NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Repeal GAR#179 “Clean Prostitute Act”

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 193
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Thousand Branches » Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:13 am

And we are submitted.
You are frikkin beautiful!! Have the best day ever my friend!!
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at Aramantha#4290 for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Have an awesome day you! •○•

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Diplomat
 
Posts: 892
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:04 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:Acknowledging the intentions of GAR#179 to insert itself as the be all, end all of legislation on prostitution;

It does not.

It states:
  1. Member nations determine the legality of prostitution.
  2. Sex workers must be screened for STDs before undertaking sex work
  3. Sex workers must not undertake sex with if they have a sexually transmitted disease for the duration of infection.
This is far from an all-encompassing omnibus resolution that impacts every minor aspect of sex work.

Thousand Branches wrote:Respecting the resolution’s neutral stance on the legality of prostitution in any given member nation;

Asserting however, that GAR#179 is a simplistic and antiquated resolution that does not provide almost any information, legislation, or protection on the subject of sex work for those nations where it might be legalized;

You can assert that, but you need to demonstrate it before I'll believe it.

Thousand Branches wrote:Observing that GAR#179 does not introduce any sort of definitions or foundational information on prostitution or sex work, thus rendering itself less credible as a General Assembly Resolution;

What sort of definitions are you wanting? What are you wishing that was said?

Definitions are provided for terms that can be confusable with alternative meanings than what the author intended. They are not necessary to define a word as their dictionary definition just for the sake of providing decoration on the page. So what is the damage you are asserting exists by not laying specific definitions provided?

Thousand Branches wrote:Recognizing the resolution’s flawed approach in limiting itself to only prostitution, thereby neglecting a good portion of the sex industry that faces the same problems;

You are again criticising content that was not included in the target, so what is that content? What is being neglected and what harm is transpiring by the oversight?

If you are alleging the target resolution is harmful or insufficient, the onus is on you to demonstrate the faults and not leave it to the imagination.

Thousand Branches wrote:Dispirited with the resolution’s lack of any kind of protection for prostitutes or other sex workers against sexual, physical, or psychological violence;

This is a valid, somewhat specific observation of content that is lacking from the target; however, the target does not prevent that content from being passed in a separate resolution. So, it's more an argument against the target from being passed than it is a relevant argument for its repeal.

Thousand Branches wrote:Confused by the resolution’s naive, ineffectual, and very over-simplified solution for limiting the spread of sexually transmitted infection through sex work, placing all responsibility for STI testing and regulation on the sex workers themselves and providing them no protection against clients or other participants in sex work that may transfer an STI to that sex worker;

It is unclear to me if "placing all responsibility for STI testing and regulation on the sex workers themselves" is an accurate statement. Risk prevention is weighted on the sex work, but responsibility likely rests on a member nation's government, and the compliance commission.

Thousand Branches wrote:Certain that the GAR#179 serves only to marginalize sex work and the sizable discrimination sex workers face on a daily basis;

What. How?

You're going to have to do better than toss an accusation like that into the resolution without demonstrating what of the resolution is marginalising, etc.

Thousand Branches wrote:Seeking to provide the General Assembly with a more adequate resolution on an important and sensitive subject;

Hereby repeals GAR#179.

That isn't accomplished by repeals, and certainly not when a resolution that does the things you want can be passed in the status quo.

No support from me.

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Mon Nov 22, 2021 4:39 pm

Thousand Branches wrote:And we are submitted.

BOOOOOOOOOOO

User avatar
Thousand Branches
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 193
Founded: Jun 03, 2021
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Thousand Branches » Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:36 am

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Acknowledging the intentions of GAR#179 to insert itself as the be all, end all of legislation on prostitution;

It does not.

It states:
  1. Member nations determine the legality of prostitution.
  2. Sex workers must be screened for STDs before undertaking sex work
  3. Sex workers must not undertake sex with if they have a sexually transmitted disease for the duration of infection.
This is far from an all-encompassing omnibus resolution that impacts every minor aspect of sex work.

I did not say that it acted as a be all end all, I said that it intended to. Out of the six lines of the resolution, one of them is literally "DECIDING to end the madness once and for all,", which to me very much speaks to a desire to shut down all argument or discussion on prostitution. It does not act as an end all be all, but it states very clearly that it intends to. Yes perhaps this is slightly poor wording on my part but this is also an introductory clause and not exactly the focus of the repeal.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Respecting the resolution’s neutral stance on the legality of prostitution in any given member nation;

Asserting however, that GAR#179 is a simplistic and antiquated resolution that does not provide almost any information, legislation, or protection on the subject of sex work for those nations where it might be legalized;

You can assert that, but you need to demonstrate it before I'll believe it.

I think this is pretty clearly demonstrated by the fact that there are only 6 lines in the resolution along with the fact that I essentially explain this clause for the rest of the repeal.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Observing that GAR#179 does not introduce any sort of definitions or foundational information on prostitution or sex work, thus rendering itself less credible as a General Assembly Resolution;

What sort of definitions are you wanting? What are you wishing that was said?

Definitions are provided for terms that can be confusable with alternative meanings than what the author intended. They are not necessary to define a word as their dictionary definition just for the sake of providing decoration on the page. So what is the damage you are asserting exists by not laying specific definitions provided?

The ones that I was thinking of when I wrote this clause were "prostitution" for one, a word that does have a pretty debatable grey area, and "cured" in the STI clause, which for something like STIs, also is somewhat unclear because very few STIs are "curable" in the sense that they are 100% gone forever.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Recognizing the resolution’s flawed approach in limiting itself to only prostitution, thereby neglecting a good portion of the sex industry that faces the same problems;

You are again criticising content that was not included in the target, so what is that content? What is being neglected and what harm is transpiring by the oversight?

If you are alleging the target resolution is harmful or insufficient, the onus is on you to demonstrate the faults and not leave it to the imagination.

I thought this was pretty clear from the clause but my argument here is that it is only for prostitution, not for the many kinds of sex work that fit into the same category. Not only does it leave all that not legislated on, but it also makes the definition of "prostitution" more unclear. It is very clear that the resolution limits itself to prostitution and I am demonstrating that fault with this clause by pointing out that sex workers of all kinds face the same problems.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Dispirited with the resolution’s lack of any kind of protection for prostitutes or other sex workers against sexual, physical, or psychological violence;

This is a valid, somewhat specific observation of content that is lacking from the target; however, the target does not prevent that content from being passed in a separate resolution. So, it's more an argument against the target from being passed than it is a relevant argument for its repeal.

Fair, but it is my belief that if all that can be put in another resolution, there is no reason to keep this one around since it only really legislates on STI protection and in a very poor and unhelpful way.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Confused by the resolution’s naive, ineffectual, and very over-simplified solution for limiting the spread of sexually transmitted infection through sex work, placing all responsibility for STI testing and regulation on the sex workers themselves and providing them no protection against clients or other participants in sex work that may transfer an STI to that sex worker;

It is unclear to me if "placing all responsibility for STI testing and regulation on the sex workers themselves" is an accurate statement. Risk prevention is weighted on the sex work, but responsibility likely rests on a member nation's government, and the compliance commission.

I suppose this is just a small difference in language. I mean in the context of sex work, over any other participants, all the responsibility for making sure no STI is spread is placed solely on testing to the sex workers. Nothing is preventing clients or other participants from infecting those sex workers and effectively ending or severely postponing their careers. I believe that is unfair to the sex workers as there are no requirements for anybody else to be tested where there should be. Could this be rectified in a separate resolution? Sure. Does it make any sense to have two pieces of legislation on the same exact thing? No.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Certain that the GAR#179 serves only to marginalize sex work and the sizable discrimination sex workers face on a daily basis;

What. How?

You're going to have to do better than toss an accusation like that into the resolution without demonstrating what of the resolution is marginalising, etc.

This clause is mostly a matter of looking at the language of the resolution being repealed. It's 6 throwaway lines clearly written in frustration that probably took someone five minutes to write up. This resolution was created solely to stop the arguments going on in the GA and the resolution reflects that. It paints sex work as prostitution, it very poorly attempts to shove STI testing on only half of a party, and it is obviously there to throw the topic of prostitution and sex work into a dusty corner where it won't be touched again.

Of course I do not know if all that is true but it's exactly how the proposal comes off as and it is one of the most important reasons for repeal.

Refuge Isle wrote:
Thousand Branches wrote:Seeking to provide the General Assembly with a more adequate resolution on an important and sensitive subject;

Hereby repeals GAR#179.

That isn't accomplished by repeals, and certainly not when a resolution that does the things you want can be passed in the status quo.

No support from me.

It isn't accomplished by repeals, but it is a promise that such a resolution will exist. It isn't illegal to say "hey this can be replaced with a better resolution", I actually checked directly on that because I wanted to make sure it was not.
You are frikkin beautiful!! Have the best day ever my friend!!
|| Aramantha Calendula ||
○•○ Writer, editor, and World Assembly fanatic ○•○
•○• Proud member of House Elegarth •○•
○•○ Telegram or message me on discord at Aramantha#4290 for writing or editing help ○•○
•○• Have an awesome day you! •○•

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Wed Nov 24, 2021 5:48 pm

I've seen CPA survive better repeal attempts than this. We'll see.

Previous

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Barfleur, Separatist Peoples, Tinhampton, Xernon

Advertisement

Remove ads