrictions and regulations) and a very tolerant society. So don't try and play the fluffy card with us. I am offended that you find our position against encouragement of child abuse and tacit condoning of such a practice so reprehensible. I am offended that you appear willing to sacrifice the welfare of innocent children, just so some pervert can market drawings depicting acts of vile abuse and allow perverts to indulge their fantasies in a legal fashion, whilst still being a very real danger to children.

I will say this one final time.

If no real, actual children are being harmed or exploited, your stance is intolerable. If, in fact, the 'children' being depicted are fictional, and are being fictionally abused, who will weep? Their just-as-fictional parents? The fictional society in which they live?

The damage will be done because, as I have said so many times, the practice of permitting material that condones this kind of behaviour without any condemnation and for purely pornographic, sexual purposes, will encourage paedophiles to act on their tendencies. How long befoe they get tired of their 'outlet' and start to take it to the next stage? This isn't censorship, it's won't restrict drama, humour, documentaries, etc. It won't inhibit discussion of this issue. It will barely impinge upon freedom of expression. I remind you that Compadria enthusiastically support the "Artistic Freedom of Expression" resolution. The purview of this resolution is matter that is primarily sexual and pornographic in nature and extolls or involves abuse of children. Why is this so unacceptable?

Simply because your nation believes a group of citizens are perverts for simply being, and not acting on desires that are harmful does not mean that this group of citizens should be treated as any less than human. Existing does not make them degenerates. Indulging in what amounts to a 'victimless crime', where the only real person involved is themselves, does not make them criminals. So long as they do not take the step from their fiction into reality, they have done precisely nothing wrong at all.

May the Diety take pity on you for your intolerance.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

And how long can we trust them? How long will they remain 'satisfied', by their 'victimless' crime?

I pray to Ottarkus that your blindness will be lifted.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

P.S. To the Ever Sovereign Regent of Costa Bravo:

Compadria normally intervenes to prevent genocide, the mass starvation of populations and grotesque violations of civil rights. Real violations, like stoning homosexuals or throwing people in gaol without charge. Your nation appears keen to intervene to prevent the legitimate law enforcement measures of our nation against very dangerous individuals. We aren't hang-and-flog reactionaries, we're decent, compassionate people, we try and help those who ask for help and re-habilitate those who transgress. That doesn't mean we are afraid to be tough on crime. If you ever threaten our nation again, as you have now, I will inform our Luris (Prime Minister) that we have received an official threat to the sovereignty of our nation and we will mobilise as a precautionary measure. We don't want that, we like peace, like all sane individuals. So please, don't try and threaten us again, for the sake of all our citizens.

Pace sir and good conscience be upon you.

I feel it should be pointed out that, should you choose to infringe into the sovereign domain of any other UN nation, and impede in the workings of their government because you do not approve of the way they handle a civil rights issue, you will be opening up a can of worms you may never get closed again. Compadria has every right to legislate on a national level however they see fit. They are in compliance with all UN laws. Your threat of invasion or embargo is about two steps shy of a declaration of war. I strongly suggest you reconsider. Such things are not tolerated in polite company.
The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to point out that he will never stand idly by whilst the inalienable rights of human beings are violated to the extreme.

However, your objection is duly noted.

If you want to make sexual conduct with minors illegal in your nation, fine, but what on earth does -recording- that act on film or video have to do with it?

In case you missed the boat, which it appears you have, the whole discussion is about child PORNOGRAPHY. That's what it has to do with that.

Next it'll be illegal to sing songs or write stories about things that aren't okay.

? ....... what are you talking about? Please restrict your comments to the proposal at hand.

Also, this doesn't mention drawings/cgi, which had damn well better stay legal.

Actually, those would be covered by the "simulated" thingy in one of the definitions given, depending on your interpretation of the bill. You can pretty much decide for yourself whether they will remain legal or not.

Do you? Oh splendid, I'm glad I'm going to be denounced by the very elite of the elites on this matter.

First of all, don't lecture our nation on being against "simple civil liberties". We are a Civil Rights Lovefest. Our laws espouse equality betwen homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals. We don't detain people without trial, we have strong civil protections on the law-enforcement services, virtually no CCTV system to speak of, legalised drugs (with certain restrictions and regulations) and a very tolerant society. So don't try and play the fluffy card with us. I am offended that you find our position against encouragement of child abuse and tacit condoning of such a practice so reprehensible. I am offended that you appear willing to sacrifice the welfare of innocent children, just so some pervert can market drawings depicting acts of vile abuse and allow perverts to indulge their fantasies in a legal fashion, whilst still being a very real danger to children.

As a nation that routinely varies between a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise and Democratic Socialism, I congratulate on your excellent track record of civil rights, but denying a civil right is simply that. If you cannot see it, I am not the one who is blind.

The damage will be done because, as I have said so many times, the practice of permitting material that condones this kind of behaviour without any condemnation and for purely pornographic, sexual purposes, will encourage paedophiles to act on their tendencies. How long befoe they get tired of their 'outlet' and start to take it to the next stage? This isn't censorship, it's won't restrict drama, humour, documentaries, etc. It won't inhibit discussion of this issue. It will barely impinge upon freedom of expression. I remind you that Compadria enthusiastically support the "Artistic Freedom of Expression" resolution. The purview of this resolution is matter that is primarily sexual and pornographic in nature and extolls or involves abuse of children. Why is this so unacceptable?

Unfortunately, the same could be said of violent video games and guns. How long before people who play violent video games get tired of their 'outlet' and start to take it to the next stage? Woe is upon us, citizens with firearms will start shooting each other because they can, and have no sense of right or wrong! The Diety preserve us all!

And how long can we trust them? How long will they remain 'satisfied', by their 'victimless' crime?

I pray to Ottarkus that your blindness will be lifted.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

How long can we trust anyone with the ability and the desire to injure others, be it known or unknown? Who wants to wield firearms, other than those who wish to injure others? How long will they remain 'satisfied' in simply owning one?

Your otters obviously are leading you down a heathen path of hypocrisy and duplicity. We neither need, nor wish, their blessings. Our Diety has seen us through more troubled times.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to commend the Lydanian government for their benevolence and sensitivity to civil rights.

If you ever threaten our nation again, as you have now, I will inform our Luris (Prime Minister) that we have received an official threat to the sovereignty of our nation and we will mobilise as a precautionary measure. We don't want that, we like peace, like all sane individuals. So please, don't try and threaten us again, for the sake of all our citizens.

Pace sir and good conscience be upon you.

Speaker Otterby, I'd highly suggest that you watch your tone as well. As a technologically advanced nation with a military one third the size of your citizenry, I do believe it would be wise to show less teeth. This is the United Nations, and war between members is not only foolish, but counterproductive.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to commend the Lydanian government for their benevolence and sensitivity to civil rights.

The blessings of the Diety and the Triumvirate upon you and yours, Leader Rudabaugh.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

As a nation that routinely varies between a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise and Democratic Socialism, I congratulate on your excellent track record of civil rights, but denying a civil right is simply that. If you cannot see it, I am not the one who is blind.

What civil right?

Unfortunately, the same could be said of violent video games and guns. How long before people who play violent video games get tired of their 'outlet' and start to take it to the next stage? Woe is upon us, citizens with firearms will start shooting each other because they can, and have no sense of right or wrong! The Diety preserve us all!

That is a different scenario. People who play violent video games usually distinguish between the fantasy violence on screen and the real violence that exists in the world. People who view child pornography simulations are normally damaged individuals, who use it and often build upon this kind of material to feed their habit. In the case of violent video games, some pathological individuals exist, but they're proportion is far smaller and they act upon their inclinations in numbers equivalent to a far smaller percentage. The cases are therefore different. Of course, rating systems should apply for such content and truly excessive, visceral gore ought to be discouraged, yet not banned I would concede. Circumstances are different however and I stress this strongly. Besides, why keep throwing in such analogies when we are talking about child pornography?

How long can we trust anyone with the ability and the desire to injure others, be it known or unknown? Who wants to wield firearms, other than those who wish to injure others? How long will they remain 'satisfied' in simply owning one?

Well I believe fire-arms should be banned for this among reasons. The increased propensity to use fire-arms, should you own one. Yet that is another matter with different details.

Your otters obviously are leading you down a heathen path of hypocrisy and duplicity. We neither need, nor wish, their blessings. Our Diety has seen us through more troubled times.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Our otters may be revered as divine and Ottarkus, the founder of our great nation (in mythology) a half-man, half-otter being, yet that has not suspended our critical faculties. We are religious in tradition, not real belief and it does not affect our policy. We find your insulting of our national icon and objects of deep reverence rather poor-form. We wish your people well and hope that their faith in their Diety proves wise.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Speaker Otterby, I'd highly suggest that you watch your tone as well. As a technologically advanced nation with a military one third the size of your citizenry, I do believe it would be wise to show less teeth. This is the United Nations, and war between members is not only foolish, but counterproductive.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Is that a threat Magistar? Remember what I said about threats? I will give your nation one more chance before I consider reporting our conversations to the Compadrian Foreign Office.

I have no intention of embroiling Compadria or your nation in warfare, to do so would be counter-productive indeed. Let us take a calm, deep inhalation and avoid talk of intervention from this point onwards.

Pace

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

As a nation that routinely varies between a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise and Democratic Socialism, I congratulate on your excellent track record of civil rights, but denying a civil right is simply that. If you cannot see it, I am not the one who is blind.

So now it has become a guaranteed civil right to be able to abuse and exploit children? I feel sorry for the infants of your nation.

Unfortunately, the same could be said of violent video games and guns. How long before people who play violent video games get tired of their 'outlet' and start to take it to the next stage? Woe is upon us, citizens with firearms will start shooting each other because they can, and have no sense of right or wrong! The Diety preserve us all!

Completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Perhaps such things will be dealt with by other legislation, but this one makes no attempt to do so. Please try to stick to the actual subject matter of the debate.

How long can we trust anyone with the ability and the desire to injure others, be it known or unknown?

Irrelevant. If unnecessary temptation can be removed, they will be less inclined to follow such urges.

Who wants to wield firearms, other than those who wish to injure others?

Hunters, who wish to eat. Soldiers, who wish to protect their nation. Police Officers, who wish to uphold the law. Historians, who enjoy examining the development of such things through the years. Need I go on?

How long will they remain 'satisfied' in simply owning one?

With the examples I've given, they don't simply own it, nor is there any reason to expect them to. There is also no reason to expect them to go out and harm innocent people. That said, none of this is relevant debate.

Your otters obviously are leading you down a heathen path of hypocrisy and duplicity. We neither need, nor wish, their blessings. Our Diety has seen us through more troubled times.

How incredibly intolerant of you. He offers you the same salutation that he offers everyone. It is a sign of his respect and shows that, no matter the position you take against him, he still wishes you the best. It is unfortunate that such fascistic tendencies blind you to what is simple, heartfelt goodwill.

Thank you for the kind defence of our national salutation Kivisto. It is much appreciated. I would like to stress to the honourable delegate for Lydania that I show the utmost respect for his nation's Diety and I will not take the comments regarding our otters personally. Such words slip out at times.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you both.

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

Speaker Otterby, I'd highly suggest that you watch your tone as well. As a technologically advanced nation with a military one third the size of your citizenry, I do believe it would be wise to show less teeth. This is the United Nations, and war between members is not only foolish, but counterproductive.


Perhaps you should save your comments for those that instigated the threat....

Costa Bravo will be keeping an eye on the nation of Compadria, and will be forced to take action, diplomatic and otherwise, should the government of Compadria ever endorse the apprehension and punishment of innocents, namely pedophiles, as Costa Bravo will not stand by and allow civil rights violations to go unchallenged.

You are showing yourself to be not only intolerant, but hypocritical as well. Perhaps you should quit while you're ahead.

What civil right?
The civil right to do as they please, inasfar as they do not directly harm another citizen of Lydania. In Lydania, civil rights stem from this, which we hold to be a basic sentient right.

That is a different scenario. People who play violent video games usually distinguish between the fantasy violence on screen and the real violence that exists in the world. People who view child pornography simulations are normally damaged individuals, who use it and often build upon this kind of material to feed their habit. In the case of violent video games, some pathological individuals exist, but they're proportion is far smaller and they act upon their inclinations in numbers equivalent to a far smaller percentage. The cases are therefore different. Of course, rating systems should apply for such content and truly excessive, visceral gore ought to be discouraged, yet not banned I would concede. Circumstances are different however and I stress this strongly. Besides, why keep throwing in such analogies when we are talking about child pornography?

With the proper education, anyone except the pathological can be trained to not express any trait in a harmful.

Regardless, I would debate your presentation of these opinions as 'facts'. I am arguing for the ability of pedophiles to do as they please, as long as they do not harm any other citizens; you, on the other hand, are for the removal of this basic sentient right from a specific group of citizens. I find this hard to reconcile, coming from someone with an allegedly esteemed civil rights track record. We make no qualms about the fact that we restrict some civil rights as inherently dangerous, such as firearm ownership. Despite this, we do not believe in, nor see the causality between the viewing of pornography and inclination to perform the viewed acts. Viewing pornography with fictional non-consentual sex does not necessarily lead to an increased tendency to rape, even if said person finds it sexually arousing, and we see no difference between being aroused by fictional rape and fictional child molestation.

Well I believe fire-arms should be banned for this among reasons. The increased propensity to use fire-arms, should you own one. Yet that is another matter with different details.

If you'll excuse the pun, I do believe you're shooting yourself in the foot here, dear Speaker. This belief, coupled with the belief you hold in regards to paedophiles, leads me to believe that your nation is excessively picking and choosing civil rights while presenting a 'defender of all' front.

Our otters may be revered as divine and Ottarkus, the founder of our great nation (in mythology) a half-man, half-otter being, yet that has not suspended our critical faculties. We are religious in tradition, not real belief and it does not affect our policy. We find your insulting of our national icon and objects of deep reverence rather poor-form. We wish your people well and hope that their faith in their Diety proves wise.

Our nation believes deeply in the Diety and the Divine Principle that each person has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not harm another, and our citizens live by this principle, as do I and my compatriot leaders. Our nation is devout in our defense of our Diety and Its Principle. Dear Speaker, we hope that you find the Light, sooner than later. Your statements about your nation and your nation's social policies seem to conflict. The Divine Principle would perhaps help a great deal in rectifying such a discrepancy.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Despite this, we do not believe in, nor see the causality between the viewing of pornography and inclination to perform the viewed acts.

It's called temptation.

I have no intention of embroiling Compadria or your nation in warfare, to do so would be counter-productive indeed. Let us take a calm, deep inhalation and avoid talk of intervention from this point onwards.

Pace

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Speaker Otterby, we, from our Citadel, have no need for threats. Our Divine Principle guides us in a great many things, including the use of our military. Lydania wishes no open warfare, precisely the same as Compadria.

That is not to say that our military cannot or will not be used if we are pressed to do so, but I don't see it as a current necessity.

The statements about your beloved otters were rash, I agree, and I would like to formally apologize for any offense I may have caused. Furthermore, the Triumvirate extends our gratitude in your respect of the Diety.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

The civil right to do as they please, inasfar as they do not directly harm another citizen of Lydania. In Lydania, civil rights stem from this, which we hold to be a basic sentient right.

Compadrian legal principles have always held rights to be a social construct, although protections of the vulnerable and the individual have always been important. We have stated our position and we shall have to agree to disagree on this point.

With the proper education, anyone except the pathological can be trained to not express any trait in a harmful.

I would say that a sizeable number of paedophiles were pathological.

Regardless, I would debate your presentation of these opinions as 'facts'. I am arguing for the ability of pedophiles to do as they please, as long as they do not harm any other citizens; you, on the other hand, are for the removal of this basic sentient right from a specific group of citizens. I find this hard to reconcile, coming from someone with an allegedly esteemed civil rights track record. We make no qualms about the fact that we restrict some civil rights as inherently dangerous, such as firearm ownership. Despite this, we do not believe in, nor see the causality between the viewing of pornography and inclination to perform the viewed acts. Viewing pornography with fictional non-consentual sex does not necessarily lead to an increased tendency to rape, even if said person finds it sexually arousing, and we see no difference between being aroused by fictional rape and fictional child molestation.

Again, we have stated our beliefs and will have to differ with you, sir, over this matter.

If you'll excuse the pun, I do believe you're shooting yourself in the foot here, dear Speaker. This belief, coupled with the belief you hold in regards to paedophiles, leads me to believe that your nation is excessively picking and choosing civil rights while presenting a 'defender of all' front.

No, we are being pragmatic and adaptable, not rigidly dogmatic.

Our nation believes deeply in the Diety and the Divine Principle that each person has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not harm another, and our citizens live by this principle, as do I and my compatriot leaders. Our nation is devout in our defense of our Diety and Its Principle. Dear Speaker, we hope that you find the Light, sooner than later. Your statements about your nation and your nation's social policies seem to conflict. The Divine Principle would perhaps help a great deal in rectifying such a discrepancy.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Magistar, we welcome all constructive criticism of our society. We feel we are acting in concordance with the Divine Principal (as you call it) on this issue and do not feel in conflict. We thank you for your suggestion.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Speaker Otterby, we, from our Citadel, have no need for threats. Our Divine Principle guides us in a great many things, including the use of our military. Lydania wishes no open warfare, precisely the same as Compadria.

That is not to say that our military cannot or will not be used if we are pressed to do so, but I don't see it as a current necessity.

The statements about your beloved otters were rash, I agree, and I would like to formally apologize for any offense I may have caused. Furthermore, the Triumvirate extends our gratitude in your respect of the Diety.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

We are glad that you concur with us about the regrettable tensions that arose. I am still somewhat concerned abou the phrase "if we are pressed to do so", but we will let sleeping otters lie rather than open up a new can of worms.

I thank you for your apology and feel honoured to receive your gratitude.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

So now it has become a guaranteed civil right to be able to abuse and exploit children? I feel sorry for the infants of your nation.
You have expressed supreme ignorance in the position of the Triumvirate, the Divine Principle, and our laws. The Diety weeps for your salvation.


Completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Perhaps such things will be dealt with by other legislation, but this one makes no attempt to do so. Please try to stick to the actual subject matter of the debate.

Dear Speaker, it is called a correlation. Or, if you prefer, a metaphor, or an analogy.

Irrelevant. If unnecessary temptation can be removed, they will be less inclined to follow such urges.

Precisely. If all unnecessary temptation can be removed, why, we can all be sitting in the gestation vats in the heart of Lydania, completely free of all thought, desire, or action! Wouldn't that be a wonderful existance?

... Somehow, I think not.

Hunters, who wish to eat. Soldiers, who wish to protect their nation. Police Officers, who wish to uphold the law. Historians, who enjoy examining the development of such things through the years. Need I go on?
Hunters became unnecessary with the advent of farms, and with the per capita amount of hunting-related deaths I see in some nations, I sometimes wonder if said hunters are cannibals.

Soldiers who wish to protect their nation do not own guns. The nation owns the guns that they use. Furthermore, any nation who would accept a bloodthirsty killer into the ranks of their military is little better than said killer.

Police officers who wish to uphold the law do not require ballistic-firing weapons. At the low end of our technological scale, we have 'stun guns'. In other nations, I believe they are called 'tazers'.

And furthermore, historians who wish to see the development of such things are free to apply to the many museums we have throughout our nation, but again, they do not own the guns.

A weapon is intended for harm. A sexuality is not.


With the examples I've given, they don't simply own it, nor is there any reason to expect them to. There is also no reason to expect them to go out and harm innocent people. That said, none of this is relevant debate.

Ah, but it is. Because 'in some nations, guns are uncontrolled', which is linked to the incessant gibbering of 'in some nations, child pornography is legal'.
Guns are inherently more harmful than sexuality, because it is what they were designed for. Sexuality simply is.

The Triumvirate does not support the use of real children in any way to gratify the sexual desires of paedophiles. We support the use of fictional children as theraputical release so they do not use real children for their desires. Is this hard to comprehend?

It is unfortunate that such fascistic tendencies blind you to what is simple, heartfelt goodwill.

Heartfelt goodwill is only goodwill if it is expressed to all sentience, as per the teachings of the Diety. And if you wish to use a derogatory term towards us, please avoid references to 'fascism'. It represents you in a bad light. If you must, feel free to use 'theocracy' or 'fanatic lunatics'. At least then we can have some respect for the person issuing the term.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

I thank you for your apology and feel honoured to receive your gratitude.
And sadly, I do believe that we must agree to disagree. It is perhaps the current belief in your nation, possibly backed by research, that paedophiles are more likely to offend against children after being exposed to pornographic materials; however, this is not the case in Lydania.

I believe that this quite likely stems from a cultural and technological difference in our nations. As the Divine Rules, Light and Principle are taught from a very young age, we see very few instances of people harming their fellow citizens, especially in that manner.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.
May the Light guard you, and the Diety bless you.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Excellent. So now that the apparently necessary macho tough guy posturing is out of the way, might we actually start debating the, you know, resolution that's being voted upon? Rather than finding reasons to disagree on issues that have very little to do with the resolution itself? Whether you decide to outlaw fictional acts of pedophelia or not is purely up to your nation state, and is not a matter which should be debated here. As this decision is allowed for in the proposed legislation--not mandated either way--whether oyu decide to do so or not is irrelivent in this forum. So if it's perfectly all right with everyone else, might we get back to discussing teh actual law now?

This resolution does NOT outlaw child sex. It outlaws distribution of imagery
that depicts what may, by some, be interprted as child sex. It does not make
the world safer for children. It makes it more dangerous for artists. I could go on explaining how this type of resolution could be abused to stiffle civil rights of individuals who never harmed children in their lives, but that would be just beating the dead horse, so to speak. Children deserve our protection. Imaginary children that are characters of artistic depictions or plain vulgar expression do not.

I disagree with #314.
The resolution
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;

This would make it illegal for anyone to produce movies in which children are
even mocking sexual activity as long as this act of mocking involves anything
resembling simulated sexual activity. This will violate civil rights of artists by inhibiting their ability, for instance, to critique overly sexual norms of behavior or overly provocative dress standards of society.
Depicting acts does and should not be treated as encouraging those acts. Regardless of how repulsive the acts maybe. What's next? Forbidding filming of action movies because they depict murder too realistically and entertainingly? Again, these arguments are not new. We are just beating the dead horse. Show evidence that viewing of child porn promotes child sex or stop trying to outlaw remarkably bad taste. UN does exit to homgenize cultures of its member nations.

This resolution, in no way, inhibits the artistic creativity of intellectual persons. It defines "child pornography" in clause one, sub-clause one, 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. Note the italicized portion. As long as the art in question is not intended for sexual purposes, and did not involved the exploitation or harm of a child, the art will pass as art, not child pornography.

So, Pythagorians, your logic is inherently flawed.

PS: The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, wholeheartedly endorses this statement.

You have expressed supreme ignorance in the position of the Triumvirate, the Divine Principle, and our laws. The Diety weeps for your salvation.

Whatever the position of the Triumvirate might be, I was responding to your words, not your dogma.

Dear Speaker, it is called a correlation. Or, if you prefer, a metaphor, or an analogy.

I accept the idea of an analogy, but such would require some demonstrable equivalence between the two subjects.

Precisely. If all unnecessary temptation can be removed, why, we can all be sitting in the gestation vats in the heart of Lydania, completely free of all thought, desire, or action! Wouldn't that be a wonderful existance?

... Somehow, I think not.

What needs to be kept in mind here is that most temptations do not lead to illegal or immoral acts. If one is tempted to have ice cream, and they act on it, the only thing that suffers might be their diet. If one is tempted to force a 5 year old boy to perform fellatio upon them, that is a much more serious situation indeed.

Hunters became unnecessary with the advent of farms,

Not all nations within the UN have managed to develop to an agricultural level of society as yet. What of them? What of those who live in terrain inhospitable to farming? Would you have them starve?

and with the per capita amount of hunting-related deaths I see in some nations, I sometimes wonder if said hunters are cannibals.

And with the level of gun safety that is managed in many other nations, one is left wondering whether this line of debate could actually gain any ground one way or the other.

Soldiers who wish to protect their nation do not own guns. The nation owns the guns that they use.

Incorrect. In Kivisto, our forces, be they Army, Navy, Air Force, or Orbital Attack Forces (OAFs), all own and maintain their own weaponry and equipment. It ensures that the finest care will taken with them and helps solidify their patriotic feelings that they are the ones who make a difference, using their bodies, their minds, and their tools.

Furthermore, any nation who would accept a bloodthirsty killer into the ranks of their military is little better than said killer.

We don't. All must pass exhaustive screening processes before even being considered for entry into the military. The point I'm making is that having a gun does not make one a killer. Raping a child makes one a child molestor. The two aren't comparable.

Police officers who wish to uphold the law do not require ballistic-firing weapons. At the low end of our technological scale, we have 'stun guns'. In other nations, I believe they are called 'tazers'.

Once again, not all nations have such technology. Gunpwder is easier to develop and, resultingly, is usually developed first.

And furthermore, historians who wish to see the development of such things are free to apply to the many museums we have throughout our nation, but again, they do not own the guns.

The government of Kivisto does not own the museums found within Kivisto. They are privately owned collections. This keeps the taxes required to maintain them down, and helps ensure that government bias doesn't skew what or how things are displayed. Everything within the museums, from guns to dinosaur fossils and bones, are privately owned by various citizens of Kivisto.

A weapon is intended for harm. A sexuality is not.

A sexuality that is aimed at defenceless children is far from harmless. I concur that not all who feel such urges act on them, but that does not mean we must encourage them by offering pornography displaying the object of their lust. Not all alcoholics continue to drink either, but we've banned that as well.

Ah, but it is. Because 'in some nations, guns are uncontrolled', which is linked to the incessant gibbering of 'in some nations, child pornography is legal'.

Displaying or owning a gun is hardly comparable to the rape of a child. These arbitrary equivalencies that you throw up are beginning to disgust me.

Guns are inherently more harmful than sexuality, because it is what they were designed for. Sexuality simply is.

To split hairs - A gun is a bludgeoning implement. A loaded gun with all safeties removed, aimed at something, held by one who knows how to use it, can be harmful. A sexuality, aimed at a defenceless child, held by one who would see that child psychologically scarred for his/her own sexual gratification, is much more traumatizing than any gun will ever be.

The Triumvirate does not support the use of real children in any way to gratify the sexual desires of paedophiles.

Good. We whole heartedly agree with the Triumvirate's Divine wisdom on this point.

We support the use of fictional children as theraputical release so they do not use real children for their desires. Is this hard to comprehend?

It is. However, that is also irrelevant. The proposal can be interpreted such that you need not ban the use of "fictional" children for whatever purpose you wish. If the Triumvirate wishes to allow such things to continue, they may do so.

Heartfelt goodwill is only goodwill if it is expressed to all sentience, as per the teachings of the Diety. And if you wish to use a derogatory term towards us, please avoid references to 'fascism'.

That particular term was utilized in light of the disdain you showed to the Otterby delegation's use of their salutation. That situation has already been cleared up between them and yourselves, I will remove myself from it so as to allow that unfortunate incident to wash away into the past.

It represents you in a bad light. If you must, feel free to use 'theocracy' or 'fanatic lunatics'. At least then we can have some respect for the person issuing the term.

As odd as this may sound, I greatly appreciate the implication that there is the potential for respect towards myself. I'm not a very respectable individual. ;)

Respectfully
Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto

The problem is that "simulated sex" could be a 15-year girl suggestively eating
a banana. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. This resolution will allows for laws
under which every piece of art that involves children will be subject for judicial review. It will lead to cases of innocent artists incarcarated for risque but not-at-all-harmful depictions of children because there will always be judges who interpret the laws who are overly prude.
My "logic", which is really a philosophy rather than logic, is that it is better to err
on the side of allowing too much than to allow too little. The only effect a government can have on creativity is that of stiffling it.
Child sex should be outlawed. Its depictions should not be.

The problem is that "simulated sex" could be a 15-year girl suggestively eating
a banana. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. This resolution will allows for laws
under which every piece of art that involves children will be subject for judicial review. It will lead to cases of innocent artists incarcarated for risque but not-at-all-harmful depictions of children because there will always be judges who interpret the laws who are overly prude.
My "logic", which is really a philosophy rather than logic, is that it is better to err
on the side of allowing too much than to allow too little. The only effect a government can have on creativity is that of stiffling it.
Child sex should be outlawed. Its depictions should not be.


The resolution allows individual governemnts room for interpretation. Before wholeheartedly throwing your vote against it, see what wiggle room there is available and realize that the only things that must be outlawed are situations where children actually engage in sexual activity of some sort. As for the overly-prudish judges......It is your government. Set the laws within your land using an interpretation of this law that doesn't allow your judges to persecute innocent artists needlessly.

Or simply realize that all of these arguments have already taken place in this debate and these issues have been answered time and again. Thanks for the input, though.

Children should not be advertized as objects of sexual desire.

In the worst case scenario, it may lead to rape.

-snip-
Speaker Feldstein, in the spirit of brevity, I will simply say that cultural difference between nations prevent any meaningful discussion on the prevalence of paedophiles and their treatment.

However, as has been said several times, child molestation is not paedophilia. Paedophilia is the sexuality, and child molestation is the crime. The two can be linked, but so can gun ownership and gun deaths, and intent to kill and murder.

You yourself do not seem to believe that guns are inherently dangerous, whereas paedophiles are. Reverse the two, and you have my position. Living in fear of child molestation by paedophiles is akin to living in fear of your gun-owning next-door neighbour when you do not own a gun.

Understand that paedophiles are people, just as much as anyone else. In many less socially enlightened nations, homosexual males are given the treatment with regards to children that the society feels paedophiles should be given. What I am saying to you is that you're misrepresenting paedophiles just as badly as those homosexual males are misrepresented. There is an inherent difference, I understand, but you're pigeonholing every member of a group, and then tarring them with the same brush.

The point that I'm trying to get across is that I have zero doubt that a large amount of paedophiles would not be practicing paedophiles if they had a suitable outlet. Paedophilia is a sexuality, just like heterosexuality or homosexuality. If you find it ludicrous that you would go out and attempt to force yourself on numerous people that you're attracted to after watching pornography, Speaker Feldstein, why do you not find it equally ludicrous to believe that paedophiles would do the same?

I do not subscribe to the belief that paedophiles are damaged mentally. A large number of paedophiles are perfectly productive members of society who have an abnormal sexuality which they are not allowed to act on for the good of society and the welfare of the child. I will not object for a second to provisos which state that real children are not to be used in depictions of sexual acts. But denying paedophiles any and all outlets for their sexuality is damaging to them, and puts children at higher risk from a larger amount of people who would otherwise gratify themselves without the stimulus of a real child.

If you feel that I'm incorrect, it's at this point that we must agree to disagree.

As odd as this may sound, I greatly appreciate the implication that there is the potential for respect towards myself. I'm not a very respectable individual. ;)

Speaker Feldstein, you shock me. There is always the potential for respect for others. In fact, it is my default position, thanks to my upbringing in the Love of the Diety. It is just that it tends to stick in my craw when I am arguing for rights I believe that every sentient has, when others are advocating taking them away. It smacks of social injustice.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

The representative of these United States of Meeron wishes to honor the comments of Pythagorians's diplomat, due to there over-all rellivance to the topic at hand--something which has been soarly lacking in this discussion. It is rather a shame, then, that the representative from this nation is completely wrong on every misguided point he attempts to make.

The problem is that "simulated sex" could be a 15-year girl suggestively eating a banana. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.
OOC: Oo la laaaa. ;;)

Not so, sir; I do not believe that the United Nations has officially ruled one way or the other on whether or not the fruit fettish should be considered a danger to society. You may think I'm being pointlessly obtoos, but I'm not. The boundries between pornography and art are clear--if the material in question exists soully for the enjoyment of witnessing the sexual act, it is nothing but pornography. If the scene which you describe is part of a larger film with more than just the sexual acts in it (and what's there is not existing for the soul purpose of displaying the sex act), it is not considered pornography. Your example fails.
T This resolution will allows for laws
under which every piece of art that involves children will be subject for judicial review.

I defy you to come up with an example in which this resolution coudl be twisted by nations to make the laws which oyu are describing in a way that the current UN policy would not already allow.

It will lead to cases of innocent artists incarcarated for risque but not-at-all-harmful depictions of children because there will always be judges who interpret the laws who are overly prude.

That would be the problem of your government picking irresponsible judges. Not the UN's concern.

My "logic", which is really a philosophy rather than logic, is that it is better to err on the side of allowing too much than to allow too little.

Explain your "logic" to a 9-year-old girl sold into sex slavery within your nation. I'm sure she'll be very understanding.

The only effect a government can have on creativity is that of stiffling it.

Yes. Yes, indeed, let's all just disband right now and go home because it's obvious we can't do any good. Can we leave the sofomoric Anarchist arguments where they belong, in our high school sofomor years?

Child sex should be outlawed. Its depictions should not be.

So let me see if I understand your argument correctly, speaker. Under your view, child sex should be outlawed, however, watching it should not be outlawed. So then might i ask what exactly is it that the people watching this child sex are in fact watching? Why, it appears they are watching child sex! Please explain to me how filming an illegal act suddenly makes that act not illegal anymore.

Look, folks. I don't like child-rape any more than y'all do. I've killed a couple child-rapists when I caught them in the act, used my bare hands to do it. More personal that way. That was back in the day when folks were more inclined to over-indulgence in violent retribution, y'all understand. Nowadays we just keep our kids away from the pedophiles and that works out fine.

At any rate, our nation doesn't like having domestic laws like those in Sections 2 and 3 of the resolution put in place for us. If we wanted those damn laws, we'd have already made them. So kindly stop meddling in our nation's domestic matters, por favor, and stick to what the UN is at least passable at doing, meddling in international matters with useless committees.

This whole thing reminds me of the UN Copyright Convention, such a nice piece of legislation aside from not respecting our goddamn right to self-determination. We voted against it too, because we do love our right to self-determination. Y'all might want to give it a try, that whole loving your right to self-determination and respecting the rights of other nations to make their own laws on domestic matters.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Explain your "logic" to a 9-year-old girl sold into sex slavery within your nation. I'm sure she'll be very understanding.



The act of selling a 9-year-old girl into slavery should no doubt be illegal.
We did address the fact that we consider child sex to be an abhorent and, by
all means, unethical behavior that deserves to be outlawed.


Yes. Yes, indeed, let's all just disband right now and go home because it's obvious we can't do any good. Can we leave the sofomoric Anarchist arguments where they belong, in our high school sofomor years?


We are against anarchy as it happens, but we do not want our judicial system to be used for legislating tastes. Terrible tastes are just that.


So let me see if I understand your argument correctly, speaker. Under your view, child sex should be outlawed, however, watching it should not be outlawed. So then might i ask what exactly is it that the people watching this child sex are in fact watching? Why, it appears they are watching child sex! Please explain to me how filming an illegal act suddenly makes that act not illegal anymore.

No, filming an act does not make the act legal. But filming an illegal act does
not make the filming itself illegal. Should filming of a burglary be illegal? How about filming of a bribe-taking (this example, of course, assumes a society in which burglary and bribe-taking are illegal acts)?

I don't think you realize what you're advocating with this position. What you're basically saying is that hte child or children involved in the child pornography should be arrested for breaking the law, but the people who are filming it or the director are just recording it so there's nothing wrong with it. That is simply twisted. If we allow child pornography to continue, we allow the organized trade of children from pornographer to pornographer to flurish. If child pornography is not outlawed, children will continue to be sexually abused in the... child pornography depictions you claim are a soverign right.

I actually think that what is being proposed has already been acomplished, the proposal makes references to two other propositions already enacted, this proposal only reinforces whats already been said. My qualms with it is that by doing this you promote clogging the UN with redundant resolutions. We need to take a stand and vote no on this, not because we disagree with the proposal, but because its already been done and slows down the progress we could be making in other areas

Pythagorians, the ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to inform you that this resolution deals with child pornography. You act as if this resolution is trying to outlaw the illegality of the exploitation of minors, and that your nation has no power to make such exploitations illegal. When, really, it is quite the opposite.

Should you want a UN Resolution dealing with the topic of the exploitation of minors, you should create one of your own, detailing your personal views. In the meanwhile, be content in knowing that both you, and every nation out there, has the ability to pass national laws against the exploitation of minors.

OOC: Home from work, at last. I read must of what I missed, but I don't feel like quoting everything, so I'll just respond to everyone I need to.

IC: With some quotes...

That is a different scenario. People who play violent video games usually distinguish between the fantasy violence on screen and the real violence that exists in the world.
Agreed. But where do you come up with the following?
People who view child pornography simulations are normally damaged individuals, who use it and often build upon this kind of material to feed their habit.
Sociopathic, maybe, but damaged in such a way that they cannot tell fantasy from reality? Certainly not on the whole. It's a fetish, not psychosis! There are a handful, as with violent games, and they oughta be stopped, but like the games, the whole damn thing shouldn't be stopped because of a crazy person. If we banned something every time that something caused a crazy person to do something crazy, we'd ban ourselves into nothingness.

(I am bolding the following statement because I am about to launch into a long point by point breakdown of the views. I want to be sure that people can see what I'm talking about by scrolling up, because this is the post that I do NOT want to have be misunderstood. I am also going to leave titles.) Pornographic images don't influence a person any more than a violent video game does. Have I ever been encouraged by a pornographic image of say, a teacher (a real one or otherwise), to go out and rape one of my teachers? Certainly not, and I'm willing to bet that there haven't been a whole hell of a lot who have. So what does lowering the apparent age of the person in the pornographic image to below the age of consent have to do with the mental health of the person watching it? There are plenty of well-developed minors (especially with that growth hormone in milk), so it isn't even a big physical stretch. You assume a corelation between the age of the person depicted and the mental health of the viewer, and that is an unwarranted assumption.

(The following answers the concern of loopholes and the definitions)
I take issue not with the word "simulated" but with the word "representation" which includes drawings, non-real children, etc. because they are a representation of a minor in a sexual act. There is no way to bend the definition of the word "representation" to nullify their inclusion without being unreasonable. So the loophole idea isn't going to work.

Kivisto, it is a perfectly valid analogy. The justification I see for the ban of "representations" is because they will influence people to do such represensible acts. To bring their fantasy to form. As I've responded to Compadria, that assumes a lot, and a lot is not easy to prove. I maintain that no more would be influenced by child pornography to become a child molester than would be influenced by a shoot-'em-up video game to become a violent criminal.

(The following answers to the concern that viewing and enjoying pornography is tantamount to performing the acts)
Many nations have laws against conspiracy -- the act of planning to commit a crime. One cannot be arrested before they commit a crime unless they are clearly planning to do it, or in the process of doing it. Having thoughts about it is not conspiracy. When I look in the drawer of the cash register, and see hundreds of dollars, I think about taking it. Do I take it? No. Do I make a plan to? No. I am not commiting a crime simply because I am thinking about it. Am I even condoning theft, because the thought crossed my mind? No. What if I really, really like the idea? Still no. If I draw a picture, or write a description of such a crime, am I commiting the crime? No.

So to suggest that 1) people who look at a certain type of pornography are being influenced to do such acts is not a logical argument, because it is an unwarranted assumption; and that 2) a person who enjoys child pornography is condoning the abuse of children is no more correct than to suggest that the answers to the questions I asked above are "yes."

(The following answers to the idea of porn as a substantial temptation)
I believe it was Kivisto who also suggested that the pornography was the temptation. I will respond with another analogy (because there is not a damn thing wrong with a good analogy).
If someone who plays a violent video game goes out and mimics the video game, were they tempted by it? It certainly is possible, but for a video game to push a person over the edge and into such mimicry would suggest that the person was not in a healthy state of mind to begin with. I will not say that pornography cannot tempt someone, but it is such a small possibility, and the tempted one already so far gone, that it would not make any sense to ban it. We wouldn't ban violent movies or video games because of the slight possibility (hell, we don't normally legislate on possibilities anyway).
(At this point I want to remind people of my stance, because this is all coming to an end shortly -- porn involving child = ban it. Porn not involving child = don't ban)

So, due to the aforementioned points, I find that the justification for banning childless representations to be exaggerated concerns.

I can empathize with the supporters of this Resolution. I would like to ban child pornography. And I understand the sentiment that a crime, when it involves a child, should be considered more severe. However, the severity applies (in my opinion) to criminal actions only. Something that is not criminal should not be made criminal simply because the idea or representation of a child is added.

I'll try to put my argument into standard form, or something similar to standard form, failing that. (Edit: okay, it's not looking like standard form, but it's shorter)

Pornography involving children should be banned.
Child pornography includes children
Thus, Child pornography includes children, and should be banned.

Pornography involving children should be banned.
Representations do not include children
Thus, it does not immediately follow that Representations should be banned.

The molestation of a child is (likely) illegal
Masturbation to pictures is not child molestation
Thus, it does not immediately follow that masturbation is illegal

(Here, refer to my argument about temptation and influence, because I don't want to risk any misunderstanding by shortening that.)

If masturbation is not illegal, and no child is involved, then no crime is being commited.

Thus, representations should not be banned.

(snip something about The Stout and enjoying child molestation)

You can continue to resort to that, but quite frankly, I don't see why. This Resolution will pass and we know it. Stop the slander.

I think I have responded to everything I wanted to. If I misnamed a nation's argument, I apologize. I am going to force myself to take a hiatus from the halls for a while. I have much work to do, and cannot afford to spend an hour writing responses like this every time.
OOC: And I really gotta pay some more attention to CN, what with my alliance starting and all....


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

I actually think that what is being proposed has already been acomplished, the proposal makes references to two other propositions already enacted, this proposal only reinforces whats already been said. My qualms with it is that by doing this you promote clogging the UN with redundant resolutions. We need to take a stand and vote no on this, not because we disagree with the proposal, but because its already been done and slows down the progress we could be making in other areas

Resolutions #22 " Outlaw Pedophilia and #25 " The Child Protection Act" DO NOT cover Child Pornography. Plain and simple. I believe that if you had actually taken the time to read them and understand them, you would already know this.

The thing that makes the desires behind the viewing of child pornography different vrom the viewing of regular pornography is that there is no way to legally have sex with a child. If, to tkae your analogy, you were to watch pornography with a schoolteacher, while no normal person would be inclined to rape one, a normal person might well be watching this pornography because he happens to like having sex with schoolteachers. This is all well in good, if he is having sex with schoolteachers and they are consenting. With a child, even if he or she consents, the child is not considered legally to be capable of consenting.

*snip*

The point is about influence though. Why would one assume that one is more likely to be influenced to go out and have sex with children than be influenced to go out and have sex with whatever consent-aged fetish? That is the point I am making.

The thing that makes the desires behind the viewing of child pornography different vrom the viewing of regular pornography is that there is no way to legally have sex with a child.

Sure there is... you wait X years until they are legal.

no, what you do it find a short chick, semi-flat to flat breasts, with a childlike voice, wouldnt that settle your "needs"? :fluffle:

no, what you do it find a short chick, semi-flat to flat breasts, with a childlike voice, wouldnt that settle your "needs"? :fluffle:

Fine, 2, 2 are the ways to...

All I have to say is all those who would desire to abuse a child to meet their own "needs" are pigs that deserve to be locked away.

There is a standing law in the real world that deals with that issue and many companies have found ways to get around this law. One major way is to find those who are barely legal, take their pictures, and then digitally alter the pictures to make the subject look younger, and distribute this material. Going by the spirit of the law that would be condemned, however; by law they could not be prosecuted because the original subject was a consenting adult. If one understands and has the needed programs, this is very easily done.

There are loop holes in every law and many people have highly paid lawyers to find them. It is wrong but it is done every day.

Imperial Hubris, Elected UN voice of Rhovanion

There is a standing law in the real world that deals with that issue and many companies have found ways to get around this law. One major way is to find those who are barely legal, take their pictures, and then digitally alter the pictures to make the subject look younger, and distribute this material. Going by the spirit of the law that would be condemned, however; by law they could not be prosecuted because the original subject was a consenting adult.

Imperial Hubris, Elected UN voice of Rhovanion

It is, despite it's SIMULATED appearance, still legal.
We cannot, without subjecting ourselves to all manner of deranged interpretations, allow for the law to be followed based on it's "spirit".

Law is written so that "what is wrong" becomes a fact not an opinion and can be universally defined.

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

I'm sure someone mentioned this already, but this law only has an impact on nations that have a defined age of consent, right? What if the nation hasn't implemented that legal concept, or supports the practice of child brides?

It seems to me like those nations who would be required to implement this resolution (because they didn't already have similar laws) probably have a very low or non existant age of consent law too, right?

Freedom to sexually abuse a child is not a civil right.

In the Holy Empire of Karbakirb, our citizens enjoy extensive civil rights. We do not ask what they do in their bedrooms.

We do not even have police.

And we like it that way.

We find our people are happy, progressive, and peace-loving.

If, however, they choose to hate their children, that is entirely up to them.

Burgust Overborn
Underminister of Pomopsity
Holy Empire of Karbakirb

I'm sure someone mentioned this already, but this law only has an impact on nations that have a defined age of consent, right? What if the nation hasn't implemented that legal concept, or supports the practice of child brides?

It seems to me like those nations who would be required to implement this resolution (because they didn't already have similar laws) probably have a very low or non existant age of consent law too, right?


Very observant, young goblin-like one (compliment in Xaipeteq)...

This issue has been raised and questions of international laws regarding distribution of produce containing "children" from countries with low consent ages to high have been discussed but I don't think we reached any sort of conclusion.

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

Very observant, young goblin-like one (compliment in Xaipeteq)...

This issue has been raised and questions of international laws regarding distribution of produce containing "children" from countries with low consent ages to high have been discussed but I don't think we reached any sort of conclusion.

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

This seems like the sort of legislation people pass to feel better. The people that trade in child porn, child slavery, etc. are pretty far beyond help. They are wayyyyyyyyy to dissociated to be bothered by the fact that they are breaking UN law. This isn't a problem that gets solved by passing a resolution here.

What if the nation hasn't implemented that legal conceptThen, clearly, the Resolution wouldn't apply inside that nation.

They would, however, find export to UN nations difficult.

This seems like the sort of legislation people pass to feel better.


I wouldn't go as far to say that these resolutions are passed only to make the proposer feel better, but a lot of the reason this proposal will get passed is because many of those who read it will be hesitant to criticise it for fear of being labelled "Child Haters".

It is similar to declaring "outlaw war!" - the knee-jerk reaction is to agree.

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

I wouldn't go as far to say that these resolutions are passed only to make the proposer feel better, but a lot of the reason this proposal will get passed is because many of those who read it will be hesitant to criticise it for fear of being labelled "Child Haters".

It is similar to declaring "outlaw war!" - the knee-jerk reaction is to agree.

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

It's tricky ground for the UN to be playing in. The resoultion seems safe because it doesn't have much teeth. It reminds of the numerous legislation passed in my home nation that just serve to condemn X, or promote Y, under the theory that if it's brought up in congress it will raise the profile of the issue.

Hear Hear.

We have a member of Xaipeteq government who stated that we should have compassion for Xhoodie wearing teenagers purely to raise the issue of Xhoodie wearing teenagers...

Xpoliticians!

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

In the Holy Empire of Karbakirb, citizens are considered adults at the age of 5.

They are free to work, live, love, from the day of their fifth birthday to the day of their death.

We do not agree with this proposal. Our nation has no jails. We do not have police. We do not infringe on the rights of our citizens.

If they wish to look at such materials, that is their issue. Who will pay for the costs this law will inflict on our nation? And what of the cost to the artists in our community, the filmmakers who want only to be free to create?

We simply disagree with this law, which seems created by and for nations that impose some sort of agist laws upon its people.

We do not care if nations want such laws, but we do care when we are asked to share the burden of cost.

Progner Liberfulget
Undersecretary of Straight Shooting
Holy Empire of Karbakirb

In the Holy Empire of Karbakirb, citizens are considered adults at the age of 5.

They are free to work, live, love, from the day of their fifth birthday to the day of their death.


We simply disagree with this law, which seems created by and for nations that impose some sort of agist laws upon its people.



So anyone under the age of 5 isn't allowed to live?

Also; Agist laws are obviously imposed upon your people also as you make people wait five years to become adults.

If you weren't agist they would be adults at birth, would they not?

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

So anyone under the age of 5 isn't allowed to live?

Also; Agist laws are obviously imposed upon your people also as you make people wait five years to become adults.

If you weren't agist they would be adults at birth, would they not?

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador


Adult is such a silly word. There is an age when someone can handle this, but not that, which comes later, for most people, except for those people who never seem to get concept X which is core to adulthood... etc. The road to adulthood never ends.

Some people are 30, living on their parents couch, and age of consent laws don't apply to them because they've never had an oppurtunity to give or ask consent :)

Age of consent laws were chosen for a specific reason. This tacks on lots of new special rules that change when they hit the age of consent (IE they can legally start their porn career).

Does this resolution allow medical photos to be taken? Does it allow children who have been molested to write their life stories accurately? What definition of explict are we going by?

Still I don't think we're opposed to this law. It's worded weak enough I think few governments will find it burdensome to implement. I think we're abstaining from the vote.

Does this resolution allow medical photos to be taken? Does it allow children who have been molested to write their life stories accurately? What definition of explict are we going by?


The resolution defines.... ""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;"

so yes it allows medical photos and life stories.

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

I've been thinking...dumdumdum!!!
look at this...

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
"child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;

If a child is above the legal age of consent in their home country and is taken to a country with a higher age of consent can they be used to make child porn as they are not a child according to their nationality???

HAHA LOOPHOLE!

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

If a child is above the legal age of consent in their home country and is taken to a country with a higher age of consent can they be used to make child porn as they are not a child according to their nationality? Extra annoying question marks removed.
Yes, so long as their being "taken" doesn't violate Ban Trafficking in Persons.

HAHA LOOPHOLE!
No, given that was intentional.

So what you're saying is a child who is 5 in a country where age of consent is 18 can be used to make a porn video purely because they were born somewhere else?

And thats an intentional part of your resolution?

Hmmm...Vote "Against" anyone?

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

The Rebublic of the Vault Network fully support this legislation. It has been debated by our people, and in Government house, and we can see no reason not to protect the children of the future from harm. As children, they have little concept of what is right, what is wrong nor can they fully protect themselves from those that would harm them.

We do not have this problem within our own borders, but we would be more than glad to assist other nations in their persuit to erase this horrific crime from thier borders if they so wish. Our police force has very little to do, and needs the training, we also hope that this would enhance our relation with our neighbours.

Thankyou.

So what you're saying is a child who is 5 in a country where age of consent is 18 can be used to make a porn video purely because they were born somewhere else?
No, I'm not saying that, because I don't understand a fucking word you've just said. Try again, this time in English.

Unless you mean they come from a country where the age of consent is 4, which is so bizarre it's a scenario I'm not going to deign considering.

Thats exactly what I mean. Of course the example was exaggerated but the principle remains...it could be that consent is 12 in their home country and the child is 13 in a country where consent is 18..

and could therefore legally perform in porn according to ur resolution.

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

Thats exactly what I mean. Of course the example was exaggerated but the principle remains...it could be that consent is 12 in their home country and the child is 13 in a country where consent is 18..

and could therefore legally perform in porn according to ur resolution.

T.K.N Friedrich
Loyal Goblin Spokeswoman
Xaipeteq Global Ambassador

What the hell are you talking about? You don't seem to be making much sense.

If the child is 13 and then moves or is taken to a nation where age of consent is 18, then they wouldn't be considered age of consent while in that nation. Hope that made some sense to you and anyone else who seems to be having some issue with the whole age of consent thing.

That is how law usually works but according to Gruenberg's resolution my scenario is entirely legitimate.

see...

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;


T.K.N. Friedrich

That is how law usually works but according to Gruenberg's resolution my scenario is entirely legitimate.

see...

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;


T.K.N. Friedrich

But thsi resolution does nothing to keep individual nations from enforcing their own (higher) ages of consent within their own territories.

and does nothing to stop pornographers and their lawyers in these countries from exploiting the continually bad wording of this resolution to make LEGAL Child Porn.

That is how law usually works but according to Gruenberg's resolution my scenario is entirely legitimate.

see...

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;


T.K.N. Friedrich

I think (for Gruenberg's sake I explain this) the honourable delegate Mr Friedrich is saying that a child of 13, in a country where the age of consent is 18, could be transported to a country where the age of consent is 12 and used to make pornography.

The objection is unfounded, in my opinion, because the wording of the clause suggests that the age of consent at the country of origin is what counts, not the age of consent outside of the country, so cross-applicability would apply here.

If not, then I doubt the scenario would be commonplace or tolerated by the country of origin to allow it to happen. Besides, it's not exactly something that can rectified is it? Do you propose a uniform age of consent? I wish you luck trying to pass that.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

No, wrong way round.

I'm saying that a child above the age of consent in their home country could (according to this resolution) be used to make porn in a country where they are below the age of consent.

No, wrong way round.

I'm saying that a child above the age of consent in their home country could (according to this resolution) be used to make porn in a country where they are below the age of consent.

The resolution defines the age of consent in their home country as being applicable only "for the purposes of this Resolution". That does not actually mean that your warped definition of 'age of consent' must be counted as applicable to your people wherever they are, or override the application of other nations' laws about age of consent for actions that might be committed within those nations own territories.
If you bring children who are "of age" by your own laws but under-age by our laws into our territories, and use them in the manufacture of pornography here, then although that pornography might not actually be banned under this resolution it would still be illegal under our own laws (which this resolution would supplement rather than supercede) and if we caught the adults involved then they would face criminal charges for the sexual abuse of children... and, assuming that they were convicted (as would definitely be the case if they didn't try to avoid publicity, & relied on your erroneous argument as their defence), they would then be sent to a veterinary clinic for appropriate surgery before having to serve a [considerable] number of years imprisonment at hard labour...

(OOC: I'll be offline for this evening, all of tomorrow, & maybe Friday as well, so won't be able to continue this debate... but my government will not be changing its opinion in this matter...)

Again you miss the point.

Your government has very adequate rules concerning child pornographers working in your country. That is not the issue.

My issue is that the resolution does nothing to prevent the afformentioned abuse occuring in less well legislated countries.

i.e. the resolution is flawed. (Again)

T.K.N. Friedrich

My issue is that the resolution does nothing to prevent the afformentioned abuse occuring in less well legislated countries.
Well no shit.

1. Such countries would probably leave the UN if anything stronger passed.
2. Almost any resolution can be creatively circumvented.
3. 3/4 of the world remains unaffected by this resolution.

It would be impossible to write a resolution that prevented all abuses in "less well legislated countries".

(Again)
Where was the first flaw?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

and does nothing to stop pornographers and their lawyers in these countries from exploiting the continually bad wording of this resolution to make LEGAL Child Porn.
Whereas without this resolution, they'd be somehow prohibited from doing so...?

Speaker Feldstein, in the spirit of brevity, I will simply say that cultural difference between nations prevent any meaningful discussion on the prevalence of paedophiles and their treatment.

However, as has been said several times, child molestation is not paedophilia. Paedophilia is the sexuality, and child molestation is the crime. The two can be linked, but so can gun ownership and gun deaths, and intent to kill and murder.

You yourself do not seem to believe that guns are inherently dangerous, whereas paedophiles are. Reverse the two, and you have my position. Living in fear of child molestation by paedophiles is akin to living in fear of your gun-owning next-door neighbour when you do not own a gun.

Ah. I begin to understand where you are coming from. A difference of opinion.

Understand that paedophiles are people, just as much as anyone else. In many less socially enlightened nations, homosexual males are given the treatment with regards to children that the society feels paedophiles should be given. What I am saying to you is that you're misrepresenting paedophiles just as badly as those homosexual males are misrepresented. There is an inherent difference, I understand, but you're pigeonholing every member of a group, and then tarring them with the same brush.

I understand. Wishing to avoid international human rights abuses is commendable. On a national level, with the wording of this document, you would not be required to make any move against pedophilia, but your concern is that other nations will interpret it in such a way as to persecute them, removing what you see as one of their only viable outlets for their urges. Unfortunately, another difference of opinion. What you refer to as an outlet, we think of as temptation.

The point that I'm trying to get across is that I have zero doubt that a large amount of paedophiles would not be practicing paedophiles if they had a suitable outlet. Paedophilia is a sexuality, just like heterosexuality or homosexuality. If you find it ludicrous that you would go out and attempt to force yourself on numerous people that you're attracted to after watching pornography, Speaker Feldstein, why do you not find it equally ludicrous to believe that paedophiles would do the same?

They need not necessarily force themselves on their victims. There are a great many ways that children, uninformed and innocent of such matters, may be enticed into engaging in almost any activity.

I do not subscribe to the belief that paedophiles are damaged mentally. A large number of paedophiles are perfectly productive members of society who have an abnormal sexuality which they are not allowed to act on for the good of society and the welfare of the child. I will not object for a second to provisos which state that real children are not to be used in depictions of sexual acts. But denying paedophiles any and all outlets for their sexuality is damaging to them, and puts children at higher risk from a larger amount of people who would otherwise gratify themselves without the stimulus of a real child.

This is a point of debate that I feel neither of us will sway the other side on. Temptation vs. outlet. I, in all honesty, could not say which of us is more correct in this regard. I must vote my conscience, however, which dictates that allowing them such material will only increase their desire to experience the real thing.

If you feel that I'm incorrect, it's at this point that we must agree to disagree.

Alas, I believe it is so.

Speaker Feldstein, you shock me. There is always the potential for respect for others. In fact, it is my default position, thanks to my upbringing in the Love of the Diety. It is just that it tends to stick in my craw when I am arguing for rights I believe that every sentient has, when others are advocating taking them away. It smacks of social injustice.

The upbringing that I went through as a child was, unfortunately, not as generous as yours. Respect had to be earned. That being the rule, I am simply unused to having respect simply offered, as I, as I previously mentioned, am somewhat disreputable.

That being said, you have managed to state your side of things with tact, and respect, and you have attempted to address points directed to you with intelligence and aplomb. That is worthy of respect, in my eyes. These debates can get very heated at times, and it can be difficult to remain calm and collected.

Again you miss the point.

Your government has very adequate rules concerning child pornographers working in your country. That is not the issue.

My issue is that the resolution does nothing to prevent the afformentioned abuse occuring in less well legislated countries.

i.e. the resolution is flawed. (Again)

T.K.N. Friedrich

Actually, my government respectfully disagrees. As a statement of international will, my government, your government, and other governments that are opposed to the sexual abuse of children can point to this and a slowly growing body of similar resolutions as a justification to place political and economic pressures on those other societies to improve their own policies.

Mikitivity has voted in favour of this resolution.

-Howie Katzman

Where was the first flaw?

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

The ambiguity of your turn of phrase within the "real or simulated" situation has been mentioned many times.

The ambiguity of your turn of phrase within the "real or simulated" situation has been mentioned many times.

Whether intended or not, that ambiguity allows nations some interpretation wiggle room to make it more palatable to their individual government ethos.

Watch your mouth, Gruenberg. We are educated men and women of politics. This is not the schoolyard, and you are not the big bully. Your blanket dismissal of valid arguments does not help you, in fact it makes oyu look like a bafoon. I do hope oyu consider the idea of a country where the age of consent is five, since if you had bothered to pay attention to anything but the last five or so responses you would have seen a nation with exactly that policy. The person you are swearing at makes a very good point, and I will try to innumerate it in simple terms that even this forum can understand:

There are two countries. Country A, and country B. Country A's age of consent is 13; country B's age of consent is 18. Now we have a girl of loose morals and few redeeming factors looking to make a little money; we will call her "Paris." Paris is 14, and lives in country A, so in her country she is legally allowed to make pornography; she figures that she'd reach a wider market share--if you will--by selling her pornography as child pornography. So she moves to country B. In country B, it is illegal for people to make pornography if they are under 18--however, and here is the loophole, Paris is still able to market her pornography because--though she LIVES in country B--her OFFICIAL RESIDENCE says she is still in country A, and according to the law what matters is not where oyu are at hte time of making hte pornography but rather what your official country of residence is. I thank the honorable deligate for bringing this to our attention, and I hope I have not stepped on his toes undooly with this explanation.

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to convey the fact that his UN Representative, myself, has been ordered to alter Costa Bravo's vote to yes, in favor of the Child Pornography Prohibition Resolution. While both the Parliament and the ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo still disapprove of the intentional vagueness of Clause III, they have come to the conclusion that repealing this resolution would do far more harm than good.

Phillipe Renoir
Emissary to the UN
The Armed Republic of Costa Bravo

Watch your mouth, Gruenberg. We are educated men and women of politics. This is not the schoolyard, and you are not the big bully. Your blanket dismissal of valid arguments does not help you, in fact it makes oyu look like a bafoon. I do hope oyu consider the idea of a country where the age of consent is five, since if you had bothered to pay attention to anything but the last five or so responses you would have seen a nation with exactly that policy. The person you are swearing at makes a very good point, and I will try to innumerate it in simple terms that even this forum can understand:

I'm all in favour of decorum, but sometimes it can be much more useful to call a spade a spade. As for the idea of a five year old being at a national age of consent, I wonder how quickly their nation's five year old's mature? And what about other rights? Is it really a realistic age of consent to set or is it just nose-thumbing towards the more sensible debaters.

There are two countries. Country A, and country B. Country A's age of consent is 13; country B's age of consent is 18. Now we have a girl of loose morals and few redeeming factors looking to make a little money; we will call her "Paris." Paris is 14, and lives in country A, so in her country she is legally allowed to make pornography; she figures that she'd reach a wider market share--if you will--by selling her pornography as child pornography. So she moves to country B. In country B, it is illegal for people to make pornography if they are under 18--however, and here is the loophole, Paris is still able to market her pornography because--though she LIVES in country B--her OFFICIAL RESIDENCE says she is still in country A, and according to the law what matters is not where oyu are at hte time of making hte pornography but rather what your official country of residence is. I thank the honorable deligate for bringing this to our attention, and I hope I have not stepped on his toes undooly with this explanation.

And your solution is what exactly? I wasn't aware that age of consent laws applied everywhere people went according to their nationality. Which poses problems in itself, but there's no way to really rectify those problems.

EDIT: And we congratulate Costa Bravo for changing their vote.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Watch your mouth, Gruenberg. We are educated men and women of politics. This is not the schoolyard, and you are not the big bully. Your blanket dismissal of valid arguments does not help you, in fact it makes oyu look like a bafoon.

I think you may have been misinformed :) Now please hand over your lunch money ambasador.

There are two countries. Country A, and country B. Country A's age of consent is 13; country B's age of consent is 18. Now we have a girl of loose morals and few redeeming factors looking to make a little money; we will call her "Paris." Paris is 14, and lives in country A, so in her country she is legally allowed to make pornography; she figures that she'd reach a wider market share--if you will--by selling her pornography as child pornography. So she moves to country B. In country B, it is illegal for people to make pornography if they are under 18--however, and here is the loophole, Paris is still able to market her pornography because--though she LIVES in country B--her OFFICIAL RESIDENCE says she is still in country A, and according to the law what matters is not where oyu are at hte time of making hte pornography but rather what your official country of residence is. I thank the honorable deligate for bringing this to our attention, and I hope I have not stepped on his toes undooly with this explanation.

The problem with scenario presented by the ambassador from Meeron is this resolution is encouraging nations to set up laws in their nations, but it does not open up our nations to be governed by the laws of other nations.

When a tourist travels to Mikitivity, it doesn't matter what the laws are in his or her home nation, they are and always have been subjected to the laws in whatever canton they are currently in.

The language that the Meeron and Xaipeteq ambassadors are questioning should be looked at in the full context of the resolution. The first clause is designed to establish domestically what a "child" is. The actual laws that it then recommends are established on a nation by nation basis.

The flaw in the logic that Meeron and Xaipeteq have presented is that they are confusing the first clause as applying to individual cases instead of being a national standard by which a number of national laws are esstablished.

To make my point clear, in Mikitivity we have a cantonal legal system (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Canton). Under this system, each canton (which can effectively be thought of as individual states) has its own set of laws.

This resolution effectively requires each Mikitivity canton to establish its own anti-child pornography laws based on the current legal definitions of children in those cantons.

In Miervatia canton (which is my home), the age of consent is relatively young -- 15-years old. However, the age of majority is surprisingly higher -- 21-years old. This means that should this resolution pass, Miervatia should make sure that it existing laws discourage people under the age of 21 from engaging in pornographic activities *or* that Miervatia should consider changing its age of majority. Both are viable alternatives (which highlights the flexibility of this resolution).

However, in Nolanstadt (located to the south of Miervatia), the age of consent is older (17-years) and the age of majority is the same ... implying that Nolanstadt's response will be different. Miervatia might establish laws prohibiting children from being in the porn industry, while Nolanstadt might change its definition of "child".

The important thing to bear in mind is that when a citizen of Nolanberg, Nolanstadt travels to Ossendorf, Miervatia that she is now subjected to the laws of Miervatia, despite the fact that her ability to vote is tied to her residence in Nolanstadt.

Please don't confuse the text of this resolution (which is about establishing laws) with the actual legal enforcement of those laws. They are two unrelated items. And I'd like to encourage nations to join Mikitivity and vote in favour of this resolution.

Howie T. Katzman

I'm all in favour of decorum, but sometimes it can be much more useful to call a spade a spade.

Over all, the Ambassador of Gruenburg's tone has been needlessly inflamatory; but here, I believe, he is crossing the line--replying to someone pointing out flaws in your law with "no shit" makes you look like an ignorant clodd.

As for the idea of a five year old being at a national age of consent, I wonder how quickly their nation's five year old's mature? And what about other rights? Is it really a realistic age of consent to set or is it just nose-thumbing towards the more sensible debaters.

No doubt it is the latter; however, it's beside the point--it's hardly good PR for an ambassador to "refuse to consider" a situation on the grounds of it being unrealistic when just a few hours earlier in the debate such a situation was prooven to already exist. Either the Ambassador of Gruenberg is appathetic, or inattentive; neither of these qualities are becoming of a United Nations ambassador.

And your solution is what exactly?
Simple, really: the wording of the proposed resolution should be changed from "residence" to "located."

Over all, the Ambassador of Gruenburg's tone has been needlessly inflamatory; but here, I believe, he is crossing the line--replying to someone pointing out flaws in your law with "no shit" makes you look like an ignorant clodd.


I hate to say it friend, but I don't think you will make any hay with these arguments. There are a variety of power structures at play. People are only forced to play nice if they disagree with a popular resolution. This baby has no chance of failing now.

I hate getting the last post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11440010&postcount=329) on a page...

I'm not asking for responses, but I noticed the lack of response, and just wanted to be sure that it wasn't largely missed.

Many of you are sounding like complete narrow-minded bigots. You need to start realizing that every nation has different laws and customs and there is no way to unify everyone and any issues. Open your minds and see the world as it is ... Many different people from just as many different backgrounds coming together and trying to live in the same world. People are different and their personal, political, and governmental interpretations will undoubtedly be different from the many others. This is a world of diverse opinions and ways of interpreting the same issue or law.

However do not open your mind so much that your brain falls out. Meaning keep your head intact and know that there is a limit and there is no way to protect or please everyone. Life is hard and there will be difficulties in trying to survive.

You can also not do what the President of the United States, President George Bush, has been doing; you cannot pass a law and then dictate exactly how that law should be interpreted and applied after the law has been passed.

The subject of age and the legal age of a child or the age in which a child can give consent to perform any action legal or illegal - will continue to be a huge debate and will not be resolved within these walls. That decision will be left to the individual sovereign nations. The UN does not and should not possess the power to force all nations to comply with the exact same laws. Independence and sovereignty are gifts and should be held in high regard. It is impossible to eradicated pornography in any form - it is a stain on our culture but it cannot be eliminated.

I hate getting the last post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11440010&postcount=329) on a page...

I'm not asking for responses, but I noticed the lack of response, and just wanted to be sure that it wasn't largely missed.

To respond, I did miss it.

You can also not do what the President of the United States, President George Bush, has been doing; you cannot pass a law and then dictate exactly how that law should be interpreted and applied after the law has been passed.


OT: Don't worry, Im sure whatever government you are talking about has checks and balances, to prevent some whachos from taking over every branch of government.

That is also why congress is trying to pass a bill to sue the President on the grounds that his actions have been unconstitutional.

OOC: Home from work, at last. I read must of what I missed, but I don't feel like quoting everything, so I'll just respond to everyone I need to.

IC: With some quotes...

snip:



You make wondeful points, but this is not an issue where reason decides how people vote.

Everyone is opposed to exploitation of children. Some of us are so violently opposed that they will try to stop it by any means necessary. They aren't concerned whether banning somethign actually helps, the'll ban somethign just in case. It's the same situation as the drug war, terrorism etc. People vote on these issues based on their position in the culture wars, not based on the issue itself.

That is also why congress is trying to pass a bill to sue the President on the grounds that his actions have been unconstitutional.

Signing statements mean nothing. They aren't unconstitutional because they have 0 impact.

Few countries allow their courts to actually affect their executive branch. If the president is found to have violated the constitution... nothign happens. It just helps pass articles of impeachment :)

You can also not do what the President of the United States, President George Bush, has been doing; you cannot pass a law and then dictate exactly how that law should be interpreted and applied after the law has been passed.

OOC: There's always at least one asshat who comes trolling in with his anti-Bush crap... :rolleyes:

The subject of age and the legal age of a child or the age in which a child can give consent to perform any action legal or illegal - will continue to be a huge debate and will not be resolved within these walls. That decision will be left to the individual sovereign nations. The UN does not and should not possess the power to force all nations to comply with the exact same laws. Independence and sovereignty are gifts and should be held in high regard. It is impossible to eradicated pornography in any form - it is a stain on our culture but it cannot be eliminated.

Ah, high-flown NatSov rhetoric. Never mind the abused kids eh? And I believe we're not so much trying to eliminate the pornography, but give it the appropriate sanctions and treatment by criminalising it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: There's always at least one asshat who comes trolling in with his anti-Bush crap... :rolleyes:

I appreciate your constant efforts to raise the level of our debate. Have a cookie.

Ah, high-flown NatSov rhetoric. Never mind the abused kids eh? And I believe we're not so much trying to eliminate the pornography, but give it the appropriate sanctions and treatment by criminalising it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

What UN states haven't already criminalized the exploitation of children?

Don't take it Cluich, it might be poisoned. I mean we got one from Discoversalism earlier and Anthony's still the bright orange colour he turned after he ate it. :)

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

What UN states haven't already criminalized the exploitation of children?

Well judging from some of the rhetoric employed over the last couple of days, some nations appear to have difficulty recognising paedophilia as a criminal offence or as even particularly wrong. Plus the nation to whom I was replying appeared to be defending the right to have no age of consent and no restrictions on child molestation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Well judging from some of the rhetoric employed over the last couple of days, some nations appear to have difficulty recognising paedophilia as a criminal offence or as even particularly wrong. Plus the nation to whom I was replying appeared to be defending the right to have no age of consent and no restrictions on child molestation.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Nah, you are just hearing people disagree over what they consider a child and whatnot. Each nation has a different age of majority, that they have chosen. What nation A calls a child nation B calls a baby. What nation C consider a hot 18 year old girl, nation D does not trust to leave the house.

I'm not against this legislation at all because it still allows each nation to choose its age of majority. However seperatign peoplle into child and adult, only works if we are referring to people of similar ages.

It makes this debate very confusing :)

Esteemed Delegates, I apologize in advance for having not read the entire thread -- it's very long. I will therefore make my comments brief in case they've been covered already, and they probably have.

The "age of consent" issue with regard to international cooperation/enforcement strikes me as untenable. If it's 18 in nation A and 14 in nation B, why should B cooperate with A at all? What if a citizen of nation B is "caught" in international places or in nation A with his own nation's legal product?

Thank you, and again, apologies for any repetition.

M. Jubal

Esteemed Delegates, I apologize in advance for having not read the entire thread -- it's very long. I will therefore make my comments brief in case they've been covered already, and they probably have.

The "age of consent" issue with regard to international cooperation/enforcement strikes me as untenable. If it's 18 in nation A and 14 in nation B, why should B cooperate with A at all? What if a citizen of nation B is "caught" in international places or in nation A with his own nation's legal product?

Thank you, and again, apologies for any repetition.

M. Jubal

Ambassador Jubal,

Comparisons between nations shouldn't really be the subject of our discussions. If this resolution is adopted, nation A should work to adopt laws protecting children as defined by their laws. And nation B should work to adopt laws protecting children as defined by their *own* laws.

However, there is a saying ... posession is nine-tenths of the law, that should help emphasize that if a citizen of nation C is in nation A, she must conform to nation A's laws and if she is in nation B she must conform to nation B's laws. It really does not matter if there is a difference between those two nation's laws to nation A or nation B. Their police and attorneys will apply their laws to the best of their ability. The only person the difference will matter to will be this individual from nation C.

Howie T. Katzman

Ambassador Jubal,

Comparisons between nations shouldn't really be the subject of our discussions. If this resolution is adopted, nation A should work to adopt laws protecting children as defined by their laws. And nation B should work to adopt laws protecting children as defined by their *own* laws.

However, there is a saying ... posession is nine-tenths of the law, that should help emphasize that if a citizen of nation C is in nation A, she must conform to nation A's laws and if she is in nation B she must conform to nation B's laws. It really does not matter if there is a difference between those two nation's laws to nation A or nation B. Their police and attorneys will apply their laws to the best of their ability. The only person the difference will matter to will be this individual from nation C.

Howie T. Katzman
Very well, ambassador Katzman (please give my regards to Jo-Beth), I understand the "when in Rome" argument.

But again, international cooperation would stop at the border of nation B and it's 14-y-o age of consent if nation A (AoC = 18) sought help to stem the tide of B's legal product from being sold (online?) or smuggled into nation A. What say you?

But again, international cooperation would stop at the border of nation B and it's 14-y-o age of consent if nation A (AoC = 18) sought help to stem the tide of B's legal product from being sold (online?) or smuggled into nation A. What say you?
Esteemed Colleagues,
On behalf of the Kingdom of B-Bizzledom, His Royal Highness King Taeron II and his royal subjects, I must add my voice to the right honorable Ambassador Jubal. While we (and all the peoples of this world) agree with the spirit of this resolution, the lack of definition as to what constitutes an offender and what constitutes a victum causes us great pause. Until a firmer, more defined resolution is put forward, the Kingdom of B-Bizzledom must vote against this resolution, and we hope that you will as well.

In service to the King,
Michael Cerwyn
Ambassador to the UN for The Kingdom of B-Bizzledom
Lord of Hampshire

Esteemed Colleagues,
On behalf of the Kingdom of B-Bizzledom, His Royal Highness King Taeron II and his royal subjects, I must add my voice to the right honorable Ambassador Jubal. While we (and all the peoples of this world) agree with the spirit of this resolution, the lack of definition as to what constitutes an offender and what constitutes a victum causes us great pause. Until a firmer, more defined resolution is put forward, the Kingdom of B-Bizzledom must vote against this resolution, and we hope that you will as well.

In service to the King,
Michael Cerwyn
Ambassador to the UN for The Kingdom of B-Bizzledom
Lord of Hampshire

OOC: Nice first post. :rolleyes: Seems this proposal's bringing out all the NAMBLA types...

OOC: Nice first post. :rolleyes: Seems this proposal's bringing out all the NAMBLA types...
OCC: What's NAMBLA?

OCC: What's NAMBLA?
OOC: The North American Man Boy Love Association.

As for the idea of a five year old being at a national age of consent, I wonder how quickly their nation's five year old's mature? And what about other rights? Is it really a realistic age of consent to set or is it just nose-thumbing towards the more sensible debaters.

In the Holy Empire of Karbakirb, people are considered, for the use of outsiders' labels, 'adults', upon their fifth birthday. At that time they enjoy all the rights and privileges of any other citizen, and do so upon their death.

As stated earlier, our worry is not in having to worry about such laws being enforced in our borders, as we do not have a problem with child pornography, but with the idea of having to help in the investigation and subsequent capture of people partaking in these actions.

The people of Karbakirb enjoy extensive civil rights. We do not infringe on the rights of citizens in any way. We do not have jails, not do we have police. Therefore, we feel the cost of this proposal, which is little more than an attempt to legalize a document riddled with passionate rhetoric but no substance, is too costly for us to vote in the affirmative.

Where will the money come from to support this law being enacted by the UN? Furthermore, what is the responsibility of our fair Empire to other nations? We are not interested in aiding in the policing of persons coming to our borders if they are from elsewhere.

Burbangiery Thinkwattle
Underminister of Plain Dealing
Holy Empire of Karbakirb

Very well, ambassador Katzman (please give my regards to Jo-Beth), I understand the "when in Rome" argument.

But again, international cooperation would stop at the border of nation B and it's 14-y-o age of consent if nation A (AoC = 18) sought help to stem the tide of B's legal product from being sold (online?) or smuggled into nation A. What say you?

Well, if the age of majority in Miervatia is 21 and the age of majority in Nolanstadt (two cantons in Mikitivity) is 20, then pornographic materials made and distributed in Nolanstadt that feature 20-year olds would still be illegal in Miervatia. If individuals were to drive trucks with magazines that including naked 20-year olds into Miervatia, it really is the job of the police in Miervatia to control what comes into the canton.

Internationally speaking it is customary for customs checks to be performed on cargo *entering* a country. If somebody smuggled something, they are arrested at the point of entry, and then it is up to that country to decide if they wish to keep or deport the individuals who broke their law.

I hope this helps outline my government's position on international law and customs practices.

-Howie T. Katzman

Love and esterel proudly voted FOR.

I'd like to add one more point. In Mikitivity we have an age of consent (which is essentially the age at which you can be legally sexually active) and an age of majority (which is the age at which you are legally an adult with full citizenship). Since this resolution talks about children, I've assumed that the resolution is concerned with the age of majority, but it is very possible that the intent of the resolution is to target the age of consent.

It would be helpful to the cantons I represent if the author could please point me to what the intended target age or meaning is implied by this particular resolution. The resolution does not need to include this language, as legislative intent is more than sufficient for the Mikitivity law making process (we can be incredibly accommidating).

Thanks,
-Howie T. Katzman

OOC: Nice first post. :rolleyes: Seems this proposal's bringing out all the NAMBLA types...

OOC: Uh. That's a bit harsh, don't you think? I think that like quite a few resolutions, some people who are actually reading it are disagreeing with it for one point or another. The majority of the people who aren't coming out to debate who are supporting it are just pulling the standard NS response (which I'm sad to say that I've done before).

Baa!

Ambassador Katzman, the ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to inform you that such matters are intentionally left entirely up the nations themselves. You, and your respective government, have the ability to decide whether or not this United Nations resolution should pertain to your nation's age of consent, or age of majority.

Phillipe Renoir
Emissary to the UN
The Armed Republic of Costa Bravo

OOC: I think calling opponents NAMBLA supporters was a bit harsh, but I understand that Cluichistan is passionate about the issue of protecting children and he sometimes goes a little ott (in my opinion), but he's fighting for the right cause and a little excess is excusable. Still, I agree it was a trifle harsh.

OOC: I think calling opponents NAMBLA supporters was a bit harsh, but I understand that Cluichistan is passionate about the issue of protecting children and he sometimes goes a little ott (in my opinion), but he's fighting for the right cause and a little excess is excusable. Still, I agree it was a trifle harsh.

OOC: Well, my IC response mirrors my IRL beliefs, more or less; that's why I find it harsh.

I probably shouldn't have waited, but I needed 24 hours to mull over precisely how I'm going to put this. I'm about to make the most unpopular argument I'll likely ever make on here - that I think this proposal is wrong. Furthermore, I think it is scary.

It will accomplish little, if anything towards its stated goals, but it will open the door for internationally-sanctioned mass burnings of art.

I'll explain.



"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,"



First of all, if I'm mistaken, correct me, but child pornography is already illegal. If there is a UN member Nation in which Child pornography is legal, I'd like it called to my attention.



"- "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;"


Because the "legal age of consent" is entirely determined by member Nations, the glaring loophole here is that any nation can declare the age of minority to be one week old, or anything equally impotent. My recently submitted proposal "defining the minimum age of minority" recommends a minimum age of 14. I invite debate on that issue. But until some mandatory minimum is in place (it should be at least 12, at a bare minimum, I think) this proposal has no real legal power to accomplish much of anything.



"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;"



Again, I need to know what UN member nations currently permit these things, because if there are any, that's shocking! If any are pointed out to me, I will gladly write a proposal addressing the issue myself.



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



Sadly, this doesn't really say anything. "appropriately tough" sounds nice, but a nation can easily declare the punishment 1 day in jail, to circumvent this, further adding to the proposal's legal impotence.



"- the seizure, and appropriate further action, such as shipment for the purposes of use as evidence, and thereafter full destruction, of all child pornography;"



This is the scary one! Round up everything on the list, then destroy it regardless of whether the person was found innocent or guilty. What about appeals or potential retrials? Or are we suggesting summary judgements? This smacks of fervour, not legal procedure. A responsible legal system stores evidence until some years after all appeals have been exhausted. Many of our legal systems rely on that very principle. We don't pick and choose which defendants recieve a fair criminal trial, they all do. For those nations that don't, see the above references regarding the glaring loopholes around these legislations.

Further, destroying the material outright is a mistake we cannot turn back from. Just a handful of the (sorry for the RL references) movies/books that would be affected: Lolita, American Beauty, The Hole, Blue Lagoon, Paradise, Pretty Baby, Kids (probably would be one of the first to go), even Disney (sorry for RL reference) fare like "Now and Then" would be summarily destroyed.

Now, I'm not arguing that Blue Lagoon or The Hole constitute great art, but Pretty Baby is an important film that called attention to cultural practices with the danger of harming children's development. Both Pretty Baby and Lolita are considered very important works. Certainly we can find a definition of "child pronography" that allows us to protect culture and art. Even if that makes is "Liberal Child-Haters" in the eyes of some.

I do not support the production or distribution of child pornography, nor the exploitation of children. However, I am also opposed to thinly veiled attempts at destroying art the proposal-writer finds offensive.



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



Are we really going to internationally mandate mob executions? This is considered a "moral" proposal?



"- 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;"



This is a viable clause that should probably go unedited into an appropriate proposal on child exploitation (one that actually addresses the issue).



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



I don't know how practical this final clause is, it doesn't seem to really do anything, but the principle of it seems sound.



So there I go. This makes me a "Liberal Child-Hating, pro-porn-loving" enemy, I suppose. But I can't deny it, I'm kind of a Marxist when it comes to Art. I believe it is our cultural heritage.

This proposal does not prevent child pornography, because:

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

and since that age can be anything, the proposal has no legal power. (Again, refer to my new proposal "defining the minimum age of minority).

It does, however, mandate the destruction of any art containing the sexual depiction of minors, regardless of the nature of that depiction, or whether or not it is exploitative.

Exploiting children to make pornography is horrible. To suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is therefore a supporter of child pornography is contrary to the spirit of debate and cooperation. I truly believe we can come up with a proposal that is effective, without demanding the immediate destruction of art, or the public mob executions.

I'd better duck now, I see the slings and arrows on the horizon...

Ambassador
Grand Duchy of Gilbert Pike

OOC: Nice first post. :rolleyes: Seems this proposal's bringing out all the NAMBLA types...

Someone was going to go there eventually, thanks Cluichstan for taking that bullet.

The Incorporated States of Xanaax sees no need to brandish opponents of this proposal, and calls for cooler heads to prevail.

Our government supports this UN move, and works dilligently within its own borders to root out child pornography in all of its forms. Thusly, the Xanaax General Governing Assembly has passed a resolution of support for this resolution, and the Chairman of the Federal Council Board has instructed me to vote yes on this measure. We believe in free and profitable trade, but not if it is at the cost of young, innocent souls.

Ambassador Peter Keating
Incorporated States of Xanaax

Because the "legal age of consent" is entirely determined by member Nations, the glaring loophole here is that any nation can declare the age of minority to be one week old, or anything equally impotent. My recently submitted proposal "defining the minimum age of minority" recommends a minimum age of 14. I invite debate on that issue. But until some mandatory minimum is in place (it should be at least 12, at a bare minimum, I think) this proposal has no real legal power to accomplish much of anything.

Ambassador, you've addressed numerous points about the resolution, and my government would like to pass along our compliaments to the people from Gilbert Pike. However, in the interest of encouraging a consensus on these points, I'll limit my reply to your question and concern about the age of consent.

Earlier I had asked the resolution proponents and sponsors to explain if this resolution was intended to target what many of our governments consider the "age of consent" or if the reference of "child" is really a description of a non-adult and ward of the state in a legal concept called the "age of majority". In many nations the two are distinctly different, and our esteemed collegue Renoir from Costa Bravo pointed out that the resolution intentionally did not make a difference between the two legal definitions. Personally my government firmly approves of this decision, as Mikitivity has long advocated that the strongest UN resolutions make use of some of the weakest language. Weak language affords a sense of compromise to UN member states, and tends to not be ignored in spirit. Strong language, on the other hand, can generate domestic opposition, and result in non-compliance with the spirit of a resolution.

It is logical to assume that the lack of a specific age is done for similar reasons. There is no reason that should this resolution pass, that your government and others could not adopt standards or codes of conduct to hold other nations to and cite compliance with the spirit of this resolution as a call to action on behalf of nations your people feel are violating anti-child pornography laws by creatively establishing a threshold much lower than your people feel fit.

However, we are to argue over an appropriate age, would the Miervatia standard of 21-years of age be too high? Maybe to your people, but likely not to mine. Miervatians might consider anybody who allows people to marry before they are 21 backwards .... and how would that make a community that considers 18-years of age to be the age of marriage or consent or majority? We could easily change 21 to 14 and 18 to 11 and we'd still have the same difference of opinion. It should be obvious that if we tried to establish a fixed international age, that we'd be crossing many nations' sensibilities ... and in doing so, failing to accomplish our ultimate goal: which is to basically say that a fundamental sentient right is not to be pressured into sexual exploitation. If we pause to look at what the resolution is really doing, it is clearly another international cry for sexual freedom ... and in my opinion not only worth voting for, but also participating in these debates.

-Howie T. Katzman

Are we really going to internationally mandate mob executions? This is considered a "moral" proposal?
Ambassador Pike, you appear to have obtained a previous draft of the resolution. Mob violence has been removed in actuality, if not in tenor and tone of certain ambassadors.
Because the "legal age of consent" is entirely determined by member Nations, the glaring loophole here is that any nation can declare the age of minority to be one week old, or anything equally impotent. My recently submitted proposal "defining the minimum age of minority" recommends a minimum age of 14. I invite debate on that issue. But until some mandatory minimum is in place (it should be at least 12, at a bare minimum, I think) this proposal has no real legal power to accomplish much of anything.An NSUN-wide minimum age of consent would be difficult to achieve at best, since there aren't just homo sapiens as members of the NSUN. You do however, point out one of the many ridiculous aspects of this resolution. This assembly has been told, by the authoring delegation no less, that the loopholes are there to exploit and that the members should 'worry their pretty little heads' (to coin a phrase from my home region) because they'll be able to continue to do what they want. One wonders why the moralists are so giddily supporting such a piece of legislation unless it's seen as a blocker for something less prescriptive but more rational.
"3. Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts;"

Sadly, this doesn't really say anything. "appropriately tough" sounds nice, but a nation can easily declare the punishment 1 day in jail, to circumvent this, further adding to the proposal's legal impotence.

"- the seizure, and appropriate further action, such as shipment for the purposes of use as evidence, and thereafter full destruction, of all child pornography;"

This is the scary one! Round up everything on the list, then destroy it regardless of whether the person was found innocent or guilty.We have no intention of imposing jail time. Counseling and re-education seem quite "tough" enough for any situation that doesn't directly involve minors. And those demanding transfer of evidence, will find our police bureaucracy to be quite Byzantine.
I do not support the production or distribution of child pornography, nor the exploitation of children. However, I am also opposed to thinly veiled attempts at destroying art the proposal-writer finds offensive.As are many of us who oppose this resolution.
Exploiting children to make pornography is horrible. To suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is therefore a supporter of child pornography is contrary to the spirit of debate and cooperation.But it's so much easier when one demonizes one's opponents--OW!

*Jones rubs his shin while an aide whispers in his ear*

Ahem. I've been reminded that sarcasm is best used sparingly in the Assembly.

---
Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece

Well... take a coffee break in this hall and pay dearly, I see. There are certainly a lot of new voices speaking out on this proposal, but not a lot of new arguments. Those in favor continue to use the logical fallacy of false appeals to emotion, while those who oppose continue to use the slippery slope fallacy to envision all sorts of nightmare scenarios. Granted, some of the commentary was only skimmed in brief, but to date, Kuraurisand seems to be the only nation continuing to object on the grounds of infringement of individual rights, namely, the rights of the children themselves to decide whether or not they wish to express themselves through participation in such materials, either for profit or pleasure. After consideration, we will drop that argument for the moment, simply because it is beyond the scope of this resolution in the first place - the issue deals with international trafficking of contraband, really, and the nature of the contraband is such an emotionally charged concept that it is detracting us from seeing beyond it. As much as possible, we will be attempting to ignore the nature of the contraband entirely in this response, and focus purely on the provisions of the resolution itself.

Many have already pointed out the interpretational issues in section 1. We maintain that this interpretational issue alone is reason enough to scrap this resolution and try again - perhaps we have found the first resolution for which an immediate repeal call might have merit, by showing our several thousand sleeping comrades who have not taken part in this debate exactly where the loopholes are? It would be in the interests of both sides - those that want this contraband extinguished completely would have opportunity to shore up the dam, so to speak, while those who would prefer to see international diversity respected can cheer a moral victory of their own.

But I digress. The point is that at best, this interpretational issue neuters the resolution's power, and at worst, it could cause misunderstandings that lead to international conflict.

Section 2 provides equal headaches, because it's scope /does/ extend into issues of national sovereignty. It doesn't just call for international export controls - it requires member states to prohbit the possession and production of the contrabanded materials. True, section 1 still uses the member state's individual definition to define the contraband, but could Party A, with a stricter definition of the contraband, not accuse Party B of violating the production clause by making materials under it's own more lenient definition within it's own national borders? It also makes references to "trade" of the materials used to make the contraband (please excuse the dehumanization here, it is intended to encourage rational thought, not to justify sub-human treatment). The implication isn't clear - is this a concern regarding a form of slavery, or would a lucrative movie contract from a foreign film maker, eagerly jumped at by a child in a more strict country, constitute "trade" under the terms of the resolution?

Section 3 is completely subjective, and not even worth including.

The most problematic, and least looked at, section of this entire resolution is section 4. For example, it requires shipment of the contraband for use as criminal evidence. What is to stop a stricter country from, say, subpeonaing every copy of every material from a more lenient country as "evidence" in a single trial? How would the extradition proceedings take into account the author's intent (or lack thereof) to see the work transferred out of the country? The sharing of information between law enforcement agencies, does it require that only established facts proven in a court of law be shared, or does it also require the sharing of unproven speculations? And considering the differing definitions, which country's standards are "authoritative" for the purpose of enforcing international law?

Even if our nation completely supported the concepts being portrayed in the resolution, all of these things need to be spelled out clearly, lest the attempts to enforce this resolution pit the members of this assembly into recurring conflict and chaos.

Regarding the last established position arguments with the honorable delegate of Compadria and several others, we would be happy to discuss our position regarding the fallability of the age of consent concept and the inherent right to autonomous control that all human beings deserve from birth, but somewhere else, as we are as guilty as everyone else of focusing on that aspect of the issue, which is really irrelevant to this proposal, and ignoring the international components at work here. (Truthfully, even the so called simulation issue can be solved on a local level by modifying your age-of-consent laws to state that children which do not biologically exist are capable of consent at an earlier "age".)

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

Someone was going to go there eventually, thanks Cluichstan for taking that bullet.


OOC: No thanks needed, nor wanted. I spend all day with a nearly-nine-year-old girl (my gf's daughter). It fucking sickens me to think that someone could possibly eye her sexually. And yes, Compadria, I am passionate about this issue. For good reason. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I get yet another warning for posting against opponents of this proposal (read: pedophiles). Y'know what, though? If I happen to get banned for going after these asshats who'd fuck little kids, it'd tell me a lot about this site that I currently enjoy so much.

Greetings.

Know that this post will be entirely OOC, which I hope is acceptable, especially for a first timer. I've been following your debate with interest and decided to take the chance and sign up in the hopes of shedding some light on at least some of the subjects being discussed.

You see, I'm a pedophile. Or at least I'll accept the appellation in this instance to avoid confusing the issue any further. I'm not sure exactly what I hope to gain by stepping out of the shadows as it were and presenting myself to you folks, but I suppose part of me hopes that it will spark some meaningful dialog at the least.

There have been some very rational posts here, and some that have been... well, not so rational. Lots of 'facts' being tossed around. I suppose I'd like to attempt to address some of those. In fact, what I'd honestly like to do here is present myself as a resource to you folks. Take the opportunity to ask me anything you like. Rather like an advice column, wouldn't you say? "Ask A Perv!" I'll endeavor to be as honest as possible.

Just to start the ball rolling, a couple of misconceptions.

Pedophiles are child molesters
As has been mentioned elsewhere, these are two separate things. A pedophile (and I'll not get into naming conventions, i.e. hebephile, boylover, minor attracted adult, etc, again to avoid confusing the issue) is someone with a romantic/sexual attraction to minors. A child molester is someone who has molested a child. A great many pedophiles go their entire lives without engaging in a sexual act with a minor. Many, in fact, have no desire to do so.

Pedophiles are mentally ill
This was certainly the thinking in the past. In fact most mental health professionals believed that all pedophiles suffered at least to some degree to mental retardation. This premise is patently false. Most people today believe that pedophiles are 'created' through some sort of trauma as a child; sexual, physical or emotional abuse. In fact there is no scientific evidence to support this theory (and speaking personally I can state that it's untrue at least in my case). Unfortunately there is next to no real research being done on this issue today because the government in it's wisdom has stated that anyone who reports to a mental health professional that they are a pedophile or have pedophilic feelings must be reported to the authorities. Hard to get cooperative research completed when your subjects are afraid to admit anything. Therefore the minimal research that is being done involves only sex offenders in prisons. Which brings us to the next issue.

Pedophiles are everywhere!
Certainly seems that way. Sex offender this and sex offender that. The prisons are rapidly filling with sex offenders. The truth of the matter is that the majority of sex offenses committed in the US are not being committed by people who label themselves pedophiles. They are mostly committed by family members or close friends. These crimes most often represent crimes of opportunity, where the perpetrator is someone who is going through a stressful period and is unable to deal with it in a constructive, healthy way. They most often act out sexually with a child because the child is convenient and is someone who offers them understanding and 'unconditional love', which is something they feel isn't being offered from any other source.

Another source for the sudden mass of sex offenders are simply victims of the hysteria that currently permeates our society. From guys relieving themselves in the alley or the woods, to children engaging in consensual sex with other children. And before you bring out the old 'they are too young to consent to such things' card, ask yourself what else you would call it when 2 13 years olds are dating and feel they are in love and want to explore sexually. Rape? Well, that's what the goverment thinks. In fact the number of children currently being subjected to harsh sex offender laws is staggering. Not to mention frightening.

Finally, an old chestnut...

Pedophiles have a high recidivism rate
Even a minimal amount of research will show this to be completely false. In fact, the latest stuides show that sex offenders who undergo group therapy (a requirement in every case) have a recidivism rate of about 7%. As low as 4% depending on what study you read. Overall it's been found that the only criminals with a lower recidivism rate were murderers, with non-sexual criminals in general having a recidivism rate of approximately 34%.

Hope someone gets something out of this. If you have questions, please feel free to ask, either here or by telegraph. I'd hope that the rest of you will at least be mature enough to keep flames to yourselves.

By the way, I'm a terrific guy. Everyone that knows me likes me a lot, and I don't hang around in playgrounds with pockets full of candy. In fact, I don't even own a trenchcoat.

(ok, that last isn't really true. It's long and black and leather and looks great on me, but I swear I wear clothes underneath almost every time)

p.s. I just realized that I managed this entire post without touching once on the central issue, that of child pornography, but I'll be happy to offer my insights on that subject as well if anyone has any interest.

Suvyamara']*snip*

Thank you for that.

The Resolution is not about child molestation, but that does not make your post irrelevent, as I'm sure someone will say so.

As I said, the justification for the ban of childless representations of child pornography was because it served as fuel for child molesters, and that justification, as I see it, has been debunked. I appreciate the calm manner in which you responded as well.

opponents of this proposal (read: pedophiles).
OOC: Eat me. It's just plain bone-headed to suggest that, especially since most of the opinions are IC, and many of them are even stating their disgust for child molestation. Passion about an issue is no excuse for losing your cool and OOCly calling us pedophiles.

Okay... deep breath everyone.

Okay... deep breath everyone.

:)

OOC: I have an idea, how about if nations that are discussing this In Character that are opposed to this resolution primarily on the grounds that it isn't specific enough could in a *single* sentence state that.

The reason I ask for something short and simple like that is: 1) it focuses us back on the text, and 2) whomever gets around to throwing this thread into NSWiki can make a list of all the nations that voted no primarily on those grounds (I've seen a few nations express that opinion).

It would help track your nation's position if in the title you also used some descriptive terminology ... perhaps: "Primary reservation"

<<OOC: I think that it isn't specific enough, for reasons mentioned by so-so many people.>>

:)

OOC: I have an idea, how about if nations that are discussing this In Character that are opposed to this resolution primarily on the grounds that it isn't specific enough could in a *single* sentence state that.

The reason I ask for something short and simple like that is: 1) it focuses us back on the text, and 2) whomever gets around to throwing this thread into NSWiki can make a list of all the nations that voted no primarily on those grounds (I've seen a few nations express that opinion).

It would help track your nation's position if in the title you also used some descriptive terminology ... perhaps: "Primary reservation"

My Primary Reservation lies here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11440010&postcount=329)

Well over 1,000 users have voted against this issue.
Thats 1,000 people who most likely have a abnormal sexual fetish on NationStates. (I underline "most likely" cause some of you might not actually fit into this box, you could just be an idiot)
And thats well over 1,000 people I'd rather not share this earth with. But thats just me. :sniper: :mp5:

This is really the only proposed resolution I'm 100% on board with. Thank you Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg for putting it fourth.

Thats 1,000 people who most likely have a abnormal sexual fetish on NationStates. (I underline "most likely" cause some of you might not actually fit into this box, you could just be an idiot)
And thats well over 1,000 people I'd rather not share this earth with. But thats just me. :sniper: :mp5: Didn't I just say for people to calm down and ease the rhetoric? Was I too vague in my intentions?

While we would rather the Sultanate put it fifth, or even sixth, we allow that fourth is adequate.

<<Pause for laughter. Clears throat once the realization that no laughter is ensuing sets in.>>

Ahem. Speaking for His Royal Highness, the King of Thylonia, it is considered offensive to state that those who disagree with this proposal--for any reason--are "idiots" or have an "abnormal sexual fetish." I personally consider that slander and request that it be kept in mind that these hallowed halls are not the place for such unwarranted personal attacks.

With few exception, those of us who oppose this proposal have made our reasons as clear as we can, and if there are more than a very small handful whose case has been pro-child molestation, we would be very surprised. No one here, that we have heard, has been for harming an innocent child. The problems have arisen from the verbiage used in both the proposal itself and the comments of its defendants, what its effects--if any--truly are, and other such issues with the proposal itself. If there have been any objections on the grounds that someone considers sexually harming a child a "good" act, then please remind me of such a statement.

In short, one can agree with intent but disagree with implementation.

Well over 1,000 users have voted against this issue.
Thats 1,000 people who most likely have a abnormal sexual fetish on NationStates. (I underline "most likely" cause some of you might not actually fit into this box, you could just be an idiot)
And thats well over 1,000 people I'd rather not share this earth with. But thats just me. :sniper: :mp5:

This is really the only proposed resolution I'm 100% on board with. Thank you Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg for putting it fourth.

The proposal has done it's job. A fury of emotion was stirred up, and little else accomplished.

OOC: -snip- In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I get yet another warning for posting against opponents of this proposal (read: pedophiles). Y'know what, though? If I happen to get banned for going after these asshats who'd fuck little kids, it'd tell me a lot about this site that I currently enjoy so much.

OOC: Uncalled-for speculation about the sexual proclivities of people on the internet and statements that could get you sued for slander if they were made in real life? ... Why am I surprised? This is The Intarweb Networks, anyways. *rolls his eyes*

OOC: Eat me. It's just plain bone-headed to suggest that, especially since most of the opinions are IC, and many of them are even stating their disgust for child molestation. Passion about an issue is no excuse for losing your cool and OOCly calling us pedophiles.

OOC: Bingo. Frankly, if creating movies of three-dimensional animated kiddies fucking is going to keep pedophiles away from my future children, I'm all for it. Until they've committed a crime (and simply being a pedophile is not), they're just the same as anyone else - but suggesting that they be chaste and pure like, oh, say ... Catholic priests? Yeah, somehow, that seems to be bass-ackwards to me. If it keeps them from molesting kiddies, get 'em some porn with virtual actors.

This place is not one for random outbursts of aggression. It just ruins the atmosphere people...lets just everybody chill out and relax...

deep breaths....ommmm....ommmmm..........ommmmm

btw "Om" means "Peace"

T.K.N. Friedrich

I am going to quote quite a bit, no emphasis added or knowingly subtracted, but I feel that it will ensure clarity so can be endured.

<...> given that <a loophole pointed out by Xaipeteq> was intentional.

<...>

Mrs Jiffjeff believes fictional depictions of child abuse for sexual purposes should be criminalised - this is also the case under Gruenberger national law. As for the proposal...read the definition?

<...>

Creative interpretation to get round a proposal is fine; creative interpretation to make it get in the way of you is needless, silly, and ridiculous. Let me spell it out:

If it is for primarily sexual purposes, it is banned.
If it is for primarily artistic purposes, it is permitted.

<...>

<The proposal> is vague. Intentionally so, though. We have always strongly protested attempts by the UN to meddle in how we punish criminals - and because, unlike some here, we're willing to live by our words and accept that being selective in our application of principle is wrong, we accept that goes the other way. Just as we don't want our punishments banned, we don't want them forced on other nations. If you consider that offering too much leniency, so be it, but I won't ever sanction a proposal that forces minimums on nations: the differing legal systems and traditions are too much to account for.

Here is what I do not understand. After all of that--and many other quotes from both the respected speaker for the Sultanate of Gruenberg as well as other proponents of the proposal--we are left with a proposal that is intentionally unclear about what it hopes to accomplish, what rewards/punishments it seeks to award to kingdoms, republics, nations, et cetera and so forth, and what exactly the proposal is about.

It is apparently difficult to pin down exactly what constitutes an infraction of this resolution--what constitutes "true" fantasy? Some, like the esteemed speakers from the Sultanate of Gruenberg, seem to say that as long as they are thoughts only, no more, they are acceptable. Yet others would allow text-based depictions, three-dimensional renderings, sketches, as none of those involve any but one consenting adult creating, and another consenting adult enjoying.

If we cannot even agree on what "fantasy" means, then I dare say that the proposal as a whole is not off to a good start, on the road to acceptance. Further--what, exactly, will the resolution mean to those who commit an infraction? What are the possible punishments? It seems to me, based on the proposal itself and the statements of its proponets, that the proposal's entire basis is allowing each governing body to decide for itself in nearly, if not, all matters concerning "child pornography." If that is the case--then what is the need of the proposal in the first place? To say that exploiting children is bad? I would be surprised indeed to find anyone in these halls who would disagree with that notion.

It seems that the proposed resolution does, in fact, nothing. It offers no hard rules about what is or is not considered a punishable offense, no set limits on what is and is not "child pornography." I have just re-read the proposal again, and I stand by my statements. "Requiring" nations to "institute appropriately tough penalties" is not enough. It is too vague, without setting limits on what punishments would be applicable.

Also, it does not inherently promote international cooperation. There are many nations, representatives of some of whom have spoken here on this issue, where such a perpetrator would not, for example, live long enough to endure appropriate legal proceedings. Consider also the likelihood of such a criminal not being extradited at all, instead kept for whatever punishment that nation's governing body sees fit to inflict.

At its heart, the proposal does not work because of its very premise. Its very premise is that of taking a moral stance, but morality is so vague in and of itself, so completely subjective, that it is nigh-impossible for anyone to agree on set guidelines for morality. It is a basic idea--what one considers the height of respect, another considers the height of distaste. The old axiom of one person's refuse being another man's wealth, and all.

It is because morality, by its very nature, cannot be dictated by another--I.E. forced from the external--and instead must be taken on one's own shoulders--accepted internally--that this proposal will simply fail at its goal. That goal is veritably unobtainable.

And with that, my respected fellow speakers, I will take my seat once more. Thank you for listening to this long-winded speech.

Thank you for listening to this long-winded speech.

I beg to disagree, it was a very concise, to the point and, even if I say so myself, wonderful speech.

T.K.N. Friedrich

Thank you, speaker Friedrich.

You are welcome.

we are left with a proposal that is intentionally unclear about what it hopes to accomplish, what rewards/punishments it seeks to award to kingdoms, republics, nations, et cetera and so forth, and what exactly the proposal is about.You're over-thinking.

The vagueries are left in to give nations latitude. They set a minimum guideline for new law, and let the nations fill in the rest. Imagine a nation with a federal government and individual 'state' governments. The Federal government says "You must have laws about speed limits." The states can then act as they see fit. If they think 65 MPH is acceptable, they set their limits at 65; they're within the bounds of the federal mandate. If another wants to set at 55, they are also within the bounds of the mandate. A person travelling from one state to another will need to obey whatever limit the state they're in has decided upon. If a state sets it to 150, great! Quick travel. If another sets it to 15, well... you might decide to go around that state.

Same thing here, really.

"Is it simulated children or simulated acts?" Up to your nation to decide. The intent is a strict view, but that isn't necessary to satisfy the Compliance Ministry.

"What is meant by 'artistic' or 'sexual' purposes?" Up to your nation. Like the old saw, "I know pornography when I see it", I suppose. Typically, though, the porn industry doesn't try to pass itself off as legitimate art.

"How am I supposed to punish these evil doers?" Up to your nation. I suppose if you really wanted to thumb your nose at the Resolution (and didn't want to set your age of consent to 'birth') you could simply set the punishment ridiculously low. Say, 1 cent per charge. Again, the intent is for tough penalties, but you aren't bound by this. And, really, having the UN decide punishments isn't something you want.

"What about documentaries or medical records?" Not covered by the Proposal. Seriously people. Reading comprehension.

"Fantasy isn't defined." Then it's up to your nation. The intent is clearly "ban-everything-but-thoughts", but that's not binding. If you want people to be able to write stories, let them.

"Then this doesn't do anything!" Aside from forcing nations to ban child pornography. The bare minimum seems to be actual children engaging in actual actions. If you want it stricter, go for it. If you want it looser (which is kinda sick in my opinion) exploit loopholes. I've already given you one.

"But nations that don't enforce it now won't anyway!" This is a limitation of each and every UN Proposal. Seriously, if this is all you've got, why are you bothering?

"This is insulting to nations that already have such laws!" Well, lots of things the UN does is insulting, I suppose. If you already have these laws, then you don't need to do anything. Congratulations! You aren't scum!


This isn't some toothless pap. It sets groundwork for nations while still allowing them a certain degree of (dare I say it?) sovereignty. I never thought nations would be so hostile to being given some choices. I mean... do you honestly want the UN to write all your laws, letter for letter?


Doctor Denis Leary
No Pic Because The Server's Down
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

"Then this doesn't do anything!" Aside from forcing nations to ban child pornography.

It doesn't even do that. It forces nations to do one thing and one thing only...SAY that child pornography is banned. There is nothing in the resolution that actually forces the nations to ban it. That is the underlying problem with resolutions that allow too much NatSov...it all amounts to just words in the end.

T.K.N. Friedrich
Xaipeteq

It doesn't even do that. It forces nations to do one thing and one thing only...SAY that child pornography is banned. Oh, come on! That's just playing ridiculous games with semantics!

"Holy crap! It doesn't define the word "ban"! Clearly, that means that this is requiring us to give federal subsidies! And it doesn't define the word "are", which clearly means goat shaving! We have to give federal subsidies to goat shavers!"

Are you just trying to be as obtuse and dense as possible?


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

With so much "up to your nation," so many loopholes to exploit, and nothing even approaching threat of penalties given to the nations that break this rule, it still does not seem like the resolution does much at all. To put it another way, it is like an authority figure telling a young individual to not do something, but when the young person does it all that happens is the authority figure says, "Didn't I tell you to not do that?" and that is as far as it goes. All bark, no bite, I believe is the appropriate vernacular.

Well... take a coffee break in this hall and pay dearly, I see. There are certainly a lot of new voices speaking out on this proposal, but not a lot of new arguments. Those in favor continue to use the logical fallacy of false appeals to emotion, while those who oppose continue to use the slippery slope fallacy to envision all sorts of nightmare scenarios. Granted, some of the commentary was only skimmed in brief, but to date, Kuraurisand seems to be the only nation continuing to object on the grounds of infringement of individual rights, namely, the rights of the children themselves to decide whether or not they wish to express themselves through participation in such materials, either for profit or pleasure.

You're continued belief that children are able to consent to appear in these films alarms me. A child is by definition immature and unformed, not having attained adulthood and full majority. If we cannot hold children legally liable for their actions, as is the common case in many legal systems, how can we then simultaneously assume that they can consent to such an activity. Children need protection and to leave them open to abuse is not protection, but neglect. To phrase your argument another way, you might as well be saying that we should enshrine the freedom to be raped, or the freedom to be enslaved. Those are naturally ridiculous and contradictory prepositions, as is the notion that children can consent to appear in such productions.

After consideration, we will drop that argument for the moment, simply because it is beyond the scope of this resolution in the first place - the issue deals with international trafficking of contraband, really, and the nature of the contraband is such an emotionally charged concept that it is detracting us from seeing beyond it. As much as possible, we will be attempting to ignore the nature of the contraband entirely in this response, and focus purely on the provisions of the resolution itself.

Oh well, fair enough. The arguments were getting a tad jaded.

Many have already pointed out the interpretational issues in section 1. We maintain that this interpretational issue alone is reason enough to scrap this resolution and try again - perhaps we have found the first resolution for which an immediate repeal call might have merit, by showing our several thousand sleeping comrades who have not taken part in this debate exactly where the loopholes are? It would be in the interests of both sides - those that want this contraband extinguished completely would have opportunity to shore up the dam, so to speak, while those who would prefer to see international diversity respected can cheer a moral victory of their own.

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;

Shore up what? The resolution's focus here is on the status within a nation and material exported should take that into account. To re-word it would undermine the cooperational and international aspect of the resolution's wording.

But I digress. The point is that at best, this interpretational issue neuters the resolution's power, and at worst, it could cause misunderstandings that lead to international conflict.

And which nations are going to be fighting on the side of the kiddie-fiddlers exactly?

Section 2 provides equal headaches, because it's scope /does/ extend into issues of national sovereignty. It doesn't just call for international export controls - it requires member states to prohbit the possession and production of the contrabanded materials. True, section 1 still uses the member state's individual definition to define the contraband, but could Party A, with a stricter definition of the contraband, not accuse Party B of violating the production clause by making materials under it's own more lenient definition within it's own national borders? It also makes references to "trade" of the materials used to make the contraband (please excuse the dehumanization here, it is intended to encourage rational thought, not to justify sub-human treatment). The implication isn't clear - is this a concern regarding a form of slavery, or would a lucrative movie contract from a foreign film maker, eagerly jumped at by a child in a more strict country, constitute "trade" under the terms of the resolution?

Ah NatSov, my perennial bugbear and object of derision. I believe the implication was regarding both cases, as I would certainly view the second scenario as exploitation and enslavement of a child who cannot understand the repercussions of their actions.

Section 3 is completely subjective, and not even worth including.

Well it would be hard to mandate precise prison terms, given the variable nature of justice systems.

The most problematic, and least looked at, section of this entire resolution is section 4. For example, it requires shipment of the contraband for use as criminal evidence. What is to stop a stricter country from, say, subpeonaing every copy of every material from a more lenient country as "evidence" in a single trial? How would the extradition proceedings take into account the author's intent (or lack thereof) to see the work transferred out of the country? The sharing of information between law enforcement agencies, does it require that only established facts proven in a court of law be shared, or does it also require the sharing of unproven speculations? And considering the differing definitions, which country's standards are "authoritative" for the purpose of enforcing international law?

I believe the standard would conform to that set by this resolution and other resolutions on paedophilia. I don't think it particularly matters whether or not the author intended to ship it out the country. Consider for instance if the author is linked to a network of abusers and molesters. To subpeona his material, which could serve the purposes of evidence against him, seems like a logical step, not an unecessary complication.

Regarding the last established position arguments with the honorable delegate of Compadria and several others, we would be happy to discuss our position regarding the fallability of the age of consent concept and the inherent right to autonomous control that all human beings deserve from birth, but somewhere else, as we are as guilty as everyone else of focusing on that aspect of the issue, which is really irrelevant to this proposal, and ignoring the international components at work here. (Truthfully, even the so called simulation issue can be solved on a local level by modifying your age-of-consent laws to state that children which do not biologically exist are capable of consent at an earlier "age".)

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

I won't pursue the matter over "inherent right to autonomous self-control" any further, other than to say that I consider it wishy-washy libertarian extremism and inapplicable to children, who cannot even grasp such a philosophical concept or have full experience in its ramifications. That is another matter though, as you say.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

So basically it just SAYS that child pornography is banned.

Like I SAID.

T.K.N. Friedrich
Xaipeteq Common Sense Division.

There are pedants and then there's you Xaipeteq. When the resolution says something is banned, it is banned, have you not understood that resolutions are enforced mandatorily anyway. Stop being so pernickity and actually start debating.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I'm just trying to highlight the futility in a resolution that is self-destructive.

We have already satisfactorily debated all of the flaws in this resolution with the assumption that they were the only ones present. And even ignoring the lack of action contained within it it does not deserve to pass.

We should really have started this debate noting that this resolution is a bag of waffle sealed with a some preverbial hot air, but for the fact that nations such as yours wish to try and legitimise it by unecessary debate.

It is a shame that the noble council of Xaipeteq are disrepected because they uphold values that include getting things right. Xaipeteq stay within the UN in the hope that one day the values of critical thinking upheld by Xaipeteq citizens can be shared, as they and only they make for good discussion and debate.

Donny Harrison
Xaipeteq International Council Spokesgoblin

I'm just trying to highlight the futility in a resolution that is self-destructive.

We have already satisfactorily debated all of the flaws in this resolution with the assumption that they were the only ones present. And even ignoring the lack of action contained within it it does not deserve to pass.

We should really have started this debate noting that this resolution is a bag of waffle sealed with a some preverbial hot air, but for the fact that nations such as yours wish to try and legitimise it by unecessary debate.

It is a shame that the noble council of Xaipeteq are disrepected because they uphold values that include getting things right. Xaipeteq stay within the UN in the hope that one day the values of critical thinking upheld by Xaipeteq citizens can be shared, as they and only they make for good discussion and debate.

Donny Harrison
Xaipeteq International Council Spokesgoblin

Critical thinking is not bouncing around making a fuss about non-existent flaws. And to be honest, the noble council has to earn a bit of respect before we start automatically heeding your advice.

And you insult this forum and the nations debating this resolution by calling it "unecessary debate". Are we supposed to just sit there and bask in your reflective glory? You have offered no solutions, no ideas, only nitpicking and sniping from the edges. If you're so blessed by wisdom Mr Harrison, might I ask what your solutions to the alleged "flaws" would be?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

If you're so blessed by wisdom Mr Harrison, might I ask what your solutions to the alleged "flaws" would be?


A new resolution that sticks to the basics of this resolution and refrains from adding superfluous and inneffectual terms such as "simulated" which ultimately undermine the original intention of the resolution.

We all know (or should) that extreme viewpoints, although passed in Nationstates due to the inability of most Nations to read more than the title of a resolution before deciding upon it, do not hold up in intelligent debate.

Donny Harrison
Xaipeteq...

So allowing paedophiles a means to express their perversion without the sanction of the law being upon them is acceptable, or am I mistaken as to your opinion of "simulated"?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

And to be honest, the noble council has to earn a bit of respect before we start automatically heeding your advice.


The noble council asks not for respect but for a refrain from disrespect.

Indifference will be acceptable until we have earned your respect, as we fully agree that we should.

Donny Harrison
Xaipeteq International Council SpokesGoblin

So allowing paedophiles a means to express their perversion without the sanction of the law being upon them is acceptable, or am I mistaken as to your opinion of "simulated"?


My opinion of simulated is that it should not be included within this resolution, just as simulated murder should not be included in a resolution outlawing murder and so on.

To outlaw the simulation of crimes is a whole different matter entirely and would require a new resolution.

Paedophiles should be allowed to watch simulated child sex just as potential murderers are allowed (by default) to watch violent films and thieves are allowed to watch heist films etc.

Donny Harrison
Xaipeteq International Council SpokesGoblin

The Republic of Suvyamara will cast it's vote against this proposal. We feel that that it's definition of child pornography is too broad and open to interpretation. While the individual nation is given leave to interpret the letter of the law on their own, we feel that simply having such a thing on the books would allow for abuses in the system.

Don't misunderstand, we stand firmly against child pornography as we ourselves define it. However, we're all too aware of the hysteria surrounding childhood sexuality that some other nations suffer. In some countries of which we're aware department store catalogs no longer feature feature child models in underwear, for fear of 'arousing the wrong people.' By the definition of the proposal, other nations could be forced to look at similar cases, creating a backlog in their legal systems. After all, if the catalog in question is purchased by someone for primarily sexual purposes then that catalog becomes by definition, child pornography.

Consider this situation: Two 16 year olds meet while one is on holiday in a foreign land. They fall in love. In this particular nation the age of consent is such that their union is perfectly legal. Being consenting partners they decide to make a film of one of their intimate moments. Each partner keeps a copy of said film. However, when the holiday is over one of the partners returns to their home nation, where the age of consent is 17. That person is now in posession of child pornography and subject to appropriately tough penalties.

So for these and other reasons we will not back the proposal. The very fact that the proposal mentions morals - "and work towards eliminating this moral cancer" would be sufficient to lose our vote.

One final note. We agree with the spirit of this proposal and suggest that something more carefully worded, with more exacting definitions of just what is being banned would be met with greater approval from this august body.

So allowing paedophiles a means to express their perversion without the sanction of the law being upon them is acceptable, or am I mistaken as to your opinion of "simulated"?

One of the problems is the word "perversion." To many of the speakers that I have heard, it isn't considered a true, full "perversion" until there is an action taken. Watching movies (that don't feature real children), reading stories--it really is no different than anyone else with a fetish being allowed to watch falsely-constructed or read texts of their fetish without actually going out and committing the acts.

Also, is this, then, where the United Nations will step in, calling pedophilia a "perversion." Not that I'm necessarily against that, but--then you have to decide on a minimum age, so you can decide truly what a "child" is. And I can guarantee that while that likely won't offend governing bodies whose ages of consent and majority hover around the late-teens or early-twenties, there are plenty of governing bodies whose ages of consent and majority are far, far younger. One speaker--whose name regretfully eludes me now--noted that their age of majority of five years old. I would believe that there are governing bodies with ages of consent around the same age as well.

We can argue the inherent morality of such a thing all we like, but the point is that what would really need to happen is the United Nations setting mandates--just how young is to young? Then, as was said before, you have to take into account that not solely "typical" humans live in this world.

The road that that is all leading to is not a good road for the United Nations to head down.

Suvyamara']One final note. We agree with the spirit of this proposal and suggest that something more carefully worded, with more exacting definitions of just what is being banned would be met with greater approval from this august body."Greater approval" than 84% of the vote? :confused:

Votes For: 7,343

Votes Against: 1,397

Well over 1,000 users have voted against this issue.
Thats 1,000 people who most likely have a abnormal sexual fetish on NationStates. (I underline "most likely" cause some of you might not actually fit into this box, you could just be an idiot)
And thats well over 1,000 people I'd rather not share this earth with. But thats just me. :sniper: :mp5:


OOC: Just wanted to point something out for your edification. Well over 1,000 users have not voted against it. Most of the votes -- both for and against -- represent the weighted votes of regional delegates, not individual nations.

Votes Against: 1397: Zechiland [2], Stompville [4], Child Care Workers [8], New Old New New York [5], Kakokama [2], Former English Colony [418], Greengoatsian [3], Nospam [2], Rapscall [3], Rubina [6], Keeblerbourg [2], Laotzutia [2], The Sun and Stars [2], Chimney Hill [2], Hazzard county on rt66 [2], Eritones [2], Yanqui Republics [2], ArchiNewton [3], Dande_Lion [15], Mindalia [3], Naughty Slave Girls [3], Penguinlanden [10], Norderia [3], Mizuneko [3], Legendary Alcatraz II [17], Airmen Overseers [4], James Lewis [2], Krankor [15], Colbert Report [2], Los Rayes [2], Santa Francisca [4], Caretech [2], Electro-Texas [2], Luneir [20], Protecia [2], The New Tundran Empire [3], REXSEX999 [6], Booze and Pizza [3], Gamedudex [2], The UN delegation [2], France Hating People [2], Rakua [9], Dankhus [9], Jeebz [8], Puebloville [3], Nwabby [4], Karol Wojtilla [4], Tomaselli [3], Biotopia [35], Dying Utnapishtim [9], Estroban [2], Assendi [3], Krystodonia [2], Nhunya [2], Soult [2], Deus Sol Invicto [2], Eyster [22], Uchigawa [2], The Dark Flame Dragon [2], Lord Lies [2], KOALAS and such [4], Brocklandis [10], Radekus [3], KlickKlickPancake [6], Weiss States [2], Killer Kitty [53], Christopher Scott [2], Corporate Hegemony [18], Central-Dogma [5], The Faerie[2], New Pravania[2], Elven Courtblades[3], Elterre[3].


Take the against vote from the representative of Former English Colony, for instance. You can't seriously think that every single one of the 418 nations that have endorsed her in the region she represents, The North Pacific, actually voted against this proposal (or even voted at all, for that matter).

You're continued belief that children are able to consent to appear in these films alarms me.

As does your continued attempt to discredit the notion without offering a shred of evidence to back up your position. To date, your only elaboration on this is to imply a number of times that the occasional exception can exist, but that since "everyone knows" the majority is unlikely to contain this mystical ability to say "yes" to something, then there should be no provision to take the exceptions into account.

We have argued in the past that the exceptions in any civilized society should always have their rights respected and left it there, since that seemed like a sufficient point to focus on. However, we are apparently not "everyone"... we do NOT subscribe to the theory that there are only a few isolated exceptions, and would go so far to say that, tallying up the various high ages-of-consent worldwide, the /majority/ of people oppressed by these legislations have no redeeming necessity for them.

A child is by definition immature and unformed, not having attained adulthood and full majority.

Actually, in our language, "child" is merely a familial term, like uncle or cousin, denoting family lineage. We don't use the word in any kind of age-related association, and have to constantly remind ourselves that foreign governments tend to mean it that way.

If we cannot hold children legally liable for their actions, as is the common case in many legal systems, how can we then simultaneously assume that they can consent to such an activity.

Not that it's relevant in terms of this debate, but we do hold our "children" criminally liable for offenses. But then, the basic rules of our society are covered in our kindergarten classes.

Children need protection and to leave them open to abuse is not protection, but neglect. To phrase your argument another way, you might as well be saying that we should enshrine the freedom to be raped, or the freedom to be enslaved.

Hardly. Your rephrasing of my arguments use examples that are clearly enacted on people against their will, whereas my actual argument allows for coersive manipulation in it's worst-case scenario - something very hard to accomplish in a society where all of this stuff is talked about openly, and our youthful citizens are armed with the facts.

Again, we're not talking about not having ANY protections - we're talking about holding ourselves to the highest standard possible and treating individual autonomy as paramount.

And which nations are going to be fighting on the side of the kiddie-fiddlers exactly?

The nation with the lower age of consent, which will be defending not so much the "kiddie-fiddling" but their own national sovereignty when faced with accusations that they are in non-compliance because they produce materials which are illegal in other nations while having no intent to see such materials leave their national borders.

Well it would be hard to mandate precise prison terms, given the variable nature of justice systems.

Perhaps, but there are still alternatives to a blanket statement that has no teeth. For example, since this involves offenses in both the pornographer's home nation and the nation in which the material is sent, you could mandate offenders be turned over to the government with the more punitive legal system, and establish a liaison representative in each nation who would work with the other in question to establish which is the more punitive.

See? A little creative thought and you find ways to make a situation work. Just like a little creative thought would allow you to find ways to protect those that need it without infringing on people's rights based exclusively on the demographic of how long they've been breathing.

I believe the standard would conform to that set by this resolution and other resolutions on paedophilia. I don't think it particularly matters whether or not the author intended to ship it out the country. Consider for instance if the author is linked to a network of abusers and molesters. To subpeona his material, which could serve the purposes of evidence against him, seems like a logical step, not an unecessary complication.

What makes it an unnecessary complication is that you will have a LOT of instances in which someone has committed no crime in their home nation, but have violated the law of the receiving nation because a third party chose to distribute the material without the author's consent. Would you really expect home nations to turn their lawful citizens over to another government because of something beyond their control?

I won't pursue the matter over "inherent right to autonomous self-control" any further, other than to say that I consider it wishy-washy libertarian extremism and inapplicable to children, who cannot even grasp such a philosophical concept or have full experience in its ramifications. That is another matter though, as you say.

Translation: I know I'm right and it should be so obvious that I'm right that no proof or argument is necessary, because it is impossible for any other evidence or perspective to sway my opinion.

That is the most dangerous line of thought a human being can have, Ambassador. We can afford to hold no belief so dearly that we are unwilling to consider the possibility that we are wrong - far too often in our history, such fanatical devotion has cost humanity dearly.

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

"Greater approval" than 84% of the vote? :confused:

From what I've seen the votes against consist almost entirely of people who have actually read the proposal, while many of the votes for have been by people who have voted simply based on the title of the proposal, without further examination.

True, this doesn't change the fact that this proposal will likely pass, but it seems a shame that a simple rewrite which could make most everyone happy will not be undertaken. As another representative rightly pointed out, while this proposal might be good politics, it's bad government.

I agree.

Suvyamara']From what I've seen the votes against consist almost entirely of people who have actually read the proposal, while many of the votes for have been by people who have voted simply based on the title of the proposal, without further examination.

And your evidence in support of this would be what exactly? I'm sure you've conducted an extensive survey of all of the delegates that have voted so far...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Errr, no offense meant to suvymara's player, but given his OOC perspective and my IC perspective, and the eerie coincidence of posting within minutes of each other... Hack, can you please confirm that we're not the same player? :) At least as much as that's possible, anyway.

Seriously, suvy, I don't mean it to be a jerk. I commend you for having the courage to be honest about your orientation (as well as, I would presume from your post, your ability to refrain from actually violating the law and surpress your sexuality. While my OOC viewpoints do kinda line up with my IC ones, I trust you can see the inherent damage in a relationship that requires shame and secrecy in order to survive? Even the most powerfully constructive relationship would be tainted and damaging, very much like trying to grow a flower without letting it see the sun, and it would breed contempt in the child's mind for the very laws s/he would be held responsible to obey as an adult). But I get enough flack just for being open-minded - I'm not interested in having people draw any personal associations between my thoughts on the matter and my own orientation. I certainly don't envy you the lines you have to walk, and I'm glad genetics was a little kinder to me than that.

And your evidence in support of this would be what exactly? I'm sure you've conducted an extensive survey of all of the delegates that have voted so far...

I admit that my evidence is solely based on heresay. Being new to the UN I'm looking to my fellow delegates. As this seems to be the opinion of some others as well as a reasonable assumption given the history of government in general I have elected to adopt this opinion as my own.

I've also noted that while the people debating this issue on the 'against' side seem to be rational, clear thinking individuals, while the majority voting for the proposal tend to resort to inflammatory rhetoric and emotional appeals, neither of which, to my thinking, have any place in world government. So, as I hate to believe that the majority of the UN is made up of such individuals I prefer to believe instead that they simply haven't bothered to fully read the proposal or follow the debate.

OOC: Errr, no offense meant to suvymara's player, but given his OOC perspective and my IC perspective, and the eerie coincidence of posting within minutes of each other... Hack, can you please confirm that we're not the same player? :) At least as much as that's possible, anyway.


OOC, no offense taken. I can certainly understand that someone wouldn't want to be suspected to be me. Heck, there are times when I wish I wasn't me myself.

Take the against vote from the representative of Former English Colony, for instance. You can't seriously think that every single one of the 418 nations that have endorsed her in the region she represents, The North Pacific, actually voted against this proposal (or even voted at all, for that matter).And Erastide will be obligated to switch her vote before long: z13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?showtopic=1702

Actually, you'd need to do a lot of climbing to reach the level of "heresay". Right now, you're at "wild conjecture".

Oh, and vague, backhanded insults towards the intelligence of people voting in favor of the Proposal. Can't forget those.

You're over-thinking.

This isn't some toothless pap. It sets groundwork for nations while still allowing them a certain degree of (dare I say it?) sovereignty. I never thought nations would be so hostile to being given some choices. I mean... do you honestly want the UN to write all your laws, letter for letter?


I'd like to briefly extend upon that ... not only is a resolution that gives some latitude to nations respectiful of cultural, legal, and social differences between member states, but they also are far easier to implement domestically ---> and thus much more succesful.

When resolutions are written with very specific details "For every tree you cut down, you will plant three more! THIS WILL SAVE FORESTS!", it is true that a detail is included, but the larger goal is not necessarily accomplished at all.

In this particular case, if a specific resolution were created that defined the age of consent to be 30, it would be shot down. If the age of consent were instead set to 18 (like in the fictional country USA), it would likely pass ... but the nations that are most in need of this resolution would be angered and far more likely to completely ignore the resolution. If the few nations you *want* to take a more proactive attitude towards protecting children from exploitation choose to ignore the resolution, then you've done *less* by making a more detailed resolution.

-Howie T. Katzman

OOC:Hack, can you please confirm that we're not the same player?One point of similarity, several points different, including one that nobody would even think to fake.

I'm reasonably certain that you two aren't the same person.

Suvyamara']OOC, no offense taken. I can certainly understand that someone wouldn't want to be suspected to be me. Heck, there are times when I wish I wasn't me myself.

OOC: I editted that post with a message for you.

When resolutions are written with very specific details "For every tree you cut down, you will plant three more! THIS WILL SAVE FORESTS!", it is true that a detail is included, but the larger goal is not necessarily accomplished at all.

-Howie T. Katzman

Umm...yeah it is...forests are saved...

-1+3=2 therefore forests double.

Donny Harrison.
Xaipeteq International Council Spokesgoblin

I believe that, at this time, a more lengthy explanation of my King's stance against the morality aspect of the proposal is in order, so forgive this prolonged discourse.

As any of the ambassadors to other nations will readily mention, and as any of ouor tourist information will show, the Kingdom of Thylonia has nearly no crime at all. Considering that we number in over two and a half billion in citizens, we believe that such a statement is no small claim. The reason for this is two-fold: One reason, of course, is our heavy police force, with it and the military the only ones legally having access to firearms. This combined with their ability to act as judge and jury should the need arise, as well as our in-depth monitoring of our citizens, ensures that crime is stopped either before it happens or soon enough afterward and with enough prejudice as to deterr other, would-be criminals.

The second reason, and what we feel is the most important as well as influencial, is our social programs. For as long as there has been a Thylonia, there has been an intense study of psychology--what makes people do the things they do, what influences exist, what possible outcomes, and all the rest. We have sent our students abroad in every esteemed region, and welcomed the input of every esteemed region, and from all of this we have what we feel to be a very good understanding of not only our own people, but people in general.

This is all relevant, I assure you. It is relevant because in those studies it was found that one of, if not, the main contributing factor to psychological trauma, not including physical trauma suffered as a result of an accident, nor including genetic defects existing since birth, has been the feeling that something about the individual is somehow "wrong." We have met with astonishing success with our programs to enhance self-respect and feelings of self-worth, of allowing for differences in our people without those differences meaning that someone is somehow "better" or "worse" than anyone else.

We have not taken such programs as far as sexual relations with a young child, but it has been theorized that if such programs were, then the resulting psychological trauma would at the least be vastly reduced, if not negligable. While we do not and will not stand for molestation of children or anyone else, it has been theorized that such sexual relations, if brought about in an accepting environment, would do the child no true psychological damage.

While we do not, again, take our programs to such extensions, can it truly be said that not a single nation in this vast, vast collection of lands has? And further, is not the actual psychological trauma what all of us--each and every one of us here--truly seeks to ease?

To ensure that these words aren't taken out of context--the Kingdom of Thylonia does not now nor will ever condone sexual acts with young children. What I am saying is that the heavy-handed morality play, and the lack of much in the way of objective systems of explanation and punishment, all mean that the proposal, as has been said before, "has no teeth." There is too much "wiggle room," as it is put, to make the resolution effective. While some is always desirable, the amount here means that the proposal itself is nearly useless.

Further, it dictates what is and is not "morally right" to all nations that are members of the United Nations, and that, by its very act, goes against the spirit of allowing each land to follow its own path. Simply put--you cannot have it both ways. Either the "moral right" will be dictated to each nation, or each nation will decide for itself just what is "morally right."

Yet further, if there are set types and examples of punishable offenses, that takes away the individual nation's right to punish as it sees fit. Some nations would kill the offenders on-sight, while others would only fine the offenders. While this sort of scenario is perhaps exactly why the punishment is as vaguely-worded as it is, it then dissallows the proposal from having some of those proverbial teeth.

<<Chuckles.>>

Yes, I've often been accused of enjoying the sound of my own voice. Perhaps that is even true. But I say all of this out of a sense of passion for the points raised. I and my King protect our children as best as we can; nothing in this proposal could make us protect them more.

<<OOC: And--well said, Kuraurisand. Well said.>>

One point of similarity, several points different, including one that nobody would even think to fake.

I'm reasonably certain that you two aren't the same person.

OOC: I was looking for something a little more along the lines of "Yup, the log shows different IPs from different parts of the world" but I guess I can live with personal Hack logic. :)

Actually, you'd need to do a lot of climbing to reach the level of "heresay". Right now, you're at "wild conjecture".

Oh, and vague, backhanded insults towards the intelligence of people voting in favor of the Proposal. Can't forget those.

Of course, we're all knuckle-dragging morons. You didn't know that? :p

And Erastide will be obligated to switch her vote before long: z13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?showtopic=1702

OOC: You can't go by the vote on that forum. She apparently receives votes via TG as well.

OOC: You can't go by the vote on that forum. She apparently receives votes via TG as well.SILENCE!!! Erastide will change her vote!!! So sayeth the Kenny!!! :mad:

Umm...yeah it is...forests are saved...

-1+3=2 therefore forests double.

Donny Harrison.
Xaipeteq International Council Spokesgoblin

OOC:
A forest isn't just defined by the number of trees. Are they healthy? Do they live nearly as long? Are they similar sorts of trees?

I'm an environmental engineer. When endangered planet species (bushes or trees) are removed from a site, the environmental mitigation is not simply a matter of stating a ratio of trees that must be replanted, but instead include extensive statements of the goals along with conditions that must be met to meet those goals. I've seen provisions similar to "for every adult elderberry bush removed, fifteen adult elderberry bushes must be planted and monitored in a similar habitat for X number of years".

The problem there is that the mitigation is site specific, and resolutions can't target individual nations "sites". They are much better vague.

-M

As any of the ambassadors to other nations will readily mention, and as any of ouor tourist information will show, the Kingdom of Thylonia has nearly no crime at all. Considering that we number in over two and a half billion in citizens, we believe that such a statement is no small claim. The reason for this is two-fold: One reason, of course, is our heavy police force, with it and the military the only ones legally having access to firearms.Is this where I point out that the Hack has no crime with over seven and a quarter billion people, without needing police, social programs, civilian monitoring, or even really a government? And with citizens encouraged to carry their own firearms?

There is too much "wiggle room," as it is put, to make the resolution effective. While some is always desirable, the amount here means that the proposal itself is nearly useless.Just because you refuse to read the explinations for these issues doesn't mean they cease to exist.

Further, it dictates what is and is not "morally right" to all nations that are members of the United Nations, and that, by its very act, goes against the spirit of allowing each land to follow its own path.Ah, I get it. You want the UN to hold your hand.

Yet further, if there are set types and examples of punishable offenses, that takes away the individual nation's right to punish as it sees fit. You honestly want the UN telling you how to punish criminals? I mean, you're arguing for something like this:

The UN;

BELIEVING that child porn is gross,

DEFINES child porn as anything sexual involving any being under the age of 18,

MANDATES that all nations execute these sickos post haste.

Yeah... that's oodles better.

I and my King protect our children as best as we can; nothing in this proposal could make us protect them more.Again you miss the point. Do you think Gruenburg submitted this to the UN because they don't have laws against kiddie porn?


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

Is this where I point out that the Hack has no crime with over seven and a quarter billion people, without needing police, social programs, civilian monitoring, or even really a government? And with citizens encouraged to carry their own firearms?

Certainly. Offer any other possible reasons; I'd be glad to hear them.

Just because you refuse to read the explinations for these issues doesn't mean they cease to exist.

I have read the explanations. I simply disagree that they are informative, or conducive to the goals set forth. I can read something, understand it, and still disagree with it. It's a minor function of being a mature adult, after all.

Ah, I get it. You want the UN to hold your hand. You honestly want the UN telling you how to punish criminals?

I thought that I have been quite clear in my last few messages that, in fact, I do not want the United Nations having any say, at all, in how my Kingdom deals with such things. I cannot imagine how much clearer I can be as I have stated that rather explicitly, but if there is a clearer way I would be sincerely desirous to hear it.

Seriously, suvy, I don't mean it to be a jerk. I commend you for having the courage to be honest about your orientation (as well as, I would presume from your post, your ability to refrain from actually violating the law and surpress your sexuality. While my OOC viewpoints do kinda line up with my IC ones, I trust you can see the inherent damage in a relationship that requires shame and secrecy in order to survive? Even the most powerfully constructive relationship would be tainted and damaging, very much like trying to grow a flower without letting it see the sun, and it would breed contempt in the child's mind for the very laws s/he would be held responsible to obey as an adult). But I get enough flack just for being open-minded - I'm not interested in having people draw any personal associations between my thoughts on the matter and my own orientation. I certainly don't envy you the lines you have to walk, and I'm glad genetics was a little kinder to me than that.
[/I]

OOC: I'll gladly lay my cards on the table here in order to foster further understanding. At the age of 30 I had lived with the knowledge of my ... 'predilections' for nearly 20 years. I had always considered it just a quirk of psyche. I still considered myself heterosexual and dated women for many years, dispelling, I hope, the theory some still cling to that pedophiles are social outcasts without the ability to comfortably relate with adults. I did have have two homosexual relationships in my youth, one at the age of 12 and another at 15, both with same age partners.

During these years I often found myself in the company of boys. I knew I was attracted to them, and there was certainly a fantasy element, but it honestly never occured to me to take it beyond fantasy. Then I met someone and found myself falling in love. I certainly believed that those feelings were being reciprocated, but as he was 14 I'm sure others will argue that such is an impossibility. I went into that relationship with the attitude that love conquors all. Of course I was wrong.

Through a lapse in judgement, his parents found out. Or at least suspected. One day the police dragged him out of school and after a 3 hour interrogation he broke down and admitted we were in a relationship. I pled guilty and went to prison.

That was 10 years ago. I still consider myself a boylover. I had an epiphany during our relationship that allowed me to see that the 'quirk' in my sexuality was actually my true sexual orientation and the women I'd dated was the lie I told myself. I've accepted that. I've also accepted that such a relationship is doomed to failure in this society. While I don't believe that such a relationship is harmful in and of itself (there is too much evidence to the contrary), the very fact our society is what it is makes it an impossibility. So, I no longer hang out with boys. In fact, I haven't spoken with a boy in 10 years.

And I suppose this is where the discussion of some of the silly things I've seen posted here should be addressed. Such as the notion that pedophiles are some sort of ticking time bomb, just waiting to explode with illicit carnality. Do any of you, as 'normal' heterosexuals find yourself walking behind an attractive member of the opposite sex and feel the need to be restrained from jumping him/her and dragging them into the bushes? In the public eye pedophilia is supposed to go hand in hand with a lack of impulse control. Pedophilia, I should let you know, is no different from homo- or heterosexuality. In fact the American Psychiatric Association has tried for years to define pedosexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation rather than a paraphilia, but has always met with resistance from the government and backed down.

I have, in the distant past, viewed child pornography and it no more made me want to go out and abuse a child than watching 'Interview with a Vampire' made me want to go suck the blood from a rat. The premise is just as silly as parents who insist that Ozzy Osbourne caused their children to commit suicide. If a person is going to commit such an act, then they are going to do it. If a person is not going to commit such an act then no amount of 'media coersion' is going to influence them to such a degree that they act so out of character. In fact, discussions with other pedophiles throughout the last 10 years, both online and in therapy, have led me to believe such material provides a safe outlet for many of them.

I'm not suggesting we legalize kiddy porn, but textual media, or artistic renderings which in no way involve a real child should be, if not made readily available to those who wish to view them, at least not be banned. Asking a pedophile to turn off their sexuality will simply not work. Humans are sexual beings. Period. Expecting a pedophile repress his sexuality will do much more harm than good, just as if your sexual thoughts and feelings were somehow made illegal. The same goes for 'curing' us. Could you be 'cured' of your heterosexuality? No, and it's ridiculous to think we could be. However, in a less hysterical society, pedophiles would feel free to seek out assistance in learning tools which will help them keep from offending against children. In the current atmosphere they are cowering in the corner, afraid to speak, not understanding how to deal with their sexuality and liable to make mistakes. You want to protect your children? You do that through education, understanding and acceptance. Fear and unreasoning hatred have never solved anything.

Actually, you'd need to do a lot of climbing to reach the level of "heresay". Right now, you're at "wild conjecture".

Oh, and vague, backhanded insults towards the intelligence of people voting in favor of the Proposal. Can't forget those.

Ah, and whipping out the tar and feathers, and labelling the people voting against as pedophiles is acceptable. ;) Because if we're not irrational current or future parents, screaming 'think of the children!11!1one!1!1', then obviously we're malevolent pedophiles, determined to rape every child in the world.

Frankly, I think both stereotypes are somewhat ridiculous, and well, they really don't need to be brought up because the ludicrousness simply derails any sort of coherent debate.

As does your continued attempt to discredit the notion without offering a shred of evidence to back up your position. To date, your only elaboration on this is to imply a number of times that the occasional exception can exist, but that since "everyone knows" the majority is unlikely to contain this mystical ability to say "yes" to something, then there should be no provision to take the exceptions into account.

You haven't shown me any evidence to back up the assertion that children can make a decision of that gravity, I base my opinion on what I know and my own experiences as a child, where, in retrospect, I would never claim to have understood or been able to consent to sexual intercourse.

We have argued in the past that the exceptions in any civilized society should always have their rights respected and left it there, since that seemed like a sufficient point to focus on. However, we are apparently not "everyone"... we do NOT subscribe to the theory that there are only a few isolated exceptions, and would go so far to say that, tallying up the various high ages-of-consent worldwide, the /majority/ of people oppressed by these legislations have no redeeming necessity for them.

And I have always argued that those who do not understand their rights, let alone the concept behind them are entitled to protection from those who use those alleged 'rights' to their own benefit, whilst damaging an innocent child in the process.

Actually, in our language, "child" is merely a familial term, like uncle or cousin, denoting family lineage. We don't use the word in any kind of age-related association, and have to constantly remind ourselves that foreign governments tend to mean it that way.

Nice try, I used child in the context of the definition set out in the resolution, which should be the main point of discussion.

Hardly. Your rephrasing of my arguments use examples that are clearly enacted on people against their will, whereas my actual argument allows for coersive manipulation in it's worst-case scenario - something very hard to accomplish in a society where all of this stuff is talked about openly, and our youthful citizens are armed with the facts.

You can educate people till their blue in the face, but stupidity and an inability to properly comprehend what's being taught are well nigh universal. Just look at RL rates of teenage pregnancy in western European countries, despite their sex education curricula and attempts to endorse safe sex amongst young people. Education is not a panacea and should not be viewed as such.

Again, we're not talking about not having ANY protections - we're talking about holding ourselves to the highest standard possible and treating individual autonomy as paramount.

But that argument undermines any concept of individual protections, because the abuser will always be able to claim that their own "individual perogative" was being exercised, which according to your laws would justify almost all conduct, no matter how deleterious its consequences.

The nation with the lower age of consent, which will be defending not so much the "kiddie-fiddling" but their own national sovereignty when faced with accusations that they are in non-compliance because they produce materials which are illegal in other nations while having no intent to see such materials leave their national borders.

They're still guilty of violating the human rights of their own children not to be abused, the U.N. has every right to legislate to prevent them from doing so.

Perhaps, but there are still alternatives to a blanket statement that has no teeth. For example, since this involves offenses in both the pornographer's home nation and the nation in which the material is sent, you could mandate offenders be turned over to the government with the more punitive legal system, and establish a liaison representative in each nation who would work with the other in question to establish which is the more punitive.

I still don't see any real weakness in the original resolution, more a difference of approaches here, which would be hard to reach concurrence on under any circumstances.

See? A little creative thought and you find ways to make a situation work. Just like a little creative thought would allow you to find ways to protect those that need it without infringing on people's rights based exclusively on the demographic of how long they've been breathing.

Or abuse those rights based upon the strange notion that all people are born the same, grow up the same or somehow are capable of advanced political and social thinking from conception.

What makes it an unnecessary complication is that you will have a LOT of instances in which someone has committed no crime in their home nation, but have violated the law of the receiving nation because a third party chose to distribute the material without the author's consent. Would you really expect home nations to turn their lawful citizens over to another government because of something beyond their control?

I would hardly call someone who has made child pornography responsible for distributing something "beyond their control" or contrary to their intentions.

Translation: I know I'm right and it should be so obvious that I'm right that no proof or argument is necessary, because it is impossible for any other evidence or perspective to sway my opinion.

Tu quoque ambassador.

That is the most dangerous line of thought a human being can have, Ambassador. We can afford to hold no belief so dearly that we are unwilling to consider the possibility that we are wrong - far too often in our history, such fanatical devotion has cost humanity dearly.

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

Tu quoque X 2.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

And I have always argued that those who do not understand their rights, let alone the concept behind them are entitled to protection from those who use those alleged 'rights' to their own benefit

I'd be curious to know where else in your government this sort of protection extends. Do adults involved in a civil dispute have someone sit down with them and explain all the rights to which they are entitled, or is it assumed that at the age of majority these citizens are automatically knowledgable about such subjects? Upon arrest of an adult I assume they are read and asked if they understand their rights. I'll also assume that children who are arrested are read the same rights and asked if they understand them. Is there then some further discussion with the child to make doubly sure they understand?

OOC: I can certainly state that upon my own arrest I was not fully made to understand where lay all my rights. Certainly the concept behind them was never explained. At what age do you suppose your citizens are magically able to comprehend all the nuances of law to the degree that further explanation and protection becomes unnecessary? Because I see people being screwed over daily by the legal system and shyster lawyers.

Do any of you, as 'normal' heterosexuals find yourself walking behind an attractive member of the opposite sex and feel the need to be restrained from jumping him/her and dragging them into the bushes?

OOC: Every day of my life.

You haven't shown me any evidence to back up the assertion that children can make a decision of that gravity, I base my opinion on what I know and my own experiences as a child, where, in retrospect, I would never claim to have understood or been able to consent to sexual intercourse.

Very well, we shall prepare a prospectus. In the interest of not slamming the assembly with irrelevant spam, we'll place the prospectus in another room. And in the interest of remembering where that room is, since many of us, myself included, don't tend to leave this debate hall often, directions will be posted here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11447765#post11447765

And I have always argued that those who do not understand their rights, let alone the concept behind them are entitled to protection from those who use those alleged 'rights' to their own benefit, whilst damaging an innocent child in the process.

So because someone /could/ be hurt, they are not allowed to take the risk. Surely people in your nation take risks periodically, even in ignorance of the potential dangers? How do you ever do anything new if ignorance of the risk requires inaction?

Nice try, I used child in the context of the definition set out in the resolution, which should be the main point of discussion.

Actually, you did not use it in the context of the resolution at all. You defined a child as "immature and unformed", qualifications not required by the resolution's definition, and in many cases untrue of those whom this resolution would affect. And besides, all I was pointing out is that by the definition set out in the resolution, children don't exist in my country. :)

You can educate people till their blue in the face, but stupidity and an inability to properly comprehend what's being taught are well nigh universal.

So now all children are inherently stupid as well?

Just look at RL rates of teenage pregnancy in western European countries, despite their sex education curricula and attempts to endorse safe sex amongst young people. Education is not a panacea and should not be viewed as such.

Interestingly enough, a few folks in the break room (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493725) were discussing something along these lines just this morning. They apparently seem to know more about this mythical "RL" place than I do, and they've cited a number of studies in that thread claiming that the teenage pregnancy rates in those nations have gone down proportionally to the increased sex education. Mind you, we can't authenticate the studies, since we have no knowledge of this "RL" region. :)

In any case, education is the very crux of this issue. You give your youth only the most superfluous, biased information regarding their sexuality (and quite often not even that), then complain that they're incapable of making sexual decisions because they don't know enough. Did you think that information would reach them by osmosis?

But that argument undermines any concept of individual protections, because the abuser will always be able to claim that their own "individual perogative" was being exercised, which according to your laws would justify almost all conduct, no matter how deleterious its consequences.

No, not really. I apologize if the nuances of Kuraurisandian law escape you, but I can assure you, "individual perogative" would hardly justify doing something to another person against their will. You can't claim that you had a right to murder someone, for example, simply because it was your wish to see them not be alive. Their wish to be alive is taken into account. :) As would a youthful citizen's wish to refrain from sexual activity. Emphasize their wish - not what we think their wish should be, or what we "know" their wish would be if they were older and wiser, but the actual wish that they have in the moment. If they regret such things later... well, everyone regrets something at some point, and shielding them from having regrets would be inappropriate. Regrets are a learning tool - they tell us, "next time, make the decision more carefully".

They're still guilty of violating the human rights of their own children not to be abused, the U.N. has every right to legislate to prevent them from doing so.

What a huge leap from your own perspective just a few days ago. Remember Double-Edged Sword, the movie we discussed? Earlier you insisted that it would not constitute pornography under this resolution. Now you say that, should any member nation consider it pornography within their own national borders, then Kuraurisand will be non-compliant with the resolution for allowing it's possession and production locally.

I still don't see any real weakness in the original resolution [as opposed to the suggestion that the resolution stipulate offenders be punished by the more punitive legal system], more a difference of approaches here, which would be hard to reach concurrence on under any circumstances.

(I put the [] comment in the quote to help clarify the context.) The difference is that the alternate suggestion helps to set a standard agreeable to the more offended member nation, since it is likely to have the more punitive system in this regard, as opposed to the current wording, which is little more than a hopeful wish.

I would hardly call someone who has made child pornography responsible for distributing something "beyond their control" or contrary to their intentions.

That's because you are again focusing on the nature of the contraband rather than on the concept. It is not reasonable to assume that someone who makes anything inherently intends for that thing to be distributed worldwide - certainly our weapons manufacturers don't intend to see our guns sold to other nations who might use them against us! And yet, once the sale is made, the gun's new owner is capable of doing anything they like with it - including sell it to another country. Even if it were illegal to sell weapons to other nations (which it is), there is no justifiable way to hold the manufacturer responsible for the act of the consumer. And it would not be equally reasonable to hold the pornographer responsible if his product went somewhere that he did not deliberately attempt to send it.


Tu quoque ambassador.
Tu quoque X 2.


You seem to be confused on your fallacies. "Tu quoque" (for any delegate that doesn't know what it means, look here (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html)) might be appropriate if I were attempting to discredit a point made by you, but, in fact, you were not making a point - you were attempting to close the discussion entirely, and with verbiage ("wishy-washy libertarian extremism"?) that might be more worthy of the tu quoque label itself. My responses were not even a defense of my position, but a call to you to acknowledge your own fallacy of One-Sidedness (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/onesided.html) and recognize the value of rational discussion with no assumptions in the search for truth. I sincerely hope that such a discussion is forthcoming.

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

Just an update:

Votes For: 7,606

Votes Against: 1,421

Voting Ends: Sat Jul 29 2006

WOW! Can we spell Landslide? Good Job Gruen.

WOW! Can we spell Landslide? Good Job Gruen.

Did anybody honestly expect anything but a landslide? As soon as this reached quorum I knew it would pass, and by a large margin.

Shit... I shoulda bet on THIS one... -shakes fist at Amb. Zyryanov-

OOC: Every day of my life.

OOC: I can't tell... Are you being funny, or trying to refute him?

OOC: I can't tell... Are you being funny, or trying to refute him?

OOC: I was thinking that myself. :) The statement could be taken so many ways. In a sense, it proves suvy's point, since one presumes that Meeron does not, in fact, jump members of whatever sex he's interested in and has no trouble restraining that urge (at least I hope he doesn't). On the flipside, it refutes suvy, since we can all understand that overwhelming desire, and while we can have our sexual needs met, thus subsiding the urge, it's logical to think the unchecked urge would eventually override the pedophile's self-control.

And then, of course, irrelevant of the position argument, the humor is undeniable. :)

Did anybody honestly expect anything but a landslide? As soon as this reached quorum I knew it would pass, and by a large margin.

Shit... I shoulda bet on THIS one... -shakes fist at Amb. Zyryanov-

OOC: Seriously. No offense meant to Gruen, but he could have misspelled every word, written the resolution in crayon and added the clause "ACKNOWLEDGING that i am l33t and r0x0rz" and still gotten it through with no major problems.

Hell, maybe I'd back it with that clause, since Gruen does, in fact, r0x0r.

OOC: I was thinking that myself. :) The statement could be taken so many ways. In a sense, it proves suvy's point, since one presumes that Meeron does not, in fact, jump members of whatever sex he's interested in and has no trouble restraining that urge (at least I hope he doesn't). On the flipside, it refutes suvy, since we can all understand that overwhelming desire, and while we can have our sexual needs met, thus subsiding the urge, it's logical to think the unchecked urge would eventually override the pedophile's self-control.

And then, of course, irrelevant of the position argument, the humor is undeniable. :)

OOC: Perhaps it is because of the tonelessness of the internet, but I don't find it that funny even if it were meant to be. It doesn't refute Suvy, because at the most, it suggests that people DO resist the urge. The equivocation between a sex-starved, horny, teenaged male (me) and a self-control lacking rapist is just like an equivocation between a pedophile (as I have previously stated I mean it) and a child molester. It's false. Again, there is an assumption that pedophiles are for some reason less in control of themselves than the rest of us, and it is an unwarranted one.

OOC:...Again, there is an assumption that pedophiles are for some reason less in control of themselves than the rest of us, and it is an unwarranted one.

OOC: I just quoted my reason: because they have no legitimate sexual outlet. Urges and cravings grow when they're not satisfied. Imagine being denied food for four days, stranded on a desert island, and then suddenly appearing in the middle of a mall food court. Are you going to spend time debating the ethics of snatching the nearest hamburger off the table? Are you going to worry about who currently owns it, and how they're going to feel when it's taken, and what the consequences are for them, or even for yourself? No, you're not, because the hunger is so overwhelming, having been unsatiated for so long, that it overrides your sense of right and wrong and pushes you into a zone of biological imperative.

By the same token, I would presume that the reason some of these people snap and cross the "line" from being a pedophile to being a child molestor (by your definitions) is because the urge in them builds up to overwhelming levels.

Suvy, I guess you're the only one here (well, at least the only one with the courage to admit it) who can tell me if I'm off base on this. How do you deal with it?


Oh yeah, and P.S., it's still funny, read the right way. :P I realize it's a heavy topic, but I'm sure even Suvy would agree that having someone with a more "mainstream" sexuality identify with the inherent struggles of those urges is very reaffirming.

On the flipside, it refutes suvy, since we can all understand that overwhelming desire, and while we can have our sexual needs met, thus subsiding the urge, it's logical to think the unchecked urge would eventually override the pedophile's self-control.

OOC: I'll admit that I've not engaged in a sexual act with another person in the last 10 years. However, that's a long way from saying that my sexual needs have not been met. My mom just recently remarried after close to 20 years alone. She didn't go nuts and try to rape anyone. So while autoerotica may not be the preferred method of sexual release, it certainly gets the job done. Which points, I might add, to another reason why some forms of pornography should remain available to those who might wish to view them.

OOC: Can we cut out the bloody italics already?

OOC: I just quoted my reason: because they have no legitimate sexual outlet. Urges and cravings grow when they're not satisfied. Imagine being denied food for four days, stranded on a desert island, and then suddenly appearing in the middle of a mall food court. Are you going to spend time debating the ethics of snatching the nearest hamburger off the table? Are you going to worry about who currently owns it, and how they're going to feel when it's taken, and what the consequences are for them, or even for yourself? No, you're not, because the hunger is so overwhelming, having been unsatiated for so long, that it overrides your sense of right and wrong and pushes you into a zone of biological imperative.

By the same token, I would presume that the reason some of these people snap and cross the "line" from being a pedophile to being a child molestor (by your definitions) is because the urge in them builds up to overwhelming levels.

Suvy, I guess you're the only one here (well, at least the only one with the courage to admit it) who can tell me if I'm off base on this. How do you deal with it?


Oh yeah, and P.S., it's still funny, read the right way. :P I realize it's a heavy topic, but I'm sure even Suvy would agree that having someone with a more "mainstream" sexuality identify with the inherent struggles of those urges is very reaffirming.


OOC: You know, there are shy fat ugly guys out there, covered in moles, with really poor social skills and BO who I'm sure go for years, if not their entire lives, without getting laid, and yet there's no great concern about them going nuts and raping someone in a food court (yes, a little liberty taken with your example). Why not? Because of course they have their sexual outlet. Baywatch, Playboy, Victoria's Secret, whatever it may be. Not as good as sleeping with Pamela Anderson (I shudder to use this example as I find Pamela Anderson to be quite ugly. Looks like a guy in bad drag to me), but hey, how many of you out there are sleeping with Pamela Anderson?

I used to know a guy who was one of these guys who couldn't get more than a week without getting laid. Was all in his head of course, but he'd go to extremes to see his 'need' met. By extremes of course I'm referring to skanks. It was all good so long as he got his nut. Had it in his head from some sick upbringing that masturbation wasn't manly, or some such silly thing, and so he'd risk exposure to disease and ridicule to dip his wick in whatever pox-ridden slut he could find.

My point is, that I'm sure most of you are able to excercise a bit more control over your libido. All during the time I knew this guy he couldn't believe I could go so long without getting laid. I'd have girlfriends here and there, but sometimes a year or even two could pass between them. Don't take this to mean that I have a low sex drive either. I'm just as horny as the next guy.

So, while it's true that as humans we're all sexual beings with a strong sex drive, that doesn't mean we're unable to control and regulate it. Yes, a release must be found, but it doesn't have to involve rape or molestation, no matter how strong the desire.

Oh, and p.s. Yeah it was funny. Not hilarious, but at least smile funny. Trust me when I say that I have a huge sense of humor about my sexual orientation.

Suvyamara']OOC: You know, there are shy fat ugly guys out there, covered in moles...

OOC: Hey! Get your spy cameras OUT of my room! :) Just kidding, I'm actually quite manly.

Suvyamara']who I'm sure go for years, if not their entire lives, without getting laid, and yet there's no great concern about them going nuts and raping someone in a food court....

Okay, I get your point (though you didn't have to get so, err... graphic, about your friend). You're right, for some reason this seemed a lot more different, but I guess it's because I only have two frames of reference when it comes to this issue - my own childhood experiences with an adult (which was very enjoyable [hell, I started it] and not the tragic emotionally-scarring ZOMG-what-happened-to-me crap that people seem to think it should have been) and the nutcases in Florida who rape little girls and bury them alive. There aren't exactly a lot of regular Joe friends to turn to and ask about this kinda thing, at least not compared to the plethora of shy fat ugly guys that I can see and identify with :)

And fine, I'll stop with the italics, although I thought that was the ettiquette when speaking OOCly.

OOC: I was being ambiguous on purpose, because I like that sort of thing. It struck me as humerous that someone would ask "You don't always want to jump her, do you?" rhetorically expecting the answer would be of course not, when the reality of the situation is that most of us do, in fact, repress that to some extent. Anyways, if we're going to have to get all serious about this, in my mind the difference between pedophelia and any other kind of sexual fettish (except, well, beastiality, but this isnt' the right forum for that--if there is a right forum for beastiality at all) is that it is involving a person who in almost all cases does not possess the maturity to make responsible decisions regarding that kind of thing. Aditionally, for every pedophile who has the best interests of the child at heart there's one who has the best interests of himself at heart, and there's really very little way to tell the difference; the children should be protected from these kinds of selfish people, because--again, they are young and not very wise, and don't understand the gravity of a situation they might get themselves into. If you really have fallen in love with a person, it's not too terribly difficult to just wait until they're legal--if the person in question is half your age that is *societally frowned upon*, but still *legal*. It's the best compromise I can think of.

OOC: I was being ambiguous on purpose, because I like that sort of thing. It struck me as humerous that someone would ask "You don't always want to jump her, do you?" rhetorically expecting the answer would be of course not, when the reality of the situation is that most of us do, in fact, repress that to some extent. Anyways, if we're going to have to get all serious about this, in my mind the difference between pedophelia and any other kind of sexual fettish (except, well, beastiality, but this isnt' the right forum for that--if there is a right forum for beastiality at all) is that it is involving a person who in almost all cases does not possess the maturity to make responsible decisions regarding that kind of thing. Aditionally, for every pedophile who has the best interests of the child at heart there's one who has the best interests of himself at heart, and there's really very little way to tell the difference; the children should be protected from these kinds of selfish people, because--again, they are young and not very wise, and don't understand the gravity of a situation they might get themselves into. If you really have fallen in love with a person, it's not too terribly difficult to just wait until they're legal--if the person in question is half your age that is *societally frowned upon*, but still *legal*. It's the best compromise I can think of.

Semi-OOC: 50/50 is still unrealistic. There are people who have their own interests at heart anywhere, but a vast majority of people avoid causing harm, undue or otherwise, to people. To suggest that pedophiles are less likely to know reality from fantasy is just unfounded. My father is married to someone 15 years younger than him, and it isn't a problem at all, societally, or otherwise. However, me, being 19, and having a 16 year old girlfriend drives people crazy. "Isn't she a little young?" "By law, yes. But she's smarter, more mature, more intellectually and emotionally sound than you, so quit complaining."

Normalcy doesn't get publicized. Out of all the pedophiles in the world, who are the ones we hear about? The ones that fuck up. It's like that one author wrote in his book (Culture of Fear was the name of the book, I forgot the author) the murder rate (in the US, I believe) has gone down by <insert something akin to 10%, as I don't remember the figure>. But the coverage of murder, that is, how often they're told about on TV has gone up by 600%. The only thing that seems real to people is what they hear or see, and all they ever hear or see is the bad stuff. Not, "Jim-Bob, a pedophile, didn't molest anybody today."

OOC:

And fine, I'll stop with the italics, although I thought that was the ettiquette when speaking OOCly.

OOC:
Oh, it was obvious that *several* people have been using it as such, and personally it worked fine. The problem is that when a post gets long, altered fonts of any sort tend to take longer to process / read.

We are creatures of habbit. Do whatever you feel generates the most replies. :)

OOC: [...] The problem is that when a post gets long, altered fonts of any sort tend to take longer to process / read.

<<OOC Really? Huh. I always found such posts easier to read, personally. I think it's from there being more whole blocks of one type; as I scan the web-page, my brain can automatically "shift-gears" when I get to the large block of italicized text. That said, I'll refrain from it anyway, though I hope there's nothing wrong with using the angle brackets.>>

<<OOC Really? Huh. I always found such posts easier to read, personally. I think it's from there being more whole blocks of one type; as I scan the web-page, my brain can automatically "shift-gears" when I get to the large block of italicized text. That said, I'll refrain from it anyway, though I hope there's nothing wrong with using the angle brackets.>>

OOC:
It is all a matter of opinion, but in the technical writing courses I've taken regular character strokes are encouraged -- i.e. avoid overusing bold, avoid overusing italics, and limit underlined fonts to hyperlinks only.

Most people don't read, but scan. Words aren't characters, but patterns; and the easier it is to recognize those patterns, the easier the message is to understand. Since we use regular strokes in most applications, we are essentially trained to recognize those a bit quicker than italics. For a long post, this can be important.

Also, by holding off on using italics, except for when you want to emphasize something, you can communicate differently.

Very well, we shall prepare a prospectus. In the interest of not slamming the assembly with irrelevant spam, we'll place the prospectus in another room. And in the interest of remembering where that room is, since many of us, myself included, don't tend to leave this debate hall often, directions will be posted here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11447765#post11447765

*Reads post*

OOC: I presume this was the one you were referring to nay?

Firstly, a definition clarification is in order. The dictionary definition of the word "consent" is as follows:To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. Essentially this is the ability to say yes or express agreement to something. We highly doubt that the Republic of Compadria is arguing the inability of anyone with linguistic skills to say the word "yes", or even for the inability of those without linguistic skills to find some way to express acquiescence or resistance.

That's a rather different point. Your analogy is misleading. Saying "yes" to express mere assent or resistance is not quite the same as saying "yes" to something like sexual intercourse. The emotional ramifications are rather different. Saying "yes" if asked "do you want me to stop hurting you" and "yes" to "do you want to have sex" involve different considerations and different problems. I certainly think a child can say "yes" to indicate their mood, but only as a rather rough reflection, nuance is still something they are learning and sex is certainly a process requiring mental nuance whilst making a decision. Do I want to have sex? Do I feel ready? Is this the right person? Right time? Right motivations? Right set of circumstances? etc.

Let us first address the requirement of "knowledge and understanding". The issue is whether or not a human brain can fully comprehend the implications of the decision to be made before a certain point of development. Well, how does a human brain develop, then? We refer to the authoritative psychological research of Jean Piaget, an expert on cognitive development from some strange and distant nation called "Switzerland", with which we are admittedly not very familiar. His research findings are described in detail here, but there is a more simplistic chart available here.

Piaget merely stated that the process began at eleven and continued through adolescence up into adulthood. He also noted that some individuals do not complete this stage and remain in the third, "concrete operational stage". As such, I find it hard to believe that his views, whilst interesting are a ringing endorsement for permitting child abuse.

The other is that there is a motivated self-interest prior to this stage, making it more likely that even the perception of a negative consequence for sexual activity could be enough information to sway someone in that stage of cognitive development away from making an affirmative sexual choice.

A traumatic sexual experience such as child molestation could easily sway the child away from making an "affirmative sexual choice" too.


So because someone /could/ be hurt, they are not allowed to take the risk. Surely people in your nation take risks periodically, even in ignorance of the potential dangers? How do you ever do anything new if ignorance of the risk requires inaction?

So abusing children is beneficial you're saying. Aha, of course, silly me for not realising that the traumatic experience of sexual abuse might indeed be beneficial for a child and as such we should view it as a perfectly normal and acceptable act. Thank you for removing the splinter from my eyes ambassador.

Actually, you did not use it in the context of the resolution at all. You defined a child as "immature and unformed", qualifications not required by the resolution's definition, and in many cases untrue of those whom this resolution would affect. And besides, all I was pointing out is that by the definition set out in the resolution, children don't exist in my country. :)

Within the context of a child being defined as "under the age of consent", the whole point of an age of consent law is that it is assumed for legal and societal purposes that individuals beneath that age have not got the requisite maturity and composure to make a decision about their sex life and sexual health accurately or objectively enough, to warrant permitting them to harm themselves potentially traumatic. I think my descriptors were perfectly accurate when compared to this.

So now all children are inherently stupid as well?

No, but a lot of them can mis-interpret information and still carry considerable misconceptions. Sex education is a good thing, don't get me wrong here, but it's no guarantee that people will automatically start making responsible sexual choices. Too much information without the right conditioning can have adverse affects. A more pressing factor on child pregnancy rates is often poverty and cultural factors, which can be hard to overcome,the first by inhibiting access to education or meaning it is provided in a less than complete fashion. The second can condition people towards certain rigid views of sexual conduct and custom, which may push up teen pregnancy rates. There is also the matter of evolutionary hard-wiring to start child-bearing during the late teens to early twenties.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=895962006

No, not really. I apologize if the nuances of Kuraurisandian law escape you, but I can assure you, "individual perogative" would hardly justify doing something to another person against their will. You can't claim that you had a right to murder someone, for example, simply because it was your wish to see them not be alive. Their wish to be alive is taken into account. :) As would a youthful citizen's wish to refrain from sexual activity. Emphasize their wish - not what we think their wish should be, or what we "know" their wish would be if they were older and wiser, but the actual wish that they have in the moment. If they regret such things later... well, everyone regrets something at some point, and shielding them from having regrets would be inappropriate. Regrets are a learning tool - they tell us, "next time, make the decision more carefully".

I have no wish to see a child be traumatised and violated in order to learn. The world may be a cruel place, but some things are too cruel to be permitted in my opinion. Better they are hurt as adults when they are more resillient, rather than as children.

What a huge leap from your own perspective just a few days ago. Remember Double-Edged Sword, the movie we discussed? Earlier you insisted that it would not constitute pornography under this resolution. Now you say that, should any member nation consider it pornography within their own national borders, then Kuraurisand will be non-compliant with the resolution for allowing it's possession and production locally.

I think I poorly communicated my argument. What I meant, which I evidently didn't say adaquately clearly, is that if material is agreed as pornographic by a clear majority of parties concerned, then sharing information ought to be encouraged strongly, if not considered de facto mandatory.

(I put the [] comment in the quote to help clarify the context.) The difference is that the alternate suggestion helps to set a standard agreeable to the more offended member nation, since it is likely to have the more punitive system in this regard, as opposed to the current wording, which is little more than a hopeful wish.

I think you'll find that "hopeful wish" is what most resolutions would fall under, but we can't do anything other than 'wish-hopefully', otherwise the NatSov zealots would veto it.

That's because you are again focusing on the nature of the contraband rather than on the concept. It is not reasonable to assume that someone who makes anything inherently intends for that thing to be distributed worldwide - certainly our weapons manufacturers don't intend to see our guns sold to other nations who might use them against us! And yet, once the sale is made, the gun's new owner is capable of doing anything they like with it - including sell it to another country. Even if it were illegal to sell weapons to other nations (which it is), there is no justifiable way to hold the manufacturer responsible for the act of the consumer. And it would not be equally reasonable to hold the pornographer responsible if his product went somewhere that he did not deliberately attempt to send it.

Your product = your responsibility. I find it hard to believe a weapons manufacturer, understanding that war is endemic and people in the weapons trade don't tend to have too many qualms about moral issues like the ones you mentioned above, so whether or not they directly specified is somewhat besides the point. They put it in the world and given the nature of the material in question, they surely knew and know that it will not conveniently restrict itself to where they want it to go, once it leaves their hands. The same applies to child pornographers.

You seem to be confused on your fallacies. "Tu quoque" (for any delegate that doesn't know what it means, look here (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html)) might be appropriate if I were attempting to discredit a point made by you, but, in fact, you were not making a point - you were attempting to close the discussion entirely, and with verbiage ("wishy-washy libertarian extremism"?) that might be more worthy of the tu quoque label itself. My responses were not even a defense of my position, but a call to you to acknowledge your own fallacy of One-Sidedness (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/onesided.html) and recognize the value of rational discussion with no assumptions in the search for truth. I sincerely hope that such a discussion is forthcoming.

I was merely pointing out that if you were accusing me of this, you were guilty of the same thing. Which you were.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

OOC: To my regret, I won't be returning to NS or the U.N. for about a month, due to travelling. During that time, I know that a repeal of the FFRA will probably pass, hopefully to be replaced by an equally good equivalent. I hope that other worthy resolutions will be passed. I hope however, that the nations of the U.N. will avoid the temptation to legistimise the abuse and molestation of children, by repealing this resolution. It's a small hope, but I hope it can be confirmed.

<<OOC: Agreed with the post as a whole, especially this part:

OOC: Most people don't read, but scan. Words aren't characters, but patterns; and the easier it is to recognize those patterns, the easier the message is to understand.

I've heard of that as well, which is why I wrote "scanned" instead of "read." I do, though, again agree with the overall post.>>

*Reads post*

OOC: I presume this was the one you were referring to nay?

*stares incredulously at Leonard for a long moment*

Ambassador... you do realize the reason for posting to a different forum was to have this discussion, ummm, there? So we would not be burdening this assembly with this irrelevant side issue, and allow them to continue to debate the actual proposal.

I'll address the rest of your responses over there.

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

OOC: To my regret, I won't be returning to NS or the U.N. for about a month, due to travelling. During that time, I know that a repeal of the FFRA will probably pass, hopefully to be replaced by an equally good equivalent. I hope that other worthy resolutions will be passed. I hope however, that the nations of the U.N. will avoid the temptation to legistimise the abuse and molestation of children, by repealing this resolution. It's a small hope, but I hope it can be confirmed.

OOC: Awwww. :( Well, when you get back, send me a telegram, we'll have to play out that state dinner. :) Have a good trip!

So abusing children is beneficial you're saying. Aha, of course, silly me for not realising that the traumatic experience of sexual abuse might indeed be beneficial for a child and as such we should view it as a perfectly normal and acceptable act. Thank you for removing the splinter from my eyes ambassador.

Speaker Otterby, any other speaker who seriously sounds like they're advocating legitimizing child molestation is clearly not being serious. It's simply a ludicrous position to take. Please, calm yourself. Even the nations furthest from the Deity's Love wouldn't presume to allow such a travesty. We all care about our young, here.

*bows to Otterby slightly*

Rain Beechwood
Magister for the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

OOC: To my regret, I won't be returning to NS or the U.N. for about a month, due to travelling. During that time, I know that a repeal of the FFRA will probably pass, hopefully to be replaced by an equally good equivalent. I hope that other worthy resolutions will be passed. I hope however, that the nations of the U.N. will avoid the temptation to legistimise the abuse and molestation of children, by repealing this resolution. It's a small hope, but I hope it can be confirmed.

OOC: Eeh, I fully expect this to be appealed when someone puts through a repeal, saying that this one is more likely to cause pedophiles to become child molestors, thereby defeating its own purpose, and the fact that the resolution is so vague as to not actually accomplish anything anywhere. Lax nations stay lax, unscrupulous nations stay unscrupuluous, and moral nations stay moral.

Little bit of IC/OOC: Diety's Light bless you, and have a great trip. *grin* And may those thrice-damned otters of your protect you when the Diety is distracted. Heh.

Speaker Otterby, any other speaker who seriously sounds like they're advocating legitimizing child molestation is clearly not being serious. It's simply a ludicrous position to take.

We're incredibly serious. We don't use the actual term "child molestation", of course, because we do not see consensual relationships involving children as molestation in any way, shape or form. But Compadria's perspective certainly views it as such.

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

This issue is just badly written and does nothing:

It says that my nation has to illegalize pornography invoving people under the age of consent in my nation. By the definition of age of consent(being that they can consent to the video/pictures being taken) that already exists, and it doens't stop my nation from having a legal age of consent to 8 years old. So it says I have to illegalize that which is already illegal.

It says that I have to enforce laws I have, just common sense as what is the point of a law that has no enforcement.

And the only thing it really requires is for me to cooperate with outside nations with enforcing child pornography laws. It doesn't say which nations definition of "child pornography", or how much cooperation is required. Assuming I have to help them enforce their laws in my nation, What if a pedophile is running a child pornography site in my nation, where it is legal, and sending the pornography to another nation, where it is illegal, do I have to send him there to face charges or what?

THIS LAW DEFINES NOTHING AND CHANGES NOTHING LEGALLY AND IS JUST A WASTE OF UN INK.

This issue is just badly written and does nothing:

It says that my nation has to illegalize pornography invoving people under the age of consent in my nation. By the definition of age of consent(being that they can consent to the video/pictures being taken) that already exists, and it doens't stop my nation from having a legal age of consent to 8 years old. So it says I have to illegalize that which is already illegal.


Eight, eh? It's nice to know how many pedophile nations there are. Thank you for identifying yourselves. Our armed forces will enjoy invading your sick, child-molesting nations.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

thats not the freakin' point. I put age 8, would you prefer age 10, or 12, or maybe 6 or 4, the point is what is the age of consent is still up to my nation to define, and up to my nation to enforce ANYWAYS so it really doesn't matter if this law passes or not. I haven't seen a national issue about age of consent yet and I am not even sure one exists, so it doesn't matter anyways there as well. The point is this bill does absolutely noting and is a waste of time and ink. It is trying to rush something forward on a trumped up moral issue with no supporting structue defining what the issue is. That is like a UN bill saying I have to illegalize murder and let me decide what type of killings constitute murder and what is self defence, honor killing, justifiable homocide, ect. It would do absolutely nothing, because i get to define what murder is. I could decide that me being the Holy Dictator or Human Insturmentality am the only one really important, so murder is defined as the killing of me purpose or accidental. Everyone else doesn't matter so go ahead and kill them. I would be following the UN resolution to the letter, but doing absolutely nothing different.

Hooray. More pedophile nations. Your nation has been added to the list of those to be invaded in order to protect abused youth around the world.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Let's see here... documents... letters... death threats... hmm... ah, here we are! General Assembly voting schedule...

Oh, fucking hell. I have to listen to this tripe until Saturday? Goddamn. Where's Sulla and his booze?


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

Let's see here... documents... letters... death threats... hmm... ah, here we are! General Assembly voting schedule...

Oh, fucking hell. I have to listen to this tripe until Saturday? Goddamn. Where's Sulla and his booze?

No death threats. Our invasions are remarkably quick and relatively bloodless. And we've got our Cluichstani Whiskey readily available to Dr. Leary.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I have extra popcorn and HotRodia Tequila if y'all want to ease the pain of watching this debate. And surely the Doctor has seen worse than this?

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

This is pretty bad.