[PASSED] Clean Prostitute Act

by **Flibbleites** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:02 pm

Since people have be talking about my prostitution blocker, I figured it's probably time to show it off.

Clean Prostitute Act
Category: Free Trade
Strength: Mild

NOTING that prostitution is a controversial subject,

REALIZING that constantly passing and repealing resolutions dealing with prostitution is a waste of the World Assembly’s time,

DECIDING to end the madness once and for all,

The World Assembly,

DECREES that the decision regarding whether or not to legalize prostitution shall be left to member nations to make within the confines of international law,

REQUIRES that prostitutes working in nations choosing to allow prostitution be regularly screened for sexually transmitted infections and further stipulates that any prostitutes who are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection abstain from their work until their infection has been cured.

by **Aquophia** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:10 pm

This seems reasonable. :ugeek:

by **Soviet Canuckistan** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:14 pm

Yes end the madness

by **Sionis Prioratus** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:18 pm

"Clean Prostitute Act"

"Clean" as an adjective (opposite of "unclean"), or as a verb (imperative) "The WA compels you to clean a prostitute"?

Yours in tergiversation,

by **Unibot II** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Sionis Prioratus wrote:"Clean Prostitute Act"

"Clean" as an adjective (opposite of "unclean"), or as a verb (imperative) "The WA compels you to clean a prostitute"?

Yours in tergiversation,

It's a joke. A clean prostitute would be one without STDs. :roll:

NatSovers have very little tolerance for a debate of morals; as soon as any meaningful debate occurs on a subject they're running around the place as if they're decapitated chickens screaming about all the "madness" and "controversy".

by **Invictus** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:33 pm

Seems like a fair plan.

by **Flibbleites** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:38 pm

Unibot II wrote:
Sionis Prioratus wrote:"Clean Prostitute Act"

"Clean" as an adjective (opposite of "unclean"), or as a verb (imperative) "The WA compels you to clean a prostitute"?

Yours in tergiversation,

It's a joke. A clean prostitute would be one without STDs.

NatSovers have very little tolerance for a debate of morals; as soon as any meaningful debate occurs on a subject they're running around the place as if they're decapitated chickens screaming about all the "madness" and "controversy".

"Meaningful debate?" Were you actually present for the two debates on Legalize Prostitution? I find it hard for anyone who went through those debates to consider either one to be meaningful.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

by **The Republic of Lanos** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:40 pm

I support.

Freedom over tyranny.

by **Sionis Prioratus** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:03 pm

Whatever the merits this draft may have, it does not "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce". Therefore, the category is wrong.

The correct one would be "Advancement of Industry" (A resolution to develop industry around the world) / Area of effect: "Labor Deregulation".

Yours in nitpicking,

by **The Republic of Lanos** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:04 pm

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Whatever the merits this draft may have, it does not "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce". Therefore, the category is wrong.

The correct one would be "Advancement of Industry" (A resolution to develop industry around the world) / Area of effect: "Labor Deregulation".

Yours in nitpicking,

The resolution that would be replaced by this is a Free Trade proposal with a significant strength...

by **Sionis Prioratus** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:11 pm

The Republic of Lanos wrote:
Sionis Prioratus wrote:Whatever the merits this draft may have, it does not "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce". Therefore, the category is wrong.

The correct one would be "Advancement of Industry" (A resolution to develop industry around the world) / Area of effect: "Labor Deregulation".

Yours in nitpicking,

The resolution that would be replaced by this is a Free Trade proposal with a significant strength...

Indeed. It created ex nihilo a worldwide, regulated market for prostitution. It "reduce[d] barriers to free trade and commerce". This draft does nothing of the sort. It would eliminate markets (in potential or some of the existing ones) and allow for near-absolute "Labor Deregulation".

Yours in pointing out,

by **Alqania** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:23 pm

Lord Raekevik beamed with excitement.

"Ooh, I just got this new fancy stamp to use on proposals like this one."

by **Charlotte Ryberg** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:08 pm

We prefer that member countries who ban prostitution should adopt the Swedish approach, whereas the client (including gang masters) who accepts the offer should only be liable to prosecution. It's what Ms. Harper has been trying to say for months. That's a better mandatory clause, and shows why LP is inappropriate for all situations.

by **Hirota** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:31 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:We prefer that member countries who ban prostitution should adopt the Swedish approach, whereas the client (including gang masters) who accepts the offer should only be liable to prosecution. It's what Ms. Harper has been trying to say for months. That's a better mandatory clause, and shows why LP is inappropriate for all situations.

Aye ambassador, it's been a very neat loophole, in the 4 or 5 resolutions that have been passed by the WA (and the other organisation before that) whilst Hirota has been a member not one of them did anything to deal with it.

by **Gridea** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 1:40 am

The people of Gridea approve of this, as apposed to having it repealed right after the laws were passed. That and simply the Grideans love prostitutes. Can't lie about it now, can we?

Respectfully, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Vratymyr Ovlokov.

by **Libraria and Ausitoria** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:42 am

Unfortunately, we will not be in the position to support this, for reasons stated several times before.

by **Knootoss** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:40 am

Knootoss supports.

Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss

by **I love all** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:45 am

I support it because of the act how many men are cheating on there wives .

by **Urgench** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:35 am

We are opposed to this measure.

Yours,

by **Parti Ouvrier** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:14 am

As are we.

Wez Spencer
WA Ambassador to the DRPO

by **Flibbleites** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:47 am

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Whatever the merits this draft may have, it does not "reduce barriers to free trade and commerce". Therefore, the category is wrong.

The correct one would be "Advancement of Industry" (A resolution to develop industry around the world) / Area of effect: "Labor Deregulation".

Yours in nitpicking,

I disagree, first off prohibiting prostitutes from working if they have an STI is increasing regulations not decreasing them. Secondly, I would think that not knowing if the prostitute has any STIs would be a barrier of sorts, this gets rid of that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

by **The Republic of Lanos** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:52 am

And I guess the reasons why people are against this and the repeal are because...you want to overregulate the "legal" industry out of existance with those loopholes? Skirt the damned unprofitable rule by saying it has no chance of being profitable in the first place?

I just want to move on from this whole disaster and get to real business that has an international tone to it. Prostitution does not have an international tone. It was forced upon us by the lemming effect and a nation that no longer exists. You can legalize it in your own countries but don't force your beliefs on us that paying to get laid/whatever should be legal.

Freedom over tyranny.

by **Embolalia** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:03 am

Flibbleites wrote:I disagree, first off prohibiting prostitutes from working if they have an STI is increasing regulations not decreasing them. Secondly, I would think that not knowing if the prostitute has any STIs would be a barrier of sorts, this gets rid of that.

I wholeheartedly agree with this... eh... creative interpretation of the categories. M'colleague has a wonderful skill for writing the perfect blocker.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

by **Sionis Prioratus** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 10:56 am

Embolalia wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:I disagree, first off prohibiting prostitutes from working if they have an STI is increasing regulations not decreasing them. Secondly, I would think that not knowing if the prostitute has any STIs would be a barrier of sorts, this gets rid of that.

I wholeheartedly agree with this... eh... creative interpretation of the categories. M'colleague has a wonderful skill for writing the perfect blocker.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia

Creative, indeed. As I would like to reserve the right to be "creative in interpreting categories" myself in the future, I shall assent to this approach.

Yours in terrible machinations,

by **Doctor Insano** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:04 am

"this bill is much simpler and offers greater freedom than the legislation currently in place. the beauty is that the nation has the ability to choose how to enforce their own laws regarding prostitution, and the taxation of it! While it may not be science, it is good business."

APPROVED

Dr. Insano Ph.D
High Chancellor: The Scientific Dominion of Doctor Insano
WA Regional Delegate: Humanist Dominion.

[PASSED] Clean Prostitute Act

[PASSED] Clean Prostitute Act

Who is online