NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Social Justice


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Swiatlo

Description: REALIZING
1) Prostitution although illegal in a number of nations, exists in every nation.
2) Sex workers often work in extremely dangerous conditions and are constantly at threat both from those they work for, and clients.
3) The general public has a negative attitude towards Sex Workers and thus their plight is often overlooked.

SUGGESTING
1) Safehouses be set up throughout the WA area where Sex Workers can recieve support, counselling and advice.
2) Sex workers unions be recognized by the respective governments and thus their issues dealt with. (Different nations sex workers will have different issues).
3) Permittance of unimposing, clean and safe 'brothels' - in an effort to take the sex workers off the street and thus increase their safety.

Approvals: 5 (The Artic Republics, South Lorenya, Charlotte Ryberg, Wierd Anarchists, Ventei)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 103 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Jun 26 2008

This draft allows for countries to preserve their sovereignty - it demands that sex workers unions be recognised so the issues are made public and the sex workers are given a voice, but does not tell the governments how to respond to them. This proposal does not legalize Prostitution but merely accepts that even though illegal it persists, and thus the best form of action is taking away as much as possible of the risks and danger associated with prostitution, rather than trying to get a firm grip on it and having it slip through the fingers.

Please support this bill, as you can see it trys not to overly interfere in countries, but still trys to improve social welfare for sex workers.

the government of the emperor of urgench highly approves of the attempt this resolution represents to protect the lives and wellbeing of some of many of our nations most vulnerable persons.
we wonder if the third suggestion might be a little less clumsy, an alternative wording could be;

" permittance of discreet, clean and safe premises in which to work so as to remove this work from public places and to increase levels of safety both for these workers and the public. "

you could mention that this might reduce levels of public offence also?

the government of the emperor would be glad to vote for such a resolution should it be brought before the w.a. and we commend it's authors.

yours e.t.c.

The government of Salzland is very confused by the meaning of this resolution. Either it is only "suggesting" that individual nations may choose to provide support for their prostitutes, or it is "demanding" compliance by all member states.

If this resolution intends the former, then there is no point to a WA Resolution because the nations that support it will either already have such programs in place, or will move to do so, while the nations opposed take no actions. In other words, the status quo remains the same.

If the resolution intends the latter, then despite the author's claims of preserving member sovereignty this resolution not only alters national criminal codes by mandating the government legalization of prostitution (one may use as many fancy words to dance around the subject as one wishes, but government-sponsored prostitute unions, government-financed prostitute "shelters," and setting government standards for brothels all amount to a practical legalization of this crime), but does so in a blatantly dishonest manner. Selling this resolution as merely a small advance in social justice, when it in fact is a substantial revision of national criminal codes, cannot be explained as anything more than an attempt by the author to "Sneak one past" the World Assembly (as it were), or in layman's terms to trick the Assembly into voting for a Resolution that says one thing and clearly (in the author's description, at the very least) means another.

As such, this Resolution stands either as pointless, or dishonest, and Salzland opposes.

The government of Salzland is very confused by the meaning of this resolution. Either it is only "suggesting" that individual nations may choose to provide support for their prostitutes, or it is "demanding" compliance by all member states.

If this resolution intends the former, then there is no point to a WA Resolution because the nations that support it will either already have such programs in place, or will move to do so, while the nations opposed take no actions. In other words, the status quo remains the same.

If the resolution intends the latter, then despite the author's claims of preserving member sovereignty this resolution not only alters national criminal codes by mandating the government legalization of prostitution (one may use as many fancy words to dance around the subject as one wishes, but government-sponsored prostitute unions, government-financed prostitute "shelters," and setting government standards for brothels all amount to a practical legalization of this crime), but does so in a blatantly dishonest manner. Selling this resolution as merely a small advance in social justice, when it in fact is a substantial revision of national criminal codes, cannot be explained as anything more than an attempt by the author to "Sneak one past" the World Assembly (as it were), or in layman's terms to trick the Assembly into voting for a Resolution that says one thing and clearly (in the author's description, at the very least) means another.

As such, this Resolution stands either as pointless, or dishonest, and Salzland opposes.


the government of the emperor of urgench suspects that the most highly respected ambassador for Salzland may be allowing their vision to be clouded by matters of criminal responsibility.
this resolution, only mandates that sex workers be protected in law as other workers and persons in vulnerable situations are.
while we agree that the provisions regarding sew workers unions may be radical for some nations, it does not mention that these unions would or should be "sponsored" by national governments, only that they be recognised.
the provisions for safe houses and decent working conditions do not stipulate government sponsorship either, they only suggest that governments extend protections to sex workers which many nations already extend to vulnerable workers or individuals who may be exposed to exploitation or violence.
surely that is only fair?
we agree with the honoured ambassador for salzland, that the wording of this resolution is very mild but that will be in it's favour as stronger statutes of this kind would doubtless be extremely divisive and controversial.
we don't think that any dishonesty is involved either since this resolution clearly states that national governments need not change their laws on prostitution, they need only accept that it exists almost universaly in spite of the law and that those citizens involved in it are entitled to the same sorts of protection as the rest of the citizenry.

yours e.t.c.

Heh.. This whole resolutions seems pointless if you ask me. Some nations already have that program and others who don't want it won't be forced. I know that 'cuz Im one of them.

Whilst we are a young nation and realise we are very new to the world assembly, we are horrified at such a resolution being suggested.

We would agree with the government of Salzland that should this resolution ever be made law, then we would be allowing criminal practises, and has well been said, what one allows, one encourages.

If these suggested SEW unions were formed, then we would have to immediately prosecute the union's leaders for being at least an accessory to a crime. Meanwhile the members would be arrested for the criminals they are.

Actually, that's not a bad idea, lets allow this resolution to become law, the unions to be organised, and then we can easily arrest all these criminals in one fell swoop, as we will have their names and addresses from the unions' registrations and be done with this filthy problem once and for all.

Whilst we appreciate this filthy work goes on illegally, even with these proposed unions, we believe there will still be those working below the radar in this industry often being "owned" by criminal gangs, and so this resolution while perhaps well-meaning in some senses, will do little for them.

With all due respect to the Government of the Emperor of Urgench, we completely and utterly disagree with your interpretation of this prospective Resolution.

Who will set up these safe houses for prostitutes? The WA member nations' governments. Who will pay to provide these safe houses? WA member nations (through their taxpayers). Who will pay to inspect these facilities, to maintain them, and provide security (so that they remain "safe")? WA member nations. The same can be said for this resolution's calls for government-sponsored brothels. This Resolution will force WA member nations to regularly inspect (and thus approve) locations that exist solely for the purpose of facilitating criminal acts.

Either this resolution calls for a parodoxical solution, where WA member nations may outlaw prostitution at the same time they are subsidizing it and granting prostitutes legal status, or the author is being deliberately deceptive by selling this as a resolution that does not legalize prostitution when in fact none of its provisions can be carried out unless prostitution is no longer a crime. We fail to see how this situation results in anything but government sponsorship of prostitution which, given prostitution's current status as illegal, means that either the legality of prostitution must be changed or that WA member nations will be actively engaged in aiding criminal acts.

As for prostitute unions, whom will these unions seek out to arbitrate disputes when they arise? WA member nations' governments and court systems. As governments cannot mediate disputes in illegal enterprises without giving legal standing and recognition to these enterprises, the effect of this will be to legitimize prostitution. To use a different example, feuding members of a drug cartel do not seek government mediation for their dispute, because they are engaged in an illegal enterprise. Mandating government recognition for prostitute unions is tantamount to giving their "industry" full legal status and protections, which in practice means that this resolution cannot be implemented unless prostitution is no longer illegal.

Thus, my contention that this resolution is dishonest. Yes, it is mildly worded, but deceptively so, as an attempt to "sneak" a World Assembly-mandated legalization of prostitution past this body. Because that is exactly what this resolution calls for: member nations spending revenue gained from their tax payers in order to protect an illegal industry, member nations certifying "brothels" instead of, oh, shutting them down, member nations mediating disputes between members of an illegal industry, thus granting them legal standing before the courts, etcetera.

Perhaps the Government of the Emperor of Urgench can resolve these paradoxical issues in a manner that allows prostitution to remain outlawed while it is sponsored by, and subsidized by our governments, but Salzland feels that such a solution is impossible and that therefore this Resolution must be opposed.

Thus, my contention that this resolution is dishonest. Yes, it is mildly worded, but deceptively so, as an attempt to "sneak" a World Assembly-mandated legalization of prostitution past this body. Because that is exactly what this resolution calls for: member nations spending revenue gained from their tax payers in order to protect an illegal industry, member nations certifying "brothels" instead of, oh, shutting them down, member nations mediating disputes between members of an illegal industry, thus granting them legal standing before the courts, etcetera.

No it doesn't. It just "suggests" that you in effect legalise prostitution, but you're free to ignore the suggestion. It's actually so mildly worded as to be useless.

With all due respect to the Government of the Emperor of Urgench, we completely and utterly disagree with your interpretation of this prospective Resolution.

Who will set up these safe houses for prostitutes? The WA member nations' governments. Who will pay to provide these safe houses? WA member nations (through their taxpayers). Who will pay to inspect these facilities, to maintain them, and provide security (so that they remain "safe")? WA member nations. The same can be said for this resolution's calls for government-sponsored brothels. This Resolution will force WA member nations to regularly inspect (and thus approve) locations that exist solely for the purpose of facilitating criminal acts.

Either this resolution calls for a parodoxical solution, where WA member nations may outlaw prostitution at the same time they are subsidizing it and granting prostitutes legal status, or the author is being deliberately deceptive by selling this as a resolution that does not legalize prostitution when in fact none of its provisions can be carried out unless prostitution is no longer a crime. We fail to see how this situation results in anything but government sponsorship of prostitution which, given prostitution's current status as illegal, means that either the legality of prostitution must be changed or that WA member nations will be actively engaged in aiding criminal acts.

As for prostitute unions, whom will these unions seek out to arbitrate disputes when they arise? WA member nations' governments and court systems. As governments cannot mediate disputes in illegal enterprises without giving legal standing and recognition to these enterprises, the effect of this will be to legitimize prostitution. To use a different example, feuding members of a drug cartel do not seek government mediation for their dispute, because they are engaged in an illegal enterprise. Mandating government recognition for prostitute unions is tantamount to giving their "industry" full legal status and protections, which in practice means that this resolution cannot be implemented unless prostitution is no longer illegal.

Thus, my contention that this resolution is dishonest. Yes, it is mildly worded, but deceptively so, as an attempt to "sneak" a World Assembly-mandated legalization of prostitution past this body. Because that is exactly what this resolution calls for: member nations spending revenue gained from their tax payers in order to protect an illegal industry, member nations certifying "brothels" instead of, oh, shutting them down, member nations mediating disputes between members of an illegal industry, thus granting them legal standing before the courts, etcetera.

Perhaps the Government of the Emperor of Urgench can resolve these paradoxical issues in a manner that allows prostitution to remain outlawed while it is sponsored by, and subsidized by our governments, but Salzland feels that such a solution is impossible and that therefore this Resolution must be opposed.


the government of the emperor of Urgench understands the concerns of the esteemed Ambassador for Salzland, we too are somewhat perturbed by the possible implications of sex worker unions, but much of the rest of this resolution is extremely socially just.
in our eyes it simply recognises the fact that there are only criminal acts and that individuals are not criminal per se in the eyes of the law.
there is no requirement for members to change their laws on prostitution in this resolution, simply to recognise that persons who work in the sex industry are as entitled to the protection of the law as anyone else, by all means prosecute them for their actual crimes if you wish but afford them the same rights as your other citizens in all other respects. sex workers as individuals already have legal recognition as citizens of your nation no?

a person attacked during the commital of an illegal act( such as public drunkeness for instance) has the right to expect the protection of the law if the attack is not an act of self defense no?

the state may also choose a third option between illegality and legality, namely decriminalisation, where the act is illegal but the person committing it is treated differently than other offenders. the case of public drunkeness is instructive here since it is often illegal in many nations but those who offend in this way are rarely punished in the same way as other criminals, of course repeated or antisocial offenders may be ordered to seek treatment or be punished in more conventional ways.

nowhere in this statute does it state that government must provide anything, it suggests that governments might reasonably understand that the closing down of discreet,privately owned premises will cause more problems than it solves and that police forces are better off closing down those premises in which people are exploited or abused. those where this does not occure are in fact a social good since they cut down levels of street crime and antisocial disturbance

a government after the introduction of this resolution need not change it's laws on protitution at all. since we would hope any way that prostitution is illegal in your country and not prostitutes themselves.

as for the matter of shelters, well surely the kindly and charitable people of Salzland cannot object to the provision of safe houses for the protection of exploited, abused and vulnerable persons of any sort can they?

when it comes to the matter of unions for sex workers we are somewhat equivocal, your contention that representation of any kind would constitute accessory to a crime must be incorrect if you allow legal representation of criminals in courts. however you are correct that governments could not arbitrate on issues of industrial dispute in an industry which they have outlawed, but an advocacy group of some kind which could legally promote the rights of it's members to fair treatment under the law could hardly be that objectionable.
perhaps it might better not be a union.

we have to stress that no part of this resolution seeks to legalise sex work in any member nation and non of it's provisions would seek to circumvent national law in this area, and no where are there any requirements for government funding of the sex industry in this resolution,
futher this resolution does not require sponsorship of any kind of any illegal acts, simply that those who are most vulnerable be protected by the law as well as anyone else


yours e.t.c.

With respect to the government of the Emperor of Urgench,

First, this Resolution clearly requires the member nations of the World Assembly take action to aid the workers of the "sex industry." If it did not, then this Resolution would be non-binding, and therefore a complete waste of time, because the nations in favor would already have such programs in place, while the nations without would in no way be compelled to add them.

Specifically, this Resolution requires that governments provide "safe houses" for prostitutes, requires governments legally recognize prostitute unions and give them legal standing equal to other, legitimate unions, and requires that governments ensure that there are "safe" brothels for all prostitutes.

This Resolution in no way concerns equal protection under the law, it seeks to create special protections for a currently-illegal "industry," and the individuals who participate in said "industry."

Salzland politely dismisses your arguments concerning protection for drunks who fight in "self-defense," and decriminalization as irrelevant to the Resolution at hand, barring further elaboration.

As for the matter of shelters, as previously mentioned the issue is not the "provision of safe houses for the protection of exploited, abused and vulnerable persons," but this Resolution's requirement that governments establish "safe houses" specifically for the use of prostitutes. The idea of forcing WA member nations to allocate funds specifically for the support of members of a criminal enterprise is simply ridiculous. Not only that, but this Resolution neglects to make any statement that renouncing prostitution is a requirement for entry into one of these "safe houses," meaning that as it stands right now these "safe houses" could easily turn into government-subsidized housing for active prostitutes. How could anyone make the argument that it is the duty of the state to provide housing and support for individuals actively engaged in criminal activities?

To conclude for the time being, this Resolution clearly represents government sponsorship of prostitution; to interpret it as anything but is incredibly naive and requires such mind-boggling stretches of logic as to be absurd. Again, we note that this Resolution requires that WA member states provide "safe houses" solely for the use of prostitutes, which (unless the government of the Emperor of Urgench is willing to pay for the entire program) will require allocating a portion of our national budget for upkeep, security, housing, "counseling" and other support for criminals, mandates that our government be legally bound to permit "clean" brothels to remain open, in defiance of current criminal codes ( "3) Permittance of unimposing, clean and safe 'brothels,' ") and seeks to give unrepentant, active members of an illegal "industry" special protections under the law, to the point of altering national criminal codes in the name of "social justice."

As such, Salzland maintains its strenuous objections to this Resolution.

No it doesn't. It just "suggests" that you in effect legalise prostitution, but you're free to ignore the suggestion. It's actually so mildly worded as to be useless.

I noted such in my original post. It doesn't make any sense to argue over a WA Resolution that basically states that it's up to the member nations to implement or disregard this resolution. However, if this Resolution were to pass it could open up a dangerous precedent in international law towards granting special legal protections to criminals.

(OOC: Whether or not our individual nations decide to implement it, this Resolution will still impact our Social Justice statistics if it passes, so I'm still impacted by it, so I'm going to do what I have to to oppose it)

With respect to the government of the Emperor of Urgench,

First, this Resolution clearly requires the member nations of the World Assembly take action to aid the workers of the "sex industry." If it did not, then this Resolution would be non-binding, and therefore a complete waste of time, because the nations in favor would already have such programs in place, while the nations without would in no way be compelled to add them.

Specifically, this Resolution requires that governments provide "safe houses" for prostitutes, requires governments legally recognize prostitute unions and give them legal standing equal to other, legitimate unions, and requires that governments ensure that there are "safe" brothels for all prostitutes.

This Resolution in no way concerns equal protection under the law, it seeks to create special protections for a currently-illegal "industry," and the individuals who participate in said "industry."

Salzland politely dismisses your arguments concerning protection for drunks who fight in "self-defense," and decriminalization as irrelevant to the Resolution at hand, barring further elaboration.

As for the matter of shelters, as previously mentioned the issue is not the "provision of safe houses for the protection of exploited, abused and vulnerable persons," but this Resolution's requirement that governments establish "safe houses" specifically for the use of prostitutes. The idea of forcing WA member nations to allocate funds specifically for the support of members of a criminal enterprise is simply ridiculous. Not only that, but this Resolution neglects to make any statement that renouncing prostitution is a requirement for entry into one of these "safe houses," meaning that as it stands right now these "safe houses" could easily turn into government-subsidized housing for active prostitutes. How could anyone make the argument that it is the duty of the state to provide housing and support for individuals actively engaged in criminal activities?

To conclude for the time being, this Resolution clearly represents government sponsorship of prostitution; to interpret it as anything but is incredibly naive and requires such mind-boggling stretches of logic as to be absurd. Again, we note that this Resolution requires that WA member states provide "safe houses" solely for the use of prostitutes, which (unless the government of the Emperor of Urgench is willing to pay for the entire program) will require allocating a portion of our national budget for upkeep, security, housing, "counseling" and other support for criminals, mandates that our government be legally bound to permit "clean" brothels to remain open, in defiance of current criminal codes ( "3) Permittance of unimposing, clean and safe 'brothels,' ") and seeks to give unrepentant, active members of an illegal "industry" special protections under the law, to the point of altering national criminal codes in the name of "social justice."

As such, Salzland maintains its strenuous objections to this Resolution.


the government of the emperor of urgench will choose to ignore the honoured and esteemed ambassador for Salzland's accusations that we are naive and that our logic is absurd and suggest that they keep a civil tongue in their heads. doubtless the honoured ambassador is overcome by a seemingly violent abhorrance of the sex industry, which the honoured ambassador might wish to admit before entering on further debate.#

the honoured ambassador we must assume has willfully misread what we have written and ommitted the points on which we agree with them, areas we might fruitfully debate with them.

certain things do however arise from the honoured ambassadors words, firstly that your initial statement is in fact correct, this resolution is in fact far too mild to achieve anything even approaching the nightmare of state run bordellos and whore houses which the respected ambassador indulges in fantasies of.

this resolution would serve to mark an attitude of compassion and understanding even though it is unable to force action on these,
and if the honoured and respected delegate's people have too little of either to be bothered to provide sanctuary for it's most despised citizens then yes the government of the emperor of urgench will gladly fund such charitable work as needs doing.

we feel the diffiency in logic can hardly be claimed by us when we are supporting a resolution which hopes to help people in an entirely practical fashion and in complete congruance with member states existing laws.

it remains to be seen if the rest of this organisations eminently sensible membership will be swayed by such imaginative scaremongering, we suspect they will not be, and we hope they will base their decision on decency and sense of natural justice.

yours e.t.c.

doubtless the honoured ambassador is overcome by a seemingly violent abhorrance of the sex industry, which the honoured ambassador might wish to admit before entering on further debate.#

My apologies to the ambassador from Urgench, but we were unaware that treating criminals as... criminals was considered offensive in your country. In the future we will do our best to interact with you as though the rule of law did not exist.


the honoured ambassador we must assume has willfully misread what we have written and ommitted the points on which we agree with them, areas we might fruitfully debate with them.

Upon re-reading our position, our government finds nowhere in which we willfully misread any aspect of the Urgench position, and in fact have made every effort to address the points raised by the ambassador in a calm and reasonable manner. As to having "omitted the points on which we agree with them, areas we might fruitfully debate with them," we would ask how you intend to debate points we agree upon? And for not mentioning them, one would assume that areas of agreement clearly need no further discussion, unless the respected ambassador only intended to hear that he(she?) was correct, and derive some form of pleasure from that fact?

certain things do however arise from the honoured ambassadors words, firstly that your initial statement is in fact correct, this resolution is in fact far too mild to achieve anything even approaching the nightmare of state run bordellos and whore houses which the respected ambassador indulges in fantasies of.

According to the American Heritage dictionary for the English language, the verb "Suggest," as found in the original Resolution, means: To offer for consideration or action; propose

We respectfully ask the ambassador from Urgench how using logic to debunk the plan proposed by this Resolution is in anyway a "fantasy" that has been indulged in? The author of this Resolution has presented his/her ideas for debate by this body, and any legitimate criticism is thus valid. True, the author used a mild verb to make implementation of this plan optional. The plan itself still remains open for criticism, however, and Salzland feels that a plan that calls on governments to allocate funds from their budgets to subsidize illegal activities is ridiculous.


it remains to be seen if the rest of this organisations eminently sensible membership will be swayed by such imaginative scaremongering, we suspect they will not be, and we hope they will base their decision on decency and sense of natural justice.
yours e.t.c.

Rather than reminding the ambassador of his own calls for keeping a "civil tongue," then pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the cited statement and other offensive personal remarks passed, we will merely indicate that this Resolution has 8 out of 108 Approvals needed to reach a quorum and express joy that the majority of this body chooses to uphold the rule of law.

the government of the emperor of urgench wonders which law the honoured and respected Ambassador for Salzland is so stridently defensive of? their own nations perhaps? the esteemed Ambassador would do well to remember that other nations have other laws, the great people of Salzland have seen fit to legislate very harshly against persons who's occupation they find objectionable, that is their right, we applaud them for their princples and their government for it's adroit defence of them.

however other nations have different principles. those the honoured Ambassador can so casually call "criminals" and whom thay right off as beneath their nations condescention, beyond their compassion are perfectly legitimate citizens in other nations, who are treated with as much respect as the generality of those nations citizenry. a choice of profession does not negate a persons rights in Urgench and we are proud of our principles too.

hypocrisy is a charge we would take very seriously indeed. it is beneath the dignity of the honoured ambassador to make such a charge so we must assume that the great fervour with which the ambassador for Salzland despises members of their own society, and the societies of other nations for that matter, is the cause of such grave misuse of language.

it is with sadness that we note the honoured ambassadors joy at the continued marginalisation of persons most in need of cooption by society, who's lives will continue to be blighted by cruelty and exploitation because his nations great people find their work so very distastefull, and an even greater sense of concern is aroused by the rejoicings of the esteemed ambassador that the many will oppress the few, the strong will crush the week.

yours e.t.c.

r sense of concern is aroused by the rejoicings of the esteemed ambassador that the many will oppress the few, the strong will crush the week.

yours e.t.c.

And just who exactly are "the strong"? I'm guessing your implying yourself there. Ha ha ha!

And just who exactly are "the strong"? I'm guessing your implying yourself there. Ha ha ha!

the government of the emperor of urgench confesses that it does not get the joke, with apologies to the esteemed ambassador for Saiyan Dominance, we meant the majority alluded to by the Honoured Ambassador for Salzland.
we are a small and humble people with little power or influence.

yours sincerely

Nah I was just kidding. But I do not agree fully with this resolution.

Land de Wood international news 25/06/08

There was uproar today in the parliament of Land de Wood when news reached it of a possible World Assembly resolution to effectively decriminalise prostitution while there were a minority in support of doing so, the majority felt that this would only encourage more women and even men, to become involved in this industry.

The internal affairs minister was quoted as saying: "Laws are there to be upheld, if we start decriminialising them then what is the poin in having them in the first place. We will be just like another nation that decriminialised a certain drug and is now considering recriminialising it as surprise, surprise more people are taking it and then allegedly moving on to stronger drugs and committing crimes to fund it.

Another high ranking minister is quoted as saying: "Anything that makes this industry safer, will only encourage more of it to take place. We will find housewives, deciding to go and make a bit of extra money during the day, indulging in what is not only a criminal act but also an immoral act."

The parliament voted today 85-15 in favour of sending an official protest against this proposed bill. There was even a vote held to leave the World Assembly that looked to close to call until a commitment was given by the prime minister that if such a proposed bill was ever to be voted on and then passed by the World Assembly, that the new nation, land de Wood would resign immediately from the WA.

the government of the emperor of urgench confesses that it does not get the joke, with apologies to the esteemed ambassador for Saiyan Dominance, we meant the majority alluded to by the Honoured Ambassador for Salzland.
we are a small and humble people with little power or influence.

yours sincerely

The WA delegate of the Country of Fire (me) would like to apologize for Saiyan Dominance's rude comment on your glorious nation. I will speak to him as our region will not allow its nations to speak in such a way whether he was joking or not.

President Ryan

The WA delegate of the Country of Fire (me) would like to apologize for Saiyan Dominance's rude comment on your glorious nation. I will speak to him as our region will not allow its nations to speak in such a way whether he was joking or not.

President Ryan

the government of the emperor of urgench thanks our friend President Ryan the esteemed delegate for the Country of fire for their concern, but we were not offended, and there is no need to reprimand the honoured ambassador for Saiyan Dominance.

may the horde of RyanBrum ride swift across the plain


yours e.t.c.

There was uproar today in the parliament of Land de Wood when news reached it of a possible World Assembly resolution to effectively decriminalise prostitution

It's good to see that Land de Wood newspapers are as accurate as those anywhere else in the world. Wildly inaccurate, in other words.

It's good to see that Land de Wood newspapers are as accurate as those anywhere else in the world. Wildly inaccurate, in other words.

Bite your tongue you disgrace.

It has recently been reported that this paper is guilty of being inaccurate, in its recent reporting.
However, we have a clear comment below from the emperor of Urgench suggesting decriminilisation as a probable result of this proposal being put forward.
"the state may also choose a third option between illegality and legality, namely decriminalisation, where the act is illegal but the person committing it is treated differently than other offenders. the case of public drunkeness is instructive here since it is often illegal in many nations but those who offend in this way are rarely punished in the same way as other criminals, of course repeated or antisocial offenders may be ordered to seek treatment or be punished in more conventional ways."

The emperor of Urgench has been a firm supporter of this ill-conceived proposal and it is he who suggests that as a result of this proposal we would see the decriminalisation of prostitution.

If you can find a stronger word than "SUGGESTING" introducing potential new bits of law here, you can consider your case proven. Hint: there isn't one.

Description: REALIZING
1) Prostitution although illegal in a number of nations, exists in every nation.
2) Sex workers often work in extremely dangerous conditions and are constantly at threat both from those they work for, and clients.
3) The general public has a negative attitude towards Sex Workers and thus their plight is often overlooked.

For one, the only statement I can agree with is 2). We have no evidence as to the existence of prostitution is all nations, and the attitude of the general public toward those engaged in it is a complete mystery. May in your nation it's not.

SUGGESTING
1) Safehouses be set up throughout the WA area where Sex Workers can recieve support, counselling and advice.
2) Sex workers unions be recognized by the respective governments and thus their issues dealt with. (Different nations sex workers will have different issues).
3) Permittance of unimposing, clean and safe 'brothels' - in an effort to take the sex workers off the street and thus increase their safety.

Okay, if your entire proposal is simply a giant suggestion, go ahead and submit it. Then we can safely ignore every directive that comes fro the World Assembly Ministry of Sex Associates, Pimps, and Prostitution (WAMSAPP).

Nemo Taraton

If you can find a stronger word than "SUGGESTING" introducing potential new bits of law here, you can consider your case proven. Hint: there isn't one.

This draft allows for countries to preserve their sovereignty - it demands that sex workers unions be recognised so the issues are made public and the sex workers are given a voice, but does not tell the governments how to respond to them.

Found it?

Found it?

Do not think so.

If the sex workers unions are legal, only their issues are being made public, not the work (prostitution). So a debate can be held. The result of such debates can be new laws, can be legalization of prostitution, but also can be that prostitutes can be give other possibilities than work in the sex industry.

So a nation can make their nation with less prostition, not by surpressing the prostitutes, but by helping them to get another way of living.

Surpressing the people who visit prostitutes for sex and surpressing the people who exploit the prostitutes would be the beste result which can come out of debates on the sex workers.

Good would be also the enforce the law on the people responsible on smuggling people, not to blame thier victems.

I a safehouse the victems could have some hard needed rest and regain their strenght and will to (maybe) change their way of living.

But maybe clause 3 with the brothels is a bit too much.

Sorry for bad grammar and or spelling, in our nation English is only a third language (but we like it).

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

Do not think so.

If the sex workers unions are legal, only their issues are being made public, not the work (prostitution). So a debate can be held. The result of such debates can be new laws, can be legalization of prostitution, but also can be that prostitutes can be give other possibilities than work in the sex industry.

So a nation can make their nation with less prostition, not by surpressing the prostitutes, but by helping them to get another way of living.

Surpressing the people who visit prostitutes for sex and surpressing the people who exploit the prostitutes would be the beste result which can come out of debates on the sex workers.

Good would be also the enforce the law on the people responsible on smuggling people, not to blame thier victems.

I a safehouse the victems could have some hard needed rest and regain their strenght and will to (maybe) change their way of living.

But maybe clause 3 with the brothels is a bit too much.

Sorry for bad grammar and or spelling, in our nation English is only a third language (but we like it).

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

My intent was solely to answer Gobbannaen's rhetorical question and show that indeed the intent of this Resolution's author was something stronger than merely suggesting something, and that in fact the author was demanding changes. As shown in the highlighted description I provided in a previous post.

Found it?

Not in the proposal, no. What you're quoting, ever so conveniently, is the author's plea for us to support the proposal. It's his intention to demand rights, but the law doesn't give two hoots about his intention. To quote a far too long absent delegation, the law says what the law says. In this case, what he's written just "suggests", giving it all the force of a week-old leaf of lettuce.

"Suggesting" is not binding language. Currently, this Proposal does absolutely nothing, and thus doesn't even rise to the level of "Mild".

"Suggesting" is not binding language. Currently, this Proposal does absolutely nothing, and thus doesn't even rise to the level of "Mild".

the government of the emperor of Urgench thinks it no harm that in light of this resolution's contraversial nature and of the tendency of some nations to want to use this organisation as an anvil to crack a nut, so to speak, that it should seek to be of the nature of an encouragement to better behaviour, rather than a directive which seeks to abrogate national powers in this field.

yours e.t.c.

I suport this idea, everyone should have the right to be repersented.

Van de Coy
Grand Minister of Jinal

the government of the emperor of Urgench thinks it no harm that in light of this resolution's contraversial nature and of the tendency of some nations to want to use this organisation as an anvil to crack a nut, so to speak, that it should seek to be of the nature of an encouragement to better behaviour, rather than a directive which seeks to abrogate national powers in this field.Be that as it may, I was speaking in an official capacity. In my view, this Proposal needs more teeth to be legal.