NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow ambassadors,

the discussion on the proposed repeal of the Sexual Freedom resolution has made it clear to us that the loophole in the Sexual Privacy Act must be plugged as a matter of urgency. We therefore offer this draft for your consideration.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING the principle of freedom underlying UNR #192, the Sexual Privacy Act,

CONCERNED that the unspecified nature of the Age of Consent allows that principle to be undermined in its entirity,

REQUIRES that each nation shall specify exactly one age for each sapient species of its citizenry at which members of that species are considered physically and emotionally mature enough to make their own decisions. This age shall be taken as the Age Of Consent in any UN resolutions that do not otherwise define the term.

-----
Whilst there are clearly many details to be argued over here, we believe that a succinct resolution that does not attempt to be all-knowing is the correct approach.

OOC: you asked for it. Damn you. I was going to let it go, but you went and got the ambassador all worked up about it, and now the verbose little bugger won't let me get to sleep!

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

I don't know that it would reach "significant" status, being of such a narrow area of effect.

The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING the principle of freedom underlying UNR #192, the Sexual Privacy Act,

CONCERNED that the unspecified nature of the Age of Consent allows that principle to be undermined in its entirity,

Argumentative. Better off establishing that there is some need for this to be defined by the UN without referring to specific shortcomings that you perceive within other resolutions. Not an HoC issue, just makes for better legislation.

REQUIRES that each nation shall specify exactly one age for each sapient species of its citizenry at which members of that species are considered physically and emotionally mature enough to make their own decisions. This age shall be taken as the Age Of Consent in any UN resolutions that do not otherwise define the term.


Short and to the point. Not bad for a start, I guess. However, when broken down a little, there are a number of large issues with your definition as offered.

We'll start with the basic notion that consent equates to choice. By choosing to do something, you are consenting to it. This can broadly refer to a great deal more than just sex.

Many people are capable of forming their own opinions and making their own decisions at an incredibly young age. They can decide what they want to eat and are capable of choosing it off the menu long before they are ready to deal with the choices for serious relationships. They may well be physically and emotionally capable of the decisions required to drive a car, buy maybe not drink. Possibly they are ready to plan their post secondary educational careers, but they may not be prepared for the responsibility of voting. There are those who are more than fully prepared for the decisions about sex, but are completely incapable of the rational thought involved for recreational drug use. Defining a single catch-all age of consent for everything is going to cause more problems than it solves.

There are also issues created when we begin to consider those who do not mature as quickly as most others of their race. They are emotionally or physically stunted, and will not be prepared or ready to deal with these decisions at the same age as everyone else.

There is also the question of those who, for whatever reason, will never reach the level of maturity that you descibe, no matter what age they achieve. Perhaps they have suffered some physical or mental trauma, and they will never be able to responsibly handle consent issues, of any nature, on their own, despite the fact that they would legally be entitled to make these choices.

There are any number of further instances that I could name, but I think these will suffice for now.

Whilst there are clearly many details to be argued over here, we believe that a succinct resolution that does not attempt to be all-knowing is the correct approach.

And yet, what you have created is an horrid abhommination of something succint and trying to be all-knowing.

OOC: you asked for it. Damn you. I was going to let it go, but you went and got the ambassador all worked up about it, and now the verbose little bugger won't let me get to sleep!

I'm hardly worried about it. Believe it or not, we gave the matter a great deal of thought while we were drafting the damn thing. Age of Consent legislation will require a level of complexity that would be unduly cumbersome to any separate piece of legislation. Much easier and safer to assume that nations won't be a pack of pricks about it. Most are pretty fond of the idea that SPA allows them to decide upon the Age of Consent for themselves.

Realistically, all you've got above is something that says nations should choose their own Age of Consent and apply it without discrimination. I might suggest you take a look at such passed UN Resolutions as The Discrimination Accord. Here's a sample.

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:
....
3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,

As consent would be a matter of the application of legal enforcement, nations are already required to apply any legal age of consent that they might use equally and without discrimination. Your entire purpose with this is moot.

I'm going to have to play the Reasonable Nation Theory card on this. (has anyone even created one of those?) The Reasonable Nation Theory would indicate that most nations already have legislation reguarding age of consent on their books which means your resolution is unneeded.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Oh and I also play this card.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3539/notagainru9.jpg

Um... I know that there are insane governments and all out there, but how else could you possibly define "age of consent"? Why is this a burning need? I really don't see the point of this.

I don't know that it would reach "significant" status, being of such a narrow area of effect.
We would certainly be willing to downgrade it to mild.

Argumentative. Better off establishing that there is some need for this to be defined by the UN without referring to specific shortcomings that you perceive within other resolutions. Not an HoC issue, just makes for better legislation.
Perhaps. It would be more apt if the definition were more focused, as you suggest below, but a distinct argument that a unified age of consent is a good thing would indeed be an improvement. We shall add one in the redraft.


We'll start with the basic notion that consent equates to choice. By choosing to do something, you are consenting to it. This can broadly refer to a great deal more than just sex.
Our initial thought was to restrict the definition to sexual activity, but we thought it worth having the more general debate in public.

We are in fact inclined to agree that there are levels of responsibility that do differ in the maturity required to attain them, but believe that there are far fewer of them than you suggest. Why should the maturity required to take charge of a car (a deadly weapon in incautious hands) be greater than that required to decide when and when not to imbibe alcohol (a choice with largely personal consequences)? Why should a person capable of determining the overall direction of their future in educational choices not also be capable of determining the overall direction of their nation at the ballot box? A single age of consent may or may not be a practical matter, but we feel your case needs some amplification.

That said, the fact that we need to debate the matter at all suggests that a single Age of Consent may not be welcome in this chamber, which is a different matter entirely.

There are also issues created when we begin to consider those who do not mature as quickly as most others of their race. They are emotionally or physically stunted, and will not be prepared or ready to deal with these decisions at the same age as everyone else.
We confess to not having considered this particular issue. Clearly our definition must allow for exceptions due to physical or mental infirmity, and we shall amend it accordingly.

There are any number of further instances that I could name, but I think these will suffice for now.
We welcome any further observations you may choose to make on the subject.

As consent would be a matter of the application of legal enforcement, nations are already required to apply any legal age of consent that they might use equally and without discrimination. Your entire purpose with this is moot.
The Discrimination Accord requires that the enforcement be without discrimination. Curiously, it does not require that the law be without discrimination. It is regrettably possible to apply an unfair law equally and without prejudice.

Um... I know that there are insane governments and all out there, but how else could you possibly define "age of consent"? Why is this a burning need? I really don't see the point of this.
The burning need in our eyes is that without such a proviso, the Sexual Privacy Act is a meaningless piece of paper. The United Nations has congratulated itself on producing a resolution to strongly improve the rights of individuals across the globe, yet we cannot possibly regard as strong something which can be so trivially circumvented.

The essential problem is that (modulo our arguments above for generality), nations are currently free to define different ages of consent for different sexual practices, or indeed acts should one wish to get so detailed. This allows a nation to effectively outlaw homosexuality by defining the age of consent for same-sex relationships as something in excess of the normal lifespan of their species, all without contravening any other UN Resolution. One could practice an unpleasant form of population control by applying the same process to any sexual relationships between people of a particular race or species. Were those people unable to emigrate from their home nation, this would be in breach of the Eon Convention on Genocide, but otherwise it would be perfectly legal.

The Reasonable Nations card, incidentally, is an argument we find unconvincing. A Resonable Nation would not have needed the Sexual Privacy Act in the first place. Furthermore, we would observe that sanity in nations is an exceedingly rare thing. One does not have to look far in this chamber to find nations who on particular topics are highly unreasonable. Indeed, one does not have to look far to find nations who are highly unreasonable on many topics. None consider themselves so, perhaps rightly, perhaps not. We rather gather the impression that we are seen as unreasonable on this point, and perhaps when it comes to civil liberties we are as a nation unreasonable. If so, then we are proud to be unreasonable, and we defy anyone to prove that we are wrong so to be.

What does this do?REQUIRES that each nation shall specify exactly one age for each sapient species of its citizenry at which members of that species are considered physically and emotionally mature enough to make their own decisions. This age shall be taken as the Age Of Consent in any UN resolutions that do not otherwise define the term.Isn't that what nations can do already? Therefore this either does nothing, or is merely a blocker to legislation in the future.

Therefore, Hirota opposes this current draft - it's also unlikely you'll be able to convince us otherwise, but we look forward to you attempting to do so.

What does this do?Isn't that what nations can do already? Therefore this either does nothing, or is merely a blocker to legislation in the future.

Therefore, Hirota opposes this current draft - it's also unlikely you'll be able to convince us otherwise, but we look forward to you attempting to do so.
Maybe one time you could try being less wrong about stuff? I think we'd all have a little party. Nations can already do this, but they don't have to, meaning - in the argument of the proposer - they can set different ages of consent for different sexual activities. For example, 16 for heterosexual sex and 160 for homosexual sex.

I think this proposal is dangerously close to being an amendment. And I'm not sure I agree with the rationale. While SPA didn't define 'age of consent', it does only refer to 'the legal age of consent'. That doesn't explicitly permit the creation of what would in effect be multiple ages of consent. But I do at least try to read the pretty words in it.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

in the argument of the proposer - they can set different ages of consent for different sexual activities. For example, 16 for heterosexual sex and 160 for homosexual sex.

That unequal treatment would violate "Rights of Minorities and Women", which declares that "the matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal," and "that one should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex." Also, the Discrimination Accord which demands equal application of "any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law" - and homosexual relations have been guarenteed in more than one UN resolution.

And I'm sure there's more of the equality and gay rights stuff. I didn't even look very hard.

First, I can't believe you're invoking that hunk of junk.
That unequal treatment would violate "Rights of Minorities and Women", which declares that "the matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal,"
That's part of the preamble. It has no force.
and "that one should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex."
Damn, you're right. 'express their love' is so clear and precise there's no possible way it could be open to abusive interpretation.
Also, the Discrimination Accord which demands equal application of "any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law"
Yes. But the right granted by the Sexual Privacy is to adults, as defined by that resolution. So it would still be possible to set different ages of consent.
homosexual relations have been guarenteed in more than one UN resolution.
Textual reference, please.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

If one were to do as you intend, and dedicate an entire resolution to the matter of an age of consent, then one could plausibly address the matter in a way that is somewhat appropriate. I don't know that I can think of all of the details that need to be accounted for, but here's some points that you may want to consider using RL examples.

Sexual Consent:
Many nations have differing ages of consent for standard sexual intercourse. In Canada, it's somewhere around 14, in other nations, it's 18. There are probably some that don't have any mandated age of sexual consent. Even within those guidelines are variations. For example, those in positions of authority (Police, teachers, etc) are restricted to sexual intercourse with those 18 years of age and over in Canada, due to the possible abuse of their power.

Some of these nations, which are arguably fairly reasonable, have set different age requirements for different types of sexual acts for reasons other than religious or oppressive. For example, in Canada, anal intercourse requires the participants to be a few years older than 14 (I don't remember the exact number). The reasoning on record is that people at this younger age are more prone to sexual confusion and experimentation, and anal intercourse (apparently) carries higher risks of detrimental physical side-effects.

Whether this reasoning is accurate or not is somewhat irrelevant for the purposes of your proposed legislation. It is entirely likely that there is some nation out there whose citizens are capable of various forms of sexual congress, some of which they will be readily capable and prepared for by the age of 14 or so, and others that require a level of physical and emotional maturity not normally achieved by their people until they reach the age of 25.

I think your best bet would be to target the discriminatory application of these requirements across race, religion, or political lines, instead of aiming at sexual preference or orientation.

Part of my reasoning for that runs along the lines of this: In Nation X, it is felt that their citizens are physically and emotionally prepared for the intimacy of sexual intercourse at the age of 12, but that their citizens are not emotionally responsible enough to deal with the risks of pregnancy until the age of 16. As a result, they have set the age of consent for manual, oral and anal intercourse to 12, but the actual act of vaginal intercourse is prohibitted unless both participants are at least 16. This could easily be construed as discriminatory application of the law towards heterosexuals, but the reasoning behind it is sound as they simply try to protect their younger citizens from situations that they are not yet prepared to cope with.

For any other situations (alcohol, driving, smoking, voting, etc), the same basic rule applies. You're better off simply mandating that nations cannot apply these laws in any form of discriminatory fashion as regards race, religion, etc.

Or just don't do it at all. This isn't an international matter.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Or just don't do it at all. This isn't an international matter.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

There is that. You'd definitely meet with a great deal of resistance from some of us.

I think this proposal is dangerously close to being an amendment.
We must concur that there is some danger of this, which is another reason why we decided to try unifying the age of consent across subjects first rather than merely sticking to sexual union. Our argument that it stands on its own would be weaker in that case, though still viable in our opinion.

And I'm not sure I agree with the rationale. While SPA didn't define 'age of consent', it does only refer to 'the legal age of consent'. That doesn't explicitly permit the creation of what would in effect be multiple ages of consent.
It also doesn't explicitly deny the creation of the same, therefore implicitly allowing nations to make their own choice in the matter. Hence our concern.

We appreciate Ambassador Madison's candour, and crave his indulgence in continuing to challenge us in such a constructive manner.

Many nations have differing ages of consent for standard sexual intercourse. In Canada, it's somewhere around 14, in other nations, it's 18.And in the States it varies from state to state, with varying levels of tolerance. Some states don't care as long as the youngest partner is older than 12, and the older partner is no more than 4 years older, until the younger partner is 17, when the rules are done with. Other, stricter, states have very hard laws, which is how a pair of 14 year olds now have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives (they're both child rapists and victims of child rape for having sex with each other because of the laws).

For any other situations (alcohol, driving, smoking, voting, etc), the same basic rule applies. You're better off simply mandating that nations cannot apply these laws in any form of discriminatory fashion as regards race, religion, etc.Again, borrowing from the States, you have (in general):

16: Can Drive
17/18: Sexual majority
18: Able to buy cigarettes, vote, and enlist/get drafted
21: Drink alcohol
30: Run for Senate
35: Run for President

Or just don't do it at all. This isn't an international matter.

Nor were any of the resolutions which provoked us to begin this drafting process, a fact which did not prevent any of them from gaining the considerable support required to become part of UN law.

Nor were any of the resolutions which provoked us to begin this drafting process, a fact which did not prevent any of them from gaining the considerable support required to become part of UN law.


Doesn't mean you've got to add to the pile.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Maybe one time you could try being less wrong about stuff?Maybe one time, Gruenberk, you could drop your little campaign against me.

Maybe one time you could try being less wrong about stuff?Maybe one time, Gruenberk, you could drop your little campaign against me.

Time and place, gentlemen.

OOC: That's real neat, but it was an in-character post. Do you have a response beyond a brilliant pun?

OOC: That's real neat, but it was an in-character post. Do you have a response beyond a brilliant pun?

I'll be good. Didn't realize it was still IC. Sorry to interfere.

For any other situations (alcohol, driving, smoking, voting, etc), the same basic rule applies. You're better off simply mandating that nations cannot apply these laws in any form of discriminatory fashion as regards race, religion, etc.

Excellent, this is the sort of constructive discussion that we had hoped for, and we thank the Kivistan ambassador for the benefit of his cogitations. We suspect that this negative -- in the sense of defining what a nation may not do -- approach may be less intrusive, although it leaves us with the task of working through all possible forms of discrimination. Since this task is not dissimilar in nature to the requirements of the positive approach to list all reasonable exceptions to a unified date, we should be happy to take it on.

OOC: That's real neat, but it was an in-character post. Do you have a response beyond a brilliant pun?I don't think this is especially the place nor the time to discuss your little irrational grievance against me, and I'll apologise to all for continuing this hijack.

Still, I'd have thought since you are so eager to split the IC and OOC you could have done a little better to keep your OOC boo-hoos out of another nation and actually act with some decorum and dignity. But then, I suppose if that was the case, you'd have done so with Quangonia.

Apologies again for perpetuating the hijack Gobbannium.

So that's a 'no'. (Though I'd note there's absolutely no reason Madison wouldn't adopt that attitude to you, given he's disagreed with you in the past, such as on Extraordinary Rendition, where the tone was not notably different.)

IC: I can't help but feel that part of the problem of this debate is the fact that the UN has built up its discrimination laws in a very haphazard manner. If we continue that kind of awkward architecture it's not going to get any better. Maybe if someone - the representative of Gobbannium, or whoever - could post what the main articles of UN law are, where they overlap, and where they leave gaps, it'd be more obvious how to proceed. For example: Rights of Minorities and Women has been invoked as one layer of protection. Yet that resolution is a big poo, and lots of perfectly nice people want to see it die of cancer. Equally, Discrimination Accord is a generally well regarded resolution that's been referenced in past repeals of redundant legislation.

I don't see how we can responsibly foreclose the possibility of unfair discrimination without working out where the problems presently lie.
It also doesn't explicitly deny the creation of the same, therefore implicitly allowing nations to make their own choice in the matter. Hence our concern.
True. And I know this is untenably weak, but it's at least my 'feeling' that the way it's written makes it apply only to one common age of consent.

Thinking about it, I'm probably confusing majority with consent. So I withdraw and concede that argument.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Again, borrowing from the States, you have (in general):

16: Can Drive
17/18: Sexual majority
18: Able to buy cigarettes, vote, and enlist/get drafted
21: Drink alcohol
30: Run for Senate
35: Run for President
Since we're talking about RL, I'll drop OOC. As you point out earlier, this is a gross simplification across the States, where federal law doesn't get to define matters at least. Sexual majority is just the age that is most widely varying, including some states who've had their laws on the subject struck down and are left in an interesting situation, and others which are quite obviously discriminatory.

[Back IC]: We are interested to see this example of variation, though we have to admit we still see no overriding reason for any of these ages not to be unified. In particular, we regard with considerable alarm the thought of preventing anyone from running for high political office (if we understand the reference correctly) until they are old enough to be set in their ways, thus preventing the freshness of youth from invigorating the legislative process. There are many practical reasons that may prevent younger people from standing for this Senedd, but forbiddance seems somewhat inequitable.

Begging the pardon of the Kivistan delegation, but this seems to suggest that there is merit after all in pursuing a wider agenda than sexual majority.

In particular, we regard with considerable alarm the thought of preventing anyone from running for high political office (if we understand the reference correctly) until they are old enough to be set in their ways, thus preventing the freshness of youth from invigorating the legislative process. There are many practical reasons that may prevent younger people from standing for this Senedd, but forbiddance seems somewhat inequitable.
Not to get too sidetracked, but the imposition of an age limit for running for office isn't always for these reasons. Let's say a country picked 35 for President, and let's say that at about that time the life expectancy was in the 40-50 range. It would prove an admittedly arbitrary check to 'presidency for life': people wouldn't live long enough to establish dynastic rule. They may have been interested in experience, but counting backwards probably also enters into it sometimes.

I would suggest keeping political office separate from this aim of unification (if I'm understanding your intent correctly). Setting a common age of consent for broadly making individual decisions about one's own person (sexual relations, drug use, medical procedures) does seem reasonably distinct from holding political office, which necessarily suddenly does become other people's business.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

"I can see no way in which this will affect the CWG, as we've got a perfectly serviceable age of consent already. So I don't really care. It seems to me it'd just be another letter I'd have to write to some UN council stating what our age of consent is. I understand that it's possible that some nations have no age of consent whatsoever, however, so I'll let y'all run with that crusade. Furthermore, you are, once again, merely asking them to create one, so they'll make it whatever the hell they want, thus nullifying the effect.

"The Great Commonwealth abstains."

Question. Why do we need a UN-wide age of consent? What difference does it make if the age of consent is different in Yelda than it is in Gobbannium or Ausserland?

I can't help but feel that part of the problem of this debate is the fact that the UN has built up its discrimination laws in a very haphazard manner. If we continue that kind of awkward architecture it's not going to get any better. Maybe if someone - the representative of Gobbannium, or whoever - could post what the main articles of UN law are, where they overlap, and where they leave gaps, it'd be more obvious how to proceed.

"We would be glad to take on the work Ambassador Madison suggests--" His Highness breaks off rather suddenly, clutching at his leg and glaring at his Permanant Undersecretary. Cerys smiles sweetly back in a manner suggesting that His Highness can do the bloody trawling himself, she's got important things to do. "But that may have to wait until further clerks arrive from Gobbannium City."

(Or OOC: I'm not going to have time to do that for several days, since my next couple of evenings are spoken for.)

Question. Why do we need a UN-wide age of consent? What difference does it make if the age of consent is different in Yelda than it is in Gobbannium or Ausserland?

Hence, my previous remark (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12325011&postcount=11).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

First, we'd like to give the representative of Gobbannium a small round of applause for making an effort to fix a perceived problem, rather than just whining about it, as so many members of this Assembly do. We really don't share his concern about NSUNR #192. To be honest, we think this whole issue is a yawner.

That being said, we would support this proposal, provided that language was added limiting its application only to issues of sexual conduct. As currently drafted, we see too many potential problems of misunderstanding and misapplication.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Question. Why do we need a UN-wide age of consent? What difference does it make if the age of consent is different in Yelda than it is in Gobbannium or Ausserland?
It doesn't matter if the age of consent differs in our various nations, except inasmuch as those of us who subject ourselves to democratic rule have to answer to our electorates. You will note that for this very reason our first attempt at drafting a resolution makes no mention of what such an age should be.

What does matter is that that age is applied without prejudice or discrimination within our countries, for otherwise at the very least the Sexual Privacy Act can be trivially circumvented.

Not things which should derail your idea, but certainly things to consider:

Universal Bill of rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27), article 4.
"Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation"

I know the obvious argument is that it says "human beings". But the category is human rights, and it still affected every nation within the UN, human or otherwise.

The Sexes Rights Law (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030222&postcount=70)
"That the rights of all sexes in society are equal, excepting only in the conditions below and that this equality must be preserved in the interests of the social and community rights of all citizens of Nation States United Nation member states"

You could make a case with this one... especially if you tie in....

Rights of minorities and women (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7565919&postcount=81)
"The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal."

Says to me you can't legislate differently regarding those conditions - such as race (which could be open for repeal if you argued that some species need to be legislated differently). I agree with Kelssek on this.

Discrimination Accord (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8689431&postcount=100)
"REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law....

5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;"

Which says to me that you have to apply rights equally to all citizens.

These are things which you are going to have to consider in a proposal, regardless of their quality. Or, if you can't round them, consider repealling those which stand in your way.

Says to me you can't legislate differently regarding those conditions - such as race (which could be open for repeal if you argued that some species need to be legislated differently).race != species

race != speciesProbably true, which undermines the need for a repeal. <shrugs>

I can't help but feel that part of the problem of this debate is the fact that the UN has built up its discrimination laws in a very haphazard manner. If we continue that kind of awkward architecture it's not going to get any better. Maybe if someone - the representative of Gobbannium, or whoever - could post what the main articles of UN law are, where they overlap, and where they leave gaps, it'd be more obvious how to proceed.

Having reached the half-way point in our attempt to produce the concordance suggested above, we thought that a brief interim report might be appropriate.

In summary, there is a major problem of categorisation and intent of resolutions. We are not talking here about the blurred line between Human Rights, Social Justice and (in one case) Moral Decency, we speak instead of the distinction between declaring that something is a human right, and mandating (or more usually feebly suggesting) what nations shall do to support a right. The Rights of Minorities and Women (#80) is an example of the former, while the Discrimination Accord (#99) is an unusually strong example of the latter.

We differ from member nations so happily introducing repeal motions at present in believing that both of these types of resolution are important, and both have their place supporting each other. Declared rights can safely be discussed on their own merits, and established or not as the UN sees fit. Once established, arguments about how to enshrine them in law are not tangled up with arguments about the rights themselves. Sadly as Ambassador Madison observed earlier, resolutions have been built up haphazardly, with the result that much declaration of nothing in particular has been made, as have various helpful suggestions of things that nations could do if they particularly felt like it.

In addition, some important early motions of this assembly are fatally flawed by their humanocentric nature. Only humans under the age of 18 are afforded any protections by the Child Protection Act, for instance, and the honoured representative from the Most Glorious Hack is not covered by any provision of the Universal Bill of Rights. We most assuredly do not look forward to the Repeal-and-Replace process necessary to fix these problems.

Incidentally, to cross thread somewhat, we would suggest that those nations eager to repeal useless legislation have unaccountably missed the greatest chocolate teapot in this august body's trophy cabinet. Resolution #20, 'RBH' Replacement, is without doubt the most miserable attempt we have ever seen to pretend to care about something. Essentially it states that everyone has a right to basic healthcare unless their government can't be bothered. Why was this remarkably offensive piece of legislation ever allowed to be passed?

REQUIRES that each nation shall specify exactly one age. This age shall be taken as the Age Of Consent in any UN resolutions that do not otherwise define the term.!

My concern is this part of this proposal. As if we establish an age for our citizens then later somebody comes along and sets it in some area at a different level then which proposal is to be followed.


Current have seen a number of proposals that enter an age in them that would cause conflict with our established age of consent. Thus resolution does nothing to help stop that but incourages it. As it leaves it unclear as to which has preference. Laws established on this one or one set for say working in certain fields or marriages or military service for children to an age of say over 18 when in my nation children become full citizens by age ten thus have all rights of such citizenship and also are required to serve in our military for a time..

Only humans under the age of 18 are afforded any protections by the Child Protection Act, for instance, and the honoured representative from the Most Glorious Hack is not covered by any provision of the Universal Bill of Rights. We most assuredly do not look forward to the Repeal-and-Replace process necessary to fix these problems.You could say humans are the only species covered by human rights. I disagree. <shrugs>

You could say humans are the only species covered by human rights. I disagree. <shrugs>

Unfortunately the Bill of Rights is quite specific: "All human beings have the right to..." etc.

In fact we did exaggerate slightly. The UBR gives the aforementioned honoured representative the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and holds her accountable should she violate any article of the bill. But that's it.

Current have seen a number of proposals that enter an age in them that would cause conflict with our established age of consent. Thus resolution does nothing to help stop that but incourages it.
While we are not entirely certain that we have decoded your submission correctly, and would disagree somewhat with your conclusion here, you are quite correct that the number of resolutions specifying various different ages for various different purposes are a barrier to this proposal. Such resolutions, however, are overly humanocentric as well as overly prescriptive, and some repeal and replace should be seriously considered for them.