NationStates Jolt Archive

Understanding that certain nations may wish to employ or allow the employment of children.

Realizing that employment in certain industries can cause a child's well being and future to be in jeopardy.

Believing that it is morally reprehensible for any state or governing body to force children into any situation that is likely to cause them harm.

Further believing that certain basic protections should be provided to all children.

The World Assembly thus:

(A)Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation of residence.

(B) Bans the employment of minors in:
(1) work in which they are subject to physical or psychological abuse.
(2) work in which they are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health.
(3) work which involves dangerous machinery, dangerous equipment or dangerous tools.
(4) work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads.
(5) work in environments exposing them to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health.
(6) work in environments that may expose them to hazardous substances, agents and/or processes.
(7) work which would preclude the pursuit of a full-time education, such as work for long hours or work where they are unreasonably confined to the premises of the employer.

(C) Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict.

(D) Bans anyone under the age of consent from engaging in sexually explicit acts as a form of employment.


Are the industries defined in 1 to broad or too narrow? Is there a better way to put it? I want to put "industry" but that'd include service jobs, tech jobs, and even agriculture(depending on your own definition of the word industry), that I don't want to ban with this. I'd like some comments, if anyone's got them. I'll be pushing this through very shortly.

On behalf of the Republic of Havensky, we support this resolution.

We would like to see a better phrasing of "age of majority"

Perhaps, "the legally recognized age of adulthood" or some other phrase. The 'age of majority' sounds confusing.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority) gives a good definition of the term, and since that's the actual definition, there is no legal finagling that'll get around it except some serious wank.

We might consider this should it be revised.

First, section one is clearly meant to stop the pratice of employing children in hazadous situations. As such jobs continue to change and grow over time, we would prefer something that would be a bit broader, but only apply to such situations. We also believe manufacturing is an overly broad use since this can include stuff like packing boxes.

We also wish to keep younglings out of hazadous work, such as nuclear plants and toxic cleanups. Something like:

5,) Bans the employment of persons below the age of majority from working with any radioactive or toxic materials.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority) gives a good definition of the term, and since that's the actual definition, there is no legal finagling that'll get around it except some serious wank.

I stand corrected. I withdraw my reservation.

I completely disagree with this resolution. Not only does my country follow the great tradition of the Spartans. But children are a main source of test subjects in my nation. We not only feel that orphans and other non-useful or dull children should be put to use in testing; such as airbag, weapon, and chemical research as well.

I hereby denounce this resolution and move to strike it from the record.

We might consider this should it be revised.

First, section one is clearly meant to stop the pratice of employing children in hazadous situations. As such jobs continue to change and grow over time, we would prefer something that would be a bit broader, but only apply to such situations. We also believe manufacturing is an overly broad use since this can include stuff like packing boxes.

We also wish to keep younglings out of hazadous work, such as nuclear plants and toxic cleanups. Something like:

5,) Bans the employment of persons below the age of majority from working with any radioactive or toxic materials.

Some of your concerns I share as well, does anyone have an idea of a blanket term for "dangerous industries"? I want something that doesn't allow any room for interpretation.

Whoa whoa whoa...
Bans forced or compulsory recruitment of persons below the age of majority for use in armed conflict.
No, absolutely not. We will flatly oppose any proposal that allows those below the age of majority to 'volunteer' - even though they legally lack the capacity to make such decisions for themselves - to fight in armed conflict. This should be an absolute prohibition, not an open invitation to coercive recruitment.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of Confusion & Uncertainty
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I have changed what would need to be changed for Droa and Andar to support this proposal. when you see this mark __ fill in an age. I have tried my best to work in all the comments.

Understanding that certain nations may want to employ or allow the employment of children, for economic gain.

Realizing that employment in certain industries can put a child's well-being and future to be in jeopardy.

Believing that it is morally reprehensible for any state or governing body to force children under the age of __ into any situation that is likely to cause him/her harm.

Further believing that certain basic protections should be provided to all children.

The World Assembly Would:

1.) Ban the employment of persons below the age of __, from working in the mining, quarrying, and manufacturing industries.

2.) Ban the recruitment of persons below the age of __ to be use in armed conflict.

3.) Ban the employment of persons below the age of __ from working in the sex industry.

4.) Ban the employment of persons below the age of __from working with any radioactive or toxic materials.


In response to Gysgt Hawkins’s comment I have to say then leave the WA it’s not relevant to this proposal that your country corrupt.

*snip*

You are correct of course, I changed the wording to be a complete ban, is it acceptable to you? Moreso, do you have any suggestions on the industries disallowed?

*snip*

Sorry, I missed this somehow earlier:

I'm going to point you towards this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority). The problem with under age of X, is that I want this to apply to all children, regardless of race, age, species, planet, or revolution cycle. This needs to be truly comprehensive.

Age of majority and age of consent are great tools to make it comprehensive.

Age of majority and age of consent are great tools to make it comprehensive.

Yup. On the downside, really quite a lot of nations have different ages of majority and consent for different purposes. In some places you can drive a car before you're allowed to join the army, in others it's the other way around. This makes them kind of slippery to use to protect youngsters, because a sufficiently determined government can always say that the age of majority for joining the army is ten. Trust me, His Royal Obsessiveness had me researching this stuff last year, and it's a right pain.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary.

Yes, the change to Article 2 is acceptable. Article 3 now appears redundant: pornography is part of the sex industry, surely.

We'd like to further suggest that this use language along the lines of: 'prohibits employment of children to the detriment of their obtaining a full-time education'.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

We'd like to further suggest that this use language along the lines of: 'prohibits employment of children to the detriment of their obtaining a full-time education'.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I can envisage certain governments that have been represented here dealing with that limitation by saying that the employed children are receiving a "full-time education"... because they're learning how to do the jobs in question. 'Reasonable nation theory' might be considered an adequate way of dealing with this, but maybe closing that loophole might also be a good idea if there's enough room in the proposal?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaking for the government of
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.

Edited out the redundancy in 4.

Assuring education to all children is sadly outside the scope of this resolution, even if I don't mention it here, it will be mentionable in an education piece. I'm not precluding further legislation, I'm just covering the most basic rights for children.

Do we have room, St. Edmund to list every theoretical race in the game and discover their respective "age of majorities"? I'm gonna have to rely on reasonable nation theory because it's impossible to close that loophole properly.

I'm not asking for you to say there is a right to an education; just to prohibit employment that would interfere with such a right were it to exist.

-- Samantha Benson

Whoa whoa whoa...

No, absolutely not. We will flatly oppose any proposal that allows those below the age of majority to 'volunteer' - even though they legally lack the capacity to make such decisions for themselves - to fight in armed conflict. This should be an absolute prohibition, not an open invitation to coercive recruitment.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of Confusion & Uncertainty
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria
We would not support such a resoultion that would not allow voluntary recruitment of children, so long as adequate provisions were in place, to make certain it truly was voluntary and not forced through secrecy.

Also "age of majority" and "age of consent" are internationally accepted uses. If you believe country A has their's too low or too high, put international pressure on them to raise it. The WA cannot know every custom, history, race, ethnicity, speicies, etc. and should therefore not be trying to put an age on it that applies only to a select group. Probably the only term that might be more universally accepted for sex industry atleast is pre-pubescent, but even that has problems since some speicies are born able to breed.

As for more broad definition of job, how about

"any industry whose employment carries substantial risk to life or limb by it's very nature"

A bit wordy I'll admit, but clearly defines what is "dangerous" is.

My point is that military service involves moral responsibilities it is unreasonable to expect a child to be capable of assessing. Most nations recognise some form of reduced capacity when trying crimes involving minors. Furthermore, it's likely that the WA will at some point recognise the obligation of inferiors to disobey an illegal order, in the course of its humanitarian law. That is a situation in which a child is extremely unlikely to go against the order of an adult.

If there's suddenly a need to compromise on the issue of child soldiers, could we at least remove them from any involvement in combat?

-- Samantha Benson

If there's suddenly a need to compromise on the issue of child soldiers, could we at least remove them from any involvement in combat?

-- Samantha BensonI do not mind that statement as long as it does not imply in times of war when human resources, ie older members, could become scarce. We should not prevent a country from taking over another simply because can continually produce an older population.

Also "age of majority" and "age of consent" are internationally accepted uses.

But not singular.

Great. I forsee more age research in my future :-(

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

But not singular.

Great. I forsee more age research in my future :-(

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent UndersecretaryIndeed, but you should remember that firm age numbers should not be used for the reason I mentioned before.

On the be half of The Republic of Cubaca we feel that this law would limit our income and greatly reduce our military number.

I'm not asking for you to say there is a right to an education; just to prohibit employment that would interfere with such a right were it to exist.

-- Samantha Benson

I fully understand your point, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave that undefined right, to the resolution that actually defines it?

After all, saying you can't employ them if it interferes with education is so vague as to be easily ignored. I'd like to see a resolution ensuring the right to education of children, but this again, is not the place for it.

Make that resolution, and assure the rights of children to it's access.

On a further note, this resolution is a compromise of sorts. That said, I will edit item 2 further. It should say "participation" rather than "the use". That should clear up alot of problems.

You see, I don't endorse child soldiers, they should never be in combat situations. I do, however, endorse military training at a young age. Douria uses military academies exclusively to educate it's children. All citizens are members of the military at birth.

We're warrior poets, or at least we like to think we are.

Are there any further problems?

In a further note, this resolution is a compromise of sorts. That said, I will edit item 2 further. It should say "participation" rather than "the use". That should clear up alot of problems.

You see, I don't endorse child soldiers, they should never be in combat situations. I do, however, endorse military training at a young age. Douria uses military academies exclusively to educate it's children. All citizens are members of the military at birth.

We're warrior poets, or at least we like to think we are.

Are there any further problems?
My legitimate concern with the non-use of children as soldiers in dire circumstances during wartime only still applies. Age restrictions should be lifted for wartime "when there are no longer enough able-bodied members who have reached the age of maturity".
----------
Also section 3 does not do anything against actual pornography necessarily. Nations actually can and do separate them, especially when such is not in the confines of employment.

If your nation is to the point where it cannot stop the forces encroaching on it's territory unless it uses child soldiers, it has already lost. I may be a military genius, but it doesn't take one to tell you that.

And I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to 3, Popotan. Please elaborate?

On Behalf Of The Glorious Nation Of Philadelhpapaedophilia, We Will Not Be Backing And Will Be Strongly Opposing This Proposal. Childeren Should Get Off Their Soft, Smooth Backsides And Earn A Living. Also, having an age of consent would go against and negate everything our nation stands for. The backbone of our country is our childeren. Please, don't take away our right to do whatever the hell we want to them.

I fully understand your point, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave that undefined right, to the resolution that actually defines it?

After all, saying you can't employ them if it interferes with education is so vague as to be easily ignored. I'd like to see a resolution ensuring the right to education of children, but this again, is not the place for it.
Once again, I am not. asking. you. to. ensure. the. right. to. education. I am asking you to include something like: 'Prohibits employment of minorsprejudicial to their pursuit of a full-time education'. Yes, it is vague, and yes, another resolution on education would be a welcome idea, but it should be obvious that if they're working an 85 hour week, then they're not going to do so well on their algebra homework.

I still think Article 3 is redundant, as it is covered by 4.

Article 1 seems overly specific: there are other dangerous industries. Perhaps it could be broadened to 'work prejudicial to their physical and emotional development'. Exposure to substances hazardous to their health should also be prohibited.

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: The RL ILO Recommendation on Worst Forms of Child Labour defines them as:
(a) work which exposes children to physical, psychological or sexual abuse;

(b) work underground, under water, at dangerous heights or in confined spaces;

(c) work with dangerous machinery, equipment and tools, or which involves the manual handling or transport of heavy loads;

(d) work in an unhealthy environment which may, for example, expose children to hazardous substances, agents or processes, or to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health;

(e) work under particularly difficult conditions such as work for long hours or during the night or work where the child is unreasonably confined to the premises of the employer.

OOC: Thanks for that QoD, I was looking for something like that.

IC: I have edited the original proposal to read thusly:

Understanding that certain nations may wish to employ or allow the employment of children.

Realizing that employment in certain industries can cause a child's well being and future to be in jeopardy.

Believing that it is morally reprehensible for any state or governing body to force children into any situation that is likely to cause them harm.

Further believing that certain basic protections should be provided to all children.

The World Assembly thus:

(A)Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority in their nation of nationality

(B) Bans the employment of minors in:
(1) work in which they are subject to physical or psychological abuse.
(2) work in which they are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health.
(3) work which involves dangerous machinery, dangerous equipment or dangerous tools.
(4) work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads.
(5) work in environments exposing them to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health.
(6) work in environments that may expose them to hazardous substances, agents and/or processes.
(7) work which would preclude the pursuit of a full-time education, such as work for long hours or work where they are unreasonably confined to the premises of the employer.

(C) Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict.

(D) Bans anyone under the age of consent from engaging in sexually explicit acts as a form of employment.

(b) work in which children are required to be under water, underground, in confined spaces and/or at dangerous heights.

Fine, perhaps, if we're only talking about Humans... but doesn't the WA also contain nations with inhabitants of various species for which "under water", "underground" or "in confined spaces" are natural and safe environments?

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Speaking for the government of
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic.

If your nation is to the point where it cannot stop the forces encroaching on it's territory unless it uses child soldiers, it has already lost. I may be a military genius, but it doesn't take one to tell you that.Maybe so, militarily speaking, but not nessarily publicly speaking if such a war were turned into a more guerrilla style conflict you could do enough damage to at least get something close to a white peace. However if you were forced to never rely on able-bodied members below the age of maturity then you'd defiantly lose.

Thus, while you may not be able to win the war relying on such populace, it would be possible not to lose it. And again, my proposal for use is very narrowly defined as being: in a war, unable to get enough troops of age to support your army and the opponent still can. I'd even be willing to add in a clause saying for a "defensive" war only, but there should be some leeway give for extraordinary circumstance in extraordinary times.

And I'm not sure what you're getting at with regards to 3, Popotan. Please elaborate?Article 3 bans the use of children in the industry. It does not ban: the sale of such images once taken and distributed to middlemen. You have to have a separate article to deal with that because some countries do distinguish from this (OOC: there are real life countries that do distinguish this in law).

Article 3 bans the use of children in the industry. It does not ban: the sale of such images once taken and distributed to middlemen. You have to have a separate article to deal with that because some countries do distinguish from this (OOC: there are real life countries that do distinguish this in law).

I don't think you read three properly:

3.) Bans the production of, distribution of, possession of, and/or trade of any pornographic material created with the participation of persons below the age of consent.


St Edmund, I've edited that line to read:
(b) work in which children are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health.

Is that sufficient?

Edit: I've given the whole thing a once over with some English corrections, and some word changes. Any further problems?

*sob sob* Why won't you listen to me about Articles 3 and 4 overlapping? Have I said something offensive? I thought I was being reasonably helpful in this discussion so far.

PORNOGRAPHY IS A PART OF THE SEX INDUSTRY.

By all means make it explicit that pornography is included, but there's no reason to separate them out as though entirely distinct.

-- Samantha Benson

(B) Bans the participation of persons below the age of majority in armed conflict.Actually, in the Federal Republic, children of 16 and 17 may enlist in the Armed Forces with parental consent; was it your intention to ban such a practice?

Agreed with Quod that Clause (C) should be omitted, partly because the following clause already prohibits the employment of children in pornography, partly because Clause (C) is actually more of a Moral Decency provision anyway, and should probably be left to a separate proposal (for example, Gruen's former Child Pornography Prohibition).

(D) Bans the employment of persons below the age of consent in the sex industry.So Playboy is barred from hiring, say, some lucky 17-year-old as an intern, gofer, assistant, whatever? Be more specific as to what kind of employment is actually prohibited here. And if you decide to include to include (C) over the objections, keep in mind "participation of ..." also prohibits teenage interns/assistants/etc.

I notice child abuse by parental or legal guardians is also ignored (and I think that subject belongs in a separate proposal too), so perhaps the title "Protection of Children" should be narrowed to "Ban Child Labor" or something along those lines?

St Edmund, I've edited that line to read:(b) work in which children are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health.

Is that sufficient?
At first glance, yes. I'll think about it, and get back to you.

*sob sob* Why won't you listen to me about Articles 3 and 4 overlapping? Have I said something offensive? I thought I was being reasonably helpful in this discussion so far.

PORNOGRAPHY IS A PART OF THE SEX INDUSTRY.

By all means make it explicit that pornography is included, but there's no reason to separate them out as though entirely distinct.

-- Samantha Benson

OOC: I thought I posted this yesterday QoD, apologies, I rewrote my post a few times and must have left this out.

IC:I apologize for what may seem like ignoring that particular comment, The clause in question is merely intended to give somewhat limited protections through a boycott to children in nations that are not WA members. I have removed the article, pending your opinion of that explanation. It may be best left to another proposal anyhow. On a side note, I sincerely appreciate the help I've been given so far Ms. Benson. You have been of great assistance.

Kenny, I've drawn a distinction between armed forces and armed conflict. You can recruit kids into the army below the age of majority(Douria enlists them at birth), but you may not use them in actual combat until they've reached the age of Majority.

The new C, formerly D... should read:
Bans anyone under the age of consent from engaging in sexually explicit acts as a form of employment.

Does that work better?

I don't think you read three properly:
but just the areas dealing with pornagraphy? You couldn't FE, tape someone under the age of consent, but you could still have sex with them?

Actually, in the Federal Republic, children of 16 and 17 may enlist in the Armed Forces with parental consent; was it your intention to ban such a practice?Can they sign a contract that is legally binding? If so, then it's fine.

Actually, in the Federal Republic, children of 16 and 17 may enlist in the Armed Forces with parental consent; was it your intention to ban such a practice?

Welcome to contingent majority. Isn't it fun?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I'm going to rename this Child Labor Protection Act. I've made alot of changes, anyone got anything else to say before I submit it tomorrow?

Style:

There's no need for 'and/or': 'or' will suffice.

Don't really like the passive voice in 5. 'work in environments exposing them to...' would be preferable:
(5) work in environments exposing them to temperatures, noise levels, and/or vibrations damaging to their health.

Finally, don't change the title to that! It sounds like you're trying to protect child labour. Just 'Child Labor Act' or something would probably be more appropriate; or, use 'Prevention', 'Regulation', 'Restriction', o.w.t.t.e. instead of 'Protection'.

Content (and on this front I'm really not trying to create last minute problems):

Should have thought of this before, but there is not one single age of majority (as has been endlessly discussed on other occasions). Furthermore, 'persons below the age of majority' is a clunky formulation, given 'minors' can be used. Therefore, you could have as Article 1:
Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority in their nation of nationality
And then Articles 2 and 3 could refer to 'minors'.

-- Samantha Benson

"Restrictions on Child Labor" fits fine. Use that.

do not change "persons below the age of majority" to "minors" as that changes the definition. Minors is a much broader term and can cause more problems. Let it be wordy as despite "age of majority" being somewhat fluid, it's not as fluid as "minor".

Other than that, those changes are fine.

Sorry, 'minor' has a meaning other than 'person below the age of majority'? Perhaps you'd like to provide an example of such a 'fluid' use?

-- Samantha Benson

I believe that in most of the US, the age of majority is 18 (can have sex, smoke, vote, join the military), but they're technically minors until 21 (can drink).

I think some of you are confusing age of license with age of majority, but I'll go ahead and include a definition and make the changes Ms. Benson requested. Outside of that, I think it's ready to go.

OOC Edit: I'm going to wait for a few more comments, and push this to Sunday night. Can't do it tomorrow or Saturday sadly.

Current Text:Understanding that certain nations may wish to employ or allow the employment of children;

Realizing that employment in certain industries can cause a child's well being and future to be in jeopardy;

Believing that it is morally reprehensible for any state or governing body to force children into any situation that is likely to cause them harm;

Further believing that certain basic protections should be provided to all children;

The World Assembly thus:

(A)Defines a 'minor' as a person below the legal age of majority as defined in their nation.

(B) Bans the employment of minors in:
(1) work in which they are subject to physical or psychological abuse,
(2) work in which they are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health,
(3) work which involves dangerous machinery, dangerous equipment or dangerous tools,
(4) work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads,
(5) work in environments exposing them to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health,
(6) work in environments that may expose them to hazardous substances, agents and/or processes,
(7) work which would preclude the pursuit of a full-time education, such as work for long hours or work where they are unreasonably confined to the premises of the employer.

(C) Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict.

(D) Bans anyone under the age of consent from engaging in sexually explicit acts as a form of employment.

I believe that in most of the US, the age of majority is 18 (can have sex, smoke, vote, join the military), but they're technically minors until 21 (can drink).
Wow, I had no idea. That makes no intuitive sense to me, but I'll believe you. In any case, it doesn't matter too much as Douria is providing the definition of minor here.

I believe that in most of the US, the age of majority is 18 (can have sex, smoke, vote, join the military), but they're technically minors until 21 (can drink).

(OOC obviously) I'm pretty certain you're wrong; it's not that simple :-) Joining the military is consistent (I think, isn't it federal?), but smoking, voting, drinking and sex ages vary between 14 and never (or, more reasonably, 21), all get referred to as "the age of majority" even when they're different, and can (at the younger end) be contingent on parental permission. Neither term is as well-defined as people assert.

(OOC obviously) I'm pretty certain you're wrong; it's not that simple :-) Joining the military is consistent (I think, isn't it federal?), but smoking, voting, drinking and sex ages vary between 14 and never (or, more reasonably, 21), all get referred to as "the age of majority" even when they're different, and can (at the younger end) be contingent on parental permission. Neither term is as well-defined as people assert.
14-17 would with someone 4 years your age (obviously at least 14) in most states, unless you're married with consent of parents (16) or are able to declare yourself as a legally indepedant at (17), and this isn't in all areas. 18 you are able to do anything but drink alcholol anywhere in the US (used to be a few holdouts, but not anymore). You are also treated as minor by businesses for various purposes (insurance rates, discounts, etc.) till age 25.

As for minor you are classified as a minor till age 21, but only for drinking alchohol. Pretty much "minor" means anything you are too young to do legally.

*coughs* As I said earlier, some people are onfusing Age of Majority with Age of License.

Age of Majority is defined as when you have ALL rights associated with being an adult.

We might consider this should it be revised.

First, section one is clearly meant to stop the pratice of employing children in hazadous situations. As such jobs continue to change and grow over time, we would prefer something that would be a bit broader, but only apply to such situations. We also believe manufacturing is an overly broad use since this can include stuff like packing boxes.

We also wish to keep younglings out of hazadous work, such as nuclear plants and toxic cleanups. Something like:

5,) Bans the employment of persons below the age of majority from working with any radioactive or toxic materials.We find this a foolish idea as why just keep selected groups safe and not work to get these areas cleaned up so it is safe for all to work there.

It does no good for a minor to live to have children then enter into work in some toxic area only to find he/she can't have kids because of the exposure at work to something. Thus we will then in time not have to worry about minors working anywhere as they will not be any...

We need to look at cleaning up places that are a danger to life and not worry about protecting one group at a time out of hundreds while the other 99 groups suffer... in the effort to take up the slack caused by not haveing 100% of the possible work force available. Then that 99% due to expose slowly growing unable to meet the needs of daily life.. thus becoming a greater burden on all society.

Age of Majority is defined as when you have ALL rights associated with being an adult.

"Which are?" Cerys asks, with the air of someone laying a bear trap.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

"Which are?" Cerys asks, with the air of someone laying a bear trap.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent UndersecretaryWhen your children, for example, would have all the rights you now have.

This proposal dead?

It has like 35 approvals already?

It has like 35 approvals already?
Checked the other day and did not see it. I saw another proposal which was radically different than anything proposed here.

OOC: I posted it last night, and did about half of my telegrams. I'm pretty sick right now though, so rather than getting the rest sent tonight, I'm likely going to go lay down. I hope I've enough energy to send the rest(I have the list all ready to go) after work tomorrow, but who knows.

Should I miss quorum, this goes back up after I feel better. It ain't doing that badly though.

OOC: Took a second try, but this is at quorum. Bumping this so folks can see the debate, but making a new thread.