[DISCARDED] Right to sexual privacy

[Mousebumples]

Submitted draft on 26 January 2016
Category: human rights
Strength: significant

The General Assembly,

Recognising the rights of individuals to privacy in their sexual relationships,

Resolving to uphold and protect this right from undue interference, while

Affirming that society in general has a legitimate public interest in
- preventing procreation in incestuous unions,
- restricting the exploitation of vulnerable or underage individuals, and
- enforcing fair sexual ethics in professions,

Hereby:

1) Defines “individual sexual activity”, for the purposes of this resolution, as acts undertaken individually without any other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of the individual,

2) Defines “collective sexual activity”, for the purposes of this resolution, as acts undertaken with at least one other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants,

3) Defines “age of consent” as the age at which an individual is considered by local law to be legally responsible for actively consenting to engage in collective sexual activity,

4) Establishes the right of all individuals to privacy in their individual sexual activities,

5) Establishes the right of individuals who have reached the age of consent to privacy in their sexual relationships and collective sexual activities,

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

7) (a) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any collective sexual activity between consenting individuals who have reached the age of consent where such collective sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure, save that

(b) Member states are permitted to establish in law prohibited degrees of consanguinity and may restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise sexual activity between individuals falling within a prohibited degree of consanguinity but only to the extent that such sexual activity could result in procreation, or

(c) In respect of collective sexual activity by individuals who have responsibility for or authority over another individual, member states are permitted to restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise such collective sexual activity, but shall only hold accountable in law the individual in the position of responsibility or authority, or

(d) Member states are permitted to allow the exercise of disciplinary power by organisations on members and employees who engage in sexual activity with individuals for whom they are directly professionally responsible or otherwise directly exercise authority over,

Establishes the right of member states not to set an age of consent, in which case the protections of clauses 5 & 7 (a) shall apply only to individuals who are otherwise considered legally competent to conduct their own affairs within the particular jurisdiction,

9) Requires that member states exercise their discretionary powers under this resolution in a fair, unbiased and non-discriminatory manner. Should a member state or subdivisions thereof implement a national or local age of consent or legal competence law, such laws shall make no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall collective sexual activities be subcategorised in such laws.

Category: human rights
Strength: significant

The General Assembly

Recognising the rights of individuals to privacy in their sexual relationships,

Resolving to uphold and protect this right from undue interference, while

Affirming that society in general has a legitimate public interest in
- preventing procreation in incestuous unions,
- restricting the exploitation of vulnerable or underage individuals, and
- enforcing fair sexual ethics in professions,

Hereby

1) Defines “individual sexual activity” for the purposes of this resolution as acts undertaken individually without any other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of the individual,

2) Defines “collective sexual activity” for the purposes of this resolution as acts undertaken with at least one other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants,

3) Defines “age of consent” as the species specific age at which an individual is considered by local law to be legally responsible for explicitly consenting to engage in collective sexual activity,

4) Establishes the right of all individuals to privacy in their individual sexual activities,

5) Establishes the right of individuals who have reached the age of consent to privacy in their sexual relationships and collective sexual activities,

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

7) (a) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any collective sexual activity between consenting individuals who have reached the age of consent where such collective sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure, save that

(b) Member states are permitted to establish in law prohibited degrees of consanguinity and may restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise sexual activity between individuals falling within a prohibited degree of consanguinity but only to the extent that such sexual activity could result in procreation, or

(c) In respect of collective sexual activity by individuals who have responsibility for or authority over another individual, member states are permitted to restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise such collective sexual activity, but shall only hold accountable in law the individual in the position of responsibility or authority, or

(d) Member states are permitted to allow the exercise of disciplinary power by organisations on members and employees who engage in sexual activity with individuals for whom they are directly professionally responsible or otherwise directly exercise authority over.

8 ) Establishes the right of member states not to set an age of consent, in which case the protections of clauses 5 & 7 (a) shall apply only to individuals who are otherwise considered legally competent to conduct their own affairs within the particular jurisdiction,

9) Requires that member states exercise their discretionary powers under this resolution in a fair, unbiased and non-discriminatory manner. Should a member state or subdivisions thereof implement a national or local age of consent or legal competence law, such laws shall make no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall collective sexual activities be subcategorised in such laws.

Category: human rights
Strength: significant

The General Assembly

Recognising the rights of individuals to privacy in their sexual relationships,

Resolving to uphold and protect this right from undue interference, while

Affirming that society in general has a legitimate public interest in
- preventing procreation in incestuous unions,
- restricting the exploitation of vulnerable or underage individuals, and
- enforcing fair sexual ethics in professions,

Hereby

1) Defines “sexual activity” for the purposes of this resolution as acts undertaken with at least one other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants,

2) Defines “age of consent” as the species specific age at which an individual is considered by local law to be legally responsible for explicitly consenting to engage in sexual activity,

3) Establishes the right of individuals who have reached the age of consent to privacy in their sexual relationships and activities,

4) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any sexual activity between consenting individuals who have reached the age of consent where such sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

5) Establishes the right of member states not to set an age of consent, in which case the protections of clauses 3 & 4 shall apply only to individuals who are otherwise considered legally competent to conduct their own affairs within the particular jurisdiction,

6) Permits member states to set a degree of kinship for participants in sexual activity within which the protections of clauses 3 & 4 shall not apply but only to the extent where there is any possibility that such sexual activity could result in procreation,

7) The above clauses shall not be taken to prohibit the exercise of disciplinary power by organisations on members and employees who engage in sexual activity with individuals for whom they are directly professionally responsible or otherwise directly exercise authority over,

8 ) Requires that member states exercise their discretionary powers under this resolution in a fair, unbiased and non-discriminatory manner. Should a member state or subdivisions thereof implement a national or local age of consent or legal competence law, such laws shall make no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall sexual activity be subcategorised in such laws.

"It's been a while now since the Sexual Privacy Act was repealed. The Alqanian delegation had a draft on the go but unfortunately that delegation no longer with us, so here's our effort. Please tear to shreds etc.

"A few specific comments. Firstly, we are not overly bothered by the negligible risk of congenital disorders arising from incest. I say negligible in the context that there are few cases of incest, and the subset of those where there is a chance of pregnancy is even smaller. However, it is clear from the repeal of the Sexual Privacy Act that a lot of WA members feel it would be reasonable to legislate against incest on this basis. We have included clause 7(b) in this respect and we feel that it adequately permits member states to legislate against and, by extension, criminalise and punish incest but only where there is the possibility of pregnancy. We feel it is important that, say, a sixty year old brother and sister 'going at it' remains free from government interference when there's no chance of pregnancy. The exception for government interference really extends only just as far as vaginal intercourse with a female of child-bearing age.

"The Sexual Autonomy Guarantee sets out a right not to engage in sex. We hope this adequately sets out the right to engage in sex."

- Mrs Functionary CP Doe

[Wrapper]

Just a couple of quick notes:

-- Your definition of sexual activity does not include self-gratification. It probably should; there's an expectation of privacy there as well.

-- As you likely know, there is some overlap between this and CoCR, particularly in clause 8. Get your "minor overlap" argument ready.

-- Clause 6 does... what exactly? It seems unclear due to multiple meanings of the word "kinship". We would assume you are trying to allow member nations to decide for themselves what qualifies as incest and whether or not incest is legal.

[Bananaistan]

Just a couple of quick notes:

-- Your definition of sexual activity does not include self-gratification. It probably should; there's an expectation of privacy there as well.

-- As you likely know, there is some overlap between this and CoCR, particularly in clause 8. Get your "minor overlap" argument ready.

-- Clause 6 does... what exactly? It seems unclear due to multiple meanings of the word "kinship". We would assume you are trying to allow member nations to decide for themselves what qualifies as incest and whether or not incest is legal.

Fair points which I will return to.

I was in the process of adding the following to the OP, which I will also add here to avoid confusion.

"A few specific comments. Firstly, we are not overly bothered by the negligible risk of congenital disorders arising from incest. I say negligible in the context that there are few cases of incest, and the subset of those where there is a chance of pregnancy is even smaller. However, it is clear from the repeal of the Sexual Privacy Act that a lot of WA members feel it would be reasonable to legislate against incest on this basis. We have included clause 6 in this respect and we feel that it adequately permits member states to legislate against and, by extension, criminalise and punish incest but only where there is the possibility of pregnancy. We feel it is important that, say, a sixty year old brother and sister 'going at it' remains free from government interference when there's no chance of pregnancy. The exception for government interference really extends only just as far as vaginal intercourse with a female of child-bearing age.

"The Sexual Autonomy Guarantee sets out a right not to engage in sex. We hope this adequately sets out the right to engage in sex."

[Wallenburg]

It appears that this is already covered.

[Bananaistan]

Just a couple of quick notes:

-- Your definition of sexual activity does not include self-gratification. It probably should; there's an expectation of privacy there as well.

-- As you likely know, there is some overlap between this and CoCR, particularly in clause 8. Get your "minor overlap" argument ready.

-- Clause 6 does... what exactly? It seems unclear due to multiple meanings of the word "kinship". We would assume you are trying to allow member nations to decide for themselves what qualifies as incest and whether or not incest is legal.

OOC: Right, I went amending in respect of your first and third points here, and it has run away from me somewhat.

I have split out individual and collective sexual activity. Now, clauses 4 & 6 establish a clear and definitive right to "individual sexual activity" without reference to an age of consent.

Clause 7 (b) now refers to degrees of consanguinity and is hopefully clearer in allowing member states decide for themselves what level of incest they wish to prohibit. The rider that it only applies to sexual activity that can result in procreation remains.

Clause 7 (c) is new and is an extension to what had been clause 7 and is now clause 7 (d). I was cognizant here of RL laws which prohibit doctors from exploiting patients. So rather than just leave such matters to the medical council, the state can get involved if it wishes. This may be particularly relevant where the age of consent is lower than the age of majority, as is the case in many countries IRL. In such cases, the state may have a legitimate interest in preventing, say, teachers from getting involved with students between the two ages.

[Bananaistan]

It appears that this is already covered.

Did you just search the forum for the word privacy? Which parts of my proposal are covered by what parts of #213? Particularly relevant is clause 1 referring to "lawful actions" and clauses 7 & 8 permitting future WA action extending further privacy rights.

[Wallenburg]

It appears that this is already covered.

Did you just search the forum for the word privacy? Which parts of my proposal are covered by what parts of #213? Particularly relevant is clause 1 referring to "lawful actions" and clauses 7 & 8 permitting future WA action extending further privacy rights.

1. Declares that every person has a right to privacy that extends to all lawful actions that occur out of public view and to all lawful actions, places, and other matters for which a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist;

2. Prohibits infringement on the right to privacy by member states, their political subdivisions, and all state (governmental) actors thereof within their respective areas of jurisdiction subject to this resolution and past and future resolutions enacted by this Assembly;

That's where it already protects sexual privacy. Just because clause 8 permits further legislation does not mean we should write separate privacy legislation for every imaginable private act.

[Bananaistan]

That's where it already protects sexual privacy.

GAR#213 only applies a right to privacy in respect of lawful acts. It makes no comment on what a member state can or can't decide is lawful. For example, a member state could, at the moment, decide that anal sex is unlawful. Once the decision is made that something is unlawful, then GAR#213 doesn't apply due to clause 1 of same qualifying that the right to privacy apples only to lawful acts. So it is currently permissible for governments to poke their noses into people's bedrooms for any conceivable reason. This proposal would prevent same.

It goes far further than GAR#213 and clearly and definitively establishes sexual privacy rights and what exceptions to same are permissible.

Just because clause 8 permits further legislation does not mean we should write separate privacy legislation for every imaginable private act.

So are you in favour of allowing governments into people's bedrooms? Do you not think it worthwhile to reestablish the explicit sexual privacy rights which the WA guaranteed for most of its existence?

[Wallenburg]

That's where it already protects sexual privacy.

GAR#213 only applies a right to privacy in respect of lawful acts. It makes no comment on what a member state can or can't decide is lawful. For example, a member state could, at the moment, decide that anal sex is unlawful. Once the decision is made that something is unlawful, then GAR#213 doesn't apply due to clause 1 of same qualifying that the right to privacy apples only to lawful acts. So it is currently permissible for governments to poke their noses into people's bedrooms for any conceivable reason. This proposal would prevent same.

It goes far further than GAR#213 and clearly and definitively establishes sexual privacy rights and what exceptions to same are permissible.

Just because clause 8 permits further legislation does not mean we should write separate privacy legislation for every imaginable private act.

So are you in favour of allowing governments into people's bedrooms? Do you not think it worthwhile to reestablish the explicit sexual privacy rights which the WA guaranteed for most of its existence?

If your main concern is that member states will criminalize sex, why don't you remove the unnecessary, duplicating privacy clauses and simply prohibit the criminalization of sexual acts?

[Bananaistan]

If your main concern is that member states will criminalize sex, why don't you remove the unnecessary, duplicating privacy clauses and simply prohibit the criminalization of sexual acts?

There's no duplication, it's minor overlap at best. In any case they are two minor clauses which don't really have any significant impact on the proposal and could be removed.

I'll try again with my questions, are you in favour of allowing governments into people's bedrooms? Do you not think it worthwhile to reestablish the explicit sexual privacy rights which the WA guaranteed for most of its existence?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Just because clause 8 permits further legislation does not mean we should write separate privacy legislation for every imaginable private act.

So are you in favour of allowing governments into people's bedrooms? Do you not think it worthwhile to reestablish the explicit sexual privacy rights which the WA guaranteed for most of its existence?

Parsons: I'm certainly in favour of letting governments govern how they wish.
OOC: I'm certainly in favour of letting players play how they wish.

[Bananaistan]

So are you in favour of allowing governments into people's bedrooms? Do you not think it worthwhile to reestablish the explicit sexual privacy rights which the WA guaranteed for most of its existence?

Parsons: I'm certainly in favour of letting governments govern how they wish.
OOC: I'm certainly in favour of letting players play how they wish.

Well given your already expressed highly Nat Sov views that's hardly surprising!

Notwithstanding that, your views on the proposal as it is would be useful.

[Wallenburg]

I'll try again with my questions, are you in favour of allowing governments into people's bedrooms? Do you not think it worthwhile to reestablish the explicit sexual privacy rights which the WA guaranteed for most of its existence?

OOC: You really think I oppose sexual privacy? As a nation and even more as a player, I support highly libertarian policies with regard to sex. I'm just pointing out that your draft currently has unnecessary clauses.

IC: "I'd like to see this refined, specifically with regard to underage sexual activity and incestuous relations. You have written a good definition of the age of majority. Why don't you put it to good use? Because as this proposal is written, clause 4 could be interpreted to prohibit laws against children consuming pornography. Furthermore, I believe all laws regarding incest should be left to the states."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: I'm certainly in favour of letting governments govern how they wish.
OOC: I'm certainly in favour of letting players play how they wish.

Well given your already expressed highly Nat Sov views that's hardly surprising!

Notwithstanding that, your views on the proposal as it is would be useful.

Parsons: My government has no chance of supporting a proposal which would, in the end, lead to the removal of national rights, but we can provide drafting assistance if necessary.

OOC: I don't believe that political viewpoints should be part of the calculus of whether to edit or not edit the proposal of new legislation.

The General Assembly,

Recognising the rights of individuals to privacy in their sexual relationships,

Resolving to uphold and protect this right from undue interference, while

Affirming that society in general has a legitimate public interest in preventing procreation in incestuous unions, restricting the exploitation of vulnerable or underage individuals, and enforcing fair sexual ethics in professions,

Hereby:

1) Defines “individual sexual activity”, for the purposes of this resolution, as acts undertaken individually without any other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of the individual; Do we really need to talk about this? Can't we speak about it in the abstract?

2) Defines “collective sexual activity”, for the purposes of this resolution, as acts undertaken with at least one other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants;

3) Defines “age of consent” as the species specific age at which an individual is considered by local law to be legally responsible for explicitly consenting to engage in collective sexual activity, What is the purpose of an age of consent in a functionalist paradigmatic structure? Either it is to enforce some code of morality (in which case, I would say it should never be legislated upon) or it is to establish a bar at which it serves the function of protecting others. The age of consent is really, in my opinion, about creating a crime which you can get human traffickers and rapists on when there exists unwilling or no other evidence.

4) Establishes the right of all individuals to privacy in their individual sexual activities,

5) Establishes the right of individuals who have reached the age of consent to privacy in their sexual relationships and collective sexual activities,

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

7) (a) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any collective sexual activity between consenting individuals who have reached the age of consent where such collective sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure, save that

(b) Member states are permitted to establish in law prohibited degrees of consanguinity and may restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise sexual activity between individuals falling within a prohibited degree of consanguinity but only to the extent that such sexual activity could result in procreation, or The language on this one should be cleared up. I'll be the first to say it's verbose (even if I commit that sin all the time).

(c) In respect of collective sexual activity by individuals who have responsibility for or authority over another individual, member states are permitted to restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise such collective sexual activity, but shall only hold accountable in law the individual in the position of responsibility or authority, or Same with this clause. It takes much too long to parse and understand.

(d) Member states are permitted to allow the exercise of disciplinary power by organisations on members and employees who engage in sexual activity with individuals for whom they are directly professionally responsible or otherwise directly exercise authority over. There must be some easier way to say 'Don't abuse your power' than this. The previous clause is on a similar topic.

8) Establishes the right of member states not to set an age of consent, in which case the protections of clauses 5 & 7 (a) shall apply only to individuals who are otherwise considered legally competent to conduct their own affairs within the particular jurisdiction, That would then... be the age of consent in that jurisdiction.

9) Requires that member states exercise their discretionary powers under this resolution in a fair, unbiased and non-discriminatory manner. Should a member state or subdivisions thereof implement a national or local age of consent or legal competence law, such laws shall make no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall collective sexual activities be subcategorised in such laws. CoCR may be an issue here.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: You really think I oppose sexual privacy? As a nation and even more as a player, I support highly libertarian policies with regard to sex. I'm just pointing out that your draft currently has unnecessary clauses.

Well I didn't know this until you stated it here!

IC: "I'd like to see this refined, specifically with regard to underage sexual activity and incestuous relations. You have written a good definition of the age of majority. Why don't you put it to good use? Because as this proposal is written, clause 4 could be interpreted to prohibit laws against children consuming pornography. Furthermore, I believe all laws regarding incest should be left to the states."

"It's actually an age of consent which we have defined in the proposal which is used as an important part of clause 7, IE the protections are only relevant to couples at or above the age of consent engaging in consensual sex in private, other than where the 3 listed exceptions apply.

"We haven't used the age of consent in regard to individual sexual activity as we don't particularly want to be party to criminalising teenage boys masturbating. Clause 4 must taken in conjunction with clause 6 and the definition of individual sexual activity in clause 1. The right to privacy in this individual context extends only to "[sex] acts undertaken individually without any other participant". There is nothing there that makes any comment on pornography. In the absence of a specific mention, it must be held that the proposal permits any and all regulations one could think of regarding the consumption of pornography.

"We wouldn't agree that all laws regarding incest should be left to member states. As stated, we don't see that there is a compelling public interest in interfering in the sexual affairs of incestuous couples where there is no chance of procreation, EG the 60 year old brother and sister example. The previous resolution was repealed solely on the basis that it prevented the "compelling government interest in restricting incest" which arises because "children conceived by closely related persons can be in severe danger of inheriting congenital birth defects". No more, no less. (Link to Repeal Sexual Privacy Act).

"In this context, we wish to reestablish the right to sexual privacy while respecting the stated opinion in that repeal text of WA members who wish retain the right to restrict incest to prevent the conception of children who would be in this severe danger. But we don't wish to go any further and we don't feel that those of a delicate disposition being offended by the general idea of closely related individuals having sex is a "compelling government interest in restricting interest". We would reiterate though that we respect the wishes of the WA member states to regulate incest where there is a chance of children being conceived.

Parsons: My government has no chance of supporting a proposal which would, in the end, lead to the removal of national rights, but we can provide drafting assistance if necessary.

OOC: I don't believe that political viewpoints should be part of the calculus of whether to edit or not edit the proposal of new legislation.

The General Assembly,

Recognising the rights of individuals to privacy in their sexual relationships,

Resolving to uphold and protect this right from undue interference, while

Affirming that society in general has a legitimate public interest in preventing procreation in incestuous unions, restricting the exploitation of vulnerable or underage individuals, and enforcing fair sexual ethics in professions,

Hereby:

1) Defines “individual sexual activity”, for the purposes of this resolution, as acts undertaken individually without any other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of the individual; Do we really need to talk about this? Can't we speak about it in the abstract?

2) Defines “collective sexual activity”, for the purposes of this resolution, as acts undertaken with at least one other participant for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants;

3) Defines “age of consent” as the species specific age at which an individual is considered by local law to be legally responsible for explicitly consenting to engage in collective sexual activity, What is the purpose of an age of consent in a functionalist paradigmatic structure? Either it is to enforce some code of morality (in which case, I would say it should never be legislated upon) or it is to establish a bar at which it serves the function of protecting others. The age of consent is really, in my opinion, about creating a crime which you can get human traffickers and rapists on when there exists unwilling or no other evidence.

4) Establishes the right of all individuals to privacy in their individual sexual activities,

5) Establishes the right of individuals who have reached the age of consent to privacy in their sexual relationships and collective sexual activities,

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

7) (a) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any collective sexual activity between consenting individuals who have reached the age of consent where such collective sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure, save that

(b) Member states are permitted to establish in law prohibited degrees of consanguinity and may restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise sexual activity between individuals falling within a prohibited degree of consanguinity but only to the extent that such sexual activity could result in procreation, or The language on this one should be cleared up. I'll be the first to say it's verbose (even if I commit that sin all the time).

(c) In respect of collective sexual activity by individuals who have responsibility for or authority over another individual, member states are permitted to restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise such collective sexual activity, but shall only hold accountable in law the individual in the position of responsibility or authority, or Same with this clause. It takes much too long to parse and understand.

(d) Member states are permitted to allow the exercise of disciplinary power by organisations on members and employees who engage in sexual activity with individuals for whom they are directly professionally responsible or otherwise directly exercise authority over. There must be some easier way to say 'Don't abuse your power' than this. The previous clause is on a similar topic.

8) Establishes the right of member states not to set an age of consent, in which case the protections of clauses 5 & 7 (a) shall apply only to individuals who are otherwise considered legally competent to conduct their own affairs within the particular jurisdiction, That would then... be the age of consent in that jurisdiction.

9) Requires that member states exercise their discretionary powers under this resolution in a fair, unbiased and non-discriminatory manner. Should a member state or subdivisions thereof implement a national or local age of consent or legal competence law, such laws shall make no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall collective sexual activities be subcategorised in such laws. CoCR may be an issue here.

"Many thanks for your comments, Ambassador Parsons. We note and accept that you will be unable to support the proposal but we are grateful for your assistance in drafting.

"Regarding the age of consent, it is wrapped up in the aims of proposal, specifically as set out in the second part of third preamble clause. It is reasonable that society may wish to protect young individuals from the sexual attention of older individuals. The inclusion of "age of consent" in the proposal reflects this and permits nations to go about defining such an age if they so wish, while clause 8 deals with what happens where the state doesn't explicitly state an age of consent. The reason we brought in legal competence in that clause is that there is extant WA legislation mandating nations to deal with legal competence. So we are merely saying that if you don't set an age of consent, then use your method of establishing legal competence.

"Of course the proposal sets out only a minimum level of privacy that the state must respect. Should a member state so wish, they may have no interest in regulating incest, or stopping doctors from 'taking advantage' of patients, or they may have no age of consent, and let's theoretically say that every individual no matter how young is deemed legally competent. In such situations, this proposal would not force anything on the theoretical nation.

"Regarding clause 1, one wouldn't see that we shouldn't also extend the right to privacy to solo activities as well. Similar to your comments re: 7 (b), (c) and (d), we have probably gone about it a rather verbose fashion. Indeed, all the clauses suffer somewhat from this but we hope that the meaning is ultimately clear even if it takes a reread. We would be wary of watering down the provisions solely in the interest of brevity but we would hope to achieve a clear and precise meaning in as few words as possible and hopefully this can be achieved in the drafting process.

"The slight overlap with COCR is noted but we feel it shouldn't be an issue. However, the potential overlap could be removed from that clause were it shortened to just the prohibition on subcategorisation of sexual activities although the clause would suffer from that loss of the main part of it. The aim is to be specific that, say, a different age of consent for anal sex would not be cricket even if that age of consent applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual partners."

- Mrs Functionary Mary CP Doe

[Araraukar]

I'll try again with my questions, are you in favour of allowing governments into people's bedrooms?

You don't believe in legislating against pedophiles? The government already is in your bedroom - at least if your nation is as sane as I've taken it to be.

"We haven't used the age of consent in regard to individual sexual activity as we don't particularly want to be party to criminalising teenage boys masturbating.

Sexist. Or genderist, take your pick.

we don't see that there is a compelling public interest in interfering in the sexual affairs of incestuous couples where there is no chance of procreation

Strange differentiation. And procreational accidents happen (contraceptives can fail, you know).

while respecting the stated opinion in that repeal text

Except repeals hold no power of law beyond "repeal". (OOC: No legislating in repeals; whatever is said in a repeal, has no effect on other legislation.)

It is reasonable that society may wish to protect young individuals from the sexual attention of older individuals.

Based on your dislike of incestuous procreation, shouldn't that "age of consent" be the age where the individual is able to procreate? (OOC: Please take these comments with slight sarcasm in Janis's voice. I'm playing the devil's advocate in addition to hating contradictory definitions, rather than stating my own views.)

[Bananaistan]

"Many thanks for your excellent analysis of parts of the debate Ambassador. Perhaps you might now give your opinion on the content of the proposal.

..pedos..

"Regarding your point relating to paedophiles, we have made much use of the concepts of consent and age of consent. We have also clearly stated the aim of "restricting the exploitation of ... underage individuals". It's a rather dishonest use of selective quoting to suggest that we don't wish to protect children from sexual predators.

Sexist. Or genderist, take your pick.

"A petty point Ambassador. This was merely an example. It could just as easily have been teenage girls. The language of the proposal is gender neutral.

Strange differentiation. And procreational accidents happen (contraceptives can fail, you know).

"Ah come on now Ambassador. At this stage I'm struggling to take your comments seriously. Given that we know that there are no 100% foolproof methods of contraception (OOC: if we ignore tech wanking), one would have thought it apparent that what we referred to there is not merely unprotected sex but rather where one of the participants is a female of child bearing age and the sexual activity could result in conception.

Except repeals hold no power of law beyond "repeal". (OOC: No legislating in repeals; whatever is said in a repeal, has no effect on other legislation.)

"Has anyone suggested this? (OOC:I'm well aware that there is no legislating in repeals. Nonetheless, the WA repealed SPA because it stopped governments from legislating against incest. Now, you'd hardly suggest that I just propose a reworded SPA without taking account of that?)

Based on your dislike of incestuous procreation, shouldn't that "age of consent" be the age where the individual is able to procreate?

"This is outrageous Ambassador. Are you suggesting that nations should be forced to permit barely pubescent children to be taken advantage of by grown adults once they are physically capable of bearing children and the adult is unrelated to them?

"Also, I would note that the government of Bananaistan does not see incestuous procreation as a major problem. Once again though, we are merely reflecting the political reality that the WA has recently repealed legislation for the sole reason that it stopped members from legislating on incest. The 10,000 odd member nations that voted in favour of that repeal are unlikely to simply reintroduce the same provisions again.

"We would like to emphasise again that we would appreciate comments on the draft at hand."

-Mrs Functionary Mary CP Doe

OOC: I'm not seeing the contradiction. The age of consent and the incest issue are two discrete concepts. A nation can outlaw allsex with children and teenagers up to whatever age it wishes. It can also outlaw all penetrative vaginal sex with a related female of child bearing age even where she is well above the age of consent.

[Araraukar]

..pedos..

...no point...

You can choose whatever you consider a depravity bad enough to have been banned in your nation. The point was that most nations' governments already legislate things that happen in the privacy of people's bedrooms, so to argue that law has no place there, is fairly hypocritical.

Sexist. Or genderist, take your pick.

"A petty point Ambassador. This was merely an example."

Yes, but fairly telling of your way of thinking.

Given that we know that there are no 100% foolproof methods of contraception

...removal of the ability to create gametes tends to work, but that's neither here nor there.

not merely unprotected sex but rather where one of the participants is a female of child bearing age and the sexual activity could result in conception.

Yes, and I don't get why you want to make the distinction (OOC: when excluding the repeal text) after arguing the government has no place in people's bedrooms.

OOc: Nonetheless, the WA repealed SPA because it stopped governments from legislating against incest. Now, you'd hardly suggest that I just propose a reworded SPA without taking account of that?

OOC: Why not? The majority of voters don't give a shit about whether opinions expressed in a passed resolution are acknowledged or favoured in future legislation. Heck, we wouldn't have insta-repeals if that were the case.

"This is outrageous Ambassador. Are you suggesting that nations should be forced to permit barely pubescent children to be taken advantage of by grown adults once they are physically capable of bearing children and the adult is unrelated to them?"

Forced to? Hell no. Currently they're allowed to ban whatever they consider a depravity worth banning. You are the one seeking to change this.

the WA has recently repealed legislation for the sole reason that it stopped members from legislating on incest

Eh, the repeal argument matters little to nations wishing to get rid of WA legislation. And those who wished to be rid of the resolution due to its name, to be able to ban whatever they wanted, would have agreed to the entire repeal text consisting of the word "repeals this resolution", as it would have achieved their goal anyway. (OOC: And that's not even counting delegate stomping and lemming effects.)

"We would like to emphasise again that we would appreciate comments on the draft at hand."

OOC: I'll save the in-depth analysis for tomorrow, when I'm hopefully more awake than right now.

A nation can outlaw allsex with children and teenagers up to whatever age it wishes. It can also outlaw all penetrative vaginal sex with a related female of child bearing age even where she is well above the age of consent.

...in addition to the things you're already banning, not instead of them.

[Bananaistan]

… petty nitpicking of the debate rather than the proposal including baseless accusations of sexism…

“We will await your comments on the actual proposal, Ambassador. If you have substantive arguments based on the proposal we will be happy to debate them with you. You might pay attention to the preamble regarding what we are trying to achieve in respect of governmental interference in the bedroom.

“I would also point out that we will not be entertaining any arguments regarding voters’ habits and so on, and this proposal if it is ever submitted will include the incest exception. While we would prefer to keep the government out of the bedrooms of consenting adults, it would be rather impolitic to just set up another repeal/replace cycle by not including the incest exception. If we didn’t include it, all it would take would be another very short repeal argument similar to the Repeal SPA one to get rid of this. We’d rather not waste everyone’s time and just take into account the view which has already been expressed.”

- Mrs Functionary Mary CP Doe

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Bumpage for more comments etc.

[Wallenburg]

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

IC: "I'm afraid I must oppose this resolution on the grounds that this clause is too restrictive on member states, and forces member states to legalize and deregulate individual sexual activity that involves self-harm and various other dangerous behavior."

[Bananaistan]

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

IC: "I'm afraid I must oppose this resolution on the grounds that this clause is too restrictive on member states, and forces member states to legalize and deregulate individual sexual activity that involves self-harm and various other dangerous behavior."

"That seems to be a rather extreme position. I would point out that we have a resolution on the books called Decriminalisation of Suicide. Your regulation of self harming behaviour will be already somewhat limited by that. I’m also struggling to think of any justification that a self-proclaimed "highly libertarian" government might have for criminalising or otherwise interfering in the private sexual affairs of citizens even if they may be liable to harm themselves, particularly given that the clause speaks only to individual activity. In any case, no resolution can please everyone, particularly those unreasonable governments in their totalitarian hellholes who want to hold everyone's hand all the time, or take into their heads to criminalise someone cutting their wrists rather than getting help for them."

- Ted Hornwood.

[Wallenburg]

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

IC: "I'm afraid I must oppose this resolution on the grounds that this clause is too restrictive on member states, and forces member states to legalize and deregulate individual sexual activity that involves self-harm and various other dangerous behavior."

"That seems to be a rather extreme position. I would point out that we have a resolution on the books called Decriminalisation of Suicide. Your regulation of self harming behaviour will be already somewhat limited by that. I’m also struggling to think of any justification that a self-proclaimed "highly libertarian" government might have for criminalising or otherwise interfering in the private sexual affairs of citizens even if they may be liable to harm themselves, particularly given that the clause speaks only to individual activity. In any case, no resolution can please everyone, particularly those unreasonable governments in their totalitarian hellholes who want to hold everyone's hand all the time, or take into their heads to criminalise someone cutting their wrists rather than getting help for them."

- Ted Hornwood.

"You conflate the concepts of criminalization, illegalization, and regulation. A crime is 'a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs.' Neither I nor my government seeks to criminalize self-harm. It is, however, against the law, depending on the circumstances. This allows us to provide for the rehabilitation of at-risk individuals. Your resolution would cripple our capacity to protect these people, as it allows for no government intervention whatsoever."

[Imperium Anglorum]

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

IC: "I'm afraid I must oppose this resolution on the grounds that this clause is too restrictive on member states, and forces member states to legalize and deregulate individual sexual activity that involves self-harm and various other dangerous behavior."

P: Would this prevent psychiatric holds in member state hospitals?

[Wallenburg]

6) Mandates that member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise any individual sexual activity where such individual sexual activity is practised in private and away from public exposure,

IC: "I'm afraid I must oppose this resolution on the grounds that this clause is too restrictive on member states, and forces member states to legalize and deregulate individual sexual activity that involves self-harm and various other dangerous behavior."

P: Would this prevent psychiatric holds in member state hospitals?

"Yes, it would, as that would be a restriction."