NationStates Jolt Archive

Please - if your UN Delegate has not approved it yet, do so. It only needs 2 approvals before midnight to go to vote.

We have a quorum!

The thing is that this proposal MUSN'T be passed. If you read it carefully it says that it criminalizes illegal traffickers. HOW CAN YOU CRIMINALIZE SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE PROPOSAL AS "ILLEGAL"? If it is illegal than it doesnt require a "second criminalization", and is therefore a waste of time.

I also do not believe in the decriminalization of prosititutes for only one reason; the spread of STDs. If STDs did not exist I would support legalizing prostitution, but the truth is that it is a dangerous way to spread STDs and put society in jeopardy. Let the record show that by no means do I believe in its criminalization for morality issues--it is merely for public safety and health.

The law will
a. Criminalize something ALREADY ILLEGAL, therefore doing nothing
b. Promote a more rapid spread of STDs, including HIV/AIDS, which will contribute to the dangers of such diseases and put the public in jeopardy.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

I also do not believe in the decriminalization of prosititutes for only one reason; the spread of STDs. If STDs did not exist I would support legalizing prostitution, but the truth is that it is a dangerous way to spread STDs and put society in jeopardy. Let the record show that by no means do I believe in its criminalization for morality issues--it is merely for public safety and health.

Cave Canem wishes to suggest that the argument against decriminalisation of prostitution on the grounds that it would make STDs more prevalent is vulnerable to the same attacks that have been levelled at the argument that needle exchange programs in some way promote drug use.

We feel these have been amply explored before the house and would remind our UN colleagues that the aforementioned resolution was successfully passed.

Regards

UN Delegate for Cave Canem

Cave Canem wishes to suggest that the argument against decriminalisation of prostitution on the grounds that it would make STDs more prevalent is vulnerable to the same attacks that have been levelled at the argument that needle exchange programs in some way promote drug use.

We feel these have been amply explored before the house and would remind our UN colleagues that the aforementioned resolution was successfully passed.


That of course is exactly what I was thinking as well.

Another point in favour: the UN already passed a resolution legalizing prostitution:


Legalize prostitution
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kepone

Description: As you are aware, there are citizens who get by in desperate times by selling their bodies in order to pay their bills and feed their children. Both men and women partake in this profession. If we legalized prostitution, people would be able to sell themselves to get by. In return, the government could use the money collected from taxes on prostitution income to support programs that help the poor. Prostitution is the oldest profession. Why must we make it a priority for law enforcement to monitor and arrest prostitutes when there are greater crimes out there?

Votes For: 10899
Votes Against: 9310
Implemented: Mon Feb 2 2004


Personally the idea behind the current resolution on the floor is nothing more than a logical extension of the above resolution. While I feel that the above resolution violated national sovereignty (my government voted in favour, because at the time we were new to the UN), I do agree with this resolution's approach: focus on the "Johns" and others who take advantage of the prostitutes.

I'd like to point out that not all prostitutes are female. There are many males who appear female who will enter the profession and there is a market for male prostitutes as well. This however is not a point against this resolution by any means.

STDs are best controlled and lives saved, when you have multiple methods to promote prevention. By treating people as outcasts you alienate them. By allowing them to work together without fear from others, you empower them to make safer choices.

Certainly as diplomats we can all agree that doing drugs or having sex on a frequent basis with partners you know little about is completely unsafe. But as government officials, parents if you will, we must not frighten these people away.

10kMichael

"anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps"

Wouldn't this make the "legalize prostitution" resolution which was passed, void? Couldn't you apply these words to the willful prostitution also?

The Federation of Jessicia supports the legalization of prostitution as it is a step foward in the direction of free-choice and human rights. And we are considering this new resolution only if it will not effect the rights to be in the willfull sex-selling business.

The Federation of Jessicia, Foreign Affairs Minister, Braxton Conrad.

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.

I hereby urge the UN to take action. Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers.

Since prostitution is already legal, I don't think this proposal needs to address prostitution in any way. Also, as pointed out Men are also prostitutes and this proposal specifically applies to women only.

I would propose the following changes to the proposal.

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.

I hereby urge the UN to take action. Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers. [add] Criminalize the buying, selling or trafficking of any person without their expressed consent, for any purpose of exploitation as defined in this proposal.

The Empire of One Bob will support this proposal only if amended as above.

Since prostitution is already legal, I don't think this proposal needs to address prostitution in any way. Also, as pointed out Men are also prostitutes and this proposal specifically applies to women only.

I would propose the following changes to the proposal.

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.

I hereby urge the UN to take action. Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers. [add] Criminalize the buying, selling or trafficking of any person without their expressed consent, for any purpose of exploitation as defined in this proposal.

The Empire of One Bob will support this proposal only if amended as above.


The Federation of Jessicia agrees with The Empire of Bob. We realise that as prostitution is legal some of the current resolution is pointless.

The Federation of Jessicia, Foreign Affairs Minister, Braxton Conrad.

I agree, Jessica, but the thing is that buying, selling, or trafficking of any persons is already illegal.

Furthermore, I believe that this is an issue that should be solved on a national instead of international level.

We have yet to see one resolution introduced to the UN that has not been past. Please don't be so easily manipulated, comrades!

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

I agree, Jessica, but the thing is that buying, selling, or trafficking of any persons is already illegal.

Furthermore, I believe that this is an issue that should be solved on a national instead of international level.

If there's a ban on trafficking persons on an international level then this is already an international issue. There's no way around it, even if we (myself included) don't like it. If the current legistlation at the UN level is faulty or incomplete (as seems suggested by this resolution), then this resolution is necessary. We can't repeal the existing legislation and hand power back over to individual nations. Our best option is to improve the current law, and make it as reasonable as possible. I wish this would've stayed a national issue, too. But it can't. The only way I can think around it is if Stephistan is secretly Michael J. Fox, who has a time travalling car, an old scientist, and a slightly ditzy girlfriend and they go back in time and change past mistakes. Wow, they should make that into a movie. It'd make millions.

I hereby urge the UN to take action. Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers. [add] Criminalize the buying, selling or trafficking of any person without their expressed consent, for any purpose of exploitation as defined in this proposal.

The Empire of One Bob will support this proposal only if amended as above.

First off, I'd like to compliament the Empire of One Bob for taking a pro-active attitude and suggesting exactly what they would like to see in order to improve this resolution.

Personally, my government agrees that your suggestions are in fact better.

Unfortunately, once a resolution reaches the UN floor it can not be amended, nor can a *passed* resolution be amended (there is one exception in the history of the NS UN to this rule, but the rule will be enforced by the moderators these days and for good reasons).

Since UN resolutions are really just "suggestions", sometimes my government is willing to look over some things like typos or very minor issues.

Though I was the member who raised the point that there are male prostitutes, there is nothing in this proposal that will prevent my government from protecting them as well.

As a resolution author, it is very hard to generate interest in a "draft" proposal and to basically get feedback before hand. I was very happy that nations were willing to cut my resolution some slack and look at the bigger picture.

With that in mind, though your suggestions are great, and my nation will immediately adopt them should this resolution pass, I'd like to ask all nations to at least consider the "global" picture here.

I'm not saying to vote yes or no ... but at least to consider the limitations of our NS server and process.

Unfortunately, once a resolution reaches the UN floor it can not be amended, nor can a *passed* resolution be amended (there is one exception in the history of the NS UN to this rule, but the rule will be enforced by the moderators these days and for good reasons).

I'm brand new here,but the process can be tweaked to allow for debate, drafting and amendment, right?

I'm brand new here,but the process can be tweaked to allow for debate, drafting and amendment, right?

Good question. :) I asked it my first week here as well.

Sadly the answer is not really. The problem is that amendments can be friendly or non-friendly, and since a proposal has around 135 to 145 "endorsements", if you were to change a proposal from the time it got its endorsement til the time it reached the UN floor, one of those UN Delegates might not be happy with the changes.

We can't even correct things like typos.

But what you see many UN active nations do is write a draft proposal and post it here and/or off-site for comments. As they get comments they make changes / amendments before a proposal is submitted to the queue.

Basically we don't have any form of parliamentry proceedure. We don't even have a way to bring the nations that vote on UN resolutions into the UN forum to read things like pro and con statements. (This is why a few of us have made references in our resolutions.)

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification. A lot of actual UN drafting is done out-of-commitee too :) Fun fun fun...

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification. A lot of actual UN drafting is done out-of-commitee too :) Fun fun fun...

I'm not a UN Delegate, but if I were and I saw a proposal that I felt had potential, I'd give the endorsement the first time and telegram the author saying I like their idea, but if their proposal doesn't reach the UN queue the first time, that I'd only give their proposal a second endorsement if: (1) they made some minor changes (and I'd make an offer to help with that) or (2) if they could point me towards an article or two to convince me ... though chances are I could find my own information / references.

There are a few topics that I'd completely avoid, like that joke proposal about killing people for poor grammar and spelling. No way would I have touched that proposal.

But as UN Delegates have told me, "If somebody cares enough about an issue to write a proposal and contact people about it, they should get a chance to defend their idea." I certainly agree with the UN Delegates that have stated that.

I agree entirely with One Bob.

I will vote against this proposal, it is sexist in two places, both legalising female prostitutes, and declaring intent to punish male clients. It is also misleading as it claims to be about human trafficing, and then argues for legalising (female) prostitution.

It is also hugely open to misinterpretation. It would action countries to punish anyone promoting exploitation. Stated as it is this could reach as far as people selling drink which made it possible for someone to exploit someone else, to people publishing naughty postcards, through a whole range of activities my government doesn't want to have to punish.

It has a good intention, but is unworkable in current form and I ask anyone with a vote to vote against this proposal.

Once again the sheep vote prevails, once again a greviously flawed resolution is going to be passed.

Why does the resolution only protect female prostitutes? Males can't be sexually exploited? Men can't be prostitutes? Common sense tells you that's not the case.

I would be voting for if the resolution was just the middle paragraph, but the entire prostitution bit is redundant. The last paragraph also errs dangerously on the edge of repealing the "Legalize Prostitution" resolution by advocating round-ups of pimps, though that's pointless now since it's already on the floor.

There you go, another flaw. It's potentially self-contradictory.

My vote will probably not make that big a difference, but I'll cast it anyway on the off chance that we have an upsurge of people thinking more about their votes.

Once again the sheep vote prevails, once again a greviously flawed resolution is going to be passed.

Why does the resolution only protect female prostitutes? Males can't be sexually exploited? Men can't be prostitutes? Common sense tells you that's not the case.

There you go, another flaw. It's potentially self-contradictory.


First off, you are correct about the gender references being off, but if your legislature were to interpet the spirit of the act and make national laws that were significantly greater than those presented here (i.e. removing the gender bias), I think you'd still be working completely within the spirit of the resolution.

Most of the nations in the International Democratic Union (my present region) have stated the exact same two points:

(1) We are a bit wary of the wording, but
(2) We agree 100% that trafficing is bad.

Of course there are a few IDU nations that are still debating the resolution in their own legislatures and executive branches, so my region may not be completely unanimous here.

I'm personally of the opinion that it is incredibly hard to get nations to offer their attention, let alone advice to DRAFT proposals, and thus errors like the above do make it to the resolution stage. In this case, we've seen far far worse resolutions (I will not mention any names), and having gone through the process of collecting endorsements several times, I'm willing to concede that sometimes a "good sincere effort" to address an international problem is worth overlooking a few minor details that our home governments can clean up.

That said, I'm not asking you to change your vote. You must vote how your nation sees best. But please do not mistake the votes from the nations of the International Democratic Union as being "sheep" like or uniformed. We just happen to have a slightly different opinion.

They ARE sheep votes, in my opinion.

You DO NOT pass flawed legislation if you spot it is flawed. As this is so obviously flawed I do not see that a majority of people in NS can have read it, reviewed it, and voted intelligently, and still voted to pass it. I have more faith in their intelligence than that.

They ARE sheep votes, in my opinion.

You DO NOT pass flawed legislation if you spot it is flawed. As this is so obviously flawed I do not see that a majority of people in NS can have read it, reviewed it, and voted intelligently, and still voted to pass it. I have more faith in their intelligence than that.

OOC: In the "real-world" legislatures pass flawed laws *all* the time. It is called "compromise", because without it, there would be constant delock.

This is true in the United States, in most US state governments, in Canada, in the UK, etc.

I'm positive that most UN resolution authors would jump at the chance to accept amendments to their resolutions if people had major objections, which many of you do here based on gender.

I'm equally positive (based on reading several off-site debates on this resolution) that these people you call "sheep" are more in the know than you give them credit. They don't like the gender bias, but also feel that this is the only shot at this resolution. If a very similar proposal hits the queue, after this resolution fails, I would expect that the UN mods would delete it, on the basis that we just finished this debate.

Resolutions last, what 5 to 6 days? 365/5 --> 73 chances at best case?

While ideas can be revisited (we've dealth with saving trees, children, and HIV/AIDS before), I don't see too many UN Delegates being thrilled about constantly dealing with the same topic so soon because of what were some honest oversights.

You can vote no, but please don't call me a "sheep" voter. I do happen to have a very realistic and through understanding of:

- NationStates
- the real UN
- politics in the US at both Federal and State levels

And I see nothing at all wrong with compromising. The alternative is complete gridlock and listening to complete rhetoric along the lines of "You are an imperialist! Everything you do is imperialist! We will bury you, you capitalistic commie imperialist pig-dog!"

I'm positive that most UN resolution authors would jump at the chance to accept amendments to their resolutions if people had major objections, which many of you do here based on gender.What can I say? Yes! :)

Now that this horrible decision has been approved, my country has overlooked starting a petition to make this outlawed because the STDs and AIDs should not be spread (in which it already has began too). Our country has also overlooked quiting the U.N. because of this. I urge leaders, delegates, and members to come together and sign this petition because it is not right & it is not fair.
Larogera

Now that this horrible decision has been approved, my country has overlooked starting a petition to make this outlawed because the STDs and AIDs should not be spread (in which it already has began too). Our country has also overlooked quiting the U.N. because of this. I urge leaders, delegates, and members to come together and sign this petition because it is not right & it is not fair.
LarogeraFirst of all, if action is to be taken against all those who promotes sexual slavery and such, wouldn’t that decrease the spread of STDs? If your worries has to do with the decriminalization of the persons in prostitution, then think again.
Persons who are not the ‘property’ of pimps or are sex slaves of others, but have chosen to sell sexual services by their own free will – they are much more able to protect themselves (thus protecting their customers as well) from STDs. Those who are sexually exploited by others are not always in a position to do so. Think about it – if you willingly sell sexual services, it is in your interest to avoid STD infections. However if a pimp uses you and forces you to have sex with others, he is not as likely to care about your getting infected or passing on STDs.

Secondly and most importantly, I don’t think at all that the governments of the UN member states are the ones to decide how and with whom you have sex. It is up to the people to be careful and protect themselves from STD. If we want to see a decrease in the spread of the diseases, cracking down on prostitutes is definitely not the place to start. STDs are mostly spread through needles and negligence to use condoms when having sexual intercourse (in general, not only with prostitutes). The UN has already begun to take action by passing the recent “Needle Sharing Prevention” resolution.

My point is, governments can do their best to see to it that diseases aren’t transmitted through certain, ‘unnecessary’ ways, such as when contaminated needles are being used multiple times by different people. However, when it comes to sex, the governments should not intervene. Let people have sex on their own conditions, not the governments’, be it with their partners or with prostitutes (who are ‘their own’ and are not being exploited). Let it be up to the people to take responsibility instead of outlawing prostitution because some fail to protect themselves. Prostitution doesn’t spread STDs – careless people are, and we can’t punish responsible citizens because of a careless minority.

Governments should work to stop the spread of STDs but when they seek to invade people’s bedrooms, it has gone too far.