NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Argument: UNDERSTANDING the goal behind the Sex Industry Worker Act which is to allow for "an happier, more content and more productive society" by legalizing prostitution,

NOTING however that the right for someone to choose to be a prostitute is already duplicated by Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), as people has the freedom to choose to sell their own body, without "unreasonable interference",

FURTHER NOTING Resolution #192 (Sexual Privacy Act) which prohibits the criminalization of "any form of sexual activity", including prostitution, if it is done by consenting adults and done in private,

STATING that the rest of the resolution is worded with clauses that merely 'encourages' nations to change their behavior, but does nothing else,

CONCLUDING this resolution therefore to be nothing more than a duplicate of much more well-written resolutions that already protect prostitution,

DESIRING to remove useless resolutions to streamline bureaucracy,

The United Nations:
1) REPEALS Sex Industry Worker Act

A pretty straightfoward repeal, the resolution does nothing except reaffirm rights already protected, so it is no longer needed. Funny poll coming later as soon as I got time.

seams good ill place my support for it

We'd be hard-pressed to find a sillier or more pedantic argument for repealing UNR #91. We acknowledge that it in many ways resembles the repeal of Gay Rights on redundancy grounds; however, there are two very distinct differences in context: 1) Gay Rights was an embarrassing essay written by a 12-year-old that didn't protect anything, whereas The Sex Industry Worker Act is actually a well-written resolution that at least attempts to protect basic rights of sex-industry workers; and 2) at the time Repeal "Gay Rights" passed, gay people already enjoyed substantial protections under international law through multiple passed resolutions (several of which, embarrassingly, have now been repealed). Prostitutes under existing international law do not enjoy such broad protections. Add to that the sheer laughability of the assertion that a frivolous fluff note such as UNR #53 in any way deems TSIWA redundant. Moreover, the supposedly "redundant" TSIWA actually protects the rights of prostitutes to enjoy clean and safe work environments, something that would not otherwise exist on an international scale without UNR #91.

While we do not necessarily share the opinion that prostitutes should have rights under international law, and we somewhat lack fond feelings for the author of the original resolution, we cannot at this time endorse such a weak repeal argument. The Federal Republic remains undecided.

Sammy Faisano
Adviser to the Mission

*snip*
Moreover, the supposedly "redundant" TSIWA actually protects the rights of prostitutes to enjoy clean and safe work environments, something that would not otherwise exist on an international scale without UNR #91.
OOC: Mightn't this point now be covered by the Workplace Safety Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10540292&postcount=147)?
*checks*
Well, it would be covered for those prostitutes who had employers, but not for freelance ones... unless one considers each of their clients to be, however temporarily, an employer.

You have the wholehearted support of the Holy Empire of Marcusism. This repeal is a step in the right direction for the UN. Less control over an individual country's sovereignty and more of a focus on world peace.

first its this then :mp5:WORLD DOMINATION:sniper:

:cool:LONG LIVE CAPITALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:cool:

OOC: Mightn't this point now be covered by the Workplace Safety Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10540292&postcount=147)?
*checks*
Well, it would be covered for those prostitutes who had employers, but not for freelance ones... unless one considers each of their clients to be, however temporarily, an employer.Well, if you want to continue being pedantic (and it's not surprising, given the source), this repeal's citation of SPA is very shaky, since investigators under #192 are still allowed to probe instances of sexual encounters if they think a law is being broken. As SPA does not explicitly legalize prostitution, the sex may be legal, but the paying for such could still be banned -- and since police can investigate sex on probable cause of illegal activity, they can still catch johns and prostitutes in the act. Sexual privacy is not absolute, not even under Sexual Privacy Act -- nor should it be -- and this repeal argument is simply not valid.

We are also rather concerned that the author doesn't seem to have had his text vetted anywhere. Maybe he thought it was an "easy" proposal and didn't need to, but we're still dissatisfied with the final result.

[/semi-OOC]

We find that to repeal this means we have to later face those who would hang us for operating cat houses.

These three statements in your arguement to repeal are what concern us:

STATING that the rest of the resolution is worded with clauses that merely 'encourages' nations to change their behavior, but does nothing else,We believe that R91 was designed to encourage nations that endorse abusive actions in reguards to cat house operation and establisment to use more gentle methods and protect the workers of such institutions of pleasure. Thus if it does that then the resolution is doing what it is suppose to do encourage safer proper more gentle operation of cat houses.

Madame Honeydew,
Owner Princess Honeydews Cat Houses, LTD.

CONCLUDING this resolution therefore to be nothing more than a duplicate of much more well-written resolutions that already protect prostitution, We have not see this current resolution you speak of and believe that any that might be written will fail to do more than has been done toward cleaning up nation cat houses in all UN member nations.

Senator Hickman,
District One Saint Orion, Cavirra Township

DESIRING to remove useless resolutions to streamline bureaucracy,Then why not propose to shut the full UN down as this would get rid of any and all useless resolutions streamline a lot of the bureaucracy ones is forced to deal with just being a member of it. As long as members creat such resolutions as are on the books there will be waste and a hell of a lot of bureaucracy as it is the nature of politicians to cloud issues for thier own profit and gain and the UN is full of them. All trying to gain from bleeding the lesser nations like vampires sucking them dry...

Justice Hangemall,
President Order of Saint Vampiruss

We absolutely concur with Ambassador Faisano in his analysis that this repeal is utterly wrong in all its arguments. The various resolutions cited certainly do not combine to give the effect of legalising prostitution. Regrettably previous repeals have demonstrated that lying through one's teeth is not sufficient reason for striking down a proposal while it is seeking approvals. We therefore find ourselves limited to urging all nations to vote against this idiocy with all the vigour at their disposal.

The Veblenian government agrees that the resolutions cited in the repeal do not adequately cover the terms of resolution #91. Resolution #53 is a flimsy piece of poetry that protects nothing. The Sexual Privacy Act defines sexual activity as "consensual physical intimacy, that may be directed to reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification." Without explicitly mentioning commercial or entrepreneurial activity, the Veblenian republic does not see this as an adequate protection of the sex trade or its workers. Moreover, neither resolution contains any language to uphold the rights of sex workers.

Veblenia is steadfastly opposed to the repeal on the grounds of its specious claims and faulty logic.

Our vote will be cast according to the disposition of the Wysterian region, which appears to be heading in favour. We will comment, though, that while we have no great affection for Resolution #91, we would rather have seen it repealed with an argument containing some shred of accuracy.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Like many others, it seems, I support the end but not the means. And the means are important enough to me for Dashanzi's support to be withheld. Ultimately, however, I am servant to the wishes of my region.

Benedictions,

On consideration, we're going to just ABSTAIN on this resolution.

I don't think a comment is necessary to explain why.

International law has limited place in defining what a business can or cannot do. That is the job of a nation to enforce. The only exception to this we can is business practices that have a direct unwanted impact on other nations such as neighboring nations spreading pollution, or terrorist training (though that's hardly a business practice).

If it removes law, we are for it.

Only slightly out of topic, but is anyone interested in writing a resolution resolving that the UN make only SUBSTANTIVE repeals, so as not to waste Assembly time discussing the redundant motions to repeal redundant resolutions.

Only slightly out of topic, but is anyone interested in writing a resolution resolving that the UN make only SUBSTANTIVE repeals, so as not to waste Assembly time discussing the redundant motions to repeal redundant resolutions.

Don't bother, it's illegal.

On consideration, we're going to just ABSTAIN on this resolution.

I don't think a comment is necessary to explain why.

On the contrary, we think it entirely necessary that the honoured ambassador explain to this chamber why he is too ashamed to support his own proposal.

As far as I can tell, there is no arguement against repealing the resolution. So I shall vote for.

I just voted because I can.

In my book it's a case of live and let live.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in support of this repeal. The idea that the exploitation of people in the form of "sex workers" should be given UN protection is a disgrace to this august body. We look forward to the day that this odious practice is outlawed throughout the civilized world. This repeal is but a small step, but at least a step in the right direction!

For the aforementioned reasons, The Allied Empire of Jey has cast its 11 votes as Delegate of the United Nations AGAINST this repeal.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Representative

On the contrary, we think it entirely necessary that the honoured ambassador explain to this chamber why he is too ashamed to support his own proposal.

The point of the repeal of the SIWA was to get rid of what we felt was a rather useless resolution. We were distrubed at the many repeal attempts against SIWA that had the goal of trying to make nations decide what to do with prositution. Our belief, therefore, was to get rid of SIWA, to stop those endless repeals, and make it clear that nations cannot decide to ban prositution.

When we found out that SIWA had in fact some use, and that the repeal had lots of problems, it was already in voting, and cannot be withdrawn. So, having mixed feelings, we abstained.

SilentScope Embassy is a firm promoter of Prositution. To realize that our proposal may end up playing into the hands of those who hated Prositution...is quite shocking, to be honest.
---Dr. Bob

We'd be hard-pressed to find a sillier or more pedantic argument for repealing UNR #91. We acknowledge that it in many ways resembles the repeal of Gay Rights on redundancy grounds; however, there are two very distinct differences in context: 1) Gay Rights was an embarrassing essay written by a 12-year-old that didn't protect anything, whereas The Sex Industry Worker Act is actually a well-written resolution that at least attempts to protect basic rights of sex-industry workers; ...

Sammy Faisano
Adviser to the Mission

We are also voting against this repeal. In particular, the FACT that one of the repeals principle arguments is the use of the word "encourages" in a resolution is particularly disturbing. Many US resolutions use the word ... in fact, many nations find UN membership tolerable in large part because words like this imply the UN is *not* an international Mommy State.

We'd like to encourage nations to vote against any repeals which even uses *part* of its arguments against a resolution on a flawed and one-sided opinion that weak languaged resolutions are ineffective, because this is an assumption and a poor one at that.

Howie T. Katzman

There is a difference, a fundamental difference in resolutions that SHOULD merely encourage and resolutions that should require things. If an issue is international in scope, the legislation should enforce things, not suggest them.

That's the UN's sphere of influence, international legislation. I agree that the UN should in this case merely encourage and not enforce as this pertains to domestic legislation, but other legislation is not bound by the same rules.

My support for any repeal of this legislation is due to item 1, wherein it declares prostitution legal in all member states. That is not within the realm of the UN.

I voted for the repeal on the grounds that the original piece of legislation does indeed need to be struck down, but upon closer inspection of the weakness of the arguments presented therein, I believe I too, will abstain.

The Rogue Nation of Moral Absolutism does not condone prostitution.
I vote against this resolution.

-Absolutist Ambassador 235

Like several others, I dislike the proposal being repealed but also dislike the repeal itself. We'll probably be abstaining (OOC: unless I get enough endos to become delegate before the vote expires, in that case I'll be voting for in accordance with the regional poll).

Mr. Guy
Temporary Paradican UN Representative

The Dictatorship of Magick and Witchcraft wonders that if this is repealed, then what will protect those who are making a certified living at prostitution and will vote NO unless or until we see that there is a plan in place to help protect legitamate prostitutes.

There is a difference, a fundamental difference in resolutions that SHOULD merely encourage and resolutions that should require things. If an issue is international in scope, the legislation should enforce things, not suggest them.

That's the UN's sphere of influence, international legislation. I agree that the UN should in this case merely encourage and not enforce as this pertains to domestic legislation, but other legislation is not bound by the same rules.

My support for any repeal of this legislation is due to item 1, wherein it declares prostitution legal in all member states. That is not within the realm of the UN.

I voted for the repeal on the grounds that the original piece of legislation does indeed need to be struck down, but upon closer inspection of the weakness of the arguments presented therein, I believe I too, will abstain.

My government understands and agrees with the Dourian perspective on the scope of UN resolutions. Furthermore, we are pleased to see several nations recognizing that elements of the arguments presented in the current repeal do more damage than ironically the flexible resolution being repealed, and with that we appreciate those nations that find the original resolution objectionable that are abstaining from this repeal.

That said, my government actually supports the need for some international reacknowledgment that the sex industry does in fact deserve some form of protection ... but that of course is an opinion best discussed elsewhere, and a subject that my government also realizes is not universally shared by all.

We are also voting against this repeal. In particular, the FACT that one of the repeals principle arguments is the use of the word "encourages" in a resolution is particularly disturbing. Many US resolutions use the word ... in fact, many nations find UN membership tolerable in large part because words like this imply the UN is *not* an international Mommy State.

Well, I suppose we might as well have a small discussion on the side about this.

The problem is, 'encourages' makes many people think the UN is doing something, when in fact, it is not doing, well, anything. The real life UN does in fact encourages, and that is something I fully-heartly approve. It's real life. But in the NSUN, it has the power to actually require stuff to be done. I mean, if all we pass are words that 'encourages' stuff to be done, then the NSUN becomes a paper tiger, a mere debate club.

I must stress that I do not want an international Mommy State. As a former Gatesvillian, I know the problems associated with that. I just want nations to be told: "You must place in health and safety regulations and protect prositutes" for instance. It is up to the nations to decide how they want to follow the law (peserving national soverignty), but they should at least make a good faith effort to follow it rather than hear a suggestion and shrug it. We both agree about prositution should be protected under UN Law, and I personally feel that the UN should go a little farther in that effort (but not too far).

I suppose. It's just a small debate point, and it's rather unlikely we're going to agree. The main issue has already been resolved.
---Dr. Bob

EDIT: Funny poll belatedly added.

SilentScope Embassy is a firm promoter of Prositution. To realize that our proposal may end up playing into the hands of those who hated Prositution...is quite shocking, to be honest.

We weep. Honestly, we weep. It is evident that you have not only failed to learn any lessons from your previous withdrawn proposals, Dr Bob, but that the lessons of basic honour and integrity have been lost on you in this case also. Please do not expect our support or assistance in any matter ever again.

We both agree about prositution should be protected under UN Law

OOC: But why should this be so? Even leaving aside the question of National Sovereignty for now, is any other profession given such protection?

OOC: But why should this be so? Even leaving aside the question of National Sovereignty for now, is any other profession given such protection?

(OOC: No, not really. The reason prositution should be protected is because the majority of UN nations want it to be protected.

To be fair though, you raised a valid point. Eh. I'll think about it.)

(OOC: No, not really. The reason prositution should be protected is because the majority of UN nations want it to be protected.

To be fair though, you raised a valid point. Eh. I'll think about it.)

OOC: I don't know about that. Most of the folks supporting this repeal are supporting it so they aren't protected.

OOC: I don't know about that. Most of the folks supporting this repeal are supporting it so they aren't protected.

(OOC: I'm talking more about the previous passage of SWIA, with about 62.1% support, back in 2005-02-06. The repeal of "Legalize prostitution" meanwhile only had 53.3% on 2005-01-12, while the "Legalize prositution" resolution had only 53.9% support on 2004-02-02.

It is, well, 2008, meaning the UN may have shifted right-ward, but I still bet the UN still have some liberal beliefs, so I believe the majority of the NSUN still support prositution, due to looking at the precentages.

My belief is this: If the majority of the NSUN want something to be done, then it should be done. If they agree that prositution should be protected and is outside of the control of the NSUN, then that should be true. If they don't, then I will agree with them too. The actual arguments for and against prositution are, well, likely, better off being discussed in another topic, though.)

OOC: But why should this be so? Even leaving aside the question of National Sovereignty for now, is any other profession given such protection?

OOC: Well, historically, prostitution is considered the oldest profession in the world. Perhaps that's why it needs to be protected by UN laws.

Interesting... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution)

OOC: But why should this be so? Even leaving aside the question of National Sovereignty for now, is any other profession given such protection?Well let's see. Is there any other profession which a large number of governments outlaw based on misinformation and religious prejudice, said laws being used to inordinately oppress a particular class of society? When tax accountants are hounded by the police for exchanging money for their services let us know and we'll extend protection to them as well.

OOC: I don't know about that. Most of the folks supporting this repeal are supporting it so they aren't protected.You read minds?

...My belief is this: If the majority of the NSUN want something to be done, then it should be done.Then you have no moral backbone, and nothing you propose to this body deserves support from anyone as it is mere pandering.


Leetha Talone
Irritated UN Ambassador

Well let's see. Is there any other profession which a large number of governments outlaw based on misinformation and religious prejudice, said laws being used to inordinately oppress a particular class of society? When tax accountants are hounded by the police for exchanging money for their services let us know and we'll extend protection to them as well.
OOC: By apparently ignoring the fact that some governments might outlaw prostitution based on accurate information and/or loyalty to sincerely held religious beliefs, aren't you showing your prejudices?

There are a lot of governments that try to outlaw involvement in private enterprise of all kinds, for ideological reasons, but the UN hasn't passed (and, by its current rules, almost certainly can't pass) a general-purpose 'Protection of Private Enterprise' resolution... :(
And if nations are being allowed to ban things due to Marxist beliefs, why shouldn't they be allowed to ban things due to belief in other doctrines as well? Why should Marxism be the only creed thus-privileged?

St Ed, it's really hard to reply to your OOC pot-shots at IC statements without getting somewhat rude to you personally. Please stop putting yourself in a privileged position before people decide that they don't care any more.

Yeah, maybe we should just let this thread go? A protracted out of character discussion of prostitution seems like something for General. Not to mention that voting finished yesterday.

Indeed.