[DEFEATED] Regulating the Sex Industry

[Imperium Anglorum]

Aaaah crap! I hate to double post but I also did want to ask for an official legality ruling on both the wording involving GA#383, and whether there is any duplication with GA#179

The Secretariat doesn't rule on legality generally, it rules on legality with respect to presented and well-defined issues.

[Thousand Branches]

Aaaah crap! I hate to double post but I also did want to ask for an official legality ruling on both the wording involving GA#383, and whether there is any duplication with GA#179

The Secretariat doesn't rule on legality generally, it rules on legality with respect to presented and well-defined issues.

Oh, my apologies! Is there any way I could root out any legality issues before submission then? There must be some way

[Thousand Branches]

Why is there no preamble? :catglaresip:

There is, mate. Take another look, there is an opening clause.

What do you mean by "performances"?

Sexual performances would refer to things such as professional strippers or pole dancers, adult films, etc

But aren't required to do anything with these reports? Add at least a mandate that if they recieve a report significant/important enough (probably worth using set criteria here) then they have to investigate.

Hmm a fair gripe, fixed.

You and I still disagree on periods vs semicolons, but other than that, thank you

[Apatosaurus]

Why is there no preamble? :catglaresip:

There is, mate. Take another look, there is an opening clause.

Ah I missed it, thanks

[Imperium Anglorum]

Really no need for the italics.

[Thousand Branches]

Really no need for the italics.

Fair, removed ^-^

[Unified Communist Councils]

"We approve of this proposal. While there is the unescapable expansion of government bureaucracy, it is a small price to pay as enforcing state regulations on the sex industry will go a long way in transforming it into a safer service. One which respects the dignity of all its male, female and transpeople employees that it employs." – Kim Dokja, Appointed Ambassador of the Supreme Congress

[Thousand Branches]

Bump!! Would love some further feedback on this

[Morover]

Cursory glances, I support in principle. My only immediate suggestion is to combine the definitions into one clause with two subclauses. I have some other feedback but it's mostly pedantic so I'll try and get that to you at some point in the coming days.

[Thousand Branches]

Cursory glances, I support in principle. My only immediate suggestion is to combine the definitions into one clause with two subclauses. I have some other feedback but it's mostly pedantic so I'll try and get that to you at some point in the coming days.

You should be good on time I won’t be submitting this until at least sometime next week. Happy to hear your edits ^-^

[ImARealPerson]

This take on regulating prostitution is, well, interesting. It's as if you seek to transform the occupation into something as ordinary as a McDonalds worker. Though goals like protections for sex workers and the assembly of unions may be ideal for such a dangerous occupation, it's the nature of prostitution wish makes me believe this legislation would largely be ineffective. In many nations, prostitution is outlawed yet still persists. There is no incentive for sex workers to get licensed. Those that work independently have no way of ensuring the protections and requirements in their line of work, and employers running large prostitution gigs generally don't want to waste the time and costs in making their business up to code. I agree with the premise that sex workers should have more protections while on the job, but all I see here is extra bureaucracy that neither sex workers nor employers will tolerate or benefit from.

[Thousand Branches]

This take on regulating prostitution is, well, interesting. It's as if you seek to transform the occupation into something as ordinary as a McDonalds worker. Though goals like protections for sex workers and the assembly of unions may be ideal for such a dangerous occupation, it's the nature of prostitution wish makes me believe this legislation would largely be ineffective. In many nations, prostitution is outlawed yet still persists. There is no incentive for sex workers to get licensed. Those that work independently have no way of ensuring the protections and requirements in their line of work, and employers running large prostitution gigs generally don't want to waste the time and costs in making their business up to code. I agree with the premise that sex workers should have more protections while on the job, but all I see here is extra bureaucracy that neither sex workers nor employers will tolerate or benefit from.

To begin, I did intend to transform the occupation into an ordinary and accepted community and industry. In nations where prostitution is illegalized, that is not the focus or goal of this resolution to dictate how they control illegal sex work. The point here is to require all legal sex workers to sign with some sort of group (even if this is just a coalition of fellow sex workers) so they can better be regulated and protected. Extra bureaucracy is inevitable if you’re seeking an actually effective solution.

[Thousand Branches]

A couple of moderate wording changes made to clear up stuff/reduce ambiguity/format better as per Morover’s provided edits

[Thousand Branches]

Bump

[Xanthorrhoea]

I’d recommend requiring barrier contraception instead of non-specific contraception. Preventing pregnancy is important, preventing STIs is also important. As I’ve stated on the thread for Tin’s proposed repeal, relying only on treatment as prevention for STIs such as HIV is unacceptable public health policy. If a sex worker has a life-altering disease such as HIV, their clients should have a right to know they are being exposed prior their engagement, so they can make an informed decision on risk. I don’t think I could support this without some kind of mandatory disclosure provision to deal with this.

TLDR: Barrier contraception should be mandated, and sex workers (and clients) should be required to disclose any STIs they have prior to any engagements.

[Thousand Branches]

I’d recommend requiring barrier contraception instead of non-specific contraception. Preventing pregnancy is important, preventing STIs is also important. As I’ve stated on the thread for Tin’s proposed repeal, relying only on treatment as prevention for STIs such as HIV is unacceptable public health policy. If a sex worker has a life-altering disease such as HIV, their clients should have a right to know they are being exposed prior their engagement, so they can make an informed decision on risk. I don’t think I could support this without some kind of mandatory disclosure provision to deal with this.

TLDR: Barrier contraception should be mandated, and sex workers (and clients) should be required to disclose any STIs they have prior to any engagements.

Solid thoughts, thank you. Both changes have been made, one in the form of a one word add-on, the other in the form of a new list item.

[Great Algerstonia]

The Algerstonen Corporate Council's Board of Directors has voted unanimously to oppose this resolution, as the Corporate Council believes this will result in a loss of workers, a loss of profit, and a large waste of money enforcing the measures outlined in this resolution.

The Council rejects Clause 3, as the Corporations hold faith in their employees to address the authencity of the concerns addressed by their employees, and take action if the concerns prove to be true. Our faith extends to the managers of the sex industry in the protection of their employees. A separate body is not required nor necessary, as the Council does not wish to waste money on this useless task. We reject the Inspection mandate for Clause 4 for imposing similar bureaucratic measures.


The Council firmly rejects Clause 4-B, as we strenuously oppose labor unions for any purpose. The Council has reached prior consensus to oppose and obstruct unions through every method and opportunity, including the opposition of World Assembly resolutions that supports the establishment and/or strengthening of labor unions.

The Council rejects Clause 4-D, as we trust the industry to prevent sex trafficking. We do not require the World Assembly observing our operations. We reject 4-C, 4-E, 4-G, 4-H, and 5 in it's entirety for the same reasons of employer autonomy.

Glory to the Citizen's Republic.

[Thousand Branches]

The Algerstonen Corporate Council's Board of Directors has voted unanimously to oppose this resolution, as the Corporate Council believes this will result in a loss of workers, a loss of profit, and a large waste of money enforcing the measures outlined in this resolution.

The Council rejects Clause 3, as the Corporations hold faith in their employees to address the authencity of the concerns addressed by their employees, and take action if the concerns prove to be true. Our faith extends to the managers of the sex industry in the protection of their employees. A separate body is not required nor necessary, as the Council does not wish to waste money on this useless task. We reject the Inspection mandate for Clause 4 for imposing similar bureaucratic measures.


The Council firmly rejects Clause 4-B, as we strenuously oppose labor unions for any purpose. The Council has reached prior consensus to oppose and obstruct unions through every method and opportunity, including the opposition of World Assembly resolutions that supports the establishment and/or strengthening of labor unions.

The Council rejects Clause 4-D, as we trust the industry to prevent sex trafficking. We do not require the World Assembly observing our operations. We reject 4-C, 4-E, 4-G, 4-H, and 5 in it's entirety for the same reasons of employer autonomy.

Glory to the Citizen's Republic.

Soooooo you think there should be no regulations on the sex industry, got it. For once in my life, the argument “agree to disagree” is actually effective, this doesn’t really propose any problems in the resolution, we just disagree on a fundamental level. Therefore thank you, but obviously I’m not changing anything because of this comment.

[Great Algerstonia]

The Algerstonen Corporate Council's Board of Directors has voted unanimously to oppose this resolution, as the Corporate Council believes this will result in a loss of workers, a loss of profit, and a large waste of money enforcing the measures outlined in this resolution.

The Council rejects Clause 3, as the Corporations hold faith in their employees to address the authencity of the concerns addressed by their employees, and take action if the concerns prove to be true. Our faith extends to the managers of the sex industry in the protection of their employees. A separate body is not required nor necessary, as the Council does not wish to waste money on this useless task. We reject the Inspection mandate for Clause 4 for imposing similar bureaucratic measures.


The Council firmly rejects Clause 4-B, as we strenuously oppose labor unions for any purpose. The Council has reached prior consensus to oppose and obstruct unions through every method and opportunity, including the opposition of World Assembly resolutions that supports the establishment and/or strengthening of labor unions.

The Council rejects Clause 4-D, as we trust the industry to prevent sex trafficking. We do not require the World Assembly observing our operations. We reject 4-C, 4-E, 4-G, 4-H, and 5 in it's entirety for the same reasons of employer autonomy.

Glory to the Citizen's Republic.

Soooooo you think there should be no regulations on the sex industry, got it.

The Algerstonen Corporate Council neither confirms or denies this statement. We seek no change to our operations in the sex industry, nor do we seek the World Assembly's inevitable attacks on our way of life should this resolution succeed.

Glory to the Citizen's Republic.

[Great Algerstonia]

The Algerstonen Corporate Council's Board of Directors has voted unanimously to oppose this resolution, as the Corporate Council believes this will result in a loss of workers, a loss of profit, and a large waste of money enforcing the measures outlined in this resolution.

The Council rejects Clause 3, as the Corporations hold faith in their employees to address the authencity of the concerns addressed by their employees, and take action if the concerns prove to be true. Our faith extends to the managers of the sex industry in the protection of their employees. A separate body is not required nor necessary, as the Council does not wish to waste money on this useless task. We reject the Inspection mandate for Clause 4 for imposing similar bureaucratic measures.


The Council firmly rejects Clause 4-B, as we strenuously oppose labor unions for any purpose. The Council has reached prior consensus to oppose and obstruct unions through every method and opportunity, including the opposition of World Assembly resolutions that supports the establishment and/or strengthening of labor unions.

The Council rejects Clause 4-D, as we trust the industry to prevent sex trafficking. We do not require the World Assembly observing our operations. We reject 4-C, 4-E, 4-G, 4-H, and 5 in it's entirety for the same reasons of employer autonomy.

Glory to the Citizen's Republic.

Therefore thank you, but obviously I’m not changing anything because of this comment.

The Algerstonen Corporate Council regrets the uncooperative stance and unwillingness to negotiate declared by the Ambassador of the Recycling Program. We have taken notes of this exchange.

Glory to the Citizens Republic.

[Port Ames]

This draft seems interesting to me, and I think I'm inclined to support it. I do, however, have a couple questions/comments/concerns:

1. Clause 5a. states that "Any participants in sex work must receive complete STI testing - or vaccination when it is available - prior to skin on skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids, and must continue to receive testing on all STIs (that are not covered by prior vaccination) on a regular and frequent basis while they continue to participate in said sexual contact." Reading it over, I don't think the resolution requires that such STI testing be provided for free. It's entirely possible that there's some other resolution on that (there are quite a lot of resolutions...), but I wouldn't want to push the cost of implementing this policy on to a population that is largely low-income.
   
   
2. Clause 2 "Requires any member nation that legalizes any form of sex work to establish a national body for the regulation of the sex industry in their nation." What does that clause mean for nations who have adopted abolitionist or neo-abolitionist models, which don't quite legalize sex work but don't quite criminalize it either? That's a tough question to answer, and I don't know if this resolution even should be addressing it, but I'm interested in the author's thoughts.
   
   
3. Clause 4 "Mandates that all sex work institutions must be licensed, registered, and regularly inspected (and per the aforementioned reports) by this body." That sounds like a massive logistical undertaking, and a costly one at that. Is it possible to push this duty on to member nations, who are better able to manage local issues like that? If you wanted to regulate sex work like any other industry, wouldn't you designate licensing, registration, and inspection tasks as ones for national or sub-national bodies, like any other industry? What justifies international observers doing health and safety inspections for sex work institutions, when almost every other industry is inspected at a national or sub-national level?

[Thousand Branches]

This draft seems interesting to me, and I think I'm inclined to support it. I do, however, have a couple questions:

1. Clause 5a. states that "Any participants in sex work must receive complete STI testing - or vaccination when it is available - prior to skin on skin sexual contact or the exchange of bodily fluids, and must continue to receive testing on all STIs (that are not covered by prior vaccination) on a regular and frequent basis while they continue to participate in said sexual contact." Reading it over, I don't think the resolution requires that such STI testing be provided for free. It's entirely possible that there's some other resolution on that (there are quite a lot of resolutions...), but I wouldn't want to push the cost of implementing this policy on to a population that is largely low-income.
   
   
2. Clause 2 "Requires any member nation that legalizes any form of sex work to establish a national body for the regulation of the sex industry in their nation." What does that clause mean for nations who have adopted abolitionist or neo-abolitionist models, which don't quite legalize sex work but don't quite criminalize it either? That's a tough question to answer, and I don't know if this resolution even should be addressing it, but I'm interested in the author's thoughts.
   
   
3. Clause 4 "Mandates that all sex work institutions must be licensed, registered, and regularly inspected (and per the aforementioned reports) by this body." That sounds like a massive logistical undertaking, and a costly one at that. Is it possible to push this duty on to member nations, who are better able to manage local issues like that? If you wanted to regulate sex work like any other industry, wouldn't you designate licensing, registration, and inspection tasks as ones for national or sub-national bodies, like any other industry? What justifies international observers doing health and safety inspections for sex work institutions, when almost every other industry is inspected at a national or sub-national level?

Regarding each point individually:

1. A totally fair observation, I will make the change to gratis testing once I figure out how I want to word that
2. In those cases I would say that, as has been previously mentioned in this thread, pimping/brothels is different from a national body for registering an licensing sex work institutions. I would say that whatever applies in these cases applies, I don’t think I could really provide an exception for that.
3. I think perhaps this may have been a misunderstanding, “this body” refers to the aforementioned national bodies that are supposed to mandate the industry of sex work in each individual member state. That being said, I can clearly see how that would be wildly confusing and will once again make a change to clear that up once I figure out how I want to do so.

[Port Ames]

Thank you for the quick reply, and on Christmas Eve to boot!

I think I see the issue with my comment about Clause 2's application to abolitionism and neo-abolitionism. If I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't make sense to impose regulations on sex work institutions in those jurisdictions where they are banned. It is true that the national bodies that the author hopes to establish are primarily responsible for the oversight of sex work institutions. But some of the protections the national bodies offer are helpful to those engaging in sex work, regardless of their affiliation with a sex work institution. See the following:

• "Protections are put in place to prevent sex workers from facing physical, sexual, or psychological abuse/violence during sex work."
  
  
• "All sex workers, employers, employer agents, and clients confirm their identities prior to any kind of sex work in order to ensure they are of legal age of consent in their nation and do not have a history of abuse, sex offenses, or any other action that might lead to the harm of others involved."

Is it possible to establish bodies of regulatory oversight in nations where sex work institutions are illegal, but sex work itself is still legal? And at least secure some of these protections for sex workers in abolitionist and neo-abolitionist countries? It comes down to a fundamental question about the purpose of the resolution. Does the author wish to specifically regulate sex work institutions or the sex work industry writ large? If the latter, I would recommend some measure of protection for countries in this limbo state vis a vis legality.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Given the way that the proposal is currently formatted, I think it would be strategic to use a statute-style for this proposal. See generally https://imperiumanglorum.wordpress.com/ ... -assembly/.

[Thousand Branches]

Given the way that the proposal is currently formatted, I think it would be strategic to use a statute-style for this proposal. See generally https://imperiumanglorum.wordpress.com/ ... -assembly/.

I’m not sure I understand that style well enough to format an entire piece that way