Banning Sex Trafficking

[Cerberion]

The WA should not be trying to legalize prostitution, and likewise we should not need legislation that has anything to do with the subject.

I agree that the WA shouldn't need a prostitution resolution, unfortunately there are people, OK one person, who insists that we do.

If the WA wants to regulate prostitution, it needs to go ahead and regulate every other potential job of work.

Have you read the resolution list? There are several resolutions that regulate jobs.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

For sure. The key word there was every. I frankly would prefer that the WA avoid regulating any job.

[The Sinon State]

Looking this over, I like it for the most part. It allows individual nations the freedom to choose or not to choose legalization, as well as covers all areas I am concerned about except for one little thing. Accidents happen, its a fact of life. If a contraceptive failed I believe that there should be a mandatory guarantee that the same rights that protect a worker should say a safety harness fail. It's good that safety measures are mandatory, just would like to see safety nets in place to protect workers should problems arise.

[Mahaj]

Is this not covered by the previous trafficking resolution?

[Ugai]

I vote that we should ban sex traffiking. No one should be forced into such a degrading business

[Snefaldia]

Is this not covered by the previous trafficking resolution?

...which is why I've asked for a legality ruling before I continue. Did you read the thread?

[Falcania]

The WA should not be trying to legalize prostitution, and likewise we should not need legislation that has anything to do with the subject.

I agree that the WA shouldn't need a prostitution resolution, unfortunately there are people, OK one person, who insists that we do.

You can count me as a second delegate believing that a resolution to enshrine the right to work however you see fit is within the WA's purview. We wouldn't need this resolution for, say, carpentry, but that is because no nations would ban carpenters because they see them as morally indecent.

[Snefaldia]

Opinions on the so-called "right to whore" are not necessary in this thread- I have stated before and I will state it again: this draft WILL NOT have a clause forcing prostitution onto countries where it isn't wanted.

This draft WILL, however, erect impediments to the illegal trade in persons for commercial sex acts, because I am not so stupid to believe that prostitution doesn't exist in countries where it is illegal.

All comments henceforth equating prostitution with a right to work or calling it a basic right or demanding I put a clause to that effect in this draft will be summarily ignored.

N. Taranton
etc.

[Erendi]

The Commonwealth of Erendi would like to to go on record as supporting this proposal.

[Cerberion]

I agree that the WA shouldn't need a prostitution resolution, unfortunately there are people, OK one person, who insists that we do.

You can count me as a second delegate believing that a resolution to enshrine the right to work however you see fit is within the WA's purview. We wouldn't need this resolution for, say, carpentry, but that is because no nations would ban carpenters because they see them as morally indecent.

Actually, in religion anything can be classified as sinful.
Perhaps maiming the tree with the saw might be a most aggregious sin and should be punished with stoning.

If we have to try and put in legislation to protect people who work in potentially illegal trades, then we've got a heck of a lot of work to do.

[Ardchoille]

OK, bad news first: yes, it duplicates GA#23. The Hive Mind did take account of the precedent we've set with several "rights" proposals post-CoCR. That argument would have seen your proposal as extending #23's primary, generalised "securing rights" aspect to a secondary, specific area, prostitution.

However, this was the stumbling-block:

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;

The argument boils down to this: #23 doesn't state that it applies only to people who do not get money for their services. It's "any person"; it doesn't need extending. "Commercial sex workers" are already covered by it.

On WAR#4, we accepted that Restrictions on Child Labor is a labour law. It was felt that forbidding a sex trafficking law on the basis that GA#4 exists would be like saying a nation can't have laws aimed specifically at drug lords because the tax laws already cover people who don't declare all sources of income.

On WAR#16, we took this as the core of what it's about:

Article 3 (Sexual privacy and its conditions of application)

(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.

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.

Also, just emphasising again, as other posters have said: the fact that it's a blocker isn't the illegality.

[Snefaldia]

Thank you for your response. I will continue to work on the draft to address the findings.