NationStates Jolt Archive


Current Resolution: My Feelings

Nova Sol
28-07-2004, 22:19
:headbang: I find the current resolution sexist. This is the regular resolution:
"It is becoming increasingly common that women are sold as sex slaves on the black market. Often the women, who come from less fortunate countries, are lured to more developed countries by people who promise them a better life there. Instead, upon the women's arrival to their new countries, these people deprive the them of their freedom and sell them as sex slaves. This is known as trafficking.

'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. 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."



This is how I see it:
"It is becoming increasingly common that women are sold as sex slaves on the black market. Often the women, who come from less fortunate countries, are lured to more developed countries by people who promise them a better life there. Instead, upon the women's arrival to their new countries, these people deprive the them of their freedom and sell them as sex slaves. This is known as trafficking.

'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. 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."

I see no mention of the men who are sold this way. I find that this problem should either be addressed as a bi-gender issue or not addressed at all. I am asking every UN member to withdraw their votes that approve the resolution until such time as the same resolution can come forth that will criminalize women who own illegal sex slaves and decriminalize male prostitutes.
Corennia
29-07-2004, 01:06
I would have to agree with you, this resolution does seem to be biased towards one gender and against another. However, the legistlation of the resolution is still sound, and is apparently not affected by terms of gender. It is also the assumption that women are more victimzed in this particular way then men.

We should not withdraw support simply because of the way some of the less legalistic componants are stated. The law, in itself, is uneffected.
Fiznab
29-07-2004, 02:10
I see no reason this law should support the decriminalization of prostitution. We can prosecute Pimps and trafickers without decriminalizing prostition at all. In fact decriminalizing it seems completely contrary to the purpose. What would be the legal basis for prosecuting pimps for offering clients a legitimate service to the community? It just makes no sense.

Not only that, but criminalizing it may be a way for us to get the prostitutes off the street and find some way to help them get reformed and at the same time give us leverage against the pimps and traffickers for offering the women deals.

While i applaud the attempt to stop any sort of slavery, i think this resolution was not well thought out.
Tzorsland
29-07-2004, 02:38
I can see the reason, but the wording is sloppy. Basically anyone who is forced to do something should not be held liable for what they have done. We want those people who are the victims of the pimps and trafickers. But the wording smply makes all prostitution legal.

For this reason I am hesitant to vote for this resolution.
Randomocitia
29-07-2004, 03:01
I thought that too, but the proposal is saying that the women who ahev been forced into prostitution by the pimps are not to be treated as criminals. It's not trying to legalize prostitution.
Barakastan
29-07-2004, 03:32
even though it is crappily written, I have to assume that this proposal applies to sex slaves of all, uh, sexes.
Hylind
29-07-2004, 04:10
I agree that this does seem biased. I will vote against this resolution.
The Wyrd Wyrm
29-07-2004, 10:14
It is both sexist and misleading.

If you want to ban human traffic, then ban human traffic. Of either sex. If you want to force legalisation of prostitution, make a bill saying that. I am against both sexist bills, misleading bills and trying to sneak legislation in under a different heading.

PLEASE vote no to this bill.
Quazickistan
29-07-2004, 11:50
Giddyap, horsie! I smell a rider! Number one, this resolution is to ban traffickers and to help women sold on the black market. The key words there are "black market." If something is sold in the black market, it is illegal, as in not able to do so in the "white market" (clean and legal). Therefore, we are banning something that is banned. This is basically a resolution to do nothing. The rider of legalizing prostitution seems to be basically the only intent of the bill. Craftily phrased, but pointless. Also horribly written. Try again next time when you spell out the reasons for decriminalizing prostitution and actually including that in the body of the bill. :headbang:

/A vote for this bill is a vote for the terrorists....
//I keed, I keed ;)
Komokom
29-07-2004, 13:11
1) Slavery is already illegal in U.N. law.

2) Prostitution is already legal in U.N. law.

This proposal seems self defeating and pointless, I feel bad not catching it earlier.

:(
Kryozerkia
29-07-2004, 14:43
Yes, I say we ought to strike it down. It's worded badly and very biased.
The Wyrd Wyrm
29-07-2004, 16:09
I would vote (if I had such a vote) to strike it out. I don't believe it's worded or titled fairly to achieve it's purpose, and surely it's sexist nature (intentional or not) is against UN regulations?
Serconea
30-07-2004, 10:27
It is sexist- women can traffic people as well. I like the idea but not its backing of prostitution. My vote has gone from Yes to Undecided, and will stay at the latter.
Diva-Rule
30-07-2004, 14:14
The author's heart is in the right place, but there are just too many things wrong with this resolution for it to pass quorum.

What about the MALES who are sold into slavery? Do they not count?
It proposes to prosecute the MEN - what about Brothels run by MADAMS? They get off scott free?? I think that is still a very important omission.
As the honorable member of Quazickistan has already pointed out: BLACKMARKETS are already illegal, so selling people on the Blackmarket is, automatically, also illegal.

I implore all UN Members to reconsider their votes, if they had voted in favor of this resolution.
The only upswing here is the fact that the UN has legalized prostitution (which I am not in agreement with), but this could result in that resolution being overturned, as it would now be illegal for Men to become the clients of these Women.
Mattikistan
30-07-2004, 23:17
1) Slavery is already illegal in U.N. law.

That is what I thought, actually; wouldn't all this already be covered by any laws against slavery? That is, after all, the specific type of prostitute this proposal seems to be targeting. At least, if you interpret it that way. And let's face it, it's open to interpretation. There must be three or four threads taking different stances on why this proposal shouldn't get through...
Mikitivity
30-07-2004, 23:51
The only upswing here is the fact that the UN has legalized prostitution (which I am not in agreement with), but this could result in that resolution being overturned, as it would now be illegal for Men to become the clients of these Women.

My short list on UN resolutions that should be reconsidered for repeal:

R1 - Fight the Axis of Evil
R5 - DVD Region Removal
R43 - Legalise Euthanasia
R46 - Legalize Prostitution

There would be others that I would *consider* a repeal on, but those four top my list. The others I think most of us can honestly see what they are trying to do (even if we don't agree with them, as the Chipmunks pointed out ... some battles we aren't gonna win).
Diva-Rule
02-08-2004, 14:58
My short list on UN resolutions that should be reconsidered for repeal:

R1 - Fight the Axis of Evil
R5 - DVD Region Removal
R43 - Legalise Euthanasia
R46 - Legalize Prostitution


Well Honorable Member, it seems our wish has been granted, hasn't it?