Under this bill, the following clause shall be added to the constitution as Article IX.a.1

As this bill amends the constitution, it shall require a two-thirds majority vote.

[/bill]

Ok, basicly this means that the bill of rights also applies to children, except in cases where they can't be considered capable of exercising the right (for example, the right to vote). Also, it means that the government is allowed to override an individual's rights to protect the welfare of the child (for example, preventing a parent who's child has been taken by social services from citing freedom of asembly in order to get her child back, even if she would be at risk of hurting the child).

Side point before I read this, and it bothers me for some reason. Can we please start spelling amendment correctly? Ta.

Sorry, it's one of those words that I can never get right. Cieran, can you correct the title?

No problems, it's all through the Legislation records too, I've refrained from saying anything but I get a twitch in my right eye when I see it.

After reading your proposal, it sounds sane and makes sense. There is little people could oppose this, especially because it has little to no budget overhead (except to a slight, but I'd imagine unnoticeable increase of costs to Social Affairs), and it only does a good thing.

What we need to do though is ensure we're not infringing on the rights of citizens that are not infringing on the rights of others, something that perhaps has to be carefully worded?

Well, that should go without saying. Except when explicitly stated that they are restricted, the rights granted by the constitution are unrestricted.

Define children. Are we considering them as children from the moment of conception or birth? What about when they become viable? This isn't some ploy to outlaw abortion is it :P ?

Am I allowed to raise questions like this? I dunno. I can't vote on them, but does anything say I can't discuss them?...

*sigh*

I'm not that sneaky...


For the purposes of this law, a child should be considered as a human being between birth and adulthood.

Legally an adult being, I assume, 18?

I do have a minor qualm with wording and how this can be legally argued.

Welfare being the state of well-being of the child, I assume? Well in this case, the state would be obliged to ensure that a child's mental, physical, emotional (etc), well-being is kept in check. On that basis, we may go as far to make the claim a child may commit murder on the basis that their welfare was in danger, on the basis that the "right to life" of the individual citizen was overruled by their protected welfare.

Furthermore, how does this phrase of the bill work if the individual citizen is another child? Are their individual rights overruled or is their welfare protected by the preceeding statement? Alternately, could it be argued that welfare is not being protected if a child is sent to a young offender's institute?

Ok, let's see...

1. Yes, it would be 18 - although I haven't included that in the wording of the constitution, because I don't think any future changes in the age of adulthood should require a constitutional amendment.

2. That's a very tortured reading of the constitution, and I'm sure that if a child did commit murder it could be argued that it's in the interest of their welfare to be locked up in a young offenders institute. But anyways, to remove the issues, the government's responsibility has been altered and is now termed as a right: the government doesn't have to intervene in every case where it could possibly be argued that the welfare of a child is at risk, but can choose which situations require intervention.

Satisfied.

[/support]

I'm satisfied, this seems like an 'early' bill, as in one that should've been here forever.

I'll go for this bill.

Clarification, you mention freedom of assembly? So they can assemble, to get their child back? Sorry I don't understand.

Often when a child is seperated from their parent, the child opposes the move and wants to be with the parent, even if the parent poses a risk to them. The child welfare clause would prevent the parent and the child from citing freedom of assembly in order to circumvent a restraining order on the parent placed by social services.