Post

Kariforunia wrote:

What do people think of the world parliament corporal punishment ban?

Inaros OPA wrote:

A solid yes, it should be banned, for me.

Valdonland wrote:

I agree it should be banned.

Alright, sorry for getting around to these this late, but I've been a little busy today. I want to explain the reason I've voted against this proposal. Here's the link before I dive in:

GA Resolution At Vote: Corporal Punishment Ban

While banning corporal punishment is something I agree with, and would be happy to support were it brought to the General Assembly, I have some very specific issues with this particular proposal. First off, we have normal construction issues, which I think is a good thing to look for when I'm taking a first-pass reading of any proposal. These are things that would be fixed with a few more drafts and read-throughs of the text. An example is under a, which

wrote:

defines "corporal punishment" as causing physical harm or pain to any person in order to penalise any person,

This is awkward, but probably ultimately fine. I just think that it could be handled better.

Some big issues I take with the proposal are the parts where it rushes through things that should have either been explained further, or avoided altogether. Here's the rest of clause a, picking up where the previous quote left off:

wrote:

where such punishment is delivered without the consent of either the person harmed or the person intended to be penalised,

I could definitely see this being taken to court time and time again over whether a private school contract allows for teachers to strike the children anyway, because it was part of the deal when the student began attending. It would also likely begin being put in contracts for a lot of things that would previously have involved physical punishment. Even if those cases are judged to be in bad faith, it would tie up resources either for the well-meaning government, or the victims. The best version of this proposal does not have an out here, especially when there is already an entire clause dedicated to what this doesn't cover.

Speaking of, under clause 'd', things the resolution does not affect, the following is stated:

wrote:

the use of force in self-defence, while defending others, in the course of organised armed conflict, during sexual activity by consenting adults, or while arresting a suspected criminal,

I don't know why any of this should be included. Let's take it in pieces:

wrote:

the use of force in self-defence, while defending others,

I don't think that this aligns with the original definition at all. Fighting back is not causing physical harm or pain to any person in order to penalise any person. If anything, it's defending against that.

wrote:

in the course of organised armed conflict,

Again, I don't think armed conflict is generally considered to be corporal punishment. The only thing tangentially related to armed conflict that I think could be considered inflicting pain with the goal of punishing someone would be torture, which is a) already illegal per GA law, b) outside the purview of this proposal to legislate on, and c) would be a very messed up thing to create a specific exception for.

wrote:

during sexual activity by consenting adults,

It's extremely weird that this is here. If it's covering BDSM, safe and proper BDSM play would already involve consent, so it wouldn't be considered corporal punishment (again, thanks to the consent clause quoted above). Creating a specific exception for this, in my eyes, only allows for situations where both partners have consented to sex, and then one decides to inflict physical pain on the other without consent to that specific action. Again, it's at best something that will be tied up in court cases and didn't need to happen. Getting rid of this statement would do more good than having it in.

wrote:

or while arresting a suspected criminal,

And here is where I voted against. Attempting to pacify a "suspected criminal" during an arrest by purposefully inflicting physical harm or pain (per the definition) is inhumane. If we're in a situation where we trust police to do their jobs properly, we should trust them to be mindful of detaining a threatening individual in the least harmful way possible at all times. Allowing this to be entirely withheld is a bad look, imo.

The second set of exceptions (d.ii) is below:

wrote:

any requirement for any person to engage in reasonable physical activity that does not harm any other person as a condition of their being employed at any institution or a student at any primary or secondary school (including, but not limited to, new military recruits being required to complete a fitness course at a training camp as a condition of remaining a member of the military they serve in),

This seemed fine at first glance, but then I remembered my grade 12 P.E. teacher who purposefully made people who were sarcastic or talked back to him run extra laps or do extra workouts. This is well within the purview of a physical education, a required class for the school, and he didn't run them to death or anything, so I think a school could make a case that it's "reasonable physical activity". Again, it's all a matter of what people can get away with. You don't write GA proposals to legislate to the people who are already going to be on board for this.

And then we end with clause e:

wrote:

urges members to promote non-violent ways of raising children.

This does nothing. It's the closest this gets to addressing the inherent violence of corporal punishment, as the previous time it's addressed, c, only addresses that people should be informed of the definition and the fact that it's not allowed. But, overall, this proposal avoids actually putting in place any ruling on the matter due to an overly-broad definition that hamstrings itself in the second half, a list of exceptions that absolutely should not be listed as exceptions, and the excuse every school will use to continue inflicting punishment on their students.

It's, most simply put, ineffective. I like the concept, I want a good corporal punishment ban, this is not that.