Ubisoft Accused Of Breaking International Law

[Andy Chalk]

Ubisoft Accused Of Breaking International Law

U.S. Army [http://www.ubi.com].

In a letter to Ubisoft North America President Laurent Detoc, the group said it believed the company was breaking international law against the recruitment of child soldiers as a result of the game's T (Teen) rating by the ESRB [http://www.esrb.org], which clears it for play by teenagers 13 years of age and older.

"The military recruitment of children under the age of 17, however, is a clear violation of international law (the U.N. Optional Protocol). No attempt to recruit children 13-16 is allowed in the United States, pursuant to treaty," the letter said. "It is also important to consider the effects of the game within the context of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Undoubtedly soldiers now recruited through America's Army will serve in these wars. The invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are violations of international law, and contributing to their continuation through the propagation of the game is, if not a criminal violation, a moral outrage."

"Ubisoft's role as publisher of America's Army is contributing to an international crime," the letter continued. "But you are not alone: Secret Level [http://www.gameloft.com/] was a developer of the 2005 version of the game. Is child recruitment, recruitment to fight the cause of dubious wars the proper business of your company and those of you in their employ?"

Representatives for Direct Action to Stop the War claimed to have spoken to Detoc on the phone following the release of the letter, during which he said Ubisoft had already decided to halt its participation in the development and publication of America's Army. Despite that, the group expressed doubt about Detoc's sincerity, saying, "If Ubisoft's claims are true, why have they not publicly announced the end of the work for the Army's recruitment videogame, and why have they not ended their contract with the Army, set to expire in 2015? Our requests of Mr. Detoc and Ubisoft remain the same: We would like to sit down with the company to ask them to end their contracts with the military, stop work on the game, and make public pronouncements in writing to that effect."

First released in 2002, America's Army has come under fire in recent years as U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have become increasingly bogged down and deadly, drawing protests from anti-war groups and veterans of Iraq as well as threats from action figures [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/80242] based on the games was unveiled in November.

Ubisoft has not yet commented on the report.

Source: GameDaily [http://www.gamedaily.com/games/americas-army-true-soldiers/xbox-360/game-news/ubisoft-contributing-to-international-crime-claims-antiwar-group]


Permalink

 

[Alone Disciple]

I wonder if this same organization (or copycats of) have taken the same amount of time and zeal to write strongly written letters to the heads of terrorist states for their recruitment of children and women for suicide bombings?

Just appears a way to be yet another way for these groups to get a headline and say "Remember us?" I wonder how much money they spent on this PR stunt and in the end, will any kid going to Gamestop really be cognicient of this.

Me thinks not.

 

[BoredKellon]

I wonder if they realise that the teen rating is not necesarily the choice of the company, but rather a decision by the ESRB. Unless there were direct decisions by Ubisoft to ensure the teen rating, then I see no grounds for there accusations. However I do think that it might be a good idea to slap the game with a mature rating for "Use as military recruitment", maybe it's a needed addition to ESRB's rating criteria.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Ubi should've put some side-boob into AA; not only would these guys no longer have grounds for their complaint, but it'd probably improve the game's recruiting efficiency.

-- Steve

 

[ReepNeep]

I wonder if this same organization (or copycats of) have taken the same amount of time and zeal to write strongly written letters to the heads of terrorist states for their recruitment of children and women for suicide bombings?

Just appears a way to be yet another way for these groups to get a headline and say "Remember us?" I wonder how much money they spent on this PR stunt and in the end, will any kid going to Gamestop really be cognicient of this.

Me thinks not.

Ah, the typical conservative argument whenever they are caught doing something questionable. 'But but but the terrorists! They're so much worse than we are,' they sputter. And then they use the term 'moral relativist' as an insult. Hypocrites.

Ever stop to consider that indoctrinating children with a distorted picture of war in the hopes that they will enlist when they come of age just might be morally questionable?

Or that some people might be idealistic enough to make some noise about something they see as wrong? Not everything is a cynical political play.

I just think of these people as well meaning but unrealistic.

 

[Aeviv]

I struggle to see How America's Army can be viewed as attempts to recruit child soldiers, whereas no body every complains about organisations such as the army cadets, or even the boy scouts (which, lets face it, was started to train young boys for army service).

By that point im saying thier argument is stupid, not that the army cadets are trying to make child soldiers

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Wait, what? Recruiters are always at high schools... last time I checked, not everyone there is 17 or older.

 

[Zombie_King]

I don't think a thirteen-year-old would get the recruitment message of the game. That being said, I don't know how strong the tone is in the game, because I don't know anyone who has played the game, nor will I ever play it myself. If the game was made purely as a recruiting tool, then I would have to think it seems kind of shallow. Video games are the one medium not completely corrupted by advertisements, and I say we keep it like this.

For those of you shocked at my sudden change from semi-witty off-beat comedy posts to my serious, maudlin tone, here's the comedic version:

I bet the head guy of the team the Army sent to Ubisoft to create A.A. had a conversation with the Ubisoft president that went something like this:

Army Guy: "Well, the game is a bit violent...but isn't this what kids like??"
Ubisoft Dude: "Sir, are you suggesting we market this to children!?"
Army Guy: "I'm not technically allowed to say that, but, ummm, don't give it an 'M' rating, if you knowmmsayin'?"
Ubisoft Dude: *Gasp* "Sir, I might have to report you! We can't take part in this, in this, this---"
Army Guy: "Here's a hooker. She'll do anything you want for an hour."
Ubisoft Dude: "Good day to you, sir."

Now the guy at D.A.S.W. screwed the pooch, and the Army Guy is looking through his phonebook for a reliable mercenary for hire.

 

[HobbesMkii]

Wait, what? Recruiters are always at high schools... last time I checked, not everyone there is 17 or older.

Right, but they can't actually recruit anyone who's not 17 or older. They can hand out all the free pencils, brochures and lanyards they wish, but unless that person's 17, they can't put pen to paper. And they don't start calling your house until your 17th birthday.

The problem with AA is it's non-discriminatory by age (you can still play it if you're <17, while a recruiter can go "16? Come back in a year."). And the Army created it with the intent to use it as a recruiting tool.

Personally, I think the letter should have ended with

"The military recruitment of children under the age of 17, however, is a clear violation of international law (the U.N. Optional Protocol). No attempt to recruit children 13-16 is allowed in the United States, pursuant to treaty."

Because the rest of it is murkily proven, enough to present actual charges, at best. Also, it creates uninformed responses like Alone Disciple's.

 

[Alone Disciple]

I wonder if this same organization (or copycats of) have taken the same amount of time and zeal to write strongly written letters to the heads of terrorist states for their recruitment of children and women for suicide bombings?

Just appears a way to be yet another way for these groups to get a headline and say "Remember us?" I wonder how much money they spent on this PR stunt and in the end, will any kid going to Gamestop really be cognicient of this.

Me thinks not.

Ah, the typical conservative argument whenever they are caught doing something questionable. 'But but but the terrorists! They're so much worse than we are,' they sputter. And then they use the term 'moral relativist' as an insult. Hypocrites.

Ever stop to consider that indoctrinating children with a distorted picture of war in the hopes that they will enlist when they come of age just might be morally questionable?

Or that some people might be idealistic enough to make some noise about something they see as wrong? Not everything is a cynical political play.

I just think of these people as well meaning but unrealistic.

Ah, the typical humanist jump-to-conclusion anti-conservative argument.

Well, I'm glad you saw right through my ultra-right, wield a big stick, ask questions later rhetoric and were able to label as 'typical conservative'. And you want to define 'hypocrite' to me?

I will agree with you on one point, the only accurate one you made: I just think of these people as well meaning but unrealistic.

My point was, (not being right or left but fair) was the fact these organizations of the month always seem to pick out the most ludicrous and obscure means of attempting to make their point, and usually just focus on the game of the week as opposed to the whole genre. Why just AA and not 20 other games? Why because it's Americans portrayed in the game and not some other nation? What if it was the French or Japanese army by another developer? Would they still bother to write said letter? I would like to think they would, but the reality is, probably not.

 

[HomeAliveIn45]

The blatent ignorance just causes physical pain

 

[ReepNeep]

Ah, the typical humanist jump-to-conclusion anti-conservative argument.

Well, I'm glad you saw right through my ultra-right, wield a big stick, ask questions later rhetoric and were able to label as 'typical conservative'. And you want to define 'hypocrite' to me?

I will agree with you on one point, the only accurate one you made: I just think of these people as well meaning but unrealistic.

My point was, (not being right or left but fair) was the fact these organizations of the month always seem to pick out the most ludicrous and obscure means of attempting to make their point, and usually just focus on the game of the week as opposed to the whole genre. Why just AA and not 20 other games? Why because it's Americans portrayed in the game and not some other nation? What if it was the French or Japanese army by another developer? Would they still bother to write said letter? I would like to think they would, but the reality is, probably not.

Hey, I work with what I'm given. When your first paragraph is basically 'but, the terrorists' and your second blasts the people in question as politically opportunistic attention whores and the whole thing carries a strong undertone of 'Why do you hate America', I think I can be forgiven for making assumptions.

Besides, jumping to conclusions is the official sport of the internet.

*EDIT*
Maybe they focus on AA because it was well, you know, made by the US Army? And that it is used as a recruiting tool?

I've played the game and its quite clear that they're trying to get people interested in enlisting.

 

[Abako]

More and more I just get this feeling in the back of my head that there are just some people in the world so stupid that they need to be shot so as to not infect the rest of the human race with their idiocracy. This is probably the reason I find the Darwin Awards so funny. But COME ON! If you can say making a military based game is breaking international law then Im sorry freedom of expression is gone. Pretty soon making a game where you sneeze on someone by accident will be "grossly overviolent" and "we need to protect our kids from this filth!" and "I think drinking bleach is a good idea DUUUURRRRR!". Seriously someone please just beat the stupid out of these people. More and more I find myself getting so worked up over how stupid people get people to listen to them, that it just makes me sick! Sorry for the rant.

 

[Tolkienfanatic]

High school recruiters can't recruit under 17, and I somewhat doubt that the Army bends the rules just because people play America's Army.

Just because it is used as a recruiting tool, does not mean that every 13 year old is going to be indoctrinated and join the Army. It's a bullshit suit, but unfortunately in today's world, probably has a good chance of succeeding.

 

[Arbre]

I wonder if they realise that the teen rating is not necesarily the choice of the company, but rather a decision by the ESRB. Unless there were direct decisions by Ubisoft to ensure the teen rating, then I see no grounds for there accusations. However I do think that it might be a good idea to slap the game with a mature rating for "Use as military recruitment", maybe it's a needed addition to ESRB's rating criteria.

Funny point you bring there. It highlights the gap between ESRB's rating criteria and the realities of internal laws to protect people's rights (well, on the paper that is).
An update is needed.

Wait, what? Recruiters are always at high schools... last time I checked, not everyone there is 17 or older.

Right, but they can't actually recruit anyone who's not 17 or older. They can hand out all the free pencils, brochures and lanyards they wish, but unless that person's 17, they can't put pen to paper. And they don't start calling your house until your 17th birthday.

That's almost fucking the law with vaseline.
All the marketing, advertising and friendly pencils stuff is part of the recruitment tool set. It's used to convince people, regardless of their age.
Are they trying to make people under 17 sign now? No. Are they trying to make people under 17 sign when they'll be old enough? Aye sir.
Being in the army is NOT like any other job. I think they're a good way from actually forbidding that sort of propaganda on youger people. But they're not alone on this. TV ads to get into the army strike at any time, even when kids are in front of the television.
Fucking christian societies with warped realities and dubious priorities.

The problem with AA is it's non-discriminatory by age (you can still play it if you're <17, while a recruiter can go "16? Come back in a year."). And the Army created it with the intent to use it as a recruiting tool.

Personally, I think the letter should have ended with

"The military recruitment of children under the age of 17, however, is a clear violation of international law (the U.N. Optional Protocol). No attempt to recruit children 13-16 is allowed in the United States, pursuant to treaty."

Because the rest of it is murkily proven, enough to present actual charges, at best. Also, it creates uninformed responses like Alone Disciple's.

It's not so clear. Some articles actually leave enough leeway to nations to deal with recruitment as they please, as long as they follow a couple of rules.




@ Alone Disciple

Direct Action targeted AA precisely because it is a recruitment tool.
Besides, who cares if the association is only one month old? It's a rubbish red herring. It does not make their point less valid at all.
What matters is the validty of their action and logic. Which can be easily verified.




Looking at the Optional Protocol [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/protocolchild.htm], I've found bits which really have you question the legitimacy of even the sheer act of trying to reach younger audiences with information only, notably because of what the information in question really is about, but other which seem to give sovereign nations the right to recruit under that age if they want to.

But we'd first look to the more complete Convention on the Rights of the Child [http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm], which contains 54 articles thus far, and that's PART I only.

 

[Arbre]

More and more I just get this feeling in the back of my head that there are just some people in the world so stupid that they need to be shot so as to not infect the rest of the human race with their idiocracy. This is probably the reason I find the Darwin Awards so funny. But COME ON! If you can say making a military based game is breaking international law then Im sorry freedom of expression is gone. Pretty soon making a game where you sneeze on someone by accident will be "grossly overviolent" and "we need to protect our kids from this filth!" and "I think drinking bleach is a good idea DUUUURRRRR!". Seriously someone please just beat the stupid out of these people. More and more I find myself getting so worked up over how stupid people get people to listen to them, that it just makes me sick! Sorry for the rant.

Keep that bullet for someone else. AA is a recruitment tool. How can it get any clearer?
This is not to say Direct Action is right, but it means, at least, that their argument merits attention.

 

[Abako]

More and more I just get this feeling in the back of my head that there are just some people in the world so stupid that they need to be shot so as to not infect the rest of the human race with their idiocracy. This is probably the reason I find the Darwin Awards so funny. But COME ON! If you can say making a military based game is breaking international law then Im sorry freedom of expression is gone. Pretty soon making a game where you sneeze on someone by accident will be "grossly overviolent" and "we need to protect our kids from this filth!" and "I think drinking bleach is a good idea DUUUURRRRR!". Seriously someone please just beat the stupid out of these people. More and more I find myself getting so worked up over how stupid people get people to listen to them, that it just makes me sick! Sorry for the rant.

Keep that bullet for someone else. AA is a recruitment tool. How can it get any clearer?
This is not to say Direct Action is right, but it means, at least, that their argument merits attention.

O I know, that rant was more directed at everyone saying video games are the reason for X. If I 5 year old is allowed to play Grand Theft Auto 4, or Baby Rapist 11 or some other very mature game, then yes they are going to grow up kinda twisted. I hate that fucking stupid piece of shit parents buy those sort of games for their kids and then blame the game when the kid does something violent. It is a damn outrage. People need to stop being so fucking stupid or someone needs to beat some sense into them is how I feel sometimes. Of course thats not the answer, but at what point is this ever going to end. People will not be happy until they see out freedoms resricted at some form. Personally I would sooner see that your forced to prove your a fit parent before you can have a child by federal law, than to see peoples freedom of speach/expression curtailed because parents are dumb fucks.

P.S. That is about the most youll ever see me curse in a post. Sorry for anyone who did not appreciate all that its just this topic gets me rather angry.

 

[tigir798]

the US government does not allow children to fight. You can tell a child how wonderful it would be to join the military all you want...but they still wont be a child soldier until they are 18(can join at 17 but I am pretty sure you have to turn 18 before you finish your training or some such thing, and in many careers your overall training is more then a year anyway).

There is nothing wrong with advertising to children about joining a military as long as they still have to wait to be adults.

 

[tigir798]

And...sorry for another post...but international politics doesn't care if people in Burma..oh now its Myanmar or some such thing are wiping out whole villages children and all! It's not ok to show then how neat the military is but its ok to BURN THEM ALIVE? The international community needs to get their heads out of.... and start careing about genocide! At least we(the US and participating allys) finally steped into Iraq where the Kirdish people were being slaughtered by the thousands just for being kirdish. The UN vowed to never let Genocide happen and yet they care more about a video game that lets kids want to join the military when they are adults unstead of stepping in to do something important...like go into Burma where if you are the wrong kind of citizen you are used for construction work in landmine areas or torched along with your village.

 

[Arbre]

States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

First, the 18 years old majority is only a rule, which is altered if the nation in question grants majority to childs earlier.
Secondly, this text above shows that the nation is allowed to recruit childs above 15 years old, but should favour older attendants. But this requires further explanation:

1. States Parties shall raise the minimum age for the voluntary recruitment of persons into their national armed forces from that set out in article 38, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, taking account of the principles contained in that article and recognizing that under the Convention persons under the age of 18 years are entitled to special protection.

2. Each State Party shall deposit a binding declaration upon ratification of or accession to the present Protocol that sets forth the minimum age at which it will permit voluntary recruitment into its national armed forces and a description of the safeguards it has adopted to ensure that such recruitment is not forced or coerced.

3. States Parties that permit voluntary recruitment into their national armed forces under the age of 18 years shall maintain safeguards to ensure, as a minimum, that:

(a) Such recruitment is genuinely voluntary;

(b) Such recruitment is carried out with the informed consent of the person's parents or legal guardians;

(c) Such persons are fully informed of the duties involved in such military service;

(d) Such persons provide reliable proof of age prior to acceptance into national military service.

[...]

5. The requirement to raise the age in paragraph 1 of the present article does not apply to schools operated by or under the control of the armed forces of the States Parties, in keeping with articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Paragraph 1 requires affiliated countries to increase the authorized minimum age for recruitment to fit with the default figures provided in the text, that is, 18, if I get it right.

Paragraph 2 clearly establishes that recruitment should be absolutely executed without any single use of the force or coercion. I point to the debates about advertising and use of media in occidental countries as subtle forms of coercion.

Paragraph 3 is most interesting.

Alinea A insists that the recruitment is genuinely voluntary. Will recruiters check out if a kid has not been influenced by his family or close circle?
Can we say that the choice is totally voluntary if a person is in a way or not influenced by advertising? Billions wouldn't be spent on advertising if it was deemed worthless. Is this hypocrisy?
Yet, I suspect one would claim that the text refers to obvious uses of manipulation, namely most basic and evident ones like menaces and force use.

Alinea B states that the people responsible of the childs and greenlighting the recruitment should be plainly informed.

Alinea C states roughly the same thing, that the child must be informed on the job.

Alinea D Is mere age verification.

Paragraph 5 limits the power of paragraph 1 by excluding all schools operated or under the control of the military of the countries which have signed this.

Globally, Alinea A of paragraph 3 is the one that raises the more questions about ethics, while the others put the limits regarding the age, and contradict Direct Action, by showing that a country can start recruiting at the age of 15.

The rest is just bureaucratic junk and ball hanging.