[Second Draft] Legalizing Prostitution

[Separatist Peoples]

I still wouldn't agree but its good.

What do I need to do for you to agree?

Probably allowing nations to reserve the right to criminalize it. That would do it for me.

[Dilange]

A lot of countries outlawed prostitution...it would be worthless to have a WA resolution on something a majority of people have illegal.

I disagree. I'm not even sure if the majority of members do ban prostitution, but even assuming you're right, there's still considerable good to be done by regulating it in the countries where it is legal, for all the reasons both you and I have mentioned. Such an effort also affords the opportunity to extend certain protections to exploited sex workers and victims of human trafficking even in states where prostitution remains illegal. In any case, if you truly believe that the majority of WA nations ban prostitution, I'm curious what makes you think those same nations would pass a resolution that compels them to legalize it. Your reasoning seems counter-intuitive.

Riley Fluffer

Why pass or write something that affects a minority of member states?

And a lot of members already hate this resolution....so this wouldnt be a good substitute.

[Dizyntk]

I still wouldn't agree but its good.

What do I need to do for you to agree?

"Possibly by agreeing with us that forcing the legalization of an inherently dangerous and frequently criminally controlled business on unwilling nations is a bad idea. That might work for starters."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"Possibly by agreeing with us that forcing the legalization of an inherently dangerous and frequently criminally controlled business on unwilling nations is a bad idea. That might work for starters."

Well, if we make them not be criminals, they won't be criminals, will they?

The loophole to which we were referring (allowing prostitution to be effectively banned at present) is this:

"How could prostitution be illegal and criminalised in member nations? If you read WAR#16 Sexual Privacy Act, you will notice how it [makes no] exception for prostitution in the Sexual Privacy Act, can you? My interpretation of resolution #16 would therefore have to be that prostitution, as long as it is consensual and in the privacy of the home or otherwise away from public exposure, must be legal in all WA member nations."

OOC: "in the home" _ So a government legislates that within its jurisdiction that means that the residence in question must actually be home to both the prostitute[s] and the client[s] who are involved in any particular transaction.
"or otherwise away from public exposure" _ So the same government legislates that within its jurisdiction that means "in a room behind a closed & locked door"... and then criminalises not the prostitution itself but the provision of premises "away from public exposure" for that purpose instead...
= effective legal ban despite that resolution.

Naturally, this act would remove that loophole.


In response to Alqania,

"Have a look at WAR#4 Restrictions on Child Labor, especially this clause:

(D) Bans anyone under the age of consent from engaging in sexually explicit acts as a form of employment.

Is that existing ban not enough?"

What if the other legislation gets repealed?


And as Alqania pointed out, it would be better if:
(2) A prostitute has the right to refuse any sexual act
became
(2) A prostitute has the right to refuse any sexual act in accordance with the agreed contract


Again, refering to another point by Alqania:

"If prostitution is good, why is consensual cannibalism bad?"

Because with cannibalism someone definitely dies from something other than an accident.

I agree that this resolution should be passed...but with something in mind.

one, that the oldest profession in the world should be not blatantly exercised on the streets...a more "in-door" method would be best. One where Minors are not allowed, like a brothel setting.

We agree, there should be another clause stating prostitutes must be above the age of consent, and banning prostitution from taking place in public.


In response to this post the draft has been amended.

Where did corruption enter the argument, and what does it have to do with this?

"Still no answer from the proposal's author, or any of its other supporters, to this question?"

Let's limit ourselves to doing a hundred things at a time, shall we?

We believe that this is a good point:

A lot of countries outlawed prostitution...it would be worthless to have a WA resolution on something a majority of people have illegal.

I disagree. I'm not even sure if the majority of members do ban prostitution, but even assuming you're right, there's still considerable good to be done by regulating it in the countries where it is legal, for all the reasons both you and I have mentioned. Such an effort also affords the opportunity to extend certain protections to exploited sex workers and victims of human trafficking even in states where prostitution remains illegal. In any case, if you truly believe that the majority of WA nations ban prostitution, I'm curious what makes you think those same nations would pass a resolution that compels them to legalize it. Your reasoning seems counter-intuitive.

Riley Fluffer

Finally, if we were to ban anything that harms people, we might as well ban smoking and alcohol.

Why not just educate them about the dangers?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Possibly by agreeing with us that forcing the legalization of an inherently dangerous and frequently criminally controlled business on unwilling nations is a bad idea. That might work for starters."

Well, if we make them not be criminals, they won't be criminals, will they?

That is the worst argument for legalizing something that may be a criminal activity that I have ever heard. Just because murderers are criminals means we should legalize murder, too, right? I mean, that way, murder rates will technically drop to zero!

Just because a problem exists doesn't mean the laws aren't effective.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Well, if we make them not be criminals, they won't be criminals, will they?

That is the worst argument for legalizing something that may be a criminal activity that I have ever heard. Just because murderers are criminals means we should legalize murder, too, right? I mean, that way, murder rates will technically drop to zero!

Just because a problem exists doesn't mean the laws aren't effective.

We (that is, I) have made several other arguments for allowing prostitution. Our point was that prostitution will be controlled by somebody, and they won't be criminals if they're not criminals, so there'll be no danger of prostitutes being controlled by criminals - not more than banking is controlled by criminals anyway. So you can't logically say it's presently a business run by criminals so we can't support it.

Our basic argument is if we consider prostitution as dangerous (as we do) there are still grounds for supporting this proposal: the freedom of the right to own property (that is, controlling their own property, property including their bodies).

What are the reasons for opponents of this proposal opposing it? Do they believe that morals outweigh rights, or what?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Also concerning the polling: assuming everybody has voted once and they're all WA members, 0.32% of all WA members have voted in the poll. That's way too small a sample size to draw any meaningful conclusion, other than that some people support and some people oppose.

[Alqania]

In response to Alqania,

"Have a look at WAR#4 Restrictions on Child Labor, especially this clause:

Is that existing ban not enough?"

What if the other legislation gets repealed?

Lord Raekevik shrugged.

"Duplication is not allowed - it is illegal under the proposal rules. Child labour is restricted by the 'Restrictions on Child Labor'. If the World Assembly would suddenly decide that we do not need international restrictions on child labour, there shall not be any. This is how the rules work. I did not make them."

Again, refering to another point by Alqania:

"If prostitution is good, why is consensual cannibalism bad?"

Because with cannibalism someone definitely dies from something other than an accident.

"Not necessarily. Remains of a person who dies from an accident, illness or natural causes may be consumed and that person may have in advance consented to such consumption post-mortem. It is actually common practice among the followers of one of the native religions in the Queendom. Incidentally the same religion whose followers tend to offer sexual services as charity."

I agree that this resolution should be passed...but with something in mind.

one, that the oldest profession in the world should be not blatantly exercised on the streets...a more "in-door" method would be best. One where Minors are not allowed, like a brothel setting.

We agree, there should be another clause stating prostitutes must be above the age of consent, and banning prostitution from taking place in public.

"Why should prostitution or other sex for that matter be banned from public places? Not all nations have a constant moralistic tendency to 'think of the children'. Perhaps ALLOWING nations to ban prostitution in public places, like the Sexual Privacy Act does allow nations to ban sex in public places, would be desirable though."

[Separatist Peoples]

We (that is, I) have made several other arguments for allowing prostitution. Our point was that prostitution will be controlled by somebody, and they won't be criminals if they're not criminals, so there'll be no danger of prostitutes being controlled by criminals - not more than banking is controlled by criminals anyway. So you can't logically say it's presently a business run by criminals so we can't support it.

Our basic argument is if we consider prostitution as dangerous (as we do) there are still grounds for supporting this proposal: the freedom of the right to own property (that is, controlling their own property, property including their bodies).

What are the reasons for opponents of this proposal opposing it? Do they believe that morals outweigh rights, or what?

We oppose it because many believe prostitution to be morally wrong. We also agree with the belief of others who oppose it who believe that the entire process is a business transaction, and therefore able to be regulated as we see fit. There are many other reasons to be opposed to this, not the least of which is that this should be a domestic issue, not an international one.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

We oppose it because many believe prostitution to be morally wrong. We also agree with the belief of others who oppose it who believe that the entire process is a business transaction, and therefore able to be regulated as we see fit. There are many other reasons to be opposed to this, not the least of which is that this should be a domestic issue, not an international one.

Mostly good reasons. Almost good enough for us, but then we've always been rather liberal.

Our main objection to those reasons is the idea that business transactions should not have further regulations: extra business regulations required are so light as to be almost non-existent - it's basically enforcing contracts and the age of consent.

[Separatist Peoples]

We oppose it because many believe prostitution to be morally wrong. We also agree with the belief of others who oppose it who believe that the entire process is a business transaction, and therefore able to be regulated as we see fit. There are many other reasons to be opposed to this, not the least of which is that this should be a domestic issue, not an international one.

Mostly good reasons. Almost good enough for us, but then we've always been rather liberal.

Our main objection to those reasons is the idea that business transactions should not have further regulations: extra business regulations required are so light as to be almost non-existent - it's basically enforcing contracts and the age of consent.

Perhaps for your nation, but what about nations with planned economies? Any attempt to stop the regulation of business by the WA could be construed as an ideological ban.

Besides, not every nation has your own notion of right and wrong. Why force that moral belief on the rest of us, when you can just as easily allow prostitution in your own nation and leave our own criminal policy alone. Hell, you can even allow anybody who wants to practice prostitution the freedom to immigrate to Libraria and Ausitoria, but don't force social policy down our throats.

[Quelesh]

1) Religious countries would have already banned this due to immoral views....trying to counteract it would be an ideology ban, I believe...i could be wrong.

I don't see how that would be an ideological ban. Some nations may also believe that it's immoral to allow people to have recreational sex, but GAR16 has already required that such be allowed.

3) Under this, sex trafficking would be legal. So, theres another loophole.

Sex trafficking, as in transporting people without their informed consent for the purpose of nonconsensual prositution, is already outlawed by a previous resolution. The only things this proposal would legalize are consensual activities.

And as Alqania pointed out, it would be better if:
(2) A prostitute has the right to refuse any sexual act
became
(2) A prostitute has the right to refuse any sexual act in accordance with the agreed contract

That wouldn't matter. Everyone has the right to refuse any sexual act under any circumstances, because GAR16 requires that all nonconsensual sex be criminalized.

Again, refering to another point by Alqania:

"If prostitution is good, why is consensual cannibalism bad?"

Because with cannibalism someone definitely dies from something other than an accident.

That's not necessarily true either. To risk getting off-topic, it's quite possible for a person to die of accidental causes and then be eaten.

Well, if we make them not be criminals, they won't be criminals, will they?

That is the worst argument for legalizing something that may be a criminal activity that I have ever heard. Just because murderers are criminals means we should legalize murder, too, right? I mean, that way, murder rates will technically drop to zero!

Libraria's statement wasn't so much an argument for legalization as a counter-argument against criminalization. Some ambassadors have made the pro-criminalization argument here that basically boils down to "prostitutes are criminals, therefore prostitution should be illegal." The argument is circular. Of course people who engage in illegal activities are criminals, because the activities that they engage in are illegal. If those activities were legalized, those who engage in them would no longer be criminals.

The fact that, in your jurisdiction, only criminals are prostitutes does not constitute a valid argument for the continued criminalization of prostitution.

We oppose it because many believe prostitution to be morally wrong.

Many people also believe recreational sex to be morally wrong, and yet all WA member states are already required to legalize it.

A couple of brief comments about new proposal wording (this doesn't mean that there aren't still other issues that I've identified previously but am not specifically identifying here):

HEREBY MANDATES that all member states residing with the World Assembly legalize the human right of prostitution.

Prostitutes and member states that reside with the World Assembly must abide to the following statements:

The phrase "residing with the World Assembly" in these clauses may create a loophole. A government could claim that, though the state is a member of the World Assembly, it does not "reside" with the WA, and that therefore the clauses do not apply to their government.

(3) Local governments must notify prostitutes about health and other risk connected to prostitution via mail.

What about states with no system of postal mail? What about prostitutes with no permanent mailing address?

(2) For any government to stop a prostitute from his/her/its profession.

This is too broad. If a prostitute also happens to be a serial killer, the government would normally arrest and jail them, which in most states would stop them from being prostitutes. This clause would prevent this.

This line is also unnecessary. Governments can't stop people from being prostitutes anyway because a previous clause already requires that prostitution be legal.

[Dizyntk]

Feyalisa reads the debate points since she last was here. "Well I can see that this has gone precisely nowhere. Let me reiterate my earlier point that if we are going to suggest legalization then we must Require, not merely Request or Encourage, that regulation take place. For both the safety of the individuals in question as well as the Nation's ability to conform with the requirements of the legislation."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Perhaps for your nation, but what about nations with planned economies? Any attempt to stop the regulation of business by the WA could be construed as an ideological ban.

Besides, not every nation has your own notion of right and wrong. Why force that moral belief on the rest of us, when you can just as easily allow prostitution in your own nation and leave our own criminal policy alone. Hell, you can even allow anybody who wants to practice prostitution the freedom to immigrate to Libraria and Ausitoria, but don't force social policy down our throats.

Well, plans can be adjusted. And the WA isn't stopping the regulation of business. It's re-regulating it, in the same way that it re-regulates Living Wages, Slavery, Workplaces, etc.

Equally, while National Sovereignty is an accurate refrain, the WA has a tendency to rule on issues of morals anyway.

We agree with Alqania's points and Quelesh's points.

Feyalisa reads the debate points since she last was here. "Well I can see that this has gone precisely nowhere. Let me reiterate my earlier point that if we are going to suggest legalization then we must Require, not merely Request or Encourage, that regulation take place. For both the safety of the individuals in question as well as the Nation's ability to conform with the requirements of the legislation."

Given that there are loopholes allowing nations to both make prostitution both legal and illegal, it could be best to regulate it a bit anyway, whether this proposal is accepted or not.

[Dizyntk]

Given that there are loopholes allowing nations to both make prostitution both legal and illegal, it could be best to regulate it a bit anyway, whether this proposal is accepted or not.

"Ahh, but if this proposal is not passed, and I suspect that it will not be, then regulation of the subject is superfluous. In the case of this proposal's failure, then the issue of prostitution's legality or illegality, as well as said regulation, will remain where it currently is, in the hands of the individual nations. Personally I feel that is where it should remain."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Surely we can legislate to ensure safety in places where it is legal?

[Dizyntk]

Surely we can legislate to ensure safety in places where it is legal?

" No we cannot, Ambassador. The WA rules are quite specific on this. We may only enact legislation that affects the entire WA, not just certain members of it."

[Bears Armed]

Surely we can legislate to ensure safety in places where it is legal?

" No we cannot, Ambassador. The WA rules are quite specific on this. We may only enact legislation that affects the entire WA, not just certain members of it."

OOC: That depends on how the proposals are actually worded. After all, for example, we were able to legislate on the 'Law of the Sea' even though some member nations are completely landlocked...'

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I'm sorry, but regardless of the number of revisions to this draft, Minoan opinion is that the area of concern is best left to national level.

- Ms. S. Harper.

[Suidwes-Afrika]

I'm sorry, but regardless of the number of revisions to this draft, Minoan opinion is that the area of concern is best left to national level.

- Ms. S. Harper.

I think most of the WA community agrees with you.

[Morlago]

I'm sorry, but regardless of the number of revisions to this draft, Minoan opinion is that the area of concern is best left to national level.

- Ms. S. Harper.

I think most of the WA community agrees with you.

We most certainly do.

[Dizyntk]

I think most of the WA community agrees with you.

We most certainly do.

"We have been trying to point that out to the author for the better part of a week."

[Manleestan]

Title: Legalizing Prostitution
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Description:

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that prostitution, one of the oldest and most known professions in existence, is illegal in many member states;


CONCERNED that the criminalization of prostitution prevents prostitutes from adequately protecting themselves from abuse and disease, and that even in member states where prostitution is legal, prostitutes still may not be fully protected under current national laws;

CONVINCED that all individuals have a fundamental right to bodily sovereignty that no government can rightly violate;

There are already massive ethical presumptions with this. The criminalization does nothing more to the prostitute than force them into a new occupation.

Further, the state is not responsible for the damages a criminal causes themselves while committing a crime, be they disease or abuse.

Individuals do not have a right to their own bodies. An individual's body effects their families, their friends, and the people to whom own debts, monetary, or labour.

DEFINES, for this resolution:
(1) Prostitution: as the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person (client) in return for compensation.
(2) Prostitute: sapient beings who provide sexual services in return for compensation.

HEREBY MANDATES that all member states residing with the World Assembly legalize the human right of prostitution.

Prostitutes and member states that reside with the World Assembly must abide to the following statements:

(1) Prostitutes are made fully aware of the health and other risk connected to prostitution.
(2) A prostitute has the right to refuse any sexual act.
(3) Local governments must notify prostitutes about health and other risk connected to prostitution via mail.

PROHIBITS the following:
(1) For sexual penetration to happen without some form of sexual protection, unless both sides consent to not using any form of sexual protection.
(2) For any government to stop a prostitute from his/her/its profession.

Given the earlier premises refuted, Manleestan rejects this legislation.

All citizens are provided with sexual education and are informed of the importance of abstinence. Also, crime (including Rape) practically does not exist given Manleestan's stern approach and philosophy regarding criminal behaviors.

This resolution RECCOMENDS the following:
(1) That member states provide free or low-cost condoms and other prophylactics, birth control and STI screenings to prostitutes and others who are at risk of STIs and unwanted pregnancies.
(2) Prostitutes are involved with brothels for safety.

ENCOURAGES individual member states to impose additional protocol or standards that do not conflict with this resolution.

HERE IS A NEW DRAFT I TRIED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ON HOW TO ENFORCE IT I ALSO TOOK OUT WORDS LIKE PEOPLE PERSON ECT AND PUT Sapient beings SINCE THATS WHAT IT SEEM EVERYONE PERFERS READ THIS AND PINPOINT EVERY ERROR YOU SEE PLZ

The draft, the idea, even any off-shoots of it, will not make it to the WA. The legislation, let alone the idea, are beyond a moral lapse.

Simply inexcusable.

[Great Azarath]

And how would trafficking be legalized by this?

Your legalization mentions it being a bodily sovereignty....when if fact many people view it as a business.
Criminal organization would use this to become legitimate and prolyl would go into trafficking since it is legal for prostitution.

But not against their will, Trafficking is against will.....right?

[Suidwes-Afrika]

GA, I don't think this will pass. The support for this draft has stagnated, and most of the WA community are against it. Your own poll will tell you that much.

The opposition has already won out, no matter what you do to continue revising this draft. It lacks enough backing to even be brought for a vote in the General Assembly.