NationStates

Hello everyone! This is my first attempt at a GA resolution! The resolution being repealed is antiquated and poorly written and I thought it was in great need of being repealed and replaced. Here's the link to the replace thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=511458

Feedback is very welcome!

Repeal GAR#179

---

[resolution=GA#179]General Assembly Resolution #179 “Clean Prostitute Act”[/resolution] (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void

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

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;

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;

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;

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

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;

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

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

Hereby repeals GAR#179.

Things people have noted that might be something to discuss (in other words, things I'd love specific feedback on):

Should the "confused" clause be elaborated further on or does it do enough to provide an additional opinion for repealing?
(actually this one is a me question) Is [resolution] the correct tag for linking a resolution and it just doesn't work on the forums? Or is there something else I should be using?

OOC: GA#179 does not act as a blocker to further international regulations on the sex industry (meaning you could write a proposal doing just that without repealing GA#179).

IC: "We respectfully oppose this proposal, as the target resolution respects the right of each member nation to decide for itself whether to permit this particular profession, while making due provision for the public health and for the welfare of individuals in the sex industry. We would be open to further regulations, but see no need to repeal the target resolution."

Barfleur wrote:OOC: GA#179 does not act as a blocker to further international regulations on the sex industry (meaning you could write a proposal doing just that without repealing GA#179).

IC: "We respectfully oppose this proposal, as the target resolution respects the right of each member nation to decide for itself whether to permit this particular profession, while making due provision for the public health and for the welfare of individuals in the sex industry. We would be open to further regulations, but see no need to repeal the target resolution."

The resolution does not, but it does provide limited and antiquated solutions to some problems that I wish to legislate better on, specifically with regards to regulations on STIs, an area that in this resolution just shoves all of the responsibility for taking care of STIs on the sex workers, without offering them any protections for others transferring those STIs to them.

Additionally, if you read the replacement resolution, it keeps the same decision on not legislating the legality of sex work and rather just adds actual regulations on the industry and a better solution for the regulation of STI spread.

Thousand Branches wrote:

Barfleur wrote:OOC: GA#179 does not act as a blocker to further international regulations on the sex industry (meaning you could write a proposal doing just that without repealing GA#179).

IC: "We respectfully oppose this proposal, as the target resolution respects the right of each member nation to decide for itself whether to permit this particular profession, while making due provision for the public health and for the welfare of individuals in the sex industry. We would be open to further regulations, but see no need to repeal the target resolution."

The resolution does not, but it does provide limited and antiquated solutions to some problems that I wish to legislate better on, specifically with regards to regulations on STIs, an area that in this resolution just shoves all of the responsibility for taking care of STIs on the sex workers, without offering them any protections for others transferring those STIs to them.

Additionally, if you read the replacement resolution, it keeps the same decision on not legislating the legality of sex work and rather just adds actual regulations on the industry and a better solution for the regulation of STI spread.

OOC: You can impose regulations on the sex industry without repealing GA#179. It will be implied that the proposal only applies to nations which have legalized such work (just like a resolution on elections only applies to nations which allow their citizens to vote, and IA's former proposal entitled "Proper Inheritance of Monarchical Titles," if passed, would only apply to monarchies). But there is simply no need to repeal the target resolution.

Barfleur wrote:

Thousand Branches wrote:The resolution does not, but it does provide limited and antiquated solutions to some problems that I wish to legislate better on, specifically with regards to regulations on STIs, an area that in this resolution just shoves all of the responsibility for taking care of STIs on the sex workers, without offering them any protections for others transferring those STIs to them.

Additionally, if you read the replacement resolution, it keeps the same decision on not legislating the legality of sex work and rather just adds actual regulations on the industry and a better solution for the regulation of STI spread.

OOC: You can impose regulations on the sex industry without repealing GA#179. It will be implied that the proposal only applies to nations which have legalized such work (just like a resolution on elections only applies to nations which allow their citizens to vote, and IA's former proposal entitled "Proper Inheritance of Monarchical Titles," if passed, would only apply to monarchies). But there is simply no need to repeal the target resolution.

Okay so I’m pretty sure you just didn’t read half of that first paragraph because it outlines pretty damn clearly why I want to repeal this resolution. Lemme just copy it here for you:

“but it does provide limited and antiquated solutions to some problems that I wish to legislate better on, specifically with regards to regulations on STIs, an area that in this resolution just shoves all of the responsibility for taking care of STIs on the sex workers, without offering them any protections for others transferring those STIs to them.”

STIs are an important and crippling problem in the sex industry, and the resolution being repealed provides a simplistic and uninformed solution on it. Sure, if that clause didn’t exist, I’d leave the resolution well alone, but STIs are a much more sensitive issue than 179 seems to believe.

Ambassador Scott "The Apatosaurusian Delegation intends to fully support repealing and replacing GAR#179."

Thousand Branches wrote:

Barfleur wrote:OOC: You can impose regulations on the sex industry without repealing GA#179. It will be implied that the proposal only applies to nations which have legalized such work (just like a resolution on elections only applies to nations which allow their citizens to vote, and IA's former proposal entitled "Proper Inheritance of Monarchical Titles," if passed, would only apply to monarchies). But there is simply no need to repeal the target resolution.

Okay so I’m pretty sure you just didn’t read half of that first paragraph because it outlines pretty damn clearly why I want to repeal this resolution. Lemme just copy it here for you:

“but it does provide limited and antiquated solutions to some problems that I wish to legislate better on, specifically with regards to regulations on STIs, an area that in this resolution just shoves all of the responsibility for taking care of STIs on the sex workers, without offering them any protections for others transferring those STIs to them.”

STIs are an important and crippling problem in the sex industry, and the resolution being repealed provides a simplistic and uninformed solution on it. Sure, if that clause didn’t exist, I’d leave the resolution well alone, but STIs are a much more sensitive issue than 179 seems to believe.

OOC:
I do not see how you get to that conclusion from the target resolution. GA 179 says:

REQUIRES that prostitutes working in nations choosing to allow prostitution be regularly screened for sexually transmitted infections and further stipulates that any prostitutes who are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection abstain from their work until their infection has been cured.

That clause is completely silent as to who is responsible for STIs, is entirely silent on the potential civil or criminal liability of spreading STIs, and is entirely silent as to who is responsible for paying for any testing or treatment. Now, unfortunately, since we are not in a vacuum, GA 97 and GA 344 pretty well establish that the costs will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers since we are essentially required to have an état providence.

Given this, I dismiss your argument as unavailing, and, as I shall shortly post elsewhere, consider your replacement unacceptable in any instance.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:OOC:
I do not see how you get to that conclusion from the target resolution. GA 179 says:

REQUIRES that prostitutes working in nations choosing to allow prostitution be regularly screened for sexually transmitted infections and further stipulates that any prostitutes who are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection abstain from their work until their infection has been cured.

That clause is completely silent as to who is responsible for STIs, is entirely silent on the potential civil or criminal liability of spreading STIs, and is entirely silent as to who is responsible for paying for any testing or treatment. Now, unfortunately, since we are not in a vacuum, GA 97 and GA 344 pretty well establish that the costs will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers since we are essentially required to have an état providence.

Given this, I dismiss your argument as unavailing, and, as I shall shortly post elsewhere, consider your replacement unacceptable in any instance.

Are you looking at the same clause as me??? No it does not say “prostitutes are responsible for STIs”, but it does make only the sex workers responsible for getting tested and for staying off work if somebody else infects them with an STI. The other silences are problematic in that they are silent. The fact that there is no legislation on liability or payment is… bad in and of itself. It also doesn’t belong randomly in a completely separate piece of legislation than the rest of the STI stuff. This argument is mystifying to me. Responsibility does not have to be perfectly and exactly explicit to exist nonetheless, and if something is eerily silent, that doesn’t mean good.

Additionally “I dismiss your argument as unavailing” is an incredibly close minded sort of thinking. This is the general assembly, we should be actually arguing points and keeping an open mind on topics, at least in my opinion.

Thousand Branches wrote:

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:OOC:
I do not see how you get to that conclusion from the target resolution. GA 179 says:


That clause is completely silent as to who is responsible for STIs, is entirely silent on the potential civil or criminal liability of spreading STIs, and is entirely silent as to who is responsible for paying for any testing or treatment. Now, unfortunately, since we are not in a vacuum, GA 97 and GA 344 pretty well establish that the costs will ultimately be paid by the taxpayers since we are essentially required to have an état providence.

Given this, I dismiss your argument as unavailing, and, as I shall shortly post elsewhere, consider your replacement unacceptable in any instance.

Are you looking at the same clause as me??? No it does not say “prostitutes are responsible for STIs”, but it does make only the sex workers responsible for getting tested and for staying off work if somebody else infects them with an STI. The other silences are problematic in that they are silent. The fact that there is no legislation on liability or payment is… bad in and of itself. It also doesn’t belong randomly in a completely separate piece of legislation than the rest of the STI stuff. This argument is mystifying to me. Responsibility does not have to be perfectly and exactly explicit to exist nonetheless, and if something is eerily silent, that doesn’t mean good.

Additionally “I dismiss your argument as unavailing” is an incredibly close minded sort of thinking. This is the general assembly, we should be actually arguing points and keeping an open mind on topics, at least in my opinion.

I am reading the same clause as you, and am analyzing it according to basic precepts: the clause does precisely what it says, and only precisely and exactly what it says in the four corners of its text. It blocks none of what you want to do in your "replacement" and does not require any of the horribles you think it does (and other resolutions address those "horribles" anyway through mandatory socialized medicine and guaranteed minimum standards of living) assuming a state that wishes to legalize the ignoble profession does not itself exercise its powers to have addressed these issues through some other form of mandate (like criminalizing the intentional spread of STIs for instance).

Your argument remains completely unavailing and unconvincing because it rests on an entirely false premise and therefore dismissed. If you make a sound argument for repeal, I will gladly engage with it, but this argument is not it. You are tilting against a windmill, and not even a windmill you need topple. As I said in the other thread, I think you can pass your "replacement" without this repeal anyway, and would argue such if anyone were to mount a legality challenge.

I’ll be honest, I think I’m gonna wait for further opinions on this because to me, it seems like I’ve made a pretty clear and concise argument for repeal. The resolution is old, unnecessary, and it presents a terrible solution for the spread of STIs, to me that seems like good enough reason for repeal

Ambassador Tappe: Our delegation completely supports a repeal of the target.

So you want to repeal a nice and perfectly simple blocker which leaves prostitution up to individual nations, why? Because Bob's writing style doesn't contain enough legalese for you? You do realize if you repeal this, it sets up the possibility of a resolution being passed which completely outlaws prostitution, and that helps no one. I suggest you rethink this very hard. If you want to legislate on STI's, there is no reason to repeal this.

Wayneactia wrote:So you want to repeal a nice and perfectly simple blocker which leaves prostitution up to individual nations, why? Because Bob's writing style doesn't contain enough legalese for you? You do realize if you repeal this, it sets up the possibility of a resolution being passed which completely outlaws prostitution, and that helps no one. I suggest you rethink this very hard. If you want to legislate on STI's, there is no reason to repeal this.

In fairness, the replace would prevent the possibility of outlawing prostitution, in fact theoretically considering legislation as a whole I would argue it might even be safer in a replace because repealing that you’d have to provide a lot more argument to repeal the entire resolution. Not that that matters at all

Anyway, I’ll think on whether this resolution needs to be repealed or not. I’ve received opinions from both sides and of course ya’ll know where my opinion is so I’ll take a look at it today

Thousand Branches wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:So you want to repeal a nice and perfectly simple blocker which leaves prostitution up to individual nations, why? Because Bob's writing style doesn't contain enough legalese for you? You do realize if you repeal this, it sets up the possibility of a resolution being passed which completely outlaws prostitution, and that helps no one. I suggest you rethink this very hard. If you want to legislate on STI's, there is no reason to repeal this.

In fairness, the replace would prevent the possibility of outlawing prostitution, in fact theoretically considering legislation as a whole I would argue it might even be safer in a replace because repealing that you’d have to provide a lot more argument to repeal the entire resolution. Not that that matters at all

Anyway, I’ll think on whether this resolution needs to be repealed or not. I’ve received opinions from both sides and of course ya’ll know where my opinion is so I’ll take a look at it today

OOC: The replacement wouldn't be able to be passed until the repeal is passed, and so there is no assurance that once you succeed in repealing GA#179, there will not be another proposal to completely outlaw prostitution in all member nations. I would not vote for such a proposal, and I doubt a majority of member nations would, but if it is passed, your replacement will quite literally be blocked. And as to your earlier point about (perfectly sensible) testing requirements, those requirements do nothing more than compel a person to get tested (rather than requiring A to administer a test to B) and compel individuals with STDs and STIs to not engage in commercial sexual activities (rather than place the onus on any other party to prevent them from doing so). Nothing unfair about that, in my eyes.

First. Include this link in your OP somewhere: viewtopic.php?p=8487479#p8487479. Or alternatively to the side side version. It doesn't matter which one.

The claim, not made in the proposal itself, that "Clean Prostitute Act" imposes the cost of STI treatment on sex workers, is false. It requires that sex workers are regularly tested. It then "stipulates that any prostitutes who are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection abstain from their work until their infection has been cured".

This sets up what is, in effect, a wilful negligence liability standard, ie that a person who is diagnosed with an STI cannot then wilfully spread it or negligently spread it. It is not a strict liability standard based on the spread of the STI in of itself. This logical chain requires the assumption only that prostitution (not sex work in general) can spread STIs, which is yet unquestioned.

The treatment costs are unspoken of in the proposal. However, treatment for all medical conditions under GA 97 "Quality in Health Services" is, at the end of the day, placed on the state. Nor will sex workers starve to death if they are prohibited from doing sex work, as GA 344 "Minimum Standard of Living Act" establishes a minimum standard of living for all WA inhabitants.

Hmmmmm okay, after a couple days to think on this, I may scrap this draft and just focus on the regulations proposal. This seems like unnecessary work unless anyone thinks otherwise, of course I will keep this open to further opinions

FULL SUPPORT if you decide to pursue the resolution.

I’ve always felt the resolution was offensive and juvenile.

- Makes light of HIV, STDs et. al. as a pun.
- Does not define prostitution or sex work.
- The stated purpose of the resolution is to limit legislation: “REALIZING that constantly passing and repealing resolutions dealing with prostitution is a waste of the World Assembly’s time,” however the resolution fails to meet this goal, because it only acts as a blocker on legalization, not decriminalization, nor does it discuss any of the other issues related to sex work.
- Flibb essentially asserts that prostitution is not an international issue, then crudely waddles into the regulation of STIs and sex work anyways… his answer assumes all STIs are non-permanent, condoms aren’t effective, and all sex work is vaginal or penile .. he also sets up a system that displaces workers by international law without considering employment insurance, paid sick leave, or any kind of compensation.
- Treating sex work as an area of strictly national concern overlooks the impact on subjects of mostly international concern like sex trafficking and child abuse.
- CPA manages to be both a dumb, heavy-handed and interventionalist consumer protection bill but it also disavows responsibilities and puts sex workers last.

It’s the worst resolution on the books. The second is the one where Flibb’s hand-waves away the sale of nuclear weapons as an issue.

EDIT: the notion that other authors here are pursuing that the WA’s other labour or income related resolutions interact with CPA in a way that supports CPA is ridiculous. CPA predates most of these resolutions. It was never intended to require the state to support sex workers who it displaced from work — it’s a poorly written, irresponsible resolution that depends solely on other resolutions keeping on the books from not being downright nefarious.

Unibot III wrote:FULL SUPPORT if you decide to pursue the resolution.

I’ve always felt the resolution was offensive and juvenile.

- Makes light of HIV, STDs et. al. as a pun.
- Does not define prostitution or sex work.
- The stated purpose of the resolution is to limit legislation: “REALIZING that constantly passing and repealing resolutions dealing with prostitution is a waste of the World Assembly’s time,” however the resolution fails to meet this goal, because it only acts as a blocker on legalization, not decriminalization, nor does it discuss any of the other issues related to sex work.
- Flibb essentially asserts that prostitution is not an international issue, then crudely waddles into the regulation of STIs and sex work anyways… his answer assumes all STIs are non-permanent, condoms aren’t effective, and all sex work is vaginal or penile .. he also sets up a system that displaces workers by international law without considering employment insurance, paid sick leave, or any kind of compensation.
- Treating sex work as an area of strictly national concern overlooks the impact on subjects of mostly international concern like sex trafficking and child abuse.
- CPA manages to be both a dumb, heavy-handed and interventionalist consumer protection bill but it also disavows responsibilities and puts sex workers last.

It’s the worst resolution on the books. The second is the one where Flibb’s hand-waves away the sale of nuclear weapons as an issue.

EDIT: the notion that other authors here are pursuing that the WA’s other labour or income related resolutions interact with CPA in a way that supports CPA is ridiculous. CPA predates most of these resolutions. It was never intended to require the state to support sex workers who it displaced from work — it’s a poorly written, irresponsible resolution that depends solely on other resolutions keeping on the books from not being downright nefarious.

Hmm curious, remarkably similar to my original thoughts on this resolution. Hence why I wanted to replace it with an actually adequate resolution. I’ll take another look and see what I can come up with for writing out my arguments better

Some small edits and a change to the final clause have been implemented. Any suggestions for improvement?

Prostitution should be legal but regulated. It has health hazards that need to be avoided.

Bump for further feedback (it’s been a week)

I think it's submit-ready but I always love a repeal with teeth. Really tear into GA#179. Two resolutions enter, but one leaves.

With language, I mean.

You should emphasize how necessary an actual resolution on the topic is earlier, I think

Minskiev wrote:You should emphasize how necessary an actual resolution on the topic is earlier, I think

I’m not sure I can, looking at the resolution. I mean where would I put that, it all follows kind of a… linear flow? That’s the best way I have to explain it. Each clause makes better sense with the clauses before and after it. If you do have a suggestion on this, I’m happy to hear it though

I think I’ll tentatively be submitting this one Friday if there’s no further comments