Advertisement
by South St Maarten » Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:52 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:07 pm
Graintfjall wrote: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.
“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
by Araraukar » Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:10 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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;
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.
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;
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;
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
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.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:00 pm
Araraukar wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:37 pm
by Araraukar » Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:21 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Interstellar Tauri Union » Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:53 am
Politics News:///66056 volkskammer election: tcp(uc) assumed to gain majority of votes///trp chairman szaton bénar arrested, presumed dead///
Society News:///immigrant family detained in july assimilated, released///government report published detailing interdimensional mission///
Military News///drone war: athena-fleet sent to galactic core to combat drone ship menace///combat exercises in outer rim ssr successful, indicate combat readiness///50% of starfleet scheduled for refit for the new quantum-slipstream-drive allowing for intergalactic travel///
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:48 pm
Interstellar Tauri Union wrote:"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."
Araraukar wrote: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?
by WayNeacTia » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:39 pm
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.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Thousand Branches » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:52 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:16 am
Thousand Branches wrote: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.
by Thousand Branches » Mon Dec 27, 2021 9:53 am
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Thousand Branches wrote: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).
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:23 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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;
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bisofeyr
Advertisement