NationStates Jolt Archive

Fellow United Nations delegates, we would ask for your advice and comments on this our second attempt to draft a proposal on this subject. We admit up front that we are not entirely satisfied with this yet, and would therefore be extremely happy to be advised on alternative wordings as well as any deeper issues delegates may have with our suggestion.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

NOTING the long stand of UN resolutions against discrimination in all its forms,

UNEASY despite this that "equality under the law" is not the same as "equal in law,"

RECOGNISING the importance of consent to sexual activity as a legal tool,

ASSERTING that each nation state has the sovereign right and responsibility to determine when it believes people are, in general, capable of giving such consent,

CONCERNED nonetheless that different ages of consent can be set for different practices, thus legally creating discriminatory practices,

FURTHER CONCERNED that such practices are widespread,

REQUIRES that the age or ages at which a person may legally consent to any manner of sexual congress with one or more other persons and whatever non-living objects they choose to employ shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity,

AND ASSERTS that any individual's private sexual practices with no living partner but whatever non-living objects they choose to employ shall not be subject to any age restriction.

Our reasons for wishing to introduce this legislation were something that sprang to our attention on our first entry into these hallowed halls. At that time, the Sexual Privacy Act (UNR #192) had just passed, and we paused to admire it as we entered. We were greatly impressed with the noble intent and clear wording of the resolution, but were struck immediately by the flaw which rendered those aspirations entirely circumventable: in its efforts to avoid trespassing upon the sovereignty of national law while still requiring that law to be non-discriminatory, the resolution assumed that "age of consent" was itself a non-discriminatory concept.

Observation suggests that in minor ways, this is rarely so. Given that, it is but a small step to noticing that any nation which wished to bypass the provisions of the Sexual Privacy Act could do so by setting multiple ages of consent to allow activity that they approved of while effectively criminalising behaviour that they disapproved of. An obvious example would be a homophobic government requiring that a male human could only consent to anal sex on reaching the age of 157. More inobviously but no less offensively, that same improbable age could be applied to any secual activity by blacks, or gypsies, or any other minority one wished to persecute. In extremis it allows for a peculiarly bloodless form of eugenic genocide which would be hard to prosecute as such.

We freely confess that our first attempt to address this issue fell foul of the multiversal nature of the NS United Nations. We hope that this attempt will be found more reasonable, though we suspect that its attempt to minimise intrusiveness will still leave issues uncovered.

We are, as ever, grateful to all those who seek to correct and improve upon our initial thoughts in this matter.

REQUIRES that the age or ages at which a sentient individual may legally consent to any manner of sexual congress with one or more other sentient individuals and/or one or more non-living objects shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity.

Why do you need the portion on living objects? What are you trying to do there?


I don't see this as especially necessary...
REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

2. FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual who has reached the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place.

Your assertion contradicts your requirement.

Whose assertion?

The Asserting clause in the proposal contradicts the Requires clause. I wasn't referring to you.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/notagain.jpg

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm unsure about this. This topic is already dealt with in a state issue (the one concerning teenage pregnancy), and that, combined with Resolution 80 (Rights of Minorities and Women) kinda makes this Resolution a little superfluous.

Of course I'm up for correction, if anyone wishes to provide it, but that's where I stand on this right now.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

Why do you need the portion on living objects? What are you trying to do there?
Assuming that the honoured representative meant the portion on non-living objects, we were seeking to ensure that the subjects of toys, bondage, and suchlike fetishes were covered without taking the risky approach of attempting to enumerate them. We could not begin to claim the experience required to make such list complete.

(OOC: also this is a family newsgroup!)

The short response to the specific clauses of resolutions that your raise is that equal treatment under the law does not require the law itself to be equal.

Your assertion contradicts your requirement.
Not exactly, though we appreciate that the wording of our assertion probably needs more care. We do not seek to tell any nation what age they consider their citizens to be sexually mature, but we do seek to have them apply that decision in a consistent manner.

I'm unsure about this. This topic is already dealt with in a state issue (the one concerning teenage pregnancy), and that, combined with Resolution 80 (Rights of Minorities and Women) kinda makes this Resolution a little superfluous.
Not having experienced the state issue of which you speak, we cannot be certain of its relevance; we are, however, reasonably sure that without access to significant medical or magical assistance it is unlikely to apply to homosexual teenagers in most human-oriented cultures.

The resolution on the Rights of Minorities and Women, while a praiseworthy piece of legislation in itself, does not we feel address this issue in any but the most roundabout terms. Articles I and IV (equality of race/culture and the right to express love for a member of the same sex) would appear to be the most applicable, and a competant legal advisor would not have to think terribly hard in order to justify almost any settlement of ages of consent as complying with their terms.

we were seeking to ensure that the subjects of toys, bondage, and suchlike fetishes were covered without taking the risky approach of attempting to enumerate them.So when someone under the age of consent makes use of a sex toy, who gets charged for statatory rape? The minor in question? The toy?


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

You might be setting yourself up for a fall by including 'sentient' and 'non-living', as many will be confused (and many will refuse to recognise the existence of non-human sentients). If things get really wild, ties might be loosened and a debate about 'sapient' vs. sentient kick off! This could be avoided, by simply referring to 'persons' and 'consensual acts' (this would exclude bestiality - or could be interpreted to do so - by virtue of animals not being competent to give consent).

I also wondered about the issue of psychological maturity, and the possibility of states who don't set single age laws, but rather base their decisions off individual evaluations, but then this proposal may not prevent their doing so.

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

Not having experienced the state issue of which you speak, we cannot be certain of its relevance; we are, however, reasonably sure that without access to significant medical or magical assistance it is unlikely to apply to homosexual teenagers in most human-oriented cultures.

The resolution on the Rights of Minorities and Women, while a praiseworthy piece of legislation in itself, does not we feel address this issue in any but the most roundabout terms. Articles I and IV (equality of race/culture and the right to express love for a member of the same sex) would appear to be the most applicable, and a competant legal advisor would not have to think terribly hard in order to justify almost any settlement of ages of consent as complying with their terms.

Hack, I'm sure you know what's in the issue queue, what can you say about the relevance of the issue I stated in my earlier post (the one concerning teen pregnancy) to this resolution proposal, just out of curiosity? (If it doesn't reveal too much.)

The teenage pregnancy issue doesn't deal with age of consent.

This actually reads as an amendment to Sexual Privacy Act and is probably illegal.

Reality Check:

Canada:
Age of restricted consent (+/- 5 years): 12
Age of general consent: 16
Age of consent for anal sex: 18

I BELIEVE the concern could be towards a nation deciding to make the age of consent for (eg) anal sex being 500 years old instead. I hope I don't need to spell it out where the concern with that is.

2. FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual who has reached the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place.

4. FORBIDS governments, their agents and agencies from interfering with, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults, subject to the exemptions below.

In #2, we say an adult is someone who has reached the age of consent and then asign the protections in #4. However, the age of consent can be varied for different activities (just as the age of consent for sex and the age of consent for medical operations is often different) thus you can actually nullify the protections in #4 by fiddling with the age of consent for certain activities. So long as they make the age of consent for vaginal sex reasonable, there isn't really a reason to care when that age of consent is.

---------------------------

Gob: this proposal has absolutely zero chance of passing if you cannot sell the case that it needs to be done. Whether in the text of your proposal (where I think is an excellent place to start) or in your arguments in your thread, you need to make the case that age of consent can be varied, that age of consent can be used to restrict certain acts that the society thinks is morally unacceptable (and, thus, going against the intent of both UNR #7 and UNR #192) and that this is something worth addressing. Yes, there are individuals such as Rubina who fully understood you without an extensive explanation, but the MAJORITY of the UN core don't have a clue what you're going on about and they are vastly more capable of understanding loopholes and errors in legislation than the majority of the general UN membership. Hell, I didn't have a clue about what was going on for the longest time.

Start there.

Where does this age of consent fall in interspecies relationships?

This actually reads as an amendment to Sexual Privacy Act and is probably illegal.

SPA deals with government monitoring into sexual activities between consenting adults but doesn't look at the actual age of consent or its uniformity. So long as consent is the sole focus of the resolution's activities it stands on its own and so long as the argument is discrimination, it has an actual effect.

So it's neither amendment nor HoC so I think it's fine legality wise

Where does this age of consent fall in interspecies relationships?

REQUIRES that the age or ages at which a sentient individual may legally consent to any manner of sexual congress with one or more other sentient individuals and/or one or more non-living objects shall be set without discrimination with regard to any factor except for biological maturity.

Your assertion contradicts your requirement.

The intent is to let nations decide the age of consent, but to tie all varying ages of consent (for sexual activity) together. So if a nation wants to make it so that black male human with an orange female Trilliby can have sex at 16 and 29 respectively, then a while female human can have sex with a purple male Trilliby at 16 and 29 respectively by this UN resolution. The nation decides the 16 and 29, they just aren't allowed to discriminate.

Similarly, if a man and woman can have vaginal sex at 16, they can have anal sex at 16 and two men can have anal sex at 16.

That's the theory of what is being aimed for.

The intent is to let nations decide the age of consent, but to tie all varying ages of consent (for sexual activity) together. So if a nation wants to make it so that black male human with an orange female Trilliby can have sex at 16 and 29 respectively, then a while female human can have sex with a purple male Trilliby at 16 and 29 respectively by this UN resolution. The nation decides the 16 and 29, they just aren't allowed to discriminate.

Similarly, if a man and woman can have vaginal sex at 16, they can have anal sex at 16 and two men can have anal sex at 16.

That's the theory of what is being aimed for.

Well, yes and no. The way I read it, the only factor that nations can use to determine the age of consent is biological maturity, so there will be no discrimination in its application. That's the "yes". The "no" part is with your example equating the age of the woman to the man. There are some species amongst which the male and female, or their rough equivalents, biologically mature at different rates, such that the "female" might be biologically ready at 13 (as an example number plucked from the air), while the "male" might not reach that maturity until 17 or so (another number from the air).

I could also imagine scenarios where, biologically, an individual might be mature enough for certain types of sexual intercourse, but not for others, such that vaginal, anal, oral, and whatever else people might use, would be treated differently under the law of different nations. So long as biological maturity was the only factor considered for setting these laws, they would be permissable with this proposal. That would still mean that the male Purple Trilliby would reach age of consent at the age as a Golden Trilliby, since the only difference between the two are in skin pigmentation. So, too, would Trillibies of the Castor's Order, since religion would have no bearing.

{OOC: I hope I didn't just misuse someone's actual rp'ed national people with all that}

It's crazy. The more I think about this proposal, the more I can see it working. Maybe I need a couple of days off. It would still allow nations to set their own ages of consent, but would require that they are set equally across all of their peoples without discrimination. No, it might not be entirely necessary, but it could definitely clear up any debate surrounding the issue within past and future resolutions.

SPA deals with government monitoring into sexual activities between consenting adults but doesn't look at the actual age of consent or its uniformity. So long as consent is the sole focus of the resolution's activities it stands on its own and so long as the argument is discrimination, it has an actual effect.

So it's neither amendment nor HoC so I think it's fine legality wiseSeeing as how this reads specifically as a modification of SPA's declaration of rights after age of consent, and that this is entirely intended as an amendment to that provision of SPA, I just can't see how this is is anything but illegal.

It's crazy. The more I think about this proposal, the more I can see it working. Maybe I need a couple of days off. It would still allow nations to set their own ages of consent, but would require that they are set equally across all of their peoples without discrimination. No, it might not be entirely necessary, but it could definitely clear up any debate surrounding the issue within past and future resolutions.
We thank the honoured delegate for succinctly spelling out our intent.

The "get-out" that you noted was entirely deliberate on our part. We are neither a doctor nor a biologist, and with the greatest respect to those who do claim those title in this chamber, we are well aware that the law is at its most assenine when attempting to define science. If there is any truth to the reasoning behind the fictional examples that you and Ambassador Macdougall gave, we would not wish to prevent the law flexing appropriately. It is when there is no such justification that we call such laws what they are: discrimination.

So when someone under the age of consent makes use of a sex toy, who gets charged for statatory rape? The minor in question? The toy?
When two people under the age of consent none the less have sex, who gets charged then? Under such circumstances, the law will always be somewhat arbitrary and silly. What we are concerned to avoid is a lone woman (for example) over the age of consent for congress with a man being prevented from using a vibrator because some crumbling old theocrat cannot cope with the concept.

Seeing as how this reads specifically as a modification of SPA's declaration of rights after age of consent, and that this is entirely intended as an amendment to that provision of SPA, I just can't see how this is is anything but illegal.
This proposal modifies nothing in the Sexual Privacy Act; what it modifies is the freedom that a nation has in defining age of consent, a concept that the SPA explicitly regards as external to its purview. Thus while the two interact, each is independent of the other and there is no alteration to the wording or (more importantly) the intent of the Sexual Privacy Act.


The SPA brought this issue to our attention and throws it into sharp focus, but this is a grey area of discrimination all of its own. We cannot accept that it is right that national laws can allow a boy and girl of a particular age to engage in penetrative sex and potentially start a family, yet forbid two boys of that same age to engage in frottage, to pick an example where biological determinants should not muddy the question. This is perfectly legal despite the considerable amount of anti-discrimination legislation that the UN has passed, and we regret to say that it is extremely common. That state of affairs is one which should move us all to act.

We thank delegates for their remarks thus far. We shall amend our draft at some point tomorrow.

Seeing as how this reads specifically as a modification of SPA's declaration of rights after age of consent, and that this is entirely intended as an amendment to that provision of SPA, I just can't see how this is is anything but illegal.

Amendments can only be illegal under two ways:

1) They are a modification of the TEXT of the original resolution. This proposal doesn't do that. It works in addendum to the text of the original resolution which isn't an amendment so long as it isn't illegal under #2
2) They are a House of Cards violation - read: if the original is repealed, it still has an standing effect upon nations. Removing discrimination on age of consent is still a human rights issue even if we didn't have SPA.

The intent of the proposer has nothing to do with legality. Yes, we are filling a hole in SPA and that is the intent, but that doesn't make it an amendment.

Yes, we are filling a hole in SPA and that is the intent, but that doesn't make it an amendment.

I concur with this interpretation of the amendments rule.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator

When two people under the age of consent none the less have sex, who gets charged then?Both are. As recent cases in RL have shown.

What we are concerned to avoid is a lone woman (for example) over the age of consent for congress with a man being prevented from using a vibrator because some crumbling old theocrat cannot cope with the concept.That's nice, but you completely failed to answer my question. Since you know about the insanity these laws can cause, why not fix it when you still can, instead of having nations set up Vibrator Prisons? If you're going to set an age of consent for masturbation-with-toys (or require nations to do so), you need to address what happens when someone under that age exgages in self gratification.

The intent of the proposer has nothing to do with legality. Yes, we are filling a hole in SPA and that is the intent, but that doesn't make it an amendment.Yes, but why can't the mandate simply be that consent laws must be reasonably similar and proportionate to a person's normal maturity level at a certain age? Why do we need to single out sex? It's just silly, and conjures up bad memories of the SPA debate.

Yes, but why can't the mandate simply be that consent laws must be reasonably similar and proportionate to a person's normal maturity level at a certain age? Why do we need to single out sex? It's just silly, and conjures up bad memories of the SPA debate.

Because age of consent for sex =/= age of consent for abortion =/= age of consent for many medical treatments =/= age of consent for "pulling the plug" =/= age of consent for all sorts of other things in RL!

In Canada, I believe it's 12/16/18 (by numbers previously stated), 0, 16 (special cases that often require legal rights)/18, 18, anywhere from 16-25 (!) (depending) respectively

I still maintain that this idea is nothing more than legislating for the sake of legislating. If you were to do a poll of UN members, I'm sure that 99% of them would already have reasonable* age of consent laws on the books. Which means that there's really no reason to do this.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*in other words, the age isn't absurdly low or absurdly high when compared to the lifespan of the nation's inhabitants

Because age of consent for sex =/= age of consent for abortion =/= age of consent for many medical treatments =/= age of consent for "pulling the plug" =/= age of consent for all sorts of other things in RL!

In Canada, I believe it's 12/16/18 (by numbers previously stated), 0, 16 (special cases that often require legal rights)/18, 18, anywhere from 16-25 (!) (depending) respectivelyWhich is why I said "proportionate to a person's normal maturity at a certain age." I mean, if we're going to micromanage nations' consent laws, we might as well go the distance and micromanage all of them, instead of just sex, right?

Which is why I said "proportionate to a person's normal maturity at a certain age." I mean, if we're going to micromanage nations' consent laws, we might as well go the distance and micromanage all of them, instead of just sex, right?

I fail to see how tieing them together is micromanaging. We aren't telling them what their age of consent should be, just that they can't be discriminatory about it.

I still maintain that this idea is nothing more than legislating for the sake of legislating. If you were to do a poll of UN members, I'm sure that 99% of them would already have reasonable* age of consent laws on the books. Which means that there's really no reason to do this.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*in other words, the age isn't absurdly low or absurdly high when compared to the lifespan of the nation's inhabitants

1) Remember that in case a loophole debate ever comes up - 99% of nations follow resolutions without us needing to close loopholes anyways.

2) Meh, I care more about failures to communicate than effect on this proposal. I'm honestly not bothered if it actually passes or not.

So when someone under the age of consent makes use of a sex toy, who gets charged for statatory rape? The minor in question? The toy?

It had better not be the manufacturer of the toy!

Sincerely,
Bala (http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9276/bala8if.jpg)
Deputy Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Vice President of Marketing and Public Relations, CPESL

So when someone under the age of consent makes use of a sex toy, who gets charged for statatory rape? The minor in question? The toy?
---------------
That's nice, but you completely failed to answer my question. Since you know about the insanity these laws can cause, why not fix it when you still can, instead of having nations set up Vibrator Prisons? If you're going to set an age of consent for masturbation-with-toys (or require nations to do so), you need to address what happens when someone under that age exgages in self gratification.

As with other contraband objects, the legal outcome of under-age use and possession is most frequently not a specific charge, but a designation of juvenile delinquent (or PINS: person in need of supervision) for the underage individual and a misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, if an adult was involved in any way. Your scenario, lacking more than one actor-of-own-volition, wouldn't meet a definition of rape of any kind.

Inclusion of sex toys in the context of consent would have a greater impact on who could purchase and possess such... much like cigarettes.

Where does this age of consent fall in interspecies relationships?As the examples used by Kivisto show, different ages for the different species, if based on biological maturity, would be fine. I also wondered about the issue of psychological maturityThe difficulty with allowing a black letter exclusion for psychological maturity is that it allows nations to define someone participating in any particular sex act as a priori psychologically immature.
Yes, but why can't the mandate simply be that consent laws must be reasonably similar and proportionate to a person's normal maturity level at a certain age? Why do we need to single out sex? It's just silly, and conjures up bad memories of the SPA debate.Because the concept of consent is primarily used for sex and medical treatment? Generally when speaking of other "woohoo, you're an adult now" issues, a different concept, "age of majority" is operative. Treating the two the same (at least in certain parts of RL) would give us 12-yr-olds buying liquor or very, very frustrated 21-yr-olds.

The proposal text has been edited to incorporate comments thus far.

Both are. As recent cases in RL have shown.
Logically, then, the minor would be the one to be charged, but it would be a matter for individual nations to decide, and no one has ever accused the mass of nations of being logical.

That's nice, but you completely failed to answer my question. Since you know about the insanity these laws can cause, why not fix it when you still can, instead of having nations set up Vibrator Prisons? If you're going to set an age of consent for masturbation-with-toys (or require nations to do so), you need to address what happens when someone under that age exgages in self gratification.
It depends to an extent on the nature of fix that is envisioned, Dr Leary, which in our clumsy way we were hoping you might offer some indication of. We have removed the case within the proposal for now, since it is something of a side issue, but we would ask if you see the case of mechanically-assisted auto-stimulation (amongst others) as being something which should be declared always legal (i.e. no age of consent should apply), something which should not be within this proposal in the devout but forlorn hope that no nation would ever create sexually suppressive laws that way, or some other option which we ask you to suggest the possibility of.

I still maintain that this idea is nothing more than legislating for the sake of legislating. If you were to do a poll of UN members, I'm sure that 99% of them would already have reasonable* age of consent laws on the books. Which means that there's really no reason to do this.
First, we would observe that 1% of the UN membership is still a large number of nations. That alone is reason to legislate as far as we are concerned.

Second, if we allowed this argument to rule, then no loophole fixing would ever be done. The business of Double Taxation that the representative of Gwenstefani has brought to our attention applies to few individuals and companies across the United Nations, yet we hope you would not consider it a waste of this chamber's time having discussed it. Almost all repeal arguments would fall flat; so a resolution does little beyond saying nice things, what matters it since 99% of member nations will be reasonable about it anyway?

The 'reasonable nation' card is a tatty and battered piece of pasteboard that should be ashamed of itself in such creatively unreasonable company.

Third, we are not at all convinced that 'not many people do it' is a valid argument to be presenting against something that we all hold to be undesirable. One of the purposes of law is to lay out what we do and do not consider to be acceptable behaviour. We trust that you would not wish to contest the underlying principle of preventing discriminatory behaviour, Mr Flibble; why then do you baulk at the thought of formally saying, "This is unacceptable?"

Which is why I said "proportionate to a person's normal maturity at a certain age." I mean, if we're going to micromanage nations' consent laws, we might as well go the distance and micromanage all of them, instead of just sex, right?

There is in fact a practical reason for regarding the Age of Sexual Consent as a separate matter, in that it is more easily determinable. Most other maturity levels have a strong intellectual component -- the age at which a person can cast a meaningful vote in a democracy should have the ability to comprehend the issues involved factored into it, for example -- which will be strongly dependent on the nature of the educational system of the nation concerned. Sexual maturity is purely biological in nature, as anyone who has ever made the futile attempt to do anything about homone-driven teenagers will readily attest.

Further, this isn't micromanagement, it is just consistency. All we are requiring is that where there is no good reason for ages of consent to be different, they shouldn't be different. That is all.

How is this an international issue that requires our legislation?

How is this an international issue that requires our legislation?
The same way that any issue of discrimination is an international one requiring our legislation.

It's my opinion that this issue is a national issue and does not require the attention of the UN. That's not saying that the Age of Consent should not be pursuant to UN resolutions, though. It's a national sovereignty issue and I would very much prefer to set the age myself.

I also hope you consider that in my puppet in the Halls of the UN, the gnomes live only about seven to ten years. An age of consent that you might set would probably be higher than the average lifespan there. As a UN card says, What about nonhuman sentients? You have to consider that lifespans and longevity varies so anything you set would have to be relative, not absolute. My suggestion for an age of consent would be the age that is at the 14-18% stage of the average lifespan of a species.

I don't know if that makes sense, being rather scatter-brained, but I hope I've voiced my concern.

Also, I would vote against any UN legislation on the issue.

It's my opinion that this issue is a national issue and does not require the attention of the UN. That's not saying that the Age of Consent should not be pursuant to UN resolutions, though. It's a national sovereignty issue and I would very much prefer to set the age myself.

And you can set the age so long as you don't discriminate in the process for any reason other than biological maturity.

I also hope you consider that in my puppet in the Halls of the UN, the gnomes live only about seven to ten years. An age of consent that you might set would probably be higher than the average lifespan there. As a UN card says, What about nonhuman sentients? You have to consider that lifespans and longevity varies so anything you set would have to be relative, not absolute. My suggestion for an age of consent would be the age that is at the 14-18% stage of the average lifespan of a species.

Which has been addressed

That's two proposals in a row that you've misread. I ask you to step back and spend a bit more time reading and thinking about the text of the proposal you are critiquing. It is frustrating to read people misread a proposal, it is even more irritating when several people in a row misread the same way after the misinterpretation had already been addressed.

And you can set the age so long as you don't discriminate in the process for any reason other than biological maturity.


Um, it's my decision. Don't interfere with my affairs.


That's two proposals in a row that you've misread. I ask you to step back and spend a bit more time reading and thinking about the text of the proposal you are critiquing. It is frustrating to read people misread a proposal, it is even more irritating when several people in a row misread the same way after the misinterpretation had already been addressed.

How could you possibly expect to prove that I misread the proposal. You weren't standing next to me. I'll interpret things for myself. You can keep your interpretation out of other people's faces. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

I still don't think that this issue is worthy of UN legislation.

I also reserve the right to my opinion and not be hassled over it, thankyouverymuch.

It's a national sovereignty issue and I would very much prefer to set the age myself.As you would continue to do even after this was passed. What this legislation does is prohibit you from using creative age of consent legislation to prohibit particular types of sex acts and thereby discriminate against particular portions of your population. You are still quite free to set your age of consent to whatever makes sense for your nation.

First, we would observe that 1% of the UN membership is still a large number of nations. That alone is reason to legislate as far as we are concerned.Admittedly, that 1% figure was probably a little on the generous side, since I'm going from memory of past debates where age of consent popped up and I can't remember more than 5 nations claiming ridiculously stupid ages of consent.

Second, if we allowed this argument to rule, then no loophole fixing would ever be done.You say that like it's a bad thing.
The business of Double Taxation that the representative of Gwenstefani has brought to our attention applies to few individuals and companies across the United Nations, yet we hope you would not consider it a waste of this chamber's time having discussed it.Of course that's not a waste of time, that's actually an international issue, unlike this which could only be an international issue if the people having sex are lying across a nation's borders.
Almost all repeal arguments would fall flat; so a resolution does little beyond saying nice things, what matters it since 99% of member nations will be reasonable about it anyway?That doesn't always apply with repeals, just look at how badly the World Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List) was abused.

The 'reasonable nation' card is a tatty and battered piece of pasteboard that should be ashamed of itself in such creatively unreasonable company.If your Un carsd are in such poor shape, perhaps you should invest in a new set.

Third, we are not at all convinced that 'not many people do it' is a valid argument to be presenting against something that we all hold to be undesirable. One of the purposes of law is to lay out what we do and do not consider to be acceptable behaviour.Exactly, so why don't you let our nations do it without dragging the UN into it?
We trust that you would not wish to contest the underlying principle of preventing discriminatory behaviour, Mr Flibble; why then do you baulk at the thought of formally saying, "This is unacceptable?"Because, as I stated earlier, I do not feel that this is an international issue.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Your scenario, lacking more than one actor-of-own-volition, wouldn't meet a definition of rape of any kind.Except that this proposal sets an age of consent for the use of toys. Sexual interaction under the age of consent is rape. Therefore, by including non-animate objects, this proposal creates a situation where a minor could rape themselves with a toy.

Inclusion of sex toys in the context of consent would have a greater impact on who could purchase and possess such... much like cigarettes....which doesn't even rise to the level of national concern. That's municipal, at best.


The proposal text has been edited to incorporate comments thus far.Well, there's my concern. Still don't think it's international in scope, though.


Doctor Denis Leary
etc
etc

Um, it's my decision. Don't interfere with my affairs.

Oh yes, it should be your decision to kill the Jews and enslave the Blacks because of blah blah National Sovereignty since the UN shouldn't be interfering in discrimination issues.

Try again

How could you possibly expect to prove that I misread the proposal.

You're going on and on about the possibility of other species being forgotten - an area that has BEEN ADDRESSED - not that it was a problem in the first place.

You weren't standing next to me. I'll interpret things for myself. You can keep your interpretation out of other people's faces. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Yes there is, but cleaving it in two isn't one of them.

Seriously, if you want to read a proposal incorrectly, I can't do anything to stop you. But if you're going to state an incorrect statement about the proposal, if you are going to undermine it with false statements, you can expect your arguments gutted. People work long and hard on proposals and to have them demeaned by others who aren't willing to put the time and effort into actually reading them so that they've got the right idea is frustrating at best.

There are multiple ways to interpret proposals in the form of loophole abuse, in the form of finding little work arounds or bending of various rules. There are redefinition of terminology. There are flags of concern over a possible misinterpretation or potentially dangerous wording. There are thousands of ways you could read this proposal - but I can assure you that the arguments you presented were not against this proposal. Thus far, the only thing you have said that was close was playing the NatSov card.

I still don't think that this issue is worthy of UN legislation.

Fine, I have no problem with you holding that opinion. As you can see, you are not alone in that opinion.

I also reserve the right to my opinion

Yes you do

and not be hassled over it, thankyouverymuch.

No you don't. No one gets to post their opinions on these boards with the right to have those opinions remain unchallenged or the claims made in those opinions uncontested. You have the right to ignore the responses, but you don't have immunity from rebuttles. You also have the right not to be flamed or trolled but that isn't an issue right now.

I have heard you are a good person and could easily be a rising star within the UN. It is my hope that you take these comments to heart and improve your approach to the UN.

Except that this proposal sets an age of consent for the use of toys. Sexual interaction under the age of consent is rape. Therefore, by including non-animate objects, this proposal creates a situation where a minor could rape themselves with a toy.*light comes on* Though since one can't rape oneself (under normal circumstances) then that creates a conflict with the (former) language in the proposal... got it. ...which doesn't even rise to the level of national concern. That's municipal, at best.Most of the legislation I've seen (prohibition of purchase for juveniles) has been on the state level; though wouldn't theocracies be expected to have such at the national level?

*light comes on* Though since one can't rape oneself (under normal circumstances) then that creates a conflict with the (former) language in the proposal... got it.Bingo.

Most of the legislation I've seen (prohibition of purchase for juveniles) has been on the state level; though wouldn't theocracies be expected to have such at the national level?Municipal, state, whichever. Not all nations have states, after all.

Actually, I don't think the Hack does... really only have two "cities". Hm.


Doctor Denis Leary
etc.
etc.

Most of the legislation I've seen (prohibition of purchase for juveniles) has been on the state level; though wouldn't theocracies be expected to have such at the national level?

It's still not International, so that question has little point. Further, issues of purchase and issues of use have little in common with one another. For example, cigarettes are often allowed to be used by people who are too young to purchase them. Saying someone can consent to screwing themselves doesn't mean he/she should be allowed to buy that equipment - hell, give a gal a small enough stick and a guy a good sized hole, it doesn't matter how old they were when they bought it - there's a decent chance that you could meet those requirements in most grocery stores.

Seriously, the sex toys were meant to be an issue regarding multiple people utilizing sex toys while romping around the sack because they're kinky or whatever. Just screw the one person scenario and move on. Even if we could get one-man-shows dealt with for "consent" purposes, it probably still wouldn't fall under SPA so it doesn't really matter. Moving on.

If your Un carsd are in such poor shape, perhaps you should invest in a new set.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/uncardssss2vy.png

Oh yes, it should be your decision to kill the Jews and enslave the Blacks because of blah blah National Sovereignty since the UN shouldn't be interfering in discrimination issues.

Try again

Straw man, try again.



You're going on and on about the possibility of other species being forgotten - an area that has BEEN ADDRESSED - not that it was a problem in the first place.

Addressed, maybe. Addressed adequately? No. Able to be addressed adequately? I highly doubt that, with the current legislation on the books.

Again, I fail to see how a shoe-horn legalwank is anything other than absurd micromanagement. Since age-of-consent laws are already under the purview of the states, why is it neessary to legislate on the matter at all, blocker or no?

Rang Erman
etc

Straw man, try again.

Rang Erman
etc

Straw man, hell more like Godwin's Law.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Straw man, try again.

Really? Let's follow the path again

Him: "NatSov"
Me: "It's a discrimination issue"
Him: "Still NatSov"
Me: "So the UN shouldn't be touching you at all over the matter of discrimination?"

Not a Straw man. You might be able to argue a slippery slope argument, but it was a question to wake up that NatSov isn't a catch all and discrimination is, all too often, something that isn't seen as protected by NatSov arguments.

Addressed, maybe. Addressed adequately? No. Able to be addressed adequately? I highly doubt that, with the current legislation on the books.

How is it inadaquately addressed? How is the term "biological maturity" insufficient of a loophole to address all concerns about differences in biology?

Again, I fail to see how a shoe-horn legalwank is anything other than absurd micromanagement. Since age-of-consent laws are already under the purview of the states, why is it neessary to legislate on the matter at all, blocker or no?

Rang Erman
etc

I'm not arguing about that in that post - however, I have argued, previously, how there is a loophole, why it is a concern, why it might be worth considering, and why this addresses the loophole. If you want to challenge those arguments, please, be my guest.

Me: "So the UN shouldn't be touching you at all over the matter of discrimination?"
Me: "Yes. Exactly. Off you go."

I have heard you are a good person and could easily be a rising star within the UN. It is my hope that you take these comments to heart and improve your approach to the UN.

I am, and several users can attest to that. I don't wish to take your comments to heart as I have seen your past arguments. You have been accused of flamebaiting. I don't consider you a role model. Or at least, not a good one. But that's my opinion.

Him: "NatSov"
Me: "It's a discrimination issue"
Him: "Still NatSov"
Me: "So the UN shouldn't be touching you at all over the matter of discrimination?"

Not a Straw man. You might be able to argue a slippery slope argument, but it was a question to wake up that NatSov isn't a catch all and discrimination is, all too often, something that isn't seen as protected by NatSov arguments.


So, are you insulting me now? At least that's how I interpret this.

It also seems as though you're insinuating that everyone should be without any prejudice, whatsoever. That's fairly impossible.

And yes, I can argue that NatSov is a catch-all. It's a valid argument. People come in here and make arguments all the time. As far as I can see, you just refuse to see both sides of the issue. I see the issue of discrimination. I've been speaking from an IC point of view; perhaps I should have made that known earlier. My UN nation is roleplayed as a dictatorship, where anything the dictator says is law. What you are doing he would construe as an attempt to limit his power. I also accept that there is the possibility of seeing this go down like the USS Arizona if it ever comes to vote, and I hope that happens.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Undersecretary of Akimonad
Doctorate of Political Sciences

I am, and several users can attest to that. I don't wish to take your comments to heart as I have seen your past arguments. You have been accused of flamebaiting. I don't consider you a role model. Or at least, not a good one. But that's my opinion.

You're going to take a feud between me and Cluich as an interpretation of whether I'm a role-model or not? Why don't you talk to a few of your regionmates who know me and ask them instead? Hell, Kiv and Karmi were both nudging me to get back into the UN for a long time.

So, are you insulting me now? At least that's how I interpret this.

How is that an insult?

It also seems as though you're insinuating that everyone should be without any prejudice, whatsoever. That's fairly impossible.

No I'm not. Feel free to argue with prejudice, but back up your arguments. If you're going to make an argument, you better be damn sure you know why you are making that argument.

And yes, I can argue that NatSov is a catch-all. It's a valid argument.

There is no such thing as a catch-all argument. NatSov works as an argument when you can say it and people can figure out the reason why you said it right away or as a conclusion to a much wider ranged argument of the inability or lack of reasonability for the UN to be able to properly govern the matter or a validation of alternate theories and methodologies.

Unless you believe that pedophilia and terrorism should be regulated (or permitted) by local nations, you don't believe it's a catch-all either

People come in here and make arguments all the time.

No they don't. At least not the regulars. They pose the question of why it wouldn't be better handled by local governments and make arguments as to why it would be better handled by local governments, but they don't assume it's a catch all and they make sure they have an argument first.

As far as I can see, you just refuse to see both sides of the issue.

No, actually, I'm very well aware of both sides of the issue which also happens to be why I haven't decided whether I'm for or against this proposal.

I see the issue of discrimination. I've been speaking from an IC point of view;

We generally assume that for the regulars

perhaps I should have made that known earlier. My UN nation is roleplayed as a dictatorship, where anything the dictator says is law. What you are doing he would construe as an attempt to limit his power.

Ask yourself: you're in a debate where people are trying to limit the powers of those who would discriminate between different segments of their citizens and a person comes up to the floor and says "it should be our right to discriminate against our people". Ask yourself: if you were in the shoes of many of the other members sitting at the table, what would your response be?

Answer: "This is an example of the outrageous behavior and attitudes of the opposing side. They would gladly bully those they see as lesser..." etc, etc, etc. You'd be turned into an example. Remember, part of your purpose is to also drum up support and argue the case for your proposal.

There are more ways to attack proposals, there are more ways to raise questions and to find holes to attack. You need to find a way to sell your position.

Also, remember - this isn't just an argument between you and me. The other drafters - AA, Flibs, Kenny, Gob, Rubina, etc - and the wider UN community - Karmi, Kiv, Cob, Quod, etc not to mention many part-time forum watchers - are reading this and they are forming their opinions from that.

I also accept that there is the possibility of seeing this go down like the USS Arizona if it ever comes to vote, and I hope that happens.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Undersecretary of Akimonad
Doctorate of Political Sciences

I'm not denying that possibility either.

You're going to take a feud between me and Cluich as an interpretation of whether I'm a role-model or not? Why don't you talk to a few of your regionmates who know me and ask them instead? Hell, Kiv and Karmi were both nudging me to get back into the UN for a long time.

Yes, I am going to take a report to the mods and you being rebuked as a measure of your possibility of being a role model. I have talked to my regionmates. I don't wish to break the privacy of our regional forum, but you seem to be disliked by at least... four people that is obvious. You don't have a very good reputation in AO.


How is that an insult?

I took it that way. The same way people take it after they ask you if something makes them look fat.


No I'm not. Feel free to argue with prejudice, but back up your arguments. If you're going to make an argument, you better be damn sure you know why you are making that argument.

I'm not one for profanity, I abhor it, but I am "damn sure" of pretty much everything I do.


There is no such thing as a catch-all argument.
Ha! You're humorous.

NatSov works as an argument when you can say it and people can figure out the reason why you said it right away or as a conclusion to a much wider ranged argument of the inability or lack of reasonability for the UN to be able to properly govern the matter or a validation of alternate theories and methodologies.

Umm, that sounds like VISA Corp's annual report. Indecipherable. To me at least. You mind rephrasing?


Unless you believe that pedophilia and terrorism should be regulated (or permitted) by local nations, you don't believe it's a catch-all either

I have no problem with those two issues. I find that irrelevant to the issue at hand. I would like to see some stronger legislation on pedophilia; my wife was killed by two pedophiles while I was in this very assembly.


No they don't. At least not the regulars. They pose the question of why it wouldn't be better handled by local governments and make arguments as to why it would be better handled by local governments, but they don't assume it's a catch all and they make sure they have an argument first.


I'm not talking arguments as in flamebaiting or any such thing.

If you wish such an argument:
I think this should be handled by local governments because local governments are much more in tune with individual groups and have more focus. The UN is far to international to consider every species, race, creed, religion, etc. There may be a situation where such legislation on Age of Consent may violate the provisions outlined in this draft. This may hinder criminal justice.


No, actually, I'm very well aware of both sides of the issue which also happens to be why I haven't decided whether I'm for or against this proposal.

Well, I believe I've better determined my position based on seeing all the sides of the issue. Furthermore, Commodore Heusen, Praetor Maximus of Akimonad, can overrule any vote I make although he's currently in line with my decision.


Ask yourself: you're in a debate where people are trying to limit the powers of those who would discriminate between different segments of their citizens and a person comes up to the floor and says "it should be our right to discriminate against our people". Ask yourself: if you were in the shoes of many of the other members sitting at the table, what would your response be?

I think we've reduced the definition of discriminate to "separation or unfair treatment of a certain people". May I remind you that the latin root of Discriminate means "distinguish between". I think you need to be more specific in your hypothetical situations.


Answer: "This is an example of the outrageous behavior and attitudes of the opposing side. They would gladly bully those they see as lesser..." etc, etc, etc. You'd be turned into an example. Remember, part of your purpose is to also drum up support and argue the case for your proposal.

Um, are you answering for me? You shouldn't assume. My response would be to ask them more details about what exactly they wished to do or implement and then make a decision. I prefer not to judge books by their cover. Perhaps you should elaborate.


There are more ways to attack proposals, there are more ways to raise questions and to find holes to attack. You need to find a way to sell your position.

Why should I try to "sell" my position? I would've announced my intention to convert people in my first statement if that's what I wished. I am merely informing the esteemed author that he can discount one vote. Is that allowed?


Also, remember - this isn't just an argument between you and me.
So far it is, to the point that we've begun threadjacking.


The other drafters - AA, Flibs, Kenny, Gob, Rubina, etc - and the wider UN community - Karmi, Kiv, Cob, Quod, etc not to mention many part-time forum watchers - are reading this and they are forming their opinions from that.

That may be, though I should say right now that I have no intention of support, no notion to further threadjack. Let's get back on topic, shall we?

**********

Perhaps I'm awfully stupid or lazy, but what is defined as "biological maturity"? I was a PolSci major, not a Medical one.

My point here is that this issue is not international enough in scope to require the attention of the UN. Therefore, my argument must be for some kind of more localized sovereignty since I don't think the UN should worry about it.

You know what, you aren't reading half of my work, and this long since passed the point of being a hijack, but I want you to remember a few things:

1) Even of the most respected members of the community, there have been incidents of flaming, flame-baiting, trolling, etc, etc, etc. Very few have not had at least one mod incident and more than 1 have been banned. Even within your region, a large segment of them have run into mod questions before. Getting a single incident on your record is far from indicative of you being a poor role-model in this community.
2) There's a difference between being well-liked and well-respected. I don't like most of the guys in your region either, but I still respect them because I know they are intelligent, and I know they have done great things for this community. As it so happens, I'm often on the other side of the floor from them.

And yes, I can argue that NatSov is a catch-all. It's a valid argument. People come in here and make arguments all the time.

You're falling into a very well-hidden trap. NatSov isn't a catch-all, because all completely NatSov nations aren't in the UN. So, we NatSovers understand that there are some parts of our sovereignty that we need to give up. HotRodia has a very detailed and well-written explanation of NatSov in the UN.

Anyway-


Really? Let's follow the path again

Him: "NatSov"
Me: "It's a discrimination issue"
Him: "Still NatSov"
Me: "So the UN shouldn't be touching you at all over the matter of discrimination?"

Not a Straw man. You might be able to argue a slippery slope argument, but it was a question to wake up that NatSov isn't a catch all and discrimination is, all too often, something that isn't seen as protected by NatSov arguments.

See, now, it is a straw man because you compared his example to killing the Jews. And, it actually is a NatSov issue because it would require the UN to be legislating on national consent laws. It's legislation for the sake of legislation, and we can't just pass laws because there are some ridiculous nations floating around.

How is it inadaquately addressed? How is the term "biological maturity" insufficient of a loophole to address all concerns about differences in biology?

How is that term any different than the ones we have on the books? In fact, that just opens up an even greater can of worms, because it doesn't explicitly outline the process to determine biological maturity. The definition of what age biological maturity is remains under the purview of the state- nothing is solved.

I'm not arguing about that in that post - however, I have argued, previously, how there is a loophole, why it is a concern, why it might be worth considering, and why this addresses the loophole. If you want to challenge those arguments, please, be my guest.

I refer you to my above arguments. Nations can still wheedle their way out of the definition. I tend to think that legislation that simply creates more loopholes out of a bigger one is silly. If that's not true, then just slap me silly and call me Maud.

Rang Erman
etc.

You know what, you aren't reading half of my work, and this long since passed the point of being a hijack, but I want you to remember a few things:

1) Even of the most respected members of the community, there have been incidents of flaming, flame-baiting, trolling, etc, etc, etc. Very few have not had at least one mod incident and more than 1 have been banned. Even within your region, a large segment of them have run into mod questions before. Getting a single incident on your record is far from indicative of you being a poor role-model in this community.
2) There's a difference between being well-liked and well-respected. I don't like most of the guys in your region either, but I still respect them because I know they are intelligent, and I know they have done great things for this community. As it so happens, I'm often on the other side of the floor from them.

1) I'll judge things for myself.
2) Truce, okay? Let the draft thread be for the draft from now on.

Yes, I am going to take a report to the mods and you being rebuked as a measure of your possibility of being a role model.

... I have no problem with those two issues. I find that irrelevant to the issue at hand. I would like to see some stronger legislation on pedophilia; my wife was killed by two pedophiles while I was in this very assembly.

... I'm not talking arguments as in flamebaiting or any such thing.

The way you bounce between IC and OOC without distinction is causing some of this friction. (I'm assuming that your RL wife wasn't killed by pedophiles while you were playing NS.) If you're going to post here, study up on the conventions we use to delineate between the two.

As far as reporting someone for 'not being an adequate role model', I think a careful review of our rules will show absolutely no requirement that anyone assume that role. Please don't waste our time by making such a report. If you don't like a player or one of his characters ... don't play with that person. It ain't rocket science, pal.

OOC: I'm skipping the quotes for the sake of brevity and clarity. There was too many of them to deal with rationally all at once.

*big breath into IC*

To assist with the efforts to bring this back on topic, I'll try to make all of my remarks tie back to the Gobbanean draft for Age Of Consent Legislation.

The particular age at which people can consent in various nations is not at issue here, so there's no point even bringing it up, The issue at hand is discrimination. That is the aim of the drafted proposal. On that note...

Discrimination is neither a national prerogative, choice, nor right for UN member nations. There are a number of resolutions already on the books that prohibit UN member nations from dicrimination in most of its forms. Claiming National Sovereignty as a blanket protection from dicrimination legislation is, frankly, silly. There are many instances in which discrimination can easily become an international issue between member states.

International Federalism, conversely, does not necessitate legislation into absolutely every aspect of every single nation whether it is needed or not.

Age Of Consent, in particular, does not easily lend itself to being an internationally critical issue. I can see certain circumstances under which problems could potentially arise where people of nation A visit nation B, which has differing consent laws, but such a scenario is not covered by the proposal being drafted anyways.

What the proposal is attempting to deal with is discriminatory application of the law. In this case, laws regarding a nation's age(s) of consent. Where the current sticking point for me is this:

There are already resolutions on the books that deal, either specifically or otherwise, with ensuring that all peoples are treated equally within any given nation's system of laws.

Some of the more salient point from a few of them include, but are not limited to:

The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons

Clones are treated the same as everyone else.

2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
...
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
...
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

Everyone gets a good defense, everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, the judge must apply the law as it is read (implicitly without creative interpretation like "all people named MacDougall are guilty").

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,
...
3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,
...
5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;

COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice,

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

That last part is probably the most important, though that entire resolution is worth mentioning. Take the time to go and reread it in full.

In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).

Alright, so that one is more dealing directly with the UN itself than the member nations, but it's still a decent point for the UN not allowing discrimination.

1. Proclaims it the duty of nations to ensure opportunities for education and training are reasonably accessible for all their nationals, and especially for children and young adults;
...
3. Condemns all forms of unfair and unreasonable discrimination with national educational systems, and motions for effective remedies to such;

Just dealing with education, but the continuing theme of non-discrimination is still there.

And here's the really big one that needs to be remembered for this entire discussion to be kept in some level of reality. It's probably the one that really started the drive towards equal treatment for all, even though it came from a time when they did not concern themselves with language such as "sapient individuals". The points made in it are still crystal clear. Can you guess what it is?

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Beautifully simple, to the point, and all encompassing. If the nation has any law at all about anything whatsoever, all human beings within are entitled to be treated equally by it. To my mind, age of consent would easily be included in that.

With all that (especially UBR), what purpose would this new bill serve? What hole in legislation would it fill? What concern is being addressed by this extra scrap of paper that would simply add another page to the already overlarge law books as another redundancy?

Discrimination in our legal systems does not occur for those of us that make any effort at complying with UN resolutions. Those that make no effort to comply will not be swayed by yet another law about it. This proposal is unnecessary, unneeded, and unwanted.

OOC: alright, so I ended up with a bunch of quotes anyways, shoot me.

I have no problem with those two issues. I find that irrelevant to the issue at hand. I would like to see some stronger legislation on pedophilia; my wife was killed by two pedophiles while I was in this very assembly.
I think we should ban black coats, my sister was killed be a man in a black coat. :rolleyes:

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Representative

The term "under the law" refers to how the law is applied, not to whether the law itself is fair. After all, if we were to talk about the context of a law being fair, everyone and their dog can come up with saying that some law somewhere is not fair.

What you have done a great job in doing, however, is showing that the UN has made cases for legislating on discrimination in the past. Now that we're past that point, we can take out the UN Education Aid Act and Fairness and equality and when we pull the "under the law" bits, we end up with:

The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons

And

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,
...
5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;

COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice,

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

I'll toss out the first one only because it was so effective that the UN has never had to ask the question "what about clones" since its passing - nor have we mentioned it here nor, really, do I think it needs to be covered.

Now, Discrimination Accord does cut down on a number of issues such as trying to crush the black population by making them not allowed to breed until they're 18 while Whites can have hot screaming sex at 14, but we still have other areas uncovered that have been, briefly, commented about here:

1) Interracial/inter-species sex
2) Anal/Oral/Vaginal/term for hands/etc distinctions in consent
3) Usage of non-bodily items to perform sex

Is it International in scope, is it serious enough to legislate on, is it worth action by this body: I leave that for the author to argue.

You're falling into a very well-hidden trap. NatSov isn't a catch-all, because all completely NatSov nations aren't in the UN. So, we NatSovers understand that there are some parts of our sovereignty that we need to give up. HotRodia has a very detailed and well-written explanation of NatSov in the UN.
OOC: For some people, unfortunately in my opinion, NatSov is a catch-all. They don't accept anything that possibly infringes upon their sovereignty as nations. Such people are the reason why nations like my older one, Enn, left the NSO in disgust. There was no reasoning with them.

OOC: For some people, unfortunately in my opinion, NatSov is a catch-all. They don't accept anything that possibly infringes upon their sovereignty as nations. Such people are the reason why nations like my older one, Enn, left the NSO in disgust. There was no reasoning with them.

OOC: That is not entirely true. Karmicaria is a member of NSO and has written and passed a resolution that was not Nat/Sov "friendly".

Most, if not all, of us realize that there are times where we need to sacrifice parts of our Nation's sovereignty. Currently, I don't think that there is a single active member of NSO who is that fanatical about National Sovereignty.

Nat/Sov is not a catch-all.

OOC: For some people, unfortunately in my opinion, NatSov is a catch-all. They don't accept anything that possibly infringes upon their sovereignty as nations. Such people are the reason why nations like my older one, Enn, left the NSO in disgust. There was no reasoning with them.

OOC (ish?): That's rather unfortunate to hear that there was such discord amongst the NSO members back then. I thought I had already made my way through all of the achived transcripts in the NSO libraries, but I must have missed the disgusted reproaches you offered on departure. I'll have to keep digging.

In the interest of full honesty, I must agree that there are some, not necessarily affiliated with the NSO, for whom the sovereignty of their nation is paramount above all other concerns. They will atempt to use National Sovereignty as a catch all defence for everything, even those things of obvious international concern. Most of them, however, quickly realize that they would be better served by resigning from the UN, and they are rarely heard from again. That, thankfully, generally only leaves those who accept that there are areas in which international legislation or attention is not only acceptable, but necessary and preferred.

To return this back towards something resembling the discussion at hand, while discrimination legislation, as a function of Human Right legislation, may be viewed by many as an area of international concern, this particular piece does not really add anything to UN law that is not already dealt with by other legislation.

FL offered that nations could treat everyone equally under the law while still having laws that treated people unequally by creating separate laws to deal with different groups. I would postulate that any system of laws that used different laws to treat different groups would not, in fact, be treating all of their people equally under the law. The laws would be applied equally, but the laws themselves would be out of balance.

For me, whether this proposal is of international concern or not is a moot point. It is redundant legislation, and that is reason enough for me to oppose.

We apologise to members for our absence from this discussion for an unconscionable length of time, however we were unavoidably detained outside this chamber (OOC: or in RL, really busy at work and having Jolt crash every time I attempted to post anything last night. Sorry, folks).

We would very much like to thank the ambassador of Kivisto for demonstrating so eloquently the long and honourable history that this assembly has in developing anti-discrimination legislation. We will return to the general subject later, but first this last item must be addressed.

And here's the really big one that needs to be remembered for this entire discussion to be kept in some level of reality. It's probably the one that really started the drive towards equal treatment for all, even though it came from a time when they did not concern themselves with language such as "sapient individuals". The points made in it are still crystal clear. Can you guess what it is?

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Beautifully simple, to the point, and all encompassing. If the nation has any law at all about anything whatsoever, all human beings within are entitled to be treated equally by it. To my mind, age of consent would easily be included in that.
Sadly, you would be mistaken in that belief. The phrase "treated equally under the law" does not in any way require the law to be equal. Instead it is another commonly used formal phrasing which is used to prevent what we have heard referred to as "Rodney King" cases.

Imagine, if you will, that the nation of Inequita has a law which states that all motor vehicles must show two red lights at the rear after dark. On one occasion, a police officer stops a driver at night to point out that he is breaking this law. The driver acknowledges this, but asks for clemency given that the light was broken by a youthful vandal earlier in his journey. "Ah," the policeman commiserates, "such things happen. He allows the driver to go on his way, cautioning him to repair the damage at the earliest opportunity.

Now suppose that another driver is stopped for the same reason, and enters the same plea. However in this case she is beaten soundly for having the cheek to answer back, and spends an uncomfortable night incarcerated.

It is this disparity, where the law is the same but the treatment meted out differs wildly, that clause 4 of the Universal Bill of Rights addresses. It does not matter whether our hypothetic prejudiced police officer took offense at her being a woman, a black, a lesbian, a citizen of Elsewhere, a clone, ugly or lacking her left arm, she is still afforded the right to be treated equitably.

The situation is very different if Inequtia's law also requires that disabled people are allowed no latitude in operating a motor vehicle with inadequate rear lighting. Unpleasant as it may seem, such a law is entirely legal within the framework of UN resolutions. Under those circumstances, the Universal Bill of Rights does not protect our second driver from the treatment she received. The law itself is unequal, and we do not prevent it from being so.


The ambassador has shown that we have a proud history in this assembly of legislating to protect civil rights. Why should this be so, when the rights of any individual do not reach across international boundaries? Why, in other words, are civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws in particular international business?

The answer is that upholding civil rights is a matter of upholding an individual against their government. Whether through accident or intent, it is the government which creates laws which permit or encourage the oppression of individuals, even if it is not the government which does the oppressing. Only a supra-national organisation can address inequities which involve national governments, and the United Nations is such an organisation which has the ability do to just that.

As to our proposal, let us be clear about one thing: we are addressing discrimination. It is a peculiar and subtle form of discrimination, one which has almost settled into hearts and minds as an acceptable one, but it is none the less a wrong we wish to see less of in the world. Nations do discriminate in this manner, frequently, and all too often with malice aforethought when it comes to sexuality. It is a small thing, you may say, why should we not let it slide? You may not care for the difference of a few years (an eternity to a teenager!) in some matter that does not bother you personally, but none of our legislation prevents exactly the same excuse being used to discriminate in other ways.

We have a fine array of anti-discriminatory legislation, fellow delegates, but do not be fooled into thinking that it is complete. For all the work that has been done, it is must less comprehensive than is commonly believed. This proposal is another small piece of armour; we do not pretend that it will guard us against all abuses, but it is significant none the less.

#1: Certainly back when the NSO was in its infancy, sovereignty was a relatively new field to address and being a field in its infancy, there were plenty of mistakes. Back then, there was plenty of sharp divisions in NatSov vs Traditional theory and back then, there were plenty of well respected members of the community screaming sovereignty at the top of their lungs.

#2: Back then, the NSO was seen as the core of this belief - fair or not, accurate or not. It has since moved away from it as we've gotten a better understanding of sovereignty and those who weren't major sovereigntists got a firmer understanding of why they opposed it. What it was before is not what it is today and the old arguments and concerns do not apply. You'll recall that there was a time when we felt the same way about ACCEL

#3: There is a time and place to discuss the concern of what the different communities are about and what they aren't about. This isn't one of them. The sovereignty issue has evolved that it is generally accepted to not be a valid catch-all argument. This has now been confirmed by multiple leading members of the sovereignty movement, I think that can be put to rest.

On a similar note, YES there are those who believe in complete sovereignty. Yes there are those who will accept the argument "NatSov" as a catch-all, but it only works on those who believe the way you do - it doesn't work as a way to convince others and it certainly isn't a way to sell a resolution or campaign to the UN body.

Let's return to the issue at hand, please.

OOC: Kenny, you know I was talking about the past, so stop being so obtuse.
Also, I was far from the first to join NSO. For a time I was deliberately counter to its ideas, then decided to join as an attempt to inject what I saw as sanity into the group. During my time there, I met several people who seriously considered resolutions like the Universal Bill of Rights and others of that calibre as being inherently evil because of their 'anti-sovereignty' stance.

When I left the NSO, I seriously thought it was becoming absolutely fundamentalist and extremely anti-UN. There were certainly enough people at the NSO then who wanted that to happen.

My fears did not result, but I still feel justified in leaving when I did. I did not want to be associated with such people. You might have also noticed that I haven't logged on to the NSO board for some time, certainly not while I've had this nation, so I don't see how I should have known how much the NSO has changed. I'm glad it has, but I still don't want to return.

I officially left the NSO for IC reasons because I didn't want to start a huge flame-war over my OOC reasons. Obviously people still feel strongly enough about it that even now, years after I left, that we still can't talk about these issues calmly.

~~~

IC: The Prince of Emen and Un has instructed me to support this proposal. I must admit, I don't know why he likes it so much, doesn't look like a lot to me, but he's the one who writes my paycheque, so that's my position decided for me.

~ Sebastian Ennuk

We have amended the proposal again, expanding our initial argument a little. Those who look may note the second operational clause which has appeared. We are not wedded to this concept -- even our marriage laws are not that liberal! -- and are not at all certain that it does not trespass too far into the realm of the Sexual Privacy Act, but we wished to get opinions on the subject of autoeroticism and this seemed like the easiest way to provoke them. We confess this is a blatant attempt to get Dr Leary to comment on our non-rhetorical questions.

*snip*

OOC: You could've just left without being two-faced about it, but I suppose I expected more from you. Ah well.

OOC: You could've just left without being two-faced about it, but I suppose I expected more from you. Ah well.
Wonderful.
I'm going to try and explain myself one more time, but if that's you're response to my last one I don't hold up a lot of hope.

I've always tried to keep my IC and OOC behaviour separate. Most obviously, this has been done by having IC personas with very different personalities to my own. I hope you've noticed this before now, because otherwise we're not going to get anywhere.
If you've been looking at how I go about my OOCness here, you might have noticed that I don't like getting into OOC arguments. Debates yes, but not just plain arguments. I think they're demeaning and insulting. That doesn't mean I don't have them, as several posts here will attest (including this one), but I don't like having them.

I left NSO for two reasons, yes. IC (the election of anti-sovereigntist Justine Engard) and OOC (my increasing worries about the direction of the organisation). If the IC reason had not come up, I don't know whether I would have left then. Perhaps I would have taken more time to make up my mind.
But you're ignoring IC. My principle reason was IC. OOC was a factor. Perhaps my first post in this thread didn't make that clear, but that's why I'm still writing this now.

Yes, I take pleasure when IC and OOC align, and I've never denied it. Certain characters such as Yssandra Faren or my current one Sebastian are much more hard-hearted than myself, and they lose patience a lot quicker than me. They can make snap decisions I wouldn't make, simply as a result of their personalities. Sometimes I'm horrified by them, such as Yssandra's warmaking, but other times I rejoice, such as Lady Faren officially cutting off ties to Zeldon because of an off-the-cuff remark.

I hope that's explained it. But could we, just possibly, get back to Gobb's proposal rather than constant sniping? Here's another example of my IC/OOC divide.

No offense, Gobb, but I think this is something that can only be done with extreme micromanagement. However, should it get to quorum I will be voting FOR for completely IC reasons.

We have amended the proposal again, expanding our initial argument a little.The expanded argument is clear and helpful. A couple of minor things...
UNEASY despite this that "equality under the law" is not the same as "equal in law,"We lust for commas... UNEASY, despite this, that etc.
ASSERTING that each nation state has the sovereign right and responsibilityAre you truly asserting or merely recognizing/acknowledging?

Those who look may note the second operational clause which has appeared. We are not wedded to this concept ... but we wished to get opinions on the subject of autoeroticism...Solicitation of comments aside, the second operational clause detracts from the meat of your proposal. Perhaps it's because we have trouble imagining any member assigning an age of consent (much less attempting to enforce one) to polishing the wizard's staff. Perhaps because the concept of consenting with oneself is discordant.

We lust for commas... UNEASY, despite this, that etc.
OOC: This may be the first time anyone has ever accused me of using too few commas. Normally I have to go through and delete about a third of them!

IC: We shall attend to our punctuation failure.

Are you truly asserting or merely recognizing/acknowledging?
We are, after some thought, asserting. This is a right we formally wish to be noted as belonging to nations, and as such deserves more than mere acknowledgement.

Solicitation of comments aside, the second operational clause detracts from the meat of your proposal. Perhaps it's because we have trouble imagining any member assigning an age of consent (much less attempting to enforce one) to polishing the wizard's staff. Perhaps because the concept of consenting with oneself is discordant.
While this is true, we remain mildly concerned that the subject be covered at some juncture. This is possibly not the time, but we would still like to test the opinions of other nations while we have the opportunity.

OOC: This may be the first time anyone has ever accused me of using too few commas. Normally I have to go through and delete about a third of them!
Another possibility there would be "UNEASY that despite this". Gets rid of the need for commas, and is clearer to read.

We have submitted this (modified) draft. We do not expect it to reach quorum on this occasion, but are simply gauging levels of delegate support.

We have nonhuman intelligences in our population. The age of sexual maturation is far earlier than the age of intellectual maturation. At the age of three wyrm sentients can start producing fertilizable eggs, however, they mature by growing new segments, each segment adds additional intelligence, for a "civilized level" of intelligence they would have to be ten terran years old. Also there is the case of some humans having earlier sexual maturation than others. There are some cases where girls as young as eight become pregnant. Please define sexual maturity in a better way.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

Please define sexual maturity in a better way.

Please just drop this misguided effort altogether.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Please just kill this thread. :rolleyes:

We have nonhuman intelligences in our population. The age of sexual maturation is far earlier than the age of intellectual maturation. ... Please define sexual maturity in a better way.The proposal specifies biological maturity. A species' biology, and thus biological maturity, includes far more than their genitalia.

Please just kill this thread. :rolleyes:Why?

Please just kill this thread. :rolleyes:Um, no?

The proposal specifies biological maturity. A species' biology, and thus biological maturity, includes far more than their genitalia.

Which would now allow us to decide upon an age of consent that is different for every single individual within our nations. Humans, at the very least, mature at different rates and reach biological maturity at different points in life. We would be well within our right, going by this proposal, to require that any individual who wishes the power to consent to anything go through a battery of physical, emotional, psychological, and intelligence exams which they must pass before we allow them the right to consent. Nations could pass the cost of these tests on the applicant, making it nearly impossible for any but the richest people to afford. Nations could easily add weight the intelligence tests such that only the most intelligent would be able to consent. Added weight to the physical exams would result in only the fittest of the fit ever having a chance of passing. What this is, in effect, creating, is a bureaucratic tool that nations could use to decide who gets to consent and who doesn't. That strikes me as being the exact opposite of what the author was hoping for.

Granted, none of that is an issue if you accept that previous legislation regarding discrimination forces nations to treat all peoples equally under the law. But, if you do that, then you must accept that this proposal is unnecessary. If you do not accept that legislation already exists to cover this, then the proposal allows for the scenario I describe above.

The proposal is either completely redundant or completely useless. Take your pick.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp):

We request to know how this proposed legislation would affect nations such as ours which have no formally set ages-of-consent. According to Kawaiian law, the various rights and responsibilities of adulthood are not claimed unilaterally at any given age. Instead, a youth wishing to assume them must first face a panel of adult relatives and community members who judge whether that youth is physically, mentally, and spiritually mature enough to be regarded as an adult.

We reject the concept of a "one size fits all" age-of-consent, for the obvious reasons pointed out by the esteemed representatives of Rubina and Kivisto:



Originally Posted by Rubina
The proposal specifies biological maturity. A species' biology, and thus biological maturity, includes far more than their genitalia.

Which would now allow us to decide upon an age of consent that is different for every single individual within our nations. Humans, at the very least, mature at different rates and reach biological maturity at different points in life. We would be well within our right, going by this proposal, to require that any individual who wishes the power to consent to anything go through a battery of physical, emotional, psychological, and intelligence exams which they must pass before we allow them the right to consent.

How does this legislation protect the rights of those who are deserving of adult rights and responsibilities, and the right of society not to be victimized by those who are not, simply because their individual maturity falls on the wrong side of an arbitrary age?

Which would now allow us to decide upon an age of consent that is different for every single individual within our nations. Humans, at the very least, mature at different rates and reach biological maturity at different points in life.
Which is precisely why the draft, with all due respect to the defence the Ambassador of Rubina presented, refers only to physical maturation, not intellectual or emotional. More specifically, it refers to discrimination only on that basis. The draft presents no bar to using any data to setting a general age of consent, so emotional and intellectual maturity can be taken into account, but variations from that age for any act must be justified solely on biological grounds.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp):

We request to know how this proposed legislation would affect nations such as ours which have no formally set ages-of-consent.
This legislation would have no effect, honoured representative. It does not require anyone to set ages of consent, merely insisting that they where set they be without discrimination. However you raise an interesting point; we will consider how best to amend our proposal to reflect our intent that one who is adjudged to be sexually adult should be so adjudged for all such purposes where biology does not require otherwise.

Which is precisely why the draft, with all due respect to the defence the Ambassador of Rubina presented, refers only to physical maturation, not intellectual or emotional. More specifically, it refers to discrimination only on that basis. The draft presents no bar to using any data to setting a general age of consent, so emotional and intellectual maturity can be taken into account, but variations from that age for any act must be justified solely on biological grounds.I apologize for any misconstruction that was made of my comment to Commonalitarianism. As you indicate, physical maturation may encompass a number of things, and that was all I was referencing.

We do have a question about the use of emotional maturity, given that it does not lend itself to objective measures and thus presents a likelihood of abuse.

We do have a question about the use of emotional maturity, given that it does not lend itself to objective measures and thus presents a likelihood of abuse.

Therein lies the basic point that I was endeavoring to get across. Emotions are a product of an individual's internal biochemistry, and a function of their biology. Using their emotional maturity as reason for allowing or disallowing age of conseent would be permissable under this proposal. An individual's psychological well-being, intellectual capacity, physical fitness, or emotional stability are all functions of their biology, allowing nations to decide what levels in these areas their citizens must achieve before they receive the right to consent.

An easy extension brings us to the fact that eye colour, hair colour, indeed even skin colour are matters biological in origin. While they may not be directly related to maturity, there is some correlation between aging and a change in eye, hair, and skin colour, as they all begin to fade and lose their lustre with advanced age. A national mandate regarding age of consent that stated that nobody could gain consent rights until they reached certain maturity markers including, but not limited to, hair, eye, and skin no darker than wet sand would eliminate a large portion of the population from gaining the legal age of consent until they were too old to procreate, while still falling within the guidelines of this proposal, as the only factor being used to decide the age of consent is one of biological maturity. It just happens to be incredibly racist as well.

Now, I am almost certain that that is not the author's intent in the slightest. I would never begin to dream of suggesting such an impugnment of the character of the Gobbanean delegation. Such as it is, though, this proposal would allow nations to practice this form of discrimination within the bounds of the law. That is a mistake, and it needs to be rectified.

Thankfully, The Dominion still maintains that previous legislation already exists that prevents this form of discriminatory behaviour. As such, we believe this to simply be a minor flaw in redundant legislation, instead of a gigantic loophole that would act as a blocker against any proper legislation preventing discrimination. We understand that there are some here who do not share our interpretation of the phrase "treated equally under the law", but that is not really the subject matter at hand right now, so I'll refrain from digressing towards that point.

Therein lies the basic point that I was endeavoring to get across. Emotions are a product of an individual's internal biochemistry, and a function of their biology.So some believe. It is not an established fact that emotions are solely a result of biochemistry. Thus my concern with Gobbannium's inclusion of them as a valid measurement tool of physical maturity.

--L.T.

Therein lies the basic point that I was endeavoring to get across. Emotions are a product of an individual's internal biochemistry, and a function of their biology.
We confess to not having considered such a mechanistic view of the universe, and thank the ambassador for pointing it out. A specific exclusion should render further arguments moot which would more rightly belong at a philosophical club or theological college.

An easy extension brings us to the fact that eye colour, hair colour, indeed even skin colour are matters biological in origin. While they may not be directly related to maturity, there is some correlation between aging and a change in eye, hair, and skin colour, as they all begin to fade and lose their lustre with advanced age.
This is reaching somewhat, but it is true that dealing with such perverse readings is what the drafting process is about.

This leads us to add the following:

DEFINING "biological maturity" for the purpose of this resolution as the physical ability to engage in sexual acts,

EXCLUDING intellectual or emotional issues from the above definition, for the avoidance of doubt,

REQUIRES... as before,

REQUIRES that where persons are assessed individually rather than using a legally defined age of consent, the assessment shall likewise not discriminate on the manner of consenting sexual congress which may be undertaken or the non-living objects which may be chosen to be employed on any grounds except for biological maturity,

NOTES that this resolution refers only to discrimination between ages of consent, and not the overall definition of age of consent.

While we appreciate the effort being put forth by the Gobbanaean representative, we question, again, the fundamental premise. We're as much a fan of non-discrimination as the next guy, but we questions whether such excessively legalistic legislation is going to solve the problem.

Given that most UN nations can't even spell their own title, how are we to assume that such fine distinctions are going to be grasped by the multitudes?

Most courteously,

We are always open to suggestions that would improve the clarity of our phrasing and reduce the apparent complexity our personal use of language seems to introduce, if our assistants are to be believed.