NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Right to Sexual Privacy

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2614
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Right to Sexual Privacy

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Aug 10, 2016 11:38 am

Category: human rights
Strength: significant

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right 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 external stimulus 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 participating individual for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants, where such acts cause no permanent physical harm to any of the participants,

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

4) 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, where it does not directly cause physical harm to any other individual,

5) Mandates that, subject to the exceptions listed in clause 6 of this resolution, 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, where it does not directly cause physical harm to any non-participant,

6) a) 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,

b) Member states are permitted to restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise collective sexual activity where one participant has responsibility for or authority over another participant,

c) 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,

7) Mandates that, for the purposes of clause 5, member states set a biologically appropriate age of consent which gives due regard to the typical age at which the physical and emotional development of individuals in their society provides them with the capabilities of granting genuine, informed consent to participation in sexual activities, and further mandates that there shall be no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall collective sexual activities be subcategorised in age of consent laws,

8 ) Clarifies that this resolution does not require the legalisation of any materials or artefacts which may be used for the purposes of individual or collective sexual activities, however urges member states to legalise such materials or artefacts where it would not cause harm to non-participating individuals and is otherwise permitted by international law.

Category: human rights
Strength: significant

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right 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 external stimulus 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 participating individual for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants, where such acts cause no permanent physical harm to any of the participants,

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

4) 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,

5) Mandates that, subject to the exceptions listed in clause 6 of this resolution, 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,

6(a) 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,

(b) Member states are permitted to restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise collective sexual activity where one participant has responsibility for or authority over another participant,

(c) 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,

7) Mandates that, for the purposes of clause 5, member states set a biologically appropriate age of consent which gives due regard to the typical age at which the physical and emotional development of individuals in their society provides them with the capabilities of granting genuine, informed consent to participation in sexual activities, and further mandates that there shall be no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall collective sexual activities be subcategorised in age of consent laws,

8 ) Clarifies that this resolution does not require the legalisation of any materials or artefacts which may be used for the purposes of individual or collective sexual activities, however urges member states to legalise such materials or artefacts where it would not cause harm to non-participating individuals and is otherwise permitted by international law.

Category: human rights
Strength: significant

The General Assembly,

Recognising the right 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 external stimulus 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 participating individual for the purposes of achieving sexual arousal of one or more of the participants,

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

4) 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,

5) Mandates that, subject to the exceptions listed in clause 6 of this resolution, member states shall not restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise 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,

6) (a) 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,

(b) Member states are permitted to restrict, regulate, proscribe or criminalise collective sexual activity where one participant has responsibility for or authority over another participant,

(c) 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,

7) Establishes that in the absence of a national or local age of consent, the protections of clause 5 shall apply only to individuals who are otherwise considered legally competent to conduct their own affairs within the particular jurisdiction,

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, there shall be no reference to the gender status or the sexual orientation of the participating individuals nor shall collective sexual activities be subcategorised in such laws.


So there may have been a bit of a hooha about this in a previous incarnation. While I'm still sore over all that went on then and how it was handled (and the blatant misrepresentation of a certain passed resolution), I'm going to throw myself at the mercy of the duplication/contradiction gods again. Hopefully no new magic invisible clauses will "appear".

Judicious viewers will note a key change in section 1 and a few other edits. A further possibility is to revert section 1 to its previous version and include the following as clause 9 "Clarifies that this resolution does not require the legalisation of any materials or artefacts which may be used for the purposes of individual or collective sexual activities." I would appreciate opinions on this and indeed the whole enterprise.

1) To leave “without external stimulus” in clause 1
Or to remove “without external stimulus” and add new clause X: "Clarifies that this resolution does not require the legalisation of any materials or artefacts which may be used for the purposes of individual or collective sexual activities."
Or to remove “without external stimulus” and add new text to clause 4: “and without the use of illegal stimuli such as child pornography," (Thanks to Wrapper for this suggestion.)
Current status: left in “without external stimulus” and added new clause 8.

2) Add text “where such acts cause no permanent physical harm to any of the participants,” to clause 2
Or add new clause X along the lines of “this resolution shall not be construed to protect acts that would be criminal if they lacked any sexual component, or that threaten the public safety or welfare, or that conflict with the state's duty to protect the other rights of its citizens." (Thanks to Sierra Lyricalia for this suggestion.)
Or do neither
Current status: added "where such acts cause no permanent harm to any of the participants" to clause 2.

3) Leave clause 7 as is
Or change to “Mandates that, for the purposes of clause 5, member states set a biologically appropriate age of consent which gives due regard to the typical age at which the physical and emotional development of individuals in their society provides them with the capabilities of granting genuine, informed consent to participation in sexual activities,”
Current status: added new clause 7, removed first part of old clause 8, and incorporated second part of old clause 8 in new clause 7

"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) [now clause 6(a)]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
Last edited by Luna Amore on Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:50 am, edited 11 times in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20771
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:37 pm

"The Wallenburgian delegation maintains its original concerns with regard to self-destructive individual sexual activities."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Terdesuni
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 128
Founded: Jul 25, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Terdesuni » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:37 pm

Doesn't this already exist?

User avatar
Calladan
Minister
 
Posts: 3064
Founded: Jul 28, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Calladan » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:42 pm

As a first reading, this all looks very good, and certainly something we could support.

However I do have one question - one that is probably more semantic in nature than anything else.

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


From a plain text reading, this could be interpreted to mean that if an individual were to use any stories, images, films, toys or other..... things during the process, it would mean this item would no longer apply.

Indeed it would only apply to someone who carried out such an activity using only the power of their imagination and their hand (or whatever other part of their body they use in cases such as this).

Was that the desired implication? Or have I just misinterpreted it?

(I will re-review the rest of the proposal tomorrow when I am more awake and paying more attention, but as I said - at purely a first pass reading, it looks suitably acceptable).
Tara A McGill, Ambassador to Lucinda G Doyle III
"Always be yourself, unless you can be Zathras. Then be Zathras"
A Rough Guide To Calladan | The Seven Years of Darkness | Ambassador McGill's Facebook Page
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, providing they are Christian & white" - Trump

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2614
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:56 pm

Wallenburg wrote:"The Wallenburgian delegation maintains its original concerns with regard to self-destructive individual sexual activities."


"So be it. It's unlikely we'll bring in some sort of thought crime exception or mandate to regulate self harm by one's bare hands. It is hard to envisage too many self-destructive individual sexual activities which can be undertaken without any external stimulus. I suppose one could over do certain individual activities and bits might detach from one's person.

Terdesuni wrote:Doesn't this already exist?


"No.

Calladan wrote:As a first reading, this all looks very good, and certainly something we could support.

However I do have one question - one that is probably more semantic in nature than anything else.

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


From a plain text reading, this could be interpreted to mean that if an individual were to use any stories, images, films, toys or other..... things during the process, it would mean this item would no longer apply.

Indeed it would only apply to someone who carried out such an activity using only the power of their imagination and their hand (or whatever other part of their body they use in cases such as this).

Was that the desired implication? Or have I just misinterpreted it?

(I will re-review the rest of the proposal tomorrow when I am more awake and paying more attention, but as I said - at purely a first pass reading, it looks suitably acceptable).


"Yes. It is precisely worded to only apply to an individual carrying out such an activity using only the power of their imagination and their hand. The previous time we proposed this, there was no such mention of external stimulus and some people thought that meant it stopped all restriction of child porn because apparently viewing of pornography is synonymous with possession, and possession is a sexual act."

- Mrs Ambassador Mary CP Doe
Last edited by Bananaistan on Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10071
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:08 pm

We're opposed to this proposal. Sexual gratification is not a human right, so the General Assembly should not impose its own sexual mores on member states. Individual nations should be free to regulate sexual activity as they see fit so long as they don't impede the right of their citizens to marry and reproduce. (For the record, our own nation does not have fornication or sodomy laws.)
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)^

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper
Diplomat
 
Posts: 607
Founded: Mar 05, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:10 pm

ARI: We've been hoping you would revisit this. After hearing Ambassador McGill's input, we're not in favor of the revised clause 1. You could still alter your definition, of course, but perhaps this works better if you keep the original definition and instead address such contraband in clause 4. For example:

4) 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 and without the use of illegal stimuli such as child pornography,"
The General Assembly Delegation of the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper:
-- Wad Ari Alaz, Wrapperian Ambassador to the WA; Author, SCR#200, GAR #300, GAR#361.
-- Wad Ahume Orliss-Dorcke, Deputy Ambassador; two-time Intergalactic Karaoke League champion.
-- Wad Dawei DeGoah, Ambassador Emeritus; deceased.
THE GA POSTS FROM THIS NATION ARE IN-CHARACTER AND SHOULD NEVER BE TAKEN AS MODERATOR RULINGS.

User avatar
Terdesuni
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 128
Founded: Jul 25, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Terdesuni » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:14 pm

why not have a minimum age of consent? I mean we dont want countries allowing people to use infants.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20771
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:16 pm

Terdesuni wrote:why not have a minimum age of consent? I mean we dont want countries allowing people to use infants.

"Different nations will have different ages of consent. The World Assembly does not have the capacity to adequately write a resolution on the age of consent."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9602
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:21 pm

Wallenburg wrote:The World Assembly does not have the capacity to adequately write a resolution on the age of consent."

Well, I mean, we do have the capacity, just nobody can agree on a solid definition thereof. (EDIT) We can do it, just nobody can do it well enough not to get repealed instantly.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 34 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Terdesuni
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 128
Founded: Jul 25, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Terdesuni » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:23 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Terdesuni wrote:why not have a minimum age of consent? I mean we dont want countries allowing people to use infants.

"Different nations will have different ages of consent. The World Assembly does not have the capacity to adequately write a resolution on the age of consent."

Oh come on, we are assuming all are human yes? there has to be some starting point. how about ten years old at the very bare minimum.

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2614
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:23 pm

The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:ARI: We've been hoping you would revisit this. After hearing Ambassador McGill's input, we're not in favor of the revised clause 1. You could still alter your definition, of course, but perhaps this works better if you keep the original definition and instead address such contraband in clause 4. For example:

4) 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 and without the use of illegal stimuli such as child pornography,"


"I think I'd rather our current wording. It's less clunky and it has the exact same effect as your suggestion: it's up to individual member states and the WA to decide what stimuli are or aren't illegal.

Terdesuni wrote:why not have a minimum age of consent? I mean we dont want countries allowing people to use infants.


"It would be impolitic for the WA to mandate a universal age of consent. The best we can do is the provisions of section 7 which would force nations to use the local age of legal competence where they don't set and age of consent. In any case, reasonable nation theory would suggest that we can't legislate for nations who would be so unreasonable as to set an age of consent as low as infancy."

- Mrs Ambassador Mary CP Doe

OOC: Many players roleplay non-human nations. Some species may have lived and die by, say, the age of 18. Others mightn't be out of puberty by the age of 100.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20771
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:25 pm

Terdesuni wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"Different nations will have different ages of consent. The World Assembly does not have the capacity to adequately write a resolution on the age of consent."

Oh come on, we are assuming all are human yes? there has to be some starting point. how about ten years old at the very bare minimum.

"Ambassador, I myself am not what you would consider human." Ogenbond gestures to his highly elongated head and his unusually large nose.
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9602
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:28 pm

Terdesuni wrote:Oh come on, we are assuming all are human yes? there has to be some starting point. how about ten years old at the very bare minimum.

Such legislation would deprive the Ocampa of the right to exist.

Author: 1 SC and 34 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Falcania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1049
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Anarchy

Postby Falcania » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:46 pm

Terdesuni wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"Different nations will have different ages of consent. The World Assembly does not have the capacity to adequately write a resolution on the age of consent."

Oh come on, we are assuming all are human yes? there has to be some starting point. how about ten years old at the very bare minimum.


The delegation from Falcania have an average wingspan of three metres, swallow their food whole, and are staring down their beaks at you in a decidedly unimpressed manner.
Last edited by Falcania on Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
States of Glory WA Office
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1921
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby States of Glory WA Office » Wed Aug 10, 2016 5:36 pm

Neville: "Now, I hope that I'm not misinterpreting the proposal, but wouldn't this mean that we couldn't criminalise assault or murder if it's done for sexual gratification with consenting adult participants? If this is the case then we can't support this, but if we've got this proposal all wrong then please let us know."
Ambassador: Bartholomew Harper Fairburn Rowan Flowerhaze Souldream Bartholomew Harper Fairburn
Assistant: Neville Lynn Robert
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain

Other ambassadorial staff include but are not limited to Barbera Warner and Harold "The Clown" Johnson.

User avatar
The Greater Siriusian Domain
Diplomat
 
Posts: 920
Founded: Mar 08, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby The Greater Siriusian Domain » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:23 pm

Terdesuni wrote:Oh come on, we are assuming all are human yes?


*Teran Saber clears his throat in a manner that seems quite condescending and sounds eerily similar to the growl of a large feline. Ra'lingth hisses in disgust from the audience viewing area, causing a number of ophidiophobics in the audience to scramble for the nearest exit.*
Last edited by The Greater Siriusian Domain on Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"For a mind so determined to reach the sky, on the wings of a dream!" - Sanctity, Zeppo
This nation's factbook supersedes NS stats and issues, but does not completely replace them. If there is a conflict, the Factbook is correct.

Isentran has been DENOUNCED for proposing legislation that would destroy the economy of the Greater Siriusian Domain
The Greater Siriusian Domain is a borderline Class Z9 Civilization according to this scale

Primary Ambassador: Teran Saber, Male Siriusian. Snarky, slightly arrogant.
Substitute Ambassador: Ra'lingth, Male En'gari. Speaks with emphasized "s" sounds.

User avatar
Nouvel Acadie
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 429
Founded: Aug 11, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Nouvel Acadie » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:32 pm

While Nouvel Acadie is already 100% in compliance with this proposal, I dont believe we could support it as mandatory for all nations: in practice, what this proposal does is outlaw almost any Theocracy from being a member of the World Assembly.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20771
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:36 pm

Nouvel Acadie wrote:While Nouvel Acadie is already 100% in compliance with this proposal, I dont believe we could support it as mandatory for all nations: in practice, what this proposal does is outlaw almost any Theocracy from being a member of the World Assembly.

"As much as the Wallenburgian delegation may oppose this proposal, it does absolutely nothing to outlaw theocracy whatsoever."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3680
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:38 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:Neville: "Now, I hope that I'm not misinterpreting the proposal, but wouldn't this mean that we couldn't criminalise assault or murder if it's done for sexual gratification with consenting adult participants? If this is the case then we can't support this, but if we've got this proposal all wrong then please let us know."


"This basic idea, applied to individual activity rather than collective, was the foundation on which the Secretariat's ill-conceived override of the previous submission rested, justified by the tenuous assertion that it thereby contradicted 300 GA (Child Pornography Ban). Carried to its logical conclusion, it clearly cannot be the author's intent to legalize all kinds of gross and terrible crimes just because they are carried out for consensual sexual gratification. Maybe this point needs clarification, since it keeps coming up."

"We suggest some variation on the following: this resolution shall not be construed to protect acts that would be criminal if they lacked any sexual component, or that threaten the public safety or welfare, or that conflict with the state's duty to protect the other rights of its citizens. Something along those lines ought to work."

"If it were to be held that the killing of a consenting adult sex partner is lawful, that would contradict 285 GA (Assisted Suicide Act). That would make this iteration illegal as well, and nobody wants that all over again."
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Squadron Admiral, The Red Fleet
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
Ambassador Pro Tem
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
.
Jerk, Ideological Deviant, MT Army stooge, & "red [who] do[es]n't read" (various)
.
Illustrious Bum #279


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9602
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:44 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Nouvel Acadie wrote:While Nouvel Acadie is already 100% in compliance with this proposal, I dont believe we could support it as mandatory for all nations: in practice, what this proposal does is outlaw almost any Theocracy from being a member of the World Assembly.

"As much as the Wallenburgian delegation may oppose this proposal, it does absolutely nothing to outlaw theocracy whatsoever."

Certainly. The only thing which it would outlaw is theocratic governments attempting to interfere in people's lives.

Author: 1 SC and 34 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20771
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:46 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"As much as the Wallenburgian delegation may oppose this proposal, it does absolutely nothing to outlaw theocracy whatsoever."

Certainly. The only thing which it would outlaw is theocratic governments attempting to interfere in people's lives.

"Oh, please. Do go back to complaining about those lost horsies, Parsons."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9602
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:43 pm

Wallenburg wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Certainly. The only thing which it would outlaw is theocratic governments attempting to interfere in people's lives.

"Oh, please. Do go back to complaining about those lost horsies, Parsons."

PARSONS: Who complained about lost horses? But I digress, theocratic governments won't be banned under this proposal. They just won't be allowed to implement some of their theocratic policies. Similarly, WA abortion legislation is not a ban on Catholicism.

Author: 1 SC and 34 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20771
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Wed Aug 10, 2016 8:50 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"Oh, please. Do go back to complaining about those lost horsies, Parsons."

PARSONS: Who complained about lost horses? But I digress, theocratic governments won't be banned under this proposal. They just won't be allowed to implement some of their theocratic policies. Similarly, WA abortion legislation is not a ban on Catholicism.

"Catholicism, Ambassador?" Ogenbond gives Parsons a funny look, but ultimately waves it off. "No matter. As long as we can agree this in no way targets theocracies."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Tinfect
Senator
 
Posts: 4971
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby Tinfect » Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:02 pm

"The Imperium, quite rarely for legislation of such variety as this, finds itself without reason to oppose this legislation, nor do we find any 'ground left untread', so to speak. We will support this legislation, though, we have little else to offer."
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Subspace Barrier secured, Aeravahn incursion withdraws from Interior Territories | Military Overseer executed, 4th Fleet Saraali Avalis Saar succeeding, announces Military Reform | Civil Oversight suspends Development Plans | 42nd Legion Teravas Illaren Errent defects to Aeravahn following discovery of involvement in destruction of Hathien | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads