NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of this newest proposal to repeal prostitution, and regardless of whether it gets passed or not, I would like help re-writing a new legalize prostitution resolution. I would like in it to deal with the health issues, and deal with how it needs to be regulated, deal with safety of prostitutes, deal with all the safety, and health issues involved.

Yeah, regardless, we need this.
I have no experience, but I'm just posting to bump this.

I bet if you resubmit the original, it will pass again.

And then it will get repealed again..and passed again...and repealed again...

You know, Grace, despite all your talk about "ohh if you join the UN then you get screwed around with" stuff on the Repeal Legalized Prostitution thread, you just want legalized prostitution. Be honest! :p we dont hold it against you...there's 3000+ others who agree with you! :P

I'm a minor, plus, as being the President of my Nation, I get it for free.
I'm just concerned for the economy, and I have no morals too.

There you go folks, an honest man! If we only had more like him.

Well, maybe not about the no morals bit, but you know what I mean! :P

Being honest got me the job of being annoying, now back on topic.

The main point in any resolution legalising prostitution ought to be that the right to rent out your body for sex acts is one that adult citizens deserve - if we are to say that citizens are not free to do this, we are effectively denying them full ownership of their own bodies.

Any resolution should also avoid mandating specific regulations, because different regulations will work best in each nation, so by specifying regulations and forcing nations to toe a line is actually detrimental to the goal of regulation. Mandated regulations enforced by a resolution might also be impractical in poor nations without the ability to fund such programs.

That isn't to say that a proposal should not strongly urge nations to enact some kind of regulation of the industry to protect the workers and public health. It could suggest and endorse good regulatory approaches such as ensuring that prostitutes' rights as workers are protected just as they would be for other professions, offering free condoms or even mandating their use, licensing prostitutes, giving them free and regular health check-ups etc.

I bet if you resubmit the original, it will pass again.

It depends on how the moderators feel about that. Though I'm not certain, I would think that since Hack does actually read the text of a resolution that he *may* decide that as written this is a Social Justice resolution.

I've seen many proposals shot down because their text was opposite of their category. This did not used to be the case, which is why when the game was moved to the Jolt server so many resolutions were actually DELETED.

This really is a case where people are voting and debating the title of the resolution and ignoring the category and resolution text. It is kind of a shame too, in that it only fuels the anti-UN opinion that the UN is composed of players whom don't carefully read resolutions.

I've contacted a few nations on working on a new Social Justice resolution, and if anybody else is interested please let me know. Given the hostile nature of posts coming from a few (unnamed) players, I'd like to suggest that the intial drafting be done on another forum ... simply put, I would like to focus on making a good resolution and I'm sick and tired of name calling and flamebaiting.


The main point in any resolution legalising prostitution ought to be that the right to rent out your body for sex acts is one that adult citizens deserve - if we are to say that citizens are not free to do this, we are effectively denying them full ownership of their own bodies.

Actually that is a Free Trade issue, please see Cogitation's section (edited into Enodia's post) in the stickies.

Basically Cog wrote:

"Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms ... Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulate there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people.

The problem is, the moderators have pointed out in the past that we can't have our cake and eat it too.

Do you want social programs "helping poor/sick people" or do you want to remove the regulation (i.e. in this case restriction) of the sex trade?

It is easy to understand how people are confusing this. I really am sympathetic, but Cog went to a lot of hard work in September to write this when I was asking him to really make it clear what the various categories were to create an excellent description and I'd request that we honor his hard work and do this right.

I'll update this list as appropriate.

Nations Interested in Drafting a New Resolution related to prostitution:

Andorista
Engineering chaos (?)
Enn
Graceofseppuku
Mikitivity
Powerhungry Chipmunks (?)
Telidia

Just telegram me or post a reply if you would like to be added. (NOTE: If I miss your post, telegram me.)


I think the first question will really be, do we want to focus on the "Free Trade" issue, "It is a business, let's not have governments regulate it" or the public health "Social Justice" issue, "Let's find a way to make their living conditions better and give them a choice to do something else if they want."

I'll update this list as appropriate.

Nations Interested in Drafting a New Resolution related to prostitution:

Andorista
Engineering chaos (?)
Mikitivity
Powerhungry Chipmunks (?)
Telidia

Just telegram me or post a reply if you would like to be added. (NOTE: If I miss your post, telegram me.)


I think the first question will really be, do we want to focus on the "Free Trade" issue, "It is a business, let's not have governments regulate it" or the public health "Social Justice" issue, "Let's find a way to make their living conditions better and give them a choice to do something else if they want."

Hm...it seems as if those are all nations in favour of the repeal...hmm...
Conspiracy?

Hm...it seems as if those are all nations in favour of the repeal...hmm...
Conspiracy?

Nah.

Actually Telidia is opposed to the repeal.

On second thought, if it will encourage more nations to participate in the drafting process ... well yeah. It is a conspiracy to do something unique in NationStates history. To take a poorly written resolution that violates the rules and write a better one. But don't tell anybody! Its a secret.

;)

Oookay.

I think you should not have Powerhungry Chipmunks help write it, because there are already too many in there in favour of it to have it be fair.

Oookay.

I think you should not have Powerhungry Chipmunks help write it, because there are already too many in there in favour of it to have it be fair.

How about I invite you to participate to "balance" the scales a bit more? :)

How about I invite you to participate to "balance" the scales a bit more? :)

I'm no good with writing proposals.
I'll oversee the work, but I can't write any myself.

I'm no good with writing proposals.
I'll oversee the work, but I can't write any myself.

In that case, we'll teach you. :)

It is easy to poke holes in resolutions. Some players do nothing but. But actually writing a proposal is rewarding.

Heck, I don't even think having a resolution *pass* is as important as writing something well. Look at the ten resolutions that I felt changed the way the NationStates UN operated in 2004. Two of those resolutions actually failed! But they still resulted in long term changes in how we all think about the NS UN.


As more nations join this effort, the first step would be to scan the debate for good ideas and then make a quick list of what you want in a proposal. Engineering chaos did this yesterday, but his / her ideas might be different than what you or I want.

So I'm going to propose that everybody post a short list of what they want and then after a day or two we'll combine the ideas and see how many of them are repeated. Those we'll consider our core beliefs and work from there.

(Notice it has taken a few of us two weeks to really get somewhere on the Tsunami idea. Well written resolutions take time.)

I would be interested in taking part in the drafting of a new legalise prostitution proposal. And I'm opposed to the repeal.

I woud be interested in taking part in the drafting of a new legalise prostitution proposal. And I'm opposed to the repeal.

Yes!
Finally!

Yes!
Finally!


I'm also opposed to the repeal.

I'm applaud, except I've burnt my excitedness for today.

I'd like to see what the process is like.

I promise to consciously try not to flamebait. Not sure I know how to do that, but I'll do my best.

I'd like to see what the process is like.

I promise to consciously try not to flamebait. Not sure I know how to do that, but I'll do my best.
what exactly is flamebaiting before we continue?

Flamebait is posting offensive messages intended to provoke outrage and ffensive responses from large numbers of people. The mods really don't like it when people start flaming or flamebaiting.

what exactly is flamebaiting before we continue?

Enn beat me to it, but naturally we want to avoid it. For the time being we should be OK.

The poll BTW was an excellent idea, and will be useful in setting our priorities. My nation's vote has already been cast.

I and possibly a couple of other people in my region would like to help in drafting a new legalise prostitution proposal. Personally, I am in favour of the legalising prostitution, but the current 'legalise' reolution is poorly worded and does not take into account health issues etc.

Looking at the poll options, safety is probably the most important, and taxation the least. However, all the issues apart from the taxation should be given fairly equal importance if possible. I would have said that we should be focusing on the Social Justice side of things, ie encouraging education and disease control and stuff like that.

The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota wishes to express it's interest in participating in any new submission of this resolution.

The proposed issue lacks common sense! Evidently, if the prostitution is legal, it will be much better controlled by the government and all of the problems listed above will be excellently dealt with; vice verca, delegalization of prostitution will only worsen the situation, not improve it, i.e. worsen the situation with illnesses, situation people of this occupation are in, etc.

The proposed issue lacks common sense! This is the wrong place to discuss this. there is a much more apt topic ongoingEvidently, if the prostitution is legal, it will be much better controlled by the government and all of the problems listed above will be excellently dealt with;Well, I disagree with you. As does other people. For a start, if the resolution was half decent, it would specify that. Instead it does not, and people have to rely on implied meanings. Which is why getting it repealled and rewritten would be better than making do.

Your idea of rewriting it is very democratic. In your opinion, each nation should decide what do to with prostitution on their own, and I admire that, too. Actually, I hope that many other UN resolutions get repealed as well since they are non-democratic in their nature, in this case I am talking about freedom of choice of each of the nations, I don't remember if there was such resolution, about this freedom, or not.

Hm...it seems as if those are all nations in favour of the repeal...hmm...
Conspiracy?

Well actually if you come to the Federation of Engineering Chaos we would like you to visit one of our Government run brothels.
What I now see is that it is causing to much discontent to leagalise prostitution. However what is to stop us from introducing laws stating that Prostitutes should be put in rehab. rather than jail etc.
If we add that all members of a country should have a STD check every two years or something to tackle the initial problem with the larger nations supplying drugs if necassary to smaller ones.

In fact we could take this away from prostitution all together and Call this the Bill of Sexual Health or something. However the wording of the resolution would ahve to be such that it did effect the sex industry.
This would leave nations open to legalise or criminalise it, if they wanted; whilst regulating it.
I admitt it would not stop all the issues dead, but perhaps a second resolution could be used to plug any holes.

In your opinion, each nation should decide what do to with prostitution on their own, and I admire that, too.

I would prefer some self-determination on the matter, but I feel that a resolution should be brought in to ensure some welfare standards are enforced, regardless of if the act is legal or not. That would be far more beneficial than legalising without standards.

It seems that we have similar opinions on that matter, too. Perhaps, the issue is not what, in fact, it should be? Maybe it should have been about enforcing hygienic standarts and social protection? But self-determination on each of the matters is very worthful, I agree with that. However, by entering the UN each of the nations pays the price of having to enact the needed laws, etc.

However, by entering the UN each of the nations pays the price of having to enact the needed laws, etc.

yep. That's why we are allowed to appeal decisions, and if that isn't good enough, we can leave the UN.

We're getting off-topic already, but, yes, this is what is mentioned in the description of the UN, it cuts both ways, the nation entering the UN gets a good well-formed globalized legislation but it has to conform to existing rules. In fact, UN is meant to promote cooperation between countries, at least that is how I understand it.

Actually that is a Free Trade issue, please see Cogitation's section (edited into Enodia's post) in the stickies.

Basically Cog wrote:

"Free Trade" increases Economic freedoms ... Economic freedoms primarily discuss how much regulate there is on business/industry or how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people.

The problem is, the moderators have pointed out in the past that we can't have our cake and eat it too.

Do you want social programs "helping poor/sick people" or do you want to remove the regulation (i.e. in this case restriction) of the sex trade?

It is easy to understand how people are confusing this. I really am sympathetic, but Cog went to a lot of hard work in September to write this when I was asking him to really make it clear what the various categories were to create an excellent description and I'd request that we honor his hard work and do this right.

The argument I think is most important regarding prostitution is a human rights one, not free trade - the emphasis is not on deregulation of an industry, but the sexual freedom of consenting adults, i.e. it is the personal choice of the people involved to attach whatever conditions they like to sex.

All the rest, like regulation and ensuring the safety of the prostitutes seems to me to logically be secondary - once we decide to legalise prostitution as a human rights issue, we then need to think about how to mitigate some of the problems that arise from it.

EDIT: Oh and I wouldn't mind being involved with a redrafting effort, although it seems that most parties involved want to come at it from a different perspective to me.

My stance of on a redraft would be something much akin to Hirota's, whom I applaud for well-spokenness:

I would prefer some self-determination on the matter, but I feel that a resolution should be brought in to ensure some welfare standards are enforced, regardless of if the act is legal or not. That would be far more beneficial than legalising without standards.

I feel that forcing it to be legalized in member would attach too many moral or human rights-ish strings to a proposal which has so much potential to do good. Obviously, there are nations which feel people have a right to be a prostitute, and that this right must be protected in UN law. I disagree, and feel there's a greater need for a focus on safety and the stopping of possible disease spreading through prostitution than to take what I feel as a one-sided stance on the issue.

I'm interested in participating in the discussions for a 'replacement' proposal, however I will not be submitting such a proposal as I don't have the patience for it right now. I'm a little burntout with telegramming and need to take a break after this voting period ends. I'll contribute whatever I can.

The argument I think is most important regarding prostitution is a human rights one, not free trade - the emphasis is not on deregulation of an industry, but the sexual freedom of consenting adults, i.e. it is the personal choice of the people involved to attach whatever conditions they like to sex.

I think the point I'm trying to make is "What are economic freedoms?"


The following is a link to the sticked RULE post "Before you submit a proposal":
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176


A resolution promoting a *TAX* on prostitution is not free trade nor is it a human right, just like a resolution promoting education and health care for prostitutes is neither free trade or a human right. Taxation is a plain and simple welfare / social justice issue. It has its benefits, but what you and many others are doing is mistaking the mistake, "Well gee, Freedom must mean civil right."

The word human rights is misleading. The game treats "human rights" as civil freedoms. The game has three major freedoms: civil, economic, and political. Sometimes a daily issue will alter all three, sometimes daily issues trade off one freedom for one or the other two.

If I were to say, "It is a fundamental civil right for me to be able to directly propose laws and have my government put them on a ballot!" most NationStates players would say, "Dude, that is a political freedom."

The problem is that when we move away from political rights and start looking at economic rights, many players have a long history of not really making the destinction between "completely regulated economic activity" vs. "less regulated economic activity".

You may not ever sell your body for sex:
Highly regulated economic transaction, therefore negative economic freedom.

You may not ever have sex:
No economic transaction, no political activity, therefore a civil freedom.

You may have kiss pumkins:
No economic transaction, no political activity, therefore a civil freedom.

You may charge people to watch you kiss a pumpkin:
Economic transaction, less regulation, therefore positive economic freedom.

You may charge people to watch you kiss a pumpkin, but that is just SICK MAN! SICK I tell you, therefore we'll charge you a tax and send you to councilling:
Economic transaction, slightly regulated, therefore negative economic freedom (possible other benefits).

We have a resolution saying you can have sex when and where you want ... Resolution #2 Sexual Freedom. The right for prostitutes to have sex isn't being questions ... it is their right to *sell* sex that is. It is the economic issues.

The resolution was wrong, plain and simple, not on moral grounds, but on the fact that it violates the game RULES. It can be resubmitted. If the reference to taxation is removed, it can be a free trade issue. I'd likely vote for a well worded resolution like that. But if left unchanged, a resolution that includes a tax in order to "help" poor people can only be a social justice resolution.

Cogitation's (a game moderator) edited to Enodia's rules for the UN. I'm not sure if the Most Glorious Hack was involved in Cog's posts as well, but he made those edits after I started work on my own economic freedom's proposal back in late August / early Sept. I wanted there to be some clear rules and he went to a lot of trouble to come up with some great examples after I had been posting a great deal on other NS forums about this very subject.

Oh, no you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the old resolution. Of course, if the main drive of the resolution is to do with the earnings and taxes, then yes an economic proposal category is appropriate.

What I meant was that I'd like to see a prostitution proposal which approached the issue from a "human rights" category perspective - i.e. that if the state bans prostitution or other consensual physical acts (like drugs, certain types of consensual sexual activity), it is effectively declaring that citizens don't have full rights to their own bodies - that, to me, sounds very much like an issue of civil freedoms, therefore belonging in human rights.

EDIT: if it helps to explain, I voted for the second option on the poll

Oh, no you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the old resolution. Of course, if the main drive of the resolution is to do with the earnings and taxes, then yes an economic proposal category is appropriate.

What I meant was that I'd like to see a prostitution proposal which approached the issue from a "human rights" category perspective - i.e. that if the state bans prostitution or other consensual physical acts (like drugs, certain types of consensual sexual activity), it is effectively declaring that citizens don't have full rights to their own bodies - that, to me, sounds very much like an issue of civil freedoms, therefore belonging in human rights.

EDIT: if it helps to explain, I voted for the second option on the poll

Oh, I did misunderstand, I thought you were talking about the old resolution. :)

As for a future resolution, prostitution isn't about just who you "kiss", but is about the "trade" involved in it.

Remember when a nation (I forgot who) said he hated sluts and I corrected him that a slut gives it away for free, but the prostitute sells it? The minute we are talking about *money* or *goods* it is no longer a civil freedom, but an economic freedom.

In the real world, human rights include:

- Civil Freedoms
- Economic Freedoms
- Political Freedoms

In NationStates they are completely separate. You can call prostitution a "fundamental freedom for all people", but that doesn't change the fact that it is an economic issue.

I honestly believe the "man kissing a pumpkin" is covered in Resolution #2. Ditto for "woman kissing a stranger".

But "woman kissing a stranger and wanting $100" is what changes a civil freedom into an economic freedom. Just like "woman complaining about government" is a civil freedom, but "woman wanting to change government based on her complaint" is a political freedom.

The DSH did try and repeal this resolution back in November, but did not get very far. For the benefit of getting a discussion on this rolling in the right direction, I'll post a copy of the repeal proposal I written, as well as the proposal I had drafted. I appreciate it is far too large (a bad habit of mine), but it provides a starting point, and also shows exactly what my governments intentions are.

I am also aware there is stuff in there which is effectively redundant.
*************************
DRAFT REPEAL FOR LEGALISING PROSTITUTION
The general assembly;

Accepting that this resolution makes prostitution legal, which does reducing the legal consequences to the victim;

Highly Concerned that it makes no effort to target the forces responsible for prostitution, namely the procurement, promotion, organisation, perpetration and usage of prostitution and sexual exploitation as a whole;

Noting the resolution made no efforts to encourage the rehabilitation and treatment of the victims,

Further noting the resolution made no effort to ensure appropiate medical care of victims.

Eager to submit alternative legislation concerning prostitution and the exploitation within the sex industry, which seeks to redress these oversights, notably to punish the perpetrators of sexual exploitation, legislation which makes efforts to protect the victims of sexual exploitation and bring about equality of the sexes.

Determined to stamp out the exploitation of women, and make amends for the failures of the previous resolution.

Urges member states to endorse this repeal.
*************************
DRAFTED PROPOSAL
The States Parties to the Present Convention,

Considering that recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family without distinction as to sex is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Having regard to the End slavery resolution, and the Sexes Rights Law, which prohibit slavery and the slave trade in all its forms, efforts to promote equality between the sexes

Having regard to Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights, which recognizes the right of all persons to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Concerned that human rights are seriously threatened by the massive and growing sexual exploitation of women and children, recognizing that women have the right to sexual integrity and autonomy,

Recognizing further that sexual exploitation, including prostitution, abrogates these rights and subordinates women as a group, and therefore violates human dignity and the right of equality,

Concerned that sexual exploitation inflicts grave harm and often takes the extreme forms of sexual slavery, torture, mutilation and death, Concerned that sexual violence and prostitution are not inevitable but are forms of sexual exploitation,

Concerned that sexual exploitation, including prostitution, has increasingly become an integral part of national practices which have deprived women of their human rights, Considering that there is no convention presently in existence which addresses sexual exploitation of adults, Recognizing the need for a new convention that will affirm and expand the definition of sexual exploitation which includes violence against women and prostitution as a violation of human rights,

Have agreed as follows:

Defines Sexual exploitation as the sexual violation of a person's human dignity, equality, and physical and mental integrity. It is a practice by which some people (primarily men) achieve power and domination over others (primarily women and children) for the purposes of sexual gratification, financial gain, and/or advancement

Determined that it is a fundamental right to be free from sexual exploitation. Member states will take all necessary measures to eliminate all forms of sexual exploitation. The violation and harm of sexual exploitation is not obviated by the consent of the victim.

Calls upon member States to initiate preventive policies and practices to prevent all forms of sexual exploitation and agree to:

a) Reject state economic policies and practices of development that help precipitate persons into situations of sexual exploitation;

b) Ensure that valid written contracts of employment are entered into and that existing labor laws protect migrant workers, monitoring the provisions of such contracts in order to protect these workers from sexual exploitation in the host country;

c) Enact or enforce such regulations, as the right to retain one's own passport or travel documents, that are necessary for the protection of persons in the migrating process at places of departure, arrival and while en route;

d) Monitor public transportation and port facilities for the presence of persons who appear to be principals, accomplices and customers engaged in prostitution and trafficking and to protect the victims of prostitution and trafficking;

e) Adopt special provisions to prevent the sexual exploitation of persons during all situations of armed conflict. In refugee camps and evacuation centers, States Parties will appoint a special team of observers to prevent and monitor violations of sexual exploitation.

Declares that member states will provide those most vulnerable to sexual exploitation and victims of sexual exploitation with:

a) Educational programs and work to increase their economic opportunities and enhance their status and worth;

b) Shelter and housing assistance;

c) Voluntary and confidential counseling and medical services, particularly for prevention, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV and AIDS, and substance abuse.

Determined that Member States shall punish perpetrators of sexual exploitation and redress the harm done to victims by developing penal, civil, labor and administrative sanctions. Member States shall reject any policy or law that legitimizes the prostitution of anyone and that renders lawful or regulates prostitution in any way

Urges Member States to adopt legislation that recognizes prostitution as sexual exploitation by punishing anyone who procures a person for prostitution by any means, even with that person's consent; anyone who knowingly keeps, manages or finances or takes part in the financing of a brothel; anyone who knowingly lets or rents a building or other place for the purpose of prostitution;

Urges member states to punish customers who promote the demand for the prostitution of others;

Urges member states to punish their military personnel, diplomatic officials, peacekeeping forces, and related personnel, whether on home territory or outside the country, for any involvement in the sexual exploitation of others, including prostitution;

Requests member states Repeal criminal or civil penalties, where they exist, against the victims of sexual exploitation and prostitution.

Member States agree to punish individuals and enterprises, including customers, who organize, profit from, or engage in sex tourism.

Determined that Member States shall insure that victims' history of prostitution, cannot be used against them.

Declares member states undertake to make the principles and provisions of the resolution widely known by appropriate and active means to adults and children alike.

Determined to remain seized on the matter
*************************

On a first read, I really like it ... but I've always appreciated your proposals, it is a shame that we've not seen one reach the UN floor! :(

I'll color code the various __activating__ clauses verses what category of UN resolution I feel they are:

Free Trade :: Increasing Economic Freedoms
Social Justice :: Decreasing Economic Freedoms & Improving Welfare
Human Rights :: Increasing Civil Freedoms
Moral Decency :: Decreasing Civil Freedoms


DRAFTED PROPOSAL
The States Parties to the Present Convention,

Considering that recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of all members of the human family without distinction as to sex is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Having regard to the End slavery resolution, and the Sexes Rights Law, which prohibit slavery and the slave trade in all its forms, efforts to promote equality between the sexes

Having regard to Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights, which recognizes the right of all persons to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Concerned that human rights are seriously threatened by the massive and growing sexual exploitation of women and children, recognizing that women have the right to sexual integrity and autonomy,

Recognizing further that sexual exploitation, including prostitution, abrogates these rights and subordinates women as a group, and therefore violates human dignity and the right of equality,

Concerned that sexual exploitation inflicts grave harm and often takes the extreme forms of sexual slavery, torture, mutilation and death, Concerned that sexual violence and prostitution are not inevitable but are forms of sexual exploitation,

Concerned that sexual exploitation, including prostitution, has increasingly become an integral part of national practices which have deprived women of their human rights, Considering that there is no convention presently in existence which addresses sexual exploitation of adults, Recognizing the need for a new convention that will affirm and expand the definition of sexual exploitation which includes violence against women and prostitution as a violation of human rights,

Have agreed as follows:

1. Defines Sexual exploitation as the sexual violation of a person's human dignity, equality, and physical and mental integrity, and is a practice by which some people achieve power and domination over others for the purposes of sexual gratification, financial gain, and/or advancement;

2. Proclaims that it is a fundamental right to be free from sexual exploitation and that member states will take all necessary measures to eliminate all forms of sexual exploitation with the understanding that the violation and harm of sexual exploitation is not obviated by the consent of the victim;

3. Calls upon member States to initiate preventive policies and practices to prevent all forms of sexual exploitation and agree to:

a) Reject state economic policies and practices of development that help precipitate persons into situations of sexual exploitation;

b) Ensure that valid written contracts of employment are entered into and that existing labor laws protect migrant workers, monitoring the provisions of such contracts in order to protect these workers from sexual exploitation in the host country;

c) Enact or enforce such regulations, as the right to retain one's own passport or travel documents, that are necessary for the protection of persons in the migrating process at places of departure, arrival and while en route;

d) Monitor public transportation and port facilities for the presence of persons who appear to be principals, accomplices and customers engaged in prostitution and trafficking and to protect the victims of prostitution and trafficking;

e) Adopt special provisions to prevent the sexual exploitation of persons during all situations of armed conflict, with special attention given to refugee camps and evacuation centers, where members will appoint a special team of observers to prevent and monitor violations of sexual exploitation.

4. Declares that member states will provide those most vulnerable to sexual exploitation and victims of sexual exploitation with:

a) Educational programs and work to increase their economic opportunities and enhance their status and worth;

b) Shelter and housing assistance;

c) Voluntary and confidential counseling and medical services, particularly for prevention, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV and AIDS, and substance abuse.

5. Determined that member states shall punish perpetrators of sexual exploitation and redress the harm done to victims by developing penal, civil, labor and administrative sanctions. Member States shall reject any policy or law that legitimizes the prostitution of anyone and that renders lawful or regulates prostitution in any way

6. Urges the adoption of legislation that recognizes prostitution as sexual exploitation by punishing anyone who procures a person for prostitution by any means, even with that person's consent; anyone who knowingly keeps, manages or finances or takes part in the financing of a brothel; anyone who knowingly lets or rents a building or other place for the purpose of prostitution;

7. Urges member states to punish customers who promote the demand for the prostitution of others;

8. Urges member states to punish their military personnel, diplomatic officials, peacekeeping forces, and related personnel, whether on home territory or outside the country, for any involvement in the sexual exploitation of others, including prostitution;

9. Requests member states Repeal criminal or civil penalties, where they exist, against the victims of sexual exploitation and prostitution;

10. Member States agree to punish individuals and enterprises, including customers, who organize, profit from, or engage in sex tourism.

11. Declares that victims' history of prostitution, cannot be used against them; and

12. Further Urges member states undertake to make the principles and provisions of the resolution widely known by appropriate and active means to adults and children alike.
*************************

First off, your text is about a ZILLION times better than the current Legalize Prostitution. However, the point of me color coding the activating clauses is that I think you have falling into the Verbosity Trap. ;) Trying to do too much with one document. That is what pitted my International Disaster Assistance (later Good Samaritan Laws) against a mod.

Cog ended up doing the same to my International Disaster Assistance proposal and I cut it down to just one activity. That said, preambulatory clauses don't matter that much, and I'd actually advocate that parts of them can be recycled. We can work on them later.

Clauses 1 & 2 are indirectly covered elsewhere, but it wouldn't hurt to just have a "Freedom from Sexual Exploitation" human rights resolution drafted to really drive this point home.

Clauses 7 & 8 are restrictions on civil freedoms. They are classic moral decency issues, and I'm thinking we can make a moral decency issue as its own resolution.

Most of the rest of the material is either classic social justice or I'm still thinking about it ... I'd rather you focus on that.

So this is going to sound crazy, but let's draft up multiple resolutions:

Freedom from Sexual Exploitation
Helping Vicitims of Sexual Exploitation
Discouraging Government Sponsored Prostitution

Oh, I did misunderstand, I thought you were talking about the old resolution. :)

As for a future resolution, prostitution isn't about just who you "kiss", but is about the "trade" involved in it.

Remember when a nation (I forgot who) said he hated sluts and I corrected him that a slut gives it away for free, but the prostitute sells it? The minute we are talking about *money* or *goods* it is no longer a civil freedom, but an economic freedom.

In the real world, human rights include:

- Civil Freedoms
- Economic Freedoms
- Political Freedoms

In NationStates they are completely separate. You can call prostitution a "fundamental freedom for all people", but that doesn't change the fact that it is an economic issue.

I honestly believe the "man kissing a pumpkin" is covered in Resolution #2. Ditto for "woman kissing a stranger".

But "woman kissing a stranger and wanting $100" is what changes a civil freedom into an economic freedom. Just like "woman complaining about government" is a civil freedom, but "woman wanting to change government based on her complaint" is a political freedom.


Hmmm.

You have a point. It's just that I tend to see the legalisation of prostitution as simply part of a wider issue - that of government banning private consensual adult behaviours. Really, I'd like a proposal which simply announced that principle, thus in one swoop legalising drugs, prostitution, other consensual sexual activity etc. That would be a human rights proposal, but it would be too difficult to write without loopholes and would probably be shot down by mods for crossing into the recreational drugs category. So my mind sees a Legalise Prostitution resolution as part of an effort to get that human rights principle enshrined in international law.

You're probably right that an individual resolution legalising prostitution should be under free trade. But I'd still like it to emphasise this principle.

Well, hmmm ...

The category is based on what the resolution __does__ (the activating clauses). The justification can include many things, including an initial statement saying that the point behind "economic freedoms and less regulation" is that prostitution is a human right.

We have the right to a job. <-- human right / civil freedom
That job shouldn't have too much regulation. <-- economic freedom

Hirota, after the drafting process (hopefully as soon as next week), I will support your proposal. I offer my telegramming services. I find your proposal ideas and overall viewpoint to be thorough and in agreement with mine. I'll support it as soon as it's ready.

Hirota, after the drafting process (hopefully as soon as next week), I will support your proposal. I offer my telegramming services. I find your proposal ideas and overall viewpoint to be thorough and in agreement with mine. I'll support it as soon as it's ready.

Well, it's just a starting point, we need to get it cut down to size, and I'm happy if someone else wants to use mine as a starting point for a future proposal

That job shouldn't have too much regulation. <-- economic freedom

I think it should be quite heavily regulated actually (STD check-ups, compulsory condoms etc. - although I think that specifying obligatory regulations in a proposal might be a bad idea because different solutions work best in different nations), just not regulated into illegality.

I think it should be quite heavily regulated actually (STD check-ups, compulsory condoms etc. - although I think that specifying obligatory regulations in a proposal might be a bad idea because different solutions work best in different nations), just not regulated into illegality.

It sounds like we could make a "sex industry trade" social justice, because what you've written sounds like it could equally benefit the porn industry.

That does raise an interesting question. If pornography is allowed, and the actors are being paid, what is the fundamental difference between two actors and two non-actors, if money is still being exchanged?


Let's really start to work now. :) I'll support and telegram for a social justice resolution like this, that legalises, but regulates the sex trade ...

One thing, I'm also very involved with the tsunami draft proposal, so I can't go at this effort 100%.

TAG. I will discuss this tommorow.

<sigh>

Already there is a proposal to reintroduce the old resolution, but if anything, it's even worse than before!It is not the job of the UN or any government body to ensure the helath of it's citizens.So why are nations trying to legislate it? Surely even those with common sense who voted against the repeal would rather it stayed in to (as they claim) protect health?

We had best get a substancial, cast iron resolution in place to stop this kind of idiocy.

This doesn't surprise me.

In fairness, if something better or worse reaches the UN Floor, I'll judge that proposal on the merit of both its arguments and whatever progress we've made here.

I think we have enough interested parties to make a good resolution, so let's continue that process. :)

Hirota, I have a number of objections regarding your proposal. I'll outline them below:

Proposal

Determined that it is a fundamental right to be free from sexual exploitation. Member states will take all necessary measures to eliminate all forms of sexual exploitation. The violation and harm of sexual exploitation is not obviated by the consent of the victim.

It should. Technically speaking if someone is willingly submissive it is not against their rights. Rather, what should be prevented is forced submission, not submission as a whole.

Determined that Member States shall punish perpetrators of sexual exploitation and redress the harm done to victims by developing penal, civil, labor and administrative sanctions. Member States shall reject any policy or law that legitimizes the prostitution of anyone and that renders lawful or regulates prostitution in any way

Frankly, this is unacceptable. You cannot legalize prostitution and then turn around and say that governments cannot support it. If it is to become a legal industry it should not get any preferential treatment (or, in this case, "distreatment").

Urges Member States to adopt legislation that recognizes prostitution as sexual exploitation by punishing anyone who procures a person for prostitution by any means, even with that person's consent; anyone who knowingly keeps, manages or finances or takes part in the financing of a brothel; anyone who knowingly lets or rents a building or other place for the purpose of prostitution;

Urges member states to punish customers who promote the demand for the prostitution of others;

See above.

Member States agree to punish individuals and enterprises, including customers, who organize, profit from, or engage in sex tourism.

This is against fundamental human rights- willing patrons and willing "employees" should not be punished by the government, as they harm no one. Furthermore, if a bunch of prostitutes united into a company it should not be considered illegal. The only times it should ever become illegal is if people are forced into the profession- then their rights are violated and the government must act. Otherwise, it's their business to do what they want.

Overall, I find your proposal does not deal with the issue in a satisfactory manner. You treat prostitution as if it is a disease, which is, in our view, the wrong way to tackle the issue. Prostitution is not a disease- like any profession, it should be treated on an equal footing with other professions and should not be the subject of government scorn. Yes, people may not enjoy other jobs- fast food work comes to mind- but the government does not make it official policy to scorn that work. The government must recognize that the possibility that there are those who will want to work at that kind of job, and thus should not- and can not- obstacle their path. The same should be true of prostitution- it is a part of fundamental human rights to be given the right to sell their bodies voluntarily. True, some people may not like it, but seeing how someone willingly selling themselves for whatever reason does not harm anyone else then it needs to be permitted and the right to do so protected.

Rather, the issue's problems need to be addressed: the problem of people "needing" to become prostitutes to pay off bills, the problem of people being forced into the profession, the problem of STD's, the problem of unwilling exploitation (take careful note of the word "unwilling") and the problem of the job's "status" (I also think you need to remove the portion prohibiting government officials or police officers- when off duty- to become patrons of prostitution. Off-duty police officers should enjoy the same rights as everyone else, and some cultures (like Vastiva's) centres around the government having a harem). These issues can all be addressed without making prostitution appear unwanted as, if it is regulated, it can become a noble and rather profitable and enjoyable profession. Removing prostitution does not get rid of the problems, it only makes them worse. We do not want to repeat the errors of the Great Plague (OOC: a similar disaster to the RL Black Death), where people swatted the rats instead of tackling the real source of the disease itself, the fleas. Please do not make a rat out of prostitution.

Rather, the issue's problems need to be addressed: the problem of people "needing" to become prostitutes to pay off bills, the problem of people being forced into the profession, the problem of STD's, the problem of unwilling exploitation (take careful note of the word "unwilling") and the problem of the job's "status" (I also think you need to remove the portion prohibiting government officials or police officers- when off duty- to become patrons of prostitution. Off-duty police officers should enjoy the same rights as everyone else, and some cultures (like Vastiva's) centres around the government having a harem).

I agree that the issue of government officials and police officers should be addressed in a different resolution (for largely technical reasons ... a clause prohibiting them may be considered a "moral decency" issue, as it would restrict their civil rights, in the interest of providing better security for everybody else's).

However, I'd like to suggest that instead of completely abandoning that element of debate, that when an official takes the job of being a government employee, that he or she is placed in a higher standard. The public does put trust into this individual, and given that government employees are often on call 24/7 (OOC: I am ... true, I could be conscripted in the event of a flood and put to work either inspecting levees or working in a call center, though it has yet to happen, *knocking on wood), it may be best to advocate that if you want to engage in transactions / interactions in a profession, that measures should be adopted at the very least to limit the conflict of interest ... i.e. when are you wearing the badge and when are you a citizen.

Here is a question I've asked before ...

What is the difference between a porn star, who is paid for sex, and a prostitute, who is also paid for sex?

I agree that the issue of government officials and police officers should be addressed in a different resolution (for largely technical reasons ... a clause prohibiting them may be considered a "moral decency" issue, as it would restrict their civil rights, in the interest of providing better security for everybody else's).

However, I'd like to suggest that instead of completely abandoning that element of debate, that when an official takes the job of being a government employee, that he or she is placed in a higher standard. The public does put trust into this individual, and given that government employees are often on call 24/7 (OOC: I am ... true, I could be conscripted in the event of a flood and put to work either inspecting levees or working in a call center, though it has yet to happen, *knocking on wood), it may be best to advocate that if you want to engage in transactions / interactions in a profession, that measures should be adopted at the very least to limit the conflict of interest ... i.e. when are you wearing the badge and when are you a citizen.

That is what I am thinking...off-duty officials and police officers should enjoy the same benefits of prostitution as everyone else. They should not be allowed to "use" their badge to gain services.

Also- as I believe Vastiva will state- government-run harems, should they exist, should be protected, since it is a part of that society's culture.

However, I'd like to suggest that instead of completely abandoning that element of debate, that when an official takes the job of being a government employee, that he or she is placed in a higher standard. The public does put trust into this individual, and given that government employees are often on call 24/7

I disagree. They should be held to a certain standard while they are at work, but what they do in their own hours (if they are not breaking the law) should not matter to us.

That is to say while they are representing the government and the nation they should act in a manner accordingly, but when they are not doing that (and even anyone who is on call 24/7 can be considered off duty, even if they then are called back to work) they should be permitted to act anyway they see fit as long as it is not breaking the laws of the nation. (There is some gray area here - if they are going to pass laws about morals in people's private lives then they should live up to that, but that is about it).

I disagree. They should be held to a certain standard while they are at work, but what they do in their own hours (if they are not breaking the law) should not matter to us.

That is to say while they are representing the government and the nation they should act in a manner accordingly, but when they are not doing that (and even anyone who is on call 24/7 can be considered off duty, even if they then are called back to work) they should be permitted to act anyway they see fit as long as it is not breaking the laws of the nation. (There is some gray area here - if they are going to pass laws about morals in people's private lives then they should live up to that, but that is about it).

Maybe we need to insert a clause that states that "off-duty conduct" (which we'd probably have to define) be dealt with at the discretion of the nations involved, so if any nation has a different set of morals regarding their officials they can still enforce them.

It sounds like we could make a "sex industry trade" social justice, because what you've written sounds like it could equally benefit the porn industry.

That does raise an interesting question. If pornography is allowed, and the actors are being paid, what is the fundamental difference between two actors and two non-actors, if money is still being exchanged?

I have wondered that myself. (OOC: I think that's part of why, AFAIK, prostitution itself is technically legal in the UK - I think it's soliciting or something that's illegal)

This sounds sensible. I must emphasise that I agree with RomeW - I cannot support something which would have UN governments be against prostitution. _Myopia_'s government doesn't feel it would be consistent to oppose voluntary prostitution on the grounds that it is degrading, because there are very many professions that could be regarded as degrading or undesirable.

If off-duty conduct is to be dealt with at the discretion of nations, then I don't think we really need to mention it in a proposal.

I have wondered that myself. (OOC: I think that's part of why, AFAIK, prostitution itself is technically legal in the UK - I think it's soliciting or something that's illegal)

If off-duty conduct is to be dealt with at the discretion of nations, then I don't think we really need to mention it in a proposal.

Oh, but that is how we can write the Moral Decency issue. To urge that nations indentify the means to write local laws and regulations such that abuses of authority will not take away the civil rights of those in the sex industry by considering addressing creating domestic laws to regulate what government officials can do while on-duty. :)

Look at my Good Samaritan Laws resolution for an example of how we can do this, while still respecting sovereignty.

However, the moral decency issue should be left (in my opinion) until we've established what to do about affirming that prostitution really is similar to porn flicks. It is about people, actors or not, performing and getting paid. I think that what we need to do is start a survey to find out the degree to which the sex industry is regulated in various nationstates.

This is what I was suggesting to my region mates:

I also will want to run a poll on NationStates proper asking nations to what degree they currently regulate prostitution in their nations:

It is Illegal (Highest Regulation)
It is Closely Monitored by Government (High Regulation)
It it Somewhat Monitored (Moderate Regulation)
It is Loosely Monitored by Government (Low Regulation)
There are no laws whatsoever (No Regulation)


It posted on the NationStates forum, and if enough of us campaigned for others to answer the survey and talk about the issue, we could pull information from the survey and use it to formulate a policy that really is geared towards the problem in NationStates. :)

While watching the resolution debate, I noticed stats from the US, Australia, and Thailand came up. I also *thought* (could be wrong) that it looked like people came to different conclusions concerning prostitution in these countries, and that to me suggests that countries in NationStates may have different cultural values and regulations.

If we want to "deregulate", if we felt that most nations had too many restrictions, free trade is the answer. If the opposite is true, then we use social justice.

I think the idea of going to nations and asking them how they would describe the situtation is kinda of a rare thing in NationStates. I could be wrong, but it would be eye opening. :)

You know, looking at the whole 'porn star' issue from, say, a disembodied viewpoint, with modern morals, but no preconcieved ideas (if your'e following me); then porn could be seen as worse than prostitution, as not only are they being paid for sex, but other people are watching them; whereas with protitution they are only being paid for sex?

Oh, but that is how we can write the Moral Decency issue. To urge that nations indentify the means to write local laws and regulations such that abuses of authority will not take away the civil rights of those in the sex industry by considering addressing creating domestic laws to regulate what government officials can do while on-duty. :)

Pardon? Could you explain what you mean?

I also will want to run a poll on NationStates proper asking nations to what degree they currently regulate prostitution in their nations:

It is Illegal (Highest Regulation)
It is Closely Monitored by Government (High Regulation)
It it Somewhat Monitored (Moderate Regulation)
It is Loosely Monitored by Government (Low Regulation)
There are no laws whatsoever (No Regulation)

This is a little vague. I have no idea which of the middle 3 categories I would fall into.

Seeing where the NS world is starting from here would be interesting, but I don't really have time to get involved in much. Also, by using the forum you are going to get a fairly biased sample, so keep in mind that any conclusions you draw may not be representative.

It it Somewhat Monitored (Moderate Regulation)

I think we'd stand here. We'd regulate it so that no one is forced into it and that all prostitutes are clean of STD's, but other than that we have no controls.

I think the idea of going to nations and asking them how they would describe the situtation is kinda of a rare thing in NationStates. I could be wrong, but it would be eye opening. :)

Well, I base myself around Roman culture (obviously) in a modernized sense. For example, with Rome accepting the UN Bill of Rights they'd accept it to the letter- as per what the ancient Romans did- meaning that the freedom of choice is just that- the freedom of choice. No restrictions (unless it infringes on the rights of someone else), so that means people have the right to sell themselves.

I got hit with a ton of work this afternoon ... ugh ugh. If somebody else could start that poll in NationStates and tag this thread with a link, and run it unending, we could maybe get *some* data. Perhaps it would be appropriate to run it here instead. I just don't know which forum is more appropriate, but the thread would be interesting.

But I'm off to review a paper. :)

This is a little vague. I have no idea which of the middle 3 categories I would fall into.

Seeing where the NS world is starting from here would be interesting, but I don't really have time to get involved in much. Also, by using the forum you are going to get a fairly biased sample, so keep in mind that any conclusions you draw may not be representative.

It is designed to be vague. If it were too detailed, it might be leading in that nations would just adopt a standard policy. We are actually only trying to poke players enough so they create their own systems and tell us. We could say, "Please feel free to describe your laws."

It may be biased, but if the survey is responded to by enough nations would that bias lean in one way or another? I don't think the forums are biased, but I do feel there is a danger posed by designing leading polls -- which we want to avoid.

For example, would you say this forum is more liberal or conservative? I honestly don't know ... though I'd say a bit more liberal. But I don't have a feel for the NationStates forum (which might be the other appropriate place). In any event, I don't think we can say that Thailand or American reports really apply to all situtations (though they still make great examples of "some" places and offer valuable insight into what we can do here).

I got hit with a ton of work this afternoon ... ugh ugh. If somebody else could start that poll in NationStates and tag this thread with a link, and run it unending, we could maybe get *some* data. Perhaps it would be appropriate to run it here instead. I just don't know which forum is more appropriate, but the thread would be interesting.

But I'm off to review a paper. :)

EDIT: Poll Done. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389237)

I see what you're getting at Mikitivity with the issue of vagueness - actually this approach is probably best since I don't really think specific regulations should be mandated - local solutions etc. I'll post something explaining that on the poll thread to get the ball rolling.

I've just gone through this whole thread, and part of what I think is the problem given the game rules for resolutions and proposals, and how political judgments are made in real life, is that (one) a intelligent approach to the issue cannot be dealt with in one resolution, and (two) the resolutions would need to be sequenced to build upon one another to make up a workable framework that can withstand a repeal of one of the resolutions, based upon comments the mods have posted about the effect of a repeal that would cause a deletion of other adopted resolutions.

That takes very careful writing.

Too many proposals here tend to be poorly written and that is becoming a pet peeve for me. Grosseschnauzer is part of a large region, so all we can do to make recommendations to the delegate, but I've recommended against votes more than once already because of poor writing.

I'm not sure what sequence would work best given the point that Mitivikity made upthread about there being four different subject areas, but I'd be intersted in seeing how the resolutions would look.

As far as Grosseschnauzer, the nation, is concerned, the recent repeal had no effect. (Here's a scenario that I don't think has been considered.) Since Grosseschnauzer came into being and joined the UN while the Legalize Prostituion resolution was in effect, its repeal had no effect under Grosseschnauzer's domestic laws. Civil rights and political freedoms being what they are here, it remained legal. The only question was how it might be regulated or licensed as a business activity. As with other business minimum health and safety standards can be imposed as a condition for operating a business, but such licensing is subject to principles of due process, equal protection, and non-confiscation of private property without just compensation. In other words, whatever standards were put in place as a result of the adoption of the earlier resolution remained in place notwithstanding the UN repeal, simply because it would have violated Grosseschnauzer's federal charter to have done otherwise.

Ah, the wonders of poorly drafted documents in the first place.

I don't agree that we need more than one resolution. We would only need more than one if we were going to put in place specific regulations - I think the best approach is to say something like "it is the responsibility of local or national governments to regulate the sex industries in the interests of public health and the wellbeing of those workers. Appropriate measures may include...."