NationStates Jolt Archive


Ruling on WA proposal needed

Omigodtheykilledkenny
27-09-2008, 15:45
Keeping in mind I haven't yet fully examined the draft thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565606) to see if this issue has been dealt with:

Child Protection Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Rutianas

Description: The World Assembly
Recognizing that children are abused and neglected, and
knowing that this abuse can be international in nature,
Seeking to outlaw this abuse
Defines a child as being under the age of consent or majority as defined by their home nation,
Defines the age of consent to be an age set by the state at which it deems a child able to assent or dissent to sex
Defines the age of majority, for the purpose of this resolution, as an age set by the state to signify a child's ability to be independent from their parents or guardians,
and
Declares;
1. For this resolution, physical abuse of a child under the age of majority is defined as any act which will tend to cause a child physical harm. Emotional abuse shall be defined as any act or behavior which has the result of psychologically harming a child

a) A child is entitled to be cared for, to be given sustenance, shelter, clothing, not to be deprived of education, to receive adequate medical care, and not to be physically or emotionally abused

b) Children have the right to impartial and private investigation of their claims of neglect, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse

2. For this resolution, sexual abuse of a child under the age of consent is defined as any act of sexual intimacy, feigned or real for the purposes of sexual gratification of the adult or others, between an adult and a child, including but not confined to any acts of genital stimulation of either the child or the adult in question

a) It is illegal to sexually abuse a child

b) It is illegal to relocate a child to another country for the purpose to cause sexual abuse to the child

c) Possessing, viewing, or circulating media, including, but not limited to, photographs and video, that involves sexual abuse of a child, shall be illegal

d) Exceptions may be made where member states have given permission for these kinds of materials to be used by law enforcement agencies or for research and scientific purposes, where possession of these materials is monitored by law enforcement authorities

e) Involvement in an act that inflicts sexual abuse is also illegal, however, if it can be proven that it was an unknowing involvement, leniency may be afforded due to the discretion of the nation’s judicial system

f) Exempting law enforcement authorities and court officials that may become involved in such acts to apprehend criminals, provided the agent/s are on duty and materials are relevant to the case

3. A child has the right to remain with his or her parents or guardians, provided that articles 1 and/or 2 have not been violated.

a) WA member states are urged to set up a system in which the public is notified of a kidnapped child

b) WA member states are urged to work together if a suspect and child are believed to have left the nation of the child’s residenceThis proposal seems to cross between categories with seamless ease, from Moral Decency to Human Rights back to Moral Decency, and even some International Security thrown in there for fun. For future reference, is this kind of cross-category overlap acceptable in WA proposals, and does the level this resolution rises to warrant deletion, or just a mod opinion?

I would appreciate the latter at the very least. Thanks in advance!
Frisbeeteria
27-09-2008, 18:37
The difference between Human Rights and Moral Decency can be fuzzy at times. A restriction on one group to provide freedoms for another cannot be clearly codified under one or the other. As such, I tend to look for the most significant effect on the larger affected population as the driving rationale for one choice or another.

In this case, providing specific remedy for a potentially unprotected class (children) outweighs the loss of rights of sexual predators and pornographers. Without looking at Passed Resolutions, I think some of them provide Human Rights protections for "citizens" rather than "inhabitants", "residents", or "sentient beings". Since that has the potential to exclude those not of the age of majority, explicitly outlining rights of children would seem to me to fit the category of Human Rights.

As for the minor details of International Security, I think we've always turned a semi-blind eye to such minor crossovers. The inclusion of those lines are a reasonable extension of the topic, and the specifics have more to do with jurisdiction than funding. International Security is all about the funding, so I think it's safe to ignore it here.