NationStates

Posted: **Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:13 am**

And we are submitted.

Posted: **Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:04 pm**

Thousand Branches wrote:Acknowledging the intentions of GAR#179 to insert itself as the be all, end all of legislation on prostitution;

It does not.

It states:

Member nations determine the legality of prostitution.
Sex workers must be screened for STDs before undertaking sex work
Sex workers must not undertake sex with if they have a sexually transmitted disease for the duration of infection.

This is far from an all-encompassing omnibus resolution that impacts every minor aspect of sex work.

Thousand Branches wrote:Respecting the resolution’s neutral stance on the legality of prostitution in any given member nation;

Asserting however, that GAR#179 is a simplistic and antiquated resolution that does not provide almost any information, legislation, or protection on the subject of sex work for those nations where it might be legalized;

You can assert that, but you need to demonstrate it before I'll believe it.

Thousand Branches wrote:Observing that GAR#179 does not introduce any sort of definitions or foundational information on prostitution or sex work, thus rendering itself less credible as a General Assembly Resolution;

What sort of definitions are you wanting? What are you wishing that was said?

Definitions are provided for terms that can be confusable with alternative meanings than what the author intended. They are not necessary to define a word as their dictionary definition just for the sake of providing decoration on the page. So what is the damage you are asserting exists by not laying specific definitions provided?

Thousand Branches wrote:Recognizing the resolution’s flawed approach in limiting itself to only prostitution, thereby neglecting a good portion of the sex industry that faces the same problems;

You are again criticising content that was not included in the target, so what is that content? What is being neglected and what harm is transpiring by the oversight?

If you are alleging the target resolution is harmful or insufficient, the onus is on you to demonstrate the faults and not leave it to the imagination.

Thousand Branches wrote:Dispirited with the resolution’s lack of any kind of protection for prostitutes or other sex workers against sexual, physical, or psychological violence;

This is a valid, somewhat specific observation of content that is lacking from the target; however, the target does not prevent that content from being passed in a separate resolution. So, it's more an argument against the target from being passed than it is a relevant argument for its repeal.

Thousand Branches wrote:Confused by the resolution’s naive, ineffectual, and very over-simplified solution for limiting the spread of sexually transmitted infection through sex work, placing all responsibility for STI testing and regulation on the sex workers themselves and providing them no protection against clients or other participants in sex work that may transfer an STI to that sex worker;

It is unclear to me if "placing all responsibility for STI testing and regulation on the sex workers themselves" is an accurate statement. Risk prevention is weighted on the sex work, but responsibility likely rests on a member nation's government, and the compliance commission.

Thousand Branches wrote:Certain that the GAR#179 serves only to marginalize sex work and the sizable discrimination sex workers face on a daily basis;

What. How?

You're going to have to do better than toss an accusation like that into the resolution without demonstrating what of the resolution is marginalising, etc.

Thousand Branches wrote:Seeking to provide the General Assembly with a more adequate resolution on an important and sensitive subject;

Hereby repeals GAR#179.

That isn't accomplished by repeals, and certainly not when a resolution that does the things you want can be passed in the status quo.

No support from me.

Posted: **Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:39 pm**

Thousand Branches wrote:And we are submitted.

BOOOOOOOOOOO

Posted: **Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:36 am**

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Acknowledging the intentions of GAR#179 to insert itself as the be all, end all of legislation on prostitution;

It does not.

It states:
Member nations determine the legality of prostitution.
Sex workers must be screened for STDs before undertaking sex work
Sex workers must not undertake sex with if they have a sexually transmitted disease for the duration of infection.
This is far from an all-encompassing omnibus resolution that impacts every minor aspect of sex work.

I did not say that it acted as a be all end all, I said that it intended to. Out of the six lines of the resolution, one of them is literally "DECIDING to end the madness once and for all,", which to me very much speaks to a desire to shut down all argument or discussion on prostitution. It does not act as an end all be all, but it states very clearly that it intends to. Yes perhaps this is slightly poor wording on my part but this is also an introductory clause and not exactly the focus of the repeal.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Respecting the resolution’s neutral stance on the legality of prostitution in any given member nation;

Asserting however, that GAR#179 is a simplistic and antiquated resolution that does not provide almost any information, legislation, or protection on the subject of sex work for those nations where it might be legalized;

You can assert that, but you need to demonstrate it before I'll believe it.

I think this is pretty clearly demonstrated by the fact that there are only 6 lines in the resolution along with the fact that I essentially explain this clause for the rest of the repeal.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Observing that GAR#179 does not introduce any sort of definitions or foundational information on prostitution or sex work, thus rendering itself less credible as a General Assembly Resolution;

What sort of definitions are you wanting? What are you wishing that was said?

Definitions are provided for terms that can be confusable with alternative meanings than what the author intended. They are not necessary to define a word as their dictionary definition just for the sake of providing decoration on the page. So what is the damage you are asserting exists by not laying specific definitions provided?

The ones that I was thinking of when I wrote this clause were "prostitution" for one, a word that does have a pretty debatable grey area, and "cured" in the STI clause, which for something like STIs, also is somewhat unclear because very few STIs are "curable" in the sense that they are 100% gone forever.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Recognizing the resolution’s flawed approach in limiting itself to only prostitution, thereby neglecting a good portion of the sex industry that faces the same problems;

You are again criticising content that was not included in the target, so what is that content? What is being neglected and what harm is transpiring by the oversight?

If you are alleging the target resolution is harmful or insufficient, the onus is on you to demonstrate the faults and not leave it to the imagination.

I thought this was pretty clear from the clause but my argument here is that it is only for prostitution, not for the many kinds of sex work that fit into the same category. Not only does it leave all that not legislated on, but it also makes the definition of "prostitution" more unclear. It is very clear that the resolution limits itself to prostitution and I am demonstrating that fault with this clause by pointing out that sex workers of all kinds face the same problems.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Dispirited with the resolution’s lack of any kind of protection for prostitutes or other sex workers against sexual, physical, or psychological violence;

This is a valid, somewhat specific observation of content that is lacking from the target; however, the target does not prevent that content from being passed in a separate resolution. So, it's more an argument against the target from being passed than it is a relevant argument for its repeal.

Fair, but it is my belief that if all that can be put in another resolution, there is no reason to keep this one around since it only really legislates on STI protection and in a very poor and unhelpful way.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Confused by the resolution’s naive, ineffectual, and very over-simplified solution for limiting the spread of sexually transmitted infection through sex work, placing all responsibility for STI testing and regulation on the sex workers themselves and providing them no protection against clients or other participants in sex work that may transfer an STI to that sex worker;

It is unclear to me if "placing all responsibility for STI testing and regulation on the sex workers themselves" is an accurate statement. Risk prevention is weighted on the sex work, but responsibility likely rests on a member nation's government, and the compliance commission.

I suppose this is just a small difference in language. I mean in the context of sex work, over any other participants, all the responsibility for making sure no STI is spread is placed solely on testing to the sex workers. Nothing is preventing clients or other participants from infecting those sex workers and effectively ending or severely postponing their careers. I believe that is unfair to the sex workers as there are no requirements for anybody else to be tested where there should be. Could this be rectified in a separate resolution? Sure. Does it make any sense to have two pieces of legislation on the same exact thing? No.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Certain that the GAR#179 serves only to marginalize sex work and the sizable discrimination sex workers face on a daily basis;

What. How?

You're going to have to do better than toss an accusation like that into the resolution without demonstrating what of the resolution is marginalising, etc.

This clause is mostly a matter of looking at the language of the resolution being repealed. It's 6 throwaway lines clearly written in frustration that probably took someone five minutes to write up. This resolution was created solely to stop the arguments going on in the GA and the resolution reflects that. It paints sex work as prostitution, it very poorly attempts to shove STI testing on only half of a party, and it is obviously there to throw the topic of prostitution and sex work into a dusty corner where it won't be touched again.

Of course I do not know if all that is true but it's exactly how the proposal comes off as and it is one of the most important reasons for repeal.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Seeking to provide the General Assembly with a more adequate resolution on an important and sensitive subject;

Hereby repeals GAR#179.

That isn't accomplished by repeals, and certainly not when a resolution that does the things you want can be passed in the status quo.

No support from me.

It isn't accomplished by repeals, but it is a promise that such a resolution will exist. It isn't illegal to say "hey this can be replaced with a better resolution", I actually checked directly on that because I wanted to make sure it was not.

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2021 5:48 pm**

I've seen CPA survive better repeal attempts than this. We'll see.

Edit: This post did not age well.

Posted: **Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:46 pm**

The United Regions Alliance recommends voting for this resolution.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1627940

Posted: **Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:24 pm**

We are against this repeal, and hope the collective wisdom of our group sees fit to reject these arguments and preserve the Clean Prostitute Act.

I could take apart the repeal line by line, but then people will just get bored and move on to the next. So I'll be brief: CPA is a good law that recognizes a single controversial issue (the back and forth debate over whether the WA should MANDATE LEGALIZATION of prostitution or BAN it) and puts that issue down, decisively, in favor of letting individuals decide whether prostitution should be legal or not for themselves. In order to improve the world "one resolution at a time" it also adds some very minimal public health regulations that of course any sane person would want: if your nation legalizes prostitution, prostitutes must be regularly screened for disease and must stop working until their disease is resolved.

That's really ALL the Clean Prostitute Act does. It doesn't somehow prevent further health and safety law or outlaw protections for people who are not prostitutes. It certainly doesn't somehow prevent nations from taking action to stop violence against sex workers!

At its very best this repeal is just the joining together of a bunch of red herrings, in the hopes that you will somehow think a simple, clear, reasonable, long-standing WA law is actually the devil.

Cast your vote AGAINST this repeal!

Posted: **Tue Nov 30, 2021 9:32 pm**

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST the General Assembly Resolution, Repeal: "Clean Prostitute Act".
Its reasoning may be found here.

Posted: **Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:17 pm**

Jeez, that stomp came in hard and fast.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:19 am**

The South Pacific's World Assembly Delegation has cast the Coalition's vote FOR this proposed resolution, Repeal: “Clean Prostitute Act”, and warmly encourages fellow member regions to vote FOR.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:38 am**

Creatopia votes AGAINST this repeal.

Repealing a simple yet effective resolution will bear no benefits, whether or not the resolution is vague and leaves most to imagination, repealing will make a path for a resolution that would reopen the blocks that GAR#179 previously had and effectively accomplished, in results of a possible repeal, a better solution would've been to rewrite GAR#179 entirely.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:01 am**

For what it's worth, I - as the WA Delegate of Sophia - have cast my 38 votes IN FAVOUR of this repeal

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:07 am**

The Federation of Berusturg votes AGAINST This repeal.
our federatives believe that rewriting or/and writing a resolution that adds to GAR#179 may be better than repealing it, which may open the risk of a resolution being passed that makes any prostitution illegal.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:09 am**

The Most Serene Republic appreciates that the previous Act permitted nations to pass their own laws regarding prostitution, but we must ask the chamber why supporters of the Act would want prostitutes to lose their source of income.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:01 pm**

OoC: I am really impressed with the enthusiasm and heart displayed in this thread. I think I gained an IQ point reading this discussion.

Thanks. I’m enjoying my first couple days as a “nation”.

I’ve not decided if I will join the WA. However, I have more confidence in the GA after reading this discussion.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:18 pm**

IC: Good afternoon to all.

I’d like to extend my deepest apologies to everyone. The arguments I have read against this proposal since its submission and especially since its getting to vote are valid, in fact a little too valid for me to have the same confidence in the benevolence of this resolution I had before its submission. I should have pulled this two days ago and I apologize for not doing so, but alas the past is in the past. However, the point remains that I have found my arguments and reasoning quite lacking and do not wish for this resolution to remain a part of my permanent record on this game

To rectify this, I humbly ask all delegates and voters to remain against, or to change their vote in that direction. I sincerely apologize for asking this of all of you and I hope that next time we meet, it is on kinder terms.

Have a splendid day,

Madam Vazz and Aramantha Calendula, president and chief advisor of Thousand Branches

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:44 pm**

Thousand Branches wrote:IC: Good afternoon to all.

I’d like to extend my deepest apologies to everyone. The arguments I have read against this proposal since its submission and especially since its getting to vote are valid, in fact a little too valid for me to have the same confidence in the benevolence of this resolution I had before its submission. I should have pulled this two days ago and I apologize for not doing so, but alas the past is in the past. However, the point remains that I have found my arguments and reasoning quite lacking and do not wish for this resolution to remain a part of my permanent record on this game

To rectify this, I humbly ask all delegates and voters to remain against, or to change their vote in that direction. I sincerely apologize for asking this of all of you and I hope that next time we meet, it is on kinder terms.

Have a splendid day,

Madam Vazz and Aramantha Calendula, president and chief advisor of Thousand Branches

The Most Serene Republic must extend those apologies, for we cannot reverse our vote to repeal. The previous Act is one that harms a segment of our labor force, and it’s repeal will increase happiness among the 85% of our population who are not citizens. We thank you for the reasons behind your decision, and hope you do not judge us for not changing our vote.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:52 pm**

Kaiserholt wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:IC: Good afternoon to all.

I’d like to extend my deepest apologies to everyone. The arguments I have read against this proposal since its submission and especially since its getting to vote are valid, in fact a little too valid for me to have the same confidence in the benevolence of this resolution I had before its submission. I should have pulled this two days ago and I apologize for not doing so, but alas the past is in the past. However, the point remains that I have found my arguments and reasoning quite lacking and do not wish for this resolution to remain a part of my permanent record on this game

To rectify this, I humbly ask all delegates and voters to remain against, or to change their vote in that direction. I sincerely apologize for asking this of all of you and I hope that next time we meet, it is on kinder terms.

Have a splendid day,

Madam Vazz and Aramantha Calendula, president and chief advisor of Thousand Branches

The Most Serene Republic must extend those apologies, for we cannot reverse our vote to repeal. The previous Act is one that harms a segment of our labor force, and it’s repeal will increase happiness among the 85% of our population who are not citizens. We thank you for the reasons behind your decision, and hope you do not judge us for not changing our vote.

Of course not, your vote is your own decision, and my request is a recommendation just like everyone else’s here. I am not going to force you to vote in any way

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:52 pm**

Kaiserholt wrote:The Most Serene Republic must extend those apologies, for we cannot reverse our vote to repeal. The previous Act is one that harms a segment of our labor force, and it’s repeal will increase happiness among the 85% of our population who are not citizens. We thank you for the reasons behind your decision, and hope you do not judge us for not changing our vote.

How, exactly, does it harm your labour force?

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:02 pm**

Sylh Alanor wrote:
Kaiserholt wrote:The Most Serene Republic must extend those apologies, for we cannot reverse our vote to repeal. The previous Act is one that harms a segment of our labor force, and it’s repeal will increase happiness among the 85% of our population who are not citizens. We thank you for the reasons behind your decision, and hope you do not judge us for not changing our vote.

How, exactly, does it harm your labour force?

Your question is answered in the second half of the Requires Section in the cited ‘Clean Prostitute Act.’ It doesn’t take into account the opinions or situation of the individual whose work is effected by that section. Most of those involved already live paycheck to paycheck, and shouldn’t have their lives adversely effected by uncaring legislation.

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:15 pm**

With respect to the ambassador from Thousand Branches, we view the repeal of resolutions which have as their principal effect blocking this Assembly from passing future resolutions to be meritorious regardless of the argument presented in the repeal, and will continue to vote accordingly.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

Posted: **Wed Dec 01, 2021 6:18 pm**

We recognize sex work as work and our nation practices 'Sacred Prostitution', an institution that goes back thousands of years to the very birth of civilization in Ancient Mesopotamia. We encourage all members of the World Assembly to read "The History of Prostitution" published in the 19th century by Dr. William Sanger which may be acquired for free online for more information on the subject. Please excuse Dr. Sanger's perfunctory recitation of puritanical formulae which served only to give a slim veneer of social propriety for his 19th century audience. In all other respects, it is an excellent work. It may be consulted here.

https://www.24grammata.com/wp-content/u ... .com_1.pdf

We furthermore find that the original resolution has a flippant tone that is not befitting the dignity of the World Assembly. It is for this reason inter alia that We hereby vote FOR this repeal.

Mukhyamantri Samajavadinaha Matatantrasya Shaktirajyasya

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:26 am**

Goobergunchia wrote:With respect to the ambassador from Thousand Branches, we view the repeal of resolutions which have as their principal effect blocking this Assembly from passing future resolutions to be meritorious regardless of the argument presented in the repeal, and will continue to vote accordingly.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

“A man after my own heart….. God bless the Old Guard.”

Wayne

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:38 am**

OOC: Did the author sink this by requesting people to vote against? I mean like, wtf? :lol2:

Or was it coincidental that there was a ~1000 vote swing just after the post above?

For the record, I have changed my vote to for now in opposition to these shenanigans.

Posted: **Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:51 am**

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Did the author sink this by requesting people to vote against? I mean like, wtf? Or was it coincidental that there was a ~1000 vote swing just after the post above?

For the record, I have changed my vote to for now in opposition to these shenanigans.

It may be unorthodox but I don’t feel bad. If my own resolution is no longer something I wish to stubbornly pursue, then I will absolutely request against it

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Repeal GAR#179 “Clean Prostitute Act”

New player response