[DRAFT] Sexual Freedoms

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik smiled broadly as he took the floor: "In the event that the Sexual Privacy Act is repealed, the Queendom offers the following draft as a potential replacement:"

Sexual Freedoms^{Second Draft}
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Alqania

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

AFFIRMING the individual's right to sexual privacy and to self-determination in sexual and reproductive matters,

HEREBY:

FORBIDS member states from prohibiting, criminalising or otherwise regulating sexual acts that take place in private between individuals consenting in good faith and free of duress,

REQUIRES member states to criminalise and duly punish all sexual acts performed against a non-consenting individual,

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

PROHIBITS member states from invalidating sexual consent based on the individual's sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin, religious or political opinion, cultural or linguistic identity, marital status, reproductive ability or in any similarly discriminatory fashion,

ALLOWS member states to exempt from this resolution and to prohibit, criminalise or otherwise regulate sexual acts that:
a) are performed between close family members AND can result in offspring AND pose a non-negligible risk of passing on congenital birth defects to said offspring, OR
b) constitute an exercise of undue influence against a minor, dependant or other individual under the authority or responsibility of the sexual partner,

INSISTS that member states must not apply any exception under the previous clause in any discriminatory fashion with regards to sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, etcetera,

BANS all use of sterilisation, castration and other methods with the aim of removing or limiting reproductive ability or sexual function, when done in any mandatory fashion, as a criminal punishment, as a condition of release from incarceration, involuntary psychiatric commitment or other deprivation of liberty, as a condition of legal recognition in any sex or gender identity, as a condition of marriage, as a condition of citizenship, resident status, migration rights, etcetera, as a contractual commitment and in any other circumstance where it is not clearly and explicitly the free and unsolicited choice of the individual to undergo the particular procedure in question.

• Removed exceptions b) (STI/STD) and c) (public exposure) and incorporated reversed positives into the first operative clause (consenting "in good faith" and the act taking place "in private" respectively), following Kenny's suggestion and considering feedback from the Bananamen, The Dark Star Republic and Defwa
• Renumbered exception d) as b)
• Removed the legal competency language, upon further reflection on Resolution #299

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

AFFIRMING the individual's right to sexual privacy and to self-determination in sexual and reproductive matters,

HEREBY:

FORBIDS member states from prohibiting, criminalising or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals that take place in private between individuals consenting in good faith and free of duress,

REQUIRES member states to criminalise and duly punish all sexual acts performed against a non-consenting individual,

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, as well as any individual otherwise deemed legally incompetent, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

PROHIBITS member states from invalidating sexual consent based on the individual's sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin, religious or political opinion, cultural or linguistic identity, marital status, reproductive ability or in any similarly discriminatory fashion,

ALLOWS member states to exempt from this resolution and to prohibit, criminalise or otherwise regulate sexual acts that:
a) are performed between close family members AND can result in offspring AND pose a non-negligible risk of passing on congenital birth defects to said offspring, OR
b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR
c) are performed in public, or at a venue to which the public has access, or similarly outside the individual's private sphere, OR
d) b) constitute an exercise of undue influence against a minor, dependant or other individual under the authority or responsibility of the sexual partner,

INSISTS that member states must not apply any exception under the previous clause in any discriminatory fashion with regards to sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, etcetera,

BANS all use of sterilisation, castration and other methods with the aim of removing or limiting reproductive ability or sexual function, when done in any mandatory fashion, as a criminal punishment, as a condition of release from incarceration, involuntary psychiatric commitment or other deprivation of liberty, as a condition of legal recognition in any sex or gender identity, as a condition of marriage, as a condition of citizenship, resident status, migration rights, etcetera, as a contractual commitment and in any other circumstance where it is not clearly and explicitly the free and unsolicited choice of the individual to undergo the particular procedure in question.

This version is obsolete. See newest draft at top of post.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

AFFIRMING the individual's right to sexual privacy and to self-determination in sexual and reproductive matters,

HEREBY:

FORBIDS member states from prohibiting, criminalising or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals,

REQUIRES member states to criminalise and duly punish all sexual acts performed against a non-consenting individual,

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, as well as any individual otherwise deemed legally incompetent, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

PROHIBITS member states from invalidating sexual consent based on the individual's sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin, religious or political opinion, cultural or linguistic identity, marital status, reproductive ability or in any similarly discriminatory fashion,

ALLOWS member states to exempt from this resolution and to prohibit, criminalise or otherwise regulate sexual acts that:
a) are performed between close family members AND can result in offspring AND pose a non-negligible risk of passing on congenital birth defects to said offspring, OR
b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR
c) are performed in public, or at a venue to which the public has access, or similarly outside the individual's private sphere, OR
d) constitute an exercise of undue influence against a minor, dependant or other individual under the authority or responsibility of the sexual partner,

INSISTS that member states must not apply any exception under the previous clause in any discriminatory fashion with regards to sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, etcetera,

BANS all use of sterilisation, castration and other methods with the aim of removing or limiting reproductive ability or sexual function, when done in any mandatory fashion, as a criminal punishment, as a condition of release from incarceration, involuntary psychiatric commitment or other deprivation of liberty, as a condition of legal recognition in any sex or gender identity, as a condition of marriage, as a condition of citizenship, resident status, migration rights, etcetera, as a contractual commitment and in any other circumstance where it is not clearly and explicitly the free and unsolicited choice of the individual to undergo the particular procedure in question.

[Elke and Elba]

"Lovely, my dear Lord.

Would you mind getting the other two chambers to shut their doors? I think we have a worthy successor of a proposal here; their services are not needed any more."

Ambassador Norrland then takes two big locks and heads to the next two chambers to lock their doors, where similarly named bills are being "debated" upon.

[Old Hope]

BANS all use of sterilisation, castration and other methods with the aim of removing or limiting reproductive ability or sexual function, when done in any mandatory fashion, as a criminal punishment, as a condition of release from incarceration, involuntary psychiatric commitment or other deprivation of liberty, as a condition of legal recognition in any sex or gender identity, as a condition of marriage, as a condition of citizenship, resident status, migration rights, etcetera, as a contractual commitment and in any other circumstance where it is not clearly and explicitly the free and unsolicited choice of the individual to undergo the particular procedure in question.

No.
We want to be able to use forced sterilization as last option against overpopulation when all other measures have failed.

PROHIBITS member states from invalidating sexual consent based on the individual's sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin, religious or political opinion, cultural or linguistic identity, marital status, reproductive ability or in any similarly discriminatory fashion,

Duplication-CoCR.

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, as well as any individual otherwise deemed legally incompetent, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

previous clauses, you mean...

ALLOWS member states to exempt from this resolution and to prohibit, criminalise or otherwise regulate sexual acts that:
a) are performed between close family members AND can result in offspring AND pose a non-negligible risk of passing on congenital birth defects to said offspring, OR
b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR

The ambassador of Separatist Peoples said that a clause like that could include the common cold.

c) are performed in public, or at a venue to which the public has access, or similarly outside the individual's private sphere, OR

Inviting a prostitute to your home is better not included, or you get problems with the Clean Prostitute Act.

d) constitute an exercise of undue influence against a minor, dependant or other individual under the authority or responsibility of the sexual partner,

Needs some work.

[Bananaistan]

Unfortunately we could not agree with this due to the Allows clause part b. Pozes are entitled to get their rocks off too without being criminalised. We would support only such a clause if it were qualified by non-disclosure, IE the actual sex act by such a person should not be criminalised, rather non-disclosure by an infected person to a sexual partner of the fact of their being infected should be the only crime.

Ofc,as already indicated, we would much prefer see the current resolution remain on the books.

[Old Hope]

"Lovely, my dear Lord.

Would you mind getting the other two chambers to shut their doors? I think we have a worthy successor of a proposal here; their services are not needed any more."

Ambassador Norrland then takes two big locks and heads to the next two chambers to lock their doors, where similarly named bills are being "debated" upon.

I'll take a lock, but I might reopen it later if the result of these draft discussions is not acceptable in our view.

[Alqania]

BANS all use of sterilisation, castration and other methods with the aim of removing or limiting reproductive ability or sexual function, when done in any mandatory fashion, as a criminal punishment, as a condition of release from incarceration, involuntary psychiatric commitment or other deprivation of liberty, as a condition of legal recognition in any sex or gender identity, as a condition of marriage, as a condition of citizenship, resident status, migration rights, etcetera, as a contractual commitment and in any other circumstance where it is not clearly and explicitly the free and unsolicited choice of the individual to undergo the particular procedure in question.

No.
We want to be able to use forced sterilization as last option against overpopulation when all other measures have failed.

"Your Excellency's request is denied", responded Lord Raekevik.

PROHIBITS member states from invalidating sexual consent based on the individual's sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin, religious or political opinion, cultural or linguistic identity, marital status, reproductive ability or in any similarly discriminatory fashion,

Duplication-CoCR.

"Precedent would indicate that minor duplication of the CoCR of this sort is legal."

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, as well as any individual otherwise deemed legally incompetent, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

previous clauses, you mean...

"No, the word 'non-consenting' only appears in the one clause directly above."

ALLOWS member states to exempt from this resolution and to prohibit, criminalise or otherwise regulate sexual acts that:
a) are performed between close family members AND can result in offspring AND pose a non-negligible risk of passing on congenital birth defects to said offspring, OR
b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR

The ambassador of Separatist Peoples said that a clause like that could include the common cold.

"Perhaps the language needs to be a bit more restrictive, then. Not too bad, we will look into it."

c) are performed in public, or at a venue to which the public has access, or similarly outside the individual's private sphere, OR

Inviting a prostitute to your home is better not included, or you get problems with the Clean Prostitute Act.

"Sorry? I have no idea really what this comment is supposed to mean."

d) constitute an exercise of undue influence against a minor, dependant or other individual under the authority or responsibility of the sexual partner,

Needs some work.

"What is wrong with it?"

Unfortunately we could not agree with this due to the Allows clause part b. Pozes are entitled to get their rocks off too without being criminalised. We would support only such a clause if it were qualified by non-disclosure, IE the actual sex act by such a person should not be criminalised, rather non-disclosure by an infected person to a sexual partner of the fact of their being infected should be the only crime.

Ofc,as already indicated, we would much prefer see the current resolution remain on the books.

"The Alqanian delegation is grateful for Your Excellency's feedback and will take it into consideration. We do plan to review the sub-clause in question."

[Old Hope]

Inviting a prostitute to your home is better not included, or you get problems with the Clean Prostitute Act.

"Sorry? I have no idea really what this comment is supposed to mean."

This:

viewtopic.php?p=8487479#p8487479
as a source of possible contradictions.

No.
We want to be able to use forced sterilization as last option against overpopulation when all other measures have failed.

"Your Excellency's request is denied", responded Lord Raekevik.

May I ask why? After all, if everyone agrees that something needs to be done against overpopulation, but no one wants to cease reproduction for themselves... The alternative, should this resolution be passed, is killing sapient beings, which is surely less desirable.

[Alqania]

"Sorry? I have no idea really what this comment is supposed to mean."

This:

viewtopic.php?p=8487479#p8487479
as a source of possible contradictions.

"Yes, I am very well aware of the existence of the CPA, not the least since I was the author of the repeal of the resolution that it 'replaced'. But the idea that this proposal would contradict the CPA is rather nonsensical."

"Your Excellency's request is denied", responded Lord Raekevik.

May I ask why? After all, if everyone agrees that something needs to be done against overpopulation, but no one wants to cease reproduction for themselves... The alternative, should this resolution be passed, is killing sapient beings, which is surely less desirable.

Lord Raekevik glared disapprovingly at the Ambassador. "The notion that the only options are forced sterilisation and summary executions is obviously a false dichotomy. In any case, the clause is designed to ban forced sterilisation as that is a deplorable practice in any circumstance, much like summary execution; the clause is designed to prevent member state governments from exerting population control through forced and irrevocable surgical intervention on its people, so I cannot fathom why anyone would expect me to accommodate whatever deranged and perverted regime Your Excellency represents in allowing the very atrocity the clause sets out to ban."

[Lucifugus]

After much hmming and a careful adjustment of her glasses, the Lucifugan ambassador rises with a mild but approving smile on her face.

"While one would hope that a replacement doesn't become necessary, I would readily offer my support for this draft. Certainly more than the others presently at debate. Might I also add that Lucifugus stands in solidarity with your ban on forced sterilization. To force such a thing on someone in any circumstance is starkly inhumane, to put it mildly, no matter what supposed 'good intent' a lawmaker might have behind it."

[Old Hope]

Lord Raekevik glared disapprovingly at the Ambassador. "The notion that the only options are forced sterilisation and summary executions is obviously a false dichotomy. In any case, the clause is designed to ban forced sterilisation as that is a deplorable practice in any circumstance, much like summary execution; the clause is designed to prevent member state governments from exerting population control through forced and irrevocable surgical intervention on its people, so I cannot fathom why anyone would expect me to accommodate whatever deranged and perverted regime Your Excellency represents in allowing the very atrocity the clause sets out to ban."

Please note that we would like not to sterilize parts of the population, and would try any other approach first(besides killing sapient beings)
Please also note that overpopulation can lead to various catastrophic results, like mass starvation or even extinction.
And if we had to choose between those alternatives, forced sterilization would be the better one.
We would use forced sterilization only in these cases, when all other more suitable methods like awareness programs have failed, and, of course, not discriminatory.
(neither Convention on Execution nor Convention against genocide apply here. For COE, this is not criminal punishment, and for CAG, there is no intent to destroy, but rather save the whole population)
And this resolution would even hinder us to forbid excess reproduction through other means.

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik glared disapprovingly at the Ambassador. "The notion that the only options are forced sterilisation and summary executions is obviously a false dichotomy. In any case, the clause is designed to ban forced sterilisation as that is a deplorable practice in any circumstance, much like summary execution; the clause is designed to prevent member state governments from exerting population control through forced and irrevocable surgical intervention on its people, so I cannot fathom why anyone would expect me to accommodate whatever deranged and perverted regime Your Excellency represents in allowing the very atrocity the clause sets out to ban."

Please note that we would like not to sterilize parts of the population, and would try any other approach first(besides killing sapient beings)
Please also note that overpopulation can lead to various catastrophic results, like mass starvation or even extinction.
And if we had to choose between those alternatives, forced sterilization would be the better one.
We would use forced sterilization only in these cases, when all other more suitable methods like awareness programs have failed, and, of course, not discriminatory.
(neither Convention on Execution nor Convention against genocide apply here. For COE, this is not criminal punishment, and for CAG, there is no intent to destroy, but rather save the whole population)
And this resolution would even hinder us to forbid excess reproduction through other means.

"Oh for the..." Lord Raekevik rolled his eyes. "If the regime Your Excellency represents would in the future be such a failed state that overpopulation crippled it to the brink of extinction, I cannot really imagine how it would maintain law and order and membership in the World Assembly. Nor how it would go about enforcing sterilisation on everyone - mob castrations?"

"The very point of this proposal is to hinder member state governments from interfering in sex and reproduction. I would advise Your Excellency to just give up trying to make the Alqanian delegation accommodate the barbaric practices for which Your Excellency seems to have a fetish, because it will not happen."

[Old Hope]

Please note that we would like not to sterilize parts of the population, and would try any other approach first(besides killing sapient beings)
Please also note that overpopulation can lead to various catastrophic results, like mass starvation or even extinction.
And if we had to choose between those alternatives, forced sterilization would be the better one.
We would use forced sterilization only in these cases, when all other more suitable methods like awareness programs have failed, and, of course, not discriminatory.
(neither Convention on Execution nor Convention against genocide apply here. For COE, this is not criminal punishment, and for CAG, there is no intent to destroy, but rather save the whole population)
And this resolution would even hinder us to forbid excess reproduction through other means.

"Oh for the..." Lord Raekevik rolled his eyes. "If the regime Your Excellency represents would in the future be such a failed state that overpopulation crippled it to the brink of extinction, I cannot really imagine how it would maintain law and order and membership in the World Assembly. Nor how it would go about enforcing sterilisation on everyone - mob castrations?"

"The very point of this proposal is to hinder member state governments from interfering in sex and reproduction. I would advise Your Excellency to just give up trying to make the Alqanian delegation accommodate the barbaric practices for which Your Excellency seems to have a fetish, because it will not happen."

What would you do if your country develops a massive overpopulation problems, and simple encouragement was tried and failed, ambassador?

[Confederated Autonomies]

"Straightforward and admirable. The Autonomies would proudly support the measure."

[Jarish Inyo]

Why shouldn't a nations use forced sterilization on repeat sexual offenders?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We have a few reservations about this proposal, though we accept how churlish it is to be nitpicking its writing while simultaneously trying to repeal a more expansive guarantee of sexual privacy.

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, as well as any individual otherwise deemed legally incompetent, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

"This would seem to invalidate Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter laws.

b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR

"This is too much. If such acts can be restricted, that should only be done in a case where the individual knows they have the infection and the other does not know. As written, states could pass laws punishing people who didn't know they had STIs.

c) are performed in public, or at a venue to which the public has access, or similarly outside the individual's private sphere, OR

"Would this include the sex industry, including prostitution and pornography? For example, "regulating" such sexual activities by requiring that sex industry workers are tested for infectious diseases.

"We don't necessarily expect our objections to be given much credence given they could quite reasonably be dismissed with "Well then, don't repeal the SPA", but we offer them anyway on what appears to be a very promising draft."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Alqania]

Why shouldn't a nations use forced sterilization on repeat sexual offenders?

"Because even repeat sexual offenders have rights?"

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, as well as any individual otherwise deemed legally incompetent, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

"This would seem to invalidate Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter laws.

"The Queendom would be perfectly happy with that", admitted Lord Raekevik, "but then again we do have a criminal justice system where to 'duly punish' a teenager also means to take their young age into consideration. We will give this matter some thought."

b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR

"This is too much. If such acts can be restricted, that should only be done in a case where the individual knows they have the infection and the other does not know. As written, states could pass laws punishing people who didn't know they had STIs.

"We are grateful for the feedback here, as we have heard a somewhat similar objection from the distinguished Bananamen Ambassador and we fully intend to review this language with the aim of making it more restrictive in scope."

c) are performed in public, or at a venue to which the public has access, or similarly outside the individual's private sphere, OR

"Would this include the sex industry, including prostitution and pornography? For example, "regulating" such sexual activities by requiring that sex industry workers are tested for infectious diseases.

"Possibly. Frankly, we find it quite desirable that member states be allowed to regulate businesses."

"We don't necessarily expect our objections to be given much credence given they could quite reasonably be dismissed with "Well then, don't repeal the SPA", but we offer them anyway on what appears to be a very promising draft."

"Once again, we are grateful for the feedback as it has been very constructive and presumably given in good faith for the purposes of improving this draft. On a tangentially related note, perhaps it would be prudent to affirm that this draft is a sincere replacement draft, not a mere scarecrow to use as an argument against the repeal."

[Old Hope]

Rights. Yes, people have the right to reproduce, and to do sexual acts.
This right, however, can be in conflict with other rights
If you do sexual acts publicly, you are forcing others to see your sexual act.
If you have a sexually transmitted disease, you have to tell that or consent isn't there. If it is epidemic, and can be spread through other means, you are harming others, violating their rights.
If people reproduce to the point of overpopulation, their actions threaten others.
The appropiate measure is to restrict reproduction.

[Separatist Peoples]

Rights. Yes, people have the right to reproduce, and to do sexual acts.
This right, however, can be in conflict with other rights

"Lets break this down, shall we?"

If you do sexual acts publicly, you are forcing others to see your sexual act.

See sub-clause C of the Allows section. It addresses this."

If you have a sexually transmitted disease, you have to tell that or consent isn't there. If it is epidemic, and can be spread through other means, you are harming others, violating their rights.

"Perhaps in your nation. Many nations operate on a "implied risk" mantra for these sorts of things. It only becomes an issue if the infected individual is, with malice of forethought, deliberately attempting to spread it in many nations."

If people reproduce to the point of overpopulation, their actions threaten others.
The appropiate measure is to restrict reproduction, with force when absolutely necessary for the wellbeing of the entire population.

"And how, praytell, would Old Hope be deciding who does reproduce and who doesn't under these circumstances? The claim that the rights of the many are paramount to the rights of the few in almost every circumstance. Its the same argument used to defend genocide, torture, general oppression, and any number of other crimes against humanity. Just because Old Hope is looking to become the next Orwellian dystopia doesn't mean the WA ought to let that happen."

[Old Hope]

If people reproduce to the point of overpopulation, their actions threaten others.
The appropiate measure is to restrict reproduction, with force when absolutely necessary for the wellbeing of the entire population.

"And how, praytell, would Old Hope be deciding who does reproduce and who doesn't under these circumstances? The claim that the rights of the many are paramount to the rights of the few in almost every circumstance. Its the same argument used to defend genocide, torture, general oppression, and any number of other crimes against humanity. Just because Old Hope is looking to become the next Orwellian dystopia doesn't mean the WA ought to let that happen."[/quote]
It is not the same, ambassador. You could, for example, restrict the number of descendants to 1 for everyone. That would be non-discriminatory.
And about genocide, torture... the measures used are in a mismatch of what is protected.
If, for example, members of a religious group decide to fight against us until death with lethal force, we will imprison, or, if neccessary to protect the lives of others, kill those. This is not because we would want to destroy a religion, but rather protect our rights.
If a group of people, large or not, partipiciate willingly in excessive procreation which leads to serious overpopulation(and only then), resulting in mass starvation, breakdown of order and maybe even complete extinction, it is an appropiate measure to stop them through reproductive restrictions, or even forced sterilization if no other way can be found.
Torture isn't justified because it is not only a very serious ignorance of rights, but also not effective for information purposes(defense of self and others), and we can see no justification to use it as punishment(It has also only negative effects)

[Defwa]

CLARIFIES that any individual below a national or sub-national age of consent or equivalent threshold of sexual maturity, or in lack of such a threshold any prepubescent individual, as well as any individual otherwise deemed legally incompetent, shall be considered non-consenting in the application of the previous clause,

ALLOWS member states to exempt from this resolution and to prohibit, criminalise or otherwise regulate sexual acts that:
a) are performed between close family members AND can result in offspring AND pose a non-negligible risk of passing on congenital birth defects to said offspring, OR
b) pose a non-negligible risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections established to be carried by the individual in question, OR
c) are performed in public, or at a venue to which the public has access, or similarly outside the individual's private sphere, OR
d) constitute an exercise of undue influence against a minor, dependant or other individual under the authority or responsibility of the sexual partner,

BANS all use of sterilisation, castration and other methods with the aim of removing or limiting reproductive ability or sexual function, when done in any mandatory fashion, as a criminal punishment, as a condition of release from incarceration, involuntary psychiatric commitment or other deprivation of liberty, as a condition of legal recognition in any sex or gender identity, as a condition of marriage, as a condition of citizenship, resident status, migration rights, etcetera, as a contractual commitment and in any other circumstance where it is not clearly and explicitly the free and unsolicited choice of the individual to undergo the particular procedure in question.[/box]

(Image)

Instead of tripping over the determination of who is able to give consent, why not just use "legally competent". Every member nation is required to have a definition of that due to GAR299, a resolution whose express purpose was to get us to stop having to wrestle over the concept with every resolution.

The allowance to ban sex where one party has an STD can be dangerous. First off, as stated, a cold can be transmitted during a sex act and second, in the case of semi-permanent diseases like HIV the risk of transmission can be greatly limited by proper education and medication. If we turn people with those sorts of STDs into lepers, though, you risk people lying about their status and creating a greater risk to everyone and neglecting treatment to hold off stigma.

With regards to forced sterilization, Old Hope is making it sound as if he's trying to round up people and neuter people against their will, which I think he should be reminded is already illegal if I recall due to regulations against forced medical procedures. But I'm a huge supporter of the way it is handled in this proposal and should SPA not be repealed, I would love to see anti forced sterilization rules like these to come up in another proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

It is not the same, ambassador. You could, for example, restrict the number of descendants to 1 for everyone. That would be non-discriminatory.

"Considering it would be only Old Hope inhabitants being targeted, that sounds fairly discriminatory for your situation. However, non-discriminatory tools of oppression and torture are still - SURPRISE!- examples of crimes against humanity.

And about genocide, torture... the measures used are in a mismatch of what is protected.

"That is a highly subjective statement. The elimination of undesirable ethnic groups may very well be considered worth the preservation of another ethnic group in the minds of the exterminators. Try objectivity. Its much more reliable."

If, for example, members of a religious group decide to fight against us until death with lethal force, we will imprison, or, if neccessary to protect the lives of others, kill those. This is not because we would want to destroy a religion, but rather protect our rights.

"This has no bearing whatsoever on the argument at hand."

If a group of people, large or not, partipiciate willingly in excessive procreation which leads to serious overpopulation(and only then), resulting in mass starvation, breakdown of order and maybe even complete extinction, it is an appropiate measure to stop them through reproductive restrictions, or even forced sterilization if no other way can be found.

"No, because, ignoring the fact that that would already be illegal, you cannot forcibly sterilize everybody, or you'd ensure your extinction as surely as you'd assure it if you did nothing. As such, the actions would be discriminatory by definition. Even if you didn't use so permanent an option, your decisions on who would reproduce would have a similar issue, and would again be using the exact same mantra that torture and genocide defenders use: the rights of the many are paramount to the rights of the few. Repeating that mantra gives your position no more credence than the others managed."

Torture isn't justified because it is not only a very serious ignorance of rights, but also not effective for information purposes(defense of self and others), and we can see no justification to use it as punishment(It has also only negative effects)

"Funny, forcible sterilization is an equally serious violation of rights that has only negative effects."

[Stormwind-City]

The Ambassador stands on her chair to be seen
"While I cannot officially endorse this until the next monarch is crowned, whoever that may be, however I will announce that our delegation does support such a proposal."

[Old Hope]

It is not the same, ambassador. You could, for example, restrict the number of descendants to 1 for everyone. That would be non-discriminatory.

"Considering it would be only Old Hope inhabitants being targeted, that sounds fairly discriminatory for your situation. However, non-discriminatory tools of oppression and torture are still - SURPRISE!- examples of crimes against humanity.

And about genocide, torture... the measures used are in a mismatch of what is protected.

"That is a highly subjective statement. The elimination of undesirable ethnic groups may very well be considered worth the preservation of another ethnic group in the minds of the exterminators. Try objectivity. Its much more reliable."

If, for example, members of a religious group decide to fight against us until death with lethal force, we will imprison, or, if neccessary to protect the lives of others, kill those. This is not because we would want to destroy a religion, but rather protect our rights.

"This has no bearing whatsoever on the argument at hand."

If a group of people, large or not, partipiciate willingly in excessive procreation which leads to serious overpopulation(and only then), resulting in mass starvation, breakdown of order and maybe even complete extinction, it is an appropiate measure to stop them through reproductive restrictions, or even forced sterilization if no other way can be found.

"No, because, ignoring the fact that that would already be illegal, you cannot forcibly sterilize everybody, or you'd ensure your extinction as surely as you'd assure it if you did nothing. As such, the actions would be discriminatory by definition. Even if you didn't use so permanent an option, your decisions on who would reproduce would have a similar issue, and would again be using the exact same mantra that torture and genocide defenders use: the rights of the many are paramount to the rights of the few. Repeating that mantra gives your position no more credence than the others managed."

Torture isn't justified because it is not only a very serious ignorance of rights, but also not effective for information purposes(defense of self and others), and we can see no justification to use it as punishment(It has also only negative effects)

"Funny, forcible sterilization is an equally serious violation of rights that has only negative effects."

We never forced sterilization on someone(yet), and we would never use it as criminal punishment.While we may persuaded that forced sterilization is not a good idea regardless of circumstances, we don't believe that restrictions on reproduction are generally inherently evil even if that reproduction causes a severe loss in public health, public safety, welfare and economy to the point of mass starvation, riots,a breakdown of order, horrible living conditions for lots of sapient beings, and lots of cruel deaths.

[Presbyterians of Hofle]

The Presbyterians of Hofle STRONGLY oppose this bill. It is our nation's right to ban sexually immoral acts, as they are against God, and, frankly, we don't want to be judged by God too hard.

[Old Hope]

The Presbyterians of Hofle STRONGLY oppose this bill. It is our nation's right to ban sexually immoral acts, as they are against God, and, frankly, we don't want to be judged by God too hard.

The World Assembly has an even stricter(you could say too strict) law currently. But as long as you are not in the World Assembly, you aren't affected by this.