[DRAFT] Ban on Child Sex Tourism

[Araraukar]

As such, it logically follows that the nation of origin is responsible for prosecution."

Yes, but the original question remains; by whose laws is the person to be tried? And what about evidence for such a trial?

"We think he intended to do something that our laws say is bad, but we have no proof whatsoever. We're only detaining him because it's possible to do something legally in their target nation that would be against our laws."

Such a reasoning could be used for anything, really, even things allowed by some member nations and not allowed by others (owning a firearm comes to mind).

EDIT: GA#137, Fairness in Criminal Trials wrote:

REQUIRES that the accused may not be forced to self-incrimination, and that this constitutes sufficient reason for them to refuse to answer a question put to them during the trial;

Unless someone is stupid enough to advertize the fact that they're traveling to another country to break the laws of the country of their origin, being able to prove anything will be very difficult for the prosecutors.

Unless the proposal just wants people detained without trial, which, I'm fairly certain, will run afoul of some other resolution.

2nd EDIT: GA#30, Freedom of Expression wrote:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

That would mean that just saying "I don't think it's wrong to have sex with someone younger than the age of consent in this nation, since nation B allows it," couldn't count as evidence of intention.

3rd EDIT: Further, GA#79, Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws wrote:

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, an ex post facto law as a criminal or penal law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. This includes laws that criminalize acts which were legal when committed and laws which retroactively increase sentences for crimes already committed;

and:

(I) No person may be charged with or convicted of a criminal offence because of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted a criminal offence under the law of the jurisdiction in which the charge is brought or under international law.

Emphasis mine. That could be read to mean that if it's not a crime the moment it's committed (having sex with someone younger than your nation's age of consent but above that particular nation's age of consent), you can't be prosecuted for it afterwards. And how you could be prosecuted for it beforehand, is beyond my understanding.

Final EDIT: And lastly, GA#201, Habeas Corpus wrote:

MANDATES that any individual detained by the state, or a state actor, shall have the right to appeal the legality of that detention before an impartial judicial body, or its equivalent, by oneself or through proxy;

DEMANDS that detention shall neither be arbitrary nor shall continue if deemed illegal;

A detention without proof of criminal activity would, to me at least, count as arbitrary. At the very least you should have probable cause, which would be hard to prove.

[Cardoness]

We must rise in opposition. While we applaud the intent of this proposal and would like to see the protections of minors in this area extended we cannot allow one state to try a person for an action that would have been a crime within their jurisdiction but such action was not only not committed under such but was not even considered a crime within the jurisdiction in which the action was taken. If state A had a drinking age of 21 and state B had a drinking age of 18 and a person aged 19 lived in state A but visited state B to drink but was sober upon returning to state A, would state A have the right to charge them with underage drinking? We do not believe so.

[The Dark Star Republic]

We must rise in opposition. While we applaud the intent of this proposal and would like to see the protections of minors in this area extended we cannot allow one state to try a person for an action that would have been a crime within their jurisdiction but such action was not only not committed under such but was not even considered a crime within the jurisdiction in which the action was taken. If state A had a drinking age of 21 and state B had a drinking age of 18 and a person aged 19 lived in state A but visited state B to drink but was sober upon returning to state A, would state A have the right to charge them with underage drinking? We do not believe so.

"I'm not convinced that's an apt comparison. The WA has several times attempted to address protection of children, especially from commercial sexual exploitation. It has never, despite the popularity of the Strangers' Bar, suggested that drinking alcohol is a right worthy of protection under WA law (with the marginal exception of the Essential Medications Act). Furthermore, there is at least some scope for legal action in the situation you've described, which sounds a lot like customs duty evasion, although. Finally, I simply don't believe that child molestation and underage drinking are in the same category of legal severity, and hence insisting that the law treat the two in exactly the same manner doesn't hold much weight with me.

"Unrelatedly, in considering the Romeo and Juliet exemptions mentioned earlier another, more complex, problem has occurred to me, for which I don't have a fix as yet. The draft will need revising to prevent this, but in the meantime it's ice. Comments on other parts or further suggestions or arguments are welcome."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Cardoness]

We must rise in opposition. While we applaud the intent of this proposal and would like to see the protections of minors in this area extended we cannot allow one state to try a person for an action that would have been a crime within their jurisdiction but such action was not only not committed under such but was not even considered a crime within the jurisdiction in which the action was taken. If state A had a drinking age of 21 and state B had a drinking age of 18 and a person aged 19 lived in state A but visited state B to drink but was sober upon returning to state A, would state A have the right to charge them with underage drinking? We do not believe so.

"I'm not convinced that's an apt comparison. The WA has several times attempted to address protection of children, especially from commercial sexual exploitation. It has never, despite the popularity of the Strangers' Bar, suggested that drinking alcohol is a right worthy of protection under WA law (with the marginal exception of the Essential Medications Act). Furthermore, there is at least some scope for legal action in the situation you've described, which sounds a lot like customs duty evasion, although. Finally, I simply don't believe that child molestation and underage drinking are in the same category of legal severity, and hence insisting that the law treat the two in exactly the same manner doesn't hold much weight with me.

I do not think they are in the same category either, but my point was that a state cannot charge a person with a crime when the alleged crime didn't take place within their jurisdiction. Especially when the action is not considered a crime in the foreign state. What about adult sex workers. In some states this is legal while in others it is not. Or (and I shudder to bring it up for fear of the mass of proposals we will have to deal with) what about late term abortions? Again, legal in some while illegal in others. Should a person from a more restrictive state be charged with a crime upon returning home after availing themselves of these or other such services while in a more liberal state? Then there is the fact that what passes as a child in one species or state is considered an adult in another. Even among humans, some cultures find it acceptable for persons as young as 12 or 13 to get married and start a family and career while others would believe such individuals to be severely underage. As I said before, the WA should do more to ban child sex in general, and encourage states to discourage their citizens from traveling to non member states which allow such reprehensible practices to take place.

[Araraukar]

If this proposal is intended to prevent people the travel abroads to use the services of child prostitutes, then it would get more understanding from me, but as long as different WA nations can have different ages of consent, this would be a nightmare to enforce, and would require severe breach of privacy in most cases.

[Indian Empire]

Not sure on this.... Nuetral.

[Peoples New Republic of Korea]

you have the PNRKs Support

[Araraukar]

The author has said that this is now on hold, peeps. Just a heads-up.

[Bears Armed]

my point was that a state cannot charge a person with a crime when the alleged crime didn't take place within their jurisdiction.

At least two existing resolutions (#20 'Suppress International Piracy', and #114 'On Female Genital Mutilation') already explicitly require member nations to do so.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I do not think they are in the same category either, but my point was that a state cannot charge a person with a crime when the alleged crime didn't take place within their jurisdiction.

"I don't think that squares with obligations under international law: terrorism, crimes against humanity, and internationally recognised crimes all require that nations take effentive action to prevent people committing them, even if it would mean a travel ban to a foreign jurisdiction.

"Your essential objection boils down to believing that each nation should have absolute and exclusive jurisdiction. That's not how international law recognises their obligations, though."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Eireann Fae]

(OOC: Had a nice response written out on my friend's PC, but for some reason all four of their browsers are incapable of keeping an NS session alive. Clicked to Preview and it had me signed out and lost my post... Trying to recreate it now, but it probably won't be as good.)

"We are pleased to say that Ambassador Fungschlammer has already addressed our primary concerns regarding compliance with our local laws on sexual activity with and amongst those other nations deem 'children'. If our support of the legislation in question confuses some, let us justify our decision by saying that not every culture is as open about sexuality as that found in Eireann Fae. In many other nations, the young inhabitants in question may sincerely be completely ignorant of the consequences of such actions, and may be more easily coerced by more mature inhabitants, leading to abuse that simply does not occur on our Island."

Rowan shakes her head as she directs her attention to Ambassador Baradikov, apparently sad that one can be so ignorant of other cultures. "As a member of such a nation, I can tell you that there are such nations where sexual activities between what you would deem 'adults' and 'children' are not expressly forbidden. I have witnessed the summer solstice only thirteen times, yet nobody in Eireann Fae would attempt to tell me that I could not engage in such activities with whomever I choose. That I have made the decision to abstain from such activity was my own doing - not something forced on me by my government. On the other hand, there are those that would claim that my colleague, who has seen eighteen years pass, is still not mature enough for sexual activity-"

"Hey!"

"-but has been quite active for years. This is because she is aware of the consequences of her actions, and can hardly be subject to coercion. Judging by the whips and chains she keeps in her boudoir, I believe it is quite safe to say that she is often the one taking control of the situation herself. Who are you to say that she should not engage in sexual activity? Who is your government to say the same?"

"Eireann Fae believes in raising its inhabitants as worldly people, fully cognisant of all the forces of nature and their own place within it. That your government chooses to keep its citizens ignorant is deeply saddening to us, but it is your prerogative. As I mentioned, we do support this law, on the grounds that your own young, being kept so ignorant, are susceptible to abhorrent abuses. But do not think for a second that your way is the only way. Some civilisations are simply more enlightened than others. I would say this is more in line with a utopia than a dystopia."

(OOC response to an unfortunately OOC comment: Eireann Fae doesn't implement an 'age of majority'. Spirit Faeries can, as their moniker suggests, see spiritual aura of beings, and know what is truly in their hearts and minds. They see this even better than most Humans see skin and body language. As indicated, none of them would act to stop the wise-beyond-her-years Rowan from having sex now, or three+ years ago when she began representing Epiſkœ before the World Assembly. Similarly, few of them regard Alexandra as particularly wise, but they do know that the girl knows what she is getting into, and that her will is too strong to be coerced by older men and women. If there is ever a question of whether a Human on the Island is competent on a particular matter, all it takes is a glance from a Spirit Faerie to determine whether the person in question is truly cognisant of the consequences of their actions - or a similar glance at the alleged perpetrator to see if there truly is malicious intent in their own actions.)

[Cardoness]

my point was that a state cannot charge a person with a crime when the alleged crime didn't take place within their jurisdiction.

At least two existing resolutions (#20 'Suppress International Piracy', and #114 'On Female Genital Mutilation') already explicitly require member nations to do so.

And

"I don't think that squares with obligations under international law: terrorism, crimes against humanity, and internationally recognised crimes all require that nations take effentive action to prevent people committing them, even if it would mean a travel ban to a foreign jurisdiction.

"Your essential objection boils down to believing that each nation should have absolute and exclusive jurisdiction. That's not how international law recognises their obligations, though."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

GAR #20 deals with organized theft, threat or use of force, and kidnapping committed in international territory or in multiple WA member states, while GAR #114 makes female genital mutilation illegal in all WA member states. Both of which we fully support and gladly enforce. The same applies to terrorism and other international crimes, which includes crimes against humanity. I also do not believe in the "absolute and exclusive jurisdiction" of a state, I'm not a NatSov. *shudders*

If this were a ban on child sex workers or a ban on child sex trafficking, or hell, even a ban on child sex (sorry Alex) we would be all for it. But it's not. It is allowing a state to try, and presumably convict, a person for breaking a domestic law outside of the domestic jurisdiction. Let the WA legislate on child sex then we can bust these creeps who break international law. Until then, while the intent behind this resolution is admirable, it opens the door for any state to charge people within their domain for breaking local laws while abroad. That is a steep and slippery slope to mass chaos in the realm of law.

Let me try to give an example. Let us say that there is a normal human male visiting a world on which the native species lives to be 500 years. It comes to the attention of the customs agents that this human is traveling to an unspecified destination to meet up with his girlfriend whom he hasn't seen in a while. By their standards and laws these humans are young children and not permitted to have sex. So this poor human is kept from traveling to see his girlfriend because he would be breaking the law in the state he is in, though not in the one he is from nor the one to which he is going.

[Araraukar]

It is allowing a state to try, and presumably convict, a person for breaking a domestic law outside of the domestic jurisdiction.

Actually it's not even trying that, it's trying to prevent them from committing that domestic crime by banning them travel rights. So they're being punished before a crime has happened. I wonder what would happen if the person decided they wanted to emigrate to the target country, instead?

OOC: Thanks, Eireann Fae for clearing up my confusion - I was thinking something along those lines, but couldn't remember exactly what it was. Personally I think your system is better than any hard-set age line, but that's just me.

[The Dark Star Republic]

GAR #20 deals with organized theft, threat or use of force, and kidnapping committed in international territory or in multiple WA member states, while GAR #114 makes female genital mutilation illegal in all WA member states. Both of which we fully support and gladly enforce. The same applies to terrorism and other international crimes, which includes crimes against humanity. [snip]

If this were a ban on child sex workers or a ban on child sex trafficking, or hell, even a ban on child sex [snip] we would be all for it. But it's not. It is allowing a state to try, and presumably convict, a person for breaking a domestic law outside of the domestic jurisdiction. Let the WA legislate on child sex then we can bust these creeps who break international law. Until then, while the intent behind this resolution is admirable, it opens the door for any state to charge people within their domain for breaking local laws while abroad. That is a steep and slippery slope to mass chaos in the realm of law.

"I am not sure I follow the distinction you are drawing between 'domestic' and 'international' crimes. WA resolutions form international law, and WA resolutions have already banned child abuse, commercial sexual exploitation of children including child prostitution, and trafficking in persons, including child sex trafficking."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC:

Let us say that there is a normal human male visiting a world on which the native species lives to be 500 years.

Let's not.

There is no obligation to recognise such kinds of roleplaying. When the NSUN had a flourishing roleplay culture, there were a number who did not; it is only now, with the quality of roleplay so low, that this kind of enforced "I'm going to oppose healthcare reform because in an alternate dimension the law of gravity might not apply" has become something that people expect everyone to cater to.

For my part, I am willing to acknowledge fantastical roleplay where it is developed and consistent, and not simply used to throw up objections: for example, Bears Armed, Findhorn, Krioval. I am not willing to entertain on-the-spot examples that are being created solely to try to engineer problems in reasonable understanding.

I have avoided saying simply "below the age of 18" in this proposal; that is the furthest concession I am willing to make in this particular area.

[Cardoness]

GAR #20 deals with organized theft, threat or use of force, and kidnapping committed in international territory or in multiple WA member states, while GAR #114 makes female genital mutilation illegal in all WA member states. Both of which we fully support and gladly enforce. The same applies to terrorism and other international crimes, which includes crimes against humanity. [snip]

If this were a ban on child sex workers or a ban on child sex trafficking, or hell, even a ban on child sex [snip] we would be all for it. But it's not. It is allowing a state to try, and presumably convict, a person for breaking a domestic law outside of the domestic jurisdiction. Let the WA legislate on child sex then we can bust these creeps who break international law. Until then, while the intent behind this resolution is admirable, it opens the door for any state to charge people within their domain for breaking local laws while abroad. That is a steep and slippery slope to mass chaos in the realm of law.

"I am not sure I follow the distinction you are drawing between 'domestic' and 'international' crimes. WA resolutions form international law, and WA resolutions have already banned child abuse, commercial sexual exploitation of children including child prostitution, and trafficking in persons, including child sex trafficking."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC:

Let us say that there is a normal human male visiting a world on which the native species lives to be 500 years.

Let's not.

There is no obligation to recognise such kinds of roleplaying. When the NSUN had a flourishing roleplay culture, there were a number who did not; it is only now, with the quality of roleplay so low, that this kind of enforced "I'm going to oppose healthcare reform because in an alternate dimension the law of gravity might not apply" has become something that people expect everyone to cater to.

For my part, I am willing to acknowledge fantastical roleplay where it is developed and consistent, and not simply used to throw up objections: for example, Bears Armed, Findhorn, Krioval. I am not willing to entertain on-the-spot examples that are being created solely to try to engineer problems in reasonable understanding.

I have avoided saying simply "below the age of 18" in this proposal; that is the furthest concession I am willing to make in this particular area.

I was just using it as an example so I wouldn't have to go occ. Having to failed at that...

OCC: The age of consent in Mississippi is 16, while the age of consent in neighbor Louisiana is 17. Both perfectly reasonable and quite common thresholds. However, under this proposal, Louisiana must prohibit a person from traveling to Mississippi if they suspect they will have romantic relations with someone under 17. Guy from Mississippi goes off to college at the age of 17, his girlfriend back home is 16, he can't go back home because he might have sex with his girlfriend who is considered underage by the state of Louisiana. Now if they though that guy was on his way to Mississippi to brake federal (see international) child laws then yes, there is reason to stop him. But your proposal doesn't say " for the purpose of committing a sexual act with a child that would be illegal as child abuse under INTERNATIONAL laws", it says " for the purpose of committing a sexual act with a child that would be illegal as child abuse under THEIR OWN DOMESTIC laws". The first wording we could support, the second we cannot.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I was just using it as an example so I wouldn't have to go occ.

OOC: I don't believe you. The example you cite below is easily transferable into IC language without swinging to the wild excess of a planet where people live for 500 years.

You were engaging in precisely the sort of absurdism I said I wasn't interested in humouring.

The age of consent in Mississippi is 16, while the age of consent in neighbor Louisiana is 17. Both perfectly reasonable and quite common thresholds. However, under this proposal, Louisiana must prohibit a person from traveling to Mississippi if they suspect they will have romantic relations with someone under 17. Guy from Mississippi goes off to college at the age of 17, his girlfriend back home is 16, he can't go back home because he might have sex with his girlfriend who is considered underage by the state of Louisiana. Now if they though that guy was on his way to Mississippi to brake federal (see international) child laws then yes, there is reason to stop him. But your proposal doesn't say " for the purpose of committing a sexual act with a child that would be illegal as child abuse under INTERNATIONAL laws", it says " for the purpose of committing a sexual act with a child that would be illegal as child abuse under THEIR OWN DOMESTIC laws". The first wording we could support, the second we cannot.

Half that example raises an interesting point, which will need addressing. Thank you for raising it.

The other half, though, is a complete and presumably deliberate misinterpretation of the proposal. No reasonable standard for probable cause would assume that "he can't go back home because he might have sex with his girlfriend".

When I get to rewriting the proposal I will attempt to address people returning to their home nations, and I have also mentioned being willing to come to a more expansive expression of "probable cause".

[Araraukar]

The other half, though, is a complete and presumably deliberate misinterpretation of the proposal. No reasonable standard for probable cause would assume that "he can't go back home because he might have sex with his girlfriend".

Yet that's how it reads, if it relies on the different ages of consent, rather than commercialized child sex industry.

EDIT: But I'm willing to wait for a new draft.

[British Accia]

"You have my backing, if it comes to the vote we will not hesitate to back it. But I see that Araraukar has pointed out that many nations have different ages of consent. Maybe an accompanying law universalising the ages of consent would make enforcing it less of a nightmare?"

[Defwa]

"You have my backing, if it comes to the vote we will not hesitate to back it. But I see that Araraukar has pointed out that many nations have different ages of consent. Maybe an accompanying law universalising the ages of consent would make enforcing it less of a nightmare?"

No can do because of the often vast differences in life span between nations and species

[Eireann Fae]

Rowan nods in agreement with Wizard Landfree, and adds, "One must also consider the various cultures represented by this body. Setting an age of consent at, say, eighteen years of age, would be extremely unfair to cultures such as my own wherein the young tend to be more cognisant of their rights and the world in which they exercise them. Drawing the line a decade earlier could prove to be quite hazardous in nations like Draica, where the young are not so informed, and may be coerced into making harmful decisions that may haunt them for life."