NationStates Jolt Archive

Sexual Privacy Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED of the need to establish boundaries delimiting the private sphere against state intervention,

COMMITTED to protect the inalienable right of individuals to a private sexual life,

RESOLVED to create the adequate conditions for the development of sexual identity and sexual self-determination,

ADOPT the following Resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy against state intervention.

Article 2 (Definitions)

For the purposes of this resolution we establish the following definitions:

(a) Sexual Acts: any acts between two or more individuals that involve stimulation of the sexual organs;

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or acts while not being under the influence of substances or in circumstances that could cloud one's judgment;

(c) Puberty: the period of human development during which physical growth and sexual maturation occurs.

Article 3 (Of Sexual Privacy)

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting adults when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

(b) Each Nation shall define an age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to have an age of majority, the individual will be considered an adult for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

(c) In no circumstances shall a Nation establish an age of consent above the age of majority.

(d) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

Honorable Ambassador from Mendosia,

This is something that the people of Rutianas wholeheartely agree with. We voice our support for this proposal.

While we believe this should have been the step taken first toward equality, we do applaud that this has been proposed.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

This is something that the people of Rutianas wholeheartely agree with. We voice our support for this proposal.


We thank you for your support, Ambassador

I fear you're attempting two proposals in one here. There's the issue of the age of consent, and then there's the issue of sexual privacy. Those really should be seperate proposals.

I fear you're attempting two proposals in one here. There's the issue of the age of consent, and then there's the issue of sexual privacy. Those really should be seperate proposals.

Actually I'm not sure how you could effectively write a proposal on one without the other.

Actually I'm not sure how you could effectively write a proposal on one without the other.It's necessary, because one is an issue of whether the government can look into your bedroom and the other is an issue about when children become adults able to make independent decsions. One is a matter of privacy and one is a matter of biological and psychological development. They really need independent consideration because there are worthwhile things to be said in each debate, things which might be ignored if the two debates were crammed together into one.
(b) Each Nation shall define an age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to have an age of majority, the individual will be considered an adult for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

(c) In no circumstances shall a Nation establish an age of consent above the age of majority.

(d) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act. These three mandates are under the "Of Sexual Privacy" portion of the proposal. They aren't about ensuring sexual privacy, they are about determining age of consent and setting international regulations on the age of consent determined by nations. They belong to a seperate debate.

Actually I'm not sure how you could effectively write a proposal on one without the other.

I must agree with the Ambassador from Scotchpinestan. While they could be separate entities, the people of Rutianas feel that it is better stated in one proposal such as this.

Thank you,

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

We are pleased that this resolution has been brought forward for debate. We are somewhat surprised that the statute was submitted for approval without there being the customary drafting phase where members can offer advice and criticism.

That being said we will support this statute for for its inate merit.

It does rather leave open the question of consent of persons with mental illnesses and those who are congenitally mentally deficient.

Further the definition of sexual acts is rather spare and does not allow for legalising public display of innocent affection between persons.

But all in all we are still in favour of this statute and we congratulate it's authors for their decency and concern for freedom

It's necessary, because one is an issue of whether the government can look into your bedroom and the other is an issue about when children become adults able to make independent decsions. One is a matter of privacy and one is a matter of biological and psychological development. They really need independent consideration because there are worthwhile things to be said in each debate, things which might be ignored if the two debates were crammed together into one.

Your concern is valid, but unfortunately due to the mechanics of the WA I do not believe your approach is feasible. Clearly a proposal on sexual freedom will not be as effective as it could be (and thus, probably not passable in the WA) without the age of consent issue addressed, and vice versa. And, since only one proposal can be voted on at a time, I see no alternative than to combine the two issues.

We are pleased that this resolution has been brought forward for debate. We are somewhat surprised that the statute was submitted for approval without there being the customary drafting phase where members can offer advice and criticism.

That being said we will support this statute for for its inate merit.

It does rather leave open the question of consent of persons with mental illnesses and those who are congenitally mentally deficient.

Further the definition of sexual acts is rather spare and does not allow for legalising public display of innocent affection between persons.

But all in all we are still in favour of this statute and we congratulate it's authors for their decency and concern for freedom

Our learned Ambassador is absolutely right on all counts, we should have started with a draft and we could have addressed more directly the questions of mental illness or the mentally deficient, although they are laterally covered on our definition of consenting, since being mentally ill is clearly a circumstance clouding one's judgment.

If this proposal does not pass to the next stage we will gladly discuss a new draft.

The Weird Place of the Wierd Anarchist is surprised by such very good proposal. It is about sexual privacy and the definitions are clear. In the same proposal the age of consent is brought in. But it leaves decision on that to the nations itself, but still manages to be a proposal with teeth.

We will support it with pleasure. Hail to Mendosia!

Regards

hese three mandates are under the "Of Sexual Privacy" portion of the proposal. They aren't about ensuring sexual privacy, they are about determining age of consent and setting international regulations on the age of consent determined by nations. They belong to a seperate debate.

Ambassador, we felt that we needed to address the question of age of consent to give substance to our provision that the principal of sexual privacy applied to consenting adult only.

If we failed to address the question of age of consent, any nation could unilaterally define the age of consent as being arbitrarily high, thus avoiding this statute altogether.

Our learned Ambassador is absolutely right on all counts, I will drop the current proposal. Consider this proposal a draft document.


That might not be necessary. Another fairly simple companion resolution could
be brought forward defining consent and the criteria for it, for those who are mentally impared in any way.

This is the only real defect with this resolution and it would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak.

The esteemed Ambassador for Kattia was writing a comprehensive statute on sexual freedom some time ago, it failed on legality issues but it contained some very good work on the issue of consent ( if you excused the advanced mathematics it employed to work out ages of consent across the membership )

yours e.t.c. ,

I'm a litle concerned that this proposal, fully realized, might cause problems with birth control for countries that do not allow contraception or abortion. Further ramifications might be worth studying. I'll remain neutral on the Sexual Privacy Act for now.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

I'm a litle concerned that this proposal, fully realized, might cause problems with birth control for countries that do not allow contraception or abortion. Further ramifications might be worth studying. I'll remain neutral on the Sexual Privacy Act for now.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

If they have too much children, they must educate their citizens or give them ways to contraception. It is their government free choice.

Regards

Also we are concerned that the reolution might have to define what citizens might expect "privacy" to consist of. One could not expect privacy if ones sex acts broke sensible laws on rape or child molestation for instance.

Is privacy simply the right to have your government not legislate on consenting sexual practices or is it complete seclusion from observation of any kind, the kind of observation involved in police investigation or journalistic inquiry or public health research for instance?

yours e.t.c. ,

Is privacy simply the right to have your government not legislate on consenting sexual practices or is it complete seclusion from observation of any kind, the kind of observation involved in police investigation or journalistic inquiry or public health research for instance?


Ambassador, I would opine that the present resolution simply inhibits governments from legislating on matters pertaining to sexual acts practiced between consenting adults.

Should the act not be committed between adults, or should the act not be consented the government is free to legislate. And it is only reasonable that the government can use its resources to investigate these things.

So, in a way, it is not the usual meaning of privacy in the sense of 'no peaking' but rather 'no legal interference'.

Perhaps the first line could read;

" Convinced of the need for legal limits to government interference in the private lives of individuals. "

We humbly suggest that this might be clearer and more comprehensive.

If they have too much children, they must educate their citizens or give them ways to contraception. It is their government free choice.

Regards
I'm personally inclined to agree, but at the same time I feel compelled to point out the fundamental ideological barriers to such reform that exist in certain countries. I would observe that it is relatively easy to require major changes in the cultural underpinnings of a society when that society is not one's own. I am not speaking against this proposal, mind you; my own voting record should be evidence enough that I am no pushover on national sovereignty arguments when it comes to civil liberties. I am merely urging an appreciation for the dilemmas this kind of international legislation can pose to certain cultures and regimes.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

In a part of the resolution,

(d) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

The Royal British States do not agree to this part, as we do not want unwed pregnant teenagers from as young as 9 (earliest age of puberty, special case).

The Royal British States do not agree to this part, as we do not want unwed pregnant teenagers from as young as 9 (earliest age of puberty, special case).

I'm pretty sure that means that you can't set two different ages of consent for two different groups of adults. Not that you can't set a single age of consent.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

I'm pretty sure that means that you can't set two different ages of consent for two different groups of adults. Not that you can't set a single age of consent.

I don't think so.

(c) In no circumstances shall a Nation establish an age of consent above the age of majority.

In looking this over, I do have one question regarding this one passage.

Rutianas has an age of majority as well as an age of consent. Our age of majority is twelve. Our age of consent is seventeen. With this one particular passage, it would potentially force Rutianas to have our age of consent lowered to twelve, or force us to raise our age of majority to seventeen. We would prefer it remain the way it is based on hundreds of years of tradition.

Perhaps this could be rewritten to determine a base line for the age of consent. Perhaps seventeen? If a nation's age of majority is under that base line, they are unaffected by this passage, but cannot go above the base line? I am unsure of how best to handle this particular passage.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

Oh God, not another age of consent resolution. This is something that people have been trying to do since I first joined the UN 4 years ago and no one has ever managed to write one that can account for the numerous species living in WA member nations, without resorting making people do calculus to figure out if they're old enough to consent.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I don't think so.

I do believe that is the intention behind it though. That is why the proposal has gone into draft mode. It only shows that there is still work to be done on it.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

I don't think so.
You're wrong. To quote what you quoted again:
(d) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.
This allows you to say "no one under the age of 16 shall have sex legally," even if it is futile, since you aren't making reference to the gender of the participants or the nature of the sexual act. That won't deal with your precocious nine-year olds, but that's what you get for banning things.

What it doesn't allow you to say is "no men shall ever have anal sex legally," since that's referencing both the gender of the participants and the nature of the sexual act. In other words, it's an anti-bigotry clause.


Whoever said we have to do the two things as one (Scotchpinestan? Edit: yes, it was they) is wrong too. Several times now we've passed legislation that has made reference to age of consent or age of majority without even beginning to define the terms. Almost all of them used the terms inaccurately or misleadingly. Several times we've drafted up Age of Consent laws, but never passed any of them. My Glorious Leader had a crack (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524076) as one of the first things he did, but the results would need severe rewording to be actually comprehensible. (OOC: this constitutes permission to go and pick over my work if you want to, by the way. I notice there's some changes on the last page that never made it into the OP.) Just because two concepts are synergistic doesn't mean that they have to be addressed in the same resolution. After all, we dealt with Slavery and Forced Labour in separate resolutions last time.

In a part of the resolution,



The Royal British States do not agree to this part, as we do not want unwed pregnant teenagers from as young as 9 (earliest age of puberty, special case).

Ambassador, in that case it suffices that your Nation establish an age of consent above that said age. Or is there any special reason why you should not want teenage girls pregnant at 9 but would have teenage boys having sex at that same age?

I don't think so.

Ambassador, with all due respect, the text is clear in saying that your age of consent cannot vary with gender nor the nature of the sexual act. Therefore it does command Nation, very generally, to establish a single age of consent.

In looking this over, I do have one question regarding this one passage.

Rutianas has an age of majority as well as an age of consent. Our age of majority is twelve. Our age of consent is seventeen. With this one particular passage, it would potentially force Rutianas to have our age of consent lowered to twelve, or force us to raise our age of majority to seventeen. We would prefer it remain the way it is based on hundreds of years of tradition.

Perhaps this could be rewritten to determine a base line for the age of consent. Perhaps seventeen? If a nation's age of majority is under that base line, they are unaffected by this passage, but cannot go above the base line? I am unsure of how best to handle this particular passage.


Ambassador, these rules were thought of to avoid introducing loopholes that an ill-intended government could use to escape this resolution completely. Although I am not entirely sure what your government considers as 'age of majority', we thought that it would be quite reasonable to establish that if one government considers one capable of exercising voting rights, of participating in contracts or be criminally tried as an adult then it should, a fortiori, consider he/she to be old enough to validly express consent on a sexual rapport.

Oh God, not another age of consent resolution. This is something that people have been trying to do since I first joined the UN 4 years ago and no one has ever managed to write one that can account for the numerous species living in WA member nations, without resorting making people do calculus to figure out if they're old enough to consent.


Ambassador, as you can see for yourself, this resolution does not establish an age of consent. It gives all governments broad scope to do it according to their particular national sensitivities.

Actually I'm not sure how you could effectively write a proposal on one without the other.It's not that difficult. Write a Resolution establishing rules and regulations about the age of consent. Then, right a sexual freedom Resolution, tying its regulations to the nation's existing age of consent. The nation will already have one because of the prior Resolution, but since you are referencing national law and not international, you avoid the House of Cards violation.

Ambassador, these rules were thought of to avoid introducing loopholes that an ill-intended government could use to escape this resolution completely. Although I am not entirely sure what your government considers as 'age of majority', we thought that it would be quite reasonable to establish that if one government considers one capable of exercising voting rights, of participating in contracts or be criminally tried as an adult then it should, a fortiori, consider he/she to be old enough to validly express consent on a sexual rapport.


Most esteemed Ambassador for Mendosia, might I submit a question?

What possible loopholes could be exploited through raising the age of consent above the age of majority? Since Article 2(d) restricts the nation from creating any differing ages of consent for different acts, then surely the only way a nation could exploit a loophole of this nature is to raise the age of consent for ALL sexual acts in that nation! Surely any nation would not want to experience any backlash from their general populace in this regard, and it would avoid the issue raised by the esteemed Ambassador of Rutianas if Article 2(c) were removed.

Most esteemed Ambassador for Mendosia, might I submit a question?

What possible loopholes could be exploited through raising the age of consent above the age of majority? Since Article 2(d) restricts the nation from creating any differing ages of consent for different acts, then surely the only way a nation could exploit a loophole of this nature is to raise the age of consent for ALL sexual acts in that nation! Surely any nation would not want to experience any backlash from their general populace in this regard, and it would avoid the issue raised by the esteemed Ambassador of Rutianas if Article 2(c) were removed.

Ambassador, since article 3 (a) is only applicable above the age of consent, by establishing an age of consent arbitrarily high the government is then free to legislate, regulating or criminalizing with full authority and complete discretion, all the sexual acts it wants. This includes, of course, the ability to choose which acts and under what circumstances it wants to persecute. This was purposefully left with each State to allow for full sovereignty on issues such as abuse of minors and other crimes against sexual self-determination, but one can see that some nations could use it to avoid the act altogether.

Ambassador, since article 3 (a) is only applicable above the age of consent, by establishing an age of consent arbitrarily high the government is then free to legislate, regulating or criminalizing with full authority and complete discretion, all the sexual acts it wants.

Agred Ambassador, but then doesn't the nation have to raise the age of consent for ALL sexual acts between ANY gender etc? Since sexual acts must be between two consenting people (defined by a nation) doesn't this mean that ALL people would be discriminated against and hence no discrimination? If NOONE can commit sexual acts without an age of consent, and the age of consent CANNOT be differing between sexual acts and genders due to Article 2 (d) then how do they exploit this?

Are you establishing that the age of consent should never be higher than the age of majority in any nation whatsoever?

If this was explained in the above, then I did miss it and I apologise.

Agred Ambassador, but then doesn't the nation have to raise the age of consent for ALL sexual acts between ANY gender etc? Since sexual acts must be between two consenting people (defined by a nation) doesn't this mean that ALL people would be discriminated against and hence no discrimination? If NOONE can commit sexual acts without an age of consent, and the age of consent CANNOT be differing between sexual acts and genders due to Article 2 (d) then how do they exploit this?

Are you establishing that the age of consent should never be higher than the age of majority in any nation whatsoever?

If this was explained in the above, then I did miss it and I apologise.

Ambassador, I have not made myself clear for the argument is subtle and not easily grasped by the well-intentioned, but the experience with the FoM Act led us to consider all exotic situations.

The point we were trying to make is that although this statute demands that an age of consent be homogeneously applied to all sorts of sexual acts and to both genders, nothing in the act requires that sexual acts amongst people below the age of consent be persecuted or criminalized. Thus putting the age of consent for the purposes of this Act at say, 90, any Nation could safely guarantee statu quo.

We will be happy to drop the clause on the need to set the age of consent below the age of majority if all agree that a clause requiring persecution of acts committed below the age of consent be added.

Should the Freedom of Marriage resolution be passed, the Peoples of Sasquatchewain will support this proposal.

Hell, if we're gonna create the right of marriage regardless of sex, then we're almost obliged to allow all married couples to do what they wish in the bedroom.

I was going to mention possible issues regarding Police States, but since it has been presented that this proposal does not ban surveillance of private acts but simply the legislation against them, I have no qualms with the proposal at this time.

If the FoM proposal is passed, that is.

Which it will.

Following several suggestions of my learned fellow Ambassadors I submit to your appreciation this revised version:

Sexual Privacy Act

The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED of the need for legal limits to government interference in the private lives of individuals,

COMMITTED to protect the inalienable right of individuals to a private sexual life,

RESOLVED to create the adequate conditions for the development of sexual identity and sexual self-determination,

ADOPT the following Resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy against state intervention.

Article 2 (Definitions)

For the purposes of this resolution we establish the following definitions:

(a) Sexual Acts: any acts between two or more individuals that involve stimulation of the sexual organs;

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or acts while not being under the influence of substances or in circumstances that impair judgment, including but not limited to any form of coercion, mental illness or error on the identity of the partner;

(c) Age of consent: the age above which the consent given for the purposes of the previous clause is valid, being invalid below the said age;

(d) Puberty: the period of human development during which physical growth and sexual maturation occurs.

Article 3 (Of Sexual Privacy)

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to establish an age of majority, the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

(c) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

(d) All sexual acts practiced between a consenting and a non-consenting or invalidly consenting individual shall be deemed unlawful and punished accordingly.

It should be specified that the consent is given for all acts involved. One should not be able to escape rape charges by arguing that the other person did indeed consent to initial, lesser forms of sexual activity.

Also, (d) seems to assume the presence of only two individuals, and arguably excuses gang rape!

Also, (d) seems to assume the presence of only two individuals, and arguably excuses gang rape!

Well, what's wrong with that?

It should be specified that the consent is given for all acts involved. One should not be able to escape rape charges by arguing that the other person did indeed consent to initial, lesser forms of sexual activity.

Also, (d) seems to assume the presence of only two individuals, and arguably excuses gang rape!

Ambassador, I would prefer to leave a more thorough development of these provisions to national law, noting that in the case of rape it is clear that any acts practiced beyond what one party was willing to do are no longer consented, provided that the said party shows his/her unwillingness by either acts or words. Otherwise we could be inadvertently requiring that persons engaging in sexual acts be constantly asking permission to each other for fear of rape charges.

With respect to 3 (d) I do not see the need to treat gang rape as a special case here, for one can see it as a series of bilateral unlawful sexual acts.

For the sake of clarity we can, however, re-phrase it thus:


(d) All sexual acts involving at least a consenting and a non-consenting or invalidly consenting individual shall be deemed unlawful and punished accordingly.

Ambassador, I would prefer to leave a more thorough development of these provisions to national law, noting that in the case of rape it is clear that any acts practiced beyond what one party was willing to do are no longer consented, provided that the said party shows his/her unwillingness by either acts or words. Otherwise we could be inadvertently requiring that persons engaging in sexual acts be constantly asking permission to each other for fear of rape charges.

With respect to 3 (d) I do not see the need to treat gang rape as a special case here, for one can see it as a series of bilateral unlawful sexual acts.

For the sake of clarity we can, however, re-phrase it thus:


(d) All sexual acts involving at least a consenting and a non-consenting or invalidly consenting individual shall be deemed unlawful and punished accordingly.



Esteemed and respected Ambassador there are numerous examples of situations where rape is commited and it's victims where not able to phisically or verbally refuse the sexual assault. In these cases our own national law specifies that the circumstances pertaining to the rape should have signified that it's victim could reasonably have been expected to consent.

We are aware that many nations find terms such as "reasonable" too general, but in practice this means that juries are asked to assess the case and to decide whether the accused, using their native faculties and knowing what they knew at the time of the act and in light of any patently obvious factors ( such as the victim being unconcious in an alley when stumbled upon by the accused for instance ) could have reasonably expected the victim to consent.

yours e.t.c. ,

In light of the suggestions made by the most respected Ambassadors from QoD and Urgench, we submit the following revision of article 2 (b):

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being under the influence of psychotropic substances or in other circumstances that impair judgment, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, mental illness or error on the identity of the partner;

That seems ok. I'd suggest you add 'deception'.

You could possibly clarify (d) by including: 'any act to which one or more persons does not consent' o.w.t.t.e.

You could possibly clarify (d) by including: 'any act to which one or more persons does not consent' o.w.t.t.e.

Ambassador, the wording you suggest would mean that sexual acts between two invalidly consenting individuals (read minors) would be unlawful and would require punishment. However, we are not sure if it is wise to actually demand that minors be tried in these circumstances.

Ambassador, the wording you suggest would mean that sexual acts between two invalidly consenting individuals (read minors) would be unlawful and would require punishment. However, we are not sure if it is wise to actually demand that minors be tried in these circumstances.
Reasonable point, but I suspect you don't want this proposal to be dragged into such technicalities. A nation could reasonably comply with the clause while classifying such an offence as a misdemeanour or simply not pursuing enforcement of it. (The fact they could do the same for more egregious crimes is obviously troubling, but would probably a resolution in itself to rectify.)

For example sexual acts between two minors are technically illegal in Quintessence of Dust, but in most cases there is never any criminal charge made.

That seems ok. I'd suggest you add 'deception'.

You could possibly clarify (d) by including: 'any act to which one or more persons does not consent' o.w.t.t.e.

Ambassador, we submit the following version for your appreciation:


(d) All sexual acts involving non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals shall be deemed unlawful and punished accordingly, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to persons below the age of criminal responsibility.

In light of the suggestions made by the most respected Ambassadors from QoD and Urgench, we submit the following revision of article 2 (b):

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being under the influence of psychotropic substances or in other circumstances that impair judgment, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, mental illness or error on the identity of the partner;

Unfortunately respected and esteemed Ambassador the inclusion of the term "psychotropic substances or in other circumstances that impair judgement" troubles us. It would mitigate against consent where persons were drunk or using recreational drugs.

The merits or otherwise of the use of these substances is of course debatable but in many cases the use would not be considered to have invalidated one's right to consent to sex.

yours e.t.c. ,

Ambassador, we submit the following version for your appreciation:


(d) All sexual acts involving non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals shall be deemed unlawful and punished accordingly, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to persons below the age of criminal responsibility.That's excellent! That wording works for us.

Though on another matter, it occurs the phrasing might be inappropriate: the WA can't be judge, jury and executioner. How about:
All nations shall enforce laws prohibiting all sexual acts involving...
(By which I'm saying: you can't require punishment, without having determined it to have been illegal. The case might well be dismissed on other grounds e.g. procedural irregularities by law enforcement.)

Unfortunately respected and esteemed Ambassador the inclusion of the term "psychotropic substances or in other circumstances that impair judgement" troubles us. It would mitigate against consent where persons were drunk or using recreational drugs.

The merits or otherwise of the use of these substances is of course debatable but in many cases the use would not be considered to have invalidated one's right to consent to sex.

I submit to your honorable and most esteemed Ambassador this new version for appreciation:

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgment, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, mental illness or error on the identity of the partner;

That's excellent! That wording works for us.

Though on another matter, it occurs the phrasing might be inappropriate: the WA can't be judge, jury and executioner. How about:
All nations shall enforce laws prohibiting all sexual acts involving...
(By which I'm saying: you can't require punishment, without having determined it to have been illegal. The case might well be dismissed on other grounds e.g. procedural irregularities by law enforcement.)

Ambassador, for your consideration:

(d) All Nations shall enact and enforce laws deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to persons below the age of criminal responsibility.

That is certainly better noble Ambassador. However another question has occured to us, what if a nation so inclined should define homosexuality as a mentall illness or a circumstance that significantly impairs judgement?

yours e.t.c. ,

That is certainly better noble Ambassador. However another question has occured to us, what if a nation so inclined should define homosexuality as a mentall illness or a circumstance that significantly impairs judgement?


We humbly submit another wording:


(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgment and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a mental illness of psychotic nature, diagnosed following internationally accepted standards and methods.

We humbly submit another wording:


(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgment and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a mental illness of psychotic nature, diagnosed following internationally accepted standards and methods.


We have had cause to say this before but the ever increasing word count of this definition is testament to the infinitely complex nature of defining consent for these purposes.

We think the inclusion of "Volition" is an admirable inclusion. But perhaps the last phrases could be more explicit in intent ;

" ....mental illness, where sexual orientation is not defined as invalidation of consent. " or words to this effect.

yours e.t.c.

We think the inclusion of "Volition" is an admirable inclusion. But perhaps the last phrases could be more explicit in intent ;

" ....mental illness, where sexual orientation is not defined as invalidation of consent. " or words to this effect.


Ambassador, I understand your concern but we would like to avoid explicitly stating that sexual orientation is not a mental illness for the following reasons:

(1) It is ultimately up to the scientific community to make that assessment, it is not our job to decree the existence or non-existence of nosological categories;

(2) The idea that homosexuality can be a mental illness is so ludicrous to us that we cannot bring ourselves to forever engrave that mere suggestion, even if negating it, in a resolution of this noble assembly.

By demanding that situations of exception be those which significantly impair judgment and seriously affect volition, or severe mental illness of psychotic nature, diagnosed following internationally accepted standards and methods, we are sure that no Nation could seriously contend that homosexuality could be on one of those categories.

Ambassador, I understand your concern but we would like to avoid explicitly stating that sexual orientation is not a mental illness for the following reasons:

(1) It is ultimately up to the scientific community to make that assessment, it is not our job to decree the existence or non-existence of nosological categories;

(2) The idea that homosexuality can be a mental illness is so ludicrous to us that we cannot bring ourselves to forever engrave that mere suggestion, even if negating it, in a resolution of this noble assembly.

By demanding that situations of exception be those which significantly impair judgment and seriously affect volition, or severe mental illness of psychotic nature, diagnosed following internationally accepted standards and methods, we are sure that no Nation could seriously contend that homosexuality could be on one of those categories.


Honoured Ambassador it is highly likely that many nations of this organisation would go to any lengths possible to continue to ban homosexuality within their borders.

Since this is a sexual privacy statute and not a medical ethics law, and a sexual privacy statute which must perforce define consent, if it's intent is to decriminalise certain sexual proclivities then it must specifically protect these proclivities from being unilaterally divested of the ability to consent to sex in whatever form this divestment might take.

Granted one need not associate this protection with stopping members from defining homosexuality as a mental illness but presumably a specific mention of homosexuality not constituting an automatic invalidation of consent would be of paramount utility, would it not?

yours e.t.c ,

Well, what's wrong with that?
Well, 9 out of 10 people support gang rape, so...

Granted one need not associate this protection with stopping members from defining homosexuality as a mental illness but presumably a specific mention of homosexuality not constituting an automatic invalidation of consent would be of paramount utility, would it not?


Once again, Ambassador I must acquiesce to your wise suggestions.

I therefore propose the introduction of new article, capturing one of the paragraphs of article 3 and introducing a new one:

Article 4 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to exclude a sexual minority or some category of sexual acts.

In (b), maybe include 'otherwise legal'. I mean, paedophiles are a sexual minority, and zoophilia constitutes a category of sexual acts, yet they should be excluded.

Once again, Ambassador I must acquiesce to your wise suggestions.

I therefore propose the introduction of new article, capturing one of the paragraphs of article 3 and introducing a new one:

Article 4 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to exclude a sexual minority or some category of sexual acts.





This is a very usefull revision honoured Ambassador. Is it our lack of perception though or does the final phrase on categories of sex acts risk conflicting with protections of those whom this resolution defines as unable to consent?

yours e.t.c. ,

In (b), maybe include 'otherwise legal'. I mean, paedophiles are a sexual minority, and zoophilia constitutes a category of sexual acts, yet they should be excluded.

That requires a bit of thought because it seems to us that adding just "otherwise legal" wouldn't stop a government from enacting anti-sodomy laws.

In (b), maybe include 'otherwise legal'. I mean, paedophiles are a sexual minority, and zoophilia constitutes a category of sexual acts, yet they should be excluded.


Honoured Ambassador, though the practice of Zoophilia is traditionally viewed with distaste by Urgenchis it cannot be treated in the same fashion as paedophilia by an organisation such as this which contains myriad nations of sapient animals who's citizens could not rightfully be prevented from engaging in consenting sex acts with humans, if that is their desire.

yours e.t.c. ,

This is a very usefull revision honoured Ambassador. Is it our lack of perception though or does the final phrase on categories of sex acts risk conflicting with protections of those whom this resolution defines as unable to consent?


The idea is to stop governments from banning sodomy or felatio, since it is equally possible that these governments would ban these behaviors by declaring that sodomites and people who practiced felation suffered from a severe mental illness of psychotic character.

The idea is to stop governments from banning sodomy or felatio, since it is equally possible that these governments would ban these behaviors by declaring that sodomites and people who practiced felation suffered from a severe mental illness of psychotic character.

Ah yes of course, that makes sense. Perhaps though the approach could consist of defining consent simply as " the ability to assent or dissent to a sex act" and then latter include a specific proscription on defining any particular sexual orientation as an invalidation of this ability?

yours e.t.c. ,

Learned Ambassadors,

We believe we should present yet another full revision of the text for your appreciation:

Sexual Privacy Act

The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED of the need for legal limits to government interference in the private lives of individuals,

COMMITTED to protect the inalienable right of individuals to a private sexual life,

RESOLVED to create the adequate conditions for the development of sexual identity and sexual self-determination,

ADOPT the following Resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy against state intervention.

Article 2 (Definitions)

For the purposes of this resolution we establish the following definitions:

(a) Sexual Acts: any acts between two or more individuals which involve stimulation of the sexual organs.

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgment and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness of psychotic nature.

(c) Age of consent: the age above which the consent given for the purposes of the previous paragraph is valid, being invalid below the said age.

(d) Puberty: the period of human development during which physical growth and sexual maturation occurs.

Article 3 (Of Sexual Privacy)

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to establish an age of majority, the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

(c) All Nations shall enact and enforce laws deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving or committed against non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to minors or persons otherwise incompetent for the purposes of criminal responsibility.

Article 4 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals.

Ah yes of course, that makes sense. Perhaps though the approach could consist of defining consent simply as " the ability to assent or dissent to a sex act" and then latter include a specific proscription on defining any particular sexual orientation as an invalidation of this ability?


We believe, Ambassador, that we have done so now to some extent.

We believe, Ambassador, that we have done so now to some extent.

Indeed respected Ambassador the proscription in article 4 is most efficacious.

We still feel that the definition of consent could be streamlined to avoid confusion but since we understand it's import we suppose the rest of this organisation's worthy membership will do so also.

Our only other concern is a very minor one indeed, that is could the word "against" in article 1 be changed to "without" to align the article with better usage?

This draft certainly meets with our approval and support, we commend it's authors on their noble ambition to further the cause of human freedom, may their horde ride swift across the plain for all time.

yours e.t.c.,

Our only other concern is a very minor one indeed, that is could the word "against" in article 1 be changed to "without" to align the article with better usage?

Agreed.

If no other delegation has any other suggestions I would freeze the drafting phase and prepare the submission of the greatly improved and revised version of this proposal in 72 hours.

I wouldn't freeze the draft, yet. Leave at least another 24 hours for comment: there's no obvious rush on this, and I doubt we are the only 2 with comments.

Learned Ambassadors:

Any concerns regarding pedophilia should be dealt with in that this Proposal provides for an age of consent that, either a nation has a legal system to allow pedophilia, or that there is a legally defined age of consent. If a nation does not provide a legally defined age of consent then this Proposal has mechanisms in place provide one that most people would consider minimally acceptable.

With regards to zoophilia, one can ask if an animal has the capabilities to provide "consent" as is necessary within the Proposal for the sexual acts to fall under the scope of this Proposal. As this Proposal only deals with sexual activities between consenting individuals, and (generally) animals cannot consent, a nation would still be free to outlaw bestiality if that is so desired, or to allow it, as that nation sees best.

Looking at this I have a few minor points but they are more likely points of confusion. The resolution allows for the definition of an “age of consent” but defaults to the condition of puberty if there is no age of consent. Of course the onset of puberty is different in males and females and is not uniform while an “age” is an absolute number.

This means the non discrimination clauses in section 4 are somewhat odd; they work but they are more gratuitous than effective. If sexual acts are defined so broadly and the “age” is defined so rigidly then the only non discrimination needed is that the age is applied to all and cannot be restricted for any reason whatsoever.

Looking at this I have a few minor points but they are more likely points of confusion. The resolution allows for the definition of an “age of consent” but defaults to the condition of puberty if there is no age of consent. Of course the onset of puberty is different in males and females and is not uniform while an “age” is an absolute number.


Indeed, Ambassador, although it is defensible that puberty is a much better indicator of sexual maturity than age. But I do see your point, it is less practical to determine whether an individual has entered puberty than to assess whether it is above or below a certain age. I would contend that it is a burden of national governments to establish either an age of consent or even an age of majority, for I suspect that a nation that as neither struggles with these issues very frequently.



This means the non discrimination clauses in section 4 are somewhat odd; they work but they are more gratuitous than effective. If sexual acts are defined so broadly and the “age” is defined so rigidly then the only non discrimination needed is that the age is applied to all and cannot be restricted for any reason whatsoever.

The first non-discrimination clause accounts for the following situations:

a) no different age of consent for boys and girls

b) no different age of consent for heterosexual versus homosexual acts

inter alia.

The second discrimination clause avoids a loop-hole by which a national government would declare any of the listed sexual categories as being 'mentally-ill' or otherwise as having a constitutively 'significantly impaired judgment and seriously affected volition' and therefore being unable to consent, effectively criminalizing their behavior.

Ambassador, these rules were thought of to avoid introducing loopholes that an ill-intended government could use to escape this resolution completely. Although I am not entirely sure what your government considers as 'age of majority', we thought that it would be quite reasonable to establish that if one government considers one capable of exercising voting rights, of participating in contracts or be criminally tried as an adult then it should, a fortiori, consider he/she to be old enough to validly express consent on a sexual rapport.

Our age of majority is twelve. At this age, a Rutian may smoke, drink, vote, gamble at the tables, but not serve in our military, marry, or have children. Our age of sexual consent is seventeen. Our education system is as such that children as young as twelve do understand the political workings of our government and may take part in our voting system. However, for entering into contracts, we consider this right to be at age seventeen, with the exception of our military, which is at age sixteen.

Yes, our culture is confusing, but the point I'm trying to make is that while we consider a twelve year old Rutian an adult for some things, we do not consider them an adult for others.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[CENTER]Sexual Privacy Act
(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting adults when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.This and the prior parts we find suitable enough... as written.,

(b) Each Nation shall define an age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to have an age of majority, the individual will be considered an adult for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty. A child born here at age five starts school and finishes basic education requirements at age ten thus is a citizen then... To get full rights as a citizen the child must finish two years of national service. Failure to finish bacic school courses and national services means no citizenship until you do..

(c) In no circumstances shall a Nation establish an age of consent above the age of majority. Ten here is the age of consent and age a male can marry but females by nature must wait until twelve to marry.. Most do not start having children until around age sixteen for both.. or the elder female. Males may take up to five wives if each consents to having the others in the house... the first wife is the recorded wife and heads the house.. thus can refuse to allow another as a wife to her spouse and he has no recourse but to find somebody she does allow him to take.

(d) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.Just as nature decides when children are ready to join nature sets the age for each sex to reach this point... Males here tend to mature first around age ten yet females require more time to develope so they by age twelve reach maturity... this is not set in stone as fact but just the nature of life...


Annivanna SeBrutus,
Minsiter of Health,
Cavirrian Royal Court Judge,
Lady of Devine Faith 32nd Level

I can tell you now what'll happen if this comes to vote. You'll get several dozen protests along the lines of "My nation's got a mixture of humans and oh-so-cute immortal elves who don't hit puberty until after their first century, and you expect me to define a single age of consent to cover all of them? You beast!" Unfortunately it's not a completely silly objection, and it will be completely ignored by the vast majority of the voters.

Yes, our culture is confusing, but the point I'm trying to make is that while we consider a twelve year old Rutian an adult for some things, we do not consider them an adult for others.


Ambassador,

Your excellency will find that in the latest draft version the provision that required the age of consent no not exceed the age of majority has been removed.

Ambassador,

Your excellency will find that in the latest draft version the provision that required the age of consent no not exceed the age of majority has been removed.

I thank you. I had noticed this, but a little after I had already made my comments.

(ooc: iow, I was too lazy to delete the post after I made it. I need to learn to read the full thread before posting :p )

Honoured and respected Ambassador we have noticed that this resolution uses the perfectly correct spelling of the word "Judgment" instead of the spelling "judgement".

In proper usage the spelling used in the resolution refers to court Judgments and not to the excercise of ones faculties to make judgements. Of course this is a very small but perhaps an important distinction.

yours sincerely,

I can tell you now what'll happen if this comes to vote. You'll get several dozen protests along the lines of "My nation's got a mixture of humans and oh-so-cute immortal elves who don't hit puberty until after their first century, and you expect me to define a single age of consent to cover all of them? You beast!" Unfortunately it's not a completely silly objection, and it will be completely ignored by the vast majority of the voters.

Except it apparently doesn't actually set an age of consent or so I was told here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13979896&postcount=30), which means people will just be complaining about how it doesn't actually set one.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Except it apparently doesn't actually set an age of consent.

You don't seriously expect delegates to notice that, do you?

I can tell you now what'll happen if this comes to vote. You'll get several dozen protests along the lines of "My nation's got a mixture of humans and oh-so-cute immortal elves who don't hit puberty until after their first century, and you expect me to define a single age of consent to cover all of them? You beast!" Unfortunately it's not a completely silly objection, and it will be completely ignored by the vast majority of the voters.

Ambassador,

We believe that, in this case, it is the burden of whoever drafts a Sentient Rights Act to make all the necessary adaptations to the preexisting legislation. As far as our government is concerned this resolution is about humans, which, if not literally stated, is otherwise hinted at by the definition that is offered of 'puberty'.

Although we sympathize with the cause of other sentient beings and their rights, we have to confess to total ignorance concerning their way of life or any other piece of information relevant for the drafting of a resolution of this nature. Others, we are sure, would be better informed and much better equipped to address the specific issues of the other uncounted sentient species.

As far as our government is concerned this resolution is about humans, which, if not literally stated, is otherwise hinted at by the definition that is offered of 'puberty'.
OOC: Regardless of how things may work in RL, here in NS it is an established legal principle for the WA (as it previously was for the NSUN) that "The law means what the law says". It is the actual wording of Resolutions that is binding on the WA's member nations, NOT aything else that the author intended it to mean or at which they merely hinted. Thus, as currently written, it WOULD apply to all nationals of all WA member nations regardless of species...

By the way, was the omission of any clause allowing nations to retain any existing laws they might have against Incest (between adults) deliberate, or had you just overlooked that point until now?

OOC: Regardless of how things may work in RL, here in NS it is an established legal principle for the WA (as it previously was for the NSUN) that "The law means what the law says". It is the actual wording of Resolutions that is binding on the WA's member nations, NOT aything else that the author intended it to mean or at which they merely hinted. Thus, as currently written, it WOULD apply to all nationals of all WA member nations regardless of species...

By the way, was the omission of any clause allowing nations to retain any existing laws they might have against Incest (between adults) deliberate, or had you just overlooked that point until now?


We cannot speak for the esteemed Ambassador for Mendosia, but our understanding of this resolution suggests that since incest between consenting adults imbibes of the nature of a private act consented to by adults then inspite of the distaste with which such acts are commonly held they would indeed be decriminalised by this resolution.

With regard to the application of this statute to non-humans, is it not also common sense that where a law cannot be applied practically, because the conditions of its application simply do not exist, then though it may be on the books of a member nation its effect is moot?

Besides is the respected Ambassador asking for the law to allow for a special interest minority by any chance? Inspite of national feelings or beliefs on the possible application of these allowances to this "controversial" minority ( as we believe someone once put it). Of course our government would be pleased if such allowances were made to cover the rights of Non-humans but perhaps we are more generous in spirit than other nations.

yours e.t.c. ,

With regard to the application of this statute to non-humans, is it not also common sense that where a law cannot be applied practically, because the conditions of its application simply do not exist, then though it may be on the books of a member nation its effect is moot?But as written it CAN be applied to non-humans, although it uses the human age of puberty as a defining point, so under WA rules it WOULD be applied to non-humans regardless of the author's stated intentions.

Besides is the respected Ambassador asking for the law to allow for a special interest minority by any chance?
Did I forget to specify my comment as being OOC? Oh well, it was.
No, I wasn't asking for "the law to allow for a special interest minority" as you suggest, I was asking for it to be written so that it works properly for everybody who would be affected if it gets passed. Is properly-written legislation too much to ask for?

____________________________________________________________

One important question: Given the rule against WA ideological bans, and the fact that allowing such unbridled sexual licence would clearly be incompatible with running nations according to 'puritanical' faiths (such as strict Calvinism, or fundamentalist Islam), wouldn't any such proposal actually be ILLEGAL?

But as written it CAN be applied to non-humans, although it uses the human age of puberty as a defining point, so under WA rules it WOULD be applied to non-humans regardless of the author's stated intentions.


Did I forget to specify my comment as being OOC? Oh well, it was.
No, I wasn't asking for "the law to allow for a special interest minority" as you suggest, I was asking for it to be written so that it works properly for everybody who would be affected if it gets passed. Is properly-written legislation too much to ask for?

____________________________________________________________

One important question: Given the rule against WA ideological bans, and the fact that allowing such unbridled sexual licence would clearly be incompatible with running nations according to 'puritanical' faiths (such as strict Calvinism, or fundamentalist Islam), wouldn't any such proposal actually be ILLEGAL?



No indeed respected Ambassador it is not too much to ask, and we pointed out to you that any move on the part of this resolution's Authors to rectify its flaws in this area would be welcomed by us.

Perhaps as a nation with some reason to claim authority in the issue, your esteemed Ambassador would consider suggesting a wording to the authors which might solve the problem?

yours e.t.c. ,

By the way, was the omission of any clause allowing nations to retain any existing laws they might have against Incest (between adults) deliberate, or had you just overlooked that point until now?

Ambassador,

We are gathered here to conduct a collective effort in order to draft new legislation that many consider important. We are happy to receive any contributions. The animosity your delegation seems to express towards ours is neither helpful nor called for.

Indeed, no delegation had heretofore raised the question of incest. Our opinion is that incest needs not be criminalized in order to not occur as it is almost unanimously considered disgusting, at least in Mendosia. In any case, it is very hard to justify, in a completely satisfactory way, why incest between adults, as rare and infrequent as it is, should be of any government's business and concern. Arguments about interbreeding are not very strong if we look at the evidence closely, so it all amounts to a matter of morality, that we think should belong to the province of social censure and not criminal law.

As of now, we are completely certain that this proposal will be misrepresented as promoting incest.

In any event, if any of our dear colleagues wishes to advance a consistent justification or, better, a clause enunciating a general principle allowing for governments to keep laws that prohibit incest, without jeopardizing the general intent of the proposal, we would be happy to consider its introduction.

Concerning the rights of other sentients we propose this wording of Article 1:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy without state intervention.

(b) The provisions contained in this resolution apply to humans.

(c) Each Nation shall make all the necessary adaptions to these provisions in order to grant the same level of sexual privacy protection to any other sentient species there might exist under their jurisdiction.

Ambassador,

We are gathered here to conduct a collective effort in order to draft new legislation that many consider important. We are happy to receive any contributions. The animosity your delegation seems to express towards ours is neither helpful nor called for.

Indeed, no delegation had heretofore raised the question of incest. Our opinion is that incest needs not be criminalized in order to not occur as it is almost unanimously considered disgusting, at least in Mendosia. In any case, it is very hard to justify, in a completely satisfactory way, why incest between adults, as rare and infrequent as it is, should be of any government's business and concern. Arguments about interbreeding are not very strong if we look at the evidence closely, so it all amounts to a matter of morality, that we think should belong to the province of social censure and not criminal law.

As of now, we are completely certain that this proposal will be misrepresented as promoting incest.

In any event, if any of our dear colleagues wishes to advance a consistent justification or, better, a clause enunciating a general principle allowing for governments to keep laws that prohibit incest, without jeopardizing the general intent of the proposal, we would be happy to consider its introduction.

Concerning the rights of other sentients we propose this wording of Article 1:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy without state intervention.

(b) The provisions contained in this resolution apply to humans.

(c) Each Nation shall make all the necessary adaptions to these provisions in order to grant the same level of sexual privacy protection to any other sentient species there might exist under their jurisdiction.




Esteemed and honoured Ambassador we in common with most other societies generally hold incest in poor regard and do not encourage it if at all possible.

However we readily admit that our disgust is not logical or reasoned. We have no laws pertaining to this phenomenon as a result. And could not require other nations to support our view, no matter how deeply we may feel it.

We could not support the inclusion of a clause to this resolution which would in essence totally contradict it's stated aims despite our native dislike of adult incest we cannot interdict those who practice it whilst affording all our other adult citizens complete sexual privacy.

There are often unforeseen and unpalatable consequences to the introduction of freedom, but rather like side effects of medication we presume the the long term outcome will be entirely satisfactory.

yours e.t.c. ,

One important question: Given the rule against WA ideological bans, and the fact that allowing such unbridled sexual licence would clearly be incompatible with running nations according to 'puritanical' faiths (such as strict Calvinism, or fundamentalist Islam), wouldn't any such proposal actually be ILLEGAL?

Ambassador,

Preventing a government from enacting legislation offending general principles agreed to by the members of this Assembly and outlawing a whole ideology are two very different things. We are not suppressing opinions with this proposal, we are protecting citizen's rights, which remain free to adopt themselves any of the 'ideologies' you mentioned, although we would dispute that anything your excellency has mentioned qualifies as an ideology, being both different manifestations of a theocratic form of government (which could qualify as the ideology defending that divine law should rule over one's country).

Your excellency referred rather to two different religions, which, in fact, strengthens the point we have done elsewhere about the dangers of putting this body at the mercy of dogmatic principles.

If, alternatively, your excellency has such an broad notion of the concept of ideology, then we are afraid that it is really very difficult to find a resolution that is not illegal.

We dare not speak for those who are vested with the authority to judge these matters, but we are convinced that the rule of no ideological bans exists to disallow outlawing an entire school of thought for no other reason than the fact that we dislike it and, consequently, conducting a wholesale suppression of opinion and extinguishing any discussion. We do not think it exists to prevent this Assembly from enacting legislation protecting the rights of the citizens of the world.

If, in the course of time, this Assembly does indeed emasculate some governments from fully deploying their oppressive ideology then we will be pleased, for we would have argued issue by issue against certain practices instead of going down the easy, and somewhat pernicious, path of outlawing certain regimes or forms of government out right.

However we readily admit that our disgust is not logical or reasoned.

It in fact should be. Statistics show that the average person carries within their chromosomes up to 12 lethal genes. These, however, are so-called recesive genes: genes that require two exact copies of themselves, one in each parental chromosome, in order to activate. However, these are only a very small percentage of the total number of such genes, which means that the chance of one mating with someone unrelated and finding the same gene is very small indeed.

However, once you commit incest, you are mating with someone who shares your blood and therefore has a much higher chance of carrying those same lethal genes.

One could well argue that incest is a crime, since you risk the well-being of a child (well, unless the nation also allows abortion, in which case one could counter-argue that it's only a diseased child because the parents decided not to terminate the pregnancy).

It in fact should be. Statistics show that the average person carries within their chromosomes up to 12 lethal genes. These, however, are so-called recesive genes: genes that require two exact copies of themselves, one in each parental chromosome, in order to activate. However, these are only a very small percentage of the total number of such genes, which means that the chance of one mating with someone unrelated and finding the same gene is very small indeed.

However, once you commit incest, you are mating with someone who shares your blood and therefore has a much higher chance of carrying those same lethal genes.

One could well argue that incest is a crime, since you risk the well-being of a child (well, unless the nation also allows abortion, in which case one could counter-argue that it's only a diseased child because the parents decided not to terminate the pregnancy).


According to this logic, esteemed and respected Ambassador all sexual activity with the prospect of procreation ( which is far from all sexual activity, there being profylaxis after all ) would have to be government tested and regulated to prevent the passing of damaged or dangerous genes. We are sure you would see that as as unpractical as we do.

Abortion has no bearing on this topic as far as we can see, as your reasoning suggests that we are all responsible for the genetic destiny of our nation, this is Eugenics, a highly discreditable science indeed.

In any case incest is vary rare in most societies, and it's instances are frequently complicated and heterodox in nature rendering them difficult to generalise about.

The logic of freedom still demands, in our opinion at least, that this resolution not discriminate against this from of sexual activity no matter how distasteful it may seem.

yours sincerely,

It in fact should be. Statistics show that the average person carries within their chromosomes up to 12 lethal genes. These, however, are so-called recesive genes: genes that require two exact copies of themselves, one in each parental chromosome, in order to activate. However, these are only a very small percentage of the total number of such genes, which means that the chance of one mating with someone unrelated and finding the same gene is very small indeed.

However, once you commit incest, you are mating with someone who shares your blood and therefore has a much higher chance of carrying those same lethal genes.

One could well argue that incest is a crime, since you risk the well-being of a child (well, unless the nation also allows abortion, in which case one could counter-argue that it's only a diseased child because the parents decided not to terminate the pregnancy).

Dear Ambassador.

Despite that procreation, modern medicine notwithstanding, requires sexual activity, the former is not a necessary consequence of the latter. Moreover, if the genes your excellency is alluding to are, in fact, recessive lethal genes then there is no chance that offspring will be produced. This fact could present a problem in demographics if incest mating was the general rule, since fertility rates would diminish, but there would be no risk of harming someone's well-being for there would be no being.

Our scientists tell us that the dangers of excessive in-breeding like the loss heterozygosity, and, consequently, greater exposure to recessive diseases, are much more apparent in small mating communities than as a result of consanguineous or even incestuous mating. Now, unless your delegation is ready to propose legislation establishing compulsory genetic counseling before breeding, which we believe sounds too much like an eugenics program, we see no reason to assume that incestuous mating offends any presumptive rights of the unborn any more than mating between two people from an isolated village in a remote island.

We submit to your excellencies the latest draft version, if no further comments and suggestions are presented in the next couple of days our delegation will be submitting this proposal to the Committee of Delegates.

We made some small changes of wording with respect to previously submitted versions that we hope will be agreeable to your excellencies.

Sexual Privacy Act

The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED of the need for legal limits to government interference in the private lives of individuals,

COMMITTED to protect the inalienable right of individuals to a private sexual life,

RESOLVED to create the adequate conditions for the development of sexual identity and sexual self-determination,

ADOPT the following Resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy without state intervention.

(b) The provisions contained in this resolution apply to humans.

(c) Each Nation shall make all the necessary adaptions to these provisions in order to grant the same level of sexual privacy protection to any other sentient species there may exist under their jurisdiction, provided that their existence is legally recognized.

Article 2 (Definitions)

For the purposes of this resolution we establish the following definitions:

(a) Sexual Acts: any acts between two or more individuals which involve stimulation of the sexual organs.

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness of psychotic nature.

(c) Age of consent: the age above which the consent given for the purposes of the previous paragraph is valid, being invalid below the said age.

(d) Puberty: the period of development during which physical growth and sexual maturation occurs.

Article 3 (Sexual Privacy)

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to establish an age of majority, the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

(c) All Nations shall enact and enforce legislation deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving or committed against non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to minors or persons otherwise incompetent for the purposes of criminal responsibility.

Article 4 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals.

Oh my, I was in no way saying any such things.

For starters, my description of the genetic flaws as lethal was an example of poor word choice. They are damaging and crippling. Well, some. Others are indeed lethal: they simply only present their symptoms once an individual has entered or even passed the reproductive age (cystic fibrosis only kills once the patient is over the age of 20, sickle-cell anemia only over 40, and Late Onset TSD during the mid 20's). They therefore can continue spreading their diseased genes onwards, even though they may be lethal.

The only reason I mentioned abortion was as a rebuttal to my own argument regarding how incest could be considered a crime against a child: without legalized abortion, the parents are partaking in an act that has a high probability of crippling the possible newborn, therefore making incest arguably in league with criminal negligence. However, with abortion, this argument is made void, since it then becomes the parents' choice: They may choose to keep the child regardless of the suffering it will later go through or terminate it in the womb. This, however, was in no way a part of my argument.

To be honest, I wasn't making an argument at all. I was simply mentioning the Ambassador's statement that his prejudice against incest is illogical and irrational. It is not. It is an evolutionarily-created defense mechanism (we are programmed to not be sexually attracted to people we have known during childhood, which would tend to be our family. This also explains why so few childhood couples actually grow up to get married, but many remain as friends) which has the purpose of protecting any possible children from genetic disorders.

Others are indeed lethal: they simply only present their symptoms once an individual has entered or even passed the reproductive age (cystic fibrosis only kills once the patient is over the age of 20, sickle-cell anemia only over 40, and Late Onset TSD during the mid 20's). They therefore can continue spreading their diseased genes onwards, even though they may be lethal.

Ambassador,

The genes causing the conditions you refer to are not usually called lethal, although the conditions themselves eventually are or can be. These are deleterious genes causing genetic diseases with the term 'lethal gene' usually reserved for genes causing embryogenesis not to be viable.



It is an evolutionarily-created defense mechanism (we are programmed to not be sexually attracted to people we have known during childhood, which would tend to be our family. This also explains why so few childhood couples actually grow up to get married, but many remain as friends) which has the purpose of protecting any possible children from genetic disorders.


As we have said before, these genetic diseases you are alluding to are quite common in small communities or even large isolated areas with frequent in-breeding, even if there is no incestuous mating or even consanguineous mating with 1st or 2nd cousins and one can hardly hold these persons as criminal offenders. Genetic diseases are indeed much more prevalent in these communities than those one might expect to arise due to any random incestuous mating.

Now incestuous mating in small communities indeed raises the risk to a very high degree. And our scientists do tell us that humans for the greatest part of their evolutionary past did live on small nomadic groups, which could explain why incest avoidance seems to be hard-wired into our minds, with the rare cases of it consisting of people that, despite being very closely related to each other, barely ever lived together (OOC, or some weird Greek dynasty in Egypt).

So, why prohibit incest if it is so naturally avoided?

(c) Each Nation shall make all the necessary adaptions to these provisions in order to grant the same level of sexual privacy protection to any other sentient species there may exist under their jurisdiction, provided that their existence is legally recognized.
Oh my. Assuming this is legal, I like it a lot. Thank you.

For starters, my description of the genetic flaws as lethal was an example of poor word choice. They are damaging and crippling. Well, some. Others are indeed lethal: they simply only present their symptoms once an individual has entered or even passed the reproductive age (cystic fibrosis only kills once the patient is over the age of 20, sickle-cell anemia only over 40, and Late Onset TSD during the mid 20's). They therefore can continue spreading their diseased genes onwards, even though they may be lethal.
You are aware that a lack of sickle-cell anemia is a genetic problem in malaria-infested areas that can easily be fatal? In other words, if you live in the wrong places, having sickle-cell anemia is a benefit. Describing it as "diseased genes" is a tad judgemental under those circumstances, wouldn't you say?

As you say, hom. sap. seems to have a built-in tendency to avoid being attracted to family. Siblings falling in love are as rare as hens' teeth, and frankly criminalising a couple for being in love runs against most of my principles. Slapping them about the face with a wet fish, maybe, but that's another matter.

A lot of the impetus for anti-incest laws (as distinct from instinct) was about ownership and inheritance. These days, anyone who tries to "keep it in the family" to stop their estate getting broken up is much more aware of the chance that there won't be a next generation to hand it on to. I think that's a self-correcting problem nowadays. Isn't education wonderful?

Where incest is much more of a concern is when it's inter-generational, because of the issues of abuse of trust and abuse of authority, and the emotional damage to the child. The consent provisions deal with that as well as any other form of pederastry.

Edit: I almost forgot this, but it's relevant. Apparently if a group in-breeds for enough generations, it becomes as stable as a larger heterogenous group. It doesn't take that many generations either. Since the person who told me this was a professional cytogeneticist, I'm inclined to believe her.

Oh my. Assuming this is legal, I like it a lot. Thank you.


You are aware that a lack of sickle-cell anemia is a genetic problem in malaria-infested areas that can easily be fatal? In other words, if you live in the wrong places, having sickle-cell anemia is a benefit. Describing it as "diseased genes" is a tad judgemental under those circumstances, wouldn't you say?

As you say, hom. sap. seems to have a built-in tendency to avoid being attracted to family. Siblings falling in love are as rare as hens' teeth, and frankly criminalising a couple for being in love runs against most of my principles. Slapping them about the face with a wet fish, maybe, but that's another matter.

A lot of the impetus for anti-incest laws (as distinct from instinct) was about ownership and inheritance. These days, anyone who tries to "keep it in the family" to stop their estate getting broken up is much more aware of the chance that there won't be a next generation to hand it on to. I think that's a self-correcting problem nowadays. Isn't education wonderful?

Where incest is much more of a concern is when it's inter-generational, because of the issues of abuse of trust and abuse of authority, and the emotional damage to the child. The consent provisions deal with that as well as any other form of pederastry.

Edit: I almost forgot this, but it's relevant. Apparently if a group in-breeds for enough generations, it becomes as stable as a larger heterogenous group. It doesn't take that many generations either. Since the person who told me this was a professional cytogeneticist, I'm inclined to believe her.


Indeed our scientists tell us similar things honoured Ambassador, this explains how small inbreeding groups of humans such as those which live in remoteness from others do not swiftly breed themselves out of existence.

And we sgould say that further to the comments of the esteemed Ambassador for Mendosia, our scholars tell us that the myths and legends of the fabled "Real World" inform us that the so called "pharoahs" of Ancient Egypt were required to marry their sisters, the offspring arrising there from being the only such considered really suitable to form the succeeding royal couple in the next generation for many thousands of years. This practice not being restricted to this mythical nation's so called "ptolemaic" period as we believe the respected Ambassador thought.

Of course these myths and legends need not, nor in our opinion should be instructive to this debate. We just thought the respected Mendosian delegecy would apreciate the clarification.

yours e.t.c. ,

Where incest is much more of a concern is when it's inter-generational, because of the issues of abuse of trust and abuse of authority, and the emotional damage to the child. The consent provisions deal with that as well as any other form of pederastry.


The trust between people is indeed something that worries me very much.
I do not like to see that a Nation fails to establish an age of majority. Than the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.
I do not mind if people who doesn't have an age of consent but have reached puberty have sex with each other. I do mind when adult have sex with the earlier mentioned youngsters. I do think it is not fair because the status between them (adult and non adult) is too much different.

Another problem I have is with people who are in some way depending of others (ea student-teacher or prisoner-prisoner guard). I would like to see an article about this. My English is not that good, but I hope you have an idea of what I mean.

I do like the proposal in general, so if dealt with this two points, I will support it.

Regards

The trust between people is indeed something that worries me very much.
I do not like to see that a Nation fails to establish an age of majority. Than the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.
I do not mind if people who doesn't have an age of consent but have reached puberty have sex with each other. I do mind when adult have sex with the earlier mentioned youngsters. I do think it is not fair because the status between them (adult and non adult) is too much different.


Ambassador,

We leave it up to the individual Nations to set up or not an age of consent, or an age of majority, or both, at their own discretion, knowing that they will have nothing but minimal protection if they establish neither. We believe it is better to pass this responsibility down to individual Nations than to impose a particular age which would be guaranteed to dissatisfy the majority either because of allegations of violation of sovereignty, or because the limit you be considered too high or too low depending on the sensibilities and traditions of each Nation.



Another problem I have is with people who are in some way depending of others (ea student-teacher or prisoner-prisoner guard). I would like to see an article about this. My English is not that good, but I hope you have an idea of what I mean.


We believe these questions are dealt with in our definition of consent which excludes any form of coercion or deceit. To automatically require that sexual contacts between the categories of individuals you refer be non-consented would effectively criminalize those acts, regardless of whether a position of privilege was actually used to coerce the "dependent" party.

Preventing a government from enacting legislation offending general principles agreed to by the members of this Assembly and outlawing a whole ideology are two very different things. We are not suppressing opinions with this proposal, we are protecting citizen's rights, which remain free to adopt themselves any of the 'ideologies' you mentioned, although we would dispute that anything your excellency has mentioned qualifies as an ideology, being both different manifestations of a theocratic form of government (which could qualify as the ideology defending that divine law should rule over one's country).

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

The maintenance of sexual purity is one of the central teachings of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii. As the esteemed representative of Bears Armed has noted, a resolution such as this allowing "unbridled sexual license" is an major assault upon the those teachings.

A resolution outlawing the upholding of sexual morality is no less an ideological ban than one outlawing the possession of private property.

Ambassador,
We leave it up to the individual Nations to set up or not an age of consent, or an age of majority, or both, at their own discretion, knowing that they will have nothing but minimal protection if they establish neither. We believe it is better to pass this responsibility down to individual Nations than to impose a particular age which would be guaranteed to dissatisfy the majority either because of allegations of violation of sovereignty, or because the limit you be considered too high or too low depending on the sensibilities and traditions of each Nation.
I totally agree with setting the ages limits on the national level. But what is important for me is that people in the age of puberty must be protected against having sex with (somewhat old) adults. What I want is that only people in the first 2 years of adulthood or so are allowed to have sex with people in the age of puberty (and of course if all agreed with free will). But that people in the age of puberty do have sex, that is not a problem for me. Good sex education is naturally a condition.

We believe these questions are dealt with in our definition of consent which excludes any form of coercion or deceit. To automatically require that sexual contacts between the categories of individuals you refer be non-consented would effectively criminalize those acts, regardless of whether a position of privilege was actually used to coerce the "dependent" party.
No I do not think this is dealt with your definition of consent. If you are professional you leave your students and employees as being students or employees and not mixed with being partners. If you want to have sex with them, you either wait until you are not their boss any more or you resign and you do not have to wait. Some one who is dependent in such a way, will never be totally free to decide. A psychiatrist by example should not be allowed to have sex with his clients. Much more problems will come if that will be allowed. And this proposal would prevent laws against such things, so if not properly stated in your proposal to prohibit such sexual contacts, I cannot do something else than to be firmly against your proposal and I will ask others to do so either. I really would regret that.

Regards

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

The maintenance of sexual purity is one of the central teachings of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii. As the esteemed representative of Bears Armed has noted, a resolution such as this allowing "unbridled sexual license" is an major assault upon the those teachings.

A resolution outlawing the upholding of sexual morality is no less an ideological ban than one outlawing the possession of private property.

This logic respected Ambassador is the logic of complete legislative inertia. It imagines that any issue upon which a nation claims to have some religious standpoint no matter how bizzare, is beyond the bounds of statutory remedy.

So, as the esteemed ambassador for Mendosia pointed out elsewhere, a nation may claim ideological basis for rejecting Free Trade or Moral Decency or Dissarmament or in fact any branch of legislation this organisation has a competence in.

A religion could be formed which is devoted to the irradication of Nuclear war, this faith could claim that this body would be acting illegally therefore in "ideologically" banning their faith's central tennets when it legalises national rights to possession of a nuclear arsenal.

Another faith could calim that only god may judge its citizen's crimes and that the so called Fair Trial resolution was an ideological ban on their beliefs.

The list of these arguments is endless because they are all false and spurious.

Of course your logic also suggests that religious faiths are actually ideologies when of course they in fact enjoy the far more nebulous status of philosophy or indeed the far more mundane status of "way of life". Neither of these things is covered by this organisations prohibitions on statutory bans of ideology.

yours e.t.c. ,

Of course your logic also suggests that religious faiths are actually ideologies when of course they in fact enjoy the far more nebulous status of philosophy or indeed the far more mundane status of "way of life". Neither of these things is covered by this organisations prohibitions on statutory bans of ideology.

Respected Khan, would your nation be so quick to dismiss our concerns if the resolution in question outlawed the possession of horses and the right to a nomadic lifestyle? These too, can be seen as mere "ways of life".

States have a right to their national cultures. We do not seek to impose our culture upon other states; why then is ours being singled out for attack here?

Respected Khan, would your nation be so quick to dismiss our concerns if the resolution in question outlawed the possession of horses and the right to a nomadic lifestyle? These too, can be seen as mere "ways of life".

States have a right to their national cultures. We do not seek to impose our culture upon other states; why then is ours being singled out for attack here?


Indeed esteemed Ambassador we would object in the strongest possible terms on the morality of banning any particular lifestyle or happenstance of being, where these things do not substantively harm the lives of others. That is why we object so strongly to member nations being able to ban homosexuality, and would not support a resolution banning the practice of your venerable nation's faith.

This resolution is not a ban on any particular faith or culture, it is a ringfence of the right to personal freedom of all w.a. nation's citizens in matters sexual.

Esteemed Ambassador need we tell you of all people that the suggestion that this resolution might be an ideological ban rather begs the question of whether your delegation might be godmoding?

We in fact have no interest in such a debate, because we seek only good relations with your Eminence and such a debate would surely lead to acrimony and hurt feelings.

yours sincerely,

If you are professional you leave your students and employees as being students or employees and not mixed with being partners. If you want to have sex with them, you either wait until you are not their boss any more or you resign and you do not have to wait. Some one who is dependent in such a way, will never be totally free to decide. A psychiatrist by example should not be allowed to have sex with his clients. Much more problems will come if that will be allowed

Ambassador,

Although we do understand your concerns we are not entirely convinced that the matters your delegation refers to should be dealt with by criminal law. We believe that, since those infringements constitute rather violations of professional ethics they should be analyzed by disciplinary committees and not courts of law. And these violations, we would argue, have only very laterally to do with sexual acts but rather with all behavior that tends to favor or otherwise interfere with what should be a professional relationship.

But, moreover, as we said earlier, criminalizing all such behaviors would establish, for example, that a married couple where one happened to be, legally, the boss of the other in a corporate context let's say, they would be committing a crime if they performed any sexual acts with each other.

We would be happy to change the resolution to make sure one is not inadvertently prohibiting the exercise of disciplinary power in matters of professional ethics, but one would have to be very careful not to introduce a loophole rendering the resolution ineffectual.

One could add a paragraph to Article 3:

Without prejudice to paragraph (a), Nations can allow the exercise of disciplinary power to independent professional organizations which have the legal duty to enforce ethics standards. The exercise of said disciplinary power, for the purposes of this resolution, is limited to considering whether or not sexual acts have occurred between one professional and its client or someone under his/her authority in the context of their professional relation or because of it. The said professional organizations are limited in their decisions to apply disciplinary measures with nothing but an impact on the professional life of the defendant. No State will enact legislation requiring criminal consequences to these decisions.

And as your excellency can see this is extremely verbose. If anyone cares to suggest another solution or a better wording we would be most pleased.

Of course your logic also suggests that religious faiths are actually ideologies when of course they in fact enjoy the far more nebulous status of philosophy or indeed the far more mundane status of "way of life". Neither of these things is covered by this organisations prohibitions on statutory bans of ideology.

OOC: WRONG! There is past precedent for proposals that would ban specific religions being deleted, by the Mods, as illegal for this reason.

Indeed esteemed Ambassador we would object in the strongest possible terms on the morality of banning any particular lifestyle or happenstance of being, where these things do not substantively harm the lives of others. That is why we object so strongly to member nations being able to ban homosexuality, and would not support a resolution banning the actual practice of your venerable nation's faith.

This resolution is not a ban on any particular faith or culture, it is a ringfence of the right to personal freedom of all w.a. nation's citizens in matters sexual.
OOC: You appear to be operating under a serious misundestanding about the rules. The rule against 'Ideological Bans' does NOT exist to protect individuals against legislation by their nations' governments, it exists to protect the national governments' right to govern according to whatever ideology -- and using whatever system of government -- they choose, because it is those governments (rather than their subjects) that are the members of this organisation.

OOC: You appear to be operating under a serious misundestanding about the rules. The rule against 'Ideological Bans' does NOT exist to protect individuals against legislation by their nations' governments, it exists to protect the national governments' right to govern according to whatever ideology -- and using whatever system of government -- they choose, because it is those governments (rather than their subjects) that are the members of this organisation.

OOC, However the rules also say banning Slavery does not amount to banning someone's ideology, so we do not see why banning State intervention on intimate sexual affairs should be.

OOC: WRONG! There is past precedent for proposals that would ban specific religions being deleted, by the Mods, as illegal for this reason.


OOC: You appear to be operating under a serious misundestanding about the rules. The rule against 'Ideological Bans' does NOT exist to protect individuals against legislation by their nations' governments, it exists to protect the national governments' right to govern according to whatever ideology -- and using whatever system of government -- they choose, because it is those governments (rather than their subjects) that are the members of this organisation.


We never said that the laws on ideological bans were instituted to protect the rights of individuals, we defy you to read our statements again and tell us that we did. We did point out that in many situations the rights of individuals should be held higher than those of nations but we never connected this assertion to the law on ideological bans, the obverse argument was however linked to this law by the esteemed Ambassador for the Eternal Kawaii.

In any event you have no cause to bellow at us about our personal ethics when your nation, esteemed Ambassador seems to lack any guiding ethics at all except perhaps the one maxim; oppose everything that comes before the w.a. unless St. Edmunds the Bears Armed wrote it.

yours e.t.c. ,

This resolution is not a ban on any particular faith or culture, it is a ringfence of the right to personal freedom of all w.a. nation's citizens in matters sexual.

Surely the respected Khan is above such semantic games. The banning of a central tenet of a faith is no different, in practical terms, than an outright ban of the faith itself.

Surely the respected Khan is above such semantic games. The banning of a central tenet of a faith is no different, in practical terms, than an outright ban of the faith itself.

We suspect, Ambassador, that your faith has, or otherwise will have, as many central tenets as the resolutions we shall present to this Assembly, giving you, according to your interpretation of the rules, an effective right to veto.

Honoured Ambassador for the Eternal Kawaii this is hardly semantics but no matter. We make the point that your nation's citizens may choose to follow your nation's religion if they wish, your government may even strongly support and urge such belief where this is not discriminatory, but it cannot morally force its citizens to follow the tenets of a particular faith against their will, that is all.

yours e.t.c. ,

Ambassador,

Although we do understand your concerns we are not entirely convinced that the matters your delegation refers to should be dealt with by criminal law. We believe that, since those infringements constitute rather violations of professional ethics they should be analyzed by disciplinary committees and not courts of law. And these violations, we would argue, have only very laterally to do with sexual acts but rather with all behavior that tends to favor or otherwise interfere with what should be a professional relationship.

But, moreover, as we said earlier, criminalizing all such behaviors would establish, for example, that a married couple where one happened to be, legally, the boss of the other in a corporate context let's say, they would be committing a crime if they performed any sexual acts with each other.

We would be happy to change the resolution to make sure one is not inadvertently prohibiting the exercise of disciplinary power in matters of professional ethics, but one would have to be very careful not to introduce a loophole rendering the resolution ineffectual.

One could add a paragraph to Article 3:

Without prejudice to paragraph (a), Nations can allow the exercise of disciplinary power to independent professional organizations which have the legal duty to enforce ethics standards. The exercise of said disciplinary power, for the purposes of this resolution, is limited to considering whether or not sexual acts have occurred between one professional and its client or someone under his/her authority in the context of their professional relation or because of it. The said professional organizations are limited in their decisions to apply disciplinary measures with nothing but an impact on the professional life of the defendant. No State will enact legislation requiring criminal consequences to these decisions.

And as your excellency can see this is extremely verbose. If anyone cares to suggest another solution or a better wording we would be most pleased.

I do think you have a point that is very important here. I do not have the proper words in English to tell what change I want to be made. I want your added text a little stronger, than I can agree. Also I hope that I am correct that laws could be so that if a person feels later that he or she was under influence of the higher position of the one with that higher position that a court can see it as a crime.

Than I still didn't get an answer on this:
I totally agree with setting the ages limits on the national level. But what is important for me is that people in the age of puberty must be protected against having sex with (somewhat old) adults. What I want is that only people in the first 2 years of adulthood or so are allowed to have sex with people in the age of puberty (and of course if all agreed with free will). But that people in the age of puberty do have sex, that is not a problem for me. Good sex education is naturally a condition.

I hope you can convince me to drop this or that you can make an amendment to settle this.

Regards

I do think you have a point that is very important here. I do not have the proper words in English to tell what change I want to be made. I want your added text a little stronger, than I can agree. Also I hope that I am correct that laws could be so that if a person feels later that he or she was under influence of the higher position of the one with that higher position that a court can see it as a crime.


We are not sure if the language needs to be stronger but we are happy to simplify it. Our delegation wants to make clear that we have no wish make it mandatory that a Nation should investigate sexual acts between two people when one is in a position of power when coercion or deceit were not involved, we just want to allow professional organizations to exercise disciplinary power if ethics rules have been violated.



Than I still didn't get an answer on this:
I totally agree with setting the ages limits on the national level. But what is important for me is that people in the age of puberty must be protected against having sex with (somewhat old) adults. What I want is that only people in the first 2 years of adulthood or so are allowed to have sex with people in the age of puberty (and of course if all agreed with free will). But that people in the age of puberty do have sex, that is not a problem for me. Good sex education is naturally a condition.


We understand your delegation's position on this matter and we in our Nation indeed do not allow adults to have sex with people which have just started puberty. We believe, however, that the proper way to do this is to establish a convenient age of consent rather than instituting age difference limits.

The age of consent should represent the age above which a person can consent to having sex with whomever, regardless of age. If it happens that a pubescent child and an adult are allowed to have sex in the light of this resolution it is due to the fact that a Nation has failed to establish the proper age of consent and even a proper age of majority. But it is not our place, however, to say whether in any Nation it is appropriate for a pubescent child ,or a pre-pubescent child for that matter, to be allowed to have sex with an adult, for it is mostly a cultural matter.

Cultures exist or have existed where having sex with adults, even before puberty, was not only accepted but was the norm, sometimes ritualized, for the elites or even the general populace, and we have no wish to ban those cultures. On the other hand, we accept every nation's right to establish different ages of consent and effectively ban all sexual contacts below a certain age because these are unacceptable on that nation's culture and, consequently, are usually perpetrated in contexts and in terms that will most likely hurt the child and harm his/her emotional development and sexual self-determination.

OOC, However the rules also say banning Slavery does not amount to banning someone's ideology, so we do not see why banning State intervention on intimate sexual affairs should be.
OOC: The rules say that banning Slavery does not amount to banning someone's ideology because this is a specific exception -- and the only one that the Mods have officially made so far -- to the "no ideological bans" rule.

OOC: The rules say that banning Slavery does not amount to banning someone's ideology because this is a specific exception -- and the only one that the Mods have officially made so far -- to the "no ideological bans" rule.


This does not change the fact, Ambassador, that the Eternal Kawaii could provide endless veto after veto of any and all resolutions if it wished claiming that they were an ideological ban on some central tennet or other of their faith.

Such a situation would be preposterous and not viable.

Besides which religion deserves no greater protection than any other philosophy for which there are no protections in W.A. law.

yours e.t.c.,

OOC: The rules say that banning Slavery does not amount to banning someone's ideology because this is a specific exception -- and the only one that the Mods have officially made so far -- to the "no ideological bans" rule.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11379492&postcount=6

We never said that the laws on ideological bans were instituted to protect the rights of individuals, we defy you to read our statements again and tell us that we did.OOC: The way in which you (and Mendosias) worded various comments in recent debates certainly gave the impression that you considered this to be the case: If it wasn't so then perhaps a better choice of wording might have been in ordew...

We did point out that in many situations the rights of individuals should be held higher than those of nationsOOC: ... although that isn't what the Rules say.

In any event you have no cause to bellow at us about our personal ethics when your nation, esteemed AmbassadorOOC: Do you really not know what the abbreviation "OOC" means?seems to lack any guiding ethics at all except perhaps the one maxim; oppose everything that comes before the w.a. unless St. Edmunds the Bears Armed wrote it.OOC:It might be advisable if you took the opportunity to do some research before sounding off -- erroneously -- like that. In my time as a member of the NSUN I supported quite a few proposals that were written by other people... but generally only ones that actually dealt with matters involving interactions between nations (such as Diplomatic Immunity, or rules limiting the ways in which wars were to be fought, or international trade) or that were only requests rather than demands. I did support a few 'Human Rights' proposals too, in fact, but my policy on those has always been quite simple: As neither the NSUN nor the WA is allowed to guarantee people a voice in how their home nations' governments work, it has no right to tell those governments how to govern and the only rights that should be guaranteed internationally -- apart from the few that are more 'fundamental' than the right to a say in how one is governed, such as freedom from arbitrary slaughter, and freedom from slavery -- are therefore the right to emigrate (to let those people who cannot actually vote on their governments "vote with their feet" instead...) and any rights that don't contradict the tenets of any recognisable ideology.
And "No", before you ask, neither I personally nor the government of my current WA member nation regards either some dictator saying that "I should be allowed to do whatever I want" or people saying "but we've always done things like that" asn ideology, as we hold that there should be some sort of theoretical basis [even if that's only "God tells us to do it"...] involved in order to fit the definition... But any system of behaviour that does have a theoretical underpinning, and that has spread across one or more whole nations and/or lasted for generations, clearly is an 'ideology' under the normal definition of that term.

Honoured Ambassador for the Eternal Kawaii this is hardly semantics but no matter. We make the point that your nation's citizens may choose to follow your nation's religion if they wish, your government may even strongly support and urge such belief where this is not discriminatory, but it cannot morally force its citizens to follow the tenets of a particular faith against their will, that is all.
OOC: Would you also try to assert that a Communist regime could not force its people to follow Communism and abandon the practice of free enterprise?

This does not change the fact, Ambassador, that the Eternal Kawaii could provide endless veto after veto of any and all resolutions if it wished claiming that they were an ideological ban on some central tennet or other of their faith.OOC: if those resolutions were trying to change the internal workings of their nation (rather than just the nature of its interactions with other nations), and the tenets in question were already established as elements of its faith -- as puritanism is -- then, "Yes", it could.[/QUOTE]

Besides which religion deserves no greater protection than any other philosophy for which there are no protections in W.A. law.OOC:If you mean in resolutions, no: It is, as I've already explained more than once recently, in the basic rules about writing proposals which the Mods do enforce when illegalities come to their attention.

OOC: The way in which you (and Mendosias) worded various comments in recent debates certainly gave the impression that you considered this to be the case: If it wasn't so then perhaps a better choice of wording might have been in ordew...

OOC: ... although that isn't what the Rules say.

OOC: Do you really not know what the abbreviation "OOC" means?OOC:It might be advisable if you took the opportunity to do some research before sounding off -- erroneously -- like that. In my time as a member of the NSUN I supported quite a few proposals that were written by other people... but generally only ones that actually dealt with matters involving interactions between nations (such as Diplomatic Immunity, or rules limiting the ways in which wars were to be fought, or international trade) or that were only requests rather than demands. I did support a few 'Human Rights' proposals too, in fact, but my policy on those has always been quite simple: As neither the NSUN nor the WA is allowed to guarantee people a voice in how their home nations' governments work, it has no right to tell those governments how to govern and the only rights that should be guaranteed internationally -- apart from the few that are more 'fundamental' than the right to a say in how one is governed, such as freedom from arbitrary slaughter, and freedom from slavery -- are therefore the right to emigrate (to let those people who cannot actually vote on their governments "vote with their feet" instead...) and any rights that don't contradict the tenets of any recognisable ideology.
And "No", before you ask, neither I personally nor the government of my current WA member nation regards either some dictator saying that "I should be allowed to do whatever I want" or people saying "but we've always done things like that" asn ideology, as we hold that there should be some sort of theoretical basis [even if that's only "God tells us to do it"...] involved in order to fit the definition... But any system of behaviour that does have a theoretical underpinning, and that has spread across one or more whole nations and/or lasted for generations, clearly is an 'ideology' under the normal definition of that term.


OOC: Would you also try to assert that a Communist regime could not force its people to follow Communism and abandon the practice of free enterprise?


O.O.C. ok i should probably clear something up for you, i don't make o.o.c. comments here often or casually because i view this as an r.p. forum. Now i understand that others have a more personal relationship and approach with the w.a. and i respect that.

However you should not take anything the r.p. characters i write here say personally or view anything they say as my own opinion on issues or on you unless i say so out of character. This is the case even if my characters are responding to o.o.c. comments.

Mongkha the guy who normally speaks for Urgench is a very grumpy and stern old man who sees the w.a. as a place to vigorously affirm Urgench's position both political and ethical on the international stage and is not affraid to make his point in whatever way he sees fit. Having said far too much out of character i will return to....


I.C.


Respected Ambassador your assertion that religion has a theoretical basis and is therefore an ideology fails to grasp the true nature of religion. It does not make any claim for itself to be theoretical or based on ideas or theories at all, it makes the claim that it is absolute truth revealed or otherwise. Religion therefore imbibes of the nature of philosophy since it promotes a categorically true version of reality which is the only way to view the concorse of life itself. Indeed it often makes claims on the minutiae of life and the manners of living it, without any reference to ideology or theory of any kind.

Unless this resolution were to actually deny nations the right to allow religion a right to structurally govern them ( this being the ideology of theocracy ) then it could never be an ideological ban, to do this it would have to attack the validity of allowing religious governance, not the beliefs of individual religions which are essentially arbitrary in nature and not ideological.

We are sure that the Honoured Ambassador has voted for the resolutions of other nations in the past but in our admittedly only recent experience we have observed nothing but a spirit of obstinacy and opposition in their contribution to debates particularly where these debates have concerned issues or resolutions which were not close to the Ambassador's heart or which did not carry the imprematur of St Edmund or the Bears Armed.

As regards the political philosophy espoused by the respected Ambassador with regard to this organisation's competences or legislative relationship with its members, that is all very well. Perhaps they could make this argument the centrality of their case against this resolution and not bogus arguments that this resolution is a ban on ideology. Which it is not.

The mind that conceived it did so with the guiding principal that humans are humans regardless of their nationality and deserve the same protection from wickedness and persecution without such distinctions being made. We would welcome this principle being extended to non-human sapients also but that is for another debate.

If nations should have rights above and beyond the rights of individuals in matters pertaining to basic freedom from persecution or marginalisation then this organisation had better not have any competence in the sphere of Human Rights at all in our opinion. Compassion for all should be the guiding spirit of this organisation, since only from this will peace, prosperity and harmony arrise.

yours sincerely,

This does not change the fact, Ambassador, that the Eternal Kawaii could provide endless veto after veto of any and all resolutions if it wished claiming that they were an ideological ban on some central tennet or other of their faith.

Such a situation would be preposterous and not viable.

With all due respect, esteemed Khan, our nation is asking for no such veto. We are simply pointing out that this proposal does constitute an ideological ban: it expects all WA member states to abide by a singular view of sexual morality, and refuses to acknowledge that differing cultures have differing views on the matter. In that sense, it is no different from a resolution enforcing a single economic system and banning all others.

With all due respect, esteemed Khan, our nation is asking for no such veto. We are simply pointing out that this proposal does constitute an ideological ban: it expects all WA member states to abide by a singular view of sexual morality, and refuses to acknowledge that differing cultures have differing views on the matter. In that sense, it is no different from a resolution enforcing a single economic system and banning all others.

Esteemed Ambassador that is a fallacy. This resolution has no agenda in sexual morals per se, indeed all it asks is that governments leave matters of sexuality to the concience of their citizens and observe a decorous privacy about their citizens bedrooms.

This resolution does not stop the practice of the esteemed Ambassador's faith nor does it ask any nation to observe any other moral culture than that which they currently enjoy. All this resolution does is remove the prying and pruriant gaze of government from the most intimate of human interactions.

yours e.t.c.,

As well, in this particular case, since the banning is on an ideology (homophobia) as opposed to a practice (human sacrifice or the ritual explosion of a nuclear bomb or... something), you can't say this is an ideological ban of any form of religion and therefore forms of theocratic government.

Religions are free to feel as enraged as they like towards the law. In the mythical land of California, I am sure their shamans were far from happy when the Druid's Circle supposedly allowed same-sex marriage. Yet the shaman's idol-worshiping religion continued to exist in those mythical lands.

The situation is a bit worse in the case of theocracies since the government is therefore forced to go against God's (or The Flying Spaghetti Monster's) will. However, while the government might make shallow acceptance of the Resolution, the Nation's religion, which can be regarded as even more valuable and influential than the futile earthly government, is more than free to continue discriminating and persecuting the blasphemous heathens.

As well, in this particular case, since the banning is on an ideology (homophobia) as opposed to a practice (human sacrifice or the ritual explosion of a nuclear bomb or... something), you can't say this is an ideological ban of any form of religion and therefore forms of theocratic government.

Ahem. Homophobia is not an ideology of any sort. It's a phobia.

Honorable delegates,

Our delegation believes we have reached a large consensus concerning this proposal, with the exception of those who would always oppose this sort of resolution.

We re-post the proposal as it is currently. Some language cleanups have been made.

If no delegation wishes to offer any further comments in the next few days and if the resolution currently at vote does not pass I shall submit this proposal with the World Assembly. (If the resolution currently at vote passes we believe it should be our priority to repeal it, not because it would be incompatible with this proposal, but it would be largely inconsistent with).

----

Sexual Privacy Act

The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED of the need for legal limits to government interference in the private lives of individuals,

COMMITTED to protect the inalienable right of individuals to a private sexual life,

RESOLVED to create the adequate conditions for the development of sexual identity and sexual self-determination,

ADOPT the following Resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy without state intervention.

(b) The provisions contained in this resolution apply to humans.

(c) Each Nation shall make all the necessary adaptations to these provisions in order to grant the same level of sexual privacy protection to any other sentient species there may exist under their jurisdiction, provided that their existence is legally recognized.

Article 2 (Definitions)

For the purposes of this resolution we establish the following definitions:

(a) Sexual Acts: any acts between two or more individuals which involve stimulation of the sexual organs.

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness.

(c) Age of consent: the age above which the consent given for the purposes of the previous paragraph is valid, being invalid below the said age.

(d) Puberty: the period of development during which physical growth and sexual maturation occurs.

Article 3 (Sexual privacy and its conditions of application)

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to establish an age of majority, the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

(c) All Nations shall enact and enforce legislation deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving or committed against non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to minors or persons otherwise incompetent for the purposes of criminal responsibility.

(d) The provisions of this article will not be construed to ban the exercise of disciplinary power by independent professional organizations should an individual be unethically involved in sexual acts with a client or with someone otherwise under his/her authority or responsibility. The penalties applied in the context of a disciplinary process may only concern the professional status of the defendant and may not have criminal consequences, except in the cases covered in the previous paragraph. The ethical rules applied for the purposes of this paragraph will make no distinction with respect to gender or sexual orientation of the defendant.

Article 4 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench eagerly awaits the oportunity to vote for this draft of this resolution. We commend its authors for their continued commitment to the cause of sexual self determination.

yours e.t.c. ,

and no suprise here, but the Palentine shall oppose this resolution when it comes to vote. The seniments are admirable, but once again the author of the proposal shows its contempt for the members of this festering snakepit. Apparently the of nations here are too stupid to regulate this for themselves, and need a big brother international law to enforce something that is a NATIONAL ISSUE, best left for INDIVIDUAL governments to enforce.
excelsior,
Senator Sulla


OOC: and before you once againt paint me as a homophobe, I'd remind you that I'm a true conservative. Peronally I do not care what two consenting adults do in the priovacy of their own home as long as children and animals are not involved. If dresing up like a japanese schoolgirl, with a ball gag in your mouth, while being spanked with a rubber iguana in time to Sousa'a Stars and Stripes Forever gets you off, its none of my business. I might think you are a pervert, but thats just me.

Why would anyone accuse you of being a homophobe respected Ambassador?

It might be pointed out that in opposing this resolution your nation is opposing a universal human right, but that is entirely different.

yours e.t.c. ,

O.O.C. maybe you could decide how you feel about this resolution after you get over your fit of pique over other peoples debating styles, different and all as they may be to those which were common in the "good old days".

OOC: and before you once againt paint me as a homophobe, I'd remind you that I'm a true conservative. Peronally I do not care what two consenting adults do in the priovacy of their own home as long as children and animals are not involved.

OOC, Curiously this resolution implements exactly your views on this matter, so it seems odd that you should oppose it.

Ahem. Homophobia is not an ideology of any sort. It's a phobia.

Indeed.

A phobia that some religions choose to instate as a form of ideology. And since my comments were regarding the theoretical (and present) theocracies that are against homosexuality, homophobia is, by definition, a phobia-turned-ideology in said religion.

Indeed.

A phobia that some religions choose to instate as a form of ideology. And since my comments were regarding the theoretical (and present) theocracies that are against homosexuality, homophobia is, by definition, a phobia-turned-ideology in said religion.


Unfortunately putting hyphens between words is no security of logical veracity. A phobia remains a phobia whether or not it is incorperated in to an ideology.

The ideology of Theocracy is a theory that the organisation or hierarchy of a religion can effectively run an entire nation.

Religion itself is a philosophy because it is not based in ideas or theories, but is based in the search for or veneration of the actual truth without regard to human ideas.

Homophobia may be an individual tennet of either of these things but this resolution would not effect the developement or continuance of either of them anyway.

yours e.t.c. ,

and no suprise here, but the Palentine shall oppose this resolution when it comes to vote. The seniments are admirable, but once again the author of the proposal shows its contempt for the members of this festering snakepit. Apparently the of nations here are too stupid to regulate this for themselves, and need a big brother international law to enforce something that is a NATIONAL ISSUE, best left for INDIVIDUAL governments to enforce.
excelsior,
Senator Sulla

That is exactly the case. Some nations are too stupid or have no interest or want to squash civil rights. So the last argument is valid. We want civil rights, some nations doesn't allow them, so we will bring them by WA resolutions.

And indeed you are right, if people are perverts but doing no harm, let it be.

Homophobia may be an individual tennet of either of these things but this resolution would not effect the developement or continuance of either of them anyway.

That's... that's... that's exactly my point.

And, perhaps I should reword the end of that last sentence.

Homophobia is, in the religion of a homosexually-discriminating theocracy, by definition, a phobia-turned-ideology.

Homophobia is a phobia.
However, should it become a key and central tenant of a religion's beliefs (for whatever reason), it effectively becomes a part of that religion's ideology.

If the Holy Book of a certain religion is majestically short, stating only "I am the One True God and I want you to kill all gays," homophobia (which, though not directly derived from its roots, is also used to describe overall discrimination against homosexuals), though still very much a phobia, becomes a part of that religion's ideology.

That's... that's... that's exactly my point.

And, perhaps I should reword the end of that last sentence.

Homophobia is, in the religion of a homosexually-discriminating theocracy, by definition, a phobia-turned-ideology.

Homophobia is a phobia.
However, should it become a key and central tenant of a religion's beliefs (for whatever reason), it effectively becomes a part of that religion's ideology.

If the Holy Book of a certain religion is majestically short, stating only "I am the One True God and I want you to kill all gays," homophobia (which, though not directly derived from its roots, is also used to describe overall discrimination against homosexuals), though still very much a phobia, becomes a part of that religion's ideology.


This is false logic, esteemed Ambassador, we have said nothing which proves what you are saying, we have highlighted the word which undermines your contention. We highlight it because it defines what we are pointing out, which is that homophobia may be a part of the religious dogma of a specific religion who's clergy are the government of a Theocracy but homophobia does not constitute a core construct of the political ideology of Theocracy.

The reason we are even debating this at all is because the honoured and respected Ambassador for The Eternal Kawaii contends that this resolution is a ban on the actual Ideology of Theocracy, they contend that specific dogma is protected from statutory interference of the w.a. by the laws against such bans on Theocracy.

This cannot be correct, since the proscription of ideological bans exists purely to prevent this organisation from banning Theocracies in general it does not exist (in our opinion) to protect specific articles of faith or belief. How could it since this would mean that the World Assembly could never legislate on any issue which any particular Theocracy claimed was an article of its faith?!

If this resolution were to be passed churches like the hypothetical one you outlined would of course still be able to govern their country, they would simply not be able to criminalise homosexuality, this does not constitute an ideological ban on Theocracies.

We hope this has clarified our position for the honoured Ambassador,

yours e.t.c. ,

Once again: that's exactly my point. I'm not saying this is a ban on theologies. I'm saying it's not. Here, look, you highlit the wrong word in my sentence.

"However, should it become a key and central tenant of a religion's beliefs (for whatever reason), it effectively becomes a part of that religion's ideology."

One can't even argue that it's a ban on religions that have homophobia as a key tenant of their ideology. If something is made illegal, the religious are more than free to complain and rant as much as they wish. To mention the mythical lands of RL once more, in the mysterious land commonly known as the United States, it is said that abortion was made legal. Records show that the religious of those lands were in almost every way comparable to our Christians; some would say they followed exactly the same religion. Therefore, it is understandable to believe that the religious would have been in an uproar in what might have been considered a desecration of the gift of Life. However, the books of lore say that even after such blasphemy was incurred upon them, their "Christianity" survived and, some records would say... got stronger.

Once again: that's exactly my point. I'm not saying this is a ban on theologies. I'm saying it's not. Here, look, you highlit the wrong word in my sentence.

"However, should it become a key and central tenant of a religion's beliefs (for whatever reason), it effectively becomes a part of that religion's ideology."

One can't even argue that it's a ban on religions that have homophobia as a key tenant of their ideology. If something is made illegal, the religious are more than free to complain and rant as much as they wish. To mention the mythical lands of RL once more, in the mysterious land commonly known as the United States, it is said that abortion was made legal. Records show that the religious of those lands were in almost every way comparable to our Christians; some would say they followed exactly the same religion. Therefore, it is understandable to believe that the religious would have been in an uproar in what might have been considered a desecration of the gift of Life. However, the books of lore say that even after such blasphemy was incurred upon them, their "Christianity" survived and, some records would say... got stronger.






We think we see now what you are trying to say esteemed Ambassador. We think you may just be confused about terminology, this is what has lead to our misunderstanding, perhaps if we simply explain what is meant by certain terms you will be able to make yourself understood better respected Ambassador.

Ideology is a system of ideas (human ideas) which are the basis for political or economic theories. Theocracy is one of these systems of ideas, which holds that a religious organisation can run a nation's government.

Philosophy is the study and investigation of truth, that is universal truth seperate to the ideas or theories of man.

Religion shares the same preocupation as philosophy, which is truth. In the case of Religion the truth is revealed to man already by god and the knowledge of "god's truth" forms the basis of all sorts of other beliefs and dogmas.

Homophobia in this instance is a dogma or a philosophical notion, and not a part of the political concept of Theocracy.


Neither specific religious dogmas or philosophical notions are protected by this organisation. But the political ideology of Theocracy is.

This resolution, as we think you are trying to say respected Ambassador and (we agree with you, if we are correct in our understanding of your words ) does not ban the political theory of Theocracy, it does effect specific dogmas and philosophical notions.

The difference, as we think you understand esteemed Ambassador, is profound.

yours sincerely,

Hell, the People of Sasquatchewain don't even think it affects dogmas and philosophical notions. The religious leaders are free to continue being as homophobic and discriminating as they wish.

Hell, the People of Sasquatchewain don't even think it affects dogmas and philosophical notions. The religious leaders are free to continue being as homophobic and discriminating as they wish.

This is true respected Ambassador, these religious leaders would still be able to hold homophobic beliefs after this resolution, they would simply not be able to make laws for their nation which would compliment these beliefs.

Yours e.t.c. ,

OOC: If dresing up like a japanese schoolgirl, with a ball gag in your mouth, while being spanked with a rubber iguana in time to Sousa'a Stars and Stripes Forever gets you off, its none of my business.

OOC: Thanks a lot, now I have a mental picture stuck in my head of Sen. Sulla doing just that.

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

It should come as no surprise to the representatives here that we oppose this proposal as written. While we continue to maintain that it represents an ideological ban, it is clear that, in the interest of rational debate, we make our nation's reasons for its opposition plain.

We wish to point out the essentially false premise that this proposed resolution is based on: the presumption that sexual activity is a "private" act, as if it took place between two individuals in a vacuum. This flies in the face of reality. The defining result (not always, to be sure, but defining in purpose if not in resolution) of sexual activity is the creation of a third individual. The fact that sex can produce a unique person, then, makes it a matter of public concern.

One of the greatest sins a Kawaiian may commit is bringing into this world an illegitimate child. It is an offense to the Cute One Who has commanded legitimacy of birth, an affront to one's ancestors who sacrificed all to establish one's own legitimate heritage, and an offense against the child so born by denying them a legitimate chain of ancestry to intercede with the Cute One on their behalf.

To that end, our Prophet has re-affirmed the Church's long-standing regulations on sexuality and marriage, so that no Kawaiian child may be sinned against in this way. This proposed resolution would subvert these teachings and risk the creation of more illegitimate children. Therefore, in the interest of protecting future generations of Kawaiians from the curse of bastardy, we must object to this resolution, and call upon all member states to reject this offense to the dignity of childhood.

May I ask a factual question: what is the position of the Church, and the government, on contraception, in The Eternal Kawaii?

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

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

It should come as no surprise to the representatives here that we oppose this proposal as written. While we continue to maintain that it represents an ideological ban, it is clear that, in the interest of rational debate, we make our nation's reasons for its opposition plain.

We wish to point out the essentially false premise that this proposed resolution is based on: the presumption that sexual activity is a "private" act, as if it took place between two individuals in a vacuum. This flies in the face of reality. The defining result (not always, to be sure, but defining in purpose if not in resolution) of sexual activity is the creation of a third individual. The fact that sex can produce a unique person, then, makes it a matter of public concern.

One of the greatest sins a Kawaiian may commit is bringing into this world an illegitimate child. It is an offense to the Cute One Who has commanded legitimacy of birth, an affront to one's ancestors who sacrificed all to establish one's own legitimate heritage, and an offense against the child so born by denying them a legitimate chain of ancestry to intercede with the Cute One on their behalf.

To that end, our Prophet has re-affirmed the Church's long-standing regulations on sexuality and marriage, so that no Kawaiian child may be sinned against in this way. This proposed resolution would subvert these teachings and risk the creation of more illegitimate children. Therefore, in the interest of protecting future generations of Kawaiians from the curse of bastardy, we must object to this resolution, and call upon all member states to reject this offense to the dignity of childhood.


The exposition of Kawaiin religious beliefs, most highly esteemed Ambassdor, is very interesting. But it is an exposition of dogma or specific articles of faith, and therefore nothing in this resolution represents an ideological ban on your great nations Theocratic form of government.

Should this resolution pass at vote, the clergy of The Eternal Kawaii may abhor to do so (and indeed so may the citizens) but they will still have absolute power to implement this resolution and continue to make laws for their people.

If your nation's faith is as deeply held by all its citizens as you, respected Ambassador would doubtless maintain, then the instance of iligitimacy will doubtless only remain at levels it currently occurs at now, which is to say the levels which required your great nation to institute laws on the subject in the first place.

If the esteemed Ambassador is concerned with how deeply their nation's citizens actually hold their faith and concurrently how anxious they are to continue to live by its moral and sexual laws then we suggest they speak with their government about bolstering national devotion and piety. The remedy will not come from continuing to allow millions perhaps billions of citizens of this organisation's membership to continue to be persecuted and criminalised simply because their government does not like who they wish to sleep with.

As we are certain the honoured and respected Ambassador is aware the laws against ideological bans do not exist to protect specific articles of faith of any religion, these laws exist to prevent this organisation from banning any particular form of government, be it communist dictatorship, democracy or theocracy.

yours e.t.c. ,

May I ask a factual question: what is the position of the Church, and the government, on contraception, in The Eternal Kawaii?

It's discouraged, naturally. Kawaiians prize children as treasures offered by the Cute One. For a couple to refuse such an offer is to live in disharmony with It.

The Tsar of Myedvedeya gives this proposal his wholehearted support.

The Trilateral Federation will also be supporting this.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Why would anyone accuse you of being a homophobe respected Ambassador?

It might be pointed out that in opposing this resolution your nation is opposing a universal human right, but that is entirely different.

yours e.t.c. ,

O.O.C. maybe you could decide how you feel about this resolution after you get over your fit of pique over other peoples debating styles, different and all as they may be to those which were common in the "good old days".

OOC:it has nothing to do with styles! it is the principle that this is a issue that an international body should not be legislating. It infringes on the national soverignity of a nation. This is not an issue that is international in scope. it is more efficiently tackled on the local and national level. Apparantly, you sir, have no trust in nations to do this for themselves.

Indeed we have only the most practical trust in nations to do what is right. Everywhere there is evidence of nations mistreating their citizens, of marginalising and stigmatising them, in order to sideline them and deprive them of their rights. One need only peruse interventions of many of those who in debate opposed the freedom of marriage statute, to know how minorities are treated in many parts of the membership of this organisation.

States should not have the right to persecute their peoples, humans have rights because they are human, these rights should not be dependant on their citizenship.

To uphold the right of nations to mistreat their citizens on the justification of the inviolability of national sovereignty or because the whim of any lunatical regime is superior to common humanity is not consistant with a compassionate world view. This position is callous and selfish on the part of nations. Why must one human citizen of one nation suffer terribly when his friend across the border lives in happiness?

The very heart of this organisation should be to promote international peace and harmony, these cannot be achieved if nations are allowed to make millions of their citizens miserable and oppressed. Peace is achieved through mutual understanding, harmony is achieved by mutual acceptance. These are exactly the habits this organisation should promote, on a governmental scale and on a much more human scale also.

yours sincerely,

Indeed we have only the most practical trust in nations to do what is right. Everywhere there is evidence of nations mistreating their citizens, of marginalising and stigmatising them, in order to sideline them and deprive them of their rights. One need only peruse interventions of many of those who in debate opposed the freedom of marriage statute, to know how minorities are treated in many parts of the membership of this organisation.

States should not have the right to persecute their peoples, humans have rights because they are human, these rights should not be dependant on their citizenship.

To uphold the right of nations to mistreat their citizens on the justification of the inviolability of national sovereignty or because the whim of any lunatical regime is superior to common humanity is not consistant with a compassionate world view. This position is callous and selfish on the part of nations. Why must one human citizen of one nation suffer terribly when his friend across the border lives in happiness?

The very heart of this organisation should be to promote international peace and harmony, these cannot be achieved if nations are allowed to make millions of their citizens miserable and oppressed. Peace is achieved through mutual understanding, harmony is achieved by mutual acceptance. These are exactly the habits this organisation should promote, on a governmental scale and on a much more human scale also.

yours sincerely,
You know, it's somewhat hypocritical of you to be complaining about people opposing because they feel that it's better handled of a local level, when you yourself were using the exact same argument when Fair Criminal Trial was up for vote.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

You know, it's somewhat hypocritical of you to be complaining about people opposing because they feel that it's better handled of a local level, when you yourself were using the exact same argument when Fair Criminal Trial was up for vote.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don


Respected and esteemed Ambassador if you care to read this post you will see the justification for our position-

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13981111&postcount=362


The events mentioned in this post can also be found in our posts in the very debate you mention. Besides we would have accepted the loss of national sovereignty if our concerns had been noted and acted upon during drafting by the authors of Fair criminal trial.

yours sincerely,

OOC:Apparantly, you sir, have no trust in nations to do this for themselves.

OOC: damn straight I don't, for the very good reason that a large fraction of the nations round here don't do it for themselves :)

The proposal has been submitted. Some minor adjustments were made due to length restrictions:

--

Sexual Privacy Act

The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED of the need for legal limits to government interference in the private lives of individuals,

RESOLVED to create the adequate conditions for the development of sexual identity and sexual self-determination,

ADOPT the following Resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy without state intervention.

(b) The provisions contained in this resolution apply to humans.

(c) Each Nation shall make all the necessary adaptations to these provisions in order to grant the same level of sexual privacy protection to any other sentient species there may exist under their jurisdiction, provided that their existence is legally recognized.

Article 2 (Definitions)

(a) Sexual Acts: any acts between two or more individuals which involve stimulation of the sexual organs.

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness.

(c) Age of consent: the age above which the consent given for the purposes of the previous paragraph is valid, being invalid below the said age.

(d) Puberty: the period of development during which physical growth and sexual maturation occurs.

Article 3 (Sexual privacy and its conditions of application)

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to establish an age of majority, the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

(c) All Nations shall enact and enforce legislation deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving or committed against non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to minors or persons otherwise incompetent for the purposes of criminal responsibility.

(d) The provisions of this article will not be construed to ban the exercise of disciplinary power by independent professional organizations should an individual be unethically involved in sexual acts with a client or with someone otherwise under his/her authority or responsibility. The penalties applied in the context of a disciplinary process may only concern the professional status of the defendant and may not have criminal consequences, except in the cases covered in the previous paragraph. The ethical rules applied for the purposes of this paragraph will make no distinction with respect to gender or sexual orientation of the defendant.

Article 4 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act.

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals.

Not terribly surprisingly, the Great Chiefdom of Krioval has decided to formally approve this proposal. Consider it revenge for the volume of horribly written repeals against the universal marriage resolution that pollute the proposal list every day.

Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

The Wierd Anarchists had a long meeting about this proposal. At last we all agreed, luckily because only consensus gives our co-ordinator Cocoamok the right to approve things, that this proposal leaves enough space to act against people who have sex with their clients, pupils or people under their authority and misusing the trust those people gave to them. Also our practice that people of about the same ago can have sex which each other, but not people from above and under the age of majority if they have more than 2 years of age difference was not banned by this proposal.

But we like to be corrected if we misunderstood the proposal.

So after all we give our full support to this proposal.

Nonnus de Lafenêtre you have made a good proposal, we praise the Commonwealth of Mendosia to send such capable ambassadors to the WA. If those nations who makes such horrible written repeals against the free marriage act, as mentioned by Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan from the Great Chiefdom of Krioval, should take some lessons from Nonnus de Lafenêtre the whole WA would benefit greatly.

As the honoured Ambassador de Lafenetre knows already, the government of his Divine Majesty the Emperor of Urgench will stretch every sinew in our support of this excellent resolution.

yours sincerely,

Inform Mendosia that quorum has been reached. We are currently examining your resolution.

I'll be glad to make this the Official Thread, or the author can create a new AT VOTE thread which I will pin to the top when I see it.

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of majority in use in said Nation shall apply. Should a Nation fail to establish an age of majority, the individual will be considered above the age of consent for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty. I assume then that "consenting individuals" means people above the age of consent, and not merely any "individual" who gives consent?

And what about incest between adults? What legal gymnastics can you perform to assure nations can outlaw such a practice?

I assume then that "consenting individuals" means people above the age of consent, and not merely any "individual" who gives consent?

And what about incest between adults? What legal gymnastics can you perform to assure nations can outlaw such a practice?

Consenting individuals in nations with an age of consent may only be individuals above the age of consent, honoured Ambassador, self evidently so.

As for your last point, there are no gymnastics to be performed since this resolution is a sexual privacy statute it would be self contradictory for it to allow nations to pry into the sexual activities of consenting adults no matter how distasteful their activities may be.

yours e.t.c.,

As for your last point, there are no gymnastics to be performed since this resolution is a sexual privacy statute it would be self contradictory for it to allow nations to pry into the sexual activities of consenting adults no matter how distasteful their activities may be.

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

Is the respected Khan actually saying that his nation approves of legislation forcing nations to legalize incest?

Has this assembly become so jaded that such depraved notions are now common?

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

Is the respected Khan actually saying that his nation approves of legislation forcing nations to legalize incest?

Has this assembly become so jaded that such depraved notions are now common?

It certainly appears that way, which I find absolutly repugnant.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/66960.jpg
Caroline Thistletwat
Founder of The Matrons of Morality

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

Is the respected Khan actually saying that his nation approves of legislation forcing nations to legalize incest?

Has this assembly become so jaded that such depraved notions are now common?


The honoured Ambassador makes some rather large presumptive leaps.

Firstly that this resolution "forces nations to legalise incest" ,this resolution merely decriminalises consenting adult sexual behaviour it does not legalise it, the difference is profound.

Secondly that our support of this resolution necessarily means that we advocate incest. we do not advocate incest our people would be as disgusted by consenting incest as any other nation's population, but instead of criminalising those who practice it it is our practice to regard them as having a form of social disorder, government psychiatric care is offered to these individuals and counseling e.t.c.

The fact that the respected Ambassador chooses to use the far more loaded "incest" as opposed to the " consenting incest" , the difference between which is profound, suggests that their already expressed antipathy towards this statute has lead them into the realms of smear tactics.

This is beneath the dignity of the respected Ambassador and it will serve the Ambassador and their case against this resolution very ill indeed.

yours e.t.c. ,

Your proposal sounds pretty okay to me. We'll probably vote for it when it comes up and when I've gone over it more carefully.
Regards, the Community oi Collectivity

Secondly that our support of this resolution necessarily means that we advocate incest. we do not advocate incest...which is why you support legislation that amounts to international protection for it. Brilliant.

You can propose all the "creative solutions" you like; the fact remains that this resolution blocks any national policy prohibiting, criminalizing, regulating, or providing any form of "state intervention" into sexual couples' privacy. So you cannot require psychological counseling for incestuous country bumpkins; one would even question whether the government can provide voluntary counseling for it.

...which is why you support legislation that amounts to international protection for it. Brilliant.

You can propose all the "creative solutions" you like; the fact remains that this resolution blocks any national policy prohibiting, criminalizing, regulating, or providing any form of "state intervention" into sexual couples' privacy. So you cannot require psychological counseling for incestuous country bumpkins; one would even question whether the government can provide voluntary counseling for it.


Nothing in this resolution prevents a member state from offering voluntary counselling or psychiatric care to its citizens should they care to avail of it.

And nothing about Urgench's systems in this area is required.

We honestly wonder at the respected Ambassador's nation's standards of social responsibility if its agrarian population is so callously caricatured as "incestous country bumpkins".

The opponents of this resolution seem to be becoming increasingly desperate in their attacks on it, now that their spurious claims of the resolution's illegality have been definitively debunked.

What next " this resolution demands mass executions of cute furry animals and an end to Christmas " ?

yours e.t.c. ,

What next " this resolution demands mass executions of cute furry animals and an end to Christmas " ?

If those were sexual fetishes practiced by some "consenting couples", then yes.

The respected Khan seems to be under a misapprehension about the basic tenets of law:

this resolution merely decriminalises consenting adult sexual behaviour it does not legalise it, the difference is profound.

There is no difference, profound or superficial, between "decriminalization" and "legalization". Prohibiting a nation from enforcing laws against certain behaviors, such as this resolution requires, de facto legalizes those behaviors.

If those were sexual fetishes practiced by some "consenting couples", then yes.

The respected Khan seems to be under a misapprehension about the basic tenets of law:



There is no difference, profound or superficial, between "decriminalization" and "legalization". Prohibiting a nation from enforcing laws against certain behaviors, such as this resolution requires, de facto legalizes those behaviors.


No the respected Ambassador is incorrect, the concept of legalisation means bringing something into law as with the legalisation of recreational drugs where the state makes laws which govern the use, taxation or other legal instruments that may be necessary, rather than decriminlisation which is simply and purely to strike out laws which criminalise and/or punish a particular behaviour without giving this behaviour any other legal status.

Legalisation implies an active, normally a positive legislative policy on an issue, decriminalisation implies no policy at all.

Indeed there can be no such thing as de facto legalisation unless an actual law is promulgated.

As you can see the difference is indeed profound.

yours e.t.c.

After carefully examining your resolution I would like to add exemption so that incest, prostution, orgy, etc are specifically exampt from the resolution. WA member state may or may not ban them without violating this resolution.

After carefully examining your resolution I would like to add exemption so that incest, prostution, orgy, etc are specifically exampt from the resolution. WA member state may or may not ban them without violating this resolution.


I am sure i speak for the esteemed Mendosian Delegacy when i say that were the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafss request even possible now that this resolution is in queue, it could not be complied with since it would completely undermine the entire point of this resolution which is to prevent government inteference in their citizens private lives.

yours e.t.c. ,

I may suggest to repel this resolution and come up with a new resolution with the specified amendment.

I may suggest to repel this resolution and come up with a new resolution with the specified amendment.

You, respected Ambassador, must do exactly as you see fit, as all must.

yours e.t.c. ,

I may suggest to repel this resolution and come up with a new resolution with the specified amendment.

Or we could just vote it down so we don't have to repeal it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Or we could just vote it down so we don't have to repeal it.

Thank you for your support. I am truly appaled by this resolution. If it passes it will force every WA nation to decriminalize incest (if the child if older than the age of consent), prostitution, orgy, and other immoral behaviour. I appeled to all WA nation to make sure such resolution never pass.

I fully agreed that the WA nation has no business regulating individuals to a private sexual life between 2 consenting adult. However there must be clear limit to such behaviour and this resolution fails to address those issue.

No the respected Ambassador is incorrect, the concept of legalisation means bringing something into law as with the legalisation of recreational drugs where the state makes laws which govern the use, taxation or other legal instruments that may be necessary, rather than decriminlisation which is simply and purely to strike out laws which criminalise and/or punish a particular behaviour without giving this behaviour any other legal status.

With all due respect for the esteemed Khan, he is using a Humpty-Dumpty definition of the word "legalization" here. Taxation, regulation and other instruments of government policy are not relevant to this matter. The only thing that this proposed resolution addresses is whether certain behaviors are permitted or forbidden.

Legalisation implies an active, normally a positive legislative policy on an issue, decriminalisation implies no policy at all.

Indeed there can be no such thing as de facto legalisation unless an actual law is promulgated.

We are stunned, frankly, at the esteemed Khan's attempt at twisting the meanings of words here. Regardless of whether or not there is an "active legislative policy" in effect, the simple truth remains that laws against incest and other deviant sexual behaviors exist on the books of many nations. This proposal will render those laws null and void.

The esteemed Khan may define "legalization" and "decriminalization" however he may choose, but we defy any nation here to accept such absurd reasoning as he has presented.

I dont think that this matter is of international status. It should be handled by the countries' own Governments

Unlike the resolution Prohibit child pornography, this one is much more flexible on sapient species and age, so I will vote for when it's ready.

With all due respect for the esteemed Khan, he is using a Humpty-Dumpty definition of the word "legalization" here. Taxation, regulation and other instruments of government policy are not relevant to this matter. The only thing that this proposed resolution addresses is whether certain behaviors are permitted or forbidden.



We are stunned, frankly, at the esteemed Khan's attempt at twisting the meanings of words here. Regardless of whether or not there is an "active legislative policy" in effect, the simple truth remains that laws against incest and other deviant sexual behaviors exist on the books of many nations. This proposal will render those laws null and void.

The esteemed Khan may define "legalization" and "decriminalization" however he may choose, but we defy any nation here to accept such absurd reasoning as he has presented.



Respected Ambassador we are not defining words as we choose. Legalisation and decriminalisation both have specific legal meanings which for the purposes of the law are completely different.

The respected Ambassador may be ignorant of this fact and therefore liable to use these terms in error, or perhaps they are well aware of the difference and are simply trying to create a false conception of what this resolution actually does.

Either way we suggest that they consult with their delegacies legal advisors in case the former is the case and then retract their comments about "absurd logic", which in the absence of the facts they would be a poor judge of in any case.

yours etc,

Ladies and Gentlemen of this assembly and anyone else who may be listening: The resolution up for vote, “Sexual Privacy Act,” is true to its name. It gives an absolute right to sexual privacy between consenting adults. There is a lot of talk about “incest” by the members of the assembly and I’m starting to wonder about the member’s preoccupation on this subject. I would also note that “safe sex” laws would also in turn be illegal under this resolution. I’m pretty sure that most insurance companies would not like the idea of not having any recourse to people practicing “unsafe sex” and thus being responsible for the financial costs of any transmission of disease as a result of that “unsafe sex.”

The Region of New York’s current delegate Palms and Coconuts, who has been declared a vile invader by the previous delegate Victories (who refused to even enter this debating room calling the members here names which I will not repeat here) has not yet voted on this resolution. Currently, our vote is in favor, but I am willing to change our mind depending on the vote of the regional delegate and arguments presented in this debate.

This resolution makes no mention of the kind of " Safe sex" laws you refer to because they are extremely unorthodox if they are as you suggest they are, but it in no way prohibits governments from promoting safe sex or family planning.

As for the interests of private business concerns, well we imagine that they will take their own council and act accordingly regardless of legislations of this kind, and therefore this statute cannot be held to account for their unethical behaviour.

yours e.t.c. ,

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of The United Socialist States of Jaynova. West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed comrades of the World Assembly,

First, I would like to congratulate the ambassador of Mendosia for such a well written and thought out proposal. The United Socialist States Congress met to discuss this proposal, and the only thing that concerned us was whether the governmental non-interference could be somehow undermined by a state-run educational system that might spread disinfomation in order to interfere with its people's perceived sexual options. While our vote was far from unanimous, we came to the conclusion that even if such an educational system existed, it was not a matter of this resolution.

Secondly, lest one of this bills opponents accuse our nation of hypocrisy, we voted "nay" on the Freedom of Marriage Act because marriage is institutional, and is not, we believe, a human right. Sexual freedom, however, cannot and should not be decided by institutions. While marriage is a contract amongst two (or more) people, their government, and in some cases, their religious establishment, sexuality is not.

We vote 'yes' on this resolution with no reservations."

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of The United Socialist States of Jaynova. West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed comrades of the World Assembly,

First, I would like to congratulate the ambassador of Mendosia for such a well written and thought out proposal. The United Socialist States Congress met to discuss this proposal, and the only thing that concerned us was whether the governmental non-interference could be somehow undermined by a state-run educational system that might spread disinfomation in order to interfere with its people's perceived sexual options. While our vote was far from unanimous, we came to the conclusion that even if such an educational system existed, it was not a matter of this resolution.

Secondly, lest one of this bills opponents accuse our nation of hypocrisy, we voted "nay" on the Freedom of Marriage Act because marriage is institutional, and is not, we believe, a human right. Sexual freedom, however, cannot and should not be decided by institutions. While marriage is a contract amongst two (or more) people, their government, and in some cases, their religious establishment, sexuality is not.

We vote 'yes' on this resolution with no reservations."


The government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the people of Jaynova on having chosen a very wise government who's rational sense of morality is a credit to their nation.

May the horde of Jaynova ride swift across the plain for all time.

yours sincerely ,

Once again the Ambasador to Urgench has provided reasonable answers to the one concern I have recently raised. I am therefore more confident than ever to support this resolution.

I do have one interesting observation. Article 4a states that no nation may define an age of consent according to gender but if no such age is defined and if there is no age of majority then the age does default to the age of puberty. While nations under the resolution can not discriminate, nature apparently does. "Although there is a wide range of normal ages, on average, girls begin the process of puberty about 1-2 years earlier than boys (with average ages of nine to fourteen for girls and ten to seventeen for boys), and reach completion in a shorter time."

This is probably a good reason for nations to define an age of consent.

Once again the Ambasador to Urgench has provided reasonable answers to the one concern I have recently raised. I am therefore more confident than ever to support this resolution.

I do have one interesting observation. Article 4a states that no nation may define an age of consent according to gender but if no such age is defined and if there is no age of majority then the age does default to the age of puberty. While nations under the resolution can not discriminate, nature apparently does. "Although there is a wide range of normal ages, on average, girls begin the process of puberty about 1-2 years earlier than boys (with average ages of nine to fourteen for girls and ten to seventeen for boys), and reach completion in a shorter time."

This is probably a good reason for nations to define an age of consent.


Indeed respected Ambassador, that would be the natural legislative progression for member states.

yours e.t.c.,

While this bill has a very great deal to be said for it, we find that the flaws, some of which others have noted, are fatal: we cannot support it as written. The Most Serene Republic of Ishpanky would be proud to support a bill on the same subject, with the same legislative intent, but which does not possess these flaws. They include:

- the provision (article 1c) having to do with non-human sentient beings, which is just silly;

- compulsory legalization of incest, bestiality or other sexual behaviors which are almost universally taboo (legalization, as distinct from "decriminalization", may not be what this bill intends, but what it achieves, despite what some have written to the contrary; and article 1b clearly intends to prohibit or exclude human-animal sexual contact, but fails to accomplish that);

- failure to made adequate provision for the issue of "age of consent" or of "majority;"

- failure to make adequate provision for those who are incapable of giving consent, for reasons in addition to "mental illness" or violence or dishonesty on the part of the other person (for example, intoxication).

We are grateful to the Commonwealth of Mendosia for a valiant attempt to codify personal civil rights, and offer our assistance, if desired, in drafting replacement legislation.

While this bill has a very great deal to be said for it, we find that the flaws, some of which others have noted, are fatal: we cannot support it as written. The Most Serene Republic of Ishpanky would be proud to support a bill on the same subject, with the same legislative intent, but which does not possess these flaws. They include:

- the provision (article 1c) having to do with non-human sentient beings, which is just silly;

- compulsory legalization of incest, bestiality or other sexual behaviors which are almost universally taboo (legalization, as distinct from "decriminalization", may not be what this bill intends, but what it achieves, despite what some have written to the contrary; and article 1b clearly intends to prohibit or exclude human-animal sexual contact, but fails to accomplish that);

- failure to made adequate provision for the issue of "age of consent" or of "majority;"

- failure to make adequate provision for those who are incapable of giving consent, for reasons in addition to "mental illness" or violence or dishonesty on the part of the other person (for example, intoxication).

We are grateful to the Commonwealth of Mendosia for a valiant attempt to codify personal civil rights, and offer our assistance, if desired, in drafting replacement legislation.



Respected Ambassador we must point out that you are wrong on almost all counts in your assessment of this resolution.


As for your comments about the provision for non-human sentients, you should be aware that unlike the mythical real world there are many, many nations in this world inhabited by non-human sapients and sentients. Therefore a provision covering the interactions between them and humans was vital.

The respected Ambassador's second point about what they call " compulsory legalisation" is patently false since this resolution requires no member state to legislate in an active way on any sexual act. It merely requires decriminalisation and non-discrimination, two utterly different things to legalisation.

The honoured Ambassador's last points about the age of consent and its relationship with this resolution are instructive to refute since this resolution presumes that the vast majority of member states already have rational legal situations regarding consent and the definitions of it.
For the opponents of this resolution who believe this is a violation of national sovereignty this must be somewhat of a surprise.

But the fact is that this resolution was designed to prevent those states who's laws are exotically extreme in their prejudices against certain groups from the excesses of discrimination, as much as to harmonise the legal treatment of minorities by more enlightened nations.

This meant having to take a fairly light handed approach, balancing national sensitivities with the need to end persecution and suffering.

Much of the honoured Ambassador's concerns about consent would be better dealt with in another resolution, since this is after all sexual privacy statute and not one dealing with the rather complicted issue of consent. In this organisation trying to decide the issue of consent difinitively for all member states would be a sisyphusian task.

yours sincerely,

NO NO NO NO NO

This resolution cannot be allowed to pass and I urge that ALL WA MEMBERS oppose it.

Article 3b states
(b) ...Should a Nation fail to have an age of majority, the individual will be considered an adult for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

Since most people enter puberty between the ages of 11 and 14, your are advocating that

A - Adults should be able to have sex with children
B - For sexual purposes, they should be regarded as adults
C - It shouldn't be any of the Government's business.

I would describe that as legalising paedophilia.

You must not permit that to happen.

Never

regards
ECC

NO NO NO NO NO

This resolution cannot be allowed to pass and I urge that ALL WA MEMBERS oppose it.

Article 3b states
(b) ...Should a Nation fail to have an age of majority, the individual will be considered an adult for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.

Since most people enter puberty between the ages of 11 and 14, your are advocating that

A - Adults should be able to have sex with children
B - For sexual purposes, they should be regarded as adults
C - It shouldn't be any of the Government's business.

I would describe that as legalising paedophilia.

You must not permit that to happen.

Never in a million fucking years

regards
ECC




This intervention is absurd and offensive, its authors opinions are repellent and their accusations outrageous. The language used in conveying these vicious slurs is vulgar in the extreme and completely un-called for.

The delegacy from which this mindless insult arrises should be ashamed of themselves and their government should recall and replace them immediately.

e.t.c. ,

We thank you, honored friend, for your criticisms, and would like to respond to them.

Respected Ambassador we must point out that you are wrong on almost all counts in your assessment of this resolution.

As for your comments about the provision for non-human sentients, you should be aware that unlike the mythical real world there are many, many nations in this world inhabited by non-human sapients and sentients. Therefore a provision covering the interactions between them and humans was vital.

I had not realized that this was the case, and wish that the remark could be stricken from the record. As I cannot be, I ask that it simply be disregarded.

The respected Ambassador's second point about what they call " compulsory legalisation" is patently false since this resolution requires no member state to legislate in an active way on any sexual act. It merely requires decriminalisation and non-discrimination, two utterly different things to legalisation.

I would respectfully suggest that, the core article of this resolution, 3a, "No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts..." constitutes what I called "compulsory legislation," although "compulsory nonlegislation might have been a better choice of phrase.

And I respectfully disagree with your statement "decrimininalization ... (is) utterly different" (from) legalisation." "Decriminalization" means that one convicted of the prohibited act cannot be subject to criminal penalties (that is, incarceration, or capital punishment.) I suppose that "legalization" and "decriminalization" are not exactly identical, but the distinction is, I suggest, functionally miniscule.

The honoured Ambassador's last points about the age of consent and its relationship with this resolution are instructive to refute since this resolution presumes that the vast majority of member states already have rational legal situations regarding consent and the definitions of it.

Regarding this, the presumption may be a reasonable one, but is a presumption nonetheless. We do not regard article 3b to make adequate provision, as stated earlier.

For the opponents of this resolution who believe this is a violation of national sovereignty this must be somewhat of a surprise.

We do not dispute this, but note that this issue was not among our objections.

But the fact is that this resolution was designed to prevent those states who's laws are exotically extreme in their prejudices against certain groups from the excesses of discrimination, as much as to harmonise the legal treatment of minorities by more enlightened nations.

This meant having to take a fairly light handed approach, balancing national sensitivities with the need to end persecution and suffering.

As we had indicated, we regard the intent of this resolution, which you ably summarized here, as laudable.

Much of the honoured Ambassador's concerns about consent would be better dealt with in another resolution, since this is after all sexual privacy statute and not one dealing with the rather complicted issue of consent. In this organisation trying to decide the issue of consent difinitively for all member states would be a sisyphusian task.

Perhaps article 3b ought to have read something like: "Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of 16 years (or 14, or 18, or whatever) shall apply."

I think the Age of Consent should be 18 personally for all countries

We thank you, honored friend, for your criticisms, and would like to respond to them.



Perhaps article 3b ought to have read something like: "Each Nation can define an age of consent. Should a Nation fail to define an age of consent, the age of 16 years (or 14, or 18, or whatever) shall apply."



Honoured Ambassador, legalisation is to actively legislate for or on someting , implying a positive or at least ambivalent attitude towards this thing on the part of government. Decriminalisation is merely removing legal prohibitions and penalties from a previously proscribed behaviour, which implies no more than that a government does not hold this behaviour to be illegal any more.

This distinction is not fine at all and goes to the heart of legislative intent and government policy.

The honoured Ambassador's suggested wording for a clause on age of consent would unfortunately run into the perrenial problems ( around here anyway) of differering lengths of life, rates of maturation, attitudes towards what counts as an adult and in fact any number of other conflicting concerns which the member states of this organisation would raise.

This matter was therefore left in the hands of member states to decide, so long as they did so fairly.

We really do feel that this resolution is the best balance of these kinds of objections, being as they are national in nature, and the rights of individuals to a private sexual life.

yours e.t.c ,

I am against the proposal. I think your personal life should be private to an extent but some things must have government interference.

I certainly like this resolution; it fits with the general attitude of Snefaldians toward sexual practice and I would like to see it extended. I must address, though, a concern raised the by delegation from the Kawaii:

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

The maintenance of sexual purity is one of the central teachings of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii. As the esteemed representative of Bears Armed has noted, a resolution such as this allowing "unbridled sexual license" is an major assault upon the those teachings.

A resolution outlawing the upholding of sexual morality is no less an ideological ban than one outlawing the possession of private property.

I don't believe this is outlawing the maintenance of sexual morality per se, but rather allowing for sexual behavior outside the purview of governmental authorities. Knowing what I do of Kawaiian culture- I've taken a nice trip to your relatives' enclave in the States-Federation- I understand your objection.

However, this does not prevent the maintenance of sexual "morality" by non-governmental authorities. The Church of the Cute One, being so entwined in Kawaiian identity and culture, essentially maintains the codes of living by using collective pressure.

To put it simply, it is an unacceptable practice to be sexually profligate in the Kawaii, therefore it is not done.This is because for your people it is unthinkable to do otherwise. The slippery slope does not truly exist, both because your govenrment always has the choice of leaving this Assembly, and because there are other avenues available to ensure purity and morality abound in your state.

Therefore, I assert that in societies where such concepts as sexual profligacy (a term that makes me uncomfortable as it implies there is something inherently wrong in having sexual relations, which I have to say are really quite nice) are unthinkable there is no issue. Snefaldian law technically allows a hunter to track his game into an urban area and kill it, gut it, and leave the entrails there- but it just isn't done because of the disapproval of the community.

Lots of forces at work.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

Why is everyone so concerned about legalising incest? If the concern is over sexual abuse, then that holds for any relationship. I can't see that this resolution would make it any harder to prosecute sexual abuse cases. And while incest isn't really for me, someone else getting off with their brother doesn't obviously have any impact on me.

Maybe this proposal should have allowed nations to ban incest, but it's not realistically like absent that exception the sky is going to fall down. (As much as anything, regardless of its legal status, most people presumably don't want to engage in incest!)

-- Samantha Benson
etc. etc.
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

OOC: But then, maybe we could use the WA to discuss some non-sex related issues? It's getting a little old.

While this bill has a very great deal to be said for it, we find that the flaws, some of which others have noted, are fatal: we cannot support it as written. The Most Serene Republic of Ishpanky would be proud to support a bill on the same subject, with the same legislative intent, but which does not possess these flaws. They include:

- the provision (article 1c) having to do with non-human sentient beings, which is just silly;KUPO! Kupo ku kupo po. Kupo kupo kupo po po.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/moogle.jpg
Mog
Moogle Chieftain

Allow me to translate (or at least try to, since I'm not exactly fluent in Moogle). Basically what Mog said was that, if you don't believe that non-human sentient beings exist, then you're the one who's silly. Well technically he didn't say "silly" but since what he did say was foul enough to put the Palentine naval dolphins to shame I figured it was best to not repeat it.

- failure to made adequate provision for the issue of "age of consent" or of "majority;"Here's a novel concept, set them yourself.

NO NO NO NO NO

This resolution cannot be allowed to pass and I urge that ALL WA MEMBERS oppose it.

Article 3b states
(b) ...Should a Nation fail to have an age of majority, the individual will be considered an adult for the purposes of the previous paragraph if he/she has entered puberty.Hmm, you know, I think that if you were to set an age of majority for your nation then your whole beef with this resolution goes away. Perhaps you should think about doing that.

I think the Age of Consent should be 18 personally for all countries

And what about those nations whose citizens are not human who may not live to be 18?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

KUPO! Kupo ku kupo po. Kupo kupo kupo po po.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/moogle.jpg
Mog
Moogle Chieftain

Allow me to translate (or at least try to, since I'm not exactly fluent in Moogle). Basically what Mog said was that, if you don't believe that non-human sentient beings exist, then you're the one who's silly. Well technically he didn't say "silly" but since what he did say was foul enough to put the Palentine naval dolphins to shame I figured it was best to not repeat it.

Here's a novel concept, set them yourself.

Hmm, you know, I think that if you were to set an age of majority for your nation then your whole beef with this resolution goes away. Perhaps you should think about doing that.



And what about those nations whose citizens are not human who may not live to be 18?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative



As ever the advice of respected and revered Ambassador Flibble, in its delivery and content could not be more welcome.

May the horde of Flibbleites ride swift across the plain for all time.


yours sincerely,

Rutianas has voted for this resolution. We do feel that what goes on in a person's private sexual life is their own business, provided the participants are, indeed, above the age of consent. There is no need for government interference.

I still think the language around age of consent is confused (it explicitly allows one ('an') age of consent, then implicitly admits that there might be many), but not fatally so. Good job, neatly done.

Article 3 (Sexual privacy and its conditions of application)

(c) All Nations shall enact and enforce legislation deeming unlawful and duly punishing all sexual acts involving or committed against non-consenting or invalidly consenting individuals, without prejudice to any immunities applicable to minors or persons otherwise incompetent for the purposes of criminal responsibility.

(d) The provisions of this article will not be construed to ban the exercise of disciplinary power by independent professional organizations should an individual be unethically involved in sexual acts with a client or with someone otherwise under his/her authority or responsibility. The penalties applied in the context of a disciplinary process may only concern the professional status of the defendant and may not have criminal consequences, except in the cases covered in the previous paragraph. The ethical rules applied for the purposes of this paragraph will make no distinction with respect to gender or sexual orientation of the defendant.

Article 3c means I can outlaw and pursue individual in the criminal court in my national court in case of rape and pedophilia.
However article 3d prevent me to outlaw cases of incest, orgy, prostitution. It only allow me regulate such practices. Also article 3d is assuming that each WA nation has a professional orgatisation that regulate prostitution; similar to how medical doctors, pharmacist, dentist, engineer, chiropractor, etc have professional orgatisations to regulate their profession.

KappaZo agrees with the points made by ECC (crudeness aside) and MapleLeafss. While KappaZo has no laws in place to prevent any type of relationship between consenting adults (those persons over 18 years of age), we have strict laws against prostitution and a number of laws and statute-derived regulations encouraging monogamy and the preservation of the family unit (a family being defined as two persons entered into a binding legal contract and their legal offspring and minors under their guardianship). As such we interpret this resolution's article 3(d) as effectively encouraging the “sex trade” and detrimental to the preservation of the family unit, and have therefore voted against this resolution.

As an aside, we find this resolution to be unduly intrusive into a nation’s sovereignty as its subject matter goes beyond that which we consider necessary for the promotion of “inalienable human rights.”

Article 3c means I can outlaw and pursue individual in the criminal court in my national court in case of rape and pedophilia.
However article 3d prevent me to outlaw cases of incest, orgy, prostitution. It only allow me regulate such practices. Also article 3d is assuming that each WA nation has a professional orgatisation that regulate prostitution; similar to how medical doctors, pharmacist, dentist, engineer, chiropractor, etc have professional orgatisations to regulate their profession.



The second clause you quote, respected Ambassador, has nothing to do with a professional organisation for prostitutes, it is to do with preventing persons in positions of authority from taking advantage of this authority to force sex upon persons subject to their authority in some way.


The honoured Ambassador should closely read resolutions first before taking positions on them, and certainly before posting foolish objections, which amount to misinformation, in debates.

yours e.t.c. ,

"Se di passa resoluzione di riggii fittizia," Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola muttered as she walked towards the podium. The snarky corporal of the Royal Nord-Brutlandese Army had been substituting for Ambassador Carina Talchimio-Spicolli, who is still busy breastfeeding her babies, on the floor of the WAGA. That brought a big change on the way Brutland and Norden is represented on the WAGA. Cpl. Stanziola would have none of the politeness and courtesy of Ambassador Talchimio-Spicolli. The corporal had the "screw you" attitude, and didn't like most of the representatives at the WAGA. To her, some of the ambassadors were hopelessly stupid, some had an irritating superiority complex, and some... were likeable (but she hates to admit that). But if she had her way, she would have turned them into cannon fodder and shot up through the glass ceiling of the WAGA hall.

She was still scoffing with mild puzzlement at the decision of the government back home. But it was her job and she had to do it.

"La Rinnosso Unnona di Norden e Marchòbrutellia votecce per la resoluzione," she said curtly. She tried to hold back her own comment, but she could not resist. "Non personal, me ojecce se riggie fittizia sunt in Articolo 1."*

*The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden had voted FOR this resolution... but personally, I see another factitious right there in Article 1.

The majority of the mandate is fairly well thought out and straight forward.

My only personal concern is the sub-bulleted definition of "Age of Consent". Under this proviosion, if a nation has not legal set the Age of Consent, It is set by this mandate at "if he/she has entered puberty". Puberty is entered on average at about 12 years of age, sometimes as early as 10. :eek:

Personally, I find that one factor enought to vote against this mandate.

There have been a few replies by those vehamently supporting this mandate against those who have brought up this same point. They stated, "If you simply set an age of consent in your nation, you won't have to worry about that!" I find this argument rather selfish in goal setting. The pretext of the WA as a whole is to set standards for improvement across the board for ALL WA nations. Leaving this sub-bullet in place would allow a nation to thumb their nose at the rest of the civilized nations and become a playground for pedophiles.

I find it hard to believe that any WA member could truly argue in favor of setting the age of sexual consent at 10. :eek2:

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6954/1188994406433346a87dgi3.jpg

[QUOTE=Amur Panthera Tigris;14012490]The majority of the mandate is fairly well thought out and straight forward.

My only personal concern is the sub-bulleted definition of "Age of Consent". Under this proviosion, if a nation has not legal set the Age of Consent, It is set by this mandate at "if he/she has entered puberty". Puberty is entered on average at about 12 years of age, sometimes as early as 10. :eek:

Personally, I find that one factor enought to vote against this mandate.

There have been a few replies by those vehamently supporting this mandate against those who have brought up this same point. They stated, "If you simply set an age of consent in your nation, you won't have to worry about that!" I find this argument rather selfish in goal setting. The pretext of the WA as a whole is to set standards for improvement across the board for ALL WA nations. Leaving this sub-bullet in place would allow a nation to thumb their nose at the rest of the civilized nations and become a playground for pedophiles.

I find it hard to believe that any WA member could truly argue in favor of setting the age of sexual consent at 10. :eek2:




Honoured Ambassador setting the age of consent for the entire world assembly is simply not possible.

There are too many different species and rates of maturation among the membership of this organisation to make such a thing possible. The stipulation the resolution makes on puberty is to insure that member states do not set their ages of consent too low and in order to set an objective standard which while not perfect is the only workable universal standard which could be applied.

The logical next step for nations without an age of consent should this resolution pass would be for them to set a fair age of consent, which protects their vulnerable children and allows adults to engage in sexual activity which would then be of a consenting nature. This is exactly the result the honoured Ambassador for Amu Panthera Tigris is suggesting, i.e. of raising and harmonising legal standards across the w.a. while allowing national governments to maker decisions for themselves.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Ambassador, in that case it suffices that your Nation establish an age of consent above that said age. Or is there any special reason why you should not want teenage girls pregnant at 9 but would have teenage boys having sex at that same age?

I see teenage.. and 9... and wonder if you know what teenage means.

My only personal concern is the sub-bulleted definition of "Age of Consent". Under this proviosion, if a nation has not legal set the Age of Consent, It is set by this mandate at "if he/she has entered puberty". Puberty is entered on average at about 12 years of age, sometimes as early as 10. :eek:

The honored ambassador from Urgench has already made the argument why setting the age of consent as a fixed year for all the nations in the World Assembly is simply not possible but I would like to point out a significant reason why the age of puberty is not “fixed” for all the nations within the World Assembly; namely the vast differences in economic and technological conditions as well as other factors.

Environmental factors
If genetic factors account for half of the variation of pubertal timing, environment factors are clearly important as well. One of the earliest observed environmental effects is that puberty occurs later in children raised at higher altitudes. The most important of the environmental influences is clearly nutrition, but a number of others have been identified, all which affect timing of female puberty and menarche more clearly than male puberty.

Nutritional influence
Nutritional factors are the strongest and most obvious environmental factors affecting timing of puberty. Girls are especially sensitive to nutritional regulation because they must contribute all of the nutritional support to a growing fetus. Surplus calories (beyond growth and activity requirements) are reflected in the amount of body fat, which signals to the brain the availability of resources for initiation of puberty and fertility.

Much evidence suggests that for most of the last few centuries, nutritional differences accounted for majority of variation of pubertal timing in different populations, and even among social classes in the same population. Recent worldwide increased consumption of animal protein, other changes in nutrition, and increases in childhood obesity have resulted in falling ages of puberty, mainly in those populations with the higher previous ages. In many populations the amount of variation attributable to nutrition is shrinking.

Although available dietary energy (simple calories) is the most important dietary influence on timing of puberty, quality of the diet plays a role as well. Lower protein intakes and higher plant fiber intakes, as occur with typical vegetarian diets, are associated with later onset and slower progression of female puberty.

Studies have shown that calcium deficiency is a cause of late puberty, irregular and painful, cramping during menstruation with excessive blood loss, and lowered immune response to infections in young girls. This could be from a deficient diet or lack of vitamin D from too little sun exposure. This lack of calcium could predispose them to osteoporosis later in life.

Obesity influence
Scientific researchers have linked early obesity with a drop of puberty onset in girls. They have cited obesity as a cause of breast development before nine years and menarche before twelve years. Early puberty in girls can be a harbinger of later health problems.

Physical activity and exercise
The average level of daily physical activity has also been shown to affect timing of puberty, especially female. A high level of exercise, whether for athletic or body image purposes, or for daily subsistence, reduces energy calories available for reproduction and slows puberty. The exercise effect is often amplified by a lower body fat mass.

So please; think of the poor hungry children who sit on top of Antarctic mountain tops! Should we set the age of consent before they reach puberty or should we suffer the world to all wait until the age when they reach puberty!

The region of the Commonwealth Society, largely, does not support this resolution. While it is well intentioned for sure, we do not accept an international body making moral legislation and decisions that affect our nations' sovereignty.

Moral legislation is out of the question, and we find it appalling that so many nations are simply checking the 'For' box on this measure. This seems to happen all too often though.

Lastly, this is a fairly poorly written piece of legislation, and I do not see how it could not at least be revised.

Oh goody, a resolution protecting my right to screw! Just what this international body needs. Whats next fellas? A resolution giving us permission to breathe? How about one giving us a right to eat? Nah, what you guys need to do now, is to give us a resolution protecting the rights to go to the bathroom. I tried to ask my secretary Velma's opinion on this one, but she was using the office phone, picking up extra money working as a phone sex operator. All I could hear her say was,
"Me so horny, me love you longtime...". I think she was talking to President Fernanda

So I decided to give her some privacy and come to the festering snakepit and check out the debate. Aren't you sods lucky.:tongue:

Anyway the Palentine's position hasn't changed. This is a useless law, beset with loopholes, and best regulated by individual nations.

Excelsior,
Senator Horatio "Studmuffin" Sulla

The second clause you quote, respected Ambassador, has nothing to do with a professional organisation for prostitutes, it is to do with preventing persons in positions of authority from taking advantage of this authority to force sex upon persons subject to their authority in some way.


The honoured Ambassador should closely read resolutions first before taking positions on them, and certainly before posting foolish objections, which amount to misinformation, in debates.

It is you who should read carefully the resolution, especially article 3d. What part of "independent professional organizations" ,and "The penalties applied in the context of a disciplinary process may only concern the professional status of the defendant and may not have criminal consequences" did you fail to read and understand.

It is one thing that you agree to support this resolution because you think prostitution should be regulated. But don't tell me it has nothing to do with a professional organization for prostitution when it clearly says otherwise.

This resolution is much flexible on age, law enforcement and sapient species. Therefore after a snap referendum and at 79% yes against 17% no and 4% abstain, I will vote for.

Oh goody, a resolution protecting my right to screw! Just what this international body needs. Whats next fellas? A resolution giving us permission to breathe? How about one giving us a right to eat? Nah, what you guys need to do now, is to give us a resolution protecting the rights to go to the bathroom. I tried to ask my secretary Velma's opinion on this one, but she was using the office phone, picking up extra money working as a phone sex operator. All I could hear her say was,
"Me so horny, me love you longtime...". I think she was talking to President Fernanda

So I decided to give her some privacy and come to the festering snakepit and check out the debate. Aren't you sods lucky.

Anyway the Palentine's position hasn't changed. This is a useless law, beset with loopholes, and best regulated by individual nations.


I fail to see how people are willing to write a resolution covering such silly aspects, such as the protection of rights to go to the bathroom and the right to eat. However, Sexual rights is an acceptable subject as a resolution because I can't see why some nations persecute people because of their sexual status.

Oh goody, a resolution protecting my right to screw! Just what this international body needs. Whats next fellas? A resolution giving us permission to breathe? How about one giving us a right to eat? Nah, what you guys need to do now, is to give us a resolution protecting the rights to go to the bathroom. I tried to ask my secretary Velma's opinion on this one, but she was using the office phone, picking up extra money working as a phone sex operator. All I could hear her say was,
"Me so horny, me love you longtime...". I think she was talking to President Fernanda

So I decided to give her some privacy and come to the festering snakepit and check out the debate. Aren't you sods lucky.:tongue:

Anyway the Palentine's position hasn't changed. This is a useless law, beset with loopholes, and best regulated by individual nations.

Excelsior,
Senator Horatio "Studmuffin" Sulla

`

Honoured and respected Senator, we are reasonably certain that statutes outlining your rights to breath, eat or use the bathroom are not sufficiently popular beyond your immediate circle of family, friends and admirers to ever achieve the status of international law.

We commiserate with you and those persons we enumerated above in this terrible deficiency in our collective consciences.

We do however wish you the best of health and can recommend an excellent proctologist should you wish to avail of his services.

yours e.t.c.,

It is you who should read carefully the resolution, especially article 3d. What part of "independent professional organizations" ,and "The penalties applied in the context of a disciplinary process may only concern the professional status of the defendant and may not have criminal consequences" did you fail to read and understand.

It is one thing that you agree to support this resolution because you think prostitution should be regulated. But don't tell me it has nothing to do with a professional organization for prostitution when it clearly says otherwise.


Respected Ambassador you are either willfully misreading a clause protecting people from sexual harrassment in the work place or you are unable to read.

Highlighting specific words from this clause does not change the effect of the sentences in the clause, by this method you might read that this resolution was a coded message to invisible beings from beyond the stars, naturally this approach to legal interpretation is foolish and utterly misleading.

We do not expect to have to explain to you again that this clause protects persons from having those they work for abuse their power and force unwanted sexual activity upon them.

Misinformation will not aid the respected Ambassador's monstrous pro-hate campaign.

yours e.t.c.

It is a pleasure to read the answers given to the problems which might occur by this proposal. I do think that every government who wants to outlaw incest, prostitution, paedophilia, etcetera can do so if they want when this resolution is approved.
Also good governments can set their age of majority or consent fairly and protect the younger people. There is much freedom for the nations to think for themselves.So I do not see problems existing and I will vote firmly for. That is because I think a government must not make too many laws and give people freedom if they do not make problems for others.
Regards

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 207

Urgench - 54
Mendosia - 42
Quintessence of Dust - 10Not to be snarky or anything, but we have the multi-quote option for a reason. Please use it.

Oh goody, a resolution protecting my right to screw! Just what this international body needs. Whats next fellas? A resolution giving us permission to breathe? How about one giving us a right to eat? Nah, what you guys need to do now, is to give us a resolution protecting the rights to go to the bathroom.
Those being things nations commonly prohibit? While your customary flippancy is amusing, you haven't really answered the question you were posed earlier: if it is the case that nations don't allow sexual freedom, why shouldn't the WA require that they do? And if all nations already do allow such, then why is it so problematic for the WA to affirm the status quo?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

The problem, as I see it, is that who one can or can't put ones winky into is hardly an international problem. I can also see understandables reasons as to why a country may wish to put restrictions on fornication, such as attempting to control a virulent sexually transmitted disease, or for reasons of population control

The problem, as I see it, is that who one can or can't put ones winky into is hardly an international problem. I can also see understandables reasons as to why a country may wish to put restrictions on fornication, such as attempting to control a virulent sexually transmitted disease, or for reasons of population control
So let's pass a resolution improving access to family planning services or promoting sexual health education. I'm sure all of the opponents of this proposal would support such measures.

Second, it's an international problem because it's ridiculous to concede membership to the international community to nations that enforce such fundamentally inhuman laws.

-- Samantha Benson

Not to be snarky or anything, but we have the multi-quote option for a reason. Please use it.


O.O.C. ok point taken, and not to be snarky or anything but police your own posts, or at least have the decency to send me a private message.

oh and f.y.i. Mendosia's having technical difficulties so if they're not posting as much as me that's why. I'm just trying to keep the pro side's cause going.

U.

So let's pass a resolution improving access to family planning services or promoting sexual health education. I'm sure all of the opponents of this proposal would support such measures.

Second, it's an international problem because it's ridiculous to concede membership to the international community to nations that enforce such fundamentally inhuman laws.

-- Samantha Benson

But this takes no account of the possibility of the existance that there may be very valid reasons for a government to need to take what might be extreme methods to prevent unforseen problems. As I say, I do not think a law banning those with, for example, AIDS from enjoying hoggins without protection is unreasonable - extreme, maybe, but not unreasonable - yet this does not allow for such a thing.

But this takes no account of the possibility of the existance that there may be very valid reasons for a government to need to take what might be extreme methods to prevent unforseen problems. As I say, I do not think a law banning those with, for example, AIDS from enjoying hoggins without protection is unreasonable - extreme, maybe, but not unreasonable - yet this does not allow for such a thing.



Respected Ambassador the kind of measures you are outlining are absurd and grossly oppressive, they are completely unreasonable and process to justifications of lunatical eugenics programmes which claim a spurious "public health" agenda but are aimed at breeding out minorities groups.

Governments have no business controlling their citizens most intimate behaviour, private interest cannot be public interest or the individual has no rights over the decisions they make about their own lives at all.

yours e.t.c. ,

But this takes no account of the possibility of the existance that there may be very valid reasons for a government to need to take what might be extreme methods to prevent unforseen problems. As I say, I do not think a law banning those with, for example, AIDS from enjoying hoggins without protection is unreasonable - extreme, maybe, but not unreasonable - yet this does not allow for such a thing.
Well, such a law is totally unreasonable, so this proposal is probably a good thing. Prohibiting someone from having sex because they have a disease? Why not just brand a star onto their arm? I absolutely agree that more needs to be done to prevent transmission of HIV. But the answer isn't to stigmatise the community further through legal penalty: it's to promote access to preventive measures such as contraception and PEP, and to coordinate international research towards vaccines, microbicides and PREP methods.

-- Samantha Benson

Respected Ambassador the kind of measures you are outlining are absurd and grossly oppressive, they are completely unreasonable and process to justifications of lunatical eugenics programmes which claim a spurious "public health" agenda but are aimed at breeding out minorities groups.
yours e.t.c. ,

I quite agree that they are grossly repressive, but it is a solution to a serious problem, and one that nations should be allowed to consider, although not one Cobdenia would do. This is not, as far as I'm concerned, a major international human rights issue, and it's introduction may exacerbate more serious human rights abuses. Take a national leader who despises homosexuality - he can no longer ban gay sex, so he just kills homosexuals instead. We cannot target these panacea issues until we have dealt with more harmful and serious human rights breeches.

How can anyone propose legalizing immorality on the World Level!? This topic should be strictly reserved on the national level. The leaders of their respective nations should be the only ones that decide on such issues. It even legalizes Adultery! The most evil and appalling of actions an 'individual' can do!

Oh, I see. Its the Founder and WA Delegate of "Gay Peninsula". That explains most of it.

I quite agree that they are grossly repressive, but it is a solution to a serious problem, and one that nations should be allowed to consider, although not one Cobdenia would do. This is not, as far as I'm concerned, a major international human rights issue, and it's introduction may exacerbate more serious human rights abuses. Take a national leader who despises homosexuality - he can no longer ban gay sex, so he just kills homosexuals instead. We cannot target these panacea issues until we have dealt with more harmful and serious human rights breeches.


If such a regime existed why would it not have murdered its homosexual citizens already? This statute cannot be expected to allow for the most extreme of crimes against humanity, which would likely happen inspite of any international laws of any kind, that would be the territory of another resolution.

We are concerned that the opposition to this statute is begining to wildly clutch at straws, accusing this statute of any iniquity they can possibly imagine.
We can only guess at the possible motives for this, perhaps there are reservoirs of opposition to this resolution fed by a territorial jealousy over the legislative process of this organisation, perhaps these odd arguments arrise from a desire to disguise latent or blatant homophobia or other forms of social conservatism, perhaps there are states who think that the concept of national sovereignty should iron clad member state's rights to commit appalling human rights violations and persecution of innocent men and women.

What ever the motivation the moral imperative behind this resolution must be heeded, people must be allowed the right to privately self determine their intimate desires, without undue interference from dictatorial and prejudiced forms of government.

yours e.t.c.,

I'd maintain that the right not to be killed for no reason whatsoever is a major human rights issue which has international implications - banning kinky sex games has no effect on other countries. This is "one size fits all" legislation, that takes no account of how varied the NS world is.

And frankly, how many bloody resolutions about shagging do we need to go through until we get to serious stuff?

I'd maintain that the right not to be killed for no reason whatsoever is a major human rights issue which has international implications - banning kinky sex games has no effect on other countries. This is "one size fits all" legislation, that takes no account of how varied the NS world is.

And frankly, how many bloody resolutions about shagging do we need to go through until we get to serious stuff?


Your attitude towards the happiness and personal freedoms of billions of w.a. member state's citizens does your great nation no credit, honoured Ambassador, you might not be saying that if you lived in a nation where you faced a long prison sentence or even execution for enjoying the physical companionship of your lover.

Of course citizens lives should be protected from a mad government , but what has this to do with this resolution? Only the honoured Ambassador's false logic links the two. If the honoured Ambassador wishes to safeguard this right then we would support them in doing so in another resolution.

What would the honoured Ambassador have this organisation do other than decide issues of truelly universal significance? Perhaps they would prfer a mining rights resolution, or a statute on the law of the sea? We assure them that all humans are personally concerned in sexual self determination on an intimate and every day basis. How far their nation's territorial waters extend is of only the most limited of interest or common concern.

yours e.t.c.,

OoC: My major objection to this, out of character, is that it is too like national legislation, and the sort of national legislation that has only comparatively recently come in. I've always felt that the WA, and the predessor the UN, should really limit itself to things one can seriously see an international body concerning themselves with. There's also the flood gates argument - once you start legislation such as this, you open the floodgates to abortion, prostitution, and all other legislation that are irritatingly contraversial, and turns the WA from an international organisation simulation into a national government simulation

The second objection comes from a more IC position, Cobdenia being based in 1933. Several other countries are in similar situation. The relevence of this may seem tenuous, but one has to bear in mind that as late as 1900 much learned opinion believed that masturbation was seriously bad for the health.

Furthermore, I have problems with article 3 c), when combined with article 2 b), which, makes it illegal to have sex with someone who's drunk, and indeed bans sex with someone with a mental handicap, which seems very discriminatory. Whilst I understand the need to prevent rape, there is no leeway in the legislation. Sex with a mentally disabled person is illegal and you must get punished for it.

OoC: My major objection to this, out of character, is that it is too like national legislation, and the sort of national legislation that has only comparatively recently come in. I've always felt that the WA, and the predessor the UN, should really limit itself to things one can seriously see an international body concerning themselves with. There's also the flood gates argument - once you start legislation such as this, you open the floodgates to abortion, prostitution, and all other legislation that are irritatingly contraversial, and turns the WA from an international organisation simulation into a national government simulation

The second objection comes from a more IC position, Cobdenia being based in 1933. Several other countries are in similar situation. The relevence of this may seem tenuous, but one has to bear in mind that as late as 1900 much learned opinion believed that masturbation was seriously bad for the health. Furthermore, this proposal legalises prostitution without restriction, which isn't exactly a good thing


O.O.C. Putting aside that human rights are manifestly international, and have a category all to themselves for this reason,
Would you rather we bore ourselves senseless with "weights and measures" or maybe cause even more controversy with "free trade" agreements ?

Your ic. objection is countered by the fact that there are numerous states which are set in the future or simply in a more humane version of the present and as for the decriminalisation of prostitution, well this resolution makes no reference to prohibiting national government's ability to regulate what would be an industry, making it safer and a more positive industry should they wish.

Are you sure your not irritated by the controversy because you don't feel any personal investment in a topic which in fact many other players do?

U.


Edit; those clauses don't ban sex with drunk poeple, they were intentionally made more specific in nature to only include those who's ability to consent was seriously impared and a closer reading would reveal that.

And frankly, how many bloody resolutions about shagging do we need to go through until we get to serious stuff?

Well, we haven't tackled prostitution in the WA yet.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

O.O.C. Putting aside that human rights are manifestly international, and have a category all to themselves for this reason,
Would you rather we bore ourselves senseless with "weights and measures" or maybe cause even more controversy with "free trade" agreements ?

Your ic. objection is countered by the fact that there are numerous states which are set in the future or simply in a more humane version of the present and as for the decriminalisation of prostitution, well this resolution makes no reference to prohibiting national government's ability to regulate what would be an industry, making it safer and a more positive industry should they wish.

Are you sure your not irritated by the controversy because you don't feel any personal investment in a topic which in fact many other players do?

U.


Edit; those clauses don't ban sex with drunk poeple, they were intentionally made more specific in nature to only include those who's ability to consent was seriously impared and a closer reading would reveal that.

OoC: It is patently not an international issue though. IRL, most federal countries don't even see it as a national issue. The fact that I have no personal involvement is so much the better - I can look at it objectively and see that this is a terrible resolution that actually forces descrimination upon nations (by banning the mentally disabled from having sex), and indeed is so loophole ridden that it actually gives no protection at all to minorities (such as by classing all homosexuals as mentally handicapped), along with missing out crucial points (one cannot ban incest). If it were about protection of minorities from persecution, I could understand it, but doesn't actually do that - it merely provides the right for individuals to have sex with whoever they wish (within reason) in whichever way they wish- a very different thing, and a panacea issue when compared with the protection of minorities. One can still illegalise "fancying members of the same sex" or "dressing up as a member of the opposite sex", as long as one does not illegalise sodomy, thereby rendering the proposal, as a minority protection scheme, useless.

The right to be free from persecution due to your sexual orientation, race, etc. would be a true human rights issue, and thus an international issue. The right to wear a gimp mask isn't.

It is you who should read carefully the resolution, especially article 3d. What part of "independent professional organizations" ,and "The penalties applied in the context of a disciplinary process may only concern the professional status of the defendant and may not have criminal consequences" did you fail to read and understand.
Apparently the part where the Gobbannaen Medical Council, for example, suddenly isn't a professional organization. What this clause does, in pretty unambiguous language, is allow the GMC to discipline doctors who break the ethical guidelines by having affairs with patients (abusing their position of trust, in other words) by having them struck off or whatever. It then makes the point that a professional body's internal rules are not the laws of the land, i.e. the GMC has no power to imprison doctors. Any criminal case would be a separate thing, as it should be.

Perhaps you should try reading the whole clause, not just the individual words you think support your argument?

I think requiring partners to inform each other of any STD's they may carry before they have sex is an entirely reasonable regulation. You did not define consent extensively enough(or you failed to include a stipulation regarding intentional transmission of STD's). If you're thinking about your deception stipulation, think on this: It's not deception if no one asks "Are you infected?".

Further to that end, it will also invalidate any laws that require prison sentences for those who intentionally infect others through sexual contact, and I think that's pretty unreasonable to bar.

You've perhaps left the door open for the unsound mind argument. The argument one could make is this: No one can ever consent to a homosexual act because they cannot be sane if they intend to engage in such an act.

Oh, and uh, prostitution. Why are we legalizing it in all World Assembly nations? I've got no problem with it, but I know some very reasonable nations that do.

I've read through the entire drafting and I was nonplussed. There is a viable national sovereignty argument to be had as to the jurisdiction of the World Assembly on this issue.

The point of national sovereignty arguments isn't just the "My nation does it this way and I don't want to change it," but it is "I think a nations leaders are better able to deal with this issue than a broad sweeping mandate by the World Assembly." There are perhaps many trillions of people whom your mandate will effect, it is no small thing. On some issues(sexual relations being one I consider such), it makes sense to handle the issue on a case by case, nation by nation basis.

Don't think of national sovereignty arguments as an obstacle to your success here, think of it as a way to let 18,747 governments make the nuanced choices required when you're dealing with such a high number of people and an issue that is so inherently complex.

This issue, I believe is best managed on a national level, rather than internationally. It's almost impossible to respect all nations viewpoints on this kind of matter while at the same time trying to come to a reasonable solution. Mind you, this is nothing if not reasonable, yet it fails to respect the sovereign right of nations to deal what is at it's core a very complicated issue.

That's what national sovereignty has, and always will come down to: Respect.

OOC: Also, can someone update the original post to have the actual current legislation in it? Like... please?

I think requiring partners to inform each other of any STD's they may carry before they have sex is an entirely reasonable regulation. You did not define consent extensively enough(or you failed to include a stipulation regarding intentional transmission of STD's). If you're thinking about your deception stipulation, think on this: It's not deception if no one asks "Are you infected?".

When no one asks, is no matter of importance. In our nation it is forbidden if you know you have a disease that is highly infectious not to inform others. In our nation it is normal to put people in isolation if they have a disease highly infectious and dangerous for others. No problem we have with this proposal now on vote.

It is not the act of having sex what is the problem, it is the act of endangering others peoples life that is the criminal act. The same is that with a drivers license you are allowed to drive, but if you threatens others peoples life you will be sentenced. I thought this in common sense, but maybe I am wrong because I am so weird. I do not see anywhere in this proposal that having sex with consenting adults in a private room is above all other laws, so I do not think The Dourian Embassy has a real point here.

Regards

OoC: It is patently not an international issue though. IRL, most federal countries don't even see it as a national issue. The fact that I have no personal involvement is so much the better - I can look at it objectively and see that this is a terrible resolution that actually forces descrimination upon nations (by banning the mentally disabled from having sex), and indeed is so loophole ridden that it actually gives no protection at all to minorities (such as by classing all homosexuals as mentally handicapped), along with missing out crucial points (one cannot ban incest). If it were about protection of minorities from persecution, I could understand it, but doesn't actually do that - it merely provides the right for individuals to have sex with whoever they wish (within reason) in whichever way they wish- a very different thing, and a panacea issue when compared with the protection of minorities. One can still illegalise "fancying members of the same sex" or "dressing up as a member of the opposite sex", as long as one does not illegalise sodomy, thereby rendering the proposal, as a minority protection scheme, useless.

The right to be free from persecution due to your sexual orientation, race, etc. would be a true human rights issue, and thus an international issue. The right to wear a gimp mask isn't.


O.O.C. This is my last ooc comment ok? seriously it's really not how i like to communicate in this forum.

The right to sexual self determination is regularly recognised in federal jurisdictions, such as germany, and is certainly protected under European Union human rights laws.

The "loopholes" you point out are negated by the non-discrimination clauses.

As for mentally disabled persons the provisions of this resolution allow for them to engage in sexual activity if they can be judged able to consent, no blanket ban on their sexual activity and in any case this only follows the practice of many r.l. nations who seek to protect the seriously mentally disabled from exploitation.


U.

I think requiring partners to inform each other of any STD's they may carry before they have sex is an entirely reasonable regulation. You did not define consent extensively enough(or you failed to include a stipulation regarding intentional transmission of STD's). If you're thinking about your deception stipulation, think on this: It's not deception if no one asks "Are you infected?".

Further to that end, it will also invalidate any laws that require prison sentences for those who intentionally infect others through sexual contact, and I think that's pretty unreasonable to bar.

You've perhaps left the door open for the unsound mind argument. The argument one could make is this: No one can ever consent to a homosexual act because they cannot be sane if they intend to engage in such an act.

Oh, and uh, prostitution. Why are we legalizing it in all World Assembly nations? I've got no problem with it, but I know some very reasonable nations that do.

I've read through the entire drafting and I was nonplussed. There is a viable national sovereignty argument to be had as to the jurisdiction of the World Assembly on this issue.

The point of national sovereignty arguments isn't just the "My nation does it this way and I don't want to change it," but it is "I think a nations leaders are better able to deal with this issue than a broad sweeping mandate by the World Assembly." There are perhaps many trillions of people whom your mandate will effect, it is no small thing. On some issues(sexual relations being one I consider such), it makes sense to handle the issue on a case by case, nation by nation basis.

Don't think of national sovereignty arguments as an obstacle to your success here, think of it as a way to let 18,747 governments make the nuanced choices required when you're dealing with such a high number of people and an issue that is so inherently complex.

This issue, I believe is best managed on a national level, rather than internationally. It's almost impossible to respect all nations viewpoints on this kind of matter while at the same time trying to come to a reasonable solution. Mind you, this is nothing if not reasonable, yet it fails to respect the sovereign right of nations to deal what is at it's core a very complicated issue.

That's what national sovereignty has, and always will come down to: Respect.

OOC: Also, can someone update the original post to have the actual current legislation in it? Like... please?


The honoured Ambassador may think it is reasonable to legally require disclosure of STI or STD status but it is nonetheless uninforcable Non-disclosure may be punishable but it does not change the instance of infection.

Intentional infection would qualify as an assault or perhaps even attempted or actual murder and would therfore not be effected by this resolution.

"(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals." We feel that in fact this clause quite adequately prevents nations from summarily defining homosexuals as mentally ill or mentally disabled e.t.c.

As for national sovereignty esteemed Ambassador, are you seriously asking this organisation to "respect" the persecution, imprisonment, execution, and other violations of human rights of member States?

The Esteemed Ambassador knows very well that many nations would never introduce adequate laws to protect their nation's sexual minorities, and indeed would rather continue in mistreating these minorities. Just as national laws frequently exist to require their citizens to behave in ways they know they should but are too weak willed or too ignorant or too captivated by negative thinking to actually do so, so international laws must sometimes do the same.

If this organisation may bring in anti-slavery, anti-torture, or anti-ethnic cleansing laws then it can and should bring in anti-discrimination laws also.

Those member states who regularly oppress and grossly maltreat their citizens based on discrimination against sexual minorities are beyond the pleasantries of respect. They should be required to behave as they know they should but are too captivated by vicious falsehoods to do so.


yours e.t.c. ,

We of Sithias pledge our support to this proposal!

There has been a little change at the Palentine delegation. Shelving has been added and a large variety of....ahem..."items" are now on the shelves. Thessadorian women wearing domanatrix outfits are acting as sales assistants. A large sign in front of Sulla's desk reads....

The Good but Very Unwholesome Senator Sulla's Love Emporium

the Senator it sitting at his desk, with a most unwholesome smile on his face. A large glass of Wild Turkey(TM) on the Rocks is sitting at his side, and an ashtray holds the smoldering remains of a Fine Yeldan Cigar(TM). He starts to speak into his microphone.

"Even though I find the whole resolution foolish, I might as well make a buck off of it. I've got a lot of unsavory habits to support. Anyway, welcome to Senator Sulla's Love Emporium(TM). We have everything you need for a night of romance. Todays specials are Ball gags, and Japanese Schoolgirl outfits 10% off. Our fine riding crops have the Ron Jeremy Seal of Approval. If you need mood music we have some Barry White CDs, the William Tell Overature, or John Philip Sousa's Greatest Hits.. Our smutty book section is second to none, if you need some material for a private solo 'time out'. We also offer a fine variety of Adult DVDs and 'instructional videos'. And if you make a purchace in the next 10 minutes I'll even throw in a free Gimp Mask. All sales are final, and must be made in cash. My lovely sales associates are standing by."

After taking a minute to have a drink of his Wild Turkey, he continues,
"And I dont want to forget my very own secretary, the lovely and charming Velma. If you'ld like to talk to someone then please call Velma's love line at 1-555-555-5555. Visa and Mastercard accepted, $2.99/minute.

"(d) No Nation shall establish an age of consent according to gender of the participating individuals or the nature of the sexual act."

Against.

There has been a little change at the Palentine delegation. Shelving has been added and a large variety of....ahem..."items" are now on the shelves. Thessadorian women wearing domanatrix outfits are acting as sales assistants. A large sign in front of Sulla's desk reads....

The Good but Very Unwholesome Senator Sulla's Love Emporium

the Senator it sitting at his desk, with a most unwholesome smile on his face. A large glass of Wild Turkey(TM) on the Rocks is sitting at his side, and an ashtray holds the smoldering remains of a Fine Yeldan Cigar(TM). He starts to speak into his microphone.

"Even though I find the whole resolution foolish, I might as well make a buck off of it. I've got a lot of unsavory habits to support. Anyway, welcome to Senator Sulla's Love Emporium(TM). We have everything you need for a night of romance. Todays specials are Ball gags, and Japanese Schoolgirl outfits 10% off. Our fine riding crops have the Ron Jeremy Seal of Approval. If you need mood music we have some Barry White CDs, the William Tell Overature, or John Philip Sousa's Greatest Hits.. Our smutty book section is second to none, if you need some material for a private solo 'time out'. We also offer a fine variety of Adult DVDs and 'instructional videos'. And if you make a purchace in the next 10 minutes I'll even throw in a free Gimp Mask. All sales are final, and must be made in cash. My lovely sales associates are standing by."

After taking a minute to have a drink of his Wild Turkey, he continues,
"And I dont want to forget my very own secretary, the lovely and charming Velma. If you'ld like to talk to someone then please call Velma's love line at 1-555-555-5555. Visa and Mastercard accepted, $2.99/minute.



Esteemed Senator we fear that making use of the seemingly competatively priced delights your delegacy have offered for sale would constitute us giving you money for old rope and therefore none of the members of our nations mission will be availing ourselves of said offers.

We do of course wish you the best of luck with your new business enterprise, which we are sure will have many avid patrons.

yours in the spirit of encouragement,

The Rogue Nation of HIPAA brings an excellent point across our Region's board. Sithias will await the decisions of other members and our esteemed delegate while reconsidering its stance.

Perhaps a separate bill should first be written regarding age of consent or age of majority where minimum ages for both should be firmly stated on paper, and allows member nations to specify their own ages above/at this minimum age?
What do the others think?

If we do choose to not support this resolution based on this, and do set minimum ages of consent and majority, then we should be ready to enforce this among member nations and those that do not agree will have to be kicked out of the WA.

On the other hand, there may be nations out there who have lower ages stated such as those allowing marriages for young teenagers. Should the WA force these nations to comply for the benefit of all and the advancement of the WA?

We feel that this is an important proposal necessary for the betterment of the WA

The Rogue Nation of HIPAA brings an excellent point across our Region's board. Sithias will await the decisions of other members and our esteemed delegate while reconsidering its stance.

Perhaps a separate bill should first be written regarding age of consent or age of majority where minimum ages for both should be firmly stated on paper, and allows member nations to specify their own ages above/at this minimum age?
What do the others think?

If we do choose to not support this resolution based on this, and do set minimum ages of consent and majority, then we should be ready to enforce this among member nations and those that do not agree will have to be kicked out of the WA.

On the other hand, there may be nations out there who have lower ages stated such as those allowing marriages for young teenagers. Should the WA force these nations to comply for the benefit of all and the advancement of the WA?

We feel that this is an important proposal necessary for the betterment of the WA


Honoured Ambassador here is a reply we made to another esteemed Ambassador who raised such concerns- http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14012544&postcount=198

We hope it will explain the nature of the issues effecting age of consent.

yours e.t.c.,

"Even though I find the whole resolution foolish, I might as well make a buck off of it. I've got a lot of unsavory habits to support. Anyway, welcome to Senator Sulla's Love Emporium(TM). We have everything you need for a night of romance. Todays specials are Ball gags, and Japanese Schoolgirl outfits 10% off. Our fine riding crops have the Ron Jeremy Seal of Approval. If you need mood music we have some Barry White CDs, the William Tell Overature, or John Philip Sousa's Greatest Hits.. Our smutty book section is second to none, if you need some material for a private solo 'time out'. We also offer a fine variety of Adult DVDs and 'instructional videos'. And if you make a purchace in the next 10 minutes I'll even throw in a free Gimp Mask. All sales are final, and must be made in cash. My lovely sales associates are standing by."

[The Nuncia of the Disapora Chuch of the Eternal Kawaii approaches the podium, accompanied by another young woman, this one wearing an brightly-colored Japanese schoolgirl's uniform and carrying a ribbon-festooned mallet. The Nuncia steps up to the podium and speaks.]

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

We humbly request this august assembly's attention for an announcement by our nation's Happiness Police. May I introduce our delegation's Chief of Security, to whom I yield my minutes at the podium.

[The sailor-suit clad girl steps up to the podium and speaks.]

We wish announce that the Happiness Police of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii have disavowed any association with the...unusual...business practices of the honorable Senator Sulla. Further, we wish to warn any prospective patrons of his "emporium" that any woman seen there wearing a HP officer's traditional fuku is not associated with the HP in any capacity, and that any goods found therein with the label "Kawaiian" on them are unauthorized reproductions. Thank you.

[The two young ladies depart.]

Due to this resolution and the Freedom of Marriage, the Empire of Xin Han and its allies will openly declare opposition to this act of tyranny. No nation should be able to decide the civil rights of people in another nation. Any nation should be able to determine its own policies. Therefore, the Xin Han Empire has left the WA and will pose sanctions on all nations that support such atrocities such as this resolution. If these resolutions (Freedom of Marriage and Sexual Privacy) are not repealed, the Xin Han Empire will have no choice but to mobilize its armed forces. I warn you all, our economies and weapons research is advanced and will not falter. All hail Zhong Guo and the Xin Han Empire!

Due to this resolution and the Freedom of Marriage, the Empire of Xin Han and its allies will openly declare opposition to this act of tyranny. No nation should be able to decide the civil rights of people in another nation. Any nation should be able to determine its own policies. Therefore, the Xin Han Empire has left the WA and will pose sanctions on all nations that support such atrocities such as this resolution. If these resolutions (Freedom of Marriage and Sexual Privacy) are not repealed, the Xin Han Empire will have no choice but to mobilize its armed forces. I warn you all, our economies and weapons research is advanced and will not falter. All hail Zhong Guo and the Xin Han Empire!

Well good luck in your armed conflict. Although I may suggest to work within the WA framework to repel those resolution.

The honored Ambassador may think it is reasonable to legally require disclosure of STI or STD status but it is nonetheless unenforceable Non-disclosure may be punishable but it does not change the instance of infection.

Uh, you missed something I believe. As per 3a, no nation may enact any law that regulates or punishes anyone for committing any sexual act away from public exposure. That means as long as they deliberately transmit the disease through sex, they are protected from any legal ramifications.


Intentional infection would qualify as an assault or perhaps even attempted or actual murder and would therefore not be effected by this resolution.

Ahh, but if it occurred during a sexual act, it's beyond regulations.


"(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals." We feel that in fact this clause quite adequately prevents nations from summarily defining homosexuals as mentally ill or mentally disabled e.t.c.

You may feel that it adequately prevents that, but I do not. "Severe mental illness" is not defined by this resolution, so the definition of this is left to the nation in question. You are not seriously telling me that you believe a law on sexual acts is placing limitations on how a nation may define the mentally insane I hope.

As for national sovereignty esteemed Ambassador, are you seriously asking this organization to "respect" the persecution, imprisonment, execution, and other violations of human rights of member States?

I ask that you respect a nation that wishes for prostitution to remain illegal. I ask that you respect a nation that wants to be reasonable to it's sexual minorities while still upholding certain moral values. Be reasonable to a nation in the grip of an STD pandemic that wishes to at the very least require disclosure of STD's before sexual activities. Be reasonable to a nation that wishes incest be illegal. There are not violations of human rights. These are reasonable limitations that member states have enacted because they understand what is best for their nations, some of which are thousands of years behind you in development, culturally as well as technologically.

The Esteemed Ambassador knows very well that many nations would never introduce adequate laws to protect their nation's sexual minorities, and indeed would rather continue in mistreating these minorities. Just as national laws frequently exist to require their citizens to behave in ways they know they should but are too weak willed or too ignorant or too captivated by negative thinking to actually do so, so international laws must sometimes do the same.

You're supporting it because "you know better"? That's the weakest argument you have, and it's not one I'm willing to address in a serious discussion.

If this organization may bring in anti-slavery, anti-torture, or anti-ethnic cleansing laws then it can and should bring in anti-discrimination laws also.

Hey, if you want anti-slavery laws, go for it. We don't have them yet. What we have is something that tries and fails to protect people and instead protects an act. The act of sex will be held sacrosanct, yet the people committing it are relatively unprotected from the rule of discriminatory law. You've failed in your goal and created something with huge problems in it's stead.


Those member states who regularly oppress and grossly maltreat their citizens based on discrimination against sexual minorities are beyond the pleasantries of respect. They should be required to behave as they know they should but are too captivated by vicious falsehoods to do so.


yours e.t.c. ,

You're starting to rant. If this is a personal issue to the hordes with which you ride, I am certainly understanding of your passion.

Take two steps back and realize that the vast majority of nations are completely reasonable in their laws on this topic, and yet you, in your infinite wisdom are(pardon the pun) fucking them in the ass.

Uh, you missed something I believe. As per 3a, no nation may enact any law that regulates or punishes anyone for committing any sexual act away from public exposure. That means as long as they deliberately transmit the disease through sex, they are protected from any legal ramifications.



Ahh, but if it occurred during a sexual act, it's beyond regulations.



You may feel that it adequately prevents that, but I do not. "Severe mental illness" is not defined by this resolution, so the definition of this is left to the nation in question. You are not seriously telling me that you believe a law on sexual acts is placing limitations on how a nation may define the mentally insane I hope.



I ask that you respect a nation that wishes for prostitution to remain illegal. I ask that you respect a nation that wants to be reasonable to it's sexual minorities while still upholding certain moral values. Be reasonable to a nation in the grip of an STD pandemic that wishes to at the very least require disclosure of STD's before sexual activities. Be reasonable to a nation that wishes incest be illegal. There are not violations of human rights. These are reasonable limitations that member states have enacted because they understand what is best for their nations, some of which are thousands of years behind you in development, culturally as well as technologically.



You're supporting it because "you know better"? That's the weakest argument you have, and it's not one I'm willing to address in a serious discussion.



Hey, if you want anti-slavery laws, go for it. We don't have them yet. What we have is something that tries and fails to protect people and instead protects an act. The act of sex will be held sacrosanct, yet the people committing it are relatively unprotected from the rule of discriminatory law. You've failed in your goal and created something with huge problems in it's stead.



You're starting to rant. If this is a personal issue to the hordes with which you ride, I am certainly understanding of your passion.

Take two steps back and realize that the vast majority of nations are completely reasonable in their laws on this topic, and yet you, in your infinite wisdom are(pardon the pun) fucking them in the ass.



Respected Ambassador a criminal assault or attempted murder is or at least should be prosecuted on the basis of intent not method, one may kill someone by drowning them in their bath, is the way to deal with this to criminalise bathing? This resolution has no effect on such a prosecution since it does not effect the nature of criminal intent. Besides non-consenting acts are not protected by this resolution as the respected Ambassador is doubtless aware.

There is no proof that criminalising non-disclosure of STD or STI status has any effect whatsoever on infection rates, why should this resolution make room for such a policy?

This resolution does make one important abbreviation of member state's ability to define mental illness e.t.c., it states that consent may not be construed so as to summarily deprive the minorities it outlines of their right to consent. This is perfectly reasonable.


And on the subject of reasonable things we should point out that no code can be moral if it treats persons as un-equal or subhuman, nations which enforce such a code do not deserve respect, just pity as they are lost in folly. Is lack of cultural developement an excuse for wicked prejudice honoured Ambassador? Especially in light of the fact that the most primitive of human societies show little or no evidence of such prejudices, prefering instead a communal "live and let live" attitude.


We should remind the respected Ambassador that the aim of this resolution was decriminalisation, if in so doing it accomplishes any of the work of anti-discrmination then so be it, but the work of anti-discrimination is to be done in another resolution.



On the sympathies of the Imperial Horde his excellency Khan Mongkha is unable to comment, never having been a member of Urgench's armed forces but our delegacy's military attache Toqtamish Khan of Kazzan assures us that the horde upholds the natural sympathies of all Urgenchis which by reason of their proud ancient nomadic culture are always in favour of personal and individual freedom from state oppression or unnatural imposition of vicious philosophies which teach persecution or marginalisation of minorities.

yours e.t.c. ,

Honorable Ambassador of MapleLeafss,
It is with displeasure that we, the Great Xin Han Empire, must leave the WA. We have found that to many of its members are corrupt and pose to many liberal ideas that will affect our country. I urge all nations who feel the same way as me to protest the WA until it can gain bi-partisan leadership. All hail Zhong Guo, Xin Han, and the All China Alliance!



With the most sincerity,


Ambassador Zhou Na

Honorable Ambassador of MapleLeafss,
It is with displeasure that we, the Great Xin Han Empire, must leave the WA. We have found that to many of its members are corrupt and pose to many liberal ideas that will affect our country. I urge all nations who feel the same way as me to protest the WA until it can gain bi-partisan leadership. All hail Zhong Guo, Xin Han, and the All China Alliance!



With the most sincerity,


Ambassador Zhou Na


Is the respected Ambassador's nation resigning the World Assembly or is it advocating a change in its legaslative direction?

The two are not compatible.

yours e.t.c. ,

We of Xin Han are advocating both. Those who are upset like our nation have the option, unlike these WA resolutions, to choose what they want to do. They may either leave the WA or demand reform. My nation has left and demand that those still within the WA see through the corruption. Xin Han condems the current actions of the WA and is preparing sanctions against all nations that support one world under one government. The Xin Han culture and ideals are at stake and this will not be tolerated. Our military is recieving increased spending, not to mention that we are well on our way to developing space based weaponry. I think all nations will find it hard to contend with my nation's views. Long live Zhong Guo, Xin Han, and the All China Alliance!

With the most sincerity,



Ambassador Zhou Na

We of Xin Han are advocating both. Those who are upset like our nation have the option, unlike these WA resolutions, to choose what they want to do. They may either leave the WA or demand reform. My nation has left and demand that those still within the WA see through the corruption. Xin Han condems the current actions of the WA and is preparing sanctions against all nations that support one world under one government. The Xin Han culture and ideals are at stake and this will not be tolerated. Our military is recieving increased spending, not to mention that we are well on our way to developing space based weaponry. I think all nations will find it hard to contend with my nation's views. Long live Zhong Guo, Xin Han, and the All China Alliance!

With the most sincerity



Ambassador Zhou Na




The respected Ambassador is mistaken, if their nation is no longer a member of this organisation then they have no right to seek to influence its future.

The fact that their position is one of faintly insane threats about space based weaponry makes their case all the more ridiculous and untenable.

If your nation is no longer a member then what is it exactly that it is being asked to tolerate?


Please stop littering this debate with silly imprecations, respected Ambassador, it only serves to make your nation contemptable.


yours e.t.c. ,

Ambassador, the Xin Han Empire is a free nation and will discuss their issues until they are resolved. My nation seeks to ensure that the current members of the WA do not fall under the influence of Mendosia. You can probably tell that my country is speaking to the conservative wing of the WA. We feel it is our duty to uphold the cultural and social aspects of all nations no matter how much we disagree with them. We are simply saying that Mendosia and its supporters feel that their culture is superior to others and that in itself is a nation rights violation. Prohibiting a nation to persecute against its own people is the same could also be said as Mendosia and its supporters are persecuting others' cultures because they persecute against their own culture's peoples. Please, try to see my logic. I am not asking to agree, but I am asking for your understanding. My nation cannot tolerate these cultural barriers any longer, for the WA is prohibiting the spread of the Xin Han culture with these ridiculous resolutions.


With the utmost sincerity,

Ambassador Zhou Na

Ambassador, the Xin Han Empire is a free nation and will discuss their issues until they are resolved. My nation seeks to ensure that the current members of the WA do not fall under the influence of Mendosia. You can probably tell that my country is speaking to the conservative wing of the WA. We feel it is our duty to uphold the cultural and social aspects of all nations no matter how much we disagree with them. We are simply saying that Mendosia and its supporters feel that their culture is superior to others and that in itself is a nation rights violation. Prohibiting a nation to persecute against its own people is the same could also be said as Mendosia and its supporters are persecuting others' cultures because they persecute against their own culture's peoples. Please, try to see my logic. I am not asking to agree, but I am asking for your understanding. My nation cannot tolerate these cultural barriers any longer, for the WA is prohibiting the spread of the Xin Han culture with these ridiculous resolutions.


With the utmost sincerity,

Ambassador Zhou Na




Respected Ambassador our friends Mendosia bear no comparison with hatemongers and evil despots of the kind you describe. They are a noble and decent people led by a government with a genuine social conscience.


We will not endeavour to undestand the point of view of a nation with no stake in the future of this organisation and which has made threats against those of its members who have acted in accordance with compassion, and true understanding.

Respected Ambassador your position is morally bankrupt and wicked, we are glad your nation has removed itself from this organisation and cannot impose its violent hatreds upon it.

yours e.t.c. ,

We of Xin Han are advocating both. Those who are upset like our nation have the option, unlike these WA resolutions, to choose what they want to do. They may either leave the WA or demand reform. My nation has left and demand that those still within the WA see through the corruption. Xin Han condems the current actions of the WA and is preparing sanctions against all nations that support one world under one government. The Xin Han culture and ideals are at stake and this will not be tolerated. Our military is recieving increased spending, not to mention that we are well on our way to developing space based weaponry. I think all nations will find it hard to contend with my nation's views. Long live Zhong Guo, Xin Han, and the All China Alliance!

With the most sincerity,



Ambassador Zhou Na

Methinks the Ambassador is confused as to how things work around here. You see, the only way to truly fight for change within the World Assembly is from within the belly of the beast.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Xin Han condems the current actions of the WA and is preparing sanctions against all nations that support one world under one government. The Xin Han culture and ideals are at stake and this will not be tolerated. Our military is recieving increased spending, not to mention that we are well on our way to developing space based weaponry. I think all nations will find it hard to contend with my nation's views.

Most nations here (including the one I represent) probably don't trade with you anyway, so threatening sanctions is irrelevant. Issuing veiled threats is also irrelevant and counterproductive.

Methinks the Ambassador is confused as to how things work around here. You see, the only way to truly fight for change within the World Assembly is from within the belly of the beast.

Ambassador Flibble is quite correct. Why should this esteemed body care about the complaints of nations who aren't members, who choose not to participate and who are not affected by our resolutions? For that matter, if a nation is not in the WA, why should it care about what the WA does (again, as it is not affected?)

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

You see Ambassadors, my nation cares about the welfare of the nations as a whole, not a minority. Attempting to reform the WA is quite impossible to do with morally corrupt individuals running the Assembly. Due to my incompetence with the issue at hand, we have realized that our effort here was wasted. I hope that the WA works out well for its members and my apologies go out to who I offended.


Deepest apologies,

Zhou Na

You see Ambassadors, my nation cares about the welfare of the nations as a whole, not a minority. Attempting to reform the WA is quite impossible to do with morally corrupt individuals running the Assembly. Due to my incompetence with the issue at hand, we have realized that our effort here was wasted. I hope that the WA works out well for its members and my apologies go out to who I offended.


Deepest apologies,

Zhou Na

Difficult, yes but not impossible. Heck back in the days if the UN I used to think that repealing the resolution Gay Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029602&postcount=13) was impossible, but it happened.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative