NationStates Jolt Archive

Thanks to Esperantania and Leg-ends for their help with the telegramming.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #7 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029591&postcount=8)
Proposed by: David6

The United Nations,

ASSERTING that the citizens of member nations have the right to sexual privacy as declared in Resolution #7 “Sexual Freedom”,

NOTING the passage of Resolution #192 “Sexual Privacy Act”,

OBSERVING the indefiniteness of the phrase “except for medical reasons” used in Sexual Freedom, as opposed to the detail given in Sexual Privacy Act,

CONSIDERING that Sexual Freedom lacks an exception for criminal or civil investigative activity, while Sexual Privacy Act contains this reasonable and necessary exception,

WORRIED that the accurate definitions and additional exception in Sexual Privacy Act are useless with the continued presence of Sexual Freedom and its uncertain and subjective phrasing, and will remain so until Sexual Freedom is fully rendered null and void;

CONVINCED that Sexual Freedom is no longer necessary, as Sexual Privacy Act guarantees both sexual freedom and privacy,

INTENDING to streamline the operations of the United Nations by eliminating resolutions that are extraneous and hinder those that better serve the aims of this organization;

REPEALS Resolution #7 "Sexual Freedom"

No, it cannot be. It is impossible! I'm actually considering supporting an ACCEL resolution! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Is there any way to add a poll on, or is it too late?

Is there any way to add a poll on, or is it too late?

Dial-a-mod is really the only way at this stage

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y87/fahooglewitz1077/nscarddialamod.png

Couldn't resist.

Dial-a-mod is really the only way at this stage

http://home.iprimus.com.au/scooterj5/lurch.jpg

You rang?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/scooterj5/lurch.jpg

You rang?

I believe the OP is looking for a poll

Usually you can add a poll by clicking on "Thread Tools".

Good shew

Success! Thanks, Gruen.

That's okay, Frisbeeteria, we've got it under control.

I strongly urge everyone to think of the donkeys...
http://www.gotpetsonline.com/pictures-gallery/farm-animal-pictures-breeders-babies/donkey-pictures-breeders-babies/pictures/donkey-0001.jpg
and vote Option 8.

(Oh yeah, and vote for the proposal)

Vote: all of the above - because I can

I believe the OP is looking for a poll

Lurch was looking for instructions. "A poll" is hardly descriptive.

5 voters and 27 votes. Probably shouldn't have used a check-box poll.

And I like how the "dial-a-mod" phone is red, like it's used to fire nukes.

Lurch was looking for instructions. "A poll" is hardly descriptive.

Hey, that's the extent of the instructions I got.

Given there's a poll now, could I suggest we just move on?

We'll be voting for. We place great emphasis on sexual freedoms, believe their protection to lie within the UN's ambit, and voted for the Sexual Privacy Act. But this resolution does nothing, and even if it did, would be redundant. Keeping it on the books accomplishes nothing, while removing it reduces bureaucracy. But only marginally.

On this basis, my nation votes Aye, I vote Meh, and we all fuck off to the Bar.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

ooc: Myrth's not a poll option !? :eek:

After fully reviewing both of these proposals, it is the position of Cookesland to support "Repeal Sexual Freedom" when and if it comes to quorum.


The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

It's at quorum right now... :)

CONVINCED that Sexual Freedom is no longer necessary, as Sexual Privacy Act guarantees both sexual freedom and privacy,

We aren't. This is not merely because we observe a loop hole which renders the Sexual Privacy Act about as effective as a limp noodle to a seamstress, which we will not bore this assembly with further until we have a suitable fix to propose. Our primary reason for not accepting this argument is that if it were true that the Sexual Privacy Act duplicated the guarantees of Sexual Freedom, it would have been illegal. Since it is not, that same ruling assures us that some elements of Sexual Freedom at the very least must not be covered.

We aren't. This is not merely because we observe a loop hole which renders the Sexual Privacy Act about as effective as a limp noodle to a seamstress, which we will not bore this assembly with further until we have a suitable fix to propose. Our primary reason for not accepting this argument is that if it were true that the Sexual Privacy Act duplicated the guarantees of Sexual Freedom, it would have been illegal. Since it is not, that same ruling assures us that some elements of Sexual Freedom at the very least must not be covered.

Not really. There's a debate on what the actual effect on Sexual Freedom is and how far it goes and what limitations it places.

That said, we are curious as to what this loophole is that you speak of. We could show you the debated loophole on Sexual Freedom that's made it a priority target for repeal for a good year.

EDIT: Hint: cross out the title and ask yourself what the resolution is saying.

The Wolf Guardians;12511550']5 voters and 27 votes. Probably shouldn't have used a check-box poll.

And I like how the "dial-a-mod" phone is red, like it's used to fire nukes.

Or to summon caped crusaders!
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Batman-Robin-Photograph-C10045332.jpeg

We aren't. This is not merely because we observe a loop hole which renders the Sexual Privacy Act about as effective as a limp noodle to a seamstress, which we will not bore this assembly with further until we have a suitable fix to propose. Our primary reason for not accepting this argument is that if it were true that the Sexual Privacy Act duplicated the guarantees of Sexual Freedom, it would have been illegal. Since it is not, that same ruling assures us that some elements of Sexual Freedom at the very least must not be covered.

I believe you are mistaken. The Sexual Privacy Act covered what Sexual Freedom did not- which was, actually, sexual freedom. Read the text of the resolution again, the only mandate is that the government cannot enter or inquire about what happens in a bedroom.

Sexual Privacy Act avoided that legal question but not dealing with what happens "in the bedroom." There is no conflict, there is no loophole. There is only a gaping, seeping wound in Sexual Freedom.

Rang Erman
Advisor

This is not merely because we observe a loop hole which renders the Sexual Privacy Act about as effective as a limp noodle to a seamstress, which we will not bore this assembly with further until we have a suitable fix to propose.

If you share the loophole, there are those among us that would be more than happy with assisting in correction of the problem.

Or to summon caped crusaders!
But the bat phone didn't have a dial, just a single button.

Anyway, on to the resolution at hand. The subject up for debate is the repeal of a resolution. In order to discuss the repeal we need to understand the resolution. I would like to remind the delegates of this resoution. Those who are faint of heart should probably skip the quote box. It's quite graphic I'm afraid.Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).
Yes it's disgusting. We have had debates about how disgusting before. None of them mattered because fluffies read neither the repeal, the resolution or the forum; they just vote on the title and who wants to repeal free sex?

This has nothing to do with sex. Really it doesn't. It never covered sex on a boat, or in a car, or in any other place than "your home." It covers anything in your home from cribbage playing to terrorist bomb making as long as it is done in your home.

On the other hand, I can imagine someone putting on a blood donation form, "Have you built any bombs with someone in your house in the past five years?" But still it is really stupid. Now we can argue that not only doesn't it do anything what people want it to really do is already properly covered by a proper resolution. Let's strike this out forever!

This is the same resolution that was posted and voted upon back in late October. What is the point of voting on it again - to repeal the repeal? Baft, I say!

This is the same resolution that was posted and voted upon back in late October.
No, it's not. That used a different text (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505115); the Sexual Privacy Act hadn't even passed then, anyway.
What is the point of voting on it again - to repeal the repeal? Baft, I say!
I'm assuming it escaped your attention that the repeal failed last time?

Let me see. Repealing freedoms in the name of convenience or duplication of similar laws is very inappropriate. This is more of an excuse to push foreign ideologies on the majority in the name of cutting bureaucracy.

Regards,

Rex Smiley.

Let me see. Repealing freedoms in the name of convenience or duplication of similar laws is very inappropriate. This is more of an excuse to push foreign ideologies on the majority in the name of cutting bureaucracy.

Our delegation, and I am sure many others, would be most interested to hear how this repeal represents an attempt to "push foreign ideologies on the majority". We see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

In regards to repealing legislation due to duplication, we are firmly convinced that duplication is, in fact, one of the most valid reasons for repeal. If you have two pieces of legislation that do the same thing, except one of them does it much better, why do you need both?

Altanar supports this repeal.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Let me see. Repealing freedoms in the name of convenience or duplication of similar laws is very inappropriate. This is more of an excuse to push foreign ideologies on the majority in the name of cutting bureaucracy.


It's ignorant comments like this -- and the promise of many more to come -- that are leading me to stay out of this "debate." My assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel (http://www.montypython.art.pl/obrazki/lcmp19-15.jpg), will handle this one on behalf of the Cluichstani delegation.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

After some gravedigging, we have uncovered what we believe to be the concern of the Gobbanium delegation regarding a loophole in Sexual Privacy Act. Before we get to that, let's revisit how this came up.

We aren't. This is not merely because we observe a loop hole which renders the Sexual Privacy Act about as effective as a limp noodle to a seamstress,

Shortly after SPA passed, Gobbanium brought forth a concern about "consent" in SPA. About how there was no solid definition for the Age of Consent within SPA. The claim is that nations can allow or disallow whatever acts they wish by altering the age of consent necessary to perform said acts.

To refrain from completely hijacking this repeal of Sexual Freedom, I will simply ask one or two questions.

1) Where is "Consent" covered or protected by Sexual Freedom? To save you the time looking for it, it isn't. Not in any way more meaningful than it is in SPA.

2) How does Sexual Freedom guarantee anything regarding adulthood or consent or consent that SPA does not? Again, it doesn't. Realistically, because of its loose wording, Sexual Freedom is even more prone to abuse than SPA could ever be. Nations could redefine consent for Sexual Freedom just as they you claim they can for SPA, plus they can also redefine adult any way they see fit to completely avoid the issue of consent.

So your basic argument is that you are refusing to support the repeal of a law because there is some other law that you believe doesn't do something that the law being repealed doesn't do either. That's an interesting angle. Kinda like saying that you won't support a law that bans torture because there's a free trade agreement on the books that won't increase funding to educational facilities.

Back to the actual repeal, the text thereof, and more relevant topics. The Dominion of Kivisto stands in support of repealing this useless piece of legislation ......again.

Our delegation, and I am sure many others, would be most interested to hear how this repeal represents an attempt to "push foreign ideologies on the majority". We see no evidence whatsoever that this is the case.

We are actually more curious as to how ANY repeal could hope to "push foreign ideologies on the majority". Last I checked, it repeals a UN Mandate so nations no longer have to follow it, not repeals the local laws enforcing the UN Mandate.

After some gravedigging, we have uncovered what we believe to be the concern of the Gobbanium delegation regarding a loophole in Sexual Privacy Act.
We congratulate the delegate from Kivisto for his perspicacity. We had not laid out that specific concern again having bored this assembly rigid with it two or three months ago, and fully intending to address the matter more completely in the (now very) near future. We will therefore attempt to direct our responses towards the subject of the Sexual Freedom bill as far as possible.

1) Where is "Consent" covered or protected by Sexual Freedom? To save you the time looking for it, it isn't. Not in any way more meaningful than it is in SPA.
We would go further -- consent is covered much less meaningfully in Sexual Freedom than it is in the Sexual Privacy Act. Ironically, that makes it a much further-reaching concept, since it is not explicitly dependent on national legislation.

That said, we thank the other delegates for pointing out what should have been obvious, that Sexual Freedom is an exceptionally powerful piece of privacy legislation. Even to fervent believers in the Castle principle such as our nation it is now clear that it is too strong, though its repeal will leave a gap in resolutions concerning individual privacy. The Stop Privacy Intrusion resolution at least partially covers this, but it may be worth the while of this chamber to consider those ramifications for a while.

We should add that the replies to this point have considerably lessened our opposition to this repeal.

UN #192 more than adequately addresses the issue in a superior fashion to #7. I will vote for the repeal of #7.

Aye, Hot Donkey, and wander off for a refreshing libation at the Bar.

Thomas B. Lynniston; KCB, KCMG
Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Ironically, that makes it a much further-reaching concept, since it is not explicitly dependent on national legislation.


Sexual Freedom, in fact, relies on no legislation at all regarding the matter. It makes no assumption of existing law of any nature regarding the matter. It leaves it open in such a way that nations could easily say that they have no laws regarding adulthood or consent, and, as such, nobody in their nation is capable of legally consenting as an adult. That you believe this makes it further reaching fails to deal with its very weak grasp on anything.

I was for the repeal the last two times. It made sense then, it makes sense now. Repeal this thing, please.

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

This has nothing to do with sex. Really it doesn't. It never covered sex on a boat, or in a car, or in any other place than "your home." It covers anything in your home from cribbage playing to terrorist bomb making as long as it is done in your home.


We would like to point out that one CAN mointor what happens in any homes as long as it is for "medical purposes".

For example, a terrorist bomb might be unhealthy to other people and for the terrorist himself. Plus, the terrorist might have been insane or crazy, because he is building a bomb and nobody would want to build bombs willingly, so he must be crazy and in need of medical help. For "medical reasons", we are allowed to spy on the terrorist.

However, we are in support of the repeal. Attempting to use such a loophole is kinda patheic.

Sexual Freedom, in fact, relies on no legislation at all regarding the matter. It makes no assumption of existing law of any nature regarding the matter. It leaves it open in such a way that nations could easily say that they have no laws regarding adulthood or consent, and, as such, nobody in their nation is capable of legally consenting as an adult. That you believe this makes it further reaching fails to deal with its very weak grasp on anything.

I agree that this is a blank topic!!!
But I also agree in order to streamline our political system, we must have only one current 'blank' resolution on deck. That is the only reason I am voting for the current resolution is because it contains no new legislation and only changes ruling, not forms new ones.

Another thins, burought up by a coleague of mine is why are there so meny repeal resolutions passing for vote????
UN delegates should review and debate proposals more extensively before approving them as resolutions, because this many repeals is getting our of hand.

Would somebody please write a decent new proposal!!!!!!!!!:headbang:

Sexual Freedom, in fact, relies on no legislation at all regarding the matter. It makes no assumption of existing law of any nature regarding the matter. It leaves it open in such a way that nations could easily say that they have no laws regarding adulthood or consent, and, as such, nobody in their nation is capable of legally consenting as an adult. That you believe this makes it further reaching fails to deal with its very weak grasp on anything.

OOC: There's actually a loophole that misses those points completely

Consent isn't a uniform thing for all forms of sexual activity. For example, in Canada, our laws set the age of consent at 12 within 5 years and 16 for general consent. However, there is, actually, a third, much lesser known age of consent: age of consent for Anal Sex - which is 18 (Gay rights activists were actually pushing the Harper government to tie it to age of consent for vaginal sex when the Harper government was fiddling with it....). It seems that it is to this that Gobbannium is trying to pound away at. Adulthood is uniform as it is a societal marker (and to claim it is not is to find the inane DLE-degree loopholes that aren't worth plugging). Consent, however, is for specific actions. After all, we have a much different age of consent for sex than we do for medical procedures (and, actually, I believe it varies depending on the procedure - Abortion, for example, often does not require parental consent even if you're, like, 12).

That said: UNR #7 still does more harm than good and actually doesn't work correctly as it is an article of essence. It is ONLY about what it intended to do, the will of the resolution while UNR #192 has both its intention AND force to back up most of those intentions. Whether we need to fix a few loopholes in it is another story removed from this repeal as, quite frankly, UNR #7 is much more dangerous than it is good.

We place great emphasis on sexual freedoms, believe their protection to lie within the UN's ambit, and voted for the Sexual Privacy Act. But this resolution does nothing, and even if it did, would be redundant. Keeping it on the books accomplishes nothing, while removing it reduces bureaucracy. But only marginally.

I agree with you there, George Madison. It really does nothing by remaining there, as everything is given in Sexual Privacy (and in great detail). Add to that the fact that Freedom and Privacy may have been slightly confuzzled (confused) here just makes this resolution dead in the water. We're all for it.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

When our society will become truly communist it will be ready for such strong protection of privacy, but now our state must control the production of bombs and other really dangerous things and resolution #7 “Sexual Freedom” make this job very hard. The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka votes for this repeal.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

[OOC: A moderator opinion from Long Ago held that Sexual Freedom, while not specifying sex in its entire text, was modified by its title; therefore, only its impact on sexual freedoms could be considered when attempting to repeal it. I did not agree with the ruling at the time, and an additional ruling affirming the legality of SPA seemingly contradicted it, but out of respect for the moderator caselaw, I'm Officially Ignoring Sexual Freedom's broad-based (and dare I say, foolish), wholesale guarantee of absolute privacy of the home, no matter what dangerous, illegal or plainly insane activities it therefore condones, so long as they are conducted in the home -- and focus only on this resolution's affects on sexual privacy.]

It is plain to us that the freedoms protected in Sexual Freedom amount to an international endorsement of sexual anarchy, since, if interpreted a certain way, it prevents the government from any right to investigate or prosecute crimes that might have occurred while a sexual act was taking place in the privacy of one's home. Not only does Sexual Privacy Act improve on the obscene lack of oversight that befell this Assembly those years ago when it approved this resolution, it corrects the error and allows for investigations and research to be conducted in the name of public safety and personal security, and fully protects the right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual behavior. Therefore, we will ignore the wankery present in this discussion, brought forth by those desiring to indulge their irrational prejudice against repeals, and state for the record: Sexual Freedom intends to protect sexual privacy, and doesn't, instead plunging overboard into a sea of legal irresponsibility; and Sexual Privacy Act intends to protect sexual privacy, and does just that. Check and Mate.

We vote for this repeal.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Another thins, burought up by a coleague of mine is why are there so meny repeal resolutions passing for vote????
UN delegates should review and debate proposals more extensively before approving them as resolutions, because this many repeals is getting our of hand.

About four years ago, the (mythical) land of Australia finally got around to repealing the last law on its books against witchcraft. The first few had gone a couple of generations before because there was no longer any community concern about witchcraft; the last one went because witches protested that it discriminated against their religion. (Insert inverted commas around any of the nouns in that sentence as you see fit.)

The point of this little tale is that reasons for scrubbing old laws off the books change. When the first laws went, witchcraft wouldn't have been recognised as a religion at all, and, in any case, the Commonwealth at that time allowed laws that did discriminate against a religion -- or so the Catholic parents who didn't send their kids to State schools would have said.

Nevertheless, the relevance of particular laws does change, and that's why nations repeal laws. The ability to do so in NS is relatively recent, so there's still a bit of a bottleneck as all the repeals clamour for attention. Then, too, NS wears out its legislators rather faster than Australia does, so there's a swifter change in attitudes about whether a law is still needed.

As to this
That is the only reason I am voting for the current resolution is because it contains no new legislation and only changes ruling, not forms new ones.

If you adopt that as a principle, you'll end up voting for all repeals, because repeals aren't allowed to contain new legislation.

And on this ... Would somebody please write a decent new proposal!!!!!!!!!:headbang:

... several nations are trying. Check the forum index.

As to the repeal itself, Ardchoille invokes the "let's get this over and done with so we can get back to the bar" convention and votes for.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

After re-reading UNR#7, which contains maybe 50 words, we have concluded that it:
a)Sucks.
b)Doesn't define "consent" with any sort of legal parameters.
c)Doesn't define "adult" with any sort of legal parameters.
d)Is one who huge, freakin' run-on sentence.
e)Misspells "necessary".
f)Is a giant piece of smoldering crap.
g)Doesn't define "privacy" with guidelines.
h)Doesn't seem to implement anything.

If this resolution has one GOOD quality it's that:
a)It does not form a useless committee.

In my eyes, which are corrected with eyeglasses, this proposal should be deleted so DEFCON can use up the freed disk space.

Therefore, we issue a FOR vote on this repeal.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Undersecretary of Akimonad and
UN Ambassador

Can someone link to Resolution #192 “Sexual Privacy Act”?

The Dominion stands in favor for the repeal (even though we voted only "Option 9" on the poll presented).

Respectfully,
The Dominion

We just have a quick question.

Is Option 9 from Outer Space?

Rang Erman
Advisor
Minister of Cheesey Fifties Movies

Sexual Privacy Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=191)

After re-reading UNR#7, which contains maybe 50 words, we have concluded that it:
a)Sucks.
b)Doesn't define "consent" with any sort of legal parameters.
c)Doesn't define "adult" with any sort of legal parameters.
d)Is one who huge, freakin' run-on sentence.
e)Misspells "necessary".
f)Is a giant piece of smoldering crap.
g)Doesn't define "privacy" with guidelines.
h)Doesn't seem to implement anything.

If this resolution has one GOOD quality it's that:
a)It does not form a useless committee.

In my eyes, which are corrected with eyeglasses, this proposal should be deleted so DEFCON can use up the freed disk space.

Therefore, we issue a FOR vote on this repeal.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Undersecretary of Akimonad and
UN Ambassador

Although I agree with this quote, and voted for the current resolution, I also would like to make the point that:

There are too many skinking "repeal" resolutions up for vote!!!

With all due respect, I encourage all UN delegates to READ proposals before they go to the ballot box. This, and furiously debating them beforehand, will lead to less repeals, adn further streamline our politics, which is what we all need (in conjunction with voting option9). :)

- Pres Scottamus, Trandaga

With all due respect, I encourage all UN delegates to READ proposals before they go to the ballot box.

Unless you can make that retroactive to 4 years ago, it ain't gonna help. They didn't debate worth a damn then. We do now.

Rant noted, discounted, and moved on.

There are too many skinking "repeal" resolutions up for vote!!!
A long time ago, Quintessence of Dust had a bunch of laws that segregated everything from schools and hospitals to public transport and swimming pools. One day, we woke up and realized living in a land of hateful bigotry had got real old, so after a few lively demonstrations, we repealed them all. No one then complained about there being too many repeals: there weren't enough. My point is, I don't really think there's such a thing as 'too many repeals', skinking or otherwise, so long as they're useful and good, which this just about qualifies as. It can get a little boring and frustrating, but that simply provides you with an opportunity to write a new proposal yourself.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

The Wolf Guardians;12511550']And I like how the "dial-a-mod" phone is red, like it's used to fire nukes.

I doubt it could fire nukes; it's a rotary phone. No touch-tone.

Why does it not surprise me that "Need... beer..." is the most popular option at this point?

The beer option always tends to be popular.

(OOC: Kenny, thanks for the history lesson and leaving me in a haze of modly confusion :-/ I'm going to run with the opposite view from you, otherwise I'd have to do more work than I want to figuring out why HRH wouldn't vote against the repeal.)

Our only remain concern -- not with the repeal itself, we hasten to add -- is that this assembly return at some time to the question of personal privacy where it is not related to sexual activity or personal communications. We would do so ourself, but our drafting activities are currently directed elsewhere

[OOC: A moderator opinion from Long Ago held that Sexual Freedom, while not specifying sex in its entire text, was modified by its title; therefore, only its impact on sexual freedoms could be considered when attempting to repeal it. I did not agree with the ruling at the time, and an additional ruling affirming the legality of SPA seemingly contradicted it, but out of respect for the moderator caselaw, I'm Officially Ignoring Sexual Freedom's broad-based (and dare I say, foolish), wholesale guarantee of absolute privacy of the home, no matter what dangerous, illegal or plainly insane activities it therefore condones, so long as they are conducted in the home -- and focus only on this resolution's affects on sexual privacy.]

OOC: If the resolution #7 requires mod ruling to work properly, then it must be repealed. Resolutions should make some sense without the help of mods, so this fact is a very good OOC reason for me to vote for this repeal. Of course, this is my POV.

Your concept of creating bureaucracy is a false statement. Law is generally based on precedent what came before over time. By eliminating previous legislation, it destroys the process of precedence and makes the majority of UN legislation toothless and unable to back itself historically. Having more laws on the books on a specific subject helps limit the presence of loopholes in the law. With only a single law, it is more likely to be able to get around the law and make it useless.

The constant argument for the elimination of bureaucracy is more of an attempt to weaken the law than to eliminate bureaucracy. We are not increasing sexual freedom by replacing the item on the agenda, we are attempting to replace old laws with laws which quite often do not pass.

We are not increasing sexual freedom by replacing the item on the agenda, we are attempting to replace old laws with laws which quite often do not pass.

"Ahem! In this particular case the replacement (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=191) has already been passed..."

Am I misreading the UNR #192? The following is a quote (from #192):

'3. [The United Nations] 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.'

(ibid - cf. Exemptions to #4)

This Resolution seems to outlaw the criminalization of prostitution.

This seems like an overreaching of the UN's Mission.

I have no problem with the legalization or criminalization of prostitution (or marijuana use or monopolies or private insurance companies, etc.) if it's occurring outside my borders. The key is, the decision should be left up to the governments of each Nation-state when it comes to issues that stop at the border's edge.

None of the exemptions (listed in the text of UNR. 192) would allow a nation to criminalize prostitution. Exemption 'c' might apply, but it can't because of #3 (above). I also want to draw attention to the 'consenting adults' text because the prostitute and his/her client generally have to agree to terms before having sex - this, seems like a sufficient but unnecessary condition for establishing consent.

The point is, we need a new resolution that would affect Resolution #192. Because the rules governing Resolutions forbid amendment or alteration to previous Resolutions, we have to propose that #192 be repealed and replaced with a new version.

In your Vast Mercy I seek absolution and forgiveness for the unpardonable and illiterate intrusion that is this post,

The Puny and Inept Representative of the Oft-Dreamt Land of Scarcely Imaginable Beauty, The Confederacy of United Allied Federati

How do you make a UN repeal?



Head of Lanzanor, Candyisgood, and GGGOOOGGGOOOGGGAAAGGGAAA

How do you make a UN repeal?Go to the Resolution list. At the bottom of each is a link to Repeal.

The point is, we need a new resolution that would affect Resolution #192. Because the rules governing Resolutions forbid amendment or alteration to previous Resolutions, we have to propose that #192 be repealed and replaced with a new version.


If this is the way you feel, then write up a repeal and start a thread for it. This is not the place to discuss repeals of UNR #192.

That being said, the Harem has voted in favour of repealing UNR # 7. We will be very happy to see it finally removed from the books.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

This Resolution seems to outlaw the criminalization of prostitution.
...
Because the rules governing Resolutions forbid amendment or alteration to previous Resolutions, we have to propose that #192 be repealed and replaced with a new version.
Yes, #192 probably does prevent nations from banning prostitution. But The Sex Industry Worker Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=90) definitely does, so repealing and replacing #192 would be of no consequence in that regard.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Your concept of creating bureaucracy is a false statement. Law is generally based on precedent what came before over time. By eliminating previous legislation, it destroys the process of precedence and makes the majority of UN legislation toothless and unable to back itself historically. Having more laws on the books on a specific subject helps limit the presence of loopholes in the law. With only a single law, it is more likely to be able to get around the law and make it useless.

The constant argument for the elimination of bureaucracy is more of an attempt to weaken the law than to eliminate bureaucracy. We are not increasing sexual freedom by replacing the item on the agenda, we are attempting to replace old laws with laws which quite often do not pass.

The representative obviously hasn't a clue about the use of precedents in legal proceedings. A law does not need to "back itself historically". Even if there should be some need to consult prior, similar legislation to determine legislative intent, there's no need whatever to keep the old law on the books to do so. The "Sexual Freedom" resolution is fundamentally useless. Always was, even before the passage of UNR #192. Now, its worthlessness is glaring. It deserves to be relegated to the collection of historical artifacts, not left as standing law.

Ausserland has voted FOR the repeal.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

We are pleasantly surprised and very happy with the current vote. It appears that this piece of trash will finally be destroyed.

And good riddance when it is.

Rang Erman
Advisor

It is gratifying to see that #7 is finally going away. Patience is rewarded.

Why does it not surprise me that "Need... beer..." is the most popular option at this point?

OOC: And surprisingly, I only voted for one of the serious options. Maybe because I've already got beer. ;)

OOC: And surprisingly, I only voted for one of the serious options. Maybe because I've already got beer. ;)

OOC: I on the other hand, voted for all of them simply because I could.

The resolution Repeal "Sexual Freedom" was passed 8,611 votes to 1,980.

81%, Good margin.

Yes. Good riddance, Sexual Freedom! (the resolution of course)

OOC: And surprisingly, I only voted for one of the serious options. Maybe because I've already got beer. ;)

Obviously you are not Miervatian, because the phrase "already got beer" simply does not translate into Mikitivity-German. :p

For the record, this was the third time that a repeal for this resolution reached the UN floor. Since this is the first time that a repeal has been passed after *two* failed attempts, this is something of a historic moment. It might be worth archiving this thread (and this may help generate more interest in the UN).

I updated the NSWiki article.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Repeal_%22Sexual_Freedom%22#3rd_Attempt

I honestly would be THRILLED if more people than Jey and I spent a bit of time trying to document even the basic UN events. One could say I'd be thrilled enough to share my "already got beer" (on the assumption that I will always need more beer). ;)