NationStates Jolt Archive

I ask you to approve of the proposed repeal of resolution #91, in which repealing will let countries that approve of prostitution keep it, and countries who disapprove of prostitution ban it.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Your%20Title%20Here

http://img112.echo.cx/img112/9274/mossproposal8ky.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Post a copy of your repeal proposal here, please. Maybe you could link to it as well. :)

That said, I support a repeal of the Sex Industry Worker Act.

Hell no. Next?

http://img112.echo.cx/img112/9274/mossproposal8ky.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

agree here. we are against repealing this. it would only lead to it going back underground, and the spread of STDs due to the lack of education it provides

I'll be nice and do this for you, once, next time do it yourself.



A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #91


Proposed by: Holy Paradise

Description: UN Resolution #91: The Sex Industry Worker Act (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECALLING the repeal of resolution #46 "Legalize Prostitution"

NOTING that many UN nations do not want prostitution legal in their countries and wish to ban, and noting that some countries wish to keep prostitution in their countries, but not force their belief on those disapproving of prostitution, I ask the UN to repeal resolution #91 "The Sex Industry Worker Act".

ALSO noting that even if prostitution is legalized, crime rates do rise in the so-called "red-light districts".

ASSURING the UN member countries that do want to keep prostitution legalized that they shall be allowed to do such.

ALSO assuring the UN member countries that do not want to keep prostitution legalized may ban it in their countries.

NOTING that not everyone in all UN member countries wants prostitution legalized.

CONDEMNS the use of children in the sex industry in countries where it is allowed and the use of children sexually in countries where prostitution is banned.I like it, you have my support.

I'll be nice and do this for you, once, next time do it yourself.

I like it, you have my support.

My, aren't you easy. No tip.

My, aren't you easy. No tip.
Hey, I never liked that resolution to begin with.

*reads over*
1) we have notice a reduction in crime in our 'red-light' districts, and an overall improvment in the quality of the services offered
2) the child labour and pedophilia resolutions already protect children anyway.

ALSO noting that even if prostitution is legalized, crime rates do rise in the so-called "red-light districts".

Krioval does not have red light districts. The only time a "district" has red lights is when a lockdown alert is issued, and believe me, paying for sex at a time like that, while not uncommon if the threat is especially dire, is not looked upon favorably. Some of our (legal, thanks in small part to Res 91) brothels are located in extremely upscale parts of Torokara, arguably among the wealthiest regions in Krioval. That the proposer of this repeal is incapable of providing one's own security through upping the police funding (why not tax the prostitution industry and pay for the cops that way?) is not our problem.

In short, Krioval has noted no additional crime due to legalizing prostitution, and some areas have even reported a drop in domestic violence and sexual assaults. This makes sense, since a victimized prostitute can go to the authorities without fear of being prosecuted for his or her profession.

CONDEMNS the use of children in the sex industry in countries where it is allowed and the use of children sexually in countries where prostitution is banned.

Repeals may not enact new legislation, not that this matters since it's already covered by other resolutions.

In closing,

http://img216.echo.cx/img216/5885/theeconomycard9be.jpg

Think of the children. Don't hurt my economy.

NOTING that many UN nations do not want prostitution legal in their countries and wish to ban, and noting that some countries wish to keep prostitution in their countries, but not force their belief on those disapproving of prostitution, I ask the UN to repeal resolution #91 "The Sex Industry Worker Act".

Please note that this is a common misconception. Whether this resolution is repealed or not, prostitution still exists. Repealing this resolution will not make prostitution disappear.

ALSO noting that even if prostitution is legalized, crime rates do rise in the so-called "red-light districts".

Rubbish. Crime will go down. First of all, of course, because prostitutes aren't criminals anymore. But it becomes a business like others. And believe me, if you want to make money, you certainly don't want criminals spoiling your neighbourhood. It's like saying that legal shopping centres increase crime rates. But then why does nobody try to outlaw shopping centres?

ALSO assuring the UN member countries that do not want to keep prostitution legalized may ban it in their countries.

Resulting in a rise in STDs, crime, sexual abuse, etc. Do you really want that?

CONDEMNS the use of children in the sex industry in countries where it is allowed and the use of children sexually in countries where prostitution is banned.

Of course. We already have resolution banning that. So this is a futile attempt at pretending that the SIWA allows child abuse, which is simply sick.

I agree with Krioval on this one...

Most of our industry is locating near up-scale areas in all Dominions of this Republic. And the industry is held to the same protections and controls as other industries in regards to safety and enforcement.

Think of the children. Don't hurt my economy.

I sincerely hope you were being funny.

I sincerely hope you were being funny.
i can see the serious side to that. if your economy goes down, it isnt exactly the best conditions to raise children in, isnt it? also, though passed resolutions, children are prohibited from being used in the sex industry, so how else could it affect them?

i can see the serious side to that. if your economy goes down, it isnt exactly the best conditions to raise children in, isnt it? also, though passed resolutions, children are prohibited from being used in the sex industry, so how else could it affect them?

That was, in fact, my point. And the ambassador from Pojonia has a dirty, dirty mind.

We would point out, as a legal occupation, an attempt by... less then honest individuals to subvert workers would be illegal.

We punish this by dunks in the antarctic ocean in areas commonly habited by sharks waiting for such handouts.

We do not believe the repealer has thought this through, and is depending only on verbiage from the scandal sheets to make their arguement.

We punish this by dunks in the antarctic ocean in areas commonly habited by sharks waiting for such handouts.
i thought you woulda sent them hunting polar bears, after implanting trackers so they cant deviate....

No, no, no.

We like the sharks. They serve a useful purpose. And they can't climb in bed with you.

Polar bears, on the other hand, have given whole new meanings to "cracking the shell to get at the chewy center". And they're not good meanings.

Please note that this is a common misconception. Whether this resolution is repealed or not, prostitution still exists. Repealing this resolution will not make prostitution disappear.Just like maintaining this resolution will not make illegal prostitution a thing of the past.Rubbish. Crime will go down. First of all, of course, because prostitutes aren't criminals anymore. But it becomes a business like others. And believe me, if you want to make money, you certainly don't want criminals spoiling your neighbourhood. It's like saying that legal shopping centres increase crime rates. But then why does nobody try to outlaw shopping centres?You could reverse the comparrison and argue that if you legalised hired killers, then the number of criminal murders would be reduced. Patently absurd of course, but just as absurd as banning shopping centers. Defining all crime as anything that is not considered legal is a very simplistic way of looking at it.Resulting in a rise in STDs, crime, sexual abuse, etc. Do you really want that?It happens to people, regardless of if they are prostitutes or not - what should be in place is a system to protect all people from those situations you mentioned, not just a body to regulate prostitutes.

Frankly, the resolution seems to me to be nothing more than an economically motivated push to profit from other peoples misery. Prostitution, legal or not relies on someone taking advantage of someone else (voluntary or otherwise), and Hirota does not subscribe to the idea of taking advantage of our citizens - the moral implications far, far outweigh any economic benefits that we may enjoy.

I'd much rather see prostitution made illegal, and the victims of prostitution (the prostitutes themselves) not treated as criminals, but as victims, and all the support this entails. The real criminals are those who provide the supply and demand in this exercise in human misery. And at present, the biggest criminals are us UN members. It is my biggest problem with the UN and my fellow members - that the majority are simply too dumb, too naive, or simply too evil to take a true moral stand.

To use my example further - we could legalise hired killers, but would it be really reducing crime? statistically, yes, but people would still be murdered. Moreover, would it moral for governments to allow people to kill since its their profession?

i dissagree Hirota. it is their body, and their choice to go into prostitution. with it legalised (and there is no way we will accept a proposal outlawing it), many of those who choose it as an occupation make good money from it. it also has solved the problems with the small portion of our population that are nymphomaniacs. mind you, its not like we do broadcast this at careers week or anything, and thourough education about the hazards of the trade are given. as for morality, we are an open-minded society and see no problems with it.

Isn't 'Sex Workers' a re-submition of a Repealed Resolution?

http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg

Isn't 'Sex Workers' a re-submition of a Repealed Resolution?

http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg
how is this redundant? he is repealing the passed resolution that was a replacment for a repealed passed resolution.... if that makes any sense

i dissagree Hirota. it is their body, and their choice to go into prostitution.Same as it is someone's choice to become a hired killer, for example. with it legalised (and there is no way we will accept a proposal outlawing it), many of those who choose it as an occupation make good money from it.So do hired killers, even though it's not legal. Oh, and lets not forget their Pimps make a good amount of money - the government.
Hirota strongly believes that it is totally unjustified and immoral to make profit from taking advantage or degrading of someone else. it also has solved the problems with the small portion of our population that are nymphomaniacs. Nymphomania is not a problem with the person labelled with this title, it is with society and it's stigmatising of such people. Take a look at http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/nymphomania.html and then have a long hard look at your society - the fact you labelled them nymphomaniacs suggests the double standard which exists in your society congratulates a man who is highly sexed and has many partners, calling him a "stud", whereas a woman with the same behavior is often called a "nympho", which carries a negative connotation.as for morality, we are an open-minded society and see no problems with it.Neither do we, it is only a problem when governments are gaining from misery. It would appear to me that your nation has labelled these women, packaged them, branded them and taxed them as another resource for your income.

EDIT: Thats not a personal attack on you Lynx - I've noticed a lot of nations claim the women enjoy it and label them nymphos. You're just the first one to bring it up :)

EDIT 2: And Lynx is quite correct, this is a repeal.

we fail to see the connection between being a prostitute, and being a hired killer. in the case of a prostitute, it is offering a pleasureable service involving 2 parties: the client and the worker. with being a hired killer, there are three parties: client, worker, and target. it is not very pleasurable for the target, and also has repocussions with the immediet family, etc, not to mention that murder would have to be legal. and if murder was legal, it would cut out the middle person anyway.
secondly, it is only degrading if you make it degrading. the prostitutes in our nation dont find it degrading and actually enjoy the interaction.... which leads me to your labelling of nympho being socially bad. maybe in your country, but not in ours. our nation has no problems with sex, sexuality and sexual activities. we dont have the stereo-type problems because we are open about ourselves. yes, there are people who believe in marriage and monogamy, but we have people who believe that it is constraining for them, and both groups repect each other for their lifestyle choices. we believe it is an individuals choice, and that if they want to trade sexual services for money, they can. it is their choice. as our nation's motto goes

Decide your fate


edit1
notices the edit
to me, nympho isnt a derogatory term. slut is though. personally, i hate the double standard too

we fail to see the connection between being a prostitute, and being a hired killer.The connection I'm making is that if we legalised hired killing, it would cut down on crime, simply because such killings would become legal, the same as if we legalise prostitution, then it would cut down on crime, mainly because prostitution would become legal. It's all statistics, and people saying legalising prostitution, or banning it are talking irrelevance. The act still occurs, it's immoral for governments or others to profit from abuse of others. Thats the real crime. in the case of a prostitute, it is offering a pleasureable service involving 2 parties: the client and the worker. with being a hired killer, there are three parties: client, worker, and target. Your oversimplifying. Pimps, government inspections etc etc. It's not just two parties being involved. If it was just two parties involved, then would we even need this resolution in the first place? Resolution #7 Sexual Freedom "What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state..." so why are we legislaing upon it if it satisfies your model of a standard transaction? Indeed, I'd argue that the UN legislating on this since then is in contradiction with #7 and could be considered illegal.

secondly, it is only degrading if you make it degrading. the prostitutes in our nation dont find it degrading and actually enjoy the interaction....OC: I can tell you are roleplaying as opposed to actually employing a background understanding. You are pretending that your women enjoy being degraded. Go find a real woman, and ask them if they enjoy the idea of being a prostitute. I'd bet good money there is a strong no to the answer.
IC: Not saying you're doing this, but I'm sure there are nations who like to pretend that the prostitutes actually enjoy being used. I'm sure that's the faux justification many males use.

which leads me to your labelling of nympho being socially bad. maybe in your country, but not in ours. our nation has no problems with sex, sexuality and sexual activities. Does it have a problem with abuse? Becuase in this scenario it's not sex, it's abuse of power. we dont have the stereo-type problems because we are open about ourselves. yes, there are people who believe in marriage and monogamy, but we have people who believe that it is constraining for them, and both groups repect each other for their lifestyle choices. we believe it is an individuals choice, and that if they want to trade sexual services for money, they can. it is their choice. as our nation's motto goes What people want and want not to do is fine, but not to the point where one profits from anothers misery.

I can finish your motto.
Decide your fate...and pay us for the honour. Hirota so strongly opposes the concept of taxing someone who gets abused, that we had to remove all taxation altogether - not an easy prospect.

edit1
notices the edit
to me, nympho isnt a derogatory term. slut is though. personally, i hate the double standard tooFor many people, there is no difference.

a) legalising prostitution and legalising hired killing is completly different. murder is illegal, sexual intercorse isnt
b) OOC: this is nationstates, not real life. you ask some women what they think of prostitution and they would say its degrading, you ask others and they would say that they would say they enjoy it. there is always 2 sides to every coin.
c) there is no abuse involved in our sex industry, unless of course the customer desires to be abused. with the way we run things, prostitution isnt exactly the easiest business to get into, not only because of the overheads in health checks, etc, but also the quality of the service and both customer and employee satisfaction. if you see it as abuse, you see it as abuse. in the end, it is the woman's choice if she wants to do it. which leads us to....
d) obviously you missinterpreted our motto. Decide your fate. it means you should be able to decide where you want to go in life. if you want to be a prostitute, fine. if you want to be a dump truck driver, fine. you aim for that goal.

and another thing, we seem to be making a lot of references to females... what about the male prostitutes, both homosexual and heterosexual? or are you taking the 'all men enjoy it stance'?

Same as it is someone's choice to become a hired killer, for example.So do hired killers, even though it's not legal. Oh, and lets not forget their Pimps make a good amount of money - the government.

CRoT is free-market.... Enterprise is privately run, and not governmently run.


Hirota strongly believes that it is totally unjustified and immoral to make profit from taking advantage or degrading of someone else.

Agreed, however, that is not the case in regards to a legalized private industry. Since we have independent professionals providing services to their own clients, as any other service industry. Your case may be applicable to publicly run industries by the government... But that is a factor of economic form and function, and not of the particular industry itself.

If the case is against, as you say "unjustified and immoral" activities "to make profit from taking advantage or degrading someone else." then all public industry (and socialism itself) must be outlawed; and private industry must form the standard (in all industries).... You can't simply single out an industry itself as "immoral" based upon your own arguments.

Tenkania makes a fair point. it is private industry, not government ownes. i feel the urge, after rereading it, to put the resolution in question up
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #91

The Sex Industry Worker Act
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Groot Gouda

Description: The NationStates UN,

RECALLING resolution #46 "Legalize Prostitution" and the repeal of that resolution,

ALSO RECALLING Resolution #7 (Sexual Freedom), and Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), which make sex a private issue, instead of a government issue, and stating "a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society"

AFFIRMING in accordance with the above mentioned resolution that each person has the right to decide over their own body, and has the right to sell ther body if they decide to, without government interference,

ASSUMING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as well as an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in a situation where prostitution is illegal,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety and other employment legislation, just like any other profession,

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas in towns and cities,

5. CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions (End slavery, Child Labor, Outlaw Pedophilia, The Child Protection Act, Ban Trafficking in Persons, etc) and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.

Votes For: 10,558
Votes Against: 6,452

Implemented: Sun Feb 6 2005



if you dont like prostitution, you can limit it through education. but at the end of the day, it is the person's body, and they can treat it however they wish. if they want to treat it like a temple, fine. if they want to treat it like an amusment park, fine. the only thing that this does, that other resolutions covering choice and freedom's dont, is to ensure the same rights as other workers and to clean up the image. also, with your argument Hirota, saying that because it is legal doesnt lower the crime rate, its the fact that they want to look professional, thus wanting to remove the crime element surrounding it.

Just like maintaining this resolution will not make illegal prostitution a thing of the past.

It does in UN nations. But that's not the point. The point is that prostitution exists in all societies, and if you want to solve it, or at least reduce the negative sife-effects, criminalizing it does not help.

You could reverse the comparrison and argue that if you legalised hired killers, then the number of criminal murders would be reduced.

Sure. Some people here might also be familiar with the idea of paying a yearly fee to the Guild of Burglars so you're not burgled. Just another way of insurance, really, and greatly reducing crime.

But there is a difference, as has been pointed out. That is that murder in most nations is illegal, because it's damaging another person, while sexual intercourse is rarely illegal (at least not for more than one or two generations).

But that's taking a small detail. The main decrease in crime comes from industry itself. After all, it's now legal, it's more difficult to launder your money as a criminal, and as a respectable businessperson you do not want to be associated with criminals. That's bad for business. So on the one hand the sex industry becomes as attractive to thugs as the furniture restoration industry, and on the other hand the industry will actively try to get rid of criminals because that means more income.

Income which is taxed, and goes to your government. It's win-win.

Frankly, the resolution seems to me to be nothing more than an economically motivated push to profit from other peoples misery.

Ah, you haven't read the clauses calling for social welfare and health programs. That's okay; most people objecting to resolutions have barely understood half of them.

Prostitution, legal or not relies on someone taking advantage of someone else (voluntary or otherwise), and Hirota does not subscribe to the idea of taking advantage of our citizens - the moral implications far, far outweigh any economic benefits that we may enjoy.

Oh come on. Business relies on someone taking advantage of someone. There are plenty of prostitutes who will argue about who's taking advantage from them. It's normal business, people can choose to become a prostitute or not. Let them make that choice. And if you don't like that, then make sure that nobody is forced to make that choice, but give them alternatives, create better jobs.

But that's up to you. If you don't do nuffing, it is yourself who gets the blame, not this resolution.

I'd much rather see prostitution made illegal, and the victims of prostitution (the prostitutes themselves) not treated as criminals, but as victims, and all the support this entails.

First of all, that sounds a little patronising. Secondly, if you make prostitution illegal, the barrier for the "victims" to seek help is high. It's illegal, so looked down upon, no health and safety requirements, nothing to fall back on for those who work in the prostitution business. Why would they even trust a government that outlaws them? Surely this so called victim help is meant to arrest them, patronize them, or make them do unpleasant work.

The real criminals are those who provide the supply and demand in this exercise in human misery. And at present, the biggest criminals are us UN members. It is my biggest problem with the UN and my fellow members - that the majority are simply too dumb, too naive, or simply too evil to take a true moral stand.

I take that as an insult. I have made a moral stand. One that gives freedom to people to choose, to sell their body if they want to, because it's theirs, not the state. That is just as much a moral stand, and anybody calling that dumb, naive or evil is unable to see that there are more morals than just theirs. And that sometimes you have to be practical, even if it goes against your morals, because you can't divide the world in "good" and "bad" so easily.

Please take that in consideration when you think that making something illegal somehow solves your problems, and remember that there are plenty of countries who succesfully solve those problems in different ways.

Isn't 'Sex Workers' a re-submition of a Repealed Resolution?

http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg

:)

It was based on a previously repealed resolution, but the differences are so big that I wouldn't simply call it a "re-submition".

a) legalising prostitution and legalising hired killing is completly different. murder is illegal, sexual intercorse isntOnly because the UN has not legislated on murder and made it legal. Yes it would be insane to make it legal, but does that mean we can't?b) OOC: this is nationstates, not real life. you ask some women what they think of prostitution and they would say its degrading, you ask others and they would say that they would say they enjoy it. there is always 2 sides to every coin.I know full well this is NS. However, if we cannot use any RL references then how can we dispute something someone claims to roleplay which they have made on the spot?

For example: I say 96.6% of all prostitutes worldwide said they dislike their profession in a survey conducted by several willing young men who travelled far and wide. Dr "x" conducted the survey as part of a research project by the Capitol university.

There you go I've roleplayed it. How do you argue it? You create something something equally mythical. Both equally meaningless, both inaccurate.

RL examples are the only semi-reliable source evidence we have. It's the only thing that can be used to give some substancial justiciation.c) there is no abuse involved in our sex industry,There, you see? You've roleplayed that sentance just there. Now I write something along the lines of "with respect, our intelligence networks beg to differ. Have you consulted the police records held in your capital by any chance? Or the number of young women admitted to your hospitals with injuries possibly caused by abuse?" See, it's all meaningless, RP justifications are as meaningful and reliable as the bible.

It's another of my gripes about some governments on here. If you can't use RL evidence, then there is no evidence of substance that can be offered.
d) obviously you missinterpreted our motto. Decide your fate. it means you should be able to decide where you want to go in life. if you want to be a prostitute, fine.I hold the strong assertion that most intelligent, sane women, will not willingly fall into a life of prostitution. If there is a freedom to fall into such a life and be supported by the government, how many women who are not capable of making such a judgement (either because of issues with education or questions over their mental state)
and another thing, we seem to be making a lot of references to females... what about the male prostitutes, both homosexual and heterosexual? or are you taking the 'all men enjoy it stance'?I see no difference. I merely refer to women because it tends to be women more than men. Besides, it was you that inadvertantly specified females when you brought up nymphomania (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Anymphomania&meta=) (link is to definition in google), I simply ran with it further. But quite right, it is not just women.

i would encourage the representive from Hirota to re-read the resolution we are talking about as posted by us, and the comments from its author, Groot Gouda, before continuing on. also we would like to point out one fact from the resolution.

Votes For: 10,558
Votes Against: 6,452


this was the result of voting on a resolution with its basis on a previous resolution that got succesfully repealed. if prostitution is so appaling, this resolution wouldnt have been passed in the first place, comming after the repeal of the previous one, let alone by a margin of almost 2:1

To illustrate from this Constitutional Republic:

Professional Prostitutes form firms, like any other service industry. Usually born by previous prostitutes as executives, or the formation of a board of professional prostitutes that "buy into" and become "members of" the firm, like many other service industries (corporate infrastructure and law firms would be prime examples in other industries). The firm hires on other professions for other roles; such as accountants, advertising professionals, human resource specialists, and the like. The firm buys ad-space in magazines, newspapers, television and other form of media. The firm is required to abide by safety regulations, and hiring practice guidelines, as any other private industry.

Forced or cooerced prositution, or for that matter, any other form of industry or profession, is strictly illegal; in that indentured servitude and slavery are illegal. Even amongst resident aliens... Since they are provided the same rights (with the exception of government involvement) as the citizens of this Constitutional Republic and her compositional dominions.

That being said: under the arguments brought for making this profession an illegality, the Constitutional Republic of Tekania would pull the:
http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg
Under the fact that making the profession illegal, internationally, would be undue interference in the our own sovereignty as a nation-state, and that of the sovereignty of our people as a whole. We will not stand idly by with nanny-state legislation at the international level, especially in regards to limiting the individual soveriegnty of our populace as a whole.

I might not line up with the entirety of national-sovereignty claims... But I do recognize when there are clear breeches of sovereignty that over-steps the bounds of properly constituted government.

To Hirota: how would you feel if this Republic pushed to make "uranium mining illegal" because it relies on "degrading immigrants in your nation who are forced into this profession, so that the uranium "pimp" owners can reap profit off of their degrading servitude to the industry"? Obviously you would pull a national sovereignty card on it... As you see, I've done the same upon you, on the exact same grounds. You cannot assume that no woman would willingly enter the profession. I believe you are neither qualified, nor authorized to speak for every member of an entire classification of people. There are in fact women who enjoy this profession... And have been in it long term, operating their own firms... Prostitution has been a legal private industry in this member-state since the very inception and formation of this great Republic, even before any involvement in its legality in relation to international law, during the interim to which the original legislation was repealed, and to present, and still will continue to be, should the present Sex-Workers act be repealed.... And we would support no international legislation which seeks to make this industry illegal.

As towards your "Hired Assasin" illustration: it is non-applicable. Hired Killers, and their clients, both are seeking to end the rights of another person (the victim who is the target of the killer). In completely privitized and legalized prostitution, the prostitute is the "hired" by the "client"... As such, if "pimps" and "forced/cooerced" prostitution seems to be a problem in your nation: I would lay charges against your relative incompetence in handling cases of forced/cooerced indentured servitude and slavery which is being commited by your own state. And that your state must be in violation of other human-rights laws of this international body, for such to be occuring in the first place. If someone is "forced" or "cooerced" into this profession, or any other profession, there is already a violation of international law.... The Sex-Worker's industry act, only protects and endorses those who willingly enter this industry.

this was the result of voting on a resolution with its basis on a previous resolution that got succesfully repealed. if prostitution is so appaling, this resolution wouldnt have been passed in the first place, comming after the repeal of the previous one, let alone by a margin of almost 2:1I'm cynical as to how many of them actually bothered to read the proposal and the various arguements. I wonder if a few actually wish certain resolutions were actually law in RL, and I wonder how many are bright enough to do anything other than vote yes.

I'm cynical as to how many of them actually bothered to read the proposal and the various arguements. I wonder if a few actually wish certain resolutions were actually law in RL, and I wonder how many are bright enough to do anything other than vote yes.
OOC: i would vote yes to prostitution being legal, so long as there is education involved to warn about the dangers of taking on the profession. that way, it would not only give the workers the rights workers in other industries have and also clean the industry up, but also make aware to those young girls and boys who only see the dollar signs aware of the risks involved in undertaking such a career. for me, i have never used the services, nor will i ever, of a prostitute, but i still realise that they do exist out there and that with the stigma western society has attatched to them, it would be hard for them to get the same rights as other workers.

Professional Prostitutes form firms, like any other service industry. Usually born by previous prostitutes as executives, or the formation of a board of professional prostitutes that "buy into" and become "members of" the firm, like many other service industries (corporate infrastructure and law firms would be prime examples in other industries). The firm hires on other professions for other roles; such as accountants, advertising professionals, human resource specialists, and the like. The firm buys ad-space in magazines, newspapers, television and other form of media. The firm is required to abide by safety regulations, and hiring practice guidelines, as any other private industry.In your roleplay, that's what happens.Do RL Nevada brothels have a corporate organisation such as you suggest?Forced or cooerced prositution, or for that matter, any other form of industry or profession, is strictly illegal; in that indentured servitude and slavery are illegal. Even amongst resident aliens... Since they are provided the same rights (with the exception of government involvement) as the citizens of this Constitutional Republic and her compositional dominions.Again, in your roleplay, that's what happens.
That being said: under the arguments brought for making this profession an illegality,I never said making it illegal, I said merely making efforts to stop the profession which relies upon abuse. I don't want to put prostitutes in prison, I want to put the perpetrators in prison. the Constitutional Republic of Tekania would pull the:
http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg
Under the fact that making the profession illegal, internationally, would be undue interference in the our own sovereignty as a nation-state, and that of the sovereignty of our people as a whole.The same could have been said when it was legalised. I believe it was mentioned when this actual resolution was passed. Did anyone give it any attention? No. So, I offer you the same regard for your flimsy arguement on national soverignty as was offered in the past.We will not stand idly by with nanny-state legislation at the international level, especially in regards to limiting the individual soveriegnty of our populace as a whole.Removing the legislation via repeal actually removes the legislation, not place any legislation itself. If you are so genuinely concerned about a nanny-state, why endorse this proposal in the first place?I might not line up with the entirety of national-sovereignty claims... But I do recognize when there are clear breeches of sovereignty that over-steps the bounds of properly constituted government. Good, so you empathise with the national soverignty arguement when this proposal was voted upon in the first place?

Didn't think so. :rolleyes: To Hirota: how would you feel if this Republic pushed to make "uranium mining illegal" because it relies on "degrading immigrants in your nation who are forced into this profession,Sadly, most are not educated enough to work in the mining industry - IT specialists are needed, not "miners" (it's mostly mechanised) You cannot assume that no woman would willingly enter the profession. I didn't. I just said most. I believe you are neither qualified, nor authorized to speak for every member of an entire classification of people. And are you? You seem to try nonetheless. I'm not seeking to claim anything. But neither should anyone else. I'm just a layman with a bit of knowledge on the subject, but no expert knowledge. Same as you, I wager.There are in fact women who enjoy this profession... Keep telling yourself that....yes, there are some. Some, not all, not many. Some.Prostitution has been a legal private industry in this member-state since the very inception and formation of this great Republic, even before any involvement in its legality in relation to international law,And even if this was repealled, they would not stop that happening, as you well know (which further exposes the pointlesssness of dragging out national soverignty in a repeal - it's not stopping you doing anything at all!) And we would support no international legislation which seeks to make this industry illegal.Ahhh, so when it's convient for you national soverignty is a fine valid arguement. But not for others. I see now. :rolleyes:

In completely privitized and legalized prostitution, the prostitute is the "hired" by the "client"... As such, if "pimps" and "forced/cooerced" prostitution seems to be a problem in your nation: It's not a problem which is widespread, but I'd argue that there would be a problem in every nation. Not everyone likes their job you know, and they have to get food on the table somehow. And that your state must be in violation of other human-rights laws of this international body, for such to be occuring in the first place. Whatever happens in the privacy of someone's home is perfectly legal by a previous resolution without interference by the state. I could argue this sex workers act, might conflict with resolution #7 as it introduces state intervention on the matter. I'd argue that a policy of non-involvement is required by the older resolution, and thus I'd question your compliance with #7.

Personally, if I was going to pass legislation at all on this matter, it would be following the Swedish model - selling of sex is legal. Buying is not.

OOC: i would vote yes to prostitution being legal, so long as there is education involved to warn about the dangers of taking on the profession. that way, it would not only give the workers the rights workers in other industries have and also clean the industry up, but also make aware to those young girls and boys who only see the dollar signs aware of the risks involved in undertaking such a career. for me, i have never used the services, nor will i ever, of a prostitute, but i still realise that they do exist out there and that with the stigma western society has attatched to them, it would be hard for them to get the same rights as other workers.

I have no problem with the victims (prostitutes)themselves. it would always be the suppliers (pimps) and the demand (clients) that should be punished. The victims should always gain the best support possible from the state.

I have no problem with the victims (prostitutes)themselves. it would always be the suppliers (pimps) and the demand (clients) that should be punished. The victims should always gain the best support possible from the state.
well, there are two things here. as previously stated, if it is legal, it would run as a profesional business. this would cut out pimps because a) it is more open, and b) most of the, as you put it victims, as we put it honest workers, would creat firms to get a greater slice of the pie. any abuse from pimps can lead to strikes (workers rights) and i dont think they would be in the position to handle it. as for the demand, how can you stop the demand for sex? also, under this resolution they are well supported in that they are entitled to the same rights as other workers are. also, and here's the part that is best suited to you, it still has the escape clause. whilst you still cant deny prostitution as a legal occupation, you can educate against practicing it. the only downside there is that there are some groups that equate illegal or frowned upon to being cool, so are going to whole heartedly dive into it anyway.

well, there are two things here. as previously stated, if it is legal, it would run as a profesional business. this would cut out pimps because a) it is more open, and b) most of the, as you put it victims, as we put it honest workers, would creat firms to get a greater slice of the pie. any abuse from pimps can lead to strikes (workers rights) and i dont think they would be in the position to handle it. as for the demand, how can you stop the demand for sex? also, under this resolution they are well supported in that they are entitled to the same rights as other workers are. also, and here's the part that is best suited to you, it still has the escape clause. whilst you still cant deny prostitution as a legal occupation, you can educate against practicing it. the only downside there is that there are some groups that equate illegal or frowned upon to being cool, so are going to whole heartedly dive into it anyway.Having looked at it, I believe there is nothing in UN law that prevents me making it a crime to buy sex, so as of our next session in parliment at Hirota, legislation will be brought into place to punish anyone who buys. Selling is fine. of course, since under Hirotan law, companies have to be willing to supply full invoice details on request, we have a lot of people we can arrest. Lets see how long the sex trade lasts then!

well there you go, you found a loophole. by the way, make sure to word your legislation right. we dont want the average bloke being arrested for having sex with a girl after buying her a few drinks.... ;)

Apologies! I read to post 29 and was intensly bored by then

This thread has been Rated

DLEBR = 7

Thank you.

I'm cynical as to how many of them actually bothered to read the proposal and the various arguements. I wonder if a few actually wish certain resolutions were actually law in RL, and I wonder how many are bright enough to do anything other than vote yes.

Considering the narrow margin on the previous votes on this issue, I'd say it was well read.

Furthermore, Hirota has mentioned that their nation wants to stop a profession that relies on abuse. But that is reasoned from the point of view of illegal prostitution, where abuse happens much more than right now. Because it's illegal anyway, it goes underground, making it ideal for slavery and child abuse. Right now, with legal prostitution, the "illegal" market has mostly disappeared, as it has been competed to death by a populair legal prostitution business that's clean and guaranteed drug-free and disease-free.

How can you ever get there with illegal prostitution?

In your roleplay, that's what happens.Do RL Nevada brothels have a corporate organisation such as you suggest?Again, in your roleplay, that's what happens.

IRL: Yes, as a matter of fact they do. All NV licensed prostitutes are independent contractors... Who have sway over their own prices, services, and contract terms, which the host brothel agrees towards.


I never said making it illegal, I said merely making efforts to stop the profession which relies upon abuse. I don't want to put prostitutes in prison, I want to put the perpetrators in prison.The same could have been said when it was legalised. I believe it was mentioned when this actual resolution was passed. Did anyone give it any attention? No. So, I offer you the same regard for your flimsy arguement on national soverignty as was offered in the past.Removing the legislation via repeal actually removes the legislation, not place any legislation itself. If you are so genuinely concerned about a nanny-state, why endorse this proposal in the first place? Good, so you empathise with the national soverignty arguement when this proposal was voted upon in the first place?

I didn't vote on either resolution... I considered it non-issues, as it did not effect practices in my own state.


Didn't think so. :rolleyes: Sadly, most are not educated enough to work in the mining industry - IT specialists are needed, not "miners" (it's mostly mechanised) I didn't. I just said most. And are you? You seem to try nonetheless. I'm not seeking to claim anything. But neither should anyone else. I'm just a layman with a bit of knowledge on the subject, but no expert knowledge. Same as you, I wager. Keep telling yourself that....yes, there are some. Some, not all, not many. Some.And even if this was repealled, they would not stop that happening, as you well know (which further exposes the pointlesssness of dragging out national soverignty in a repeal - it's not stopping you doing anything at all!) Ahhh, so when it's convient for you national soverignty is a fine valid arguement. But not for others. I see now. :rolleyes:

It's still the same thing... I could lay your argument upon any industry.


It's not a problem which is widespread, but I'd argue that there would be a problem in every nation. Not everyone likes their job you know, and they have to get food on the table somehow. Whatever happens in the privacy of someone's home is perfectly legal by a previous resolution without interference by the state. I could argue this sex workers act, might conflict with resolution #7 as it introduces state intervention on the matter. I'd argue that a policy of non-involvement is required by the older resolution, and thus I'd question your compliance with #7.

It introduces legislation on a publically traded industry. Not private personal matters.


Personally, if I was going to pass legislation at all on this matter, it would be following the Swedish model - selling of sex is legal. Buying is not.

And thank the powers that be, that the rest of us have not lowered ourselves to your level of pettiness... And that you have no sway over legislation... Nor have we modeled ourselves off of your perversions of justice and fairness...

I'm cynical as to how many of them actually bothered to read the proposal and the various arguements. I wonder if a few actually wish certain resolutions were actually law in RL, and I wonder how many are bright enough to do anything other than vote yes.

Just a couple of points.

First I find the above quote insulting. I read this resolution in its proposal stage 3 times before happily endorsing it as a short lived delegate (as Crydonia). In fact that first time going through the list it was the only one I felt deserved an endorsement. I also happily voted yes when it came to the floor. To take it further I voted against the repeal of the original resolution as I feel very strongly that prostitution should be legal.

The principals behind this resolution are actual law in RL in the state I live in and I rp my nations laws along the same lines. No-one is forced into the industry. Recruiting or advertising for staff are not allowed. If someone wants to do the job they have to into the brothel and apply themselves. Licenses to operate a brothel are not granted to anyone with a criminal past. Strict regulations including condom use and heath care checks are madatory. Workers are protected under all the laws the workers of any other industry are and can leave their jobs at any time they wish to. If any worker feels miserable or degraded then they don't have to do the job.

And thank the powers that be, that the rest of us have not lowered ourselves to your level of pettiness... And that you have no sway over legislation... Nor have we modeled ourselves off of your perversions of justice and fairness...

I'm wary of any labeling about who does and who doesn't have sway over legislation--it's always just going to be one's opinion.

First I find the above quote insulting. I read this resolution in its proposal stage 3 times before happily endorsing it as a short lived delegate (as Crydonia). In fact that first time going through the list it was the only one I felt deserved an endorsement. I also happily voted yes when it came to the floor. To take it further I voted against the repeal of the original resolution as I feel very strongly that prostitution should be legal.

Great! I'm sure you performed a great service to proposal authors during your tenure, as well as to your region. Unfortunately, I too am inclined to believe that honorable behavior such as this is the exception and not the rule. The game doesn't make UN members care about what's going on, so quite a few of them don't. Be that inactivity, not approving proposals, not voting, not reading, many in the UN just don't treat the proposal-resolution process with the same care that you did.

My point is, the willingness of the person to make it illegal to "buy" something, but not to sell it.

If your going to maintain a sense of equity and fairness, then an illegal act, would be made illegal at both ends. Either the act itself is illegal, or it is not.

Buying an "illegal gun" should be as illegal as "selling an illegal gun".

Buying an "illegal drug" should be as illegal as "selling an illegal drug".

Buying an "illegal assasin" should be as illegal as "Selling an illegal assasin".

Creating some sort of interim illegality, where purchase from the source is illegal, but selling the source is not; goes against every sense of fairness and equity that is known in international jurisprudence. If a woman or man wishes to sell sexual services, and it is to be considered legal; then equity dictates that the act of purchase also must be legal, since it is two party... One cannot be considered legal while the other illegal, without abandoning all sense of equitable and social responsibility in the law.

I have defended my view on multiple fronts, as towards equality in the law. What this person wants (and thank the powers that be, the UN has not given to him) is to create a legal system which is unjust, unfair, and biased towards one over another. And goes against the very fundamental foundation of existing NSUN jurisprudence and the foundational principles of law in this Republic.

My argument against his sway, is that the NSUN has consistently ruled in favor of equity in the law... In opposition to the inequity displayed by Hirota in support of directions. Therefore he does not have "sway" over legislation, because legislation does not, and has not "swayed" towards his inequalities and injustices in legal views.

My argument against his sway, is that the NSUN has consistently ruled in favor of equity in the law

I disagree. And I don't necessarily agree with your interpretations of fairness and equity.

Leaving aside the issue of morality, I have to ask: Does the original resolution have international standing. I contend that human rights transcend national boundaries, thus it is fair for the UN to intervene in such matters. Now, that said, is it a significant human right for men and women to be able to sell sex? In short, no.

Prostitution will remain legal in Ecopoeia. However, we endorse this repeal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

This resolution wasn't passed to protect the right of someone to sell sex as much as it was passed to lower crime associated with the illegal sex trade and regulate it to hinder the spread of STDs.

is it a significant human right for men and women to be able to sell sex?

Most in Krioval would say "yes". People should be able to trade in anything they wish so long as it doesn't pose a threat to society or violate existing contracts. Legal prostitution lowers the risk to society by regulating the sex industry, and no existing contracts are broken. Ultimately, however, Krioval would consider capitalism to be a fundamental right - people should have the right to determine the value of any commodity by themselves, and they should be able to wield economic power relative to the skills they bring to society.

Most in Krioval would say "yes". People should be able to trade in anything they wish so long as it doesn't pose a threat to society or violate existing contracts. Legal prostitution lowers the risk to society by regulating the sex industry, and no existing contracts are broken. Ultimately, however, Krioval would consider capitalism to be a fundamental right - people should have the right to determine the value of any commodity by themselves, and they should be able to wield economic power relative to the skills they bring to society.
All well and good, but the UN at large does not regard capitalism as a human right.