NationStates

West Barack and East Obama wrote:

Heavens Reach wrote:
We know what your position on legalizing sex work is vis a vis whether it will ultimately harm or benefit more sex workers -- or in the most utilitarian terms, people in general -- but what is still not clear is what exactly you feel the proposal fails to address, or why you think legal sex work is the more harmful of the alternatives. We're also not accusing you of having no horse in the race -- well, we weren't we suppose

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Even with legalisation, illegal and dangerous prostitution is still prevalent. It will be even harder to catch these people as it is difficult to regulate and the right to pimp is enshrined in law. I don't believe legal or illegal sex work are better or worse inherently, I just believe this is a one size fits all solution. Member nations are best equipped to dealing with this matter in my opinion.

"Then why did you, ambassador, suggest earlier that sex work should be legalised in this proposal, and you would oppose it if there is not such a mandate?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Coletti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Empire of The Ice States

Magecastle Embassy Building A5 wrote:"Then why did you, ambassador, suggest earlier that sex work should be legalised in this proposal, and you would oppose it if there is not such a mandate?"

"I, uh, believe that's called doublespeak, Ambassador." Adelia's voice chimes in helpfully.

Not sure I agree with thepart that obliges governments to provide contraception for free to sex workers. Shots and vaccinations, fine, thats part of normal healthcare. But Idon't think its the government's responsibility to pass out contraception for free. Sex workers can purchase their own out of their takings, and of course claim back the VAT as a business expense. As a low tax stae I vote against on these grounds. If this line is removed from a future resolution I would vote in favour.

Orion Pax wrote:Not sure I agree with thepart that obliges governments to provide contraception for free to sex workers. Shots and vaccinations, fine, thats part of normal healthcare. But Idon't think its the government's responsibility to pass out contraception for free. Sex workers can purchase their own out of their takings, and of course claim back the VAT as a business expense. As a low tax stae I vote against on these grounds. If this line is removed from a future resolution I would vote in favour.

Au contraire, it’s the, or one of the only provisions in this resolution that actually does anything. Now, I’m not sure if this provision is any good, since it’s not like condoms are unavailable or prohibitively expensive. All it does is sound good in theory — like most of this resolution.

Why do prostitutes deserve all this? They are awful people.

Providence Plantations and Rhode Island wrote:Why do prostitutes deserve all this? They are awful people.

"Ambassador, it seems that you are unable to comprehend the fact that prostitution is a form of employment or self-employment as respectable as any other. In addition, it seems that you don't believe in the concept of personal liberty anywhere near as much as your 'free land' claims to. I'd understand if you were opposed to this proposal due to economic concerns or excessiveness of mandates (not that there are any of either), but using the excuse of 'they are bad because I said so' is not grounds for denying legal protection and medical care to a large group of people."- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"I don't see vhy so many people don't like this act. I see it as somezhing good for the sex workers here in Calenoa. Sex vork is real vork, after all, so thoes who do sex work need to be protected. Ve vote yes for zhis act!"
- Radulf Agler, WA Represenitive for The Community of Calenoa

Against. While ensuring the safety of sex workers is commendable, mandating that member states support pimps and clients in any form is not. Regulations exist to prevent harm, not enforce it. If a product, service, or labor practice causes substantial harm without being necessary to protect human rights, then proliferation should not be compelled.

Providence Plantations and Rhode Island wrote:Why do prostitutes deserve all this? They are awful people.

"This reflects quite poorly - not on the sex workers whom you disparage, but upon yourself. I'm glad I don't live in your nation, as I've found the poor treatment of sex workers to be a good indicator of other undesirable policies."

Vanny looked the Ambassador from the Ice States, "Even if this bill does pass, which by the way the voting is going it isn't gonna happen, my government will not be funding these businesses. How does this law differentiate prostitution and sex trafficking?"

American Pere Housh wrote:Vanny looked the Ambassador from the Ice States, "Even if this bill does pass, which by the way the voting is going it isn't gonna happen, my government will not be funding these businesses. How does this law differentiate prostitution and sex trafficking?"

"Article 4, and clause 4b in particular, address your last concern." - Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

OOC: here they are:

The Ice States wrote:The act of coercing a person to provide sexual services or participate in sex work or sexual acts as part of the same, including as a sex worker or consumer of sex work, is hereby prohibited.

1. -snip-
   
   
2. No person may be trafficked or otherwise moved by force with the intent of forcing that person to provide sexual services or otherwise violating Section 4.

While Oztotl is not against sex work at all. Indeed, selling services is already legal and sex is already legal. Sex workers in Oztotl get all of the same protections as any other worker already and we do not see a need for the government to be involved beyond enforcing existing laws regarding assault, battery, working conditions, and healthcare. We do not like the idea of the region deciding how we must care for our people or regulate our industries internally. It would be one thing if we were exporting sex work services but we feel that this law is intrusive to national sovereignty and that this medium is more appropriate for laws regarding international issues rather than internal ones. If you wish to submit similar legislation to regulate the international trade of sex work, then Oztotl may be on board.

I think, at best, this proposal could only have been marginally better, and the opposition just comes down to ideological differences with a significant portion of the international community

We consider article 2 to be a non-starter. While the Republic legalizes many types of sex work, we do not believe it appropriate to forcibly legalize all forms of sex work as across the board with no differentiation and a matter of WA law. Or, in more succint form: we are opposed of enshrining an unrestrained to be a whore, pimp, etc. into international law.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:We consider article 2 to be a non-starter. While the Republic legalizes many types of sex work, we do not believe it appropriate to forcibly legalize all forms of sex work as across the board with no differentiation and a matter of WA law. Or, in more succint form: we are opposed of enshrining an unrestrained to be a whore, pimp, etc. into international law.

Emphasis ours. Your choice of words is telling, ambassador.

I'll be honest; I'm staring at section three and it just seems a bit off. If you work for someone, they have to provide you with "safe and effective preventive medical products" but if you are "self employed" the government has to provide you with them. But doesn't everyone want to have them? And there is no real indication that this is a public or private service so like if your sexual partner pays for dinner, does that mean that you can claim to be a sex worker (if only for your one companion) and thus claim the free goods? And if that is the case why not make the government provide this to everyone?

Now none of this is enough for me to vote against it (it probably won't pass anyway) but, really, does anyone actually think through these things before submitting them?

Retired WerePenguins wrote:I'll be honest; I'm staring at section three and it just seems a bit off. If you work for someone, they have to provide you with "safe and effective preventive medical products" but if you are "self employed" the government has to provide you with them. But doesn't everyone want to have them? And there is no real indication that this is a public or private service so like if your sexual partner pays for dinner, does that mean that you can claim to be a sex worker (if only for your one companion) and thus claim the free goods? And if that is the case why not make the government provide this to everyone?

Now none of this is enough for me to vote against it (it probably won't pass anyway) but, really, does anyone actually think through these things before submitting them?

Ooc: While I agree that everyone should have access to such products, as sex workers will be more consistently likely to be exposed to such infections, it would be especially important that sex workers have access to those products. The existing resolution against STIs does not mandate that such products be provided universally or to sex workers. Mandating access to such products in this resolution does not hurt or block future legislation to also mandate universal access. However, I do think that the point surrounding one-off paid sex is well-taken, honestly.

i have a question if this legislation was killed in a world assembly level would i be permitted to enforce these legislation on my territories?

The Kosaki City Authority wrote:i have a question if this legislation was killed in a world assembly level would i be permitted to enforce these legislation on my territories?

Yes. You are permitted to enforce any legislation as long as it doesn't conflict with extant WA resolutions.

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:We consider article 2 to be a non-starter. While the Republic legalizes many types of sex work, we do not believe it appropriate to forcibly legalize all forms of sex work as across the board with no differentiation and a matter of WA law. Or, in more succint form: we are opposed of enshrining an unrestrained to be a whore, pimp, etc. into international law.

Sorry,but let's look at this objectively. If we do not adopt this law, then prostitution will flourish in the same more rigid form and with deeper roots in the civic consciousness! Why people go in prostitute or other illegal sex-business? Because many monetary factors make people get poorer and go to extreme measures.

Ambassador The People: "My region has decided to support this resolution.. As such, I have coversed this with other top raking Fachu delegates and decided to vote For this resolution... I believe this would be a decent piece of legislation..."

The region of Agartha opposes this proposal on decency grounds and this has been reflected in the vote of the delegate.

Concerning the proper rights of women, Quellemount votes against this act.

Providence Plantations and Rhode Island wrote:Why do prostitutes deserve all this? They are awful people.

Why exactly are prostitutes awful people? If one reads their bible, they will see that even Jesus had a prostitute....

We have decided to vote against the proposal, since It goes against the ideals defended by the Principality of Nalvin and the morals of its people.