NationStates Jolt Archive

Restrictions on Child Labor

Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: The Dourian Embassy

Description: 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.

Thanks to all the people who made this possible. Couldn't possibly reply to the plethora of telegrams I received(OOC: Seriously, the limit of 15 is annoying), but I appreciate it none the less. Assuming this doesn't loose any approvals before the update, this should go to vote.

Lets see it pass.

Our warmest of congratulations to Mr. Willing on achieving quorum for this very worthy document, which we will undoubtedly support. I've got my iPod handy, should the debate turn into a shitfest over the lack of definitions for age of consent and age of majority. I've also got Susa on standby in case a good nut-kicking is in order.

Jimmy Baca
Ambassador to the World Assembly

P.S. We demand a poll.

ditto.

OOC: This poll will close on 04-09-2035 at 5:24 AM

Better get your answers in while it's still up.

Promethesia will be voting in favor of this resolution.

Carlton Brooks
Interim Secretary of State

Voting has begun!
The Subistratican vote has been cast FOR this resolution.

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

Resolution does not correctly define what a child is. Simply stating "Someone being under the age of Majority" is not enough.

Serously, would you want your 5 year old brother/siter/neice/nephew/cousin doing any kind of job?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

I voted against it, and you all should too.

Resolution does not correctly define what a child is. Simply stating "Someone being under the age of Majority" is not enough.

Serously, would you want your 5 year old brother/siter/neice/nephew/cousin doing any kind of job?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

I voted against it, and you all should too.

Actually, "age of majortiy" is enough. It means "the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized in law. It is the chronological moment when children legally assume majority control over their persons and their actions and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents over and for them."
(Got that from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority))

So don't bash the term unless you actually understand what it means.

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

If and when I am accepted into the WA I will back this resolution 100%.

After an incredible debate traversing the nature and meaning of "childhood," the spiritual quandry of the birth-growth-work-death cycle, and the inestimable value of choice, Mojo, Elder of the High Commune and governing body of The Free State of Vinador, summarized that body's findings as follows:

"While freedom is and must be the highest goal, in such a case where one's personal freedom thwarts the personal freedom of another, it becomes the asp that eats its own tail. To be free to engage children not yet of majority age (and likely therefore incapable of adroit decision-making facilities) in hazardous employment is not freedom at all, but an affront to freedom."

As such, The Free State of Vinador intends to vote in favor of this resolution, and will urge its Regent to do the same.

After further debate among the High Commune's Elders, The Free Nation of Vinador has also agreed that, "Should Chuck Norris jump in the ocean, Chuck Norris would not get wet, but the water would get Chuck Norrised."

i vote in favor

Congratulations on reaching quorum! In light of the past events, I've come to greatly appreciate this seemingly insignificant accomplishment myself...

I applaud the fact that you did not make Santa Barbara's mistake in the UN's Child Labor resolution, or Stephistan's error in the UN's Child Protection Act, by limiting a 'minor' to human beings and their standard physical development.

I have cast my region's vote FOR the proposal.

_______________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Resolution does not correctly define what a child is. Simply stating "Someone being under the age of Majority" is not enough.

Serously, would you want your 5 year old brother/siter/neice/nephew/cousin doing any kind of job?

I sure as hell wouldn't.

I voted against it, and you all should too.
I see your point. I voted for, because children are mostly those underage. And "age" is different everywhere. But in the majority of countries, it's mostly below 18. That sounds fine to me, therefore Polukinthulatestussia votes in favour of the resolution.

I understand what it means perfectly, but not every country has the same Age of Majority laws, hence my stance on it not being properly defined. Hell, even some parts of Canada have different laws of this nature. In Nova Scotia, the age of Concent is 14, in Ontario, the legal age to drink is 19, while most other places its 18.

Laws are so varried that it needs to be clearly defined or this resolution would have no strength and it would be up to the individual nation on how they interpret this, should it pass.

You want to ban child labour? Clearly define it, then I'll vote for it.

I agree with Paragus, a less sane country might set the age of majority to that at which a normal child is able to make enough money to pay for its own food and shelter.

It is Sollomanna's humble belief that the terms "below the age of majority" and "age of consent" will be sufficient to define the terms for this bill while still maintaining that the nations culture will dictate the nitty gritty terms of this agreement. Here in the state of Sollomanna our age of consent is 14, and as such our children are raised to make decisions as adults by that age making them in their minds and in our own adults and fully capable of work. This may vary from state to state by the particular laws that govern and the culture. Therefore the vauge terms allow room for the nations laws to define what is right for their culture.

Sollomanna votes for this ammendment.

Laws are so varried that it needs to be clearly defined or this resolution would have no strength and it would be up to the individual nation on how they interpret this, should it pass.

As Sollomanna pointed out, there would be no way to set the age at a specific number because cultures vary from nation to nation; Subistratica defines the age of majority as 20, where other nations would have it lower or higher.
Would it be fair to then, based on what one nation believes, set a specific age limit? If it were, say, 18, then we would have a problem because that would be (in our opinion) too low, while for a nation such as Sollomanna it would be too high.
It is because of the age of majority that this resolution can work.

Bebostonia will be voting yes on the resolution

I think children should be able to work as soon as they are able. The reason they need to work in these LEDC's is because they need the money, without the money they will starve and this is much worse than working for most of the day. This motion would be good in a perfect world where everyone could live without fear of starvation.

I think children should be able to work as soon as they are able. The reason they need to work in these LEDC's is because they need the money, without the money they will starve and this is much worse than working for most of the day. This motion would be good in a perfect world where everyone could live without fear of starvation.

This resolution does not prevent minors from working at all; it prevents them from working in dangerous situations [such as in factories or in mines].
[OOC: Laws such as this are extremely common in the RL.]

The Holy Empire of Andetrium cannot in good faith support this resolution. While His Excellency, the Emperor, is opposed to the employment of children, particularly in dangerous job environments; this resolution does not adequately define the age of majority and age of consent. This creates two very massive loopholes in the resolution. The age of majority and consent are both based solely upon the laws of individual countries. Theoretically, a nation could choose to put the age of five as their age of majority by claiming that in their culture, five year olds are self-sufficient and educated.

Therefore, we will be voting against this proposal in the hopes that more effective legislation can and will be passed on the subject of child labor.

This resolution does not prevent minors from working at all; it prevents them from working in dangerous situations [such as in factories or in mines].
[OOC: Laws such as this are extremely common in the RL.]

If it is the only job that is open to them they will starve when you bring in this law

If it is the only job that is open to them they will starve when you bring in this law

If jobs like those are the only ones available to children, then there's something seriously wrong with the nation they live in.

For those who oppose the resolution due to the use of "age of majority/consent", please tell us what specific age should be used instead.

[QUOTE=Subistratica;13622457]If jobs like those are the only ones available to children, then there's something seriously wrong with the nation they live in.

So you propose to cripple nations that need economical help

"The Republic of Corsucantia supports this ammendment, and will so forth be voting yes."

Respectfully,
President of Corsucantia
Head of the Republic of Corsucantia

My government supports this resolution, but is interested in any analysis other nations have on particular clauses within the resolution. The basic concept is sound, and as far as my staff and I have seen, there are no negative impacts to the resolution.

Somehow I think that there should have been a previous resolution, stating the simple fact that a certain age (16, 18, 21) is the absolute age for "becoming an adult" or "reached the age of consent."

I voted for, with the simple fact that the Age of Consent/Turns Adult in my nation is 12. :-D

Clause B(2),(3),(4) (5) and (6) - and indeed (7) during harvest time - would appear to make it illegal for a child to work on a farm. This law therefore criminalises vast numbers of very poor farmsteads where children help the family to subsist.

Further, Clause D whilst laudable, does not belong in this resolution. The issue of child prostitution is so important that it deserves much more careful consideration than a single sentence tacked on to a largely unrelated resolution.

For these reasons, the Federation of Minor Tribes urges all members of the World Assembly to resist this measure.

If jobs like those are the only ones available to children, then there's something seriously wrong with the nation they live in.

For those who oppose the resolution due to the use of "age of majority/consent", please tell us what specific age should be used instead.
I don't believe that a universal age should be created. Instead, a minimum age of say, 16 should be instated. That way if a nation wishes to have a higher age of majority, it can. But, the nation cannot have an age of majority below 16.

I am currently abstaining from this vote. I must echo the concerns of my fellow Nations. An Age requirement must be placed into this piece of legislation. I think this bill is noble and something we need. Though, the lucidness of terminology is something that needs to be stronger.

What if a country wants to define "adult" as being 10-years-old or 12-years-old?

I will not be voting for this bill until this terminology is changed.

Sincerely,
Prime Minister Magdelena Roslin
The Democratic Republic of Antartona
Region of Firefly

As a major co-sponsor of this bill, I will be supporting it, despite my objections of C (specifically it does not allow children to be used as say, military cooks, thus freeing other older members to fight a war when personnel are in short supply).

I am currently abstaining from this vote. I must echo the concerns of my fellow Nations. An Age requirement must be placed into this piece of legislation. I think this bill is noble and something we need. Though, the lucidness of terminology is something that needs to be stronger.

What if a country wants to define "adult" as being 10-years-old or 12-years-old?

[OOC: I think I should [once again] point out that "age of majority" is "the chronological moment when children legally assume majority control over their persons and their actions and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents over and for them."

Basically, it's when a child doesn't need to rely on their parents anymore and is legally recognized as an adult. The only way around this (that is, to be no longer considered a minor before reaching the age of majority) would be for the child to become emancipated. There are a lot of legal responsibilities that individuals gain by reaching this age [which varies by states, provinces, nations, etc.].

Theoretically, one nation could lower their age of majority to 10 or 12 to circumvent this law... but they must also take into account the weight that reaching the age of majority brings. Would you want 10-year-olds that can enter into contracts, sue or be sued, obtain houses or motor vehicles, etc.? I suppose that nation could pass laws to raise the age that these rights are granted, but then it would no longer be an issue of age of majority, but one of finding a way around the latest WA resolution, which I find would be so ludicrous that no nation would ever consider it.]

It has been simply put that a child consistenting of being in minor age can not and should not be allowed to obtain work in fear of their safety. So I would like to suggest some type of soical welfare program that helps parents take care of their children, so they can take care of them selves

What really needs to be examined in this: does this resolution HELP or HURT the global community? Is it FAIR to every nation? Does this suggest UNIVERSAL or CULTURAL influence, and thereby is it necessary to pass in as a global resolution?

As part of the World Assembly, the Kingdom of Fratty20 does not see this resolution as helping child labor! As I have previously mentioned, the legal age of children in my nation is 12. And everything is working out great for my nation! If the global community thinks that 16 needs to be the standard for every nation, then I would abide by those laws.

However, as it has been previously stated, kids in my nation are adults at 12, while others at 20. I'd like to think that once my citizens reach the age of 20, compared to those countries, they are SO MUCH MORE self-sufficient... But it still stands that I treat my minors with dignity (my population is intelligent)!

This resolution has an enormous loophole, and thus it needs to be fixed! Set some standard! That is the reason that the Kingdom of Fratty20 will vote against this resolution!

Despite a lack of loopholes for babies to be employed by Thatch-Pro, all our vote are belong to this resolution.

-Raymond Gardner
Plutonian ambassador

What really needs to be examined in this: does this resolution HELP or HURT the global community? Is it FAIR to every nation? Does this suggest UNIVERSAL or CULTURAL influence, and thereby is it necessary to pass in as a global resolution?

As part of the World Assembly, the Kingdom of Fratty20 does not see this resolution as helping child labor! As I have previously mentioned, the legal age of children in my nation is 12. And everything is working out great for my nation! If the global community thinks that 16 needs to be the standard for every nation, then I would abide by those laws.

However, as it has been previously stated, kids in my nation are adults at 12, while others at 20. I'd like to think that once my citizens reach the age of 20, compared to those countries, they are SO MUCH MORE self-sufficient... But it still stands that I treat my minors with dignity (my population is intelligent)!

This resolution has an enormous loophole, and thus it needs to be fixed! Set some standard! That is the reason that the Kingdom of Fratty20 will vote against this resolution!

So what you're saying here is, in your nation at 12 years old the children have the rights and responsibilities that adults have?

They have to pay for their own food, pay for their own place(and utilities), find transportation back and forth between work and home, are able to drive tractor trailers to work should they own one, are legally responsible to follow all laws or risk full penalties, able to use alcohol and smoke cigarettes(assuming adults can do those things in your nation), are free from any responsibilities to educate themselves should they so choose, and they are fully able to enter contracts, but you have a problem with them finding employment in any and all fields?

Is your nation only humans, by the by? What's the average age there? Are there any sophonts(great word, by the way for the sentient rights folks) beyond humans there? Do they also reach "adulthood" at the age of 12, even if they live for 400 years? What if they only live to 10?

I'm sorry, you've got me curious.

First off, we would like to know whether these laws would apply on our current punishments of criminal minors. The High Court in the Federation of GSS often send obedient youths to service camp*, where some individuals may experience their time to be uder press, stress and/or noise. In some cases, where the individual does not follow the instructions from security forces in these camps, even physicological abuse may be experienced. This is a punishment they have drawn upon them selves, since we don't send all our youths to these camps. Only they who need the dicipline from it.

Further more, what paragraph B1, B3, B4 and B5 in the proposal concerns, we would like to propose an additional sub-paragraph, where it is stated that a minor that has signed up in free will to our pre-military school, has the right to learn the procedures of life-saving scenarios and how to use a small range of dangerous tools. This does often come with a noisy environment since it in the training in dangerous tools seem inevidable to perform without causing loud noises.

Since we never risk the lives of our minors by in any way sending these individuals on live scenarios, and it is by their very own requests that they join up on the program, and since they are educated under peace-time conditions, we propose that a pre-military school does not go in line with what the B1, B3, B4, B5 or the C-paragraph concludes. We suggest that this may continue, and that other nations aswell should have the opportunity of giving their minors the very same chance as we do. There is no force involved, they sign up in free will.

Is it not after all in line with your political views, that it lies in the name of the individual rights to do what one wants; to follow your own free will unless it hurts anyone else? It is not even live scenarios, only preparations for it. Remember that it is simply training in procedures of life-saving scenarios and education in how to use dangerous equipment. We urge you to think this one through before voting in favor of this proposal. We even ask you to vote no to this, but to accept the adjustment we propose.

The minor her self chooses to do this traning, to get education in these matters, and she even gets a small payment for her time. Do not take this away from her.


* Service camps are quite similar to the military school, only with a higher degree of security around the individual and more focus her dicipline.

I might already leave the WA over the overwhelming victory of this issue.

As a major co-sponsor of this bill, I will be supporting it, despite my objections of C (specifically it does not allow children to be used as say, military cooks, thus freeing other older members to fight a war when personnel are in short supply).

I'm not fully sure I'm comfortable in you calling yourself a major co-sponsor, but that's not big deal either. QoD I wouldn't mind saying that, but while you helped a bit in drafting but the assistance wasn't major. To note though, it says "armed conflict" not armed forces. Your cooks would be fine actually as long as you didn't make them violate any of the remaining portions in their jobs as cooks, and kept them away from the front.

*snip*

I'll cover the point of punishment of criminal minors first. It's not employment, so it's not covered by this resolution.

That was easy, no?

Your second point of, and let me make sure this is stated properly, Voluntary-Mandatory-Yet-Dangerous-Education-That-We-Pay-Them-For.

Wow, that's good stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit).

I mean, there's contrived, and then there's contrived.

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/images/big-prize.gif

Go on. Take it. You've earned it.

The Federation of Shang Dang declares that is will be voting against this issue, not due to the age of adulthood issue, but instead it's needless and babbling posted in Section B.

1)work in which they are subject to physical or psychological abuse,

Psychological is up for debate, and that simple word can create incredible levels of arguments on what is and isn't fair, and rather then argue the extremes of both sides we should acknowledge that this sentence is too general.

(4) work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads,

Since we have not clearly defined a particular age, and that in some nations the age is above eighteen, many of us should be honest with ourselves and know that this is an overwhelming feel good generalization intended for those clearly much too young do be doing any manual labor, none the less those of heavy loads, (say over 45 lbs/20kg).

(5) work in environments exposing them to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health,

Noise levels is intended for the extremes, but with a document as powerful as this we should not be so general and instead define "dangerous levels." There are ample amount of health studies to do this and should be easy.

(6) work in environments that may expose them to hazardous substances, agents and/or processes,

Admittedly my weakest argument, I believe this would include many cleaning agents that are found in homes. I would like better wording.

(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.

This will be outright unenforceable, and we should omit such nonsense from documents, lest we be named as nothing but an unrealistic organization of smiles and happiness that ignores reality.

Section B is dangerous, as it completely BANS jobs that are not clearly defined as detrimental to our society. If we really wish to pass something on Child Labor, Section B should be replaced with less serious language asking for nations to take serious consideration in restricting unsafe work for under age citizens. For us to demand such radical change so haphazardly is irresponsible.

((OOC: This is my first serious post about the WA, so please, if you would love to rip me apart for faulty logic, I ask you to do it. Baptism by fire please!))

*snip*

This body is not made up of only humans, nor are all humans in all cultures the same. There has to be some basic respect paid to all members of this body. I would ask the honorable delegate from Shang Dang to remember that.

B1 doesn't need a clear definition for psychological abuse, I'm leaving that up to your nation to define.

As for B4 the definition you provided in your reply sounds like an excellent one for you to propose to your nations legislature. That can be your standard.

Your argument on B5 though, that there are ample studies on this to include exact measurements of what is an unsafe level. Well since your legislature is incapable of passing anything on it's own(using those very studies, no less), I'd ask where I can find them, and do they pertain to all species? Every...single...one? Wouldn't it make more sense to prod YOUR legislature into action and define it for yourselves than to expect this resolution to try, and probably go past the charactor limit for resolutions in doing so?

Or B6, which you say may cause people to, I'm not sure, not have their kids clean their own homes? Chores are not employment.

Even in B7, which you call unworkable, we're dealing with what your legislature will have to do to make this work. It's not impossible to make the laws, it's not impossible to investigate law breakers either. I don't see your point there, but since it hinges on "this won't work" without explaining why, that's not suprising.

Finally, your conclusion seems to point that this is an overly broad and overreaching document that tries to do far to much and is overly intrusive on your national sovereignty. Yet all it seems to do, as far as even your arguments say is give you too many choices, which you don't want to make.

If I give you the choice, it's up to you to follow through. This must be some broad new idea for you people. The legislature in your nation will actually have to legislate. Scary, I know, But remember: The power is yours! (http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/f50d/screens_feature-39345.jpeg).

I have to come to support paragus's point of view. There are too many vague points here. And this law can seriously infringe on many cultures, some cultures have children taught as warriors and it is unethical to tear their culture limb from limb, just because we don't approve of their views on child labour. I am arguing from a cultural/moral relativist point of view.

I understand what it means perfectly, but not every country has the same Age of Majority laws, hence my stance on it not being properly defined. The Ambassodor from The Free Land of Vinador would like to publicly chastise The Ambassodor from Paragus for being entirely pedantic.

It is a very clever illusion of statecraft to maintain an argument against humane laws on the basis that they are not applied in exactitude. In fact, no law created in the world politic should be applied to every nation in exactly the same way. If one were, it would invariably be an abomination against sovereignty somewhere.

Political policy is like a piece of art. Each law created herein is tool: a color on a palette, a brush, or a canvas. This bill clearly provides a tool in affirming what any sane person would agree upon: that "child labor" should not be allowed by member nations of the World Assembly. It is up to each nation to use that tool in order to best create their own masterpeice of statecraft, which is allowed for by leaving the the terms regarding "Age of Majority" to each individual nation state.

As we can see in the case of Sollomanna (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13622372&postcount=16), there is room for both compassionate compliance to a just law and sovereign self-determination, and the citizenry of Vindador thank Sollomanna's Ambassador for making that point so succinctly and graciously.

I agree with Paragus, a less sane country might set the age of majority to that at which a normal child is able to make enough money to pay for its own food and shelter. Which brings a valuable set of questions to the table: Is it the duty of The World Assembly to create laws that pander only to the lowest common denominator? Shoule we only create laws that even the lowest despot could adhere to? Or should we create laws that attempt to raise the bar for the worst offenders against humanity?

The Free State of Vinador believes Our Duty is to the latter.

I think children should be able to work as soon as they are able. The reason they need to work in these LEDC's is because they need the money, without the money they will starve and this is much worse than working for most of the day. This motion would be good in a perfect world where everyone could live without fear of starvation. Failing to work under dangerous conditions will not automatically suffer from starvation, as you insist. Perhaps, sir, you should study your formal logic more closely. Here is a starter link that explains causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality).

What if a country wants to define "adult" as being 10-years-old or 12-years-old?

I will not be voting for this bill until this terminology is changed. Mr. Prime Minister, given that some corrupt nations will define an adult as twelve years old or ten years old, and given that The World Assembly has not at this time done anything to stop them from doing so, we are left with but two choices here:

1) Vote for this Resolution and make the world safer for most children, even with the knowledge that some more corrupt nations will twist their laws to work around the spirit of the Resolution.

2) Vote against this Resolution and allow those same corrupt nations to continue allowing all child labor without restraint.

I urge you to reconsider your position and think of the greater good you could help by voting in favor of this bill, and realize that voting against it will have a negative effect on all children.

However, as it has been previously stated, kids in my nation are adults at 12, while others at 20. I'd like to think that once my citizens reach the age of 20, compared to those countries, they are SO MUCH MORE self-sufficient... But it still stands that I treat my minors with dignity (my population is intelligent)!

This resolution has an enormous loophole, and thus it needs to be fixed! Set some standard! That is the reason that the Kingdom of Fratty20 will vote against this resolution! The Ambassador of The Free People of Vinador is confused, Fratty20. You seem to be here saying that you are voting against this Resolution because it might force nations to treat children with almost as much respect as your people do? That is an absurd perspective, sir, and I can only wonder if your citizenry are as intelligent as you believe they are if they accept your argument here without hesitation!



Your second point... and let me make sure this is stated properly, Voluntary-Mandatory-Yet-Dangerous-Education-That-We-Pay-Them-For.

Wow, that's good stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit).

I mean, there's contrived, and then there's contrived.

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/clipart/images/big-prize.gif

Go on. Take it. You've earned it. SNORT

Ahem. The Ambassador for The Free State of Vinador apologies profusely for his outburst, and will attempt to contain further laughter at the expense of other sovereigns and their representatives.

I, Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Camdria, actually like this resolution. It is well written. As many others have previously stated, in order for a country to get around this law, they would have to make people adults at an early age. Which means the children, who are let's say 7, would be able to drive, pay taxes, smoke, drink, etc. I offer my full support to this resolution.

This is the stupidest....poll I have seen....Alot of nations get their over powering armies from the employment or childern.:sniper::mp5::headbang:

I don't believe that a universal age should be created. Instead, a minimum age of say, 16 should be instated. That way if a nation wishes to have a higher age of majority, it can. But, the nation cannot have an age of majority below 16.

What about those species represented in the UN who do not live to be 16? Under your idea they would never become full fledged adults.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

And, of course, what about nations with different calendars?

Say, for example, that Subistratica's calendar year is 1/2 the length of ForeignNation's calendar (that is, 1 ForeignNation year = 2 Subistratica years). Two people, one in each country, could born at the same time on the same day, but the Subistratican would legally reach the set age of majority in half the time.
The only way to regulate this would be to institute a WA-wide calendar, and I can guarantee that such a thing would NEVER happen.

After initially rushing in to support the current WA resolution "Restrictions on Child Labor," the nation of Soft Shadow has reassessed its position and would like to raise the following concerns:

This resolution potentially excludes minors from labor on small, economically challenged family farms.

This resolution also potentially excludes minors from doing household chores.

Although the proposing nation The Dourian Embassy has stated that "psychological abuse" will be left to be defined within the nations, it is the opinion of Soft Shadow that the language on this particular issue is too vague, and that the actual enforcing of this resolution will not be left to The Dourian Embassy, but to successors within the WA who may not understand the spirit in which this resolution was drafted.

Per WA guidelines, any further legislation on the following issues may violate rules for WA proposals as a Duplicate, which would not allow for further legislation without having this whole resolution repealed:

Participation of minors in armed conflict. It is the opinion of Soft Shadow that this is an important enough issue to warrant its own resolution, which would be judged and debated on its own merit, rather than tacked on to a child labor resolution.

Engaging in sexually explicit acts as a form of employment. It is the opinion of Soft Shadow that child prostitution should also be covered in a separate resolution, which perhaps could also regulate child sexuality, or sexuality between minors and those who have reached the age of majority.

According to WA resolution guidelines, these issues would not be allowed further drafts of legislation without first repealing the child labor resolution. It is the opinion of Soft Shadow that participation of minors in armed conflict and sexually explicit acts should be categorized correctly as separate issues, each given their own resolution, which could stand or be repealed as unique from child labor law.

The nation of Soft Shadow strongly urges all WA member nations to consider or reconsider their position on this resolution in light of these concerns.

Alot of nations get their over powering armies from the employment or childern.Only ones that want worthless armies.

Trying to break your enter key?

This resolution potentially excludes

minors from labor on small, economically

challenged family farms.No, it doesn't. Only if your nation classifies farm work as "dangerous"


This resolution also potentially excludes

minors from doing household chores.No, it doesn't. Chores are not employment. Bring this chestnut out for slavery debates.

Slavery may not be considered as employment because they are not being payed. This mean children could be put through all the conditions that are being banned in this legislation because they are even worse off than the children being payed.

Slavery may not be considered as employment because they are not being payed. This mean children could be put through all the conditions that are being banned in this legislation because they are even worse off than the children being payed.

Two questions:

1. Can you point us to any NationStates in the World Assembly that currently allow slavery?
2. Are you interested in authoring a resolution prohibiting all World Assembly nations from allowing slavery?

I don't mean to be too direct, but I think that if nations feel there is a need to ban slavery that there would be tremendous support in the World Assembly. The current resolution would still protect children, and a ban on slavery would too.

In fact ... I think as a potential proposal author you now have a good preamble:

CONCERNED that its resolution, Restrictions on Child Labor, does not prevent children from being worked as slaves,

I'd like to encourage you to take a shot at writing an anti-slavery proposal. :) My government and many others would be happy to review and provide extra ideas if you draft the proposal here in the WA forum.

I think Child labour should be banned indefinitly, rather then just have "restrictions". Restrictions are nice and fuzzy but the truth of the matter is that no child should have to work. It is unethical and Immoral. I will vote yes to the "restrictions" but I think it should be taken further.

Do it for our childern, the innocent.

Your local Dictator,


Budzey.

This resolution is exceptionally feeble...

Any state in reaction to this could simply change their classification of what a 'minor' is, if not ammended this resolution is irrelevant.

Is it me or is anyone else feeling like the WA has started to become what made the UN bad? Legislation being proposed that does not have a complete peer-to-peer review process?

People have pointed out the flaws in the resolution and tried to make it better, then the person who proposed the legislation, to a person commenting on how to make it stronger used gratuitous hyperlinking to call the persons opionion a slang term for fecal material.. what's wrong with that picture?

Vote against this resolution, get it out of the queue and rewrite it.. its rather simple. The idea is good; the execution is lacking.

...begin pretentious comments.... :sniper:

I feel that we should have the right to choose the minimum age for our workers.

Is it me or is anyone else feeling like the WA has started to become what made the UN bad? Legislation being proposed that does not have a complete peer-to-peer review process? There was a time for peer-review, and that was when the proposal was being drafted. It was drafted right here, on the WA forum, so all members had the opportunity to offer suggestions. That time is passed. You're a day late and a dollar short to be pushing for changes now ... especially since proposals cannot be altered once they've gotten to vote.

People have pointed out the flaws in the resolution and tried to make it better, then the person who proposed the legislation, to a person commenting on how to make it stronger used gratuitous hyperlinking to call the persons opionion a slang term for fecal material.. what's wrong with that picture?No, people have been pointing out imagined flaws and idiotic arguments to oppose a bill they probably would have opposed anyway, and the author has called the arguments (not those offering them) what they are: shit.

Vote against this resolution, get it out of the queue and rewrite it.. its rather simple. The idea is good; the execution is lacking.Something tells me you haven't a single positive suggestion to make this bill "better"; all you're doing now is being contrary because you take issue with the author's behavior -- which for this often combative forum is very mild, let me tell you.

...begin pretentious comments.... :sniper:Already begun.

I feel that we should have the right to choose the minimum age for our workers.Then you might want to look into your own nation's definition of "age of majority." That door was left open for a reason, you know.

I'd say the major problem with this issue is that, now adults will have to do horrible jobs like that, since kids can't. Nobody should, mang. Only robuts.

I'd say the major problem with this issue is that, now adults will have to do horrible jobs like that, since kids can't. Nobody should, mang. Only robuts.

Chances are, adults are probably doing them already (or, they should be). But I'd like to know what a "robut" is.

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


Had this measure of the resolution not been in place I would have again been forced to vote against. But as long as you ALLOW the nation itself to decide what the age of majority is. I can not without some doubt support the bill. So I must simply abstain from voting for or against this nation, until my government deliberates further


Current stance of the Government of the Confederacy of Wencee "We respectfully abstain until further deliberation "

This resolution is exceptionally feeble...

Any state in reaction to this could simply change their classification of what a 'minor' is, if not ammended this resolution is irrelevant.

I second that. Nations that want to keep their child labour will also just claim that things such as Child soldiers doesn't count as "dangerous" and that 5 year olds are not "minors".

It would be nice if we could trust WA members to set a fair definition but we can't. In this case leaving something open to interpretation isn't a strength of the resolution, but a weakness.

Now receiving three endorsements and getting named our WA regional delegate, I'd like to continue my opinion once more.

Agreed with BlobbDobb. This is clearly faulty. It bans a lot of probable scenarios. BANS. Makes illegal. Outright forbids with a vague brush. When you leave in a change to be "open" and "allow interpretation", don't BAN things. Thats dangerous and irresponsible. With our many nations, different opinions, and different definitions of "child" this document is completely outlandish. Now we are to look at every matter of employment and see if it remotely covers these things. Should we close down business for employing teenagers as dishwashers and cleaners because they work with powerful chemicals and they have to stay late to finish their duties?

Perhaps you would say that I can make my own decision for that question. I say thats nonsense. What if another group with a vastly more radical opinion called us out on it? Then we would have a silly argument of opinion with little reasoning involved. Annoying, at best. Such an event would not progress the world forward.

Instead of banning such a massive amount in one fell swoop, why not make the resolution to say we should make visible steps to reduce abusive labor? We can make "forward progress" to make our world a better place to live, but all I see here is future of bickering and nit-picking on what should and shouldn't be legal in each other's borders. It is much easier for a nation to give evidence to their "forward progress" to reducing abuse, rather then it is for them just stomping out things that may or may not consitute as something that gives psychological damage. That concept within itself which is completely ineffective in this document.

I say rewrite it. Worried that it will take too long? I'd rather it take forever then write something completely.

I like to sum things up, it's kinda my thing. The point of this is pretty simple, if you give it thought.

If you want your children to do dangerous jobs, you'll have to give them all the rights of an adult.

As for not wanting to make a decision, friend it's your governments JOB to make a decision. If a more radical wing comes out in opposition to your point of view, your government either changes, stays the same, or is taken over by said element. You can't sit on the fence all day and point at me when your opponents show up all the while shouting "He made me do it, HIM! NOT ME. I MADE NO DECISIONS, PUNISH HIM" *Ahem*.

National Sovereignty is a great thing, it's a wonderful thing, but sometimes, the issue is important enough to trump it. Very little does, but some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery) things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor) do. But this hopes to not press to far into that field, to actually do what needs to be done, but allow nations of all races, species and backgrounds to do it effectively.

I can only count on each nation to do right. I count on the people in one nation recognizing the human rights violation inherent to setting an age of majority of 3 years old for human children. If you see it, you help end it. A resolution shouldn't penalize those nations that have different standards to quiet a few voices that want it their own god damned way.

I set the standards, with a number of variables that you then fit to your own nation. You cannot subvert the intention without everyone else knowing you're doing it. Not all resolutions need to say "If you're under 18 you cannot work ever, sorry," THAT is a return to the UN, only they didn't say sorry.

Chances are, adults are probably doing them already (or, they should be). But I'd like to know what a "robut" is.It's a mechanical posterior, but that's not important right now.

Had this measure of the resolution not been in place I would have again been forced to vote against. But as long as you ALLOW the nation itself to decide what the age of majority is. I can not without some doubt support the bill. So I must simply abstain from voting for or against this nation, until my government deliberates further


Current stance of the Government of the Confederacy of Wencee "We respectfully abstain until further deliberation "

The resolution allows each nation to define their own age of majority because not every species in the WA ages at the same rate. Some species may only live 9 years, others may live to be 900. Really, is this so hard to understand?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I like to sum things up, it's kinda my thing. The point of this is pretty simple, if you give it thought.

If you want your children to do dangerous jobs, you'll have to give them all the rights of an adult.

We find fault here in that if you don't work to protect them in all stages of their lives then why consider them ever getting to be an adult and having earned any rights they might so get only to find them working in some dangerous factory and not surviving longer.. What we need to do is address this to make life better for them from womb to tomb now just certain parts of that life. Some may even find in needed to address needs before they move from the womb other may want to address needs after the tomb but unless we find common ground between womb and tomb we can't even start to find common grounds on that before and after period of time in ones life...

Thus we have voted against this as we need to make work places safe for workers in general not just special groups. Why exterminate one group by leaving it where they can only get into certain jobs? Clean up the job sites make it safe for anyone to work there or close it down.. as many of these sites may expose adults to things that by genetics are already passed on to their children so even if they do reach an age they are to sick to work anywhere...... so what are we doing here just putting a smoke screen up saying we are doing something to make life better when in fact we do nothing here.

Diana McQueen
Chief Minister of Public Safety Cavirra,
Doctor of Social Genetics

Ms. McQueen, if you want the WA to address workplace safety, then write a resolution about workplace safety. This resolution is about protecting children, if a full grown adult wants to work in a dangerous situation (such as working in the UN building back in it's heyday) that's their prerogative.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Ms. McQueen, if you want the WA to address workplace safety, then write a resolution about workplace safety. This resolution is about protecting children, if a full grown adult wants to work in a dangerous situation (such as working in the UN building back in it's heyday) that's their prerogative.

Bob Flibble
WA RepresentativeWe wish to note that we feel there is a need to clean up the work place for all. As we noted if the parents are sick then it is passed onto the children thus the problem of when they will be able to work becomes mute when they are sick and can't at any point in their lives. This is nothing more than an effort to cover up the real problem and please a few while the real problem still exists. We saw efforts under the old UN where folks worked to get special treatment for one group leaving others to face the dangers; when the effort should be on cleaning it up for all not just some special group. Until we clean things up for all it does no good to just pick off a few groups as they, children, at some point become adults and then may have to work in those factories that were not safe for them to work in as kids.

As for working on a proposal to clean up the work place we have staff working on that meanwhile my duty is to address current proposal and set our stand on them before this body not present new proposals. So your note has been sent over to staff to consider as they are busy with several issues at home now and have not had time to work on new issues here.

Diana McQueen
Chief Minister of Public Safety Cavirra,
Doctor of Social Genetics

Cavirra I'm not sure which magical world you live in.

It'd have to be one in which there are no jobs that are unsafe by any measure, no forced overtime(which this also addresses in children), nor damaging to one's health over the long term. Or a place where no one is ever expected to lift a heavy load? Or maybe operate somewhat dangerous machinery(any press, for instance)?

Also, I'm not sure, but are you saying we need something to ban armed forces, prostitution, and pornography completely? I dunno, that seems a divorced issue from this.

I'm asking nations that force kids to have the responsibilities of adults to give them the rights of adults. If you want the adults to be safer, that's great.

Think of it from this perspective, the children grow up and work in the factories that they weren't allowed to as children. But as adults, they can choose to leave, where as children, even with a slavery ban, they can be forced to stay by law. In reasonable nations, parents have say over what children do and do not do. So if the parent or legal guardian says "You have to work there," they have to work there. There's nothing that can be done about it.

The flip side is, if we force them to be defined as adults, they have legal recourse in that nation like any other adult has. Sure, an unsavory fella might force them to stay and work anyhow through physical bullying, but that's the job of your police force, not World Assembly Resolutions.

After careful evaluation of the current resolution, and after deep contemplation of our colleagues banter; the Theocracy of Lacidar applauds and supports the definition for the age of legality.

We must note that the peoples of our great theocracy, did initially take exception with (C) Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict. In particular, question was made regarding foreign forces and their targetting of a nation's fledgling generations.

As history shows, any conflict in which hostilities are limited, sanitized, or follow some barbaric policy of supposed civilized conduct, when said conflict is ended, the world finds but a brief respite from war. It is after, once the fledgling generations of the vanquished do mature, they tend to rise up and take up the surrendered sword so as to shed further blood. Regardless, when a nation is in such dire circumstance for matters of survival, where all must participate, whether it be active or in a supportive role, lest all be eradicated, legality will hardly be of concern.

The Theocracy of Lacidar also is of the mind to give praise when such is due; thus we also note that the preamble is most worthy. We, of the Theocracy of Lacidar, also find it to be "morally reprehensible for any state or governing body to force children" into said situations; this we find to be key in our support of this resolution.

In summary, We, The Theocracy of Lacidar, hereby give our support to The Community of The Dourian Embassy and the resolution "Restrictions on Child Labor".

What is this, we give you a little power , and now you want to come into our lands and take the lively hood away from our own people. The childern our are future, and to work them in our fine factories will give them that edge they will need to surive in the world, til they are ready to serve the great army. You wish to keep our people down, by not allowing to have a larege valuable work force, unlike your childer that sit around, getting fat playing their video games, ours are becoming productive citizens of the Empire. My fellow nations, stand agisnt this act, do not allow them to take hard earn money from the poor familes, dont allow them to let the childern wander the streets, free to commit crimes. We must allow this vaulable resource be used to its full proteinal.

Lord Vladimier Scarvenchi, Master of Trade & Holdings

There was a time for peer-review, and that was when the proposal was being drafted. It was drafted right here, on the WA forum, so all members had the opportunity to offer suggestions. That time is passed. You're a day late and a dollar short to be pushing for changes now ... especially since proposals cannot be altered once they've gotten to vote.

No, people have been pointing out imagined flaws and idiotic arguments to oppose a bill they probably would have opposed anyway, and the author has called the arguments (not those offering them) what they are: shit.

Something tells me you haven't a single positive suggestion to make this bill "better"; all you're doing now is being contrary because you take issue with the author's behavior -- which for this often combative forum is very mild, let me tell you.

Already begun.

Then you might want to look into your own nation's definition of "age of majority." That door was left open for a reason, you know.

Thanks for your reply. What would make this resolution better?

Well - bag it and alter it into multiple smaller resolutions.

1) ban on child pornography and prostitution "sexual exploitation of minors"
2) develope workplace safey standards that will allow for clearer guidance as to what is 'dangerous'
3) ban child labor..
...in that order.

Additionally, in environments where full-time education is not an option for a child, what then are they to do but work? I agree that legislation of this magnitude is necessary, however again find that the execution is not quite there.

I will make my last voice of opinion, in hopes my meager attempt will finally be heard since I believe it to be the strongest argument against it. I will make no more retaliation responses.

After deliberating with my region, we agree that this document does not offer us the wiggle room that it intends. I appreciate the attempt to give us the room to lessen child abuse, but it does not do that. It's wording is harsh, stern, and broad. Instead, all it succeeds in doing is making able-bodied teenagers to nothing past the job of a cashier operator. Many are hoping to get their first starts in a career while still being young enough to change their minds should they find it undesirable, such as farming or marine related jobs, but instead this will do little more the clog the employment of pizza shops everywhere.

Please, abandon the thought of the eight year old forced into crafting shoes. This covers much too much and needs only a simple rewrite. Send it away and try again and our world will be better.

Restricting the ability of minors to work robs them of valuble on the job training. Would you have them waste their time in a class room? What of the ones that constantly fail dispite numorous attempts to help them? At some point you have to give up and just send them off to work. By enacting such laws you will force these children to sit thru years of school that could have been put to better use on another child who can learn and progress at a normal or faster rate. Do not pass this and rob children of their needed job training!

This is the stupidest....poll I have seen....Alot of nations get their over powering armies from the employment or childern.:sniper::mp5::headbang:

And that is just plain repulsive. I'm no saint, and have a lot of unwholesome and unsavory habits(including ogling the Thessadorian Ambassador, drinking to excess, chain smoking, and barbaric militant machismo) yet neither I, nor my nation has ever consdered using children as soldiers. Those nations that do so, show a lack of common sence, and decency. This resolution will protect said children from being exploited by those governments hell bent on self destruction. By God! What's wrong with allowing children to be CHILDREN!

The Palentine wholeheartedly supports this resolution.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

I think its up to my nation to decide if i employ kids to mine diamonds, or chop down trees or whatever people want. Surely this is another breech of our nations freedoms. Its only a game.

You wish to keep our people down, by not allowing to have a larege valuable work force, unlike your childer that sit around, getting fat playing their video games, ours are becoming productive citizens of the Empire... dont allow them to let the childern wander the streets, free to commit crimes. We must allow this vaulable resource be used to its full proteinal.

Well, I'm glad that you made a comment about the children of the world, but it is blatantly apparent that you've never actually seen Subistratican children, as their are neither obese nor video-game obsessives. And the only alternative to have children working their lives away is to set them free? Hardly.
Also, judging by the fact that you consider children to be mere resources to be consumed, your nation must be awfully unpleasant.

Would you have them waste their time in a class room? What of the ones that constantly fail dispite numorous attempts to help them? At some point you have to give up and just send them off to work. By enacting such laws you will force these children to sit thru years of school that could have been put to better use on another child who can learn and progress at a normal or faster rate. Do not pass this and rob children of their needed job training!

This resolution does not entirely prevent children from employment. It prevents them from working in dangerous conditions that, as children, they could do almost nothing to improve (because those under the age of majority can't attempt any sort of legal action on their own).

1) ban on child pornography and prostitution "sexual exploitation of minors"
2) develope workplace safey standards that will allow for clearer guidance as to what is 'dangerous'This resolution does not prevent either resolution from coming into being at a later date.

3) ban child labor..We're already restricting it, and we can't ban it outright. Children still have the rights to non-degrading childhood employment, whether as paperboys, pages, aids, farmhands -- even students in detention clapping erasers or children being disciplined by parents. This resolution, banning the most extreme and abusive forms of labor, is the most sensible thing we can do as an international body representing thousands of different types of cultures and societies.

And if you honestly don't know what words like "dangerous" and "hazardous" mean, I really can't help you there.

No, it doesn't. Only if your nation classifies farm work as "dangerous"
This resolution classifies farm work as "dangerous":

(B) Bans the employment of minors in:
(2) work in which they are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health
For example, working in close proximity to large animals, or where agricultural machinery is in use.

(3) work which involves dangerous machinery, dangerous equipment or dangerous tools,
For example, tractors. Also pick-axes, hoes and other small tools could qualify

(4) work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads,
For example, picking fruit or potatoes

(5) work in environments exposing them to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health,
For example, a milking shed (for noise levels and vibrations). Further, work on the polar bear farms of the Minor Islands involves being outside in sub-zero temperatures.
Indeed, any occupation on Minor Islands that is outdoors involves being in sub-zero temperatures...

(6) work in environments that may expose them to hazardous substances, agents and/or processes,
For example, where fertilisers and pesticides are in use.

(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.
For example, during harvest time when farmworkers are required to work in the fields for as long as there is daylight.

This is why Minor Islands is opposing this resolution.

THE ARMED REPUBLIC OF FREAKISH IDIOTS
HAS SOMETHING
TO SAY


My darling World Assembly,

We Freakish Idiots strongly and cheaply urge you vote AGAINST this horrific resolution. It curtails the rights and privileges of our children and their squash casserole, as you can see from the following analysis.

First, we move to note and point out and direct your attention to the fact and evidence that children are essentially clueless creatures until they reach approximately 70 years of age. In the ARFR (Armed Republic of Freakish Idiots), we have set our age of adulthood to 70 years of age. Therefore we have very few adults, because indeedy our average life expectancy is 31 years. In fact, this speaker is himself not an adult, but rather a 56 year old child. Were this resolution passed, the ARFR would be forced into massive unemployment. We'd all lose our jobs, and we just can't have that!

Ninth, surely we must debate together whether we really want a bunch of unemployed children running around. Seriously, what else are they for? It is scientifically proven that children do not have brains, therefore they cannot think, therefore they are not harmed in any way by wheeling around heavy carts full of bricks for twenty hours a day. The ARFR wonders with bright-eyed monasticism whether penguins might be a better workforce considering the lapse of green-time function.


To summarise,

1. Children do not think, therefore children can work
2. Eels, not bagels :mp5:
3. The ARFR's population is almost entirely children, therefore we will be especially hard hit by this resolution
4. When in doubt, vote AGAINST
5. Moreover, when not in doubt, vote AGAINST
6. Please send us lobsters, we have run out of them


With sludge-y handshakes,
Pach'mik'al Zoooooooo'spit
First Base Pitcher of the ARFR Delegation to the World Assembly


THE ARMED REPUBLIC OF FREAKISH IDIOTS
HAD SOMETHING
TO SAY

First, we move to note and point out and direct your attention to the fact and evidence that children are essentially clueless creatures until they reach approximately 70 years of age. In the ARFR (Armed Republic of Freakish Idiots), we have set our age of adulthood to 70 years of age. Therefore we have very few adults, because indeedy our average life expectancy is 31 years. In fact, this speaker is himself not an adult, but rather a 56 year old child. Were this resolution passed, the ARFR would be forced into massive unemployment. We'd all lose our jobs, and we just can't have that!

So, you're saying that just about no one in your country has the rights and responsibilities of adults? How does anything even get done?
And I certainly would not vote against this resolution because of your nation; this is clearly one of the most extreme exceptions in the entire WA.

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

All this age stuff is nonsense. If the bill sought to tell other nations at exactly what age one is no longer considered a minor then I would vote against it. Different cultures have different needs.

All this age stuff is nonsense. If the bill sought to tell other nations at exactly what age one is no longer considered a minor then I would vote against it. Different cultures have different needs.

Which is why the resolution specifies 'the legal age of majority as defined in their nation.'

Regardless, the Texan Hegemony has voted against this resolution in favour of its own legislation restricting the employment of minors. We disagree with a few certain points of the resolution, including, but not limited to, the exclusion of minors from armed conflict. If the Hegemony is at war, everyone with a gun and the hands to hold them will fight it.

Hegemon Ioannes Vasquez

It is silly to say the age as defined by the country because I'll just set my age real low to curtail this lame resolution.

This resolution can come close to infringing on the cultural rights of some countries. Patricularily the oromo, the zulu.....
Many of these such groups trained their children from a young age to fight in wars. If this law were to be in place, certain tribal groups may be at a disadvantage against other tribes.

For example

Tribe A belongs to a WA nation and cannot have children in their armies...\

Tribe B belongs to a non-WA nation and does have children in their armies...

In a pitched battle who do you think would win?

It is Tribe B of course, due to the fact that its army is way bigger than Tribe A's army.
However this is hypothetical and this situtation may not occur, but this is a possibility and it may put WA nations and certain semi-autonomous groups within them at a disadvantage against non-WA nations.

This resolution can come close to infringing on the cultural rights of some countries. Patricularily the oromo, the zulu.....
Many of these such groups trained their children from a young age to fight in wars. If this law were to be in place, certain tribal groups may be at a disadvantage against other tribes.

For example

Tribe A belongs to a WA nation and cannot have children in their armies...\

Tribe B belongs to a non-WA nation and does have children in their armies...

In a pitched battle who do you think would win?

It is Tribe B of course, due to the fact that its army is way bigger than Tribe A's army.
However this is hypothetical and this situtation may not occur, but this is a possibility and it may put WA nations and certain semi-autonomous groups within them at a disadvantage against non-WA nations.

It's a fairly mediocre argument.

The most faulty part of this whole document is the use of the word children. A seventeen or eighteen year old, though legally a child, is fully capable of many of the things listed in this document.

Again, when you define a child, do not think a young eight year old. Then you will see it's flaws. You don't have to make up some scenario about wars being fought by numbers because of mandatory enlistment.

Against

Against, for the predictable reasons.

Look, the big problem seems to be that even the resolution itself thinks that the Age of Majority is a single, well-defined age. It's neither.

When are people allowed to do work in which they are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health? Never, in Gobbannium

When are people allowed to do work which involves dangerous machinery, dangerous equipment or dangerous tools? Age 16 in Gobbannium (unless some medical condition precludes it), since they've generally developed the co-ordination and common sense necessary by then.

When are people allowed to do work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads? Age 18 in Gobbannium, since their physical strength and overall growth is generally up to it by then.

Plenty of people have tried to make out that there's just one Age of Majority, and it's the age when all these rights kick in. That would make the Age of Majority "never" in Gobbannium, which is pretty clearly stupid. If you weasel your way around that by saying it's when all the relevant rights that you're ever going to get cut in, it would be age 18 for us, which sounds reasonable. Except that we don't see it that way; we don't accept that there is the huge significance to the point at which all your adult rights (to extend this beyond just work-related ages) fall into place, because they've been falling into place for the last decade.

If the resolution said outright that all the different ages of majority involved had to be the same, and that the Age of Majority had to be somewhere near the end of adolescence, then we'd grumble a bit but accept it. Given that it doesn't even do that, and we flat-out don't accept that there is a common, accepted and meaningful Age of Majority, there's no way I can vote for this.

Besides, the Ambassador would have kittens.

It's going to pass, though, looking at the numbers. I can't say that I'm looking forward to extending His Nibs's Age of Consent proposal to Ages of Majority as well.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Chuggasukaville strongly opposes this resolution.

It is duly noted that children should not be endangered by work in dangerous conditions or with dangerous machinery. However, should a child choose to work, or work in dangerous conditions because of better pay, the government should not restrict their entrepreneurship.

Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the parent to protect their child from abuse in any locale.

Furthermore, should parents not do so, Chuggasukaville does not want them or their parents in our nation, and thus supports the death of these poor parents and their spawn.

Furthermore, should a child be required to work despite preferring to go to school because of economic hardship, perhaps nations should look into improving welfare and economic equity.

This resolution alarms me! How can countries be free if they restrict people, no matter how young, from getting a job??? there must be restrictions, obviously, for minors, but if parents and the children themselves agree then why not??? and as for serving in an armed conflict, if they want to protect their freedom and their country, why not? Truthfully, they should only be placed in non combat roles...
AusWorldDomination does support the move to illegalize the use of children for sexual jobs. However, it should be primarily the parents resposibility, who should recieve a fine or some other means of punishment for relaxing their control.
:mp5:AusWorldDomination to rule!!!(by using whatever means possible):sniper:

Given that it doesn't even do that, and we flat-out don't accept that there is a common, accepted and meaningful Age of Majority, there's no way I can vote for this.

Neither do I, which is strange considering I wrote this thing. That's sorta the point.

There might be different cultures, different species, different planets than your own that this also affects. I think this reasonably accommodates those differences while still outlining a course of action. According to what I see, the best option for you would be to define the age of majority as 18, and lose the hodgepodge of laws you seem to've set up(since this would bump your dangerous machinery handling age to 18 as well). I can see why THAT is a good reason for you to not support this, even if I find it somewhat unreasonable.

I'm going to ask about a point of yours her that I do take issue with though. You seem to be assuming that since no one in your nation will ever be allowed to work around any amount of radiation(a physical location that would be damaging to your health), then this resolution mandates that no one in your nation is ever of the age of majority.

How in the hell did you get THAT out of this?

Minor Islands;13628445']For example, working in close proximity to large animals, or where agricultural machinery is in use.So don't have the 5 year-old driving a combine or neutering bulls.

For example, tractors. Also pick-axes, hoes and other small tools could qualifySo don't have the 5 year-old driving a tractor or swinging a bloody pick-axe. And if your nation decides to classify a hand spade as "dangerous", it's your own fault.

For example, picking fruit or potatoes"Picking" is not heavy lifting. Someone else can carry the bushel.

For example, a milking shed (for noise levels and vibrations).Only if your nation classifies those levels as dangerous.

Further, work on the polar bear farms of the Minor Islands involves being outside in sub-zero temperatures.
Indeed, any occupation on Minor Islands that is outdoors involves being in sub-zero temperatures...Well, sucks to be you, then. Of course, one would assume that the people living on the Minor Islands have, over the years, have adapted to the extreme cold, and would thus be less susceptible to it than, say, the islanders of Tiki-Taki.

And, yes, keeping 5 year-olds away from polar bears is probably a good idea. Unless said bears are domesticated. Then it probably wouldn't be classified (by your nation) as "dangerous".

For example, where fertilisers and pesticides are in use.So... um... keep the kids away from the sprayed poison? Somehow I doubt the adults are just sucking it in themselves.

For example, during harvest time when farmworkers are required to work in the fields for as long as there is daylight.If ole ma and pa ain't payin' John-Boy, then they ain't his 'ployer, so this here clause don' apply.

Furthermore, many nations have this thing called "summer vacation" for their school children, which allows them to be out of school during the busy farming period...

This is why Minor Islands is opposing this resolution.Because your nation will willingly define "dangerous" in a manner that is detrimental to your nation?

If you want no child labor in your countries, fine, but where will my soldiers come from, what about when I'm at war? I can't leave any of my mandatory enlisted soldiers at home working! Now you are insinuating (sp?) that I need Children soldiers, so I can afford to leave people at home? Crazy.
:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5:

Blah blah blah

This document covers all minors under the set age of adulthood. Nineteen here.

Not five year olds.

Please do not use such an extremist example of a five year old with a bloody axe. It's nonsensical.

One point that most people who seem to be against this proposal appear to be missing is that this resolution does not intend to indicate, force, or establish any singular, universal Age of Consent. It is not telling you that the Age of Consent needs to be 18, or 21, or 4, for that matter.

This resolution seeks to prohibit the employment of children in hazardous conditions. The term "child", and therefore "children" is to be decided by your nation's government according to the perceived maturity rate of your people. It is commonly noted that humans reach a sufficient Age of Consent at 18 years, but it's not universal. Any human nation is free to set the AoC wherever they please; if you believe that your people are capable of working in factories with hazardous fumes or chemicals at age 16, set your AoC at 16. Or lower. Or higher, depending on your beliefs.
Furthermore, non-human life forms typically have a very different maturity rate than that of humans. Some completely mature at 5 years, and there are some undoubtedly higher and lower.

In short, this resolution is one of the more diplomatic that I've seen; it does not wish to restrict the way your government runs itself, just to protect your children, however your government defines "children".

This document covers all minors under the set age of adulthood. Nineteen here.

Not five year olds.

Please do not use such an extremist example of a five year old with a bloody axe. It's nonsensical.

Well, last time I checked, 5 is less than 19; therefore, a 5-year-old would be part of "all minors under the set age of adulthood".
Also, it isn't quite so extremist, as people have decided to circumvent this resolution by lowering their age of majority so that they can hire children for dangerous jobs.

One point that most people who seem to be against this proposal appear to be missing is that this resolution does not intend to indicate, force, or establish any singular, universal Age of Consent. It is not telling you that the Age of Consent needs to be 18, or 21, or 4, for that matter.

This resolution seeks to prohibit the employment of children in hazardous conditions. The term "child", and therefore "children" is to be decided by your nation's government according to the perceived maturity rate of your people. It is commonly noted that humans reach a sufficient Age of Consent at 18 years, but it's not universal. Any human nation is free to set the AoC wherever they please; if you believe that your people are capable of working in factories with hazardous fumes or chemicals at age 16, set your AoC at 16. Or lower. Or higher, depending on your beliefs.
Furthermore, non-human life forms typically have a very different maturity rate than that of humans. Some completely mature at 5 years, and there are some undoubtedly higher and lower.

In short, this resolution is one of the more diplomatic that I've seen; it does not wish to restrict the way your government runs itself, just to protect your children, however your government defines "children".

But there are, sadly and confusingly, people who also oppose it for this very reason. There simply isn't anyway to propose a universal age of majority, or even a required minimum, because not every nation works the same way.

Apparently, the best way to go around this resolution would be to lower one's age of majority, but [for the billionth time] it is important to realize that there is a lot of responsibility placed on those who reach the age of majority, and therefore lowering this age just to employ children in dangerous working environments is a horrible work-around.

The delegate from The Rogue Nation of Corrupt Bankers would first like to bring to light the fact that while a person of the age of majority has the right to live on his or her own they are not legally obligated to do so. Pause for a moment and think of how many people over your nations Age of Majority have taken up residence in their parents' basement or loft. I have been lead to believe this is very common in many nations. So a nation that lowered its Age of Majority to something deplorably low could keep its prepubescent workforce and the newly deemed "adult" employees could still live with their parents and aid in supporting their family. On the other side of the note, this would also mean the same young ones could move out on their own on a whim which is good or bad depending on the success of such a venture. Many are ready for independence at an earlier age than others.

Secondly, I have come to notice that this resolution leaves the specific details of what is acceptable up to the member nation, which my proud nation is fine with. However, this does cause me to wonder if their is a purpose to implementation if it shall be left to the discretion of the member nations. It is only a step farther from "encouraging" correction.

A suggestion for those pushing for a standard age to apply these measures to: "730 sidereal days before the average age of physical maturation." For those not familiar with a sidereal day, it is single planetary rotation. This would be acceptable for most life forms, excepting those with a frightfully brief lifespan, of which none have been brought to my attention.

Lastly, I will acknowledge this resolution's value in some cases, which would benefit many children in those nations where the government does not depend on their inhumane labor enough to dub them adults. But, in spite of my personal feelings on the matter, on behalf of my nation I must vote Against.

My four delegate votes go FOR because forced child labour should be history. Education is number 1, Slavery is number 9999+ (or rather, last).

So don't have the 5 year-old driving a combine or neutering bulls.
Who said anything about driving? The resolution prohibits work in physical locations that would be damaging to their health. Being 'near' a combine that is in use or being prepared for use is a physical location that could be damaging.
Besides, it isn't unusual for children as young as 11 or 12 to be taught to drive a tractor within the boundaries of the privately owned farm. This practice will be outlawed. Indeed, for some jurisdictions even a 19 year old will be prohibited from driving a tractor.

And if your nation decides to classify a hand spade as "dangerous", it's your own fault.
Hmm. I see a loophole here...
All I need to do to circumvent this resolution is to reclassify all dangerous activities as "safe."
So...what was the point of this resolution again?

"Picking" is not heavy lifting. Someone else can carry the bushel.
Picking potatoes is hard, manual labour. Why is hard manual labour OK, but manual transport or carrying heavy loads is not OK?

If ole ma and pa ain't payin' John-Boy, then they ain't his 'ployer, so this here clause don' apply.
But this clause DOES apply to individuals under the age of majority who are employed as casual labour during the harvest.
Further, let's take two identical farms.

Farm A is a family run farm. They employ casual labour during peak periods, but generally members of the family (including the older children) work on the farm.

Farm B is a family run farm. The family incorporated the farm as a limited company in order to limit their liability if the farm went insolvent, or so that they could benefit from social insurance in the event of an accident, or so that they could maintain a National Insurance record, or as a way of structuring their business affairs in a tax efficient way. The company employs casual labour during peak periods, but for the most part the members of the family are employed by Farm B Limited (the company) as a way of extracting the profits from the company and to ensure that they qualify for social welfare benefits.

Farm C is a family run farm. They engage individuals as free-lance workers including students (who are below the age of majority) during peak periods, but generally members of the family (including the older children) work on the farm.

Why are the children in Farm B covered by the resolution, but the children in Farm A are not? How about the students who work on Farm C?

Apparently, the best way to go around this resolution would be to lower one's age of majority, but [for the billionth time] it is important to realize that there is a lot of responsibility placed on those who reach the age of majority, and therefore lowering this age just to employ children in dangerous working environments is a horrible work-around.
No, the best way around this resolution is to classify dangerous things as 'safe'.
Driving a tractor is safe. Carrying loads of less than 80kg is safe. Nose levels of less than 200 decibels is safe. Using a circular saw is dangerous - unless the individual has undergone a 30 minute training course, in which case the operation of a circular saw is safe.
Ta da...resolution successfully circumvented.

My delegate vote is yes.

Minor Islands;13631172']Hmm. I see a loophole here...
All I need to do to circumvent this resolution is to reclassify all dangerous activities as "safe."
So...what was the point of this resolution again?

------

No, the best way around this resolution is to classify dangerous things as 'safe'.
Driving a tractor is safe. Carrying loads of less than 80kg is safe. Nose levels of less than 200 decibels is safe. Using a circular saw is dangerous - unless the individual has undergone a 30 minute training course, in which case the operation of a circular saw is safe.
Ta da...resolution successfully circumvented.

After hearing this argument, that we can just classify minors to be working in safe working environments with a whim and a wave without concern for the WA's thoughts. We are now inclined to support the document, since it doesn't matter otherwise and it'll just make us look good to our people.

We are now voting IN SUPPORT.

I am new delegate here in WA, so I may not be so up to speed about how things work around here. That said, I don't understand why this is an issue we are even discussing. This should be up to nations to decide for themselves.

For instance, what if a person a few years under the age of consent wanted to work as a blue-collar apprentice? Not all (but most) people in my nation are intelligent, and an early education in many blue-collar jobs provides a sustainable future for many individuals. Must danger and environmental factors halt for two years that which was already an inevitable future?

Also, many fast food restaurants and local restaurants employ teenagers to work in mildy dangerous conditions. I don't know if fire is considered "dangerous" in all nations, but I have a hunch it is in most.

The point is, the free will of a person should not be conceded until the age of consent. You are born with this right, and if you feel you are unjustly denied this right you would want to get up and find a place that will give it back to you.

The only thing I can agree with is child prostitution part, which is just morally reprehensible and should be policed. On a whole, I am looking to reject this policy.

After hearing this argument, that we can just classify minors to be working in safe working environments with a whim and a wave without concern for the WA's thoughts. We are now inclined to support the document, since it doesn't matter otherwise and it'll just make us look good to our people.

We are now voting IN SUPPORT.
Let's look shall we:
(B) Bans the employment of minors in:
(1) work in which they are subject to physical or psychological abuse,
This does give some leway to allow what you classify as "abuse"...a problem which the WA should rectify.
(2) work in which they are required to be in physical locations that would be damaging to their health,
This one is harder to simply dismiss as 'damage' is something that is pretty well defined in any book as almost always the same general meaning...
(3) work which involves dangerous machinery, dangerous equipment or dangerous tools,It's true you can reclassify something as safe...
(4) work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads,You can't redefine "manual transport" so easily, but you can classify what is 'heavy'
(5) work in environments exposing them to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health,again, like 2, damage is pretty well defined and neither this nor the other one give leway for amount of damage.
(6) work in environments that may expose them to hazardous substances, agents and/or processes,you can classify stuff as 'safe', but i doubt that will last long for nuclear, chemical and biological agents...
(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.this one is pretty well defined to...

in fact...it seems by it's statement it's implying minors have a right to 'full-time education' as well.

It does not imply what this education curriculum is though.
(C) Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict.pretty hard to define 'armed conflict' as not being 'fighting front lines/covert ops in a war'.

this law will be good for kids all over the world

Minister of External Relations
eli torres

If this law is passed I will make age of majority 5 months old in my nation.

Take that :P

While I commend the spirit of the legislation, I will not vote aye or nay to this resolution that can be easily circumvented by strategic national laws.

Honestly, if you want this resolution to be effective: grow a set of balls and set an age.

We are supposed to be the worldwide moral authority. WE decide for our member nations what is right and what is wrong in the world's eye view.

If member nations don't like our decisions: they are free to leave. Or, like the rest of us; suck it up and accept the good with the bad.

So stop with the fluffy insubstantial, ineffective resolutions. Give us something that may actually effect change in this world.

Minor Islands;13631172']No, the best way around this resolution is to classify dangerous things as 'safe'.
Driving a tractor is safe. Carrying loads of less than 80kg is safe. Nose levels of less than 200 decibels is safe. Using a circular saw is dangerous - unless the individual has undergone a 30 minute training course, in which case the operation of a circular saw is safe.
Ta da...resolution successfully circumvented.
Well, if you really want young children carrying loads that are heavier than them and operating circular saws, have fun.

Also, many fast food restaurants and local restaurants employ teenagers to work in mildy dangerous conditions. I don't know if fire is considered "dangerous" in all nations, but I have a hunch it is in most.

[OOC: I work in a fast-food restaurant, and current labor laws for my state prohibit sub-minors (those aged 14-15) from operating the grill and the fryers. However, anyone 16 and above is allowed to do so. Even so, I'm pretty sure the standard 14-year-old and over can handle pouring fries into a basket and lowering them into the oil without causing a disaster <in fact, a lot of them do it anyways... but only when the managers aren't looking>.
Therefore, I wouldn't consider a restaurant to be that dangerous at all. I mean, accidents do happen, but I've been working there for 2+ years and we haven't had anything near significant in that entire time. No lie.]

If this law is passed I will make age of majority 5 months old in my nation.

Take that :P

YOU CLEARLY DON'T REALIZE THAT THERE'S MORE TO AGE OF MAJORITY THAN THIS RESOLUTION. I don't want to repeat myself AGAIN, so I'll just call your argument foolish and recommend that you read some of the previous posts.

Have a pleasant day.
-October Siles-Vadice

With jails costing money It is very hard to keep it. It would be better to just send all of the juvenile criminals to the army.

Someone doesn't understand the difference between "armed conflict" and "armed forces".

That's you.

My Nations government after days of deliberation has come to its final decision.

"The Confederacy of Wencee, can not put it's support behind this bill without doubts, and yet we can not also vote against it for we have nagging doubts their as well. We hope in the future for a better resolution to solve this problem. Therefore we must Abstain."


Good day to you all

Costello Music supports this resolution to the fullest extent. We cannot express ourselves to a better degree. Costello Music would like to also register official its sadness at the fact that heartless (or perhaps) foolish people have managed to become rulers of their nations, as is evident in every nation that has voted against this resolution. Thank-you.

Well, if you really want young children carrying loads that are heavier than them and operating circular saws, have fun.
But...I thought the point of this resolution was to prevent children from being made to work in dangerous conditions?

Minor Islands;13633587']But...I thought the point of this resolution was to prevent children from being made to work in dangerous conditions?

That's the ultimate goal yes, and it cannot be subverted without allowing your children the right to do any other thing a normal adult can do.

I'm waiting for our friends that lower the age of majority to 5 months of age(or any arbitrary low age) to get Barney the Dinosaur as president. That'll be funny.

I can imagine the lawsuit that a 5 year old might bring before a court of law.

Or the hilarity that ensues when a 8 year old decides to drive a tractor trailer to work because he happened to buy one with all that money he made in the factory.

*chuckles*

You see, the important bit here is that the age of majority includes ALL applicable age limitations. Age of majority is the ultimate age limitation, and when reached there exist no more boundaries based on minimum age.

That includes alot of things that can be separated into distinct parts, driving, voting, drinking alcohol... but when age of majority is reached ALL of those rights are allowed.

Do you want your kid working in a dangerous job? You'll have to give him the rights of an adult, then he can leave if he wants(or sue your ass for exploiting him).

We've just joined the WA, and will be voting against.

B: Nobody will hire the poor orphans in my NationState since they're scared to death that one scolding and the child cries "psychological abuse" or "too heavy". I wish that instead of an outright ban, a "right to refuse" was proposed instead.

C: I just felt that anyone willing to defend our NationState should be allowed to. After all, they'll all be massacred if we lose the war..

D: This should probably be covered in a broader resolution on child sex instead.

I have often wondered why I decided to join the World Assembly. I realize now it is because I like to hear idiots attempt to debate because it makes me feel how superior I am to the rest of the world. From what I have heard so far in this debate I feel justified.

We are pleased to vote in the affirmative on this issue. Indeed we support all the measures that this resolution provides. No minor should be subject to abuse. No minor should be subject to undue danger. All minors should have the ability to advance themselves in education. This is why the best employment for a minor is selling souvenirs to tourists on the street. It meets all of the criteria listed in the resolution.

This resolution will pass. I've already changed my vote, and I'm not looking to change my opinion, but I'd like to thank the nation of Popotan for giving our view a rather neutral look and then analyzing my argument. For the sake of further taking a look at the resolution, I will the take the role of a legislator from Shang Dang and attempt to spin this to keep our "Civil Rights Lovefest" of a country intact with our severe issue with article B.

POINT 1: This does give some leway to allow what you classify as "abuse"...a problem which the WA should rectify.

Agreed.

POINT 2: This one is harder to simply dismiss as 'damage' is something that is pretty well defined in any book as almost always the same general meaning...

Agreed. We never really fought point number two and enjoyed it's wording.

POINT 3: It's true you can reclassify something as safe...

Agreed. 1 point effective, 2 points ineffective.

POINT 4: You can't redefine "manual transport" so easily, but you can classify what is 'heavy'

Sure, lets say I say "Dangerously heavy" at above 140 lbs/65kg, something thats fairly high. Now I don't expect my law enforcement agencies to walk around in a packaging plant and then saying "Rabble rabble! Stop there! We must weigh that package! Rabble Rabble!" We can pass this, and don't expect to be greatly enforced considering most items of that weight (Which are company products) are moved with machinery.

POINT 5: again, like 2, damage is pretty well defined and neither this nor the other one give leway for amount of damage.

Again, I don't expect to set dangerous working conditions for underage children to be labeled any differently then the ones set for adults. I'll label this as effective, just to be fair.

Thats 2 effective, 3 ineffective so far.

POINT 6: you can classify stuff as 'safe', but i doubt that will last long for nuclear, chemical and biological agents...

When it comes to nuclear and biological agents, I can't think of a single hazardous job that doesn't require years of training prior, so don't expect this to matter. Cleaning chemical agents can be classified as safe so that teenagers can't cry foul and opt out of nightly work.

POINT 7: this one is pretty well defined to...

When someone will say, 'that job is detrimental to their education' I will say 'that job is on the site career training.' Done and done. Another point successfully waved off.

So 2 points effective, and 5 ineffective. Again, it's mostly a happy smile paper. We will vote for it since it doesn't effect us much.

We imply others to do the same if your worried about your sovereignty. It doesn't effect you unless you use "Children warriors."

While I commend the spirit of the legislation, I will not vote aye or nay to this resolution that can be easily circumvented by strategic national laws.

Honestly, if you want this resolution to be effective: grow a set of balls and set an age.

We are supposed to be the worldwide moral authority. WE decide for our member nations what is right and what is wrong in the world's eye view.

If member nations don't like our decisions: they are free to leave. Or, like the rest of us; suck it up and accept the good with the bad.

So stop with the fluffy insubstantial, ineffective resolutions. Give us something that may actually effect change in this world.

There is no age included because not every WA nation is populated by humans! Would it really make sense to force an age of majority of 18 on a species who only live to be 9?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative (who's getting tired of repeating himself)

There is no age included because not every WA nation is populated by humans! Would it really make sense to force an age of majority of 18 on a species who only live to be 9?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative (who's getting tired of repeating himself)

Agreed. That's why I won't repeat myself. Some people will listen when you say it the first time, others won't listen no matter how much you drive it into their skulls.

The proposal is far too fuzzy to be accepted by such a serious organization as the World Assembly.
The Federation of Global Security Sustainment will vote against this proposal.

Why vote yes to a proposition with these easy loop holes? It is up to respective Nation to decide whether it is applicable or not.
Say that "Random Country of Randomness" wants to abuse and torture its citizens completely. They have "abusement camps", where everyone are being put, since their age of majority is anyone under 99. Physical/psychological abusement - in Random Country of Randomness - is anything that forces the individual to commit suicide. If a citizien goes this far, it's too late to do anything about since the victim has commited suicide, and if a citizen does not go this far, but still being inhumanly treated, the World Assembly would still not bann this, because it's after all in line with their oppinion? In what way would this proposal possibly do anything but making the organisation look funny? Happy-pills for everyone!

Even if you vote in favor of this proposal, a country can still violate it without actually violating anything, really. Do not accept a proposal of this kind. We need strict lines and defenitions in order to keep it as a law. What else are they for? When a law is open for defenition, like this proposal is, it is a very bad one. If you've been told "You have violated this law", and you can reply "No, I haven't. Not if you see it this way", it is in fact a very bad law. Can anyone disagree in that?

The Dourian Embassy: page.3
Yes, it is possible to define it as: "Voluntary-Mandatory-Yet-Dangerous-Education-That-We-Pay-Them-For".
You see, our country works different from yours - it is possible, you know - and our culture differs from your culture - which we aizure you is also possible - which is why it in the Federation of GSS MF is not mandatory but expected from most individuals to do pre-military service. Mandatory, however, is the actuall military service. But the military service is out of this discussion since they only accept individuals in age of majority, and our military service is thereby not related to this topic. Our pre-military school however is, and it's open for the minors intending to make career in the military. I can aisure you we are not the first nor the last country to offer this to our citizens not-yet-of-age-to-apply-for-military-service-but-wants-to-do-it-anyways.
You troll of a community, keep the attitude and do keep your impolite references to your own country.

the federation of secure populaces abstains from this issue. workers rights should apply to all workers, not just those that happen to be few years younger, older, of a certain color, etc, etc.
If an individual decides to work it is their perogative to decide where, and in what conditions they work.
in other words I think it should be better defined what constitutes a "child"? Is it anyone under the age of 18, or 21 which is an overly rigid generalization?
though this motion is well intentioned it is extremely vague in regards to the definition of what constitutes a "child". maturity cannot be measured by age alone, and maturity is the dividing line between child, and adult.

I bat this back and forth for a while, before deciding that, while I agree with the spirit of the bill, I do not like the vague and overly strict language and used in its implementation.

"physical or psychological abuse"
What is this? Could any cashier who's got to deal with a rude customer consider that "psychological abuse"?

"locations that would be damaging to their health"
How about being a waiter or busboy in a smokey restaurant? To what unhealthy degree would this bill allow? I wouldn't want to ban that.

"work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads"
So, say... a healthy 16 year old kid couldn't get a part time job unloading trucks?

This bill is far TOO protective, and rather, would prevent young people from getting valuable work experience, and having a reasonable amount of self-determinism. If the afformentioned phrases were stricken, or sufficiently clarified, this resolution would have my vote.

I do feel the need to repeat this point, as it seems to have been completely overlooked before. Age of majority does -not- guarantee you every single right in your nation. Some nations may have an age of majority of, say, 18 but wont allow drinking alcohol until age 21. So the unscrupulous nations who seek to dodge this bill could simply create a law stipulating an official age of majority, and then barring certain activities upon alternative criteria.

Again, I am not saying the resolution would not be at all effective, because it would curtail many nations practicing an amoral variety of Child Labor. However, I am simply bringing to light concerns and points for this clearly on-going debate.

RESOLUTION PASSED!

That being said, I wanted to tackle what Hyperboreus has to say:

"physical or psychological abuse"
What is this? Could any cashier who's got to deal with a rude customer consider that "psychological abuse"?

Are you going to let a cashier get away with calling dealing with customers "psychological abuse"? Your nation is meant to set these standards; in Subistratica, I'm pretty sure such a cashier would be told to suck it up or find a new job.

"locations that would be damaging to their health"
How about being a waiter or busboy in a smokey restaurant? To what unhealthy degree would this bill allow? I wouldn't want to ban that.

Then don't.

"work which involves the manual transport or handling of heavy loads"
So, say... a healthy 16 year old kid couldn't get a part time job unloading trucks?

Depends on what you would define as "heavy".

This bill is far TOO protective...

Oh my goodness.
Either it's too protective or it isn't protective enough, too vauge or too specific... seriously, people. YOUR NATION defines what "heavy loads" and "psychological abuse" and the like are and at what age your citizens can be exposed to them.
If you're so dense that you'll lower the age of majority to 7 and have workers crying every time someone was displeased at their performance, then go right ahead.

:mad:
-October Siles-Vadice
[honestly, people...]

That's the ultimate goal yes, and it cannot be subverted without allowing your children the right to do any other thing a normal adult can do.

<snip>

Do you want your kid working in a dangerous job? You'll have to give him the rights of an adult, then he can leave if he wants(or sue your ass for exploiting him).
My argument does not rely on defining the age of majority. It relies on defining dangerous. It is somewhat unfortunate that The Dourian Embassy has chosen to address my argument with a rebuttal to a completely different and unrelated argument.

Anyway, the resolution is passed. And will have absolutely no effect on restricting child labour. Good job.

I'm quite surprised how The Dourian Embassy has managed to pull this one through. A large proposition, not actually meaning anything, and with quite some hot fuzz around it too.

Unless ofcourse, when people will have forgotten this debate, he proposes that the World Assembly comes to a united defenition of the term "age of majority". Imagine what devastating propositions you can prupose now, based on a lousy one that got through. So far we all have our own defenitions of most of the terms, but soon - I fear quite far too soon - we will not have that anymore. People vote yes to anything that sounds good, without actually realizing what they vote in favor of. Good job though all, not just fooling - but being - the masses.

I don't think half of those who voted even read the entire first page.
In order to recieve a License to vote, the GSS MF says it should be mandatory to:
1) read the 3 latest topic-pages and
2) post something in the thread before
3) actually voting.

This was my first vote as part of WA, and I am completely appalled.

Not only was this amendment pure fluff, but it had a child-like perspective on the world and we are supposed to be a body of serious adults. I feel as if common sense was left at the door and it was traded in for some hokey sense of altruism. This has nothing to do with my country's view on policy. Clearly, thus was worded poorly, was vague, and the real focus of this bill should have been child prostitution which is a real pademic which this assembly has the right and reason to abolish.

If you only part of the bill, then I'm proposing a two part bill:

a) The second child in every family shall be killed.
b) Everyone gets free tacos for life.

Tacos are sweet, I vote to pass!

I know it's exaggerated, but this is the road you paved with this resolution.

I'm going to ask about a point of yours her that I do take issue with though. You seem to be assuming that since no one in your nation will ever be allowed to work around any amount of radiation(a physical location that would be damaging to your health), then this resolution mandates that no one in your nation is ever of the age of majority.

How in the hell did you get THAT out of this?

1) Radiation isn't a physical location. Properly shielded radiation sources are perfectly safe to work around.

2) Herrings aside, I was referring to one of the many popular versions of what "age of majority" means. If it is, as some assert, the age at which all the relevant rights or responsibilities kick in, then if one of those rights or responsibilities never kicks in that definition is a wee bit stuffed.

That's the big problem with this resolution; it never defines what "Age of Majority" is supposed to mean. Not in terms of a number of years, but in terms of actual meaning. There's nothing in the resolution that stops nations who want to abuse their kids from setting an Age of Majority of 5.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

...so five-year olds can drive buses and smoke cigarettes? I'm not understanding. "Age of majority" is a pretty solid term. You lower the age for one thing, you have to lower it for most anything. If national leaders want to be that stupid just to get around a resolution, let them. And when they're assassinated by the guns they allowed their children to buy, today's victory be all the sweeter.

Jimmy Baca
Ambassador to the World Assembly

...so five-year olds can drive buses and smoke cigarettes? I'm not understanding. "Age of majority" is a pretty solid term.

Not universally it isn't. We've already had people explaining here how their nation sets the Age of Majority at 18, but doesn't allow drinking until you're 21. Why couldn't we set an AoM of 5, but not allow people to smoke or drive until they're older? Particularly since we don't use the term for anything else, and for that matter any five year old who can pass a PSV driving license test has earned it in my book!

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

RESOLUTION PASSED!

That being said, I wanted to tackle what Hyperboreus has to say:



Are you going to let a cashier get away with calling dealing with customers "psychological abuse"? Your nation is meant to set these standards; in Subistratica, I'm pretty sure such a cashier would be told to suck it up or find a new job.



Then don't.



Depends on what you would define as "heavy".



Oh my goodness.
Either it's too protective or it isn't protective enough, too vauge or too specific... seriously, people. YOUR NATION defines what "heavy loads" and "psychological abuse" and the like are and at what age your citizens can be exposed to them.
If you're so dense that you'll lower the age of majority to 7 and have workers crying every time someone was displeased at their performance, then go right ahead.

:mad:
-October Siles-Vadice
[honestly, people...]

OK, then i'll make sure that "abuse" goes without definition, "heavy" is defined as anything greater than the entire mass of the universe, and 1 part per trillion of nicotine in the air is classified "hazardous"...[/sarcasm]

Kinda makes the WA useless then doesn't it?

And, while you're at it: stow the attitude. Sheesh.

OK, then i'll make sure that "abuse" goes without definition, "heavy" is defined as anything greater than the entire mass of the universe, and 1 part per trillion of nicotine in the air is classified "hazardous"...[/sarcasm]

Kinda makes the WA useless then doesn't it?

Stupidity can ruin just about anything.

When someone will say, 'that job is detrimental to their education' I will say 'that job is on the site career training.' Done and done. Another point successfully waved off.Won't fly because if they are employed as a janitor, once they know the basics it's no longer "on site career training" because you're not training them.

EDIT: Also while heavy is vaguely defined, if you clearly cannot lift it or push it, that would be considered heavy.