[GA Legality Review] On Prostitution

[Unibot III]

Given discussion here, viewtopic.php?f=9&t=280732

I would like to present this draft to the moderators for a legality review. Thanks!

On Prostitution
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

Believing that whether to legalize prostitution or not should be left to member nations to make within the confines of international law,

Understanding that this resolution seeks the approval of member-nations within the confines of international law,

Hereby,

1. Legalizes prostitution in all member-nations.

2. Decriminalizes prostitution in all member-nations.

Reference Questions:

1. Would this draft contradict the "Clean Prostitute Act"?

2. Would C.1 contradict "Clean Prostitute Act"?

3. Would C.2 contradict "Clean Prostitute Act"?

[Ardchoille]

Noted and queued. Also, please check ths.

[Unibot III]

Noted and queued. Also, please check ths.

My signature well fits the limit (5 lines, by my count) on my laptop and nobody has ever said anything to me about it. My monitor is a standard 1600 x 900, like the rule-book says. If, however, you have the browser set to zoom in (past 100%), it may crunch the sig into several more lines.

[Ardchoille]

... If, however, you have the browser set to zoom in (past 100%), it may crunch the sig into several more lines.

Oops! Sorry, forgot I had that on. *sends "stand down" message to Lord High Executioner*

[Unibot III]

... If, however, you have the browser set to zoom in (past 100%), it may crunch the sig into several more lines.

Oops! Sorry, forgot I had that on. *sends "stand down" message to Lord High Executioner*

No worries, Ard!

[Unibot III]

I'm not sure how the backlog is coming, but I'd appreciate a ruling.

[The Dark Star Republic]

viewtopic.php?p=20086168#p20086168

[Unibot III]

That completely overlooked my argument.

Whether to legalize prostitution or not, should be left to member nations to make within the confines of international law.

This is an equivocation, due to Flib's vague wording.

It could mean

A. Prostitution laws should be "left" to member nations with their own domestic laws.

But it could also mean,

B. Prostitution laws should be "left" to member nations to make within international law.

The author never specifies if he means to say that member nations are "left" to their own individual devices, or whether he is doing the exact opposite and prohibiting nations from deciding the legalization of prostitution without the "confines of international law" - by "leaving" it to member-nations to decide within the confines of international law.

This is a problem with poor wording on the author's part because the clause can be reasonably interpreted to mean either a blocker, or the opposite, an anti-blocker.

[Ardchoille]

The "within the confines of international law" terminology is just the common phrase used in Resolutions about the way legislation must be applied domestically -- ie, nations have the freedom the Resolution gives, but in the execution of it they must give due regard to other laws the WA has adopted (such as the various Freedoms laws,The Charter of Civil Rights, Patients' Rights, World Health Authority, etc.)

I recognise that a WA law must be clear even without the background knowledge of the circumstances in which it was proposed, the tenor of the debate and the known views of the author. However, to read it as anything but a blocker takes considerable effort -- misapplied effort, when there is a straightforward reading.

Surely by now you would know my views on unnecessary effort?

[Unibot III]

I don't think it's hard to see the other interpretation. In all actuality, people are reading it as a blocker because they know it's a "blocker", because Flibble said it's a "blocker". The actual wording is very very unusual that Flibble used (he did not word similar blockers as such) and more easily reads as a promotion of the exact opposite effect as he intended.

[Ardchoille]

As the mods don't see any ambiguity in the phrasing, and do see the Resolution as a blocker, this thread appears to have run its course. iLock.