by Flibbleites » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:38 am
by The Republic of Lanos » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:40 am
by Charlotte Ryberg » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:46 am
by Ploegeristan » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:53 am
by Flibbleites » Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:54 am
Ploegeristan wrote:We will support this legislation IF the following clause is added to the proposal: by law, prostitutes will have to test on STD's every 6 months at least. If a prostitute has an STD he or she will not be allowed to practice his or her profession until cured or in the case of HIV will be forced to stop practicing his or her profession for the rest of his or her life.
by Dilange » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:10 pm
Flibbleites wrote:Legalizing Prostitution
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Great Azarath
Description: The World Assembly,
ACKNOWLEDGING that prostitution, one of the oldest and most known professions in existence, is illegal in many member states;
CONCERNED that the criminalization of prostitution prevents prostitutes from adequately protecting themselves from abuse and disease, and that even in member states where prostitution is legal, prostitutes still may not be fully protected under current national laws;
CONVINCED that all individuals have a fundamental right to bodily sovereignty that no government can rightly violate;
DEFINES, for this resolution:
(1) Prostitution: As the act or practice of providing sexual services to another person (client) in return for compensation.
(2) Prostitute: Sapient beings who provide sexual services in return for compensation.
(3) Brothel: A organized place of prostitution.
(4) Sapient/Sapience: The ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment.
HEREBY MANDATES that all member states residing with the World Assembly legalize the business and free trade of prostitution within the confines of previously existent international law.
Prostitutes and member states that reside with the World Assembly MUST ABIDE to the following statements:
(1) Prostitutes are made fully aware of the health or other specific risk connected to prostitution;
(2) A prostitute has the right to refuse any sexual act;
(3) A prostitute has the right to create a contract with his/her/its client agreeing on specific details.
PROHIBITS the following:
(1) Sexual penetration to happen without some form of sexual protection, unless both sides consent to not using any form of sexual protection;
(2) Any government to stop a sapient being from acquiring this profession; within the confines of previously existent international law.
FURTHER PROHIBITS Individual member-states regulating prostitution-based enterprises to the point where it no longer becomes profitable for the enterprise, or its employees; member-states must also refrain from instilling negative ramifications on prostitutes for pursuing the profession with the intent of stymieing the industry.
This resolution RECOMMENDS the following:
(1) That member states provide free or low-cost, high quality condoms and other prophylactics, birth control and STI screenings to prostitutes and others who are at risk of STI's and unwanted pregnancies;
(2) Prostitutes are involved with organized brothels for better safety.
ENCOURAGES individual member states to impose additional protocol or standards that do not conflict with this resolution.
Co-Author: Connopolis
by Christian Democrats » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:13 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by The Republic of Lanos » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:13 pm
by Dilange » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:14 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Yea...that. Mandatory STD tests?
Oh wait, it's already in there. But wait! If we go by the recommendation of mandating STD tests, could that be seen as imposing a burden on said industry?
The fuck...?
by Christian Democrats » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:16 pm
. . . are not in the proposal.The Republic of Lanos wrote:Mandatory STD tests
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by The Republic of Lanos » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:17 pm
This resolution RECOMMENDS the following:
(1) That member states provide free or low-cost, high quality condoms and other prophylactics, birth control and STI screenings to prostitutes and others who are at risk of STI's and unwanted pregnancies;
by Suidwes-Afrika » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:17 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:As I said, we will deliberately violate it (OOC: IC'ly). And if we do, it will be in good faith to keep organised crime down in the interest of public safety. We already know about compliance from day one, but the proposal does not make the world better other than increase crime. There is a limit to the idea of IntFed and I think the proposal goes outside of what is worthy of international consideration.
by Christian Democrats » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:19 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:. . . are not in the proposal.
Oh yes they are...but recommended:This resolution RECOMMENDS the following:
(1) That member states provide free or low-cost, high quality condoms and other prophylactics, birth control and STI screenings to prostitutes and others who are at risk of STI's and unwanted pregnancies;
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Dilange » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:19 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:. . . are not in the proposal.
Oh yes they are...but recommended:This resolution RECOMMENDS the following:
(1) That member states provide free or low-cost, high quality condoms and other prophylactics, birth control and STI screenings to prostitutes and others who are at risk of STI's and unwanted pregnancies;
by Dilange » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:26 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:As I said, we will deliberately violate it (OOC: IC'ly). And if we do, it will be in good faith to keep organised crime down in the interest of public safety. We already know about compliance from day one, but the proposal does not make the world better other than increase crime. There is a limit to the idea of IntFed and I think the proposal goes outside of what is worthy of international consideration.
by The Republic of Lanos » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:27 pm
Dilange wrote:Charlotte Ryberg wrote:As I said, we will deliberately violate it (OOC: IC'ly). And if we do, it will be in good faith to keep organised crime down in the interest of public safety. We already know about compliance from day one, but the proposal does not make the world better other than increase crime. There is a limit to the idea of IntFed and I think the proposal goes outside of what is worthy of international consideration.
"Agreed, the Azarite delegate seems to believe that if its passed that every country will be like his, no problems and more business freedoms. Alas, not every nation is similar. Each nation is complex and has a set of different variables that make it complex. Making a one-size-fits-all proposal doesnt work in an international zone of government and can cause a vast amoutn of nations in the Wa ranging from crime to bankrupcy. We have seen similar ones like this in the past filled with many contradictions. If this does pass, I will make a repal ASAP"
by Connopolis » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 pm
Herttora wrote:OOC: Wow how much bs had to go on in the background for this to get that many approvals... Sold wives? Nuclear technology?
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Flibbleites » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:45 pm
OOC: Considering what happened last time I don't blame him.[/quote]Dilange wrote:OOC: i remember telling him to make a discussion page but he refused so......apparently hes afraid of others opinions. idk.
by Of Free Northern States » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:56 pm
by Suidwes-Afrika » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:56 pm
Dilange wrote:Charlotte Ryberg wrote:As I said, we will deliberately violate it (OOC: IC'ly). And if we do, it will be in good faith to keep organised crime down in the interest of public safety. We already know about compliance from day one, but the proposal does not make the world better other than increase crime. There is a limit to the idea of IntFed and I think the proposal goes outside of what is worthy of international consideration.
"Agreed, the Azarite delegate seems to believe that if its passed that every country will be like his, no problems and more business freedoms. Alas, not every nation is similar. Each nation is complex and has a set of different variables that make it complex. Making a one-size-fits-all proposal doesnt work in an international zone of government and can cause a vast amoutn of nations in the Wa ranging from crime to bankrupcy. We have seen similar ones like this in the past filled with many contradictions. If this does pass, I will make a repal ASAP"
by The Republic of Lanos » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:05 pm
by Connopolis » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:10 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:How about we legalize incest while we're on the topic of letting immorality come to our nations.
And we don't sell wives. That's sexual slavery and rightfully banned in Lanos. Now don't you start on a crusade to legalize that too...
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Christian Democrats » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:44 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:How about we legalize incest while we're on the topic of letting immorality come to our nations.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Goobergunchia » Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:46 pm
The Republic of Lanos wrote:All I have to say: Why Lord...even then, it won't pass! If it does, we'llignore it andwrite the insta-repeal! Now I'll return to my office to recover from my hangover from last night's party at the Bar...
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:There is a limit to the idea of IntFed and I think the proposal goes outside of what is worthy of international consideration.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement