NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Description:

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNISING that age discrimination continues to be a problem in today's world

BELIEVING that this is contrary to the ideas of human rights

HEREBY ORDAINS

1) "Age discrimination" shall be defined as denying rights, privileges, or opportunities to any person on the basis of their age.

2) No government may pass any law that encourages age discrimination. This includes, but is not limited to, a minimum or maximum age for any of the following:
a) Voting
b) Any medical procedure
c) Being party to a contract
d) Being elected to any political office
e) Sexual relationships
f) Living independently
g) Choice in education

3) Any current laws that encourage age discrimination are to be considered null and void.

4) Any government that does not have an entirely laissez-faire economic system is to pass laws forbidding businesses from age discrimination. Such laws include forbidding a minimum or maximum age to work at any business or to forbid entry to a place of business on account of age.

5) Governments shall encourage via education the people of their nation to avoid discrimination based upon age. Governments shall not, however, force, intimidate, or coerce the people of their nation to avoid discrimination based upon age. create legislation that restricts freedom of thought or speech to achieve such goals

6) All persons shall have a right to depend on parental assistance until a government-chosen age. However, all persons under this age shall be permitted to waive this right with any or no cause at any time, without hindrance.
a) Parents may not send children under their care to behaviour-modification centres outside of World Assembly member nations
b) Behaviour-modification centres within World Assembly member nations shall be subject to random investigation as well as report-based investigation to ensure that abusive tactics are not used. Behaviour-modification centres that are found to use abusive tactics shall be subject to immediate closure, and the operators subject to criminal charges. Parents who have sent their children to such centres shall be investigated and criminally charged if they are found to have been aware of such treatment. Nations that do not have a criminal court system are not required to form one in order to press charges.

7) In order to comply with both this resolution and past resolutions, governments shall legislate the age of majority and the age of consent to zero (0).


Please suggest any changes or suggestions you might have. And I'd like a better title if someone can think of one.

NOTE: Underlined text is removed from the original, bolded text is added. Every few edits I'll fold it to make it easier to read.

I was about to respond to this and point out all of the things it would allow minor children to do, and ways in which they could then be taken advantage of by unscrupulous adults. Then I decided it must be a joke proposal and decided not to.

Needless to say, the Dominion of New Leicestershire will not support this.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I am fully aware of what it would allow minor children to do. Can you explain how it would allow them to be "taken advantage of"?

Apparently not, since you used the phrase "minor children" as if you weren't intending to render the concept of minority meaningless.

Well, I sorta was intending to make the concept of minority meaningless.

I am fully aware of what it would allow minor children to do. Can you explain how it would allow them to be "taken advantage of"?
Oh, I don't know, some might see the possibility of children being induced to sign a binding contract to perform in a porn film as being "taken advantage of". Or they could sign a binding contract to work for free in a salt mine. Or they could sign a binding contract to take part in medical experimentation.

Of course I'm probably just being alarmist. We New Leicestershirians tend to be overly protective of our children.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

This resolution is a perversion of the concept of Anti-discrimination. We find the implications of this statute odious.


Yours,

As a nation that reveres its elders, we firmly support effective measures against age discrimination. Your draft, however, has several issues.

2) No government may pass any law that encourages age discrimination. This includes, but is not limited to, a minimum or maximum age for any of the following:
a) Voting
b) Any medical procedure
c) Being party to a contract
d) Being elected to any political office
e) Sexual relationships
f) Living independently
g) Choice in education

As some of my colleagues have pointed out, there are certain things that a minimum age limit is essential for. Do you really want young children to randomly pick medical procedures for themselves? Or engaging in sexual relationships? Or living without guardians? The dangers in such situations to minor children would be appalling.

4) Any government that does not have an entirely laissez-faire economic system is to pass laws forbidding businesses from age discrimination. Such laws include forbidding a minimum or maximum age to work at any business or to forbid entry to a place of business on account of age.

This essentially promotes child labor. You're giving businesses a blanket right to drag even the youngest children into working for them, regardless of the dangers the job entails, or the working conditions therein. You're also mandating that any business allow young children in, regardless of what it does. Do you really want your minor children wandering around in bars or sex shops, for example?

5) Governments shall encourage the people of their nation to avoid discrimination based upon age. Governments shall not, however, force, intimidate, or coerce the people of their nation to avoid discrimination based upon age.

This clause, unfortunately, doesn't work. You're saying in the clauses before it that nations have to "pass laws forbidding businesses from age discrimination" and cannot "pass any law that encourages age discrimination". But then in this clause, you say that governments "shall not, however, force, intimidate, or coerce the people of their nation to avoid discrimination based upon age". Laws coerce people and force them to behave a certain way. You can't say that a nation has to pass laws mandating a certain behavior, and then say that governments can't make them do anything in regards to that behavior. It's an inherently contradictory situation.

6) All persons shall have a right to depend on parental assistance until a government-chosen age. However, all persons under this age shall be permitted to waive this right with any or no cause at any time, without hindrance.

We have another major issue with this clause. What if a very young child, upset that mommy or daddy didn't buy them a chocolate bar, unilaterally emancipates themselves from parental assistance? It could happen, the way you've written this.

We very strongly recommend you re-focus your efforts on protecting the rights of older citizens, rather than trying to cover everyone. As written, this would never even reach quorum, much less pass a vote.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

As many of the current passed resolutions contain definitions of children, defining them by age, as their core part, isn't this proposal just one giant violation?

I'd encourage the author(s) to take Ambassador Krytellin's advice. I could be in favor of a proposal to protect age discrimination against the elderly.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

Oh, I don't know, some might see the possibility of children being induced to sign a binding contract to perform in a porn film as being "taken advantage of". Or they could sign a binding contract to work for free in a salt mine. Or they could sign a binding contract to take part in medical experimentation.

Yes, any of these contracts could be signed by persons who are currently minors under this provision. However, there currently exists a large group of people who are currently permitted to sign such contracts. These people do sometimes sign such contracts, but I've never heard calls to prevent them being permitted to do so. Furthermore, a binding contract to work without pay in a salt mine may be considered unconscionable, though that is a matter for each nation's courts to decide.


As some of my colleagues have pointed out, there are certain things that a minimum age limit is essential for. Do you really want young children to randomly pick medical procedures for themselves? Or engaging in sexual relationships? Or living without guardians? The dangers in such situations to minor children would be appalling.

I consider it highly unlikely that any person would randomly pick medical procedures for themselves, as they would still be required to pay for it (or, in nations with nationalised health care, have it approved). However, in the event someone does want to pay for it, they are certainly entitled to do so, barring any non-discriminatory laws. Similarly, if a person wants to engage in sexual relations or live without guardians, they should be permitted to do so barring any non-discriminatory laws. I do not see any "appalling dangers" inherent in such as situation.


This essentially promotes child labor. You're giving businesses a blanket right to drag even the youngest children into working for them, regardless of the dangers the job entails, or the working conditions therein.

There is no blanket right to "drag" anyone into working for any business. People have a right not to work at any given place of business. As to your remarks about working conditions, this does not prohibit all labour laws, merely those that discriminate based upon age.


You're also mandating that any business allow young children in, regardless of what it does. Do you really want your minor children wandering around in bars or sex shops, for example?

I wouldn't say I "want" anyone in bars or sex shops. I really don't care if someone enters such locales or not, regardless of age.


You can't say that a nation has to pass laws mandating a certain behavior, and then say that governments can't make them do anything in regards to that behavior. It's an inherently contradictory situation.

Thank you for your input here. I agree that it is contradictory. Section 6 is merely intended to forbid "thoughtcrime" legislation and prevent violations of free speech. Could someone provide better wording for this?


We have another major issue with this clause. What if a very young child, upset that mommy or daddy didn't buy them a chocolate bar, unilaterally emancipates themselves from parental assistance? It could happen, the way you've written this.

That could happen, though I would disagree that it is a major issue. In fact, it's entirely intentional.


As many of the current passed resolutions contain definitions of children, defining them by age, as their core part, isn't this proposal just one giant violation?

That would certainly be a problem. Could you point me to resolutions that I should work around?


As to the suggestions that I should alter this to only affect age discrimination, I'm simply unable to do that. It strikes me as utterly ridiculous for a resolution against age discrimination to be itself age-discriminatory.

When the nation of Isamora gains World Assembly recognition we would be accepting to an age discrimination or Elder Care resolution in some form but not a proposal that can manipulate children or violate resolutions already passed in this forum.

That would certainly be a problem. Could you point me to resolutions that I should work around?If by "work around" you mean "repeal", since your goal is to get rid of the definition of 'child': Restrictions on Child Labor, Child Protection Act, and you might have to convince me to forgo my efforts on the education front. Note that I only merely skimmed the passed resolution titles. Take some advice, kid. You don't want to try to do this.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

If by "work around" you mean "repeal"

I probably do, though I'll see if I can find a way to get this to work within the guidelines set be previous resolutions.


you might have to convince me to forgo my efforts on the education front.

I might. What do your efforts in education entail? The only limitation that this would make is that no person could be forced to attend school due to age, or forbidden to attend school due to age. Governments are certainly free to offer educational programs, and in fact I have no problem with current educational systems remaining open but optional to attend.


You don't want to try to do this.

I would prefer you not tell me what I do and do not want to do. I have no illusions that it will be easy to convince people to vote for this, but I see even that it is being debated as an important step.

There is a good reason we need age discrimination against children in some aspects such as alcohol, cigars, knives and adulthood: it's too much for them to handle when they are growing up, and sometimes it encourages them into a life of crime... it's there for a reason.

There is a good reason we need age discrimination against children in some aspects such as alcohol, cigars, knives and adulthood: it's too much for them to handle when they are growing up, and sometimes it encourages them into a life of crime... it's there for a reason.


Oh? There's evidence of this, or is it just your opinion? Because if it's just your opinion, please replace the word "children" with "blacks" or "women" in your argument to see how bad it is.

Oh? There's evidence of this, or is it just your opinion? Because if it's just your opinion, please replace the word "children" with "blacks" or "women" in your argument to see how bad it is.

Erm...yes? It's something called brain developement - something you are quite clearly lacking in - they do not possess the mental accuity to make complicated descisions. This is fact, like saying women have lady parts or black people have different coloured skin. If you don't believe me, try debating with a three year old about the Schleswig-Holstein problem. You'll find that they are all pretty clueless about the issue...

Oh? There's evidence of this, or is it just your opinion? Because if it's just your opinion, please replace the word "children" with "blacks" or "women" in your argument to see how bad it is.
This isn't Disneyland or some kind of fantasy land: Children having sex? Toddlers as presidents? Pensioners being cared for in nurseries?

What kind of society are you thinking about?

...isn't this proposal just one giant violation?Yes, Dr. Castro, it certainly is:

www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=3
www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=18

Erm...yes? It's something called brain developement - something you are quite clearly lacking in

So you start your argument with an ad hominem.


they do not possess the mental accuity to make complicated descisions.

Again, is there PROOF of this?


If you don't believe me, try debating with a three year old about the Schleswig-Holstein problem. You'll find that they are all pretty clueless about the issue...

I went ahead and took your advice and asked a three-year-old about the Schleswig-Holstein problem, and they were, indeed, quite clueless about it. Then I went and asked a forty-year-old and had similar results.


Children having sex?

If they want to, forbidding it is an unreasonable restriction on their rights. If they don't want to, it's unimportant.


Toddlers as presidents?

Certainly, if they can get elected. If you are correct that no toddler is qualified to be president, it is extremely unlikely that they will be elected. If you believe that it is possible for a toddler to do well as president, it is a violation of the people's right to select the best president.


Pensioners being cared for in nurseries?

They can't be forced to be in nurseries simply due to their age under this draft proposal. If a pensioner chooses to be cared for in a nursery, they would have the right to do so. Personally, I consider nurseries much cheerier than the average retirement home.


What kind of society are you thinking about?

A society that judges people based on who they are, not when they were born.

Oh? There's evidence of this, or is it just your opinion? Because if it's just your opinion, please replace the word "children" with "blacks" or "women" in your argument to see how bad it is.
Given the WA has outlawed neither racial nor sexual discrimination, this isn't an especially strong argument. Why legislation to combat one type of discrimination, but not every other? I mean, after this proposal passes, it will still be legal for employers to post NINA signs or pay their female employers less or fire Muslims or treat their homosexual employees poorly. If, as your statement seems to indicate, you're against discrimination in general, it's odd to concentrate only on one aspect of it here.

To quote, as I have done before, the great Quodite civil rights leader Dr. Martin Liu-tha Qing, Jr., "Freedom is one thing: you have it all, or you are not free."

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Why legislation to combat one type of discrimination, but not every other?

I am not opposed to legislation forbidding other forms of discrimination, I simply believe that such legislation should be in separate resolutions. I chose to target age discrimination in my own proposal simply because it is the most ignored by individual nations, many of which have independently created legislation against other forms of discrimination for their own nation.

I think this is getting ridiculous now that you've set the age of consent to zero. C'mon everyone else, let's see what we can do with my own equal rights redraft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=576207): perhaps I'm thinking of covering everyone and not just disability, but definitely not in such a style as this.

Then you're not covering everyone, are you?

Well, there's got to be a boundary between what's appropriate and what isn't! What's the behaviour-modification centres got to do with an anti-discrimination resolution?

http://www.russiablog.org/DontFeedtheTrolls.jpg

Well, there's got to be a boundary between what's appropriate and what isn't! What's the behaviour-modification centres got to do with an anti-discrimination resolution?


Although Linux and the X does not support legislating what is appropriate and inappropriate, this measure does not prevent doing so. It simply prevents such legislation from discriminating based upon age.

As to the issue of behaviour modification centres, it is true that there is no direct relationship between them and anti-discrimination. However, the limitations included are simply to prevent parents abusing any power they have by extralegal imprisonment.

On the advice of Cobdenia, I'm outta here.

I'm not entering into the debate fully. I'm just speaking up to state once again that if this proposal wants any serious attention, the author must first repeal the WA Resolution #4: Restrictions on Child Labor and WA Resolution #19: Child Protection Act. Or the author can, of course, focus only on age discrimination in adults and not include children.

I'd like to inform the author, however, that it will likely be extremely difficult to successfully repeal both resolutions in order to introduce legislation that actually allows minor children to enter into sexual relationships as well as be used as regular labor in the work force.

That said, I'm officially out of here.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

So presenting a controversial draft resolution has become trolling now?

Again, is there PROOF of this?
Yes. Quite a lot. I haven't got time to go hunting for references you should have already gone hunting for, but neuron connection density undergoes major changes in early teens, and doesn't stabilise until your early twenties. This coincides directly with an increased understanding of the consequences of your actions.

--
Cerys Coch, whose Google-Fu is mighty but whose time is limited.

Although one may argue that studies have shown the majority of people over a given age have greater reasoning capabilities than the majority of people under that age, exceptions certainly exist. Denying rights people who are "too young" despite them being more intelligent and developed than someone "old enough" is ridiculous.

The Aundotutunagirian People Oppose This!

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNISING that age discrimination continues to be a problem in today's world

BELIEVING that this is contrary to the ideas of human rights

HEREBY ORDAINS

1) "Age discrimination" shall be defined as denying rights, privileges, or opportunities to any person on the basis of their age.

2) No government may pass any law that encourages age discrimination. This includes, but is not limited to, a minimum or maximum age for any of the following:
a) Voting
b) Any medical procedure
c) Being party to a contract
d) Being elected to any political office
e) Sexual relationships
f) Living independently
g) Choice in education

3) Any current laws that encourage age discrimination are to be considered null and void.

4) Any government that does not have an entirely laissez-faire economic system is to pass laws forbidding businesses from age discrimination. Such laws include forbidding a minimum or maximum age to work at any business or to forbid entry to a place of business on account of age.

5) Governments shall encourage via education the people of their nation to avoid discrimination based upon age. Governments shall not, however, force, intimidate, or coerce the people of their nation to avoid discrimination based upon age. create legislation that restricts freedom of thought or speech to achieve such goals

6) All persons shall have a right to depend on parental assistance until a government-chosen age. However, all persons under this age shall be permitted to waive this right with any or no cause at any time, without hindrance.
a) Parents may not send children under their care to behaviour-modification centres outside of World Assembly member nations
b) Behaviour-modification centres within World Assembly member nations shall be subject to random investigation as well as report-based investigation to ensure that abusive tactics are not used. Behaviour-modification centres that are found to use abusive tactics shall be subject to immediate closure, and the operators subject to criminal charges. Parents who have sent their children to such centres shall be investigated and criminally charged if they are found to have been aware of such treatment. Nations that do not have a criminal court system are not required to form one in order to press charges.

7) In order to comply with both this resolution and past resolutions, governments shall legislate the age of majority and the age of consent to zero (0).
What manner of perversity are you trying to foist upon the World Assembly? Age of consent, zero? Children can enter into sexual relationships? Sign contracts? Work at any business?

For a government composed of (apparently) adults to suggest such things as these is shocking. It is bad enough that you would allow these abominations to take place in your own land, but how dare you propose to institute these things in other nations?

This is why Aundotutunagir is not a member of this organization. It is beyond belief that the members of the World Assembly would allow filth such as this to be discussed in these halls. Shame on all of you for not tar and feathering this degenerate individual and riding him out of here on a rail.

It is bad enough that you would allow these abominations to take place in your own land, but how dare you propose to institute these things in other nations?

We clearly have VERY different ideas as to what an "abomination" is. I would mention that not only my own nation but my entire region considers the current state of affairs to be an "abomination".


Shame on all of you for not tar and feathering this degenerate individual and riding him out of here on a rail.

They're certainly trying to.

I will use my time to say this: it would not pass, for all those reasons listed above. If it was being voted on right now, I would never vote for it.

2) No government may pass any law that encourages age discrimination. This includes, but is not limited to, a minimum or maximum age for any of the following:
a) Voting
b) Any medical procedure
c) Being party to a contract
d) Being elected to any political office
e) Sexual relationships
f) Living independently
g) Choice in education

Voting? I say no. They might randomly pick a name, hardly knowing what that person stands for.

Being elected to any political office? No. People could vote in a 6 month old baby!

Sexual relationships? Certainly not!

Living independantly? I say no. They all need parents nearby.

Choice in education? Yes, but to a point. They should be able to choose which school they want to go to, or if they want to be home schooled. They should not be able to choose not to be educated, however.

Those are just some of the problems that I find with this draft. This is in no way a complete list.

Denying rights people who are "too young" despite them being more intelligent and developed than someone "old enough" is ridiculous.

I agree with that statement, though. I still think we should give them freedom, but not unlimited.

This resolution is a perversion of the concept of Anti-discrimination. We find the implications of this statute odious.


Yours,


We have made our feelings clear in the above comments, but we should add that the Government of the Emperor of Urgench will oppose this resolution without it being radically rewritten, essentially into a completely different statute.


We are deeply disturbed by the possible outcomes of passing this highly dangerous law.


Yours e.t.c.,

They're certainly trying to.
OOC: A word of advice: create a character to use as your WA ambassador and start using it to post in-character here in the forum. That way when the lynch mob comes they will come for the character, rather than you.

We have made our feelings clear in the above comments, but we should add that the Government of the Emperor of Urgench will oppose this resolution without it being radically rewritten, essentially into a completely different statute.


We are deeply disturbed by the possible outcomes of passing this highly dangerous law.


Yours e.t.c.,

The law in it's current form is illegal since it goes against two previously passed resolutions. No worries that it'd get passed in this form. It'd have to be radically rewritten in order to have any chance.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

OOC: A word of advice: create a character to use as your WA ambassador and start using it to post in-character here in the forum. That way when the lynch mob comes they will come for the character, rather than you.

Also OOC: I'm quite used to the lynch mob on this issue. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised this has gotten three pages in without my being called a pædophile (which, before someone gets ideas, I'm not. It's simply a common attack.)


The law in it's current form is illegal since it goes against two previously passed resolutions.

Would I be correct in assuming you reference resolutions four and nineteen? I would remind you that those resolutions do not apply to a specific age, merely an age of majority and age of consent, which this resolution requires to be zero. Therefore, there is no conflict.

Would I be correct in assuming you reference resolutions four and nineteen? I would remind you that those resolutions do not apply to a specific age, merely an age of majority and age of consent, which this resolution requires to be zero. Therefore, there is no conflict.

In that case, it's amending those resolutions which is still illegal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

There is no amendment of previous resolutions. Both resolutions state that they apply to those under the "age of majority" or "age of consent", without defining those terms. This resolution simply requires governments to legislate those ages to zero. The previous resolutions continue to apply as written to those under the age of consent or age of majority (which would of course be no one, but that doesn't change that the resolutions are not amended).

Voting? I say no. They might randomly pick a name, hardly knowing what that person stands for.
What is to prevent an adult from doing so?

Being elected to any political office? No. People could vote in a 6 month old baby!
Why would the voters vote in anyone who is not fit for the job?

Adults usually are the ones who do plenty of research. Young children, such as 5 year olds, probably would not. 10 years old might be the minimum voting age.

As for your second question, respectable ambassador for Puchi, if young voters (i.e. under 10) just randomly voted, as I said, many of them might choose the baby.

This resolution is too dangerous. I, Daniel, the reperesentative for Spartzerina, am strongly against this proposal, and I encourage others to do so too.

it's all well and good that your tackling age discrimination, however, maybe we should broaden this proposal to make it more effective.

i would advise, tackling, age, sex, racial, and religious discrimination all in one resolution. that would include many additions to the current resolution, but i hope you are up to the task ambassador. also the title would have to be changed. i would be very much impressed if you did tackle all those problems in new post titled to fight all those forms of discrimination.

Wachichi

Adults usually are the ones who do plenty of research. Young children, such as 5 year olds, probably would not.

The likelihood of a person to research their political options is not correlated to their age. Certainly in nations where one is not permitted to vote before attaining a certain age those below that age are less interested in politics, but that is simply because they are not given political rights.


it's all well and good that your tackling age discrimination, however, maybe we should broaden this proposal to make it more effective.

I can understand that you want to eliminate all forms of discrimination, but I do not believe that a monolithic resolution is the best way to do so. For one, given that World Assembly regulations forbid exceeding a (I believe) 1500 word limit, attempting to create an overarching proposal leaves room for less detail. Furthermore, multiple resolutions are more difficult to repeal than one resolution, and the repeal of that one resolution would be more disastrous than the repeal of one of many, as all forms of discrimination would then be permitted. There are, in fact, several other draft resolutions targeting other forms of discrimination, though my own nation is not responsible for those. There is also a monolithic anti-discrimination draft resolution, though it does not prohibit age-based discrimination.

You do realise that if, and I repeat, if you ever managed to get this passed, which is an unlikely event, that you're basically saying that abusing a child is perfectly legal, as is abandonment of an infant, simply because there's no age of majority or consent anymore. No parent would be punished for neglect and abandonment of any child that cannot fend for themselves.

If you disagree, I'd really like to know how an infant could find it's own sustenance, shelter, clothing, etc.

What you're doing here is creating a world where, in about fifty years, everyone will be on an intelligence level of the proverbial village idiot since hardly any child will actually attend school if it's not required of them. A world where children grow up in fear because they're not protected by any basic rights to protect them. A world where children can, and will be exploited in downright sickening ways.

Is that the effect you're after? Because that's what this would eventually do.

And it's a 3500 character limit.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

The likelihood of a person to research their political options is not correlated to their age. Certainly in nations where one is not permitted to vote before attaining a certain age those below that age are less interested in politics, but that is simply because they are not given political rights.

I'm going to say that this is not necessarily true. Our children are extremely interesting in politics simply because they are taught politics from an early age. Our children are allowed to vote at age 12, but they are showing interest as early as 5 years of age.

I'd thank you not to make blanket statements like that unless you have actually done your research on all the worlds of the World Assembly.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Thank you for your advice, I agree that making such a generalisation was wrong. I would like to ask why you refuse those between the age of five and twelve the right to vote, considering that they show interest in politics.

Thank you for your advice, I agree that making such a generalisation was wrong. I would like to ask why you refuse those between the age of five and twelve the right to vote, considering that they show interest in politics.

Because they lack the ability to make an informed decision. If they showed any ability to make an informed decision, we would let them vote. It's something that we have had our psychologists look at for years. Showing interest in politics doesn't correlate to the mental ability to make an informed decision.

We already dropped the age once because that was the age in which our youth had shown the signs of actually listening and calculating the data and making a decision based on the facts rather than just looking blank at a debate and not understanding what was really said.

Before you ask, the age for voting used to be sixteen, the age at which every Rutian enters the military for five years. Why don't we allow this to be younger? Simply because education is important to us and is not finished until the child is fifteen. And we do not wish to make weapons for a child's hands. That would be an abomination to us. While we are a peaceful people, we don't want to risk sending children out into the line of fire should there be a war.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

I find this proposal's attempts to undermine the protections established by resolutions #4 and #19 to be morally reprehensible. Furthermore I consider this to be a direct contradiction to the intent of the previously mentioned resolutions and request that the WA Secretariat (OOC: the mods) issues a ruling regarding the legality of this proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

It's something that we have had our psychologists look at for years.

Something my own nation found long ago is that all people, including children,, when given responsibilities and rights, use them quite well. It is something your researchers would have difficulty examining, given that it would almost certainly require contravening several of your laws. It is also possible that your researchers are unintentionally injecting bias into their experimentation or interpretation, merely as a result of their society. (OOC: Unless your character is quite different from you, it is extremely likely you are simply injecting your OOC cultural biases here.)


I find this proposal's attempts to undermine the protections established by resolutions #4 and #19 to be morally reprehensible.

I find these so-called "protections" to be morally reprehensible, and more in the line of involuntary restrictions.

We as the newly founded nation of Interesting challenges provide our arguments in favor of the nation of Linux and the X and would further like to stress that such an issue is important and should be treated as such before being written off as a joke.

1) Whereas much of the opposition has stated exploitation of children, it must be remembered that considerable grey area exists and that this resolution is not suggesting the removal of laws which actually cause child exploitation. Children by nature of their lack of experience are more prone to be ignorant, however we point once again to grey area, as the children must not be entirely controlled before a certain age.

2) Whereas many accidents that appear on the news or are talked about - automobile crashes - pill overdoses - alcohol overdoses - mixing alcohol and automobiles, thus resulting in accidents - accidental pregnancies - etc etc etc, are committed by children and teenagers, a considerable amount of those over the legal age also fall into such predicaments, often ending in death. Why then should a society tolerate age discrimination if stupidity transcends age groups?

3) Whereas, just because something is illegal does not mean people stop doing it. Prohibition in its time failed, the war on drugs has failed, from the standpoint that people keep doing the banned substance (and as a consequence, a black market is created). This argument specifically addresses a drinking and smoking age; for instance, fake IDs can be created, or minors get someone else to buy it for them. Creating a law is not going to stop that. It only inconveniences them, and with reference to point 2, is discriminatory and unfair.

4) Whereas much of the opposition is entirely unrealistic. Indeed, if abolishing the drinking age is suggested, the response will be something along the lines of 5 year olds drinking. Our nation believes that this is nonsense and believes that the reason 5 year olds don't drink is because they dislike it, not because it is illegal, and that this applies to much of the argument of the opposition. The time that children do take interest in this is exactly the age at when their opinions can be formed more clearly and accurately.

5) Whereas schools, while seen by many as an opportunity to engage in learning, and to socialize and various other good things that come with it, is also seen as repressive and unlikely to actually teach anyone anything. Indeed, many people believe (as do we) that mandatory schooling, by forcing students under persecution of law to sit in classes learning things they are not interested in, makes them bored and are then even less likely to learn anything. One of the things that has often been mentioned is that how is a child to learn if they only pay attention to things they're interested in (which is almost always assumed to be video games or ice cream)? We reply that there are many doctors and other professions filled by people as is, and this comes not from being forced to attend classes, but from personal love of profession and personal interest. In other words, people are diverse and certainly not the same. We would also like to add that you cannot tell other people how to feel and so the sentiment that those who dislike mandatory schooling are moronic is below comment. We also further stress, as a last point, that schooling is not necessarily equivalent to schooling, if one does not learn anything, and that there are many other ways to learn things apart from a formal classroom setting.

6) Whereas while the abolishment of the age of consent is seen by many to be an act of extreme cruelty (reference to point 1), it is not such a bad idea. It is an arbitrary law and lands people in trouble for no reason. Indeed, consensual sex now has another word for it: statuatory rape. And this has occured, for instance, between a 16 year old and a 15 year old where the 16 year old has been accused of raping the 15 year old. We find no other word for this except "stupid", to put it bluntly.

We further understand the exploitation situation and would like to debunk those myths. It is not a matter of exploitation. Rape is rape (even amongst individuals who are well within the commonly accepted maturity age) and consensual sex is consensual sex. Why are there those willing to proudly march around proclaiming "no sex laws in the bedroom!" and then turn around and support this? Because they have fear that 5 year olds getting raped by someone much older may not know the difference. Let us say that while this is certainly unfortunate and we do not condone rape in any way shape or form, a law is not required. Many people - even after their teenage years - never report rape simply due to the psychological effects (they feel guilty for doing so, or scared, ad nauseum). The point is that this goes across all age groups, regardless of AoC laws. In some other, perhaps alternately worded words: rape is illegal as is, why make an exception for an age group? The only thing this law succeeds in doing beyond the already instated anti-rape laws is punish consensual sex. We would like to close this section of the rebuttal by posting two daring things: the majority of people who get raped are generally not going to be 8 year olds (although this does happen) but people who are older, and that we do not see large age gap relationships as being a bad thing, so long as it is consensual between the two (or multiple people if they happen to be polygamists) persons.

7) Whereas youth are treated with disrespect and double standards as is. A youth lacking experience may be wrong, but they are certainly not always wrong, so much as an adult is far from being always right.

8) Whereas behavior modification camps go against every single liberty and freedom imaginable to living kind, and often for the stupidest reasons (homosexuality, dissent towards parents, etc).

9a) Whereas the so-called lack of interest in voting has more to do with people not asking youth about their opinions than anything, not due to immaturity due to age.
9b) To address the argument of ignorance, this is certainly true, however, isn't the same thing true of those over the voting age? They, too, often have no clue, and yet are still allowed to voice their opinions in the form of a ballot. We stress one important thing: there is no such thing as a bad vote, only choices. To stress another: women were not allowed to vote, rebelled against this, and were laughed at. We observe that this is history repeating itself and would like to dare anyone bring up the suggestion to make the woman vote nonexistent.

10) Whereas quite clearly various youth have shown to be intelligent.

We now for the time being end our argument and apologize if anything within it does not comply with world assembly rules, as this newly founded nation is ignorant of certain aspects.

We as the newly founded nation of Interesting challenges provide our arguments in favor of the nation of Linux and the X and would further like to stress that such an issue is important and should be treated as such before being written off as a joke.Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to treat this ridiculous idea as a joke. Unfortunately, I don't think it is intended to be one, and with the approvals needed being so low the chances of this making quorum and passing scare me.

1) Whereas much of the opposition has stated exploitation of children, it must be remembered that considerable grey area exists and that this resolution is not suggesting the removal of laws which actually cause child exploitation.No, it just eliminates the segment of the populace that those laws would apply to because nobody would be legally considered a child anymore.
Children by nature of their lack of experience are more prone to be ignorant, however we point once again to grey area, as the children must not be entirely controlled before a certain age. Their lack of experience is all the more reason we should be protecting them.

2) Whereas many accidents that appear on the news or are talked about - automobile crashes - pill overdoses - alcohol overdoses - mixing alcohol and automobiles, thus resulting in accidents - accidental pregnancies - etc etc etc, are committed by children and teenagers, a considerable amount of those over the legal age also fall into such predicaments, often ending in death. Why then should a society tolerate age discrimination if stupidity transcends age groups? It's not age discrimination to try to protect children.

3) Whereas, just because something is illegal does not mean people stop doing it. Prohibition in its time failed, the war on drugs has failed, from the standpoint that people keep doing the banned substance (and as a consequence, a black market is created). This argument specifically addresses a drinking and smoking age; for instance, fake IDs can be created, or minors get someone else to buy it for them. Creating a law is not going to stop that. It only inconveniences them, and with reference to point 2, is discriminatory and unfair.Chances are, it will stop some of them, which is still a good thing.

5) Whereas schools, while seen by many as an opportunity to engage in learning, and to socialize and various other good things that come with it, is also seen as repressive and unlikely to actually teach anyone anything. Indeed, many people believe (as do we) that mandatory schooling, by forcing students under persecution of law to sit in classes learning things they are not interested in, makes them bored and are then even less likely to learn anything. One of the things that has often been mentioned is that how is a child to learn if they only pay attention to things they're interested in (which is almost always assumed to be video games or ice cream)? We reply that there are many doctors and other professions filled by people as is, and this comes not from being forced to attend classes, but from personal love of profession and personal interest. In other words, people are diverse and certainly not the same. We would also like to add that you cannot tell other people how to feel and so the sentiment that those who dislike mandatory schooling are moronic is below comment. We also further stress, as a last point, that schooling is not necessarily equivalent to schooling, if one does not learn anything, and that there are many other ways to learn things apart from a formal classroom setting.There may be enough doctors in your nations currently, but after a while those doctors will cease to practice medicine either through retirement or death, and you'll need some new doctors to step up and take their place and if nobody went to school because they didn't have to you're not going to have anyone with the skills needed to be a doctor.

6) Whereas while the abolishment of the age of consent is seen by many to be an act of extreme cruelty (reference to point 1), it is not such a bad idea. It is an arbitrary law and lands people in trouble for no reason. Indeed, consensual sex now has another word for it: statuatory rape. And this has occured, for instance, between a 16 year old and a 15 year old where the 16 year old has been accused of raping the 15 year old. We find no other word for this except "stupid", to put it bluntly. So you see no problem with a 30 year old man having sex with a toddler? I know it's an extreme example, but without an age of consent it can happen.

We further understand the exploitation situation and would like to debunk those myths. It is not a matter of exploitation. Rape is rape (even amongst individuals who are well within the commonly accepted maturity age) and consensual sex is consensual sex. Why are there those willing to proudly march around proclaiming "no sex laws in the bedroom!" and then turn around and support this? Because they have fear that 5 year olds getting raped by someone much older may not know the difference.A 5 year old most likely wouldn't even know what sex is, which is all the more reason for them not to be able to give consent.
Let us say that while this is certainly unfortunate and we do not condone rape in any way shape or form, a law is not required. Many people - even after their teenage years - never report rape simply due to the psychological effects (they feel guilty for doing so, or scared, ad nauseum). The point is that this goes across all age groups, regardless of AoC laws. In some other, perhaps alternately worded words: rape is illegal as is, why make an exception for an age group? The only thing this law succeeds in doing beyond the already instated anti-rape laws is punish consensual sex. We would like to close this section of the rebuttal by posting two daring things: the majority of people who get raped are generally not going to be 8 year olds (although this does happen) but people who are older, and that we do not see large age gap relationships as being a bad thing, so long as it is consensual between the two (or multiple people if they happen to be polygamists) persons. Technically, if one of the participants in the sex act is below the age of consent, it's not consensual.

7) Whereas youth are treated with disrespect and double standards as is. A youth lacking experience may be wrong, but they are certainly not always wrong, so much as an adult is far from being always right. So, what's your point?

8) Whereas behavior modification camps go against every single liberty and freedom imaginable to living kind, and often for the stupidest reasons (homosexuality, dissent towards parents, etc). So, you don't approve of sending criminals to jail either? After all, what's a jail but a large behavior modification center.

9a) Whereas the so-called lack of interest in voting has more to do with people not asking youth about their opinions than anything, not due to immaturity due to age. And how many people are going to ask a child their opinion on foreign policy, for that matter how many 5 year olds have an opinion of foreign policy?
9b) To address the argument of ignorance, this is certainly true, however, isn't the same thing true of those over the voting age? They, too, often have no clue, and yet are still allowed to voice their opinions in the form of a ballot.But at least they have had the chance to learn more about the world, and would be less likely to simply cast their vote for the person who promises them a puppy.
We stress one important thing: there is no such thing as a bad vote, only choices. To stress another: women were not allowed to vote, rebelled against this, and were laughed at. We observe that this is history repeating itself and would like to dare anyone bring up the suggestion to make the woman vote nonexistent. I fail to see any connection between woman's suffrage and castrating child protection laws.

10) Whereas quite clearly various youth have shown to be intelligent. And some have shown themselves to be idiots, it's the same with adults, some are smart and some aren't, what's your point?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We now for the time being end our argument and apologize if anything within it does not comply with world assembly rules, as this newly founded nation is ignorant of certain aspects.OOC: Hmm, a newly founded nation located in the same region as the author. Is that the subtle oder of puppetwank I smell?

[W]ith the approvals needed being so low the chances of this making quorum and passing scare me.

Why does it scare you? Are you so certain that this has such widespread support that it will pass?


Their lack of experience is all the more reason we should be protecting them.

What you are calling protections merely prevents gaining experience.


It's not age discrimination to try to protect children.

True. What IS age discrimination, however, is claiming that all persons below a certain age lack the capacity to do something, just as claiming all persons of a certain race is race discrimination.


[I]f nobody went to school because they didn't have to you're not going to have anyone with the skills needed to be a doctor.

You seem to be confused on this issue. There is a difference between education and schooling. And do you truly believe that people will not self-educate themselves to become a doctor? This draft resolution does not prevent nations from requiring people prove their ability to be a doctor (or perform any other job).


So you see no problem with a 30 year old man having sex with a toddler? know it's an extreme example, but without an age of consent it can happen.
A 5 year old most likely wouldn't even know what sex is, which is all the more reason for them not to be able to give consent.

Again, IF SOMEONE GIVES CONSENT FOR SEXUAL RELATIONS, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. As for your example of a five year old, remember that they would ask what sex is. If they don't like it, they won't agree. If they decide they want to, no harm is done. If the adult uses coercion or force, it is rape, just as it would be between two adults.


Technically, if one of the participants in the sex act is below the age of consent, it's not consensual.

Technically, consent was given by everyone involved, so it is consensual. The law refuses to recognise this consent, so LEGALLY it was not consensual. As this is an attempt to change the law, current legal practice isn't entirely relevant.


So, you don't approve of sending criminals to jail either? After all, what's a jail but a large behavior modification center.

The fact my nation has no prisons may answer your first question. However, since this would affect nations that do have prisons, there are a few things I would like to clear up. Firstly, people are given trials before being sent to prison, and there is a length of time that they may be imprisoned for. In behaviour modification centres, there are no trials, and the length of time is "once you're an adult, we can't force you to stay anymore, but you'd still better stay or you will have NOTHING". Furthermore, in behaviour modification centres, abusive behaviour on the part of the operators is commonplace and in fact a part of the system. In prisons, although prisoner abuse is commonplace, most nations attempt to prevent it.


And how many people are going to ask a child their opinion on foreign policy, for that matter how many 5 year olds have an opinion of foreign policy?

Did you not even read that portion of the post? The Ambassador of Interesting challenges said quite clearly that the REASON few five year olds have an opinion on foreign policy is that NOBODY ASKS THEM. Do you have an opinion on free vs. open source software (assuming you're not a computer hobbyist)?


But at least they have had the chance to learn more about the world, and would be less likely to simply cast their vote for the person who promises them a puppy.

The person offering a free puppy tends not to win unless that's just a bonus on top of good policy (whatever the people consider that to be at the time). This has been proven experimentally in my own country, rather than the theoretical proof offered in opposition to this draft resolution.


I fail to see any connection between woman's suffrage and castrating child protection laws.

May I assume you have reason for the fact that forbidding women to vote and preventing them holding a decent job was termed "women's protection" at the time?


And some have shown themselves to be idiots, it's the same with adults, some are smart and some aren't, what's your point?

Perhaps that adults are given rights even if they're stupid while youth are not given rights even if they're smart?


OOC: Hmm, a newly founded nation located in the same region as the author. Is that the subtle oder of puppetwank I smell?

OOC: Yes, because any newly-created nation in a region for people who share an unusual viewpoint is OBVIOUSLY a puppet :rolleyes:. Even if I were using puppets, do you really think I would be stupid enough to create a region RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THE DRAFT RESOLUTION for them? I invite a mod to run a checkuser on all the nations within my region, though they'll find that my own nation at least is not the same person as any other. I obviously can't guarantee that no one else has had the idea of using puppets though, but I doubt it.


I would like to remind people that improvements are still requested, but I will not be accepting "improvements" that prevent the draft resolution doing what it says in the title.

Why does it scare you? Are you so certain that this has such widespread support that it will pass?Not so much support, rather than support from the ignorant.

You seem to be confused on this issue. There is a difference between education and schooling. And do you truly believe that people will not self-educate themselves to become a doctor? This draft resolution does not prevent nations from requiring people prove their ability to be a doctor (or perform any other job).I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor that was trained from Medical Procedures for Dummies, Vol II.

Technically, consent was given by everyone involved, so it is consensual. The law refuses to recognise this consent, so LEGALLY it was not consensual. As this is an attempt to change the law, current legal practice isn't entirely relevant.It's not irrelevant. It's precedence. Current law is most relevant thing in any argument.

...abusive behaviour on the part of the operators is commonplace and in fact a part of the system...I believe the burden of proof is now placed on you.

Did you not even read that portion of the post? The Ambassador of Interesting challenges said quite clearly that the REASON few five year olds have an opinion on foreign policy is that NOBODY ASKS THEM. Do you have an opinion on free vs. open source software (assuming you're not a computer hobbyist)?I question whether or not a five-year-old is capable of the cognitive requirements to understand the intricacies of foreign policy. My old math teacher once told me that you can teach a kindergartner how to do algebra by telling them what to do, but they will never understand why it works.

Dr. Bradford Castro
Ambassador to the World Assembly
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

True. What IS age discrimination, however, is claiming that all persons below a certain age lack the capacity to do something, just as claiming all persons of a certain race is race discrimination.

Well, that's clearly bollocks. Is saying that a five year is unable to ejaculate, or a one day old is able to speak, agism? Of course not - it's what we grown ups call facts. The inability of children below a certain aged to understand certain things and make complicated descision is similarly fact. To proclaim that as agism is like claiming that some is racist for stating that a native Norwegian has a lighter skin tone then a Native Kenyan...

Not so much support, rather than support from the ignorant.

Disagreement with your viewpoints is ignorance?


I wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor that was trained from Medical Procedures for Dummies, Vol II.

In that case I would recommend instituting a certification system that requires demonstrating a certain level of competence. If a person can demonstrate competence from Medical Procedures for Dummies, then either your system needs to redefine competence or they are in fact perfectly capable of performing medical procedures.


It's not irrelevant. It's precedence. Current law is most relevant thing in any argument.

Not when the argument is to change that law. Your argument is "having sex under the age of consent is illegal, so we should not make it legal".


I believe the burden of proof is now placed on you.

Certainly. Allow me to bring into evidence the following article recently published on our nation's most popular online newspaper:

Were you to glance up from the deserted beach below, you might mistake Tranquility Bay for a rather exclusive hotel. The statuesque white property stands all alone on a sandy curve of southern Jamaica, feathered by palm trees, gazing out across the Caribbean Sea. You would have to look closer to see the guards at the wall. Inside, 250 foreign children are locked up. Almost all are American, but though kept prisoner, they were not sent here by a court of law. Their parents paid to have them kidnapped and flown here against their will, to be incarcerated for up to three years, sometimes even longer. They will not be released until they are judged to be respectful, polite and obedient enough to rejoin their families.

Parents sign a legal contract with Tranquility Bay granting 49 per cent custody rights. It permits the Jamaican staff, whose qualifications are not required to exceed a high-school education, to use whatever physical force they feel necessary to control their child. The contract also waives Tranquility's liability for harm that should befall a child in its care. The cost of sending a child here ranges from $25,000 to $40,000 a year.

Opened in 1997, Tranquility Bay is not a boot camp or a boarding school but a 'behaviour modification centre' for 11- to 18-year-olds. An American Time magazine journalist visited in 1998, and since then no media have been allowed inside. With all access denied, there has been little coverage beyond sketchy reports based on hearsay - even the local community knows almost nothing of what goes on. My discovery of Tranquility Bay came only by accident in 2000, while living nearby, and all my approaches since then were, like every other media request, firmly rejected.

The owner is an American called Jay Kay. He doesn't trust the media, because 'they go for sensationalist stuff. Nothing has really presented things in a way that is factual.' On the other hand, he believes anyone who saw inside Tranquility would support and admire it, and blames criticism on ignorance. So Kay has been in a dilemma. His business is expanding, and he is turning his attention to the UK, for he believes there is a large untapped market of British parents who would ship their children straight off to Jamaica if only they knew about Tranquility. The British government, too, he hopes, might send him children in its care. 'If social services was interested, at $2,400 a month I bet they can't offer our services for that.'

This spring he decided to grant me and a photographer unprecedented, exclusive access. If he didn't like the result, 'Hell will freeze over before anyone gets in here again.'

The first impression once inside Tranquility Bay's perimeter walls is of disconcerting quiet. Students are moved around the property in silence by guards in single file, 3ft apart - a complicated operation, because girls and boys must be kept segregated at all times, forbidden to look at one another.

Tranquility has a language of its own. The vocabulary is recognisable, but its use has been delicately customised, so that boys are 'males', girls 'females', and they are all divided into single-sex 'families' of about 20. The families have names such as Dignity, Triumph and Wisdom, and are led by a staff member known as the 'family mother' or 'father', addressed by the children as Mum or Dad. The 200 staff are all Jamaican.

Along with multiple guards known as 'chaperones', the family mothers and fathers control and scrutinise their children 24 hours a day. The only moment a student is alone is in a toilet cubicle; but a chaperone is standing right outside the door, and knows what he or she went in to do, because when students raise their hand for permission to go, they must hold up one finger for 'a number one', and two for 'a number two'.

Corporal punishment is not practised, but staff administer 'restraint'. Officially it is deployed as the name suggests, to subdue a student who is out of control. However, former students say it is issued more often as a punishment. One explains: 'It's a completely degrading, painful experience. You could get it for raising your voice or pointing your finger. You know you're going to get it when three Jamaicans walk in and say, "Take off your watch." They pin you down in a five-point formation and that's when they start twisting and pulling your limbs, grinding your ankles.'

Before sending their teen to Tranquility, parents are advised that it might be prudent to keep their plan a secret, and employ an approved escort service to break the news. The first most teenagers hear of Tranquility is therefore when they are woken from their beds at home at 4am by guards, who place them in a van, handcuffed if necessary, drive them to an airport and fly them to Jamaica. The child will not be allowed to speak to his or her parents for up to six months, or see them for up to a year.

Let us say you are a new female assigned to Challenger family. You sleep with your family in one bare room, on beds which are pieces of wood on hinges hung on the walls. The day begins with a chaperone shouting at you to get up. You put on your uniform and flip-flops (harder to run away in) in silence and fold your bed against the wall. The room is now completely bare. After performing chores, the family is ordered to line up, for your family mother to do a head count.

You are walked to a classroom to watch an 'EG' - a 30-minute video intended to promote 'emotional growth' - on a theme such as why you shouldn't smoke. Then the family is lined up, counted and walked to the canteen to eat a plate of boiled cabbage and fish in silence while listening to an 'inspirational tape' broadcast loudly through the room, urging you to, for example, eat healthily.

'If 70-80 per cent of the food you eat is not water rich, what you are doing is clogging your body. Eat 80 per cent water-rich food. Try it for the next 10 days. Watch what happens to your body. It will blow your mind.' Students have no choice in what they eat - there is a seven-day plan of basic Jamaican meals which never changes, and eating less than 50 per cent of any dish is forbidden.

Morning routines vary between families. Some shower (three minutes, cold water), others wash clothes (outside, in buckets, cold water), or exercise (walk round the yard). At 9.30am, each family is moved into a classroom for two hours. You continue the US high-school curriculum where you left off at home, but there is no teaching.

Watched by chaperones, you read prescribed course books, take notes, then sit a test after each chapter. Two or three Jamaican teachers sit at the back of the room in case you get stuck, and they may be able to help. But to mark the tests, they have to use an answer key sent down from the States.

After lunch and another inspirational tape come three further hours of school, a second EG, plus an educational video about a historical figure of note. There is a sports period, a family meeting, a final meal with tape, followed by a period called Reflections, when you must write down what you have memorised from the tapes and EGs. You may also write home to your parents, and though staff can read your mail, you may write what you like. But Tranquility's handbook for parents warns them not to believe anything that sounds like a 'manipulation', the programme's word for a complaint.

There is no free time, and you are never alone. At 10pm everyone is in bed for Shut Down; the lights go off, and Tranquility is silent, save for waves crashing on to the beach below. Chaperones watch you through the night. And the next day is exactly the same. As is the next, and the next.

'Yep, identical,' says Kay. 'Exactly identical. Now you see,' he adds, with a grim nod of satisfaction, 'why kids are not happy here.'

Tranquility Bay is one of 11 facilities affiliated to an organisation in Utah called the World Wide Association of Speciality Programs. The facilities are located in the States and Caribbean region, and although independently owned, all run the same programme, devised by Wwasp.

Jay Kay is 33 years old, and the son of Wwasp's chief director. He opened the facility at the age of 27, after four years as administrator of a Wwasp-run juvenile psychiatric hospital in Utah. Previously he had been a night guard there, and before that a petrol-pump attendant, having dropped out of college. He has no qualifications in child development, but considers this unimportant.

'Experience in this job is better than any degree. Am I an educational expert? No. But I know how to hire people to get the job done.' There is more than a touch of the Jerry Springer guest about his looks - heavy, shaven-headed, colourless, and a similarly deadening certainty of mind. 'I've got the best job in the world,' he claims, but he carries himself like a man who has learnt to expect the worst, and is seldom disappointed.

Tranquility is basically a private detention camp. But it differs in one important respect. When courts jail a juvenile, he has a fixed sentence and may think what he likes while serving it, whereas no child arrives at Tranquility with a release date. Students are judged ready to leave only when they have demonstrated a sincere belief that they deserved to be sent here, and that the programme has, in fact, saved their life. They must renounce their old self, espouse the programme's belief system, display gratitude for their salvation, and police fellow students who resist.

A finely engineered reward-and-punishment system has been designed to effect this change. In order to graduate, students must advance from level 1 to 6, which they do by earning points. Every aspect of their conduct is graded daily and as their score accumulates, they climb through the levels and acquire privileges.

On level 1, students are forbidden to speak, stand up, sit down or move without permission. When they have earnt enough points to reach level 2, they may speak without permission; on level 3, they are granted a (staff-monitored) phone call home. Levels 4, 5 and 6 enjoy significantly higher status. In addition to enjoying privileges, such as (strictly limited and approved) clothing, jewellery, music and snacks, they are employed for three days a week as a member of staff, and must discipline other students by issuing 'consequences'.

Every time a member of staff or upper-level student feels a student has broken a rule, they 'consequence' them by deducting points. Rule-breaking is classified into categories of offence. A 'Cat 1' offence, ie rolling your eyes, is consequenced by a modest loss of points. A 'Cat 3' offence, eg swearing, costs a significant number, and may drop the student's score beneath their current level's threshold, thus demoting them and removing privileges.

'You know,' offers Kay, 'if people want to talk about the length of the programme, it's up to the child. If a parent wonders why their kid is here so long, well gee, we are doing our part, maybe you need to ask your little Joey why he is not moving forward. Everyone knows how to earn the points.'

The strategy of coercing children to rewire themselves is the concept Kay is most proud of, for he believes it places troubled teenagers' redemption in their own hands. The choice is theirs.

'For years, we just believed if you make the kids do what you want them to do, then they will make the change. But what we figured out was, why not get them to come to the conclusion that they need to make the change themselves? That's what makes this programme special. It's up to them.'

Students who fail to grasp this formula are forcefully encouraged to get the message. One girl currently has to wear a sign around her neck at all times, which reads: 'I've been in this programme for three years, and I am still pulling crap.'

When most children first arrive they find it difficult to believe that they have no alternative but to submit. In shock, frightened and angry, many simply refuse to obey. This is when they discover the alternative. Guards take them (if necessary by force) to a small bare room and make them (again by force if necessary) lie flat on their face, arms by their sides, on the tiled floor. Watched by a guard, they must remain lying face down, forbidden to speak or move a muscle except for 10 minutes every hour, when they may sit up and stretch before resuming the position. Modest meals are brought to them, and at night they sleep on the floor of the corridor outside under electric light and the gaze of a guard. At dawn they resume the position.

This is known officially as being 'in OP' - Observation Placement - and more casually as 'lying on your face'. Any level student can be sent to OP, and it automatically demotes them to level 1 and zero points. Every 24 hours, students in OP are reviewed by staff, and only sincere and unconditional contrition will earn their release. If they are unrepentant? 'Well, they get another 24 hours.'

One boy told me he'd spent six months in OP.

I didn't think this could be true, but it transpired this was not even exceptional. 'Oh no,' says Kay. 'The record is actually held by a female.' On and off, she spent 18 months lying on her face.

'The purpose of observation,' Kay offers, 'is to give the kids a chance to think. Hopefully, it's giving the kids a chance to reflect on the choices they've made.' And indeed it is often in OP that a student decides to stop fighting. In this respect, OP works. In fact, the success rate of OP can be understood as a perfect distillation of Tranquility Bay's ideology. If your son is willfully disrespectful, the most loving gift a parent can give him is incarceration in an environment so intolerable that he will do anything to get out - where 'anything' means surrendering his mind to authority.

'I say to the parents,' says Kay, leaning back in his office seat. 'The bottom line is, what's the end result you want? Getting there may be ugly, but at least with us you're going to get there.'



Jim Mozingo got the result he wanted. Twenty months after sending his son Josh away, he arrived from North Carolina to collect him. Mozingo has four sons, an insurance company, and is a good example of a typical Tranquility parent. Divorced from Josh's mother, busy, wealthy, he found Tranquility by typing 'defiant teen' into the internet.

'I tell you, I was at my wits' end with my son. We'd tried military school, but he got kicked out. He never got into trouble with the police. He was one step from that. What it was is, he was going through this identity crisis. Peer pressure. Pot got involved.'

Drugs feature high among reasons for choosing Tranquility, although addicts who need detox are not accepted. Running away from home, sleeping around, or being expelled from school are also typical. Some kids have been in trouble with the police. Others had been in court, where their parents persuaded the judge to let them send their child to Tranquility, rather than issue his own punishment. Other students were sent here for wearing inappropriate clothes, using bad language, or hanging around with the wrong sort of friends.

'He was real disrespectful to his mom,' Mozingo sighs. 'Not to me. Never to Daddy. He lived with his mom until a year-and-a-half before he came here, and I knew the day would come when she would call me and say, "I can't handle it."'

But Mozingo had baby twin sons with his new wife, and Josh was a disruptive addition to the household. 'I knew I had to do something. I didn't want to lose him. I would do anything for him, that's why I sent him here. We tried therapy at home, but you know.' He laughs conspiratorially. 'God love 'em, we've got to have therapists, I guess. But I come from a class where if you've got a problem, well hell, you just work it out. Josh just needed to get his head on straight. And he has.

'Sure, he complained like hell at first,' he recalls fondly. 'Typical case of manipulation, just like they said in the handbook. He said the staff were mean and violent, they beat you, the food is terrible.' He chuckles, pleased by the neat symmetry of the handbook and letters. While he is talking, Josh hovers nearby, with bright eyes that dance longingly on his father's face. It took Josh a whole year to reach level 2, some of it spent in OP, but his father feels only awestruck gratitude for the treatment his son has received.

'Every time I come here I'm just so struck by the love of these people. You can't fake this kind of love. And this place is just full of love. I challenge anyone to come down and take a look.'

These are classic Tranquility-parent feelings. For example, Mozingo believes his son had a serious drug problem before coming to Jamaica and Josh agrees. What was he taking? 'I was doing marijuana. I was doing cigarettes. Alcohol.' He looks disgusted with himself. 'Mostly, though, I stole prescription pills from my grandmother.'

Also striking is the assumption parents make of entitlement to their child's affection, as though this is a legal right. 'She's a neat kid, she really is,' a former student's mother says. 'She just didn't like us.' But now, 'I don't believe she's lying to me any more, and that's a neat feeling.'

Messy divorce and remarriage are the norm among these parents. Their expectations of loyalty from their children, though, suggest a gilt-edged ideal of American family life so brittle any rebellion or defiance is literally terrifying. This culture then creates its own logic - for once adolescence is criminalised, Tranquility becomes the obvious solution.

A clearer picture of this family culture emerges from conversation with a group of levels 5 and 6.

'Oh, my relationship with my family was pretty bad. I just went to my room and avoided my parents. There was always arguments and stuff,' offers Pete. 'I was very angry with my parents, their divorce had a big influence on me. I'm not angry with them now, though. Not at all. I mean, I look at this as a punishment, obviously, but I deserved it. How I acted towards my parents.'

Susie is 16, from New York, and here 'because of having sex. Not going to school. It was my attitude. It wasn't, like, drugs. The problem was, me and my mom, we just didn't have a relationship. We could say how was your day, that was about it.' The possibility that this was a normal phase is adamantly rejected by Susie.

'No, that wasn't normal. I would be doing the same thing all my life. I would never have got out of it.' Her friend Michelle believes, 'I'd be living on the streets now. And I think one of the biggest things I've learnt here is that everything happens for a reason. I came here for a reason. You see, I just wasn't meant to be living the life I was living. I wasn't meant to be homeless.'

So who is meant to be homeless? 'What?' She looks thrown, before putting the question aside. 'If my mom hadn't sent me here I would have died.'

That without Tranquility they would be dead is an article of faith among all the students.

I ask one how they would have died. 'What?'

It soon becomes apparent that despite all having been programmed with the script of their near death, no one has paused to wonder how it would have happened. But if they hadn't been dead, they would have been poor, a destiny they have been taught to consider more or less the same thing. 'Tranquility showed me that I'd have been a minimum wager,' Nick says. 'This place saved my life.'

'I'd probably be living with a drug dealer or something awful like that,' speculates a girl. 'And going nowhere. Not being successful.'

A number of these students are 18 years old and therefore legally free to walk out, but until they graduate the programme their parents are refusing to have them home. Lindsay Cohen is nearly 19. A straight-A high-school graduate, she was heading for Harvard until an unsuitable choice of boyfriend had her sent here at the age of 17. The day she turned 18, Tranquility would be obliged to hand over $50 and the return half of her air ticket if she wanted to leave.

She picks the words of her explanation carefully. 'OK. I'm used to a high-profile lifestyle. I really don't own anything too inexpensive. What I'm accustomed to isn't anything of the sort you can buy for $50. And my parents promised to support me through law school if I stayed. So really, walking isn't worth it. Sometimes,' she murmurs, 'I still think I didn't need to come here...' but stops herself and offers, vaguely, 'But I guess in life things happen.'

The students all describe their pre-programme selves using the same subjective descriptions, such as 'ignorant' or 'disrespectful', as if these were neutral adjectives, like 'brown'. Their delivery, too, is disturbingly similar, for the words come out like empty envelopes, emotionally vacant.

'When I was sent here I was very upset,' Kate tells me. Her voice is careful but dull. 'My parents didn't tell me I was coming here. They tricked me.' She smiles a faraway, inscrutable smile. 'I had to have the police escort me on to the plane.'

How do you feel about it now? 'I think it's great. The fact that I changed my life is great.' And what's your relationship like with them now? 'It's great.' What spark Kate and others have is lit only by Kay and the chaperones, towards whom a faintly flirtatious electricity seems to flicker. These children do not just obey rules. They seem to have been psychologically rewired.

'You have to understand,' a former student, who turned 18 and walked out, tries to explain. 'The staff are constantly trying to work out what you are thinking about and constantly telling you what to think about, and then constantly checking to see if you are thinking about it. And if you're not, and they know you're not, you might as well be dead.'

Every day, each family has a meeting, taken by its 'family representative', the staff member who reports to their parents in a weekly phone call.

Challenger family's meeting is the first I attend, and has the appearance of group therapy. The girls sit in a circle on the floor, with an hour to stand up and 'share', or offer 'feedback'.

The first to her feet is frightened that her old problem of anorexia is returning. 'I feel really disgusting the whole time. I hate it so much because I feel so imperfect. I just feel so insecure, I didn't think this was going to come back, I don't know what to do.' She casts about, anguish bubbling out incoherently. 'Like, if I was to date a guy, and I was always hating myself, well that would push him away. Being alone really scares me a lot, but I know that's how I'm going to end up.' Now she is crying hard, gulping air, talking randomly. 'Like, if I get a Cat 2, I feel like I'm letting everyone down.'

After 10 minutes she sits down. But there is something odd about the atmosphere - hot grief has met ice-cool air. Hands go up for feedback.

'No one else is thinking about you, why do you think anyone notices you?'

'Don't you get it? The purpose of being here, and getting consequences, is to teach you how to pick yourself up. If you don't mess up, you go home.'

I am completely taken aback. As they rattle out their spiteful attacks some sound bored, like waitresses running through a menu, but others are imaginatively vicious. After the next has shared, a girl stands up and points at her victim's acne.

'Why is it that you feel so comfortable wallowing in your own crap? That's why you have that stuff on your face. It's because you're hurting yourself on the inside.' The family rep looks on with approval.

The rep for Renaissance takes a more pro-active role in her meeting. Her senior boys need no help on the feedback front - 'You've got a really bad attitude. I've talked to you about that before. You're lazy. That's all you are, man' - and so on, but she pulls a coup de grâce towards the end.

A boy stands and clearly thinks just once he is going to come off best. There had been a dispute over his 'exit plan', the arrangement for his imminent return home. He had said he was not going to live with his mother and staff thought he was. His mother had now written to confirm that he was absolutely correct.

'So I just wanted to make sure,' he says, with biting diplomacy, 'that there were no other "misunderstandings" that need to be cleared up.'

His family rep stares hard at him hard, smarting. Defeat seems inescapable. The silence lengthens, and her eyes narrow.

'You know what? I'm going to review your exit plan. It will have to go on hold.'

'Miss! Miss, no!' He is aghast, panic-stricken. 'You can't mean that? Why are you punishing me?'

She studies him. 'I am not punishing you. You just gave me the idea. You have punished yourself.'

Why would students want to stand up and share, or give this kind of feedback? Scott Burkett, a student who left two years ago, explains: 'You can only move forward in the programme if you share intimate details of your life. If you don't share, you're not "working the programme", and they'll take away your points. In a meeting, your rep will suddenly pick on you and say, "Right, I want to hear something private, right now. Come on. Or do you want to go to OP?" And I'm going through this inventory in my head real fast, thinking what will hurt least to say? Because you tell her secrets and then she uses them against you later. Like, say a guy mentions problems with his girlfriend, a month later she'll have him up, and she's saying, "You don't think she's waiting, do you?" She's laughing at you behind your back. "How many of your friends do you think she's sleeping with right now?" So I start telling her something, and she just says, "I'm not listening to that, that's not deep," and she calls for the guard to take me to OP. And I've got until he gets in the room to give her something better, or he's taking me.'

Points and privileges are awarded to students who tell on each other. If you don't tell on someone for breaking a rule and get found out, you lose points. 'There is zero trust,' Scott explains. 'You can't trust anyone. It's not us against them. It's everyone against you.' Scott remembers a new boy being caught with incriminating used tissues; masturbation is strictly forbidden. 'And they got him up in front of everyone right after dinner, and the upper-level kids just ripped into him, this little 13-year-old kid. It was kind of the entertainment for the night. That's what I mean about breaking kids.'

Students also take part in seminars - phenomenally confrontational three-day sessions which are calculated to induce what approaches mass hysteria. Participants must swear a vow of silence, shrouding what takes place in secrecy. Many credit these emotionally intense encounters with transforming their lives, whereas others describe them as brutal manipulation.

Parents cannot visit their child at Tranquility until they, too, have attended a seminar in the States. They attend further seminars together with their child and many consider this to be the programme's most valuable attribute. 'Awesome,' marvels Jim Mozingo, 'mind-blowing.' But this dual approach ensures that the only people outside Tranquility with whom students are allowed contact become insiders, too, co-opted into Tranquility's special language and belief system. And parents have a financial incentive to believe and proselytise. For every new customer they can recruit, a month's fees for their own child are waived.

What Wwasp has created is a perfectly watertight world in which all criticism is, by definition, discredited. From former students, it merely proves they are still dealing in 'manipulations'. If parents are unhappy, the 'poor results' they got only indicate that they failed to support the programme. Staff are bound by a confidentiality clause, and any who leave and speak out are cast as 'disgruntled former employees' with personal axes to grind.

Only one potential gap exists. A licensed psychologist must perform an evaluation of every arrival. He also offers students optional one-on-one and group therapy, and is paid directly by parents. He is not employed by Tranquility because, as he stresses, 'I need to be independent. I represent the kid and the family. That's very important.'

Dr Marcel Chappuis was a juvenile court psychologist in Utah for 30 years, and has a PhD in clinical psychology. His manner, however, is more man-in-pub than medical, suggestive of both impatience and amusement at the teenagers' problems. He looks like Tom Selleck, and on his desk is one book, 'a national bestseller' called Feel The Fear And Do It Anyway.

'One of the groups I do here, it's called Rape And Molest. They struggle with a lot of guilt in that group. You know, a lot of these girls dress and act provocative. They get involved in substance abuse. They place themselves at risk and then they get taken advantage of. Now, we always say no means no. We're real clear about that. But then we say, you know, you've got to look at how you market yourself. Girls can be hard work to help,' he chuckles. 'They are so much more dramatic than boys!'

He also sees 30 adopted children - a remarkable ratio out of 250 students. Without irony, he tells me that adopted kids 'have more issues with trust. You know, attachment and abandonment. These are the programme's most difficult students. But they have to get ownership of the fact they were part of the problem, the reason why they were sent away.'

Dr Chappuis thoroughly enjoys working at Tranquility, and it shows. 'It's a lot of fun! I love it. Just the satisfaction of seeing these kids change.' Here for two weeks a month, he visits other Wwasp facilities during the other fortnight. Wwasp must therefore account for most of his earnings. If parents want therapy for their child, they have no choice but to employ him, ensuring that the lone chance of an outside voice has successfully been eliminated. How Dr Chappuis can be described as independent is thus something of a mystery.

His good cheer only falters on the subject of criticism, at which point his great height and moustache become distinctly aggressive.

'People who say this place is too harsh, they've never had their own troubled kids. If you criticise it you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And if you think you have had experience, then I challenge the success of your experience.

I see 100 kids across this facility. I've got experience, and I will go nose to nose to you if you want to talk about it. I will go head to head with anyone. You get all kinds of people whining and complaining. They don't know what they are talking about.'

And the truth is that I do not have my own troubled kid. He is right. I have no idea what it is like to be the parent of a teenager taking drugs, running away, sleeping around, breaking the law. I cannot imagine what it feels like to fear for my child's life.

Tranquility parents say they know. They believe the programme is necessary and are usually very happy with the results, and who else is in a position to judge?

The US legal system has more or less agreed that they are right. In a crucial 1998 test case, a Californian court ruled that a parent had the legal right to send a child to Tranquility. Parental choice was sacrosanct.

What happens inside Tranquility would be illegal on British soil, but the facility falls under Jamaican jurisdiction and parents here are as free as Americans to send their children where they like. A spokesman for the Children's Legal Centre in the UK confirmed, 'I can't see anything in the law that would stop a British parent from sending their child there. It is appalling, but it is down to the Jamaican government.'

And what incentive have the island's authorities to intervene? National attitudes to child care are not famously progressive, Jamaican children aren't involved and Tranquility is a major employer generating tax revenue. It's easy to see why Wwasp locates facilities abroad in developing countries.

Four overseas Wwasp facilities have been closed down by local authorities in the past seven years. The latest occurred just last month, in Costa Rica, following claims of physical abuse and squalor by an ex-manager. But providing Tranquility meets Jamaican sanitation standards, it remains untroubled by government attention.

Emotional abuse is a more nebulous matter. Internet message boards are busy with former students chronicling the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. One writes, 'At least once out of every three nights I wake up sweating and almost in tears from nightmares of being returned to Tranquility Bay. To this day, I am afraid that somehow I would have to return.' But most students are already emotionally damaged when they arrive, with a quarter on medication for bi-polar, oppositional defiance, or attention-deficit disorders.

'Show me one kid that they can prove has ever been psychologically damaged in my programme,' demands Kay. 'To have a clinician say yes, it was as a result of this? I would find that highly suspicious.' And his confidence is probably justified.

There is very little that any opponent of Tranquility can do to prevent it continuing to do business. I don't doubt the sincerity of Kay's belief that far from damaging children's lives he is saving them. 'If I have kids, and they start giving me a problem, well they are going straight in the programme. If I had to, I'd pull the trigger without hesitation.' And Tranquility parents undoubtedly believe they are doing the best for their children.

Once a year, Tranquility Bay has a Fun Day. There are sports and special food; girls can braid their hair; staff are smiling. And there is music. Ceaseless, bass-heavy, deafening music. It sends the teenagers out of their minds. They can't stop dancing. Everywhere, students are dancing, demented with fever, as if a switch has been thrown and a surge of energy unleashed through the grounds.

I meet a student's aunt visiting from Texas. 'Oh, you would not believe the change in her! It's amazing, the way they change a kid's life. She's so polite now, I wouldn't know her. They all look so happy!'

A song by Usher is playing, and the words burn through the hard Caribbean heat. 'You remind me of a girl that I once knew. See her face whenever I look at you.' The Texan's niece pauses her dancing. As she stoops to take a drink of water, I catch her face, and think she looks like the saddest girl in the world.

OOC: This is in fact a real article. Original article "The Last Resort" published online by the UK publication "The Guardian", URL
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jun/29/schools.uk1".


I question whether or not a five-year-old is capable of the cognitive requirements to understand the intricacies of foreign policy.

At one point my own nation had a seven year old foreign policy minister. If one is able to get the job at age seven, they are certainly capable of being one of many voting on the subject at age five. Indeed, the only reason they were not elected another term was other nations' difficulty in accepting speaking to a seven-year-old.

EDIT: Cobdenia responded while I was preparing this response. My additional comments are below.

Well, that's clearly bollocks. Is saying that a five year is unable to ejaculate, or a one day old is able to speak, agism? Of course not - it's what we grown ups call facts. The inability of children below a certain aged to understand certain things and make complicated descision is similarly fact. To proclaim that as agism is like claiming that some is racist for stating that a native Norwegian has a lighter skin tone then a Native Kenyan...

Clearly not. What is ageist, however, is legislating that people may not do certain things, such as vote, hold a job, have sex, choose their own education, or live alone (or with the person of their choice). What happens then is more similar to only allowing then Norwegian or Kenyan to vote due to their race.

What you are calling protections merely prevents gaining experience.OK, let's put these kids to work as soldiers on a battlefield that'll be great experience for them, assuming they survive of course.

Again, IF SOMEONE GIVES CONSENT FOR SEXUAL RELATIONS, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT.Except, if they weren't over that age of consent then they can't give consent. That's what an age of consent is, the age you have to be in order to consent to having sex.
As for your example of a five year old, remember that they would ask what sex is. If they don't like it, they won't agree. If they decide they want to, no harm is done. If the adult uses coercion or force, it is rape, just as it would be between two adults.Except with the 5 year old you'll probably be able to convince them just by telling them, "It'll feel really good, I promise." An adult on the other hand, is probably not going to buy that line.

Did you not even read that portion of the post? The Ambassador of Interesting challenges said quite clearly that the REASON few five year olds have an opinion on foreign policy is that NOBODY ASKS THEM.When I was five I don't remember having much of a sense of the world outside my town let alone outside the damn country. And without a sense of the world at large how in the hell can you form an opinion on foreign policy?
Do you have an opinion on free vs. open source software (assuming you're not a computer hobbyist)?Actually, as long as the software does what I want it to do, I don't care if it's free or pay, open or closed source.

May I assume you have reason for the fact that forbidding women to vote and preventing them holding a decent job was termed "women's protection" at the time?Actually, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has never denied women the right to vote. In fact our first Grand Poobah was a woman.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: Yes, because any newly-created nation in a region for people who share an unusual viewpoint is OBVIOUSLY a puppet :rolleyes:. Even if I were using puppets, do you really think I would be stupid enough to create a region RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THE DRAFT RESOLUTION for them?OOC: Stupider things have happened.
I invite a mod to run a checkuser on all the nations within my region, though they'll find that my own nation at least is not the same person as any other. I obviously can't guarantee that no one else has had the idea of using puppets though, but I doubt it.OOC: Oh, calm down, puppetwanking on the forums is not illegal, just frowned upon.

OK, let's put these kids to work as soldiers on a battlefield that'll be great experience for them, assuming they survive of course.

First of all, I'm fairly sure nobody has anywhere explicitly stated laws that prevent children being signed up for war against their will. And actually a lot of the "caring for children" business is rubbish because while people desperately try to avoid a lower drinking age, they don't pay any attention to children in Africa who truly do need help, instead they would rather pass laws which are a waste of time.

And indeed, these protection laws are in fact counterproductive in that if you have, for example, a lower driving age, people would get experience at a much lower age than they currently do. 16 is not a bad age in our opinion, but it could be lowered even further. Many statistics show that a lot of car accidents happen to teenagers. We do not doubt this, but it is by virtue of lack of experience (aka being a new driver) rather than age. Unless you are claiming that children are incapable - point blank - of learning new things, in which case we can take all the case studies of 8 year olds being accepted into universities (exceptions, yes) and throw them out the window.

Except, if they weren't over that age of consent then they can't give consent. That's what an age of consent is, the age you have to be in order to consent to having sex.

It does more harm than it does good, though. As it is, not a lot of people sleep with kids, despite the mass pedophilia scare. We believe that it is a case of really digging deep into the barrel to find a counterargument. The fact still remains: it is arbitrary, some people will be ready at a certain age and some people will not. And please do not think of us as sick or twisted for arguing this way, we're not saying that we urge 7 year olds to go off and have sex, we're saying that it is a stupid law. A lot of kids aren't interested in sex as it is. And again we most reiterate that rape is unfortunate, but it would happen even without the AoC law(s) and that the AoC doesn't prevent people doing it.

Except with the 5 year old you'll probably be able to convince them just by telling them, "It'll feel really good, I promise." An adult on the other hand, is probably not going to buy that line.

Again, you're really reaching deep for something to say. Rape still happens to adults where, years later, the victim still believes it was their fault. Whether it is or not isn't for anyone to decide as we do not know the people, but it still happens to adults and children alike.

When I was five I don't remember having much of a sense of the world outside my town let alone outside the damn country. And without a sense of the world at large how in the hell can you form an opinion on foreign policy?

In fact, you're absolutely right. Nobody except the brightest of the bright would have an opinion on FOREIGN POLICY by age 5, and to expect that would be ridiculous, but again we have here the problem of a voting age being arbitrary and the fact that there are no bad votes to begin with. Will you understand foreign policy by 5? Absolutely not, but you can begin learning it if it sparks your interest.

Addendum: we are not saying - in other words, this is not our attitude (of either Linux or Interesting challenges) - that 5 year olds deserve the right to smoke or have sex or what have you. They do, but this is not the reason we propose these changes. The reason we propose these changes is because it is difficult to decide on one age for anything, so let us not try. Let us instead use common sense, as you seem to be avoiding. Let us use common sense by assuming that these laws will allow more personal freedoms to happen instead of restricting them for the betterment of all instead of attacking us for supporting extreme things at extreme ages. We assure you that the world would not be engulfed in an anarchy of 5 year olds driving while simultaneously being raped. By arguing A, you automatically jump to the conclusion that we mean Z.

EDIT: We also stress that guidance on life comes from the parents and that they should not allow their children to be steeped in ignorance. A parent's job is also to teach their children. Therefore, this should help (although a lot of parents can be more ignorant than their children).

OK, let's put these kids to work as soldiers on a battlefield that'll be great experience for them, assuming they survive of course.

Do you have a draft for adults as well, or did "these kids" volunteer to go to war? Oh, you're only drafting the kids? That violates anti-discrimination and therefore is not an argument against anti-discrimination.


Except, if they weren't over that age of consent then they can't give consent. That's what an age of consent is, the age you have to be in order to consent to having sex.

You are confusing actual consent with legal consent. The age of consent is the minimum age for legal consent, not actual consent. If actual consent is given, than legal consent SHOULD be automatic. If actual consent is not given, than the issue goes to rape laws, not statutory rape laws.


Except with the 5 year old you'll probably be able to convince them just by telling them, "It'll feel really good, I promise." An adult on the other hand, is probably not going to buy that line.

I'd go with my own observations on what actually happens when youth have freedom than your ideas that are untested. Rape of youth is reported at the same rate as rape of older persons.


When I was five I don't remember having much of a sense of the world outside my town let alone outside the damn country.

And you are all five year olds? No. Just because you did not have a sense of the world does not mean all five year olds do not. And why would you bother developing such a sense at five? It wouldn't have helped anything.


Actually, as long as the software does what I want it to do, I don't care if it's free or pay, open or closed source.

Do you care if it's called "free software" or "open source software"? Probably not. You have no ability to have your opinion taken seriously, so you have no reason to form an opinion.


Actually, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has never denied women the right to vote. In fact our first Grand Poobah was a woman.

I didn't intend to imply you did. My statement was meant to say "May I assume you have reason for excluding the fact that forbidding women to vote and preventing them holding a decent job was termed 'women's protection' at the time?", in reference to the idea that there is not a connection between youth suffrage and women's sufferage. I merely mistyped it.


OOC: Stupider things have happened.

OOC: I'd like to see this, stupidity is fun to laugh at.

(OOC: Unless your character is quite different from you, it is extremely likely you are simply injecting your OOC cultural biases here.)

OOC: Why? Because my 'cultural biases', as you put it, differ from yours? What does that have to do with anything. I actually happen to be a very moral person. However, with that comment from you, I'm now convinced that you are nothing more than a troll with unspeakable thoughts and disgusting morals that would make you put forth such legislation with horrendous consequences.

I'm outta here. I refuse to 'feed trolls'.

OOC: Because many cultures do not consider youth to be deserving of human rights, therefore it is extremely likely that you would inherit similar views for yourself. And what give you reason to claim I am a "troll with unspeakable thoughts and disgusting morals"?

OOC: Because many cultures do not consider youth to be deserving of human rights, therefore it is extremely likely that you would inherit similar views for yourself. And what give you reason to claim I am a "troll with unspeakable thoughts and disgusting morals"?



This is an absurd position. It is the same as saying that persons with fundamentally impaired mental capacity or with serious mental illness are being denied their human rights because society sensibly disallows their involvement in any activity which will harm others or themselves.

Now we accept that the specific age at which a child may become able to reason and understand their actions at an adult level may have slight variability from individual to individual, however this does not mean that because 1 child in every 1 million may be capable of such reasoning and more importantly culpability in their actions that the other 999,999 should be willfully unprotected by the law and made culpable for their actions as an adult would be.


The infliction of a few months of frustration on the part of the child which wishes to vote/drive/drink/join the army e.t.c. is completely acceptable as a compromise if 999,999 other children are given the protections they deserve of their government from actions which may harm them or for which they would be legally responsible.


Yours e.t.c. ,

This is an absurd position. It is the same as saying that persons with fundamentally impaired mental capacity or with serious mental illness are being denied their human rights because society sensibly disallows their involvement in any activity which will harm others or themselves.

It is good of you to compare children to mentally handicapped people. Really. We hope you don't have children, for all our sakes.

Now we accept that the specific age at which a child may become able to reason and understand their actions at an adult level may have slight variability from individual to individual, however this does not mean that because 1 child in every 1 million may be capable of such reasoning and more importantly culpability in their actions that the other 999,999 should be willfully unprotected by the law and made culpable for their actions as an adult would be.

It does mean that you ignored everything ourselves and Linux have ever said. We're trying to make the point that a) without these laws nothing much would change, except you might get some what would currently be considered underage drinkers and that kind of thing, but rape cases and children being traumatised wouldn't go up. OOC: In a lot of countries where they have some lower age laws (for instance some countries in Europe have a lower drinking age) the number of in this example young people who die of alcohol consumption actually goes down significantly whereas countries with a ludicrously high age (21? seriously?) in fact find themselves with MORE fatalities, due to the experience factor. I'd hate to combine "AoC" with "experience" as that sounds weird, but you get the point and b) The opposition creates ridiculous scenarios that would happen if Linux's changes went into effect.

The infliction of a few months of frustration on the part of the child which wishes to vote/drive/drink/join the army e.t.c.

Uh... years...

is completely acceptable as a compromise if 999,999 other children are given the protections they deserve of their government from actions which may harm them or for which they would be legally responsible

Protections that very rarely if never work. Also, a person who would give up liberty for safety deserves neither and will in the end lose both.

First of all, I'm fairly sure nobody has anywhere explicitly stated laws that prevent children being signed up for war against their will.Actually all WA members have laws which prohibit children serving as soldiers. If you had taken the time to read the List of passed WA resolutions, specifically #4 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835666&postcount=6) you'd know that.
(C) Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict.
And actually a lot of the "caring for children" business is rubbish because while people desperately try to avoid a lower drinking age, they don't pay any attention to children in Africa who truly do need help, instead they would rather pass laws which are a waste of time. If the people of Africa (-http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=africa) need help they haven't said anything (OOC: Unless if you're referring to the RL continent in which case your point is irrelevent).

Do you have a draft for adults as well, or did "these kids" volunteer to go to war? Oh, you're only drafting the kids? That violates anti-discrimination and therefore is not an argument against anti-discrimination.The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has an all volunteer military, and as per WA Resolution #4 there are no children in it, not that there were any children serving prior to WA Resolution #4's passing.

And you are all five year olds? No. Just because you did not have a sense of the world does not mean all five year olds do not. And why would you bother developing such a sense at five? It wouldn't have helped anything.I consider myself to have been a typical 5 year old so I figure most 5 year olds would be the same.

Do you care if it's called "free software" or "open source software"? Probably not. You have no ability to have your opinion taken seriously, so you have no reason to form an opinion.And here you expose your ignorance not all free software is open source. Besides as long as it does the job I need it to do I don't care.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: I'd like to see this, stupidity is fun to laugh at.
OOC: Here's a classic source of stupidity, of course, if your proposal didn't have its own thread it'd probably end up there. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=553128

OOC: Correct, apologies for mistaking some of the rules of the forum. I did mean the Africa we know from outside Nationstates. Additionally I'll try to pay more attention to that in future.

It is good of you to compare children to mentally handicapped people. Really. We hope you don't have children, for all our sakes.



It does mean that you ignored everything ourselves and Linux have ever said. We're trying to make the point that a) without these laws nothing much would change, except you might get some what would currently be considered underage drinkers and that kind of thing, but rape cases and children being traumatised wouldn't go up. OOC: In a lot of countries where they have some lower age laws (for instance some countries in Europe have a lower drinking age) the number of in this example young people who die of alcohol consumption actually goes down significantly whereas countries with a ludicrously high age (21? seriously?) in fact find themselves with MORE fatalities, due to the experience factor. I'd hate to combine "AoC" with "experience" as that sounds weird, but you get the point and b) The opposition creates ridiculous scenarios that would happen if Linux's changes went into effect.



Uh... years...



Protections that very rarely if never work. Also, a person who would give up liberty for safety deserves neither and will in the end lose both.



The empire is replete with healthy and happy young people who we do not wish to see emancipated as adults before they are capable of being properly held responsible as an adult would be.

We are mystified by the circular logic of your arguments honoured Ambassador. You seem to be saying that if statutory rape for instance were done away with that there would be fewer cases of statutory rape.

Naturally this would be true since there would no longer be an offence to prosecute. But billions of young people completely unable to be held responsible would be engaging in sexual acts with actual adults because no adult who wished to could be legally discouraged from doing so.


This would lead to more rape cases being tried than ever before, our courts would have to decide far greater numbers of persons actual personal ability to consent than ever before.

Children are easily analogous to mentally impaired persons, honoured Ambassador, they are often completely irrational, they are unable to form informed opinions of a higher complexity, they are unable to concentrate properly, they are subject to whims and fancies and changes in aspect which are sypmtomatic of their physical condition which in a healthy adult would be disturbing. Children's brains are physically and quantitatively less able than an adult brain in certain specific and vital functions.


We accept as a self evident fact that the human lifespan has specific developmental phases which determine a person's legal status in terms of their responsibility for their actions and societies responsibility toward them, does this constitute discrimination or common sense, as far as we are concerned it is the latter.


Yours e.t.c. ,


O.O.C. Oh and I wont be indulging your desire for out of character shenanigans, this is an I.C. forum, as far as I'm concerned, in which to explore the possibilities creating and running a nation presents, I realy hate having to make o.o.c. comments and only do so in extremis. Try to make real world references with out going o.o.c. if you can and then I might be able to respond to them, though you should be wary of thinking that what makes sense in the real world makes any sense in this one.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has an all volunteer military, and as per WA Resolution #4 there are no children in it, not that there were any children serving prior to WA Resolution #4's passing.

I'm referring to your theory of "send the kids to war for experience!". In this theoretical war, are the kids drafted? If so, are adults? If this war is fought only be drafted kids, it is age discrimination.


I consider myself to have been a typical 5 year old so I figure most 5 year olds would be the same.

And in a situation in which their opinion is considered unimportant, most five year olds would be the same. If that situation were changed and their opinion was considered important, most five year olds do have a sense of the world.


And here you expose your ignorance not all free software is open source.

If you're expressing your argument in that debate, you got it backwards. If not, you just proved my point.

OOC: No, you're right. I'm new here so am bound to mess things up. I'll try not to say any more OOC things now.

OOC: No, you're right. I'm new here so am bound to mess things up. I'll try not to say any more OOC things now.


O.O.C. Cool, do as you please really but be aware that to some of us around here the "Real World" is a mythical and legendary place, and that referencing it in character insures appropriate response, so long as the reference is clearly intended as an instructional fable or some such.

In fact, you're absolutely right. Nobody except the brightest of the bright would have an opinion on FOREIGN POLICY by age 5, and to expect that would be ridiculous, but again we have here the problem of a voting age being arbitrary and the fact that there are no bad votes to begin with.
You are talking utter bollocks. Many five year olds will have an opinion on foreign policy, the main exceptions being the ones who get suddenly shy when asked. They may not know what foreign policy is or what effect their opinions would have, but that won't stop them from having them.

Voting age is arbitrary only in the sense that it's turning a fuzzy line into a sharp one, which is an inescapable issue for most legal definitions. The line does exist, so refusing to draw it is just a weirder form of denial than usual. There are two factors: first, the physiological development of the ability to appreciate consequences (specifically, the consequences of your vote!) I mentioned before. That gives you an age between 12 (when it starts) and 24 (when it's mostly done); if you want anything more precise, go argue it through with a neurologist. Second, having the context in which evaluate all the political gubbins going on; that's one of the purposes of secondary education, and that is age-related, no matter what you think.

I'm referring to your theory of "send the kids to war for experience!". In this theoretical war, are the kids drafted? If so, are adults? If this war is fought only be drafted kids, it is age discrimination.My God you're adept at missing the point. My point is that there are nations out there who would have no problem with putting kids into the military and sending off to war, the one thing stopping them from doing so is WA resolution #4 which your proposal utterly castrates!

If you're expressing your argument in that debate, you got it backwards. If not, you just proved my point.

No I don't, in fact I can provide two examples of free software that is not open source AVG (http://free.avg.com) and ZoneAlarm (http://www.zonealarm.com/store/content/catalog/products/zonealarm_free_firewall.jsp;jsessionid=JWs12w2KCadk24P8q9vzqlkeZG2bQTGlrv946nlzEqBai7T8bMeM!-888333431!-1062696903!7551!7552!NONE?dc=12bms&ctry=US&lang=en).

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

My God you're adept at missing the point. My point is that there are nations out there who would have no problem with putting kids into the military and sending off to war, the one thing stopping them from doing so is WA resolution #4 which your proposal utterly castrates!

If you do not like the idea of youth being drafted, oppose the draft. If you don't want youth voluntarily entering the military, then you really just need to deal with it.


No I don't, in fact I can provide two examples of free software that is not open source AVG and ZoneAlarm.

Please educate yourself as to the differences between "free software" and "freeware". There is significant disagreement between users of the term "free software" and the term "open source software", although both terms mean essentially the same thing. You clearly, despite your age, have no opinion on the issue. Apparently age doesn't give you interest in issues.

If you do not like the idea of youth being drafted, oppose the draft. If you don't want youth voluntarily entering the military, then you really just need to deal with it.Are you naturally this obtuse or are you working at it? I DON'T WANT TO SEE CHILDREN SOLIDERS PERIOD.

Please educate yourself as to the differences between "free software" and "freeware". There is significant disagreement between users of the term "free software" and the term "open source software", although both terms mean essentially the same thing.No they do not mean essentially the same thing. I have already provided you with two examples of free software that is not open source, and you completely ignored them.

You clearly, despite your age, have no opinion on the issue. Apparently age doesn't give you interest in issues.I already told you my opinion, as long as it does what I need to do, I don't give a rat's ass what it is. My God, I'd have more success talking to a brick wall than you.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Are you naturally this obtuse or are you working at it? I DON'T WANT TO SEE CHILDREN SOLIDERS PERIOD.

Good, we're finally getting somewhere? Why do you not want to see young soldiers but have no problem with older people being soldiers?


No they do not mean essentially the same thing. I have already provided you with two examples of free software that is not open source, and you completely ignored them.

You have given me example of freeware that is not open source. Please examine discussions of the terms "Free software" and "open source software".


I already told you my opinion, as long as it does what I need to do, I don't give a rat's ass what it is. My God, I'd have more success talking to a brick wall than you.

But you have no opinion as to the terminology, which is exactly what I was saying.

Good, we're finally getting somewhere? Why do you not want to see young soldiers but have no problem with older people being soldiers?



Presumably honoured Ambassador Flibble is comfortable with adults being soldiers because they can make an informed and properly consenting decision on the matter, unlike children.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Presumably honoured Ambassador Flibble is comfortable with adults being soldiers because they can make an informed and properly consenting decision on the matter, unlike children.

This is patently incorrect. Youth are entirely capable of making an informed consenting decision. I would ask that you stop spreading such hateful ageist propaganda.

This is patently incorrect. Youth are entirely capable of making an informed consenting decision. I would ask that you stop spreading such hateful ageist propaganda.



As any long serving delegation to this organisation knows well, the delegation of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench is deeply committed to human freedom and equality. Charges of prejudice of this kind are absurd and foolish.

This debate dignifies what amounts to a child molester's charter with the aura of serious legislation. It is not and never should be.

Equality is not divisible, it is a an innate condition and cannot be allotted to specific groups in gift as though they did not already possess it.

The physical condition of aging is non-discriminatory and effects all in largely the same ways therefore laws which take account of age cannot be discriminating in nature.

A young child cannot by any standard be judged to be equal to a healthy normal adult in knowledge and experience and therefore cannot be considered capable of consenting to the same actions and responsibilities as an adult.

Yours e.t.c. ,

[L]aws which take account of age cannot be discriminating in nature.

You disagree, then, that laws forbidding employers from firing or refusing to hire people over forty based on their age is not anti-discrimination?

You disagree, then, that laws forbidding employers from firing or refusing to hire people over forty based on their age is not anti-discrimination?

We presume you mean to say that, is it the case that we think that laws preventing people over forty from being discriminated against on grounds of their age are not actually anti-discrimination laws ?

Clearly that would be illogical. We do not believe that age cannot be used to unfairly discriminate against people in civil society, and indeed we are perfectly happy to see such unfair discrimination made illegal be proper equality laws.

However, the state must take very seriously its responsibility to protect its citizens. This is why people with serious mental illnesses are often taken into treatment and ( normally temporarily ) alienated from certain specific freedoms, untill such time as it can be deemed safe to reinstate their full freedoms.

This situation exists as much for the safety of society as it does for the safety of the individual in question.

This is the clear purpose of laws which impose ages of consent to certain kinds of action or laws which require certain achievement of age before an action may be undertaken. An infant would represent a grave danger to themselves and others if no laws existed to prevent them from driving, using recreational substances, own guns, work, e.t.c. no equality law can have the right to allow freedoms to one group which directly endanger the lives or physical well being of others.

Since you have not made any case against adults engaging in sex with infants we presume your delegation has no problem with this idea. Would this extend to your delegation's attitudes towards sex with extremely mentally compromised persons?


Yours e.t.c.,

Would this extend to your delegation's attitudes towards sex with extremely mentally compromised persons?

Of course we don't have a problem with that.

Of course we don't have a problem with that.
But what about the matter of adults having sex with infants? Are we to assume you have no problem with that either? If the age of consent is 0 it would be allowed.

Of course we don't have a problem with that.


So it gives your delegation no qualm to envisage a situation where extremely mentally impared people are coerced and manipulated into sex acts which no objective standard would find them capable of even understanding let alone consenting to ?


Yours e.t.c. ,

But what about the matter of adults having sex with infants? Are we to assume you have no problem with that either? If the age of consent is 0 it would be allowed.

Urgench's assumption was correct, our nation has no inherent problem with that.


So it gives your delegation no qualm to envisage a situation where extremely mentally impared people are coerced and manipulated into sex acts which no objective standard would find them capable of even understanding let alone consenting to?

If someone is coerced into sex, it is considered rape. We do not assume someone is or is not unable to consent based upon age or mental ability.

But you do not have any problem with the notion of people being convinced or manipulated into acts which they cannot understand ?


We suspect that our efforts to dissuade you from your efforts here will be fruitless but we are equally confident that your endeavours will be thwarted by the good sense of this organisation.

We wash our hands of any further involvement and in doing so we will no longer be giving credence to the delegation of Linux and the X's repellent and horrifying theories.


Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench to the World Assembly

Repellent and horrifying ideas, indeed. It is clear that the nation of Linux and the X means this as a serious proposal and have backed it up with some fairly decent points. You can agree or disagree with this, but the point is that you are not and are instead invalidating his idea without even taking his argument seriously.

Urgench's assumption was correct, our nation has no inherent problem with that.
Ambassador, if you ever set foot in Aundotutunagir you will be drawn and quartered.

I see no need for further participation in this discussion.

Repellent and horrifying ideas, indeed. It is clear that the nation of Linux and the X means this as a serious proposal and have backed it up with some fairly decent points. You can agree or disagree with this, but the point is that you are not and are instead invalidating his idea without even taking his argument seriously.



The "argument" you are referring to is invalidated by being depraved and immoral not by us.

The Ambassador for Linux and the X is proposing the rape of perhaps billions of this organisation's infants, this is not a "decent" point Ambassador.

The Ambassador for Linux and the X advocates the rape of developmentally challenged persons, this is not a " decent " point either.


This statute will die with or without our opprobrium but we would prefer that it did so with it nonetheless.


Yours e.t.c. ,

I would suggest to the representative from Urgench that the discussion be discontinued, as the delegates who have brought forth and given support to this proposal have interest only in furthering their appalling ideals, and ignoring the common sense and scientific knowledge given them. The vast opposition to their proposal and the visceral antipathy given forth is evidence enough that this proposal should die a quick death.

In accordance with the stated goals of the Chancellery and Snefaldian law, the Sates-Federation of Snefaldia is in opposition to a proposal such as this, and should it be necessary we will campaign against it. However, until such a time we will not engage in senseless, circular debate and implore others to do the same.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

The Ambassador for Linux and the X is proposing the rape of perhaps billions of this organisation's infants, this is not a "decent" point Ambassador.

The Ambassador for Linux and the X advocates the rape of developmentally challenged persons, this is not a " decent " point either.

I have never advocated for rape. You are using a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy. I have merely said that it should not be assumed that all sex is rape for persons under a given age.


ignoring the common sense and scientific knowledge given them

Shall I compile a report of actual scientific knowledge disproving your "common sense"?

This is patently incorrect. Youth are entirely capable of making an informed consenting decision. I would ask that you stop spreading such hateful ageist propaganda.

This is patently incorrect. Youth (a hopelessly blanket and agist term all on its own, by the way) need to be informed to make an informed consenting decision. If they haven't finished their education, they aren't informed.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Locked.

Linux and the X, your resolution does contradict two previously existing resolutions. You would need to repeal those first.