[IDEA] Problem with "Clean Prostitute Act"

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Flib never intended NAPA (Nuclear Arms Possession Act) to legalize deployment or use of nuclear weapons, just their possession as a deterrent. He was not a mod when he wrote it, either. In fact, he keeps threatening to pass a even broader NAPA if the first were ever repealed, allowing nations to use nukes as well as possess them.

[Unibot III]

Flib never intended NAPA (Nuclear Arms Possession Act) to legalize deployment or use of nuclear weapons, just their possession as a deterrent. He was not a mod when he wrote it, either. In fact, he keeps threatening to pass a even broader NAPA if the first were ever repealed, allowing nations to use nukes as well as possess them.

Ah, you're right!

There is another option that would not require repealing this proposal, should it pass. The World Assembly could pass a resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Possession would be legal, and any member of the World Assembly could stockpile as many as desired. Using them, however, would not be allowed while preserving the right to possess.

This omission of a "right to use" has been noted in the discussion and announced to be a deliberate omission. ("Yeah, that's a bone I throw the anti-nuke crowd, not that they ever notice.") A future resolution forbidding the use of nuclear weapons shouldn't therefore be considered a back-door repeal as the "right to use" has purposefully been left out.

For some reason, I recalled Flib being peeved when the mods ruled that usage was still allowed to be discussed.

Nonetheless, there's a lot of conceptual problems with banning usage but not banning possession -- there's no deterrence effect if your enemies know you can't use them and so it's just an invitation to stockpile dangerous weapons which can be stolen. :S

[The Dark Star Republic]

For some reason, I recalled Flib being peeved when the mods ruled that usage was still allowed to be discussed.

OOC: I'm fairly sure you're wrong.
viewtopic.php?p=89888#p89888
viewtopic.php?p=420068#p420068
viewtopic.php?p=746747#p746747
...and many more.

Nonetheless, there's a lot of conceptual problems with banning usage but not banning possession -- there's no deterrence effect if your enemies know you can't use them and so it's just an invitation to stockpile dangerous weapons which can be stolen.

Which has to do with prostitution...?

Not exactly helping your case that this isn't simply troublemaking for the sake of it.

[Unibot III]

Not exactly helping your case that this isn't simply troublemaking for the sake of it.

Personally, I don't like blockers, I find they're a cop-out and I would like to see Clean Prostitute Act off the books.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Not exactly helping your case that this isn't simply troublemaking for the sake of it.

Personally, I don't like blockers, I find they're a cop-out and I would like to see Clean Prostitute Act off the books.

OOC: Which has absolutely no relation to your original complaint, which was that Clean Prostitute Act didn't do a good enough job of being a blocker.

So, thanks, for making me regret taking you seriously for even half a second.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Let's start this shitstorm of a debate again.

No, don't. I remember the last time we got obsessed with this topic and we should not do this again.

[Unibot III]

Personally, I don't like blockers, I find they're a cop-out and I would like to see Clean Prostitute Act off the books.

OOC: Which has absolutely no relation to your original complaint, which was that Clean Prostitute Act didn't do a good enough job of being a blocker.

So, thanks, for making me regret taking you seriously for even half a second.

My original complaint was a genuine observation of something I hadn't noticed previously. The only difference is that I would not want to see the original resolution
replaced with another blocker . That is however, not really relevant to the discussion.

[The Dourian Embassy]

That is however, not really relevant to the discussion.

It's at least somewhat relevant.

[Unibot III]

That is however, not really relevant to the discussion.

It's at least somewhat relevant.

Well, I brought it up, but Dark Star is right in saying that's another topic altogether - it's not why I brought the problems up with the resolution, however it could affect what I would like to see as a replacement.

[Bears Armed]

Nonetheless, there's a lot of conceptual problems with banning usage but not banning possession -- there's no deterrence effect if your enemies know you can't use them and so it's just an invitation to stockpile dangerous weapons which can be stolen. :S

Except that you can -- and your enemies know that you can -- drop out of the WA and then, without any delay, use them...

[Unibot III]

Nonetheless, there's a lot of conceptual problems with banning usage but not banning possession -- there's no deterrence effect if your enemies know you can't use them and so it's just an invitation to stockpile dangerous weapons which can be stolen. :S

Except that you can -- and your enemies know that you can -- drop out of the WA and then, without any delay, use them...

*nods* Alright, I'll buy that, yes.

[Unibot III]

A reference question was submitted here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=281401

[Ardchoille]

Bump noted. Hang in there, please, things have been a little hectic.

[Unibot III]

Bump noted. Hang in there, please, things have been a little hectic.

I was just posting it here so I didn't forget about it. I know there's a backlog and such, it's cool.

[Unibot III]

Bump noted. Hang in there, please, things have been a little hectic.

I was just posting it here so I didn't forget about it. I know there's a backlog and such, it's cool.

*whistles innocently* I'm just hoping this hasn't been forgotten.

[Ardchoille]

<snip>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.

OK, further to this: we regard the first as the reasonable-nation reading, with "within the confines of international law" being the usual qualifying phrase on how the member nations shall make their decision -- when deciding whether and how to legalise or not, they must have regard to other, existing international laws (Resolutions).

On that basis, we answer your query:

<snip>

On Prostitution
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

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

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

Hereby,

1. Legalizes prostitution in all member-nations.

2. Decriminalizes prostitution in all member-nations.

Reference Questions:

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

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

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

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

Reason for #1: See the response to Auralia's "supplementary acts" draft here:

As we all know, the only legal way to totally reverse or amend an existing, international Resolution is to repeal it.

However, many nations use ingenious roleplayed national approaches to regulate, mitigate, enthusiastically promote, or even cancel out, the effects of Resolutions on their citizens.

But these are notoriously difficult to translate to international law because of the risk of contradiction, duplication or amendment of the existing Resolution. Or they may push the Assembly into more than it agreed to, as with recent attempts to regulate circumcision after the approval of the blocker Permit Male Circumcision.

<snip> ... the overall ruling is that authors cannot regulate an existing Resolution out of existence or into reversal. You may regulate, particularly if the original Resolution contains some “does not exclude further legislation” wording. But mods may still make the call that X amount of regulation goes too far. This did.

Reason for #2: Legalising prostitution in all member nations would contradict this clause of 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

That is, it would nullify the decision that CPA allows nations to make: to criminalise prostitution as their method of enforcing the decision not to legalise.

Reason for #3: States were given the right to legalise or to not legalise. There was only one condition, that requiring health screening. To specify decriminalising is to introduce another condition, one which limits how states implement their legalise/not legalise decision. As well as a contradiction, it could be seen as an amendment.

Points considered included:

Is it possible to "not legalise" (ban) without criminalising? Yes. Criminal law is the opposite side of the coin to civil law (US terminology: misdemeanours?). Criminal law seeks to punish an action that the state considers wrong in itself and to deter others from repeating it. Civil law is concerned with restitution, reparation, restoring the balance when a wrong or dispute has arisen between citizens. A state that considers prostitution inherently evil may ban it in the way it bans murder (criminalise). A state that considers prostitution merely a probable source of civic annoyance may ban it in the way it bans running red lights ("illegalise"). The Resolution leaves open the possibility for WA states to vary widely in how they enforce their "prostitution is not legal" decision, ranging from verbal admonition, through community service orders or fines of varying levels, to imprisonment.

To what degree is it possible to regulate legal prostitution? CPA makes it clear, by the addition of the health screening clause, that the WA expects "legalising" states to allow acts of prostitution to take place, but permits some limitation. There are already WA limits on what sort of work children may do. Licensing prostitutes, licensing brothels, restrictions on where brothels may be built or where and when prostitution may take place, penalties for failure to attend health screening, are all possibilities. However, WA states are bound by existing legislation, including the Charter of Civil Rights. A work-around might be to ensure that the limits on prostitution-related activities apply also to other activities -- eg, certain industries (not just brothels) may not be sited in residential areas or near schools or places of worship; certain professionals (not just prostitutes) may be fined for not attending health screening appropriate to their occupation; certain professionals must be licensed.

Translating this to international legislation specifically on prostitution runs the risk of being seen as amending CPA or, if not for compelling practical purposes, of clashing with CoCR, but could be dealt with via similarly generalised legislation on siting of industries, licensing of professionals, etc.

[Percussionland]

There is a proposal to repeal this resolution gathering approval now.

[Defwa]

There is a proposal to repeal this resolution gathering approval now.

'gathering approval'
Ha

[Mousebumples]

There is a proposal to repeal this resolution gathering approval now.

For future reference, it's generally not considered appropriate to promote your own proposals/repeals in other player's threads.