[IDEA] Problem with "Clean Prostitute Act"

[Unibot III]

I believe there are some serious problems with the wording used in "Clean Prostitute Act",

DECREES that the decision regarding whether or not to legalize prostitution shall be left to member nations to make within the confines of international law,

This critical sentence can be interpreted in two different senses:

1) In international law, member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over the question of prostitution's legalization within each of their own nations.

2) The question of prostitution's legalization shall be decided by member-nations within the confines of international law -- this is to say, that member-nations shall be the arbiters of the issue, but not necessarily for each of their own nations.

The author obviously intended the first interpretation, but I actually think the second interpretation, the literal meaning, is more obvious -- I had to read the sentence several times before I understood it under the first interpretation.

This could have been avoided by using less roundabout language, like "member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over whether to legalize, criminalize or decriminalize prostitution within their own nations".

There are two key failures, thus, that I see with "Clean Prostitute Act":

1) "Clean Prostitute Act" 's equivocation may completely undermine its status as a "blocker resolution". In fact, the blocker clause may be read as accomplishing the exact opposite thing that the author intended.

2) It's not actually a full blocker: it blocks the WA from discussing the legalization of prostitution, but not the decriminalization of prostitution. This is rather unfortunate, because the decriminalization of prostitution (without legalizing it), often threatens the health and safety of prostitutes more so than either legalization or prohibition. I also do not think the author intended to leave the question of decriminalization open for discussion.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: And there was me wondering what old chestnut the WA was going to rehash endless unwinnable arguments over once we were done with abortion.

[Unibot III]

OOC: And there was me wondering what old chestnut the WA was going to rehash endless unwinnable arguments over once we were done with abortion.

OOC: I'm sorry. I really am. >_>

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: And there was me wondering what old chestnut the WA was going to rehash endless unwinnable arguments over once we were done with abortion.

NAPA, NAPA, NAPA!!!!!!

[Hirota]

OOC: And there was me wondering what old chestnut the WA was going to rehash endless unwinnable arguments over once we were done with abortion.

We should write a list, take bets. Maybe make a bit of money on the side?

Gotta get something out of it surely?

I've always gone for the Swedish approach to prostitution personally - legalise the sale, but criminalise the purchasing. It's how I loopholed the first prostitution legislation back in 04.

[Calderax]

I believe there are some serious problems with the wording used in "Clean Prostitute Act",

DECREES that the decision regarding whether or not to legalize prostitution shall be left to member nations to make within the confines of international law,

This critical sentence can be interpreted in two different senses:

1) In international law, member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over the question of prostitution's legalization within each of their own nations.

2) The question of prostitution's legalization shall be decided by member-nations within the confines of international law -- this is to say, that member-nations shall be the arbiters of the issue, but not necessarily for each of their own nations.

The author obviously intended the first interpretation, but I actually think the second interpretation, the literal meaning, is more obvious -- I had to read the sentence several times before I understood it under the first interpretation.

This could have been avoided by using less roundabout language, like "member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over whether to legalize, criminalize or decriminalize prostitution within their own nations".

There are two key failures, thus, that I see with "Clean Prostitute Act":

1) "Clean Prostitute Act" 's equivocation may completely undermine its status as a "blocker resolution". In fact, the blocker clause may be read as accomplishing the exact opposite thing that the author intended.

2) It's not actually a full blocker: it blocks the WA from discussing the legalization of prostitution, but not the decriminalization of prostitution. This is rather unfortunate, because the decriminalization of prostitution (without legalizing it), often threatens the health and safety of prostitutes more so than either legalization or prohibition. I also do not think the author intended to leave the question of decriminalization open for discussion.

In order to prevent the second interpretation, the act would need to have included a comma after the word "make". That would effectively separate clauses within the sentence, thus modifying in what situations they could make it legal, within their own nations.

Agreed, also, that it should read something like "member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over whether to legalize, criminalize or decriminalize prostitution within their own nations". More clarity as to the leeway which nations are given.

However, I would expect a new resolution to be forthcoming if the "Clean Prostitute Act" were to be repealed.

[Unibot III]

I believe there are some serious problems with the wording used in "Clean Prostitute Act",

This critical sentence can be interpreted in two different senses:

1) In international law, member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over the question of prostitution's legalization within each of their own nations.

2) The question of prostitution's legalization shall be decided by member-nations within the confines of international law -- this is to say, that member-nations shall be the arbiters of the issue, but not necessarily for each of their own nations.

The author obviously intended the first interpretation, but I actually think the second interpretation, the literal meaning, is more obvious -- I had to read the sentence several times before I understood it under the first interpretation.

This could have been avoided by using less roundabout language, like "member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over whether to legalize, criminalize or decriminalize prostitution within their own nations".

There are two key failures, thus, that I see with "Clean Prostitute Act":

1) "Clean Prostitute Act" 's equivocation may completely undermine its status as a "blocker resolution". In fact, the blocker clause may be read as accomplishing the exact opposite thing that the author intended.

2) It's not actually a full blocker: it blocks the WA from discussing the legalization of prostitution, but not the decriminalization of prostitution. This is rather unfortunate, because the decriminalization of prostitution (without legalizing it), often threatens the health and safety of prostitutes more so than either legalization or prohibition. I also do not think the author intended to leave the question of decriminalization open for discussion.

In order to prevent the second interpretation, the act would need to have included a comma after the word "make". That would effectively separate clauses within the sentence, thus modifying in what situations they could make it legal, within their own nations.

I agree, yeah. >_>

[Sciongrad]

While the wording is poor, I feel as if a neglected comma isn't anything to cause a prostitution maelstrom over. I feel as if no reasonable nation would interpret the resolution in the manner that you suggested, even if it is the one that technically makes the most sense. So I hope no hooligans out there try any funny business, like trying to repeal this. >_>

[Moronist Decisions]

While I can see your point, I don't see how one would even decriminalize an activity without implicitly legalizing it.

[Separatist Peoples]

While I can see your point, I don't see how one would even decriminalize an activity without implicitly legalizing it.

It could be fine-able. Or a Misdemeanor class of crime. Or involve mandatory community service and perhaps even rehabilitation. Any number of ways without it causing a serious criminal record with no hope of expunging.

[Goddess Relief Office]

I believe there are some serious problems with the wording used in "Clean Prostitute Act",

This critical sentence can be interpreted in two different senses:

1) In international law, member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over the question of prostitution's legalization within each of their own nations.

2) The question of prostitution's legalization shall be decided by member-nations within the confines of international law -- this is to say, that member-nations shall be the arbiters of the issue, but not necessarily for each of their own nations.

The author obviously intended the first interpretation, but I actually think the second interpretation, the literal meaning, is more obvious -- I had to read the sentence several times before I understood it under the first interpretation.

This could have been avoided by using less roundabout language, like "member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over whether to legalize, criminalize or decriminalize prostitution within their own nations".

There are two key failures, thus, that I see with "Clean Prostitute Act":

1) "Clean Prostitute Act" 's equivocation may completely undermine its status as a "blocker resolution". In fact, the blocker clause may be read as accomplishing the exact opposite thing that the author intended.

2) It's not actually a full blocker: it blocks the WA from discussing the legalization of prostitution, but not the decriminalization of prostitution. This is rather unfortunate, because the decriminalization of prostitution (without legalizing it), often threatens the health and safety of prostitutes more so than either legalization or prohibition. I also do not think the author intended to leave the question of decriminalization open for discussion.

In order to prevent the second interpretation, the act would need to have included a comma after the word "make". That would effectively separate clauses within the sentence, thus modifying in what situations they could make it legal, within their own nations.

Agreed, also, that it should read something like "member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over whether to legalize, criminalize or decriminalize prostitution within their own nations". More clarity as to the leeway which nations are given.

However, I would expect a new resolution to be forthcoming if the "Clean Prostitute Act" were to be repealed.

Agreed. I'd like to see a replacement resolution before repealing the current one. If I may make a small request at this point -- Please don't name the replacement resolution "Clean Prostitute Act", the title is a little demeaning to sex workers.

~GRO~

[Eireann Fae]

"May we suggest the Clean Companion Code?" Rowan asks with a wink.
(OOC: Browncoats UNITE!)

[The Dark Star Republic]

"If there is a replacement, I think it could do a little more to address sex trafficking and CSEC. The existing laws paint with very broad brushes and there's room for more international legislation. The basic spirit of the - I agree, rather unkindly named - Act that legality of prostitution is a national decision should also be preserved, though. I still don't see a need a for a repeal, though."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Abacathea]

...a prostitution maelstrom...

Sounds fun! Albeit expensive.

[Araraukar]

OOC: And there was me wondering what old chestnut the WA was going to rehash endless unwinnable arguments over once we were done with abortion.

NAPA, NAPA, NAPA!!!!!!

Bah, let's go for the bans on landmines and bioweapons first. Those have a better success rate.

...a prostitution maelstrom...

Sounds fun! Albeit expensive.

As if you couldn't afford it.

[Araraukar]

While I can see your point, I don't see how one would even decriminalize an activity without implicitly legalizing it.

It could be fine-able. Or a Misdemeanor class of crime. Or involve mandatory community service and perhaps even rehabilitation. Any number of ways without it causing a serious criminal record with no hope of expunging.

Or make buying the services of a prostitute a crime, instead.

[Calderax]

"If there is a replacement, I think it could do a little more to address sex trafficking and CSEC."

Agreed completely. Prostitution and sex trafficking go hand in hand. A new resolution would be fit to address both issues. Though GAR#23 addresses human trafficking, it does not do enough to protect those individuals who would voluntarily be trafficked. Such as, perhaps, a prostitute traveling from one country to another.

Including that language would make any proposal far-reaching and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

[Separatist Peoples]

"If there is a replacement, I think it could do a little more to address sex trafficking and CSEC."

Agreed completely. Prostitution and sex trafficking go hand in hand. A new resolution would be fit to address both issues. Though GAR#23 addresses human trafficking, it does not do enough to protect those individuals who would voluntarily be trafficked. Such as, perhaps, a prostitute traveling from one country to another.

Including that language would make any proposal far-reaching and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

If its voluntary then...uh...whats the problem?

[Unibot III]

In order to prevent the second interpretation, the act would need to have included a comma after the word "make". That would effectively separate clauses within the sentence, thus modifying in what situations they could make it legal, within their own nations.

Agreed, also, that it should read something like "member-nations shall have sole jurisdiction over whether to legalize, criminalize or decriminalize prostitution within their own nations". More clarity as to the leeway which nations are given.

However, I would expect a new resolution to be forthcoming if the "Clean Prostitute Act" were to be repealed.

Agreed. I'd like to see a replacement resolution before repealing the current one. If I may make a small request at this point -- Please don't name the replacement resolution "Clean Prostitute Act", the title is a little demeaning to sex workers.

~GRO~

I totally agree with the demeaning name - I know I'm supposed to have a sense of humor and everything, but using a title to take potshots at sex workers is pretty low. If anything, I'd like to see a repeal mention that fact to make some amends.

[Unibot III]

While the wording is poor, I feel as if a neglected comma isn't anything to cause a prostitution maelstrom over. I feel as if no reasonable nation would interpret the resolution in the manner that you suggested, even if it is the one that technically makes the most sense. So I hope no hooligans out there try any funny business, like trying to repeal this. >_>

Honestly, I don't think the Reasonable Nation Theory applies here, I totally read it as meaning the first interpretation. The real test is whether the moderators would find a legalization proposal contradicts "Clean Prostitute Act", given this apparent loophole.

While I can see your point, I don't see how one would even decriminalize an activity without implicitly legalizing it.

It's quite common in the case of prostitution, actually. I otherwise wouldn't have brought it up.

[Calderax]

Agreed completely. Prostitution and sex trafficking go hand in hand. A new resolution would be fit to address both issues. Though GAR#23 addresses human trafficking, it does not do enough to protect those individuals who would voluntarily be trafficked. Such as, perhaps, a prostitute traveling from one country to another.

Including that language would make any proposal far-reaching and I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

If its voluntary then...uh...whats the problem?

Agreements, especially in an underground industry, do not always go as planned.

[Separatist Peoples]

If its voluntary then...uh...whats the problem?

Agreements, especially in an underground industry, do not always go as planned.

Then it no longer becomes voluntary and is therefore illegal and can be treated as such. Ideal? No. But necessary to preserve the ability for prostitutes to voluntarily relocate.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Sorry, but I'm mostly reading this as uni causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble. Everyone knows and is mostly in agreement what the intended interpretation of the language is, most importantly the moderators are in agreement what the intended interpretation is (particularly since the author is one of them -- and since picking fights with the mods has historically been one of uni's favorite activities, I can only assume this is another way for him to do so), and hence, I doubt there will be any misunderstandings about the meaning of CPA the next time a wannabe legislator tries to propose another illegal law to legalize/ban prostitution.

P.S. Besides, all the law does is gives nations latitude on whether to make prostitution legal; it says nothing about sex trafficking. That can always be sorted in a separate resolution.

[Sciongrad]

Honestly, I don't think the Reasonable Nation Theory applies here, I totally read it as meaning the first interpretation. The real test is whether the moderators would find a legalization proposal contradicts "Clean Prostitute Act", given this apparent loophole.

I would argue that it does. I said that there's ambiguity in the clause and no real nation would interpret it as giving all authority over their prostitution laws to the World Assembly to legislate upon at its whim when there exists a second, more reasonable interpretation that wouldn't involve any of that. Because of this, there really isn't much of a loophole to exploit and legalizing prostitution in the future with another WA resolution is surely out of the question. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on making this such a big issue when the logic behind it is really very conditional on nations acting against their own best interest.

EDIT: Clarified a very unclear sentence.

[Unibot III]

I would argue that it does. I said that there's ambiguity in the clause and no real nation would interpret it as giving all authority over their prostitution laws to the World Assembly to legislate upon at its whim when there exists a second, more reasonable interpretation that wouldn't involve any of that. Because of this, there really isn't much of a loophole to exploit and legalizing prostitution in the future with another WA resolution is surely out of the question. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on making this such a big issue when the logic behind it is really very conditional on nations acting against their own best interest.

Actually if you applied that logic, nations wouldn't pursue pro-prostitution resolutions in the WA at all, given it would never been in their interest to validate that subject for international discussion, despite years and years and years of nations pursuing pro-prostitution resolutions in the WA, which contradicts that theory.

The reality is nations like to advance their own moral views on other nations, while not an interest-based calculation, it is a reasonable and quite common proposition and is the basis of human rights legislation. The "Clean Prostitute Act", which tries to act as blocker, gets in the way of that moral crusade -- therefore, it would be quite reasonable to assume nations would interpret the contested clause using the second, more open interpretation.

@Kenny: Flib's resolutions are by no means infallible; his other famous blocker, GA#10, also failed to do its job since a mod ruling has since found it only blocks the possession of nuclear weapons, but not necessarily the deployment of nuclear weapons from WA Legislation.