[DRAFT] Ban on Child Sex Tourism

[The Dark Star Republic]

Ban on Child Sex Tourism
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that several Resolutions have acknowledged the importance of preventing child abuse, including the commercial sexual exploitation of children,

Recognising that some individuals may attempt to evade national prohibitions on child abuse by travelling to foreign destinations where prohibitions on such actions would not be enforced,

Believing that it should be the responsibility of international law to close this loophole so as to prevent the perpetuation of such abuses,

Does hereby:

1. Require all nations to enact travel bans on any persons within their jurisdiction where there exists probable cause to believe their travel to a foreign destination would be for the purpose of committing a sexual act with a child that would be illegal as child abuse under their own domestic laws;

2. Affirm that all nations must enforce such bans according to the due process of law and with respect to all rights and freedoms guaranteed by international law;

3. Encourage all nations to cooperate in intelligence regarding locations where the commercial sexual exploitation of children is not restricted through adequate law enforcement.

"As our repeal effort has been stalled by the need to wait for a Secretariat review, and our other projects would also require Secretariat review, we're moving onto something different. This is an attempt to close a loophole, rather than establish an entire legal regime."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Rotwood]

Jericho reads over the proposal
"You have our support. Some may argue that this is ineffective outside the WA, but it concerns citizens of WA nations, not non-WA nations themselves."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Jericho reads over the proposal
"You have our support. Some may argue that this is ineffective outside the WA, but it concerns citizens of WA nations, not non-WA nations themselves."

"It would have some effect outside the WA, in that the travel bans would including travelling to non-WA states with no child protection regime. It would obviously not - could not - require non-WA nations to enforce such bans. On an issue such as this, our view is that doing as much as possible is preferable to resigning to the futility of not being able to do everything and therefore giving up."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Rotwood]

Jericho reads over the proposal
"You have our support. Some may argue that this is ineffective outside the WA, but it concerns citizens of WA nations, not non-WA nations themselves."

"It would have some effect outside the WA, in that the travel bans would including travelling to non-WA states with no child protection regime. It would obviously not - could not - require non-WA nations to enforce such bans. On an issue such as this, our view is that doing as much as possible is preferable to resigning to the futility of not being able to do everything and therefore giving up."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

"We would see this as the home nation not allowing the travel out, not the destination not letting the potential criminal in. Would be reasonable under Right to Emigrate."

[Chester Pearson]

Support, and look forward to seeing this crucial piece of legislation on the books....

Warmest regards,

[The Dark Star Republic]

"It would have some effect outside the WA, in that the travel bans would including travelling to non-WA states with no child protection regime. It would obviously not - could not - require non-WA nations to enforce such bans. On an issue such as this, our view is that doing as much as possible is preferable to resigning to the futility of not being able to do everything and therefore giving up."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

"We would see this as the home nation not allowing the travel out, not the destination not letting the potential criminal in. Would be reasonable under Right to Emigrate."

"Yes, there is a provision of Right of Emigration that would permit such laws:

(d) The recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,

"It doesn't solely apply to the 'home nation': it would also apply to transit points. For example, if a Rotan(?) travelled to The Dark Star Republic, and then attempted to travel to one of the former Dark Star failed colonies where enforcement regimes are lax and corrupt, we would have to enforce such a ban.

Support, and look forward to seeing this crucial piece of legislation on the books....

"Given we're not always in agreement, I'm happy to see we can at least achieve accord on this."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Normlpeople]

"Is there nothing on the books regarding this already? If not, its needed. Perhaps requiring member nations to investigate travellers when such suspicions exist (after the suspicious trip) could be added. "

[Rotwood]

"Hehe, yeah, you got it right. And yeah, that would work too. Maybe also include provisions for punishment for those who do actually commit the act as well, if it can be proven, so as to discourage from both sides, so to speak.

[Defwa]

Defwa, already having similar rules in place, supports this proposal.
The wording is sufficiently broad to allow for effective domestic implementation.
We do have concerns about this being used discriminatorily, though.

As you know, some nations with negative opinions of social minorities often try to justify their prejudice with other accusations. For instance, there are some that believe gays are automatically pedophiles. We're concerned that with some nations propping that up with flimsy statistics, they might use it as 'justification' for blocking travel of such social minorities.
Recognizing that some nations may already do this, we won't let it stand in the way of our support for this legislation but we would appreciate some stronger language around its implementation.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Is there nothing on the books regarding this already? If not, its needed. Perhaps requiring member nations to investigate travellers when such suspicions exist (after the suspicious trip) could be added. "

"Current laws are Restrictions on Child Labour and Prevention of Child Abuse. Both require domestic laws to prohibit CSEC. Ban on Slavery and Trafficking prohibits child sex trafficking. But there is not a law on travelling for the purposes of committing a crime (that I am aware of, anyway).

"This kind of loophole has been discussed before, but again that concerned the trafficking of the victim rather than the restriction of the perpetrator.

We do have concerns about this being used discriminatorily, though.

As you know, some nations with negative opinions of social minorities often try to justify their prejudice with other accusations. For instance, there are some that believe gays are automatically pedophiles. We're concerned that with some nations propping that up with flimsy statistics, they might use it as 'justification' for blocking travel of such social minorities.
Recognizing that some nations may already do this, we won't let it stand in the way of our support for this legislation but we would appreciate some stronger language around its implementation.

"We included Article 2 to attempt to address such abuses. The 'rights and freedoms guaranteed by international law' include the guarantees of the Sexual Privacy Act and The Charter of Civil Rights.

"And if the abuse you've highlighted is possible, then it is already possible regardless of this resolution. Right of Emigration guarantees a right of emigration, and The Charter of Civil Rights requires that such a right be applied without discrimination. Without spelling out with textual reference how this proposal does active harm, we are not convinced by your objection, yet."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Defwa]

"Is there nothing on the books regarding this already? If not, its needed. Perhaps requiring member nations to investigate travellers when such suspicions exist (after the suspicious trip) could be added. "

"Current laws are Restrictions on Child Labour and Prevention of Child Abuse. Both require domestic laws to prohibit CSEC. Ban on Slavery and Trafficking prohibits child sex trafficking. But there is not a law on travelling for the purposes of committing a crime (that I am aware of, anyway).

"This kind of loophole has been discussed before, but again that concerned the trafficking of the victim rather than the restriction of the perpetrator.

We do have concerns about this being used discriminatorily, though.

As you know, some nations with negative opinions of social minorities often try to justify their prejudice with other accusations. For instance, there are some that believe gays are automatically pedophiles. We're concerned that with some nations propping that up with flimsy statistics, they might use it as 'justification' for blocking travel of such social minorities.
Recognizing that some nations may already do this, we won't let it stand in the way of our support for this legislation but we would appreciate some stronger language around its implementation.

"We included Article 2 to attempt to address such abuses. The 'rights and freedoms guaranteed by international law' include the guarantees of the Sexual Privacy Act and The Charter of Civil Rights.

"And if the abuse you've highlighted is possible, then it is already possible regardless of this resolution. Right of Emigration guarantees a right of emigration, and The Charter of Civil Rights requires that such a right be applied without discrimination. Without spelling out with textual reference how this proposal does active harm, we are not convinced by your objection, yet."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

It is by the phrase probable cause.
If a flimsy government funded study can 'prove' that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles, then a discriminatory nation would have 'probable cause' that they might be leaving the country to perform a sex crime.
It gets around the CoCR, Right of Emigration and Sexual Privacy Act because instead of discriminating on them because they are homosexual, they're merely stopping people are are statistically likely to be engaging in criminal activity.

[The Dark Star Republic]

It is by the phrase probable cause.
If a flimsy government funded study can 'prove' that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles, then a discriminatory nation would have 'probable cause' that they might be leaving the country to perform a sex crime.
It gets around the CoCR, Right of Emigration and Sexual Privacy Act because instead of discriminating on them because they are homosexual, they're merely stopping people are are statistically likely to be engaging in criminal activity.

"I'm not sure that 'probable cause' has the 'flimsy' meaning you're suggesting.

"It is, firstly, the standard used in Right of Emigration, so using any other standard would be inconsistent and possibly illegal. Beyond that, it has been recognised several times in WA law: Prevention of Torture, International Criminal Court, and Rights of Crime Victims.

"Believing that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles no more offers a probable cause for a travel ban than does having a Bob Marley poster offer probable cause for a search warrant.

"That said, if you want to write a 'Rights of Gay Emigrants' proposal, knock yourself out."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Mosktopia]

Mosktopia is not convinced that this is a real problem. It smacks of being a red hearing - an unreal but inflammatory issue that prompts us to react with our emotions and not our better reason, leading us to give away our freedoms unnecessarily. Consider that while some instances of abuse may be prevented by this proposal, several other legitimate acts will be unnecessarily curtailed. For instance:

Require all nations to enact travel bans on any persons within their jurisdiction where there exists probable cause to believe their travel to a foreign destination would be for the purpose of committing a sexual act with a child that would be illegal as child abuse under their own domestic laws;

There is a chance that at least some of the people caught by this law will have purely lawful aims. An 18-year-old may wish to travel to a foreign land to marry her 17-and-a-half-year-old boyfriend, where such unions are legal. Such a deed does not shock the conscious or trouble the spirit. But if the 18-year-old comes from a nation with a hard age of consent set at 18, they would be prohibited from traveling. That does not seem like a just outcome.

The above is my in character comment. I can't bring myself to vote for a Moral Decency proposal, so this is my out. In truth, I'm sure you'll find broad support for this. Few will be so foolhardy as to come out in favor of child sex tourism.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Mosktopia is not convinced that this is a real problem.

"The millions of victims of child sex tourism probably think otherwise. Nonetheless, I was expecting some objections on civil liberties grounds.

There is a chance that at least some of the people caught by this law will have purely lawful aims. An 18-year-old may wish to travel to a foreign land to marry her 17-and-a-half-year-old boyfriend, where such unions are legal. Such a deed does not shock the conscious or trouble the spirit. But if the 18-year-old comes from a nation with a hard age of consent set at 18, they would be prohibited from traveling. That does not seem like a just outcome.

"I had considered permitting nations to allow Romeo and Juliet law exemptions, providing a wording that did not completely undermine the proposal could be found. I remain open to such - though at present, such wording eludes me."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

It's purely in character for me, too, so I understand. I believe the category is appropriate at present but should the emphasis of the proposal change, I may consider other options.

[Grays Harbor]

Support

Somebody check my tempurature.

[Sanctaria]

If I recall correctly, Prevention of Child Abuse has the follow:

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

Combined with the other resolutions, this is surely covered?

[The Dark Star Republic]

If I recall correctly, Prevention of Child Abuse has the follow:

FORBIDS the transport of children to a country not covered by this resolution for the purpose of contravening the articles of this resolution;

"Yes, it does, which prohibits the transport of children. It does nothing to prevent someone travelling to a nation where such laws are not in effect or enforced and committing a sex act against a resident child. For example, a person travelling from a WA nation with child protection laws to a non-WA nation with lax enforcement of child protection laws for the purposes of committing an act of child abuse there is not, at present, covered - at least not by Prevention of Child Abuse or Restrictions on Child Labour."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Draica]

Tung rises to the podium.

"Draica supports this, this law needs to get on the books and on the books FAST."

[Rotwood]

Jericho ponders over things, reading and re-reading
"We were thinking this over and realised a similar problem to what the Ambassador for Mosktopia has put forward. Before we can address it, we have to ask this question: Is this proposal covering purely child prostitution, or is it including coerced but not purchased sex, and is it including consensual sex?"

[Bears Armed]

(Mutters something scathing about humans...)

"If you consider this measure actually necessary then we accept that it is reasonable in scope -- and an 'international' matter,too, obviously -- and are willing to support it."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Jericho ponders over things, reading and re-reading
"We were thinking this over and realised a similar problem to what the Ambassador for Mosktopia has put forward. Before we can address it, we have to ask this question: Is this proposal covering purely child prostitution, or is it including coerced but not purchased sex, and is it including consensual sex?"

"The proposal applies to 'committing a sexual act with a child that would be illegal as child abuse under their own domestic laws'.

"All WA nations are already obligated to criminalise child prostitution (CSEC clause of Restrictions on Child Labor) and child rape (non-consensual clause of Prevention of Child Abuse).

"As for consensual sex, the answer to that is dependent on the domestic laws in questions. If your nation does not have an age of consent for sexual activites, then this wouldn't apply to such actions because they are not illegal in your own nation - and hence there is no law being evaded.

"As I mentioned, this is about closing a loophole in international law, not about requiring nations to change their own domestic laws.

"If you consider this measure actually necessary then we accept that it is reasonable in scope -- and an 'international' matter,too, obviously -- and are willing to support it."

"For the moment at least, I do. If anyone can demonstrate that the loophole doesn't exist I will happily move on to other things, but I can't see any existing WA law that would prevent child sex tourism at present."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Rotwood]

"Thank you for the reply. We may have to change our support to provisional, then. If it is a deliberate trip in order to avoid the laws of their origin, then fair enough, but if it is a case of something just happening by chance and is within the laws of their host nation, then it becomes a bit iffy for us. As noted, the age of consent laws vary from nation to nation, even at a sub-national level (which, we wonder, could possibly be covered by this) and whilst we are against those deliberately taking advantage of a situation we don't feel happenstance should be punished."

[Potted Plants United]

"Yes, there is a provision of Right of Emigration that would permit such laws:

(d) The recipient nation or the nation of origin having probable cause to believe that the individual is traveling for the purpose of committing a crime,

OOC: Responding OOCly while trying to figure out something to put here in IC. Wouldn't the "for the purpose of committing a crime" refer to criminal activity in the target nation? If it's not against their laws, then it wouldn't count?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Thank you for the reply. We may have to change our support to provisional, then. If it is a deliberate trip in order to avoid the laws of their origin, then fair enough, but if it is a case of something just happening by chance and is within the laws of their host nation, then it becomes a bit iffy for us.

"I think children who get sexually abused 'by chance' also find it 'a bit iffy'.

As noted, the age of consent laws vary from nation to nation, even at a sub-national level (which, we wonder, could possibly be covered by this) and whilst we are against those deliberately taking advantage of a situation we don't feel happenstance should be punished."

"But, the wording is such that travel bans are only required 'where there exists probable cause to believe their travel to a foreign destination would be for the purpose of committing a [crime]', so I'm not sure your objection applies anyway.

"As for the sub-national issue, that's an issue it would be down to each nation to interpret in accordance with their own constitutional processes."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Rotwood]

"Thank you for the reply. We may have to change our support to provisional, then. If it is a deliberate trip in order to avoid the laws of their origin, then fair enough, but if it is a case of something just happening by chance and is within the laws of their host nation, then it becomes a bit iffy for us.

"I think children who get sexually abused 'by chance' also find it 'a bit iffy'.

"Now you are just twisting things, especially by separating this into two parts, when we meant it as a whole. Our comments and intentions relate to the latter part (below in this post), not some sort of perversion."

As noted, the age of consent laws vary from nation to nation, even at a sub-national level (which, we wonder, could possibly be covered by this) and whilst we are against those deliberately taking advantage of a situation we don't feel happenstance should be punished."

"But, the wording is such that travel bans are only required 'where there exists probable cause to believe their travel to a foreign destination would be for the purpose of committing a [crime]', so I'm not sure your objection applies anyway.

"As for the sub-national issue, that's an issue it would be down to each nation to interpret in accordance with their own constitutional processes."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

"Okay, we are satisfied with this explanation, though maybe add a clause to cover the sub-national, maybe along the lines of 'Does not apply to travel across sub-national borders' or something along those lines may be appropriate."