[PASSED] Repeal "Legalizing Prostitution"

[The Republic of Lanos]

Why can't you admit your original resolution was flawed and permit its replacement that allows nations to ban prostitution?

[Tarazah]

Alright, you guys say it doesn't do enough to protect health.
Get rid of "residing" (Even though a mod said it's fine)
Define: "Unprofitable"
Inform the clients as well
Stop infected people from attaining this profession
That's what you guys are against?

I'm willing to compromise; I will support a repeal if I make a new one with such changes, but still mandating prostitution be legal.

@Lanos:

I think you guys want it to be made just for you. Truth is, everyone has different nations so you can just add your own protocol.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I want the choice to ban this thing completely without interference. That's what most people here want.

Edit: 3000th post!

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Alright, you guys say it doesn't do enough to protect health.
Get rid of "residing" (Even though a mod said it's fine)
Define: "Unprofitable"
Inform the clients as well
Stop infected people from attaining this profession
That's what you guys are against?

I'm willing to compromise; I will support a repeal if I make a new one with such changes, but still mandating prostitution be legal.

@Lanos:

I think you guys want it to be made just for you. Truth is, everyone has different nations so you can just add your own protocol.

No compromises here, ambassador: it is clear that most member countries now want it repealed and left alone. If if we have to write a "blocker" (not a pure blocker) then so be it.

[Alqania]

"1. You are welcome
2. No, I am not. In the so-called 'Swedish model', prostitution is illegal but it is only the client that is a criminal; the prostitute is committing no crime.
3. It points out that the resolution's clause about how old and well known prostitution is has nothing to do with anything. Pointing out a resolution's flaws is relevant in a repeal.
4. Hmm, that has to do with your number 8. Perhaps I should move it and make that clearer.
5. Where? Please link to it.
6. You found it not needed. I think it is needed. And how do you know a client does not buy sex all day?
7. Exactly my point - thank you for repeating it.
8. See my response to your number 4.
9. The resolution outlaws regulations that make the business unprofitable, so a nation without profit can not adjust it to their circumstances.
10. Assuming people work together and help each other without taking advantage of each other. That would be an unfounded assumption."



"I and the Queendom are deeply grateful for the support. I hope our choice of arguments will be convincing enough to get a repeal both to quorum and passed. As for the choice of words, perhaps there should be more free condoms right here at WAHQ."

2- I hate that, with a passion. I think if it's gonna be illegal than both are to blame. She offered, he excepted. <===Why did she offer it in the first place?3
3- If something is world wide, well noted and both participating parties agree then obviously it helps me show Prostitution isn't that bad.
5- ....it's either in my thread or that mod's thread. I will look for it. (I think CR even explained it also)
6- If you personally think it is need than add it as your own protocol.
7- So what's your point in putting it in the repeal?
9- What happened to regulating it into your own jurisdiction?
10- When I meant safety, I spoke in terms of physical damage/i.e. Abuse. More people=more safety

"2. Your passionate hatred towards something does not mean you should completely ignore it when writing a proposal.
3. No, it does not help you show that.
6. I think the resolution should have included it, therefore I think the resolution is flawed for not including it, therefore I mention it in the repeal.
7. If "Legalizing Prostitution" had been the only resolution stating rape is illegal, that could have been an argument against repealing it. By mentioning that there are other resolutions protecting people from rape, I hope to pre-empt such an argument.
9. In general, regulation of commerce is up to the member state. The resolution however outlaws regulation that makes the business unprofitable - this might be the only thing the resolution actually does.
10. Do you assume that pimps would protect prostitutes from clients? I do not assume that."

Alright, you guys say it doesn't do enough to protect health.
Get rid of "residing" (Even though a mod said it's fine)
Define: "Unprofitable"
Inform the clients as well
Stop infected people from attaining this profession
That's what you guys are against?

I'm willing to compromise; I will support a repeal if I make a new one with such changes, but still mandating prostitution be legal.

@Lanos:

I think you guys want it to be made just for you. Truth is, everyone has different nations so you can just add your own protocol.

"The Queendom has no confidence in your ability to write quality resolutions and will not agree to any compromise that includes you writing a proposal."

[Tarazah]

2- I hate that, with a passion. I think if it's gonna be illegal than both are to blame. She offered, he excepted. <===Why did she offer it in the first place?3
3- If something is world wide, well noted and both participating parties agree then obviously it helps me show Prostitution isn't that bad.
5- ....it's either in my thread or that mod's thread. I will look for it. (I think CR even explained it also)
6- If you personally think it is need than add it as your own protocol.
7- So what's your point in putting it in the repeal?
9- What happened to regulating it into your own jurisdiction?
10- When I meant safety, I spoke in terms of physical damage/i.e. Abuse. More people=more safety

"2. Your passionate hatred towards something does not mean you should completely ignore it when writing a proposal.
3. No, it does not help you show that.
6. I think the resolution should have included it, therefore I think the resolution is flawed for not including it, therefore I mention it in the repeal.
7. If "Legalizing Prostitution" had been the only resolution stating rape is illegal, that could have been an argument against repealing it. By mentioning that there are other resolutions protecting people from rape, I hope to pre-empt such an argument.
9. In general, regulation of commerce is up to the member state. The resolution however outlaws regulation that makes the business unprofitable - this might be the only thing the resolution actually does.
10. Do you assume that pimps would protect prostitutes from clients? I do not assume that."

Alright, you guys say it doesn't do enough to protect health.
Get rid of "residing" (Even though a mod said it's fine)
Define: "Unprofitable"
Inform the clients as well
Stop infected people from attaining this profession
That's what you guys are against?

I'm willing to compromise; I will support a repeal if I make a new one with such changes, but still mandating prostitution be legal.

@Lanos:

I think you guys want it to be made just for you. Truth is, everyone has different nations so you can just add your own protocol.

"The Queendom has no confidence in your ability to write quality resolutions and will not agree to any compromise that includes you writing a proposal."

I write it, you edit it. Your "great" edits would make it "quality"

[The Republic of Lanos]

I think they meant they will not be working with you period on any future proposals regarding this matter.

I wouldn't blame them.

[Connopolis]

I implore you let the Azarathian Ambassador rectify his actions by at least attempting to write a decent replacement. Simply shunning him is in poor taste.

Yours,

[Tarazah]

I implore you let the Azarathian Ambassador rectify his actions by at least attempting to write a decent replacement. Simply shunning him is in poor taste.

Yours,

Thank you, but please don't say Azarathian; it's a derogatory term.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I implore you let the Azarathian Ambassador rectify his actions by at least attempting to write a decent replacement. Simply shunning him is in poor taste.

Yours,

I'm afraid he failed to allow us to trust him when he started posting garish posts in his own defense long ago. Why should we let him attempt to make a "better" resolution?

[Tarazah]

I implore you let the Azarathian Ambassador rectify his actions by at least attempting to write a decent replacement. Simply shunning him is in poor taste.

Yours,

I'm afraid he failed to allow us to trust him when he started posting garish posts in his own defense long ago. Why should we let him attempt to make a "better" resolution?

Oh please, in all honesty, you weren't even in the picture back then. You really should have no concern with that.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I would rather have the resolution repealed and a blocker that allows us to ban the thing in place so we will not HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN!

Most of everyone involved in this debate understands this! This was and still is a complete waste of the World Assembly's time!

[Tarazah]

I would rather have the resolution repealed and a blocker that allows us to ban the thing in place so we will not HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN!

Most of everyone involved in this debate understands this! This was and still is a complete waste of the World Assembly's time!

See, i'm willing to compromise, but you guys aren't. I will make a new one in the chance my current one gets repealed.

[Gays and Lesbians]

I would rather have the resolution repealed and a blocker that allows us to ban the thing in place so we will not HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN!

Most of everyone involved in this debate understands this! This was and still is a complete waste of the World Assembly's time!

Oh, my stars and garters! Would Your Excellency appreciate a cup of tea?

Please, have a seat.

[Dizyntk]

I would rather have the resolution repealed and a blocker that allows us to ban the thing in place so we will not HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN!

Most of everyone involved in this debate understands this! This was and still is a complete waste of the World Assembly's time!

Oh, my stars and garters! Would Your Excellency appreciate a cup of tea?

Please, have a seat.

Feyalisa surreptitiously slips a bit of valium into the tea.

"There now you can give it to both of them and maybe we can get some work done."

[Alqania]

Lord Raekevik remained calm amidst the stormy debate.

"If the nation formerly known as Azarath would like to draft a replacement, they can start a separate debate on that.

If the nation formerly known as Azarath has specific suggestions for changes to the repeal text, they can make those suggestions here. Our delegation shall listen to any suggestions and decide whether to take them on board or not.

The Queendom firmly believes that in this particular case, a situation with no resolution is better than a situation with the current resolution. We are prepared to repeal without replacement. We do however support the replacement presented by His Excellency Mr Flibble.

Now, could we please get back to discussing the repeal being drafted here? Suggestions for changes to the repeal text? Any clarification needed? Any comment at all pertaining to the actual wording of this repeal?"

[NewBriton]

Snippity-snip-snip

Dr. Forshaw, befallen with tears of ecstasy, could not speak. His aide promptly nodded in approval, and handed Dr. Forshaw a box of lemon scented tissues in order to quell his ejaculation of emotions.

This...

We don't care what the fuck is included. We support this repeal since CR's didn't go anywhere.

We support any repeal...that's how bad this is.

...and this.

Definitely supporting.

[Ardchoille]

I implore you let the Azarathian Ambassador rectify his actions by at least attempting to write a decent replacement. Simply shunning him is in poor taste.

Yours,

I'm afraid he failed to allow us to trust him when he started posting garish posts in his own defense long ago. Why should we let him attempt to make a "better" resolution?

This is clearly aimed at the poster, not his roleplayed, ambassadorial character -- characters don't "post garish posts", they speak. That being so, remember the rules on flaming and flamebait. The fact that your Ambassador does not trust another Ambassador is roleplay, and not actionable if it is clearly part of a relationship you are RPing together. The statement that you-the-player do not trust him-the-player is at best spam and at worst flamebait. It is a personal reaction and does not advance the drafting commentary on the Alqanian proposal.

Your post is not something I'd normally comment on, but in this and other threads you have carried your crusade against a proposal you dislike over to the player who proposed it. You may badmouth the proposal all you like -- though, in this thread, it should be in terms of Alqania's repeal -- but remember that there are rules about relating to other players, including the one on griefing. So dial it back.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I will. I just need to watch myself. I guess the whole thing did get over my head.

Know what? I'll stay out of this friggin debate for a while. I don't want to lose it and lose another nation. You know where to find me.

[Salvarity]

(Speaking for my Puppet WA Account here)

Against.

[Flibbleites]

I would rather have the resolution repealed and a blocker that allows us to ban the thing in place so we will not HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN!

Most of everyone involved in this debate understands this! This was and still is a complete waste of the World Assembly's time!

See, i'm willing to compromise, but you guys aren't. I will make a new one in the chance my current one gets repealed.

No, you're the one unwilling to compromise. We want a resolution that allows nations to make up their own mind of the subject, you continue to want to force everyone to legalize prostitution. Our idea makes everyone happy, yours doesn't.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Tarazah]

See, i'm willing to compromise, but you guys aren't. I will make a new one in the chance my current one gets repealed.

No, you're the one unwilling to compromise. We want a resolution that allows nations to make up their own mind of the subject, you continue to want to force everyone to legalize prostitution. Our idea makes everyone happy, yours doesn't.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Giving everyone the chance isn't compromise; it's giving up

[Flibbleites]

No, you're the one unwilling to compromise. We want a resolution that allows nations to make up their own mind of the subject, you continue to want to force everyone to legalize prostitution. Our idea makes everyone happy, yours doesn't.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Giving everyone the chance isn't compromise; it's giving up

Of course it's a compromise, those nations that want it legal can legalize it, and those nations that want it banned can ban it, everyone wins.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Dilange]

I would rather have the resolution repealed and a blocker that allows us to ban the thing in place so we will not HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN!

Most of everyone involved in this debate understands this! This was and still is a complete waste of the World Assembly's time!

See, i'm willing to compromise, but you guys aren't. I will make a new one in the chance my current one gets repealed.

No youre not. What are you willing to compromise on exactly? I remember your former nation Azarathian (dont care), and how gungho they were on not changing it. I believe this topic needs to repealed an buried, no compromises and no replacements.

As my closing statement to why the current resolution is bad:
----------------
1) It degrades women(especially prostitutes) to being identified as sex objects and not human beings.
2) The vast amount of loopholes it contains allowing member nations to not follow its primary code
3) There is no defenition of "unprofitable" leaving it to the mercy of the brothels and the sex industry.
4) Diseases will continue to spread.
5) Allows a job open up that can basically change the educational and social factors of women for generaitons
6) Allowing organized crime to have a legal businesses in order to promote their further agendas and goals.
7) Potentially setting up blocking for any national revenue, let alone international.
It fails to use economics realistically by giving things out for free.
9) Potentially opening up child prostitution.
10) Allowing prostitutes to be abused by the brothels and their owners wihtout any sort of guidelines or regulations.

I wouldn't even want to see a new draft of this ideal unless it gives the right to choose. And as Zxavier clearly states that he's against any kind of national choice on this matter on economics and businesses. "Giving up?" Im sorry but you must be confused....I thought mandating legalisation of prostitution for everyone was giving up because you are not allowing countries to change their ideologies and morals. The only way people will change is through a different mentality, not forcing things on those people.

[New New Osaka]

Honestly, this repeal is really interesting, as it tries to do it with reasons, most people do not care (or let's say "did not care, before realizing that the original arguments do lead nowhere"). Basically it is moral and national sovereignity, which lets most nations speak against. As this comes down to basic personal opinions, which are rather weak arguments to convince someone and further make a bad repeal text (as we had quite a couple now), minds cool down and get to more intelligent texts. The problem is now that besides the sloppy writing of the original resolution, it is hard to counter the resolution on a rational level.

Actually the repeal's tone is nicely tuned down, helping to get all those in the boat, who are vexed by the exhilarated screaming going around. Still, the content has its problems. Because, actually, there is not much. It is merely attacking formulations; which, as was stated, has also been the intention of this repeal, so maybe all this criticising punches into nothingness.
Existing things are:
1. No enforcement to inform the clients of the risks of prostitution
2. Possible conflicts with previous laws' confines
3. The "profitability clause" (though it appears in a rather interesting way here)
4. There may be an argument in the criminalization part. Not sure about this, see below. It seems to be difficult to find an argument in this area, though.
The rest is attacking formulations (like the introducing "old profession"-clause) and disguised national sovereignity. And that does not look sufficient for a repeal.
And the loopholes, yeah...the greatest double-faced argument ever...loopholes get exploited by those trying to violate this:

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

So now the very same nations, who use these loopholes, want these very loopholes to be used as arguments to repeal it? Besides the fact that killing all potential loopholes in a solution leads to texts, which are maybe fun for lawyers, but unreadable for the rest, it is just completely inconsistent. If a resolution is to repealed for loopholes, you need a new version for it to come up, which closes or at least reduces these holes. Replacing it with something else makes this argument being simply baseless besides making the repeal sound good.
But maybe...

We don't care what the fuck is included. We support this repeal since CR's didn't go anywhere.

We support any repeal...that's how bad this is.

...that is just, what is wished for...

Not to get this wrong, this repeal is well-written and has by far the most potential of being successfull. Its problem is just that it does not hit, what nations' problems with the resolution are (and which are, eventually, the strongest arguments for a repeal..."Yes, I know" the ambassador nods to his adjutant "It is fully deliberate to use 'strong argument' here and 'weak argument' in the first passage."). So it does aim to blow up arguments that do hardly exist by nice rhetoric. It would get completely diferent, if this was coupled with the intention to replace it with a better written resolution. But the currently existing resolutions go a different way, so this is just window-dressing.

fakeedit:
As the nation's ambassador is not chosen by his mental capabilites but just by getting lucky and drawing the winning lot, he would like to know, what this actually wants to say

CONCERNED HOWEVER that the resolution equates the criminalization of prostitution with the criminalization of prostitutes, leading to incorrect assumptions on the effects of criminalization,

No need to point out, what has already been written, though. It's more the second part of the sentence and the reason of including it into the repeal, which are slightly bemusing. Or does this merely goes into the direction of pointing out just another potential loophole?