[DRAFT] Reducing Sexual Exploitation

[South St Maarten]

IC: South St Maarten offers its full support

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Have you guys kept track of the rules discussion in Moderation? I would not want to see a proposal like this run into trouble, nor go ahead and then have debate on the motion constrained. I don’t know how/if it will affect the WA.

I'm not terribly worried (even in the absence of responses to your and Wallenburg's questions), given the later direction of posts. Talking IC about how to ban something skeezy (even if it gets into whether to ban it, assuming a certain minimum decorum) doesn't sound like it would be a target of the new set of rules. The chief point appears to be curtailing pedophiles from spreading harmful ideas and grooming in General and via RP. The kind of RP we engage in here is, uh, not very conducive to that sort of thing to begin with, I think (even if we've both been around long enough to remember a player or two who skirted pretty close to that line...)

TL;dr - I'm not worried at this point.

“Generally supportive. If it came to vote as is we’d vote for it and buy a round in the Strangers’ Bar to celebrate its passage.”

-- Kastíel Kormáksson
Permanent Representative and Head of Mission to the World Assembly for the Queendom of Græntfjall

Kastíel stands and leaves, while behind him Júlía Maria cracks a yawn, and then sweeps dust off the copy of the proposal text in front of her.

“Given this appears to have been under discussion for quite some time you’ll have to forgive this doddery old woman if this has already been raised, but we have a – probably trivial – question about Article 3.

Mandates that member states’ investigations, prosecutions, and fines or criminal sentencing of pimps, clients, and law enforcement shall take precedence over such actions against sex workers which stem primarily or exclusively from their employment;

“What of the following, admittedly grisly, scenario – which has happened in the regrettable experience of the Queendom and thus is not some ludicrous hypothetical, though which I will admit is probably rare.

“Some years ago there was a case of a male prostitute, knowingly infected with VODAIS, who had unprotected sex with male clients, and thereby infected them with the deadly disease in turn. It seems to me his acts did ‘stem primarily or exclusively’ from his employment as a prostitute. I don’t think this proposal can be reasonably interpreted as mandating that law enforcement would not have been able to pursue him for his crime of reckless transmission and would rather have had to prioritize pursuing his clients for their crime of solicitation. Does it?”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall WA Mission

Leo's eyebrows raise as Advisor Jónsdóttir tells the tawdry tale, and he nods slightly at the end. "Goodness. That's rather a nasty story. And yet precisely the sort of thing we should probably have thought of." He jots down a couple of notes, then looks up again. "I'll make sure we tweak the wording slightly. The intent here is to relegate simple prostitution to a lesser degree of prosecutorial attention, not to enable sex workers to commit crimes in the course of their work. I thank you for your comments, madam."

[Araraukar]

1. Defines a 'sex worker' as a person who trades his or her own sexual services for agreed compensation. One who exclusively trades the sexual services of others for compensation - whether directly from clients or by taking sex workers' earnings - (a 'pimp') shall not be classified as a sex worker;

OOC: If pimps don't count as sex workers, why are they even mentioned in the definition? You could separate that bit from the definition by making it a "clarifies" clause anyway.

2. Requires member states, regardless of the legality of sex work therein, to faithfully investigate and prosecute criminal allegations made by sex workers against pimps, clients, or law enforcement for criminal charges generally, but especially emphasizing:

• violence, including sexual assault
• trafficking or enslavement
• entrapment or coercion, sexual or otherwise, especially by means of blackmail, intimidation, theft of possessions or identification, etc.

...does "entrapment" mean that police can't have an undercover cop pretending to be an underage hooker to get pedophiles off the streets? Or any such thing where I could see the busted criminal to cry "entrapment!" as defence?

3. Mandates that member states' investigations, prosecutions, and fines or criminal sentencing of pimps, clients, and law enforcement shall take precedence over such actions against sex workers which stem primarily or exclusively from their employment;

What does this mean? I feel like there's part of the sentence missing. Is the "their employment" at the end referring to the pimps, clients and law enforcement? And if yes, why should some investigation at an unrelated incident of a law enforcement person take precedence over the prosecution of an already-investigated case against a sex worker? Like, I don't get why you think some people should have more or less rights in the eye of criminal justice than others.

4. Forbids member states from prosecuting underage or enslaved sex workers for prostitution or related charges, and classifies them as persons fleeing servitude under international law;

...so underage hookers get off the hook every single time? How's that going to work? Especially the "prostitution related" - they could committ any crime (incluing, say, murder or sexually assaulting a child) as long as someone paid for them to do so for their own sexual gratification, and the nation couldn't do shit about it.

5. Beseeches member nations to ensure the existence of adequately structured and funded psychological and social assistance programs to permit rescued sex slaves and underage sex workers to grow into gainfully employed, well-adjusted adults; and

I think that many rescued sex slaves would likely be offended by the "to grow into gainfully employed, well-adjusted adults", if they were such to begin with, before being kidnapped to be sold to be sex slaves.

6. Strongly encourages nations choosing to prohibit the sex trade to offer amnesty or reduced charges to sex workers for cooperation in investigations of other, more serious or non-victimless crimes and the suspects thereof.

Why? Aren't all people meant to be equal before the law? Someone gets off easier breaking the law just because of their profession? If that was applied to, say, police, would you still think it'd be fair?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

1. Defines a 'sex worker' as a person who trades his or her own sexual services for agreed compensation. One who exclusively trades the sexual services of others for compensation - whether directly from clients or by taking sex workers' earnings - (a 'pimp') shall not be classified as a sex worker;

OOC: If pimps don't count as sex workers, why are they even mentioned in the definition? You could separate that bit from the definition by making it a "clarifies" clause anyway.

Meh. It's more concise this way than separated out into a whole other clause.

2. Requires member states, regardless of the legality of sex work therein, to faithfully investigate and prosecute criminal allegations made by sex workers against pimps, clients, or law enforcement for criminal charges generally, but especially emphasizing:

• violence, including sexual assault
• trafficking or enslavement
• entrapment or coercion, sexual or otherwise, especially by means of blackmail, intimidation, theft of possessions or identification, etc.

...does "entrapment" mean that police can't have an undercover cop pretending to be an underage hooker to get pedophiles off the streets? Or any such thing where I could see the busted criminal to cry "entrapment!" as defence?

Um, no.

3. Mandates that member states' investigations, prosecutions, and fines or criminal sentencing of pimps, clients, and law enforcement shall take precedence over such actions against sex workers which stem primarily or exclusively from their employment;

What does this mean? I feel like there's part of the sentence missing. Is the "their employment" at the end referring to the pimps, clients and law enforcement? And if yes, why should some investigation at an unrelated incident of a law enforcement person take precedence over the prosecution of an already-investigated case against a sex worker? Like, I don't get why you think some people should have more or less rights in the eye of criminal justice than others.

The antecedent of "their employment" is the sex workers, which is whose employment (when considered on an ordinary, daily basis, not under e.g. the circumstances Graintfjall narrated) ought to be considered a less serious infraction, even if outlawed, than illegal behavior by those other groups - pimps because they are at best middlemen, and often deeply involved in whatever enslavement or coercion may be taking place; clients because they are the demand that drives the illegal trade (where it is illegal) in the first place; and police because they are specifically paid for and tasked with stopping illegal behavior, not participating in it. Where sex work is illegal, these protections are necessary, and where it is legal, they do no harm.

This language has been updated anyway.

4. Forbids member states from prosecuting underage or enslaved sex workers for prostitution or related charges, and classifies them as persons fleeing servitude under international law;

...so underage hookers get off the hook every single time? How's that going to work? Especially the "prostitution related" - they could committ any crime (incluing, say, murder or sexually assaulting a child) as long as someone paid for them to do so for their own sexual gratification, and the nation couldn't do shit about it.

If they're unable to legally consent to regular adult sex, how can they legally consent to be employed to have sex for money? Your point about "related" charges holds some water (language altered), but do you prosecute a rape victim for asking for it?

5. Beseeches member nations to ensure the existence of adequately structured and funded psychological and social assistance programs to permit rescued sex slaves and underage sex workers to grow into gainfully employed, well-adjusted adults; and

I think that many rescued sex slaves would likely be offended by the "to grow into gainfully employed, well-adjusted adults", if they were such to begin with, before being kidnapped to be sold to be sex slaves.

Language altered. I hope that better gets at what I'm aiming for.

6. Strongly encourages nations choosing to prohibit the sex trade to offer amnesty or reduced charges to sex workers for cooperation in investigations of other, more serious or non-victimless crimes and the suspects thereof.

Why? Aren't all people meant to be equal before the law? Someone gets off easier breaking the law just because of their profession? If that was applied to, say, police, would you still think it'd be fair?

People get off easier for breaking traffic laws than they do for breaking laws against assault, theft, or murder. That does not mean that the rule of law is being subverted, it means that some laws are more serious than others, and breaking them has more serious consequences. And you may note that even when someone has committed a major crime, prosecutors often offer them a less serious sentence if they plead guilty and agree to testify against "bigger fish." This is the same thing.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Page 2 / Near Submission™ bump.

[Araraukar]

OOC: *sits down at computer smelling of wood smoke* Some notes/questions...

In definition of a sex worker, could "his or her" be changed into "their"? And "directly from clients or by taking sex workers' earnings" seems to imply that a pimp is only a pimp if (not taking any money from the clients) they take all the earnings of the sex worker, instead of getting a certain percentage of the money earned. Maybe "whether directly from clients or by taking sex workers (etc.)" could be reworded as "whether directly from clients or from the sex workers"?

Clause 2, if "entrapment" doesn't mean a police sting, what does it mean?

Clause 3, I know you gave reasons for it, but a crime is a crime, so "shall take precedence over" sounds like what I described; just starting an investigation for a pimp's activities, puts a halt on any cases against any prostitutes. Which doesn't sound like "laws/justice applies to all the same". But anyway, maybe reword it so that the actual act of prostitution is to be considered a lesser crime than the various fluff around it? And instead of a mandate (which leaves no case-by-case leeway) make it an encouragement to investigate the more serious crimes first?

Clause 4, of course underage peeps can't consent legally, but if they were not forced (I know it's hard to believe, but it does happen even in 1st world nations) by someone else to become prostitutes, and despite efforts by the society to help them, return to being prostitutes voluntarily, how many times do they have to be left off the hook? Instead of being treated as minors committing crimes (which would still mean no criminal responsibility, but would allow more "aggressive" measures from the state in helping them - like, if their home environment is such that they turn to prostitution to earn a living at such a young age, placing them in a more healthy environment and making sure they go to school and get therapy, etc., etc.). If a minor kicks the shit out of someone or even kills them, there will be consequences, even though they couldn't be tried for the crime like adults. Same thing for this.

Clause 5 is better worded (though as pointed out, it basically is still "asks", which doesn't actually do anything, not even so much as "encourages") now, but "gainfully employed, healthy" is still a weird thing to ask, given that such is not asked of nations even for non-former-sex-slaves. (Health services are a must, but you can't force someone to be healthy. And not even touching "gainfully employed" as a realistic goal for 100% of people.)

Clause 6, maybe "sex trade" should be "sex industry" or something like that? Given that "sex trade" is elsewhere only mentioned in the preamble and even there not in a very defining way.

Also, would this whole thing make a professional dominatrix a sex worker, and a porn producer a pimp?

[Interstellar Tauri Union]

"the taurian representatives consider this proposal lacking as by taurian law, based on radical left-wing feminist ethics all sex work is considered sexual exploitation and outlawed. we urge the proponents to reword the proposition to better allow for the multiversal persecution of pimps, pornographers and other sex trafficking vermin."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"the taurian representatives consider this proposal lacking as by taurian law, based on radical left-wing feminist ethics all sex work is considered sexual exploitation and outlawed. we urge the proponents to reword the proposition to better allow for the multiversal persecution of pimps, pornographers and other sex trafficking vermin."

Leo sighs. Well, this objection was still more encouraging than its opposite number. "Ambassador, I've got at least three radical left-wing feminists on speed-dial who would disagree with your blanket pronouncement, even if they wouldn't necessarily answer the phone... *ahem* Anyway, nothing in here stops you from harrying the sex trafficking vermin unto the ends of the earth and beyond. I have to imagine you didn't bother to actually read the proposal, or indeed anything else in the World Assembly canon. Because..."

Leo trails off, confused. He would have sworn there'd been, a moment prior, an ambassador or a delegate or a representative or someone sitting at the desk he was looking at. Now - not even an intern.

"Damnedest thing," he mutters. "Where do these people disappear to? Well, anyway. Here we are again."

In definition of a sex worker, could "his or her" be changed into "their"?

Done.

And "directly from clients or by taking sex workers' earnings" seems to imply that a pimp is only a pimp if (not taking any money from the clients) they take all the earnings of the sex worker, instead of getting a certain percentage of the money earned. Maybe "whether directly from clients or by taking sex workers (etc.)" could be reworded as "whether directly from clients or from the sex workers"?

I don't believe this is at all implied. If it were, I don't think this proposed wording would improve matters.

Clause 2, if "entrapment" doesn't mean a police sting, what does it mean?

"Entrapment" usually does involve a police sting. You asked if it meant undercover cops couldn't pose as children trying to get pedophiles to incriminate themselves, which is not generally covered by entrapment (and which is not what I'm talking about here). Entrapment would be something closer to a cop offering someone a huge amount of money, possibly tossing in an "Oh and I'll get rid of that abusive boyfriend of yours," in exchange for [sexual act], that the non-cop would not consider otherwise; and then busting them for prostitution. The street corner hooker who accepts cash out the window of a car is probably not going to succeed with an entrapment accusation: I'm assuming here that national justice systems are capable of determining what entrapment is to some close approximation of a fair definition. If they're not, then that's a matter for a separate resolution (hint, hint, to the third party reader - maybe there's a resolution there!).

Clause 3, I know you gave reasons for it, but a crime is a crime, so "shall take precedence over" sounds like what I described; just starting an investigation for a pimp's activities, puts a halt on any cases against any prostitutes. Which doesn't sound like "laws/justice applies to all the same". But anyway, maybe reword it so that the actual act of prostitution is to be considered a lesser crime than the various fluff around it? And instead of a mandate (which leaves no case-by-case leeway) make it an encouragement to investigate the more serious crimes first?

1. Reducing it to a mere encouragement removes much of the point of this proposal: to make simple prostitution easier to escape from and/or live with by, among other things, making it less of a target for law enforcement action (both legitimate and il-). "Case-by-case leeway" is not eliminated here: only a psychotic police captain who truly believes street-corner hookers are in the same league with (say) heroin kingpins, racketeers, and professional hitmen would make that claim.
2. Starting an investigation of a pimp doesn't put a halt on "any case against any prostitute." It focuses LEOs' efforts where they are productive for society and away from where they are not. By any reasonable measure a pimp is a worse blight on society than a prostitute. And a cop who extorts or rapes sex workers ought to be considered more criminal than a typical sex worker, even if prostitution is illegal.

Clause 4, of course underage peeps can't consent legally, but if they were not forced (I know it's hard to believe, but it does happen even in 1st world nations) by someone else to become prostitutes, and despite efforts by the society to help them, return to being prostitutes voluntarily, how many times do they have to be left off the hook? Instead of being treated as minors committing crimes (which would still mean no criminal responsibility, but would allow more "aggressive" measures from the state in helping them - like, if their home environment is such that they turn to prostitution to earn a living at such a young age, placing them in a more healthy environment and making sure they go to school and get therapy, etc., etc.). If a minor kicks the shit out of someone or even kills them, there will be consequences, even though they couldn't be tried for the crime like adults. Same thing for this.

I don't see where I've prevented the state from "aggressive measures" in helping minors who require help (either in escaping the life in the first place, or in realizing the desire to return to it is unhealthy). See updated Clause 5 also.

Clause 5 is better worded (though as pointed out, it basically is still "asks", which doesn't actually do anything, not even so much as "encourages") now, but "gainfully employed, healthy" is still a weird thing to ask, given that such is not asked of nations even for non-former-sex-slaves. (Health services are a must, but you can't force someone to be healthy. And not even touching "gainfully employed" as a realistic goal for 100% of people.)

Language altered.

Clause 6, maybe "sex trade" should be "sex industry" or something like that? Given that "sex trade" is elsewhere only mentioned in the preamble and even there not in a very defining way.

I don't see the problem here? "We have outlawed the sex industry or sex professions, not the sex trade, so therefore we have sidestepped being encouraged to offer reduced sentences. No, our prosecutors aren't seething in frustration, why do you ask?"

Also, would this whole thing make a professional dominatrix a sex worker, and a porn producer a pimp?

If so, I don't see the downside. Nothing herein actually outlaws pimpery;¹ only requires nations to take complaints against them seriously. Even the US's updated porn performer protection rules haven't been successful at eliminating intimidation and holding producers and performers accountable for coercion, assault, etc. If this definition of pimp means more people are considered pimps, that's merely a cultural change (and probably a positive one?).

As for the dominatrix, well... that all depends on what exact services she provides, and national laws are what matters there. This proposal treats her as one regardless, but whether she is a target of national/local law enforcement is out of the WA's hands anyway (pending repeal of #179/CPA, but presumably once again when it's replaced by something else...).


¹ Pimps being presumptively outlaws in nations that do prohibit sex work (as aiding and abetting it) and in nations that don't (as employment and labor law violators). If a porn producer is a fair employer and is accountable for violations of the rights of their employees, prospective pimphood should not be a source of fear.

[WayNeacTia]

Wholeheartedly support!

6. Strongly encourages nations choosing to prohibit the sex trade to offer amnesty or reduced charges to sex workers for cooperation in investigations of other, more serious or non-victimless crimes and the suspects thereof.

One request? Drop this and just slide in a clause that makes it completely legal to sell sex, but illegal to purchase and you have a winner here in my books.

[Thousand Branches]

Since I’m awake right now for some ungodly reason, I’m curious as to what parts of this might duplicate or contradict my sex work regulation proposal also in the works. Section 2 obviously is one but I’m not 100% sure if that’s exact duplication at all? I’d love to hear your thoughts as someone who knows the rules far better than I.

[Port Ames]

Port Ames offers its full support to this draft.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Since I’m awake right now for some ungodly reason, I’m curious as to what parts of this might duplicate or contradict my sex work regulation proposal also in the works. Section 2 obviously is one but I’m not 100% sure if that’s exact duplication at all? I’d love to hear your thoughts as someone who knows the rules far better than I.

OOC: My sense is we're working on almost wholly different areas. You're protecting (what ought to be, but might be poorly upheld) ordinary legal rights of sex workers where their work is legal. I'm advancing new-ish protections for sex workers, mostly where their work is illegal. To the extent that the resolutions overlap, it's really only in my second clause, and then only a little bit: you've structured your resolution such that everything goes through the national board of legalized sex work, while most of the effect of mine will be on providers of illicit sex. I don't interpret the duplication rule by myself, but I'd be surprised if these overlapped enough to be called more than minor duplication (which has always been permissible in service of plugging up loopholes in the law).

[Thousand Branches]

Since I’m awake right now for some ungodly reason, I’m curious as to what parts of this might duplicate or contradict my sex work regulation proposal also in the works. Section 2 obviously is one but I’m not 100% sure if that’s exact duplication at all? I’d love to hear your thoughts as someone who knows the rules far better than I.

OOC: My sense is we're working on almost wholly different areas. You're protecting (what ought to be, but might be poorly upheld) ordinary legal rights of sex workers where their work is legal. I'm advancing new-ish protections for sex workers, mostly where their work is illegal. To the extent that the resolutions overlap, it's really only in my second clause, and then only a little bit: you've structured your resolution such that everything goes through the national board of legalized sex work, while most of the effect of mine will be on providers of illicit sex. I don't interpret the duplication rule by myself, but I'd be surprised if these overlapped enough to be called more than minor duplication (which has always been permissible in service of plugging up loopholes in the law).

OOC: Yeah that's the sense I was getting as well. Thanks for taking a look! ^-^

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I'm supportive of this proposal and it's aims, and I look forward to voting in favor when the time comes. I do see one issue:

2. Requires member states, regardless of the legality of sex work therein, to faithfully investigate and prosecute criminal allegations made by sex workers against pimps, clients, or law enforcement for criminal charges generally, but especially emphasizing:

• violence, including sexual assault
• trafficking or enslavement
• unwanted administration of narcotics
• entrapment or coercion - sexual or otherwise - especially by means of blackmail, intimidation, theft of possessions or identification, etc.

3. Mandates that member states' investigations, prosecutions, and fines or criminal sentencing of pimps, clients, and law enforcement shall take precedence over such actions against sex workers who are not implicated in crimes besides prostitution and simple drug possession;

I'm trying to figure out what Section 3 is trying to do. Section 2 already requires member states to "faithfully investigate and prosecute criminal allegations made by sex workers." I don't really understand what good Section 3 adds to that mandate. And I worry about the implications of requiring that certain prosecutions and sentencing must "take precedence" over others. My suspicious side wondered if this is an attempt to effectively require universal legality of prostitution. Under the terms of Section 3, Member Nations could not finish any investigations into allegations against a prostitute (much less initiate a prosecution), so long as there were any allegations or investigations against pips on-going which had to "take precedence".

Put in the form of an example: if a notorious prostitute were arrested for prostitution, and during the arrest made allegations that a client named "John Doe" slapped her three years ago, Section 3 would seem to require Member Nations to put any investigation or charges against her on hold (and presumably release her from custody and just hope she won't reoffend in the meantime) until police investigated the allegations against the client. If she were arrested again the following day, and made new allegations against James Doe from four years ago, the process repeats.

Maybe you had a different interpretation in mind. Anyway, I don't think you lose much by removing Section 3 entirely given that you've already required faithful investigation and prosecution of pimps et all. For me that's clear enough to require that Member Nations must take such allegations seriously and process them like any other criminal complaint, without going too far in excessively micromanaging law enforcement activities. That said, if you wanted to include something like Section 3, I would suggest moderating it a bit and putting everyone on an equal footing under the law by removing "shall take precedence over" and replacing with "shall be at least as thorough and zealous as."