[PASSED] Repeal "Sexual Privacy Act"

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Alright, yes I see now what you're saying, thanks.

Does it also not prevent the regulation of sex work? Even countries that are supportive of sex worker rights should be concerned about that.

"As far as I am aware, criminalizing of prostitution is allowed under World Assembly law. It would be quite unreasonable if it was not allowed."

Not according to the SPA:

(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.

Take her home and bang her all you want. How is anyone going to prove that she is a sex worker? You fucked her, and give her some money for her trouble. All nice and legal.

OOC: Incidentally that is precisely why prostitution is technically legal in Canada. Always has been. The only way we can bust them is for indecent exposure, or the john tries to pick up an undercover, and we have it all on tape. Incredibly hard to prove in court though.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The "sexual act" itself cannot be regulated, but there's nothing in WA law preventing nations from regulating or criminalizing the exchange of money for sex. I'm not sure this loophole is as ironclad as some seem to think it is.

[Druzhinin Imperium]

What happens in the bed chambers stays in the bed chambers. If my citizens wish to have sex with their relatives good for them. It is not the job of the government to be in control of such private affairs. What will we do next? Have a specific breeding program and ban sex altogether? The Druzhinin Imperium sees no way in which this could lead to a good thing. The bad outweighs the good.

To make it absolutely clear, the Druzhinin Imperium does not condone this proposal.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The "sexual act" itself cannot be regulated, but there's nothing in WA law preventing nations from regulating or criminalizing the exchange of money for sex. I'm not sure this loophole is as ironclad as some seem to think it is.

The fact that CPA wasn't ruled to be flagrantly illegal for contradicting SPA supports your argument here. The most you could argue the other way is that nations may not penalize sex workers or clients unless they can prove that money/property actually changed hands (and even that could be a stretch depending on other factors).

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

The "sexual act" itself cannot be regulated, but there's nothing in WA law preventing nations from regulating or criminalizing the exchange of money for sex. I'm not sure this loophole is as ironclad as some seem to think it is.

And how exactly is that proved? It states pretty clearly "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." If we go by the letter of the law, the "sex worker" has done nothing wrong. They have simply engaged in sexual acts clearly protected within the SPA, and received a "tip" for their time. Unless the WA is going to pass a resolution (and please don't) regulating gratuities, nations cannot criminalize prostitution. A brothel would even be hard to criminalize as the worker is legally renting a room in that domicile, and can carry on whatever business they deem fit. Nations should still be free to criminalize "solicitation", as the SPA does not protect that.

OOC; When the CPA was submitted, was a legality challenge issued on these grounds? If it was then someone very dramatically dropped the ball, as the CPA clearly contradicts this. The law is the law, and does exactly what it says, and any first year defense lawyer would destroy the prosecution if they attempt to to try a case against a "sex worker", unless they had indisputable proof that they solicited the customer. I am in law enforcement Kenny, and have dealt with this very situation more times than you can possibly imagine.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC; When the CPA was submitted, was a legality challenge issued on these grounds?

OOC: No, because that had already been discussed to death during the previous debate, Repeal "Legalizing Prostitution". Other rulings have similarly held that:

The topic is consensual sex away from public exposure; it's to do with government intervention in an individual citizen's private life. Prostitution is a commercial transaction and a degree of public exposure is implicit in the conduct of business, as is a degree of government involvement.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Also, the actual business transaction is not a "sexual act." SPA says nothing whatsoever about what happens before, after or even during sex if the act is not purely sexual (and the term is defined in SPA if readers are wary about that). Unless the money is being shoved down a g-string, nations can claim all the oversight they want on what is being given for sex.

[Old Hope]

Do you still want to try this? I'd like to draft a repeal against this one, but two repeals for the same resolution being drafted simultaneously aren't good.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Do you still want to try this? I'd like to draft a repeal against this one, but two repeals for the same resolution being drafted simultaneously aren't good.

We've seen your "proposals" and are confident DSR can draft a far better one.

[Old Hope]

Do you still want to try this? I'd like to draft a repeal against this one, but two repeals for the same resolution being drafted simultaneously aren't good.

We've seen your "proposals" and are confident DSR can draft a far better one.

Oh, well, since the ambassador of DSR seems to ignore us, we published a draft.

[Separatist Peoples]

We've seen your "proposals" and are confident DSR can draft a far better one.

Oh, well, since the ambassador of DSR seems to ignore us, we published a draft.

"One that narrowly avoids outright endorsing eugenics. Choosing between the two, I'll take legalized incest over that."

[Krieg-Deathworld]

Any chance I get to control the private lives of my citizens gets a yes from me.

[Old Hope]

Any chance I get to control the private lives of my citizens gets a yes from me.

I think that this proposal needs to be repealed, however, it should get replaced by a better version. To stop those who think like that.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: A test submission of this drew over 60 approvals without a campaign. Based on that, I think that despite the extremely negative reaction this received on the forum, it would be worth persevering with.

However, I did get a couple of TGs saying that we should just "amend" the resolution instead. This is a common misunderstanding among players who don't frequent the forums. Can anyone remember if it would be legal to include a line like this:

Fully aware that the only means of remedying this situation is to repeal the resolution given it cannot be amended or otherwise altered,

[The Miskatonic Valley]

OOC: A test submission of this drew over 60 approvals without a campaign. Based on that, I think that despite the extremely negative reaction this received on the forum, it would be worth persevering with.

However, I did get a couple of TGs saying that we should just "amend" the resolution instead. This is a common misunderstanding among players who don't frequent the forums. Can anyone remember if it would be legal to include a line like this:

Fully aware that the only means of remedying this situation is to repeal the resolution given it cannot be amended or otherwise altered,

OOC: I would say that'd be legit, since it merely references game mechanics without actually attempting to change them. But then...me =/= mod.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: A test submission of this drew over 60 approvals without a campaign. Based on that, I think that despite the extremely negative reaction this received on the forum, it would be worth persevering with.

However, I did get a couple of TGs saying that we should just "amend" the resolution instead. This is a common misunderstanding among players who don't frequent the forums. Can anyone remember if it would be legal to include a line like this:

Fully aware that the only means of remedying this situation is to repeal the resolution given it cannot be amended or otherwise altered,

I honestly don't know if it would be legal. My question is why it is necessary. These points are always raised during repeal debates, but I don't recall a repeal ever being defeated specifically because certain players errantly preferred amendment over repeal.

EDIT: How about, instead of putting a line about it in the repeal, you include a note about it in your campaign TG, with a helpful link to Fris's post? That way, assuming all active delegates have had a glance at your TG prior to vote, the amendment thing may be less of an issue during debate.

[Belrune]

I can support this bill. While I support the right of consenting adults to be together. We have to protect the gene pool.

Now, we also have to remember that not all relationships and marriages end in procreation. There is no reason, under the logic used, to ban same sex incest, or incest between couples who are unable to procreate, such as a women who has her tubes tied.

[Ardchoilleans]

Can anyone remember if it would be legal to include a line like this:

Fully aware that the only means of remedying this situation is to repeal the resolution given it cannot be amended or otherwise altered,

I think that dropping that from the proposal and dealing with the uninformed by TG is the simplest solution. Why drive straight at a barrier when you can justs swerve around it?

[Borq]

This repeal proposal is absurd.
Even the form and the language of the repeal (not to mention the actual content and arguments) are clearly inferior to the ones in the Sexual Privacy Act. Read them both, compare them, then dismiss this repeal as it deserves.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I can support this bill. While I support the right of consenting adults to be together. We have to protect the gene pool.
Now, we also have to remember that not all relationships and marriages end in procreation. There is no reason, under the logic used, to ban same sex incest, or incest between couples who are unable to procreate, such as a women who has her tubes tied.

"Except of course, for the fact that incest is an abomination, unfit for civilized society."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I can support this bill. While I support the right of consenting adults to be together. We have to protect the gene pool.
Now, we also have to remember that not all relationships and marriages end in procreation. There is no reason, under the logic used, to ban same sex incest, or incest between couples who are unable to procreate, such as a women who has her tubes tied.

"Except of course, for the fact that incest is an abomination, unfit for civilized society."

Bah. "anything in the rivers that has not fins and scales" is an abomination too, but you don't see anyone trying to ban them.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Except of course, for the fact that incest is an abomination, unfit for civilized society."

Bah. "anything in the rivers that has not fins and scales" is an abomination too, but you don't see anyone trying to ban them.

Bell quickly tucks his newest bill, Ban Gross Aquatic Abominations, under his briefcase. "Er, yes. Religion is an abomination and a gross perversion of nature, yet we allow it and even protect it. Seems only fair that it allows us similar leeway."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Can anyone remember if it would be legal to include a line like this:

Fully aware that the only means of remedying this situation is to repeal the resolution given it cannot be amended or otherwise altered,

I think that dropping that from the proposal and dealing with the uninformed by TG is the simplest solution. Why drive straight at a barrier when you can justs swerve around it?

Because virtually none of the "uninformed" will read the telegram, given it only goes to delegates.

That said, this will be the approach when I submit this, hopefully next week.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We've switched around the main clause: instead of saying that closely related people have a danger of passing on birth defects, we've switched it to saying that such children are in danger of inheriting birth defects. This makes sense to us because it is the children the argument is concerned with, rather than the sexual partners - whether or not there is any inherent danger in sex between family members to themselves is not the subject of this repeal.

"This is now the final draft unless any glaring issues are pointed out, but we're not going to add or change the substantive argument."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Abazhaka]

you cant repeal a resolution for being illegal