NationStates Jolt Archive

Please note the latest draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13013492#post13013492).

International Torture Trade

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The United Nations,

Strongly reasserting its absolute stance against torture, as affirmed in several previous resolutions, and in general,

Concerned that certain devices used for torture can still be freely traded within and between nations,

Expressing its hope that by restricting the trade in such devices, an important further step towards totally eliminating torture will be taken,

Recognising that many devices having otherwise legitimate applications can also be employed in acts of torture, and that trade in these devices cannot be totally restricted,

Equally recognising that certain controls can be imposed to rendering such devices less likely to be used for the purposes of torture:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
- 'torture' as any act of violence or ill-treatment perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, punishment, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;
- 'torture equipment' as any device of no practical use other than in the administration of torture;
- 'potential torture equipment' as any device that could reasonably be used for the administration of torture, particularly including arms, interrogation equipment, and restraints;

2. Prohibits the production, possession, transfer or use of torture equipment, including acting as a broker for such transfer or the rendering of technical assistance;

3. Requires member nations to destroy or render unusable any such equipment, excepting examples that are required as evidence;

4. Declares that for all international transfers of potential torture equipment, the following protocol must be adhered to:
- all contracts, whether directly between supplier and end-user, or involving brokers, must stipulate the condition of no use for torture;
- no transfer may be made where there is probable cause to believe the device will be used for torture;
- no transfer may be made where the receiver will not provide a guarantee that the device will not be used for torture, including all subsequent transfers;
- records of the transfer must be maintained, including relevant descriptions of all devices involved, such that if on subsequent investigation they are identified as having been used for torture, action can be made against those involved in the original transfer;
- no trade licence may be granted to any individuals suspected of transferring or brokering the transfers of potential torture equipment to be used for torture;

5. Strongly urges all member nations to enact similar protocols for all intranational transfers of potential torture equipment.

Continuing our stance against torture from Extraordinary Rendition, we present this draft of a proposal to prevent the trade in torture equipment. Although any comments and criticisms are welcome, the following matters are of particular concern:
- the definitions;
- the protocol system - absent a general arms trade resolution, this was the best we could do;
- inevitably, the category (Human Rights seems a stretch, and I'd rather avoid Gun Control; this is basically calling for a restriction of - a narrow range of - weapons, hence GD, Mild);
- the scope - FSA notwithstanding, should it also apply to death penalty/corporal punishment equipment?;
- the specificity - should it detail, for example, leg irons and spiked batons?

Thank you.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Department of UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

OOC: What about the slavery repeal/replace? Yes, yes, that's still on. But I don't have time to TG for it right now, plus there may be a couple of other repeals coming up and I really don't want an already contentious repeal to become waaaaahmbulance roadkill. I have already discussed this with New Leicestershire, but apologies to him again anyway (although I think his proposal can be submitted before the repeal anyway anyway). Three proposals? Yes, I obviously will only have time to TG for one, if that. But I was getting bogged down and thought I'd try something different. Whichever is the most workable - not necessarily popular - I may go with. Do you have no life whatsoever? No, no I don't.

This one somewhat inspired by RLness (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=259), though clearly that's more by the way of information than invitation to get off topic.

Leaving aside, for now, any potential discussion about whether laws about such matters within the separate nations -- rather than just laws about the international trade in such items -- should actually be considered any of the UN's business...

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
- 'torture' as any act of violence or ill-treatment perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, punishment, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;
Do we already have a reasonably accepted UN-wide definition of "ill-treatment"? Specifically, given that some nations within the UN don't even accept the use of imprisonment as a punishment, can we have it clarified that this clause doesn't block trade in any items that are primarily intended to make that more reliable?

- 'torture equipment' as any device of no practical use other than in the administration of torture;
What about the more extreme fringe of the BDSM "community"?

- 'potential torture equipment' as any device that could reasonably be used for the administration of torture, particularly including arms, interrogation equipment, and restraints;
Provisionally okay; of course, quite a lot of medical equipment is also very open to mis-use for this purpose...

3. Requires member nations to destroy or render unusable any such equipment, excepting examples that are required as evidence;
Fairly obviously meaning just the actual 'torture equipment' (as in clause#2), and not 'potential torture equipment' as well, but if you could find enough spare characters then I wouldn't mind having this actually stated -- even more clearly -- outright.
Did you mean the term "evidence" to cover only evidence for use in ongoing & potential legal cases, or would we -- under your interpretation of these rules -- be allowed to keep museum exhibits (as "evidence of the past") as well?

4. Declares that for all international transfers of potential torture equipment, the following protocol must be adhered to:
- all contracts, whether directly between supplier and end-user, or involving brokers, must stipulate the condition of no use for torture;
Okay.

- no transfer may be made where there is probable cause to believe the device will be used for torture;
Okay, although of course nations will probably differ in their definitions of "probable cause".

- no transfer may be made where the receiver will not provide a guarantee that the device will not be used for torture, including all subsequent transfers;
How can the receiver honestly guarantee what the equipment will be used for after it has left their hands, especially if any subsequent transfers are also likely to take place after that? They can promise to include suitable stipulations in the contracts when they pass it on, but there are likely to be many situations in which they wouldn't actually be able to enforce these if the subsequent owners reneged on those terms... or, indeed, if the devices were subsequently transferred by theft rather than by purchase...

- records of the transfer must be maintained, including relevant descriptions of all devices involved, such that if on subsequent investigation they are identified as having been used for torture, action can be made against those involved in the original transfer;
Even if they made that transfer in good faith, and it was a later owner that transferred them to the torturers? Unjust!
And how long must those records be kept for? Would responsibility for this pass to the relevant nation's authorities if the supplier went out of business?

- no trade licence may be granted to any individuals suspected of transferring or brokering the transfers of potential torture equipment to be used for torture;
So you'd allow people to be deprived of their businesses on mere suspicion, without any real proof? That might not actually violate any of the earlier UN resolutions about trials and justice, but it doesn't seem very fair to me.

5. Strongly urges all member nations to enact similar protocols for all intranational transfers of potential torture equipment.
Within the limits that I've already stipulated, okay.

- the scope - FSA notwithstanding, should it also apply to death penalty/corporal punishment equipment?;
No: Given that the UN has recognised nations' rights to use those punishments, if they so choose, for it to block their access to the "necessary" tools would be hypocritical...

- the specificity - should it detail, for example, leg irons and spiked batons?Probably not, because of the whole 'diversity of UN nations issue': You couldn't include all of the high-tech possibilities (for example), but creating a list and then not mentioning them in it might be seen by some people as meaning that they were actually excluded from this proposal's limits.
Oh, and in my government's opinion leg irons can legitimately be used as restraints -- to make escape much harder -- when transferring convicted criminals between sites or in any other situations (such as further trials) that require their presence in relatively non-secure premises.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic.

No: Given that the UN has recognised nations' rights to use those punishments, if they so choose, for it to block their access to the "necessary" tools would be hypocritical...
But it could include the so-called 'barbaric' forms of capital punishment as affirming the right to a fair sentence, so while allowing the sale of KEAI flat-packed gallows, it would not allow the traffic in Iron Maidens, although the right to determine what punishment in The Fair Sentencing Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973198&postcount=181) is suitable, is vague enough to cause some problems, and article 3 of the same resolution doesn't seem to actually do anything to alter that.

Oh and on a side note: wtf with End Barbaric Punishments (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029871&postcount=42)?

Gurk and I just realised circular thinking. Oh well. I'm ooc, I'm entitled to be.

What about the more extreme fringe of the BDSM "community"?Good point. Should probably compare against the Sexual Freedom replacement.

The Sexual Privacy Act excludes "acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant" from protection. The legal question in this case would be whether a "device of no practical use other than in the administration of torture" would lead to death or serious injury if used in a sexual fashion.

Marcus Q. Fenrigger
Legal Advisor to [Lady] Gail Conway
(Chairman, Goobergunchian High Council)

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
- 'torture' as any act of violence or ill-treatment perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, punishment, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;
- 'torture equipment' as any device of no practical use other than in the administration of torture;
- 'potential torture equipment' as any device that could reasonably be used for the administration of torture, particularly including arms, interrogation equipment, and restraints;



By the "torture equipment" definition I assume you mean what is typically thought to be medieval torture apparatus types. No problem with that.

The "potential torture equipment" definition I have some problems with. An eye dropper, a hammer, a drill, a pillow, a garden hose or any number of mundane items can be used for torture, limited only by the torturers ingenuity. I suppose restraints would include rope, duct tape and super glue, items that have everyday normal use.

One might make the case that it is best to leave this alone and just monitor the situation so that suspected torturers don't get ingenious. Perhaps a requirement to place tracking devices in such equipment so that it's commerce could be traced. Then if someone buys the equipment and doesn't have it in a museum, sanctions could be brought.

But that's probably counter productive too. The problem, In my humble opinion, is that you are trying to regulate behavior by regulating equipment. Obviously some equipment has NO other purpose than torture and should be banned except for "historical displays". Other equipments use is not so clear.

The tool itself is usually not evil. A gun can be used for defense, to target shoot and to provide meat for the table. It can also be used in a variety of crimes. Uranium 235 can be used to make electricity or make weapons. Electricity can be used for light, cooking, pumping water, and torturing.

I'm interested to see where this one is going. Good sentiments, but I'll have to wait and see how this resolution evolves.

Dezmar ben-Cyphr

Maximus Libra;12996930']By the "torture equipment" definition I assume you mean what is typically thought to be medieval torture apparatus types. No problem with that.
So get out those hammers and start breaking down all the stones around. Oops, no hammers had to melt them down since they possible torture equipment. Okay cause no nails as they also were melted down... OH and what about that glass of water or piece of bread.... denied a person being tortured.... Oh and pliers used to tighten nuts, how ever do we tighten them without pliers..... guess have to just live with loose nuts around.....

Ironical MacPain,
Minister of Prisons

Oh and pliers used to tighten nuts, how ever do we tighten them without pliers...Use a wrench?



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Although we condemn all acts of non-consensual torture, the proposal as currently written seems a bit quixotic. As has already been noted, torture "devices" are just as easily (and most frequently) comprised of everyday, household items. One's kitchen alone rivals the medieval dungeon for opportunity of tools.

Thus attempts to restrict trade in "potential items of torture" at all or their inclusion in the protocol system is very problematic and probably ineffective. We would suggest limiting the proposal to those items that meet your definition of "torture equipment" (1b).

Recognising that many devices having otherwise legitimate applications can also be employed in acts of torture, and that trade in these devices cannot be totally restrictedWe would urge you go strike this clause completely, as trade in such can not be effectively restricted at all, and substitute a statement that using common implements and materials for purposes of torture is equally condemned.

Equally recognising that certain controls can be imposed to rendering such devices less likely to be used for the purposes of torture:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
- 'torture' as any act of violence or ill-treatment perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, punishment, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;As worded, this would define common spanking of children as torture.
- 'potential torture equipment' as any device that could reasonably be used for the administration of torture, particularly including arms, interrogation equipment, and restraints;Recommend removing this one. Side-note: arms and restraints have far more legitimate uses than illegitimate, the list of "reasonably be used" is as long as the mind can make it, including all tools, medical equipment, kitchen equipment, gym and exercise equipment, tapes, ropes, hardware and supplies, pharmaceuticals, etc. etc.

3. Requires member nations to destroy or render unusable any such equipment, excepting examples that are required as evidence;Do you mean article 3 to only apply to actual torture equipment?

4. Declares that for all international transfers of potential torture equipment, the following protocol must be adhered to:
- all contracts, whether directly between supplier and end-user, or involving brokers, must stipulate the condition of no use for torture;If a nation is willing to use torture in contravention of UNR 26, they're not going to be willing to lie or at least maintain plausible denial on purchase orders? This article is easily side-stepped. You can't sell me iron maidens? I'll order garbage disposals and electric stove tops instead.

What about the more extreme fringe of the BDSM "community"?The Sexual Privacy Act excludes "acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant" from protection. The legal question in this case would be whether a "device of no practical use other than in the administration of torture" would lead to death or serious injury if used in a sexual fashion.Given the definition of torture in this proposal, use of any such item for sexual gratification wouldn't qualify as torture. We would prefer, however, that consensual acts were specifically excluded from coverage here.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Rubina

Ganzland applauds the laudable aims of the proposal, but shares other delegates concerns as to its practicability and efficacy. Our government is of the opinion that previous UN resolutions prohibiting torture cover the aims of this resolution more than adequately.

Ganzland Ambassador to the UN

Will the overseas visits of the Bahgumian mothers in law be affected by this proposal? Our glorious leader would be most disturbed if so.

The Logopian government applauds the intent of this proposal and we are most interested in its development. That being said, we have a number of problems with it:

-We are also of the opinion that trying to restrict the trade of 'potential torture equipment' as defined in this proposal is impractical at best.

-We see the definition of “torture” in function of its intent as somewhat problematic. Under the current definition, inflicting bodily harm on an unwilling individual for personal gratification or as a form of entertainment would not constitute torture. We are sure this is not your intent. Furthermore, defining torture in function of its intent, could allow anyone to declare a certain item will be used for something other than “coercion, intimidation, punishment, …”, thus not for the administration of torture, and therefore not subject to the restrictions set by this proposal.

-We believe the manufacturing, transfer, and possession of at least some devices built and designed for bodily harm is legitimate in certain circumstances. Some examples of this could be: whips used by some religions for self flagellation, many implements used by the BSDM community, and historical implements displayed in museums

Iris Fairchild
Logopian UN Representative

Regarding what I see as the main two objections thus far raised, I had considered them both, and was hoping to essentially evade them. I see now that will not be possible.

1. If an activity is consensual - presumably, as mentioned, for sexual purposes - then I can't see that it meets the definition, given the words 'of no practical excuse except', and 'for the purposes of [list which conspicuously does not include getting your rocks off]'. That said, I will try to take this concern into account in any future drafts.

2. And - with no disrespect to the BDSM community intended, I consider this the more major objection - I completely accept that there is an almost infinite range of items that could be so employed, and further that this makes placing controls on 'potential' torture equipment pretty much a non-starter. This is maybe the key objection:
You can't sell me iron maidens? I'll order garbage disposals and electric stove tops instead.
Do people feel this is legitimate, in that banning torture equipment (those items that are of no other practical use) will simply lead to heightened trading of more mundane, but not necessarily less 'effective', alternatives - and hence that there is pretty much no point in this?

If so, consider it scrapped, but if not, would it be worth continuing, so long as the windmill-tilting distractions of 'potential torture equipment' are dropped?

-- Samantha Benson

Well, clearly you can't ban hammers and car batteries, even though they could be used for such purposes. However, the aforementioned iron maidens have no purpose save inflicting torture (unless they're being used as museum pieces). I see no problem with banning straight-up torture devices, even if there are huge loopholes. Really, there's not much need for people to be trading in Judas Chairs.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

That seems reasonable to me. Thus a highly stripped down reshaping of it would look like:

International Torture Trade

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The United Nations,

Strongly reasserting its absolute stance against torture, as affirmed in several previous resolutions, and in general,

Concerned that certain devices used for torture can still be freely traded within and between nations,

Expressing its hope that by restricting the trade in such devices, an important further step towards effectively eliminating torture will be taken,

And regrettably recognising that many devices having otherwise legitimate applications can also be employed in acts of torture, and that trade in these devices cannot realistically be restricted:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
- 'torture' as any act of violence or ill-treatment perpetrated against persons for the purposes of coercion, intimidation, punishment, interrogation or the obtaining of information or forced confession;
- 'torture equipment' as any device of no practical use other than in the administration of torture;

2. Prohibits the production, possession, transfer or use of torture equipment, including acting as a broker for such transfer or the rendering of technical assistance.

I've removed the bit about destroying them: nations can figure out what to do with them on their own, and the issue of museum exhibits isn't totally invalid. Now the question is whether there should be provision for at least some other devices - arms, interrogation equipment, restraints, non-lethal weaponry such as tasers - regarding their sale for the purposes of torture because a) the UN has no relevant arms control legislation in this area and b) Dashanzi's proposed proposal would not eliminate the trading of, for example, leg irons or high frequency electric stun guns. There would probably be room now to flesh out any unclear parts; obviously, though, I'm not going to get into defining every single word realms of silliness.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Department of UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

We certainly applaud the intent of this proposal. But we have to question whether it would have its intended effect: that "an important further step towards effectively eliminating torture will be taken". As the author recoqnizes, it's certainly not necessary to have the devices that would be prohibited by the proposal to inflict torture. It's perfectly possible -- in fact, commonplace -- to torture people using commonly and immediately available items. We doubt that the proposal would have any significant impact on the problem.

We wouldn't oppose the proposal. But we regret that we'd be hard-pressed to drum up any enthusiasm for supporting it.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Global Disarmament? Really? Hm.

Well, I figure they are essentially weapons. I will think it over and try to write to a different category if it doesn't fit.

I'm just wondering if it might not fit better under Moral Decency. GD seems a bit of a stretch, as I don't know if you'd call them "weapons" and that their banning would reduce police/military budgets. Also, switching to MD probably wouldn't require a major rewrite...

But aren't 'Moral Decency' resolutions basically supposed to restrict individuals, rather than governments? And aren't [specialised] torture implements more likely to be used by governments than by individuals?

Indeed, the individual is more likely to be buying it for his...personal needs.

ooc...I've now got images of Re Brown in my head.

But aren't 'Moral Decency' resolutions basically supposed to restrict individuals, rather than governments? And aren't [specialised] torture implements more likely to be used by governments than by individuals?Hrm. You have a point there.

Do we have any other trade-restricting Resolutions we can compare this to?

There are too many loopholes in this draft.

There are too many loopholes in this draft.

Loving the criticism.
Perhaps something constructive now and we will be giving you a front page article!

Schamm Rycht
UN Correspondant
The Gaffa Gossip

It would seem to me this is denying governments to run themselves as they please.

We, the region of Way Down South in Dixie, feel that this proposal is an attack on sovreign well being and will campaign against said proposal most vehemently. Who is the UN to tell us how we should treat prisoners and whether or not we must allow torture. We feel, since all in our region are democracies in the truest since, that this is something that should be left up to the votes of our most humble citizens. We will tolerate no attack on our sovreign beliefs, whose principles we value dearly. This proposal should be canned before it ever be brought to vote for ratification by the full UN. Thank you.:sniper:

Perhaps the Carolinians should do their research. Torture and unfair punishment is already banned under The Universal Bill of Rights, The Fair Sentencing Act and the Definition of a Fair Trial.

*Ambss. Jawey turns to include the Verkatans*

It is your sovereign right to trade in goods which your country may not use? What a message that sends out to non-UN countries.

This is not a question of how a government is run but limiting the distribution of objects that have no use except for illegal activities.
Do not worry, you can still trade in your guns though. *mimes kneecapping the Carolinian ambassador*

ooc: 'sovereign right this', 'sovereign right that'. Play a different tune. If you're going to argue NatSov at least give a better argument. And I think you'll find that you cannot repeal with just NatSov as an argument so why should it block legislation

The NSUN Nuncia of the Eternal Kawaii turns to one of her secretaries and asks, "What's the current over/under on when an Antarctic Oasis nation publishes '1001 Human Rights Violations You Can Commit With Common Household Objects'?"

Torture and unfair punishment is already banned under...The Fair Sentencing Act
It is emphatically not.

As to the category, I will try to write to one rather than shoehorn it in, given I am one of the people who generally moans about such. I'd really rather not use Moral Decency if possible, but I'll consider it. I'll take a couple of days to think it over.

(ooc: oops...that's what happens when you copy & paste from something you wrote elsewhere)

We at the Holy Empire of Pugliasium think that maybe instead of banning torture, you should enforce proper treatment of prisoners of war. It seems to me that torture is just too broad of a subject.

For instance, a toture device can be a haunting and hard to find as an iron maiden, or it can be as simple a dunking someone into a large tub of cold water repeatedly. A lesson on 17th century agrarian economics can be torture while so can prisoner labour, if the prisoners are worked hard enough.

That said, torture is not a military disarment issue, and governments, as well as people should be decent. Since corparations, which are legal entities, not people are expected to obey the law, so should governments, which are also legal entities becuase they can sue and be sued (and much more).

Pugliasium, believes, that an improvement to the POW resolution would be better at solving the problem, however, if you must, you should ban all forms of torture that punture the skin, can cause long term damage to mentalhealth, or dislocate any joints (something like that). That way the NatSov will be able to preform non lethal torture and the victems may make speedy recoveries.

We at the Holy Empire of Pugliasium think that maybe instead of banning torture, you should enforce proper treatment of prisoners of war. It seems to me that torture is just too broad of a subject.But not all torture victims are POWs.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Hrm. You have a point there.

Do we have any other trade-restricting Resolutions we can compare this to?
* ooc: The interminable and most likely fruitless drafting thread for Arms Export Code of Conduct (link in my sig) might be useful here. I think International Security was the best fit. The proposals are quite different, but restriction of trade is key for both. *

The Narnian Council applauds the fact that something is being done to reduce widespreading torture across this multitude of nations in general. We also recognize the rightful intention behind the banning of torture equipment.

However, we don't recognize this proposal as a very effective method of reducing the practice of torture. The banning of torture equipment will prevent, to a high degree, commercial/business profits made from this practice, although this has never really been a problem anyway. Just about any object in any household has the ability, if used right, to seriously harm a victim. If this proposal really only goes as far as banning torture equipment, we expect that little or no results will occur.

Perhaps instead of questioning 'how' to prevent torture, we must ask 'why' torture exists. Gangs, organized crime, corrupt governments, discrimination, other crimes derivative from hate, anger, lust for power...etc. If the UN begins to pass resolutions striking at the roots, torture (and a massive multitude of other problems) will be seriously crippled.

the Pugliasium thinks that banning torture equipment is slightly on the impossibel side. As mentioned before torture equipment can be almost anthying, instead torture should become illegal.

As for why torture exists it's meant to extract information. Armies use torture to determine the position of enemy units etc, and governments use it to force confessions (after some techniques some innocent people will admitt to anything). Torture is not meant to kill people becuase it is inefficient when compared to shooting someone in the head. Secondly, the torture device industry is a very small industry in that torture equipment can come from anywhere.

It would be simpler to state that torture is a crime against humanity and practicers will be persicuted.

Perhaps the Carolinians should do their research. Torture and unfair punishment is already banned under The Universal Bill of Rights, and the Definition of a Fair Trial.
Looks like the fact torture is already banned needs to be highlighted. :rolleyes:

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

That I have noticed, however:

I believe that we are not simply discussing the prohibition of torture - we are discussing the prevention of a business sector opened up for the trade of torture equipment.

However, as I have already stated, The Narnian Council does not believe that this should be much of a concern - for the reasons stated in my previous post.

Unless a DIY company opens up and expressly offers its services to Governmental offices as a torture equipment supplier I don't think it is much of an issue.
The prupose of the resolution surely is to send out a message? "Your trade is not welcome here and if you're looking for manufacturers in such equipment look elsewhere - the UN abhors torture and look down upon nations that continue to use and supply it!"

in principal yes, nice idea; but in any case, it would just push torture equipment trade underground, where it can be redefined.

perhaps instead motion for a group to be set up to monitor trade in items identified as 'torture devices' to make sure they are being used for kinky sex/bondage/museum artefacts, not for torture and have regular inspections.