NationStates Jolt Archive

OK apols for the block caps, I just feel this needs to be brought to everyone's attention:

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.


(bolding mine)

Notice that? DECRIMINALIZE THE WOMEN IN PROSTITUTION. i.e. MAKE IT LEGAL FOR WOMEN TO PRACTICE PROSTITUTION.

So it becomes irreversibly legal for a woman to practice prostitution of her own volition and will.

Now granted I can understand why you might want to allow that? But do you want it to be IRREVERSIBLE? Do you want it to be a decision you can never reconsider? I most certainly do not.

Do the right thing! Vote AGAINST! I appreciate this is a well-intentionned resolution, and I agree with it's spirit, but not with it's letter. Vote AGAINST!

And North Koster (creator of the resolution), I would be very happy to see this resolution resubmitted MINUS that clause, and with some other amendments made.

It doesn't wholly legalise prostitution, it just removes the criminality from the prostitute to the client.

So that, yes it is legal for a person to become a prostitute, but it becomes illegal for someone to 'buy' a prostitute.

Prostitution was already legalized by the UN several months ago:


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


That means if you are already a UN member, then you've already accepted the idea that prostitution should be legal. Now how your government dealt with that before and chooses to deal with this now is an entirely different debate.

I dont see what good taking away the Illegality frrom women in prostitution and passing it onto men can do? Its passing the buck. Its realising that a woman in such a situation is in such a state mentally or whichever othere reason that the threat of being convicted of crime seems worth the risk. It seems now the Resolution is trying to see if passing the illegality of prostituion onto men will act as a geterent. I see this as a weakness of Law and morality. Not that I think men should not be protected from the illegality of prostitution, far from it.

Maybe a resolution should be made to look at the reasons behind what makes women go into prostitution in the first place. Recognise why the horse is bolting the fence and stop the horse from doing so in the future. Dont just keep building a new fence in the hope that it wont go over the new one.

The answer to that one is easy, Markacia: social deprivation. However, unless we want to demand that all nations institute comprehensive and generous welfare programs as well as making conventional employment more attractive at the lowest end of the pool (which the right-wingers would never stand for), then prostitution isn't going away.

And yes, prostitutes are already decriminalised in all UN nations, so this is redundant. The only option for those who want to prevent it is to heavily prosecute the clients. So I wouldn't rail against this resolution, Midgar & Junon; if you're a UN member you've already got legal prostitution.

We have no real problem with prostitution in Rehochipe; although we're no longer a UN member, we've legalised it. We have good enough social conditions (and strong enough regulation on the industry) that prostitution is no longer a last resort, and has hence become a rather small, exclusive and expensive market.

I have thought some more on this issue and have decided to change my vote against the Resolution. Trafficing in People should be outlawed in all nations especially the morally carrect ones. So being forced to do so by the UN and at the same time make the woman in prostitution free from criminality I feel is wrong and misguided.

Furthermore, I feel the Resolution being proposed is nothing more than stating the obvious with a poor attempt at a half baked plan to solve a problem.

It's not even legalising it, don't worry. All it's doing is changing the blaim from prostitute to pimp and whoever buys him/her/it. Besides, as previously stated, prostitution is already legal. You can't ban it any more unless you aren't in the UN, and then there's an issue where you can ban it and be happy. What's wrong with it anyway? I mean besides god or whoever says it's bad?

Thanks for pointing out the the client would be breaking the law. Also thanks for pointing out prostitution has already been made legal. However...

I only created my nation in about may/june of this year. When I joined the UN, did all earlier resolutions get applied to my nation?

Also the resolution to legalise prostitution was passed VERY narrowly. This one looks like being passed by a much bigger majority.

And lastly, do UN resolutions affect the decisions on offer in the issues?

I only created my nation in about may/june of this year. When I joined the UN, did all earlier resolutions get applied to my nation?

Yes and no.

The game stats effects don't get applied to your nation on joining; that is to say, you won't get an economic boost or a political freedoms drop or anything of the sort. However, you are nevertheless understood, for all RP purposes, to be subject to the entire body of UN law, including that passed before you entered the UN. Which means that you can't say 'I've illegalised prostitution' if you're a UN member; that option is simply not available to you.

The size of the majority has no effect on how resolutions affect you. Narrowly passed or not, it's in full force until the repeal system gets finished.

UN rulings don't affect what issues are available to you, no; this is acknowledged to be a game weakness and is being worked on, I think. UN rulings are assumed to overrule issue-based ones, though; for this reason, many nations (notably Komokom) oppose any UN legislation on subjects for which there is already a national issue.

The size of the majority has no effect on how resolutions affect you. Narrowly passed or not, it's in full force until the repeal system gets finished.


OOC:
Do you know something that perhaps the rest of us should know as well? ;)

Something else to note about UN resolutions. The game states that you will compile with them all, but many of us are of the opinion that this does not mean you follow the exact letter of the law. Many others feel the opposite, that instead of following the spirit of UN resolution, you MUST follow the letter of the law and nothing but.

This difference in opinion is a great potentional for roleplay. What some nations (*cough*) have done is made prostitution legal, but "jonhing" illegal.

You can have fun with this. :)

We in the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites have found our own way to bypass the prostitution resolution, we decided that prostitution is only to occur in government approved brothels, of which there are currently none.

We in the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites have found our own way to bypass the prostitution resolution, we decided that prostitution is only to occur in government approved brothels, of which there are currently none.
Good. I like it when people, rather than complaining about the large cumbersome bureaocracy taking away their national sovereignty, use the relative agility and quickness (and ingenuity) of their nat'l gov't to take some of it back. I'm sure you'll get several thousand people trying to crucify you for not realizing that you HAVE to follow the resolutions to the letter, that you HAVE to be just like them. Not that I think you don't have to follow the resolutions (to all those now eye-ing me for sacrifice). I believe! I believe! Amen! Amen! please don't eat me!

[OOC: Brilliant! Bloody Brilliant! Well crafted, short and to the point. Best of all, classic roleplaying. Now this is how if you object to that you can respond in kind.

A roleplaying example of what a nation opposed to your statement might respond:

_
2004.07.30
UN Office
the Pitt, Miervatia, CCSM
_
As many of you are aware, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity plays close attention to statements issued forth by governments with respect to the implementation of UN resolutions. While my government respects the rights of governments to make their own sovereign decisions, it would like to point out that the practice of legalizing prostitution and requiring prostitutes to be associated with government sponsored programs, while certainly within the spirit of the UN resolution, "Legalize Prostitution" adopted 2004.02.02, is of little effect when those same governments fail to follow through in good faith on the development and implementation of these programs.

With that in mind, my government will asks that nations reconsider that importance of UN decisions and put forth a good faith effort to insure that human rights of its citizens are protected.
_
10kMichael
UN Ambassador
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

But since my government already had legalized prostitution, but also felt that the original UN resolution really isn't a human rights issue … it would in reality make no statement. *gasp*

But good response!

And Sophista is right, we should start roleplaying more often.]

Well in any case I don't intend to get into nationstates RPing.

I do reckon we should be allowed to make resolutions that seek to repeal earlier resolutions.

Well in any case I don't intend to get into nationstates RPing.

I do reckon we should be allowed to make resolutions that seek to repeal earlier resolutions.

[OOC: Fair enough. At times RPing kinda gets in the way, like when you are using real-world situations / examples. And I like those.

On the subject of repeals, do you think that they should be a 2/3 vote? I would advocate such. And I'd suggest that if they happen that the resolution stay in the record, but that the repeal shows up later.]

The Confederacy of Stites agrees that UN resolutions should be applied with a nation's personal touch instead of a blanket resolution, which can't work justly or fairly for the world. We don't necessarily believe in criminalizing those who purchase the services of another, because that's a compact between the two and no one else.
As a new player, how resolved is the UN with keeping an eye on member nations for following all resolutions to the T?

That's a good question. There are several forces which are interested in you following resolutions "to the T". Almost 100% of this is role-played or at least role-play oriented

1) The Compliance ministry which sends out that message once a resolution passes. The message reads "Laws have been enacted to bring your nation into compliance with X resolution" This is kind of annoying, the wording that is. But it's also beneficial to you, because it's up to the nation's government to decide what is "in compliance" with X resolution.

2) The game mechanics are built to change the stats of your nation slightly when a new resolution comes into affect. This is essentially the effect of the compliance ministry's message. These stats changes tend to be small and are, of course, related to the nature of the resolution (an environmental resolution changes the stats of how your nation deals with the environment: diminishes business).

3) The Gestapo. This is a raging group of nations which are "pacific"-bent on "making" you follow the rules. Typically these are the people who favored the resolution, drafted it, etc. They want you to do exactly as they do because this gives them power over who is in the UN. They use the line "you HAVE to do it. If you don't like it, leave the UN". The ideas behind this line are legitimate. But the line itself is entirely out of RP context and is designed to simply be annoying. They want to be winners for once in their lives so they try to FORCE you to do things their way.

In actuality, they have NO power over you.

It's up to your nations (how you Role-play its decisions) what is actually done in accordance with resolutions. Those that come out defiantly in forums, saying they refuse to enact a resolution, get the guff of the Gestapo, but no real action is taken against them.

The rule of thumb is: be reasonable.

As a new player, how resolved is the UN with keeping an eye on member nations for following all resolutions to the T?

[OOC: Self enforced. From time to time two players may roleplay a squabble out, but for the most part resolutions that pass are often lost. Galdago, Hersfold, Joccia, Rixtex, and Austirvum are a few nations that certainly have shown an on-site interest in re-visiting issues either for good or bad. Austirvum's RBHC resolutions (2 of them) are actually worth a read. Rixtex and Galdago keep an eye open for their prior resolutions and RPing them onward. I'm debating making a puppet nation of flaming liberals (which you could argue my nation already is) to play the role of a NGO / watchdog group. :)

]

3) The Gestapo. This is a raging group of nations which are "pacific"-bent on "making" you follow the rules. Typically these are the people who favored the resolution, drafted it, etc. They want you to do exactly as they do because this gives them power over who is in the UN. They use the line "you HAVE to do it. If you don't like it, leave the UN". The ideas behind this line are legitimate. But the line itself is entirely out of RP context and is designed to simply be annoying. They want to be winners for once in their lives so they try to FORCE you to do things their way.

My line is that refusing to obey the letter of a UN resolution is equivalent to godmodding, because it's directly against game rules. It's no different from saying you have an OMFG MASSIVE SPACE MARINE ARMY when your game-stat military sector is tiny; nobody will stop you doing it, but it defies the point of playing NationStates rather than your own freeform political RP, and it particularly defies the point of actually being in the UN - why exactly are we voting on these resolutions if nobody has to enforce them?

However, with a few notable exceptions most UN resolutions are so awfully worded that they're easily avoidable - the prostitution resolution is a perfect example of this. Okay, you can't stop prostitutes being prostitutes by direct law, but you can still, e.g., tax them so heavily that only billionaires will be able to afford them, or send all their clients to prison for life.

OOC: Actually, I think the general rule of thumb is when a player begins to show a pattern towards "recreating" all UN resolutions, it really is time for him / her to move on and focus on something else in the game, because obviously they aren't getting what they want out of the UN ... unless of course their sole purpose is to godmod.

EDIT: I should clarify that ... I think it is cool when players "legislate" all UN resolutions, I'm really just picking on the people who say, "Denied!" to most things.

It's a shame new member states are not advised that when they apply to join the UN, that they are accepting resolutions passed previously.

OK apols for the block caps, I just feel this needs to be brought to everyone's attention:



(bolding mine)

Notice that? DECRIMINALIZE THE WOMEN IN PROSTITUTION. i.e. MAKE IT LEGAL FOR WOMEN TO PRACTICE PROSTITUTION.

So it becomes irreversibly legal for a woman to practice prostitution of her own volition and will.

Now granted I can understand why you might want to allow that? But do you want it to be IRREVERSIBLE? Do you want it to be a decision you can never reconsider? I most certainly do not.

Do the right thing! Vote AGAINST! I appreciate this is a well-intentionned resolution, and I agree with it's spirit, but not with it's letter. Vote AGAINST!

And North Koster (creator of the resolution), I would be very happy to see this resolution resubmitted MINUS that clause, and with some other amendments made.


"Prostitution is a combination of sex and free enterprise. Which of those two are you opposed to?"

My line is that refusing to obey the letter of a UN resolution is equivalent to godmodding, because it's directly against game rules. It's no different from saying you have an OMFG MASSIVE SPACE MARINE ARMY when your game-stat military sector is tiny;

I disagree. I think you're overlooking the complexities of the issue. I say this because of the use of words such as "equivalent" and the phrase "It's no different". I also think your response to the Gestapo accusation is just too good to be really honest. If it were a reality there'd be some sort of compromise, some realization that you have to allow for others to play as they wish, or something along those lines.

True, there are some limits to the "defiance" level with which a nation should respond to an unsatisfactory resolution. I did say "Be Reasonable". I also stressed the importance of RPing. And if you godmod, you aren't really RPing.

But you can't deny that there are legitimate ways for nations to get around resolutions. I hope I'm not tipping my hand here, but just look at the example provided.

-The resolution said that the said nation had to legalize prostitution.

-The nation decided the limits to place on this legalization to make it well applicable to itself.

-Prostitution was legalized, under certain conditions which is the right of the national governemnt to define, as long as it's realistic and resonable (which is how you stop godmodding in other types of RP).

It would render all forms of national government moot if you took away this unwritten "elastic clause", which allows nations to decide how to construct legislation and actions resolved upon bythe UN.

The reason I'm not very forgiving of people who use that "you HAVE to" line is because it detracts from RP even more than does people stretching envelopes. How could one possibly stay in that state of a suspension of disbelief if there is an annoying 8-year-old constantly yelling "Jimmy isn't playing by the rules! Teacher! Teacher!"

Another reason I'm not exactly kind to the people who react this way is because they almost always--no scratch that--they always have ulterior motivations for saying it. They don’t say it out of a desire for the game to be fair as much as they do out of a desire to elevate themselves:

"I agree with this resolution, and nations have to abide by resolutions. So, everyone else now has to realize how right I am! They must be just like me!"

That's the thought that goes through the head. Or at least that's the MO of the thought. I know this from experience. It tends to be the people that like, agree with, write, endorse, or vote for the resolution saying this "You HAVE to" line. It matters much less what their actual feelings on national-international relations are.

Since I don't know if you are one of the "24-7 whistleblower Gestapo" lemme say this: if you'd like to discuss this, then I'd be happy to share more of why I feel the way I do, and happy to better understand why you feel how you do. If your going to spout dogma, though, I think I'll just prime my ignore cannons.


nobody will stop you doing it, but it defies the point of playing NationStates rather than your own freeform political RP, and it particularly defies the point of actually being in the UN - why exactly are we voting on these resolutions if nobody has to enforce them?

Okay, again I disagree. Nobody said that they weren’t going to enforce these resolutions. They just said that you get approximately NO say in how they enforce them. Yes I understand that the nation that says “I don’t have to do that, screw it” isn’t really RPing. But I'm not referring to these nations.

I understand the UN as being a large international legislative body. There is no international executive body, since there is no place for a secretary general et al in the game. So the executive responsibilities fall to the individual nations, which have mandate from the legislative body to codify certain things into lawand act upon them, within their national boundaries. They only have jurisdiction within that space. But it isn’t the legislative body’s place to decide how the executive bodies do their jobs. Nor is it one executive body’s (your) place to tell what another executive body (another player) should do to comply to the UN. That isn't under your jurisdiction as an executive authority. This is what we who have moved past the hunter/gatherer stage call separation of powers. Unfortunately there are no real checks and balances in the game between these two powers, so there is an uneasy equilibrium which threatens to teeter too far one way or another, with no direct guidance. However, I believe that as long as there is sensibility and restraint shown by both sides, this equilibrium will remain intact and will allow the international government to function properly. Oh and I think the "judicial powers" in this understanding would be held by mods.

[OOC: Chipmunks, you are wrong, in the real world nations ignore UN resolutions and sometimes they get treated to a shock and awe campaign when rooting tooting gun sling cowboy's get a hold of some bombs and high approval ratings. In english, in the real world, nations *do* in fact police each other, when there are "violations" of unilateral or bilateral agreements. Some of these disputes get settled in the UN or World Court, others through bilateral arrangements, and the final ones end up either never being solved or in the creation of a new Puppet state!

There is UN god modding ... NS UN membership is voluntary, and if players find themselves doing MASSIVE rewrites to most resolutions, they should probably just leave the UN. Remember, non-members can still *debate*, and they can even hand proposals to members and ask them to submit them. I'm not suggesting that players don't participate. But to rewrite the "law" because you *never* seem to like it? Gimme a break, we've read over the prior resolutions, and while some of them are written nothing like a real UN resolution or even treaty, the vast majority of the NS UN resolutions are pretty clear about what their major point it ... you really only need to read the title and game stats to figure out what the author was thinking.

That is why you'll see me give some advice to authors who post their draft ideas here even when I can already tell you that I smell a domestic issue and will be voting no on the resolution, if not campaigning against it.

It works like this: you walk onto a football (aka soccer) field. If you are getting beaten to hell and back, you can't stand there and say, "Hmmm, mind if we change the game now. Say, in the US they bounce the ball and throw it from hoops." Well, you can, but you'll be laughed the hell out of the stadium if you aren't in England, were instead you'll be set on fire and stabbed or something <--- OK, not true, but the violence in European football matches is amazing! That is by definition god modding, and players that continue to do that will be ignored.]

You'll note the wording of this particular proposal only outlaws MEN enslaving WOMEN and children?

So hire some women to enslave men, women, and children! It's not against the law! Or hire men to enslave men!

Bureaucratic nonsense...

[OOC: Chipmunks, you are wrong, in the real world nations ignore UN resolutions and sometimes they get treated to a shock and awe campaign when rooting tooting gun sling cowboy's get a hold of some bombs and high approval ratings. In english, in the real world, nations *do* in fact police each other, when there are "violations" of unilateral or bilateral agreements. Some of these disputes get settled in the UN or World Court, others through bilateral arrangements, and the final ones end up either never being solved or in the creation of a new Puppet state!

Understood. But the function of this in NS is an RPed one, right? So if you don't like that another nation has just ignored a resolution, you can take diplomatic/economic/military actions against them, but it isn't quite to the "You HAVE to do what I say" level. You don't have authority over a country the way they have authority over that country (that's part of RPing, right? not declaring other people's losses, etc?). That's what I was trying to get at.

There is UN god modding ... NS UN membership is voluntary, and if players find themselves doing MASSIVE rewrites to most resolutions, they should probably just leave the UN. Remember, non-members can still *debate*, and they can even hand proposals to members and ask them to submit them. I'm not suggesting that players don't participate. But to rewrite the "law" because you *never* seem to like it? Gimme a break, we've read over the prior resolutions, and while some of them are written nothing like a real UN resolution or even treaty, the vast majority of the NS UN resolutions are pretty clear about what their major point it ... you really only need to read the title and game stats to figure out what the author was thinking.

Of course, of course. I really don't want to see people ravaging the UN with lawlessness and incessant godmodding either. But I don't mean to suggest that this should be the case. I just want those that are adamant about member nations RPing in exactly the same way to back off a little. I think they are bad UN members. Those that godmod and ignore most or all UN resolutions are just as guilty of bad UN membership. I think that if you follow the main idea of a proposal and at least move your position reasonably (i.e. compromise to allow SOME prostitution in your country, under legitimate restraints, etc.) you should be in the middle ground.

I notice your opposition to "MASSIVE rewrites". And I agree. It illustrates to me less of a one-sided agenda and more of an interest in the balance and legitimacy of the role-play in the UN. I mean, if you were trying to prove that you DO/DON'T have to follow resoltions to the letter, I don't think you would have said it like that. I hope that I make it clear that I too want things to "be reasonable" and I want UN resolutions to have effect on member nations.


It works like this: you walk onto a football (aka soccer) field. If you are getting beaten to hell and back, you can't stand there and say, "Hmmm, mind if we change the game now. Say, in the US they bounce the ball and throw it from hoops." Well, you can, but you'll be laughed the hell out of the stadium if you aren't in England, were instead you'll be set on fire and stabbed or something <--- OK, not true, but the violence in European football matches is amazing! That is by definition god modding, and players that continue to do that will be ignored.]

Absolutely true. There are rules: you need to comply with UN resolutions. You can't just change them because you don't like them. That would result in a very un-united UN.

I notice your mention of continued abuse. I like that: in identifying people godmodding in the UN, it's important to take into account the severity of each case as well as the frequency of such cases.

I notice your mention of continued abuse. I like that: in identifying people godmodding in the UN, it's important to take into account the severity of each case as well as the frequency of such cases.


In a nutshell, that is exactly it. I suspect that your nation's opinion, that that of Rehochipe and my own on this subject are all really coming from the same point ... but as usual we are just describing the same process in vastly different words.

I do fear we've thread hijacked! :)

I've got no problem with an intelligent and interesting semantic dodge around the occasional poorly written resolution. (Our national animal is the weasel, after all). If people are going to be foolish enough to vote through a badly-worded resolution, then they're asking for this kind of treatment. What I object to are nations who say 'sorry, this is totally unacceptable and we repeal it in our nation but we're not leaving the UN and you can't stop me la la la', or people who come up with spurious redefinitions like 'okay, from now on prostitution in our nation means whelk-selling and the practise of selling sex will be referred to only as naughty badminton, henceforth illegal.'

OOC: Chipmunks, you are wrong, in the real world nations ignore UN resolutions and sometimes they get treated to a shock and awe campaign when rooting tooting gun sling cowboy's get a hold of some bombs and high approval ratings.

Unless they're Israel. [/tangent]

Clearly, where there's ambiguity in a document you can interpret creatively; that's half the fun. Hell, I've suggested get-out methods to allies on badly-worded bills even when I agree with the spirit of the resolution. I agree that it shouldn't be overused - one of the big reasons my nation left the UN was because we were having to bend backwards to render well-intentioned but criminally dangerous resolutions safe, and we didn't feel comfortable with that.

So the executive responsibilities fall to the individual nations, which have mandate from the legislative body to codify certain things into lawand act upon them, within their national boundaries. They only have jurisdiction within that space. But it isn’t the legislative body’s place to decide how the executive bodies do their jobs.
Technically speaking we have a Compliance Ministry, but since the enigmatic little guys lack explicative abilities it comes down to the same thing, I agree. There should clearly be some room for wriggling about within the limits of the document.