NationStates Jolt Archive

At this time, I'm just looking for legality issues with this. I took a close look at Sexual Freedom and I cannot find any duplication or contradiction in my proposal. Sexual freedom is so completely without effect, that this proposal does not violate the duplication or contradiction rules. As far as I can tell, it's legal, but I would like a ruling on the legality of this as a stand alone proposal and not as a replacement for Sexual Freedom.

Sexual Privacy Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength:Strong

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the inherently private nature of sexual intimacy, and

DESIRING to guarantee an individual's right to such privacy,

1. DEFINES sexual activities, for the purpose of this resolution, as behavior, in the form of consensual physical intimacy, that may be directed to reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification. Excluded from this definition are acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant.

2. FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual who has reached the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place.

3. BANS the criminalization of any form of sexual activity provided that, a) it is performed in privacy, and b) all participants are consenting adults.

4. FORBIDS governments, their agents and agencies from interfering with, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults, subject to the exemptions below.

5. EXEMPTS from clause 4:

a. Obtaining evidence for determination of paternity,

b. Collecting information for epidemiological investigations,

c. Criminal or civil investigative activity where probable cause has been established requiring such information, and

d. Actions in situations where there is probable cause that death or serious bodily harm will result without immediate intervention.

For reference: Sexual Freedom (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029591&postcount=8)

In my unmodly opinion, it looks legal. Wait for further responses though.

It seems perfectly fine to me in my very unmodish opinion. Hopefully it wont be revised so much that I cant vote for it.

VK

The "Sexual Freedom" resolution requires nothing and prohibits nothing. It simply states a vague principle. We cannot see how this proposal could either contradict or duplicate it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I think it's legal: there's nothing in Sexual Freedom for it to duplicate. ICly, of course, we will have to oppose this piece of festering communism.

I don't see how this proposal has anything to do with communism. And seeing that we are communists we should know.

Ellelt already provides these protections to adults, and to persons over the age of 15 (age of sexual consent according to our laws) but those laws were in place during tsarist times too. We will fully endorse this legislation.

VK.

Of course we like it and approve, but doesn't this fail the legality test on the grounds of duplication?

If not, I'd jump for joy and reintroduce IP with far shorter wording and clearer prose, on the grounds that I'd have fewer places to tread softly.I think it's legal: there's nothing in Sexual Freedom for it to duplicate. ICly, of course, we will have to oppose this piece of festering communism.I can't agree. Section 4 seems like a pretty clear duplication, and 4(b) even echoes one of its exceptions.

Of course we like it and approve, but doesn't this fail the legality test on the grounds of duplication?

As far as most can tell, no it doesn't violate the duplication rule. We're waiting on a ruling, which is why I posted it here.

If not, I'd jump for joy and reintroduce IP with far fewer wording and clearer prose, on the grounds that I'd have fewer places to tread softly.

IP on the other hand, was chalk full of illegal badness.

I can't agree. Section 4 seems like a pretty clear duplication, and 4(b) even echoes one of its exceptions.

What exactly does it duplicate? Show me. 4b. does not echo anything from Sexual Freedom. Again, show me what. If you mean this,
unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.). then you're wrong. Show me your argument.

We're waiting on a ruling, which is why I posted it here..

... and we're waiting for a case to be made, which is why we haven't ruled. I don't generally have time to review all the possible reasons why something is illegal or not, including comparing every line of your proposal with every line of every other proposal. I assume that's also true for Hack, Euro, and GMC, the only game mods likely to stick their heads into this forum.

You guys argue about it for a few days, and we'll sift through the discussion and add other bits if we need to. It's up to you, not us, to do the legwork to convince your fellow Ambassadors that this meets the test.

... and we're waiting for a case to be made, which is why we haven't ruled. I don't generally have time to review all the possible reasons why something is illegal or not, including comparing every line of your proposal with every line of every other proposal. I assume that's also true for Hack, Euro, and GMC, the only game mods likely to stick their heads into this forum.

Thank you, Fris. I'm fully aware that you're waiting for a case to be made. I was just pointing it out to CP, as he seemed to miss that. At least that's the way I interpreted his post.

You guys argue about it for a few days, and we'll sift through the discussion and add other bits if we need to. It's up to you, not us, to do the legwork to convince your fellow Ambassadors that this meets the test.

Will do. Thank you again, Fris.

I was just pointing it out to CP, as he seemed to miss that. At least that's the way I interpreted his post.No, I didn't miss it - I just wanted to raise the issue. If you can get this up for a vote, I'd be overjoyed. But I want that angle examined carefully before we get our hopes up.

No, I didn't miss it - I just wanted to raise the issue. If you can get this up for a vote, I'd be overjoyed. But I want that angle examined carefully before we get our hopes up.

Fair enough. As I've mentioned, my proposal doesn't seem to duplicate anything in Sexual Freedom, if anything, it expands on what Sexual Freedom was intended to do.

It doesn't appear to me to be illegal. I could see the major question coming from Clause4, but Sexual Freedom only states that "what goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state..."

The "should" is the most important thing. Furthermore, "Sexual Freedom" does not mention surveillance, monitoring, or anything about sexual activity.

This proposal is specifically aimed at matters of a sexual nature, where "Sexual Freedom" is not. It is not contradiction.

Given the nature of "Sexual Freedom" - namely that it does not specify much of anything, I'd agree with most of what has been said here. I don't see an issue with duplication, and your draft seems to stand on its own even if "Sexual Freedom" were repealed (which I would love to see).

Well, we've already stated our opinion, but we'll try harder to "make a case"...

A while back, there was some discussion here about what exactly the duplication rule meant. In our view, what may not be duplicated are the effects of a resolution. We believe the same holds, in reverse, for the contradiction rule.

Now, let's look for the effects of "Sexual Freedom". Does it require anything? Obviously not. Does it prohibit anything? No. It states that something should not be the concern of nations. Should is not a verb that establishes a mandate or requirement. It simply states the view of the author. We all know what the author's intent was; he simply failed to achieve it. Those nations that agreed with the opinion were probably following the principle anyway. Those who disagreed could quite legally continue to do whatever they'd been doing.

We strongly believe that, since "Sexual Freedom" has no effects, the specific, mandatory provisions of this draft cannot possibly be duplicative or contradictory.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Well, we've already stated our opinion, but we'll try harder to "make a case"...

A while back, there was some discussion here about what exactly the duplication rule meant. In our view, what may not be duplicated are the effects of a resolution. We believe the same holds, in reverse, for the contradiction rule...

We strongly believe that, since "Sexual Freedom" has no effects, the specific, mandatory provisions of this draft cannot possibly be duplicative or contradictory.I'm not convinced.

To say that we can ignore the non-mandatory resolutions of old is essentially to say that we don't have to repeal them to replace them; we can just write right over them. That seems contrary to the way we've done things in the past, and borders on permitting amendments. More importantly, it comes perilously close to invalidating blockers, since most of these tend to do little, if anything - except, of course, preventing legislation by their mere existence.

Again, we love Kami's resolution and would love to see it pass; but we still have doubts about its legality.

I'm not convinced.

To say that we can ignore the non-mandatory resolutions of old is essentially to say that we don't have to repeal them to replace them; we can just write right over them. That seems contrary to the way we've done things in the past, and borders on permitting amendments. More importantly, it comes perilously close to invalidating blockers, since most of these tend to do little, if anything - except, of course, preventing legislation by their mere existence.

Again, we love Kami's resolution and would love to see it pass; but we still have doubts about its legality.

I don't believe that's what the argument is. To simply write over a resolution would indeed be duplication - but it's not duplication because there isn't anything to duplicate.

Bioweapons proposals can mention bioweapons, and utter a non-mandatory request not to use them, but that doesn't mean that a subsequent proposal can't outright ban bioweapons. Because the original proposal didn't outright ban them, but simply suggested that they not be used, there's no contradiction.

The same is true of this resolution. Because Sexual Freedom was non-binding, and simply suggested that the government should not get involved, there is no contradiction.

It is a very grey area- I would agree with you in other instances, but in the case of Sexual Freedom, there simply isn't anything else there.

It is a very grey area- I would agree with you in other instances, but in the case of Sexual Freedom, there simply isn't anything else there.It opens up a lot of room for mischief. For example, since “Sexual Freedom” says that we shouldn't care about people's sex lives or do anything about them, can we criminalize homosexuality? After all, we could always say...RECOGNIZING that we shouldn't regulate people's sex lives,

WE NONETHELESS ban homosexuality anyway, just because we can. so there.I grant you, this sort of ruling will make my life loads easier, because I can find all kinds of what I refer to as normative clauses out there to duplicate, strengthen, or ignore, since only the mandatory ones have any effect.

In fact, maybe I can even hire OMGTKK's Creative Solutions department to loophole some of those supposedly “mandatory” clauses to death and do what I will with them, as well.

I grant you, this is an extreme argument, but - in the style of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, I feel that I can be excessive here. After all, as a group, we're a pretty imaginative bunch of rules-wranglers (for better or worse), so any sort of loophole like this will most assuredly be used to maximum effect by someone.

I mean, this sort of loophole is where the concept of the blocker came from. Remember that argument? And what's been the result?

It opens up a lot of room for mischief. For example, since “Sexual Freedom” says that we shouldn't care about people's sex lives or do anything about them, can we criminalize homosexuality? After all, we could always say...

Unfortunately, you're right. But that's only because no one has been able to write a good sexual freedom resolution.

Luckily, the GA is a smarter than that. Such a ban wouldn't even get to quorum.


I grant you, this sort of ruling will make my life loads easier, because I can find all kinds of what I refer to as normative clauses out there to duplicate, strengthen, or ignore, since only the mandatory ones have any effect.

In fact, maybe I can even hire OMGTKK's Creative Solutions department to loophole some of those supposedly “mandatory” clauses to death and do what I will with them, as well.

It's no different than what anyone else does. Even with Sexual Freedom not completely emasculated, there are ways to get around it. We could just define a "bedroom" as a state-sanctioned 8x10 holding cell where people may gather and talk about religion, or some bullshit dodge.

There will always be some way to get around resolutions that are disliked.

I grant you, this is an extreme argument, but - in the style of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments, I feel that I can be excessive here. After all, as a group, we're a pretty imaginative bunch of rules-wranglers (for better or worse), so any sort of loophole like this will most assuredly be used to maximum effect by someone.

I mean, this sort of loophole is where the concept of the blocker came from. Remember that argument? And what's been the result?

loopholes aside, if this proposal is declared legal, and fails, my first move would be to write a blocker for sexual laws and push it through, then try to repeal Sexual Freedom.

The one thing we can agree on is that Sexual Freedom needs to go. I'd prefer a direct repeal, rather than a loopholish exploit, but that resolution is like a vampire horse- no matter how much we try to beat it, it just gets back up.

It opens up a lot of room for mischief. For example, since “Sexual Freedom” says that we shouldn't care about people's sex lives or do anything about them, can we criminalize homosexuality?
I was actually considering a Ban Sodomy proposal in the wake of the second SF repeal's failure, with a preamble pointing out that it wasn't contradiction and how clever the GA thereby was for voting down the repeal.

I'm not convinced.

To say that we can ignore the non-mandatory resolutions of old is essentially to say that we don't have to repeal them to replace them; we can just write right over them. That seems contrary to the way we've done things in the past, and borders on permitting amendments. More importantly, it comes perilously close to invalidating blockers, since most of these tend to do little, if anything - except, of course, preventing legislation by their mere existence.

Again, we love Kami's resolution and would love to see it pass; but we still have doubts about its legality.

Please don't misrepresent what we said. We did not say that we can "ignore the non-mandatory resolutions of old". What we said was that this resolution does nothing. It doesn't REQUIRE, MANDATE, or PROCLAIM. It doesn't even URGE, RECOMMEND, or anything like that. It is a 0. And, unless the proposal in question, is another 0, it cannot duplicate it.

Of course we can't ignore past resolutions if they do something. If a resolution urges everyone to eat red jellybeans, we can't write a proposal urging people to eat red jellybeans. Duplication. If a resolution urges people not to eat read jellybeans, we can't write a proposal urging them not to. Contradiction. But when a resolution does nothing whatever, it leaves the subject area wide open.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Luckily, the GA is a smarter than that.Have you looked at what's currently at vote?

Have you looked at what's currently at vote?

It's losing, isn't it?

It reached quorum, didn't it?

And, to be fair, it's not losing by anywhere near as large a margin as it should be.

It reached quorum, didn't it?

And, to be fair, it's not losing by anywhere near as large a margin as it should be.

True. But, you can get just about anything to quorum if you try hard enough.

In any case, the voting patterns of the UN aren't the issue here- the legality of this proposal is. Sexual Freedom is not a binding resolution, and has no argument, and is therefore not being duplicated by this proposal.

True. But, you can get just about anything to quorum if you try hard enough.
To possibly resolve this, I'd point out earlier you said that "such a ban wouldn't reach quorum": that's the point of disagreement.

To possibly resolve this, I'd point out earlier you said that "such a ban wouldn't reach quorum": that's the point of disagreement.

Yes, I did. And no, it's not contradictory. If given the choice between "Criminalization of Homosexuality" and "Environmental Protection Act," which one do you think the leftist fluffies are going to endorse and vote for? The one that sounds like it does something good, or the one that you couldn't get passed if you bribed everyone in the UN?

We are talking about the same group of people that voted down repeals of "Sexual Freedom," simply based on the name. If you TG the right people, you will get your proposal to quorum. Clearly, Homophobic Warriors did that. Almost anything can get to quorum, I think I said. The GA may have a lack of common sense, but there are some things even they won't approve.

Anything else regarding that threadjack?

Yes, I did. And no, it's not contradictory. If given the choice between "Criminalization of Homosexuality" and "Environmental Protection Act," which one do you think the leftist fluffies are going to endorse and vote for?
Again, not the issue: it's the contrast between "that wouldn't reach quorum" and "anything can get to quorum". Do you see the contradiction?

But, nevermind: you're right, it's hijacking.

(ooc) Sorry for not being that active in this discussion, but things came up that needed to be dealt with before I could properly return to the game. Apparently, the discussion was doing just fine without me and that makes me happy.

Alright, now that you two have gotten that out of your system, can we go back to discussing the legality of this proposal?

As I've mentioned earlier, I can't find a single duplication. Mr. Olembe is right. Sexual Freedom does nothing. There is nothing that REQUIRES, MANDATES or even SUGGESTS.

Sexual Privacy Act expands on the idea that Sexual Freedom is attempting to put forward and makes it perfectly clear at what it is doing (or attempting to do).

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I can't see how there can be much more discussion: we're all of an accord. I'd ignore CP's idle threats; there's not been any textual justification for contradiction or duplication raised, and so, let's let the mods deliberate on it.

I can't see how there can be much more discussion: we're all of an accord. I'd ignore CP's idle threats; there's not been any textual justification for contradiction or duplication raised, and so, let's let the mods deliberate on it.

You do have a point, Gruen. I don't really think that there is much more to be had in the way of discussion.

At this time, I'm just looking for legality issues with this. I took a close look at Sexual Freedom and I cannot find any duplication or contradiction in my proposal. Sexual freedom is so completely without effect, that this proposal does not violate the duplication or contradiction rules. As far as I can tell, it's legal, but I would like a ruling on the legality of this as a stand alone proposal and not as a replacement for Sexual Freedom.



For reference: Sexual Freedom (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029591&postcount=8)

The United States would support this resolution.

Just to eliminate even the slightest hint of an issue, I'd be in favor of repealing Sexual Freedom and replacing it with this. However, that could be an issue, given the already-mentioned tendency of some to vote for (or against) something based on its name.

Bump.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic would be reluctant to vote in favour of this proposal as it is currently written, because it would arguably require us to decriminalise incest. Our legal advisors say that there is a potential loophole that we could still use, but that some people would call this as piece of legalistic trickery...

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic would be reluctant to vote in favour of this proposal as it is currently written, because it would arguably require us to decriminalise incest. Our legal advisors say that there is a potential loophole that we could still use, but that some people would call this as piece of legalistic trickery...

No, it wouldn't require that you decriminalise incest. Incest would fall under the category of health concerns. It leads to genetic abnormalities that would find their way into the gene pool, thus causing a mess of other problems. You can keep incest criminalised.

But, we're not here to discuss the pros and cons of the proposal. At this point, all we're looking for are legality issues. If and when the time comes, we can discuss other aspects of the proposal.

Boiling Over with Morality Problems.

wait, BOMP? What the hell is a thread BOMP?

shush you!

Boiling Over with Morality Problems.

wait, BOMP? What the hell is a thread BOMP?

shush you!

OOC: Actually, I've seen it used on teh Intarwebs to mean "ban on Monty Python." And, sir, I have to refuse your BOMP request. You see, I've come here for an argument... :p

I'm going to bypass the whole "mandatory clauses" argument on this one as an irrelevant diversion, and concentrate on a different approach.

Section 4 seems like a pretty clear duplication, and 4(b) even echoes one of its exceptions.

Both proposals explicitly refer to sexual situations, but the approach is different. Sexual Freedom specifically refers to the privacy of the home, while Sexual Privacy Act deals with privacy of the act, and its impact on the indivdual's privacy. While there is a certain amount of overlap, they are clearly different in scope.

As such, Sexual Privacy Act is non-duplicative, and is therefore legal.

Thank you for the ruling, Fris.

I will be submitting this shortly and doing a full TG campain.

Thank you again.

Submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sexual) for approval.

I am too new to the game to speak to if the Sexual Freedom Act is legal or not, I can say however, The Federation of Rawsons cannot vote for this if it does in fact come to a vote due to our constitutions Catholic backbone.

Michael D. Rawson,
President and Secretary of State,
Federation of Rawson

Love and esterel support this proposal.

But we really regret this clause, as DNA tests are far more effective!:

a. Obtaining evidence for determination of paternity,

Love and esterel support this proposal.

But we really regret this clause, as DNA tests are far more effective!:

That's how you would be testing for parternity. There would be a DNA test.

This proposal has reached quorum. Would it be okay if I started a new thread for this?