[PASSED] Right to Sexual Privacy

[Luna Amore]

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

[Wallenburg]

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

[Terdesuni]

Doesn't this already exist?

[Calladan]

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).

[Bananaistan]

"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.

Doesn't this already exist?

"No.

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

[Christian Democrats]

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.)

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

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,"

[Terdesuni]

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

[Wallenburg]

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."

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[Terdesuni]

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.

[Bananaistan]

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.

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.

[Wallenburg]

"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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[Falcania]

"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.

[States of Glory WA Office]

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."

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

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.*

[Nouvel Acadie]

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.

[Wallenburg]

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."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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."

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[Wallenburg]

"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."

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[Wallenburg]

"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."

[Tinfect]

"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."