Banning Sex Trafficking

[Snefaldia]

Now that Repeal "Legalizing Prostution" is in queue, we feel the time is right to reveal a proposed replacement to cover, once and for all, the issue.

Banning Sex Trafficking

Category: Human Rights, Strong

Author: Snefaldia

The World Assembly:

ABHORS the practice of human sex trafficking, being the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of work as a prostitute against their will, especially children;

UNDERSTANDS the complex ethical practices of varied WA states relating to prostitution and commercial sex work,

ACKNOWLEDGES that the sex trade has existed for centuries, under various regimes and regulations, in many member states;

HEREBY Prohibits:
1. The use of force, fraud, or coercion to induce a person to commit a commercial sex act;
2. The trafficking of people across borders for the purpose of commercial sex work;
3. The subjection of a sex worker to involuntary servitude, slavery, or any other form of forced bondage;
4. The prevention of access to medical treatment or contraceptives for sex workers;

PRESERVES the right for WA member states to determine the legal position of prostitution within their own borders.

REQUIRES all commercial sex workers be screened for transmissible  disease and barred from their trade for so long as they are infected.

ENCOURAGES member-states to take further steps to protect sex workers and prevent the spread of sexually transmissible disease, including the legalization and regulation of the commercial sex trade itself.

Co-Author: Mousebumples

A brief explanation is in order: this resolution both preserves the right to legalize prostitution, and attacks one of the worst symptoms of commercial sex work. It is an unfortunate case that even in nations where prostitution is legal, people may be forced into the sex trade or transported from their homes and forced to degrade themselves against their will.

The States-Federation of Snefaldia hopes that, with the World Assembly taking an internationalist stand against sex trafficking, as well as a sovereigntist position relating to the practice of commercial sex work itself, we can bring all sides to the table and lay this discussion to rest once and for all.

Comments and helpful suggestions are, of course, more than welcome.

Dr. Nëmô Kassäty Taranton
Minister of World Assembly Affairs
States-Federation of Snefaldia

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen-Rhodes is tentatively in support of this measure. We wonder, though, whether WAR#23 - Ban on Slavery and Trafficking - already bans the activities this proposal seeks to ban.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Unibot II]

"I'd prefer a purely internationalist resolution preserving the right to sell one's body for sex against the state's ability to impose its religious values against them but likewise aggressively cracking down on sex trafficking in the world. As it currently stands, this resolution worms its way out of the doing the former and uses the latter to distract voters from the obvious omission of the former, " said Jasper.

"Furthermore, I see no reason why a resolution affirming the right to prostitute could not be a separate resolution from a sex trafficking resolution; which would be what we currently are pursuing beyond some soverignists and their repeal attempt," said Jasper in a solemn passage.

Whitaker motioned for a glass of scotch and saluted Dr. Taranton, "Yours."

[Alqania]

"This is exactly the kind of resolution we need", Lord Raekevik said matter-of-factly.

[Snefaldia]

Glen-Rhodes is tentatively in support of this measure. We wonder, though, whether WAR#23 - Ban on Slavery and Trafficking - already bans the activities this proposal seeks to ban.

- Dr. B. Castro

The one issues I can see is with clause 3, preventing servitude, as WAR #23 already bans that as it regards "sexual exploitation." That's not a term I use in this resolution because it is fairly imprecise, in that commercial sex work can be burlesque shows, nude performances, phone sex work, and regular prostitution itself. I will take a closer look at WAR#23 and see what can be done to avoid duplication.

[Ossitania]

We stand with the delegation from Unibot in opposing this measure. We believe in the right of individuals to commercialise their bodies; the proposal as currently stands blocks any future possibility of enshrining this right in WA law. If the "PRESERVES" clause was instead changed to something along the lines of "CLARIFIES that this resolution does nothing to require or prevent any change to the legal status of prostitution in member-states", we might fall more in line with Dr. Castro's stance. We do not believe this to be a compromise of any kind between internationalists and sovereigntists; it gives both sides something they both want and gives the sovereigntists more on top of that; a blocker resolution. Unacceptable and, thus, opposed.

[Snefaldia]

The World Assembly has done this song and dance before on prostitution- this is what, the third? Fourth time we've seen the passage and repeal of a prostitution resolution? The simple political fact is that the protection of commercial sex work is an extremely controversial subject and, like abortion, a dangerous political minefield that has created some of the worst debates in this assembly.

While the position of My Lord High Chancellor's government aligns closely with that of the Ossitanian and Unibotian delegations, we believe strongly that it is an unfair enroachment into national moral arenas to force member-states to accept the practice of commercial sex work. We
disagree that this bill gives more to national sovereigntists

What I have attempted to do here is yes, create a blocker, while at the same time erecting barriers that eliminate the most egregious practices in states where the sex trade is illegal. The States-Federation is not opposed to prostitution; it is legal and regulated in my country. However, we are strong defenders of the rights of nations to make law on their own ethical and moral guidelines, where legal prostitution is not an acceptable practice. We are under no illusions that there is no prostitution in nations where it is illegal- this is why we have made it a crime t o prevent commercial sex workers from accessing medical treatment or contraceptives, and banned them from being forced to work while infected.

Furthermore a compromise is a meeting between two ostensibly opposed positions; we fail to see how this is not a compromise when it offers protections to both legal and illegal commercial sex workers and stops the practice of sex trafficking, while at the same time ensuring the national right to moral self-determination.

N. Taranton
etc.

[Ossitania]

It is not a compromise because it gives more to the sovereigntists and you can disagree all you like but all the internationalists have gotten is a ban on forced prostitution, whereas the sovereigntists have gotten that same ban and a blocker. The fact that the subject matter is controversial is nothing that the government of Ossitania needs to be informed of ambassador; it does not change our strong moral disagreement with what you are attempting to do. You are enshrining the right of nations to punish people for providing a service that doesn't harm anyone and that is simply not acceptable to us and shouldn't be to you either. We will not entertain sovereigntist arguments; all WA resolutions encroach on national sovereignty, so pointing it out is not something we would consider a valid argument.

We applaud the efforts of the Snefaldian delegation to prevent, as they say, the most egregious practices against sex workers, however as we see no provision against imprisoning sex workers and denying them large swathes of their human rights simply for doing their job, we remain opposed. The right of WA member-states to make their own laws in line with their own ethical beliefs must end when those ethical beliefs arbitrarily mistreat their citizens, as is the case here. We find it utterly unacceptable that adding an exchange of money to an act of consensual sex should render it a criminal act; as such, we will not accept a blocker that enables this ridiculous practice.

[Snefaldia]

Your moral and ethical grandstanding has been noted, but with the caveat that this proposal will not ever actually mandate the legalization of prostitution in all nations, do you have any concrete suggestions to improve the progressive stance taken toward the legalization and regulation of prostitution, or any ways to strengthen the aspirationalist language in the bill?

I want to state for the record: Our government will not propose a bill that outright legalizes prostitution in all member-states, but we will certainly consider any suggestions for offering protections to this bill.

N. Taranton
etc.

[Ossitania]

We are not suggesting that the delegation from Snefaldia should have to propose any law mandating the legalisation of prostitution. Our only point of contention with the proposed legislation is that it is a blocker. We would prefer that the question be allowed to remain open for the WA to answer or refuse to answer as it so chooses. In addition to leaving the possibility of global legalisation with a proposal absent the flaws of GA#167 in the future open, it also means that in such a scenario, this resolution would not first have to be repealed. As we have already said, we otherwise applaud this resolution - however, as long as it is a blocker, we will do our utmost to ensure its failure at every turn.

[Black Marne]

I must go against this proposal. While I would prefer that the WA did not made it necessary for EVERY member state to had prostitution, I would also prefer if it didn't ban the practice in nations that wish to have it continued as a legitimate job.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[Snefaldia]

I must go against this proposal. While I would prefer that the WA did not made it necessary for EVERY member state to had prostitution, I would also prefer if it didn't ban the practice in nations that wish to have it continued as a legitimate job.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

This resolution does not ban prostitution where it is legal.

[Syrkania]

I must go against this proposal. While I would prefer that the WA did not made it necessary for EVERY member state to had prostitution, I would also prefer if it didn't ban the practice in nations that wish to have it continued as a legitimate job.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

So... why are you opposed to this? The only practices that would be banned under this would be the clearly and completely unambiguously exploitative. It would enshrine national rights to self-determination in terms of sex work laws.

[Glenn]

It is not a compromise because it gives more to the sovereigntists and you can disagree all you like but all the internationalists have gotten is a ban on forced prostitution, whereas the sovereigntists have gotten that same ban.

Whatever happened to just doing what is right? I may be new here, but this argument between these very arbitrary camps makes me think that being new is a good thing. Instead of identifying or labeling myself as one or the other, I can feel free to do whatever makes sense. Some issues, such as human rights, should apply to all nations. But a lot of things are also a matter of preference, and whether or not a nation prefers to have prostitution or not is not going to erode the foundations of the globe and completely deteriorate the condition of the human species.

I support this bill because I think that there are more important things at hand than whether or not my neighbor country has legalized prostitution or not. Personally I say legalize it, but I can see why another nation with different circumstances (perhaps the nation has a high STD rate and studies show that despite regulation the majority of prostitutes have a STD, or maybe they perceive prostitution as a threat to gender equality) would think otherwise. This act has my vote, let us move on to something more dire.

[Flibbleites]

It is not a compromise because it gives more to the sovereigntists and you can disagree all you like but all the internationalists have gotten is a ban on forced prostitution, whereas the sovereigntists have gotten that same ban and a blocker.

Baloney, the pro-prostitution nations will have also received a blocker as this proposal will also block any attempt to ban prostitution in WA member nations.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Black Marne]

I must go against this proposal. While I would prefer that the WA did not made it necessary for EVERY member state to had prostitution, I would also prefer if it didn't ban the practice in nations that wish to have it continued as a legitimate job.

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

This resolution does not ban prostitution where it is legal.

Oh. Well I apologize! Suppose that teaches me to actually read the proposal, yes?

-The New Argonian Homeland of Black Marne

[Knootoss]

While Knootoss finds itself strongly supporting the general idea behind this draft, we must find ourselves in opposition if one particular clause is preserved:

REQUIRES all commercial sex workers be screened for transmissible  disease and barred from their trade for so long as they are infected.

This is a very bad clause. First of all, the regulation of transmissible diseases in sex workers is an issue that is completely unrelated to the alleged purpose of the resolution, which is to ban sex trafficking. Knootoss does not approve of such unrelated "rider clauses" designed to appeal to the fluffy hordes. A resolution should stick to the topic at hand.

Second, this clause would be entirely irrelevant in nations where prostitution will once again be illegal, and the clause only adds confusion on that note.

Finally, we do not believe that sex workers with STD's necessarily need to be barred from their trade in an age of contraception. Local regulators are far better able to make decisions here.


Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

[Quelesh]

ABHORS the practice of human sex trafficking, being the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of work as a prostitute against their will, especially children;

This is only a preambulatory clause, but the actions described in it are already illegal under numerous existing WA resolutions.

GAR4:

(D) Bans anyone under the age of consent from engaging in sexually explicit acts as a form of employment.

GAR16:

(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.

GAR23:

2. Requiring any person to work, enter a work contract, or conform to terms of employment, which they have not freely agreed themselves or through a person they have freely appointed to represent them, through such means as abduction, coercion, deception, destitution, or fraud, or threats of such, to themselves or their families, including such acts as violence or criminal damage, or unlawful detention or eviction, shall be considered 'forced labour' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

[...]

4. Forcing or inducing the transfer of any person against their freely given will, or assisting or financing such actions, through similar forms of coercion, for the purposes of exploitation, such as slavery or forced labour, or situations approximating to such, sexual exploitation, or unauthorised medical procedures, shall be considered 'human trafficking' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

1. The use of force, fraud, or coercion to induce a person to commit a commercial sex act;

All nonconsensual sexual acts are already prohibited by GAR16, and nonconsensual commercial sex is already prohibited by GAR23.

2. The trafficking of people across borders for the purpose of commercial sex work;

Does this apply if the "trafficking" is consensual? And if "commercial sex work" is legal in both the nation of departure and the nation of arrival? Would this prevent prostitutes from voluntarily traveling from one nation in which prostitution is legal to another nation in which prostitution is also legal in order to engage in prostitution work in the second nation?

3. The subjection of a sex worker to involuntary servitude, slavery, or any other form of forced bondage;

This is already criminalized by GAR23.

PRESERVES the right for WA member states to determine the legal position of prostitution within their own borders.

This clause acts as a blocker preventing a WA resolution requiring that prostitution be legal. I will definitely oppose this proposal so long as this clause remains unchanged. I recommend changing it to "CLARIFIES that this resolution does not require member states to legalize or criminalize prostitution," or simply removing the clause.

REQUIRES all commercial sex workers be screened for transmissible  disease and barred from their trade for so long as they are infected.

This would be meaningless in a nation with effective and widely available condoms and other technology to prevent the spread of STDs. I recommend removing this clause.

I don't see the point of this proposal; all it does is (1) duplicate numerous existing WA resolutions and (2) act as a blocker against future WA prostitution resolutions.

[Ossitania]

It is not a compromise because it gives more to the sovereigntists and you can disagree all you like but all the internationalists have gotten is a ban on forced prostitution, whereas the sovereigntists have gotten that same ban and a blocker.

Baloney, the pro-prostitution nations will have also received a blocker as this proposal will also block any attempt to ban prostitution in WA member nations.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I would direct the honourable ambassador to reread what I have written. I have not said a single thing about pro- and anti-prostitution factions. I have said sovereigntists and internationalists. I agree that from a pro- and anti-prostitution perspective, this proposal is a compromise. However on the IntFed vs NatSov scale, this clearly favours sovereigntists. While I specifically mentioned another legalisation proposal as something I would like to see in the future, the crux of my objection is that I would like for the question to remain open, no matter which final answer is eventually given.

It is not a compromise because it gives more to the sovereigntists and you can disagree all you like but all the internationalists have gotten is a ban on forced prostitution, whereas the sovereigntists have gotten that same ban.

Whatever happened to just doing what is right? I may be new here, but this argument between these very arbitrary camps makes me think that being new is a good thing. Instead of identifying or labeling myself as one or the other, I can feel free to do whatever makes sense. Some issues, such as human rights, should apply to all nations. But a lot of things are also a matter of preference, and whether or not a nation prefers to have prostitution or not is not going to erode the foundations of the globe and completely deteriorate the condition of the human species.

I support this bill because I think that there are more important things at hand than whether or not my neighbor country has legalized prostitution or not. Personally I say legalize it, but I can see why another nation with different circumstances (perhaps the nation has a high STD rate and studies show that despite regulation the majority of prostitutes have a STD, or maybe they perceive prostitution as a threat to gender equality) would think otherwise. This act has my vote, let us move on to something more dire.

Ambassador, I want to do what is right and what I believe is right is to enshrine the right to commercialise sex. You might not believe that's a human rights issue, but I believe it is. The fact that an exchange of money can turn consensual sex between two (or more) adults into a criminal act is abhorrent to me. Now, you can argue against what I'm saying if you want, but please refrain from being so arrogant as to wholly dismiss my opinions for no good reason. It doesn't become you, ambassador.

[Bears Armed]

Banning Sex Trafficking

Category: Human Rights, Strong

Author: Snefaldia

The World Assembly:

ABHORS the practice of human sex trafficking, being the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of work as a prostitute against their will,

"Are you suggesting that only a human can be a 'person'?"

[Sionis Prioratus]

Banning Sex Trafficking

Category: Human Rights, Strong

Author: Snefaldia

The World Assembly:

ABHORS the practice of human sex trafficking, being the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of work as a prostitute against their will,

"Are you suggesting that only a human can be a 'person'?"

Yes! Let us include bears, Turing-passing asteroids, vampires, inflatable goats, and hyperintelligent multidimensional shades of the color blue, for sapience's sake!

Yours,

[Trypdifania]

please forgive this emotional outburst: SEX TRAFFICING IS STUPID, PEOPLE WHO FORCE OTHER PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN THIS ABHORRENT PRACTICE AE EVIL!
now that that's out of the way, support this bill all the way because sex trafficing is downright wrong.

[Crumlark]

2. The trafficking of people across borders for the purpose of commercial sex work;

Yeah, unfortunately, I am against this bill for that one line. I mean, its well written, well intentioned, and obviously written by a well learned member nation, but I cannot stand for such a malady on international civil rights without say in it! Say a worker of this profession decide to work in a city where his/her talents are in more demand, but it is in the neighboring country. That would refuse them access to free movement, a freedom that is nearly fundamental to other civil rights. And if you meant their employers are not allowed to move the professionals of this area of the market from country to country, then while we are at it we should keep workers at Food Lion from being transferred to other nearby Food Lions!

[Chinese Regions]

We assume this only tightens regulations and to make it safer and not ban prostitution and the sex industry outright since that conflicts with our laws of free trade?

[Multidimensional Shades of Blue]

"Are you suggesting that only a human can be a 'person'?"

Yes! Let us include bears, Turing-passing asteroids, vampires, inflatable goats, and hyperintelligent multidimensional shades of the color blue, for sapience's sake!

Yours,

Finally! Oh, how we have waited for this kind of recognition. Our sincerest and most joyous thanks.

615BFF
Project Manager for World Assembly Affairs