[PASSED] Repeal "Sexual Privacy Act"

[Elke and Elba]

you cant repeal a resolution for being illegal

?!

You can't repeal a resolution for being illegal with regards to the WA rules, as that would be metagaming. There's nothing in this proposal that flouts that.

[The Draemon States]

Repeal "Sexual Privacy Act"
A resolution to blah blah blah
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #16

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act", mandates that all member nations legalise incest,

Understanding that children conceived by closely related persons can be in severe danger of inheriting congenital birth defects,

Believing that there is a compelling government interest in restricting incest,

Regretting that such action is illegal under WA law with the Sexual Privacy Act in place,

Resolves the situation by repealing WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act".

Support, although it may not pass unless you put some more convincing and good arguments, especially for this community.

[Lumeau]

As long as there's an immediate replacement that provides all the same protections as in the original Sexual Privacy Act and doesn't mandate a particular punishment for incest, sure.

I also think the definition of incest in whatever the replacement resolution is needs to be restricted to having UNPROTECTED sex with a closely-related partner. I don't see the point of restricting incest if contraceptives are being used. I'm not OK with chucking people in jail just for fooling around with their sister, but agree that there needs to be something done to prevent closely related individuals from having unprotected sex. And there definitely should still be protections for people engaging in incest who are biologically incapable of creating a child, such as if the participants are of the same sex, or are sterile.

And before anyone says anything - I know that contraceptives aren't 100 percent effective. That isn't changing my stance on this issue.

Tentative support, but I may abstain on the vote. Basically, I just hope that any replacement resolution restricts the definition of incest to actual PIV intercourse without contraceptives between two people capable of producing a child.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: To be perfectly honest I don't have an immediate replacement written, and I'm not going to write one.

People always complain that all the big issues are already covered - slavery, bioweapons, free trade, organ donation - and certainly, sexual privacy is one such really big issue that the WA has pretty comprehensively covered. If this were repealed, it would open up the opportunity for someone to have a chance at writing something. As galling as it might be for someone clueless to take it on, assuming someone with a bit more sagacity took it on it could be an exciting project. And not to be utterly patronising, but, maybe this is the sort of opportunity that would help newer players.

So I am not going to write it myself. However, if people would prefer the draft were already in place, I would be willing to delay the repeal until it was written, or at least, drafting was underway. As it stands I don't expect the repeal to pass so I don't think it really matters, though.

[Lumeau]

OOC: To be perfectly honest I don't have an immediate replacement written, and I'm not going to write one.

People always complain that all the big issues are already covered - slavery, bioweapons, free trade, organ donation - and certainly, sexual privacy is one such really big issue that the WA has pretty comprehensively covered. If this were repealed, it would open up the opportunity for someone to have a chance at writing something. As galling as it might be for someone clueless to take it on, assuming someone with a bit more sagacity took it on it could be an exciting project. And not to be utterly patronising, but, maybe this is the sort of opportunity that would help newer players.

So I am not going to write it myself. However, if people would prefer the draft were already in place, I would be willing to delay the repeal until it was written, or at least, drafting was underway. As it stands I don't expect the repeal to pass so I don't think it really matters, though.

You make a simple, straightforward case. I think that the odds of it passing are better than you think.

I wouldn't mind drafting a replacement myself. It's always nice when IDU members can work together on something.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Well that went approximately as expected, and I blame myself entirely.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: Well that went approximately as expected, and I blame myself entirely.

Yes, yes you should.

In fact, I'm expecting another very active person here to write a draft shortly... And it's not me, nor you, nor Lumeau or any of the IDU members, nor SP, nor Chester, nor Auralia nor Kenny nor Unibot nor Glen-Rhodes... That doesn't leave much to imagination anymore.

Go figure who.

[Old Hope]

OOC: Well that went approximately as expected, and I blame myself entirely.

You mean the proposals that were submitted in response were not that great?

[Abazhaka]

OOC: Well that went approximately as expected, and I blame myself entirely.

You mean the proposals that were submitted in response were not that great?

yes, both of our proposals suck, especially our first drafts.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"This resolution is now at vote. In answer to some of the queries we've received from delegates, no, it is not possible to amend the resolution: a repeal is the only option for changing WA law."

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[Philjia]

Although the heart of this resolution is in the right place, we must consider the fact that once one outlaws incest on the grounds it can cause genetic defects, it will essentially open the floodgates for people demanding that any sexual union that would likely produce children with genetic defects be outlawed, and is as such not something this nation can agree with. Furthermore, the resolution does not forbid educating the populace about the risks of incest and other causes of hereditary genetic disorders.

[Defwa]

I think you should just amend it.[/sarcasm[

Also, do you realize how difficult it is to manage early voting when you do this.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Daisy takes the Ambassador's place.

Although the heart of this resolution is in the right place, we must consider the fact that once one outlaws incest on the grounds it can cause genetic defects, it will essentially open the floodgates for people demanding that any sexual union that would likely produce children with genetic defects be outlawed, and is as such not something this nation can agree with.

"Nor ours. Which is probably we proposed no such thing. But the resolution doesn't even allow nations to insist incestuous couples - " she stumbles over the tongue-twister for a moment " - obtain proper counselling to understand the risks first.

Furthermore, the resolution does not forbid educating the populace about the risks of incest and other causes of hereditary genetic disorders.

"The WA has shown absolutely no interest in passing legislation on sex education. Had there been more support for our resolution on the subject, we wouldn't have considered this repeal necessary."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Celsuis]

"The delegation of Celsuis finds that government has no compelling interest in seeking to outlaw or restrict consensual sexual activity between any two individuals of proper age. We find no justification for governmental interference in the voluntary interaction between any two individuals that does not pose a critical threat to life, liberty, or property. We believe people are responsible; those that are not, however, will simply have to face the consequences of their decisions. The Celsuis delegation condemns acts such as incest and other immoral activities, but we find that government has no role in legislating morality. The original resolution protects important freedoms. We oppose this resolution."

[Gibsonville2]

Secretary of Diplomacy Daugherty scratches his head.

"Pardon me, but nothing in WA Resolution 16 specifically mentions incest that I can see. In addition, I see no reason for the government to involve itself in private relations, absent evidence of abuse. Indeed, the resolution does not mandate you allow them to get married or other such institutions. Just that they be allowed to do a they please in the privacy of their homes. Frankly, a ban on incest is impractical and unenforceable unless abuse occurs or you have camera in everyone's home (or they do it in public, but that would not be affected by WA Resolution 16). Furthermore, I find it odd that you focused in on a form of sex that most people find objectionable in order to make a case for a repeal of a law that is far more general than you make it out to be. Finally, this argument strongly resembles arguments made in the past that banning sodomy was a public health issue. I remain unconvinced by those arguments, and I find your argument equally unconvincing. As a sidenote, nothing in that proposal states that nation cannot mandate abortion or contraception for those couples. Pregnancy, I find, is not usually something you hide in your home."

[The Dark Star Republic]

As a sidenote, nothing in that proposal states that nation cannot mandate abortion or contraception for those couples.

"I'm afraid you are mistaken:

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.

"Additional WA law outlaws forced abortion anyway."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Plembobria]

Plembobria has cast its vote for this resolution. Incest is quite stigmatized in here already. People here are culturally encouraged to procreate (and have relations) outside of their race.

[Mandokarla]

I would support if it was more specific. I think the repeal is incredibly general in its wording. Expand your points more, and I'll vote for it.

[Plembobria]

I would support if it was more specific. I think the repeal is incredibly general in its wording. Expand your points more, and I'll vote for it.

You can't do that once its been submitted!

[Hibitus]

Rather than repeal what is otherwise a perfectly fine resolution, why not make an amendment covering incest if it is such a necessity as to require international intervention.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Rather than repeal what is otherwise a perfectly fine resolution, why not make an amendment covering incest if it is such a necessity as to require international intervention.

"Because amendments are illegal. A repeal is the only way to reform WA law."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Hibitus]

Rather than repeal what is otherwise a perfectly fine resolution, why not make an amendment covering incest if it is such a necessity as to require international intervention.

"Because amendments are illegal. A repeal is the only way to reform WA law."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

I see. I was not aware of that.

[Samogitias]

Repeal "Sexual Privacy Act"
A resolution to blah blah blah
Category: Repeal | Resolution: #16

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act", mandates that all member nations legalise incest,

Understanding that children conceived by closely related persons can be in severe danger of inheriting congenital birth defects,

Believing that there is a compelling government interest in restricting incest,

Regretting that such action is illegal under WA law with the Sexual Privacy Act in place,

Resolves the situation by repealing WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act".

Great idea! Support!

[New Horensian Kingdom]

"There's one huge issue with repealing the whole act. The act also bans nations from criminalising sexual activity based on the sexes of those involved, as well as a ban on differing ages of consent based on sex. If we are to repeal the whole act because of one part, these protections for LGBT+ individuals will cease, and we could return to the dark ages of 'anti-sodomy' laws, not to mention the sexist myriad of issues in regards to differing ages of consent for each sex.

I see that no one has proposed a new alternative act that would keep these protections in place, so that is why I must vote AGAINST this proposal to repeal the Sexual Privacy Act in whole. If a new law is proposed that keeps these protections apart from the incest protections, then I may change my mind and vote FOR this."

[The Dark Star Republic]

"There's one huge issue with repealing the whole act. The act also bans nations from criminalising sexual activity based on the sexes of those involved, as well as a ban on differing ages of consent based on sex. If we are to repeal the whole act because of one part, these protections for LGBT+ individuals will cease, and we could return to the dark ages of 'anti-sodomy' laws, not to mention the sexist myriad of issues in regards to differing ages of consent for each sex.

"Doubtful. We believe the Charter of Civil Rights would protect against discriminatory laws.

I see that no one has proposed a new alternative act that would keep these protections in place

"Not yet. But we would commend (and unofficially endorse) the Alqanian draft on the subject."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern