[GA - FAILED] Sex Worker Protections Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fregerson

Fregerson

Secretly here
-
-
TNP Nation
PotatoFarmers
Discord
Freg#0420
ga.jpg

Sex Worker Protections Act
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Labour Rights
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic​

The World Assembly,

Highlighting the unfair discrimination, sexual assault, and poor working conditions sex workers have long been subject to solely due to their field of employment, as well as the greater risk of sexually transmitted infections sex workers and clients thereof face,

Emphasising that prosecution of sex work is also unhelpful towards protecting sex workers, as it forces sex workers to work "underground" for fear of prosecution of themselves and/or loss of job, at the expense of their safety and welfare, while also perpetuating stigmatisation of the sex industry,

Identifying the efforts of "Universal STI Counteraction" as ultimately helpful to the protection of sex workers via access to STI testing and curative medications for STIs,

Convinced that further efforts are still needed, however, to specifically protect sex workers and ensure that sex work is safe for employees, consumers, and all others involved, as there are still no resolutions passed tailored to the sex industry,

Enacts the following, subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force _

  1. Sex work, in this resolution, refers to the performance of sexual acts in exchange for material compensation.

  2. The sex industry shall be a legal field of both employment and self-employment in member nations. To that end, no member nation may penalise or outlaw all participation in, provision of employment in, purchase of, or facilitation of sex work. Further, a member nation may only impose a restriction specific to the sex industry where it is the least restrictive available means to protect the welfare of buyers or sellers of sex work. No person may be discriminated against for participating in, providing employment in, purchasing, or otherwise facilitating sex work.

  3. All entities offering employment in sex work -- hereinafter "sex work institutions" -- are to offer gratis safe and effective preventive medical products -- including vaccination and barrier contraception -- to any of their sex workers who may be exposed to sexually-transmitted infections in their work in that institution. Member nations are to directly provide such products gratis to self-employed sex workers under their jurisdiction.
    • Such products must be used in any sex work carrying risk of either pregnancy of, or transmission of sexually transmitted infections to, a client or the sex worker in question, so as to minimise risk of the same.

    • Someone who tests positive for a sexually transmitted infection not treated to the point of non-transmissibility may not perform any sex work carrying the risk of transmission of that infection to a client.

  4. The act of coercing a person to provide sexual services or participate in sex work or sexual acts as part of the same, including as a sex worker or consumer of sex work, is hereby prohibited.
    • No entity may employ in sex work, consume sex work from, or sell sex work to, a person without the mental capacity to consent to sexual acts.

    • No person may be trafficked or otherwise moved by force with the intent of forcing that person to provide sexual services or otherwise violating Section 4.

  5. Each sex work institution is to clearly inform all its sex workers of their legal rights and duties in sex work, including those granted by this resolution. Each member nation is to directly inform all self-employed sex workers under its jurisdiction of the same.

  6. Sex workers, sex work clients, and other entities shall have the right to report violations of this resolution, and have them duly investigated, without obstruction or retaliation from any sex work institution, or member nation or entity therein. To that end, each member nation is to create an impartial means for privately reporting violations of this resolution, and, unless that report is clearly frivolous, promptly investigate each reported violation of this resolution reported through such means.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
61121
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
This proposal seeks to (1) legalize the sex industry as a legal form of employment across the WA, (2) prohibits any criminization of purchasers of services provided by sex workers (3) requires all "sex work institutions" to provide safe and effective medical products, (4) makes significant changes to rules regarding sexually transmitted diseases, and (5) imposes corresponding prohibitions on making certain activities associated with sex work to be illegal across the WA.

Recommendation
We strongly support labour rights, fought against human trafficking and supported the universal STI counteraction (GAR#606) policy cited in this resolution. Nevertheless, we believe Article 2 of this resolution, which directly legalizes sex work, is an issue that lends poorly to a "one-size fits all" solution from the World Assembly and invites a wide range of passionate arguments. We believe individual member states (or, as they deem appropriate, to their provinces, municipalities and local communities) are in a better position to tailor more nuanced laws that best reflect the cultural, religious, and social views of their communities. We also believe discussions about sexually transmitted diseases and its risks (on both sex workers and their customers) involve substantive arguments on multiple sides in terms of civil rights and health that are also best resolved at a WA state (or below) level.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Sex Workers Protections Act".

This IFV Recommendation was written in collaboration with our World Assembly Legislative League partners.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Abstain

Part of me is concerned about taking away the ability of member states to legislate individually on this issue, part of me is okay with it and the removal of the allowance of people to knowingly spread STIs from the previous version I appreciate.
 
Present (Non-WA). I think this proposal should be talked about a bit more and how it links to the 'Universal STI counteraction' and does it conflict with any clauses in other pieces of legislation before on this subject before we can make a vote for it.
 
Last edited:
For.

Turbiatop:
Present (Non-WA). I think this proposal should be talked about a bit more and how it links to the 'Universal STI counteraction' and does it conflict with any clauses in other pieces of legislation before on this subject before we can make a vote for it.
Click to expand...
USC's main provision relating to sex work requires all member nations to "offer free (or fully insurance-covered) ... Accurate STI testing for all STIs [to, inter alia, sex workers]". It also mandates that member nations provide gratis STI treatment -- but it omits a mandate relating to providing access to preventive medications. This broadly resolves this issue, per Section 3 requiring sex work institutions to directly provide STI preventive medications and contraceptions -- without any financial burden on the sex workers in question. In effect, the combined mandates of this and USC will mean that sex workers will have free access to preventive medications, testing, and treatment -- the latter two being provided by member nations per USC, while the former is provided by sex work institutions.

With regards to the contradiction question, the proposal is "subject to relevant past World Assembly resolutions still in force" -- therefore, there cannot be contradiction with past resolutions. Further, the Section 2 test applies solely to those restrictions "specific to the sex industry" -- the only resolution I could find enacting a restriction specific to the sex industry is GA #23's "Nations shall apply due scrutiny to ... legal or commercial sex industries ... to work, where necessary in concert with others, to eliminate [human trafficking in the industry]". I don't think this would contradict with Section 2 -- eliminating sex trafficking would be "protect[ing] the welfare of ... sellers of sex work", so all that would be required would be that member nations use the least restrictive available means on the sex industry to eliminate sex trafficking. Of course, in the exceedingly unlikely event that it is impossible to use such means to eliminate sex trafficking -- the "available" qualifier notwithstanding -- 23 will take precedence.
 
Last edited:
Fregerson:
We strongly support labour rights, fought against human trafficking and supported the universal STI counteraction (GAR#606) policy cited in this resolution. Nevertheless, we believe Article 2 of this resolution, which directly legalizes sex work, is an issue that lends poorly to a "one-size fits all" solution from the World Assembly and invites a wide range of passionate arguments. We believe individual member states (or, as they deem appropriate, to their provinces, municipalities and local communities) are in a better position to tailor more nuanced laws that best reflect the cultural, religious, and social views of their communities.
Click to expand...
While I do not disclaim obvious bias, I don't agree that nations should be allowed to ban sex work. I wrote a longer essay on the matter, but to summarise, there is not really any substantial evidence that banning sex work is actually effective in halting the industry. No model of criminalising sex work directly or indirectly has been effective in doing so. Eg UNAIDS, (2009): "there is very little evidence to suggest that any criminal laws related to sex work stop demand for sex or reduce the number of sex workers".

What sex work bans are effective in is forcing sex workers underground, so that they are unwilling to report abuses of their rights. The traditional model will obviously open up sex workers to prosecution when they report abuses of their rights, while even models such as the Nordic model focused on prosecuting clients and employers, rather than sex workers, will mean that sex workers will still not report abuses of their rights for fear of losing their income stream entirely. See also, the same UNAIDS paper: "it is clear that when sex work is criminalised or targeted by administrative laws, sex workers who suffer violence or abuse at the hands of clients or other persons are too fearful to report these offenses to the police. They have little reason to expect that the police would help them".

The other major effect against sex workers that sex work bans has is stigmatising sex work, which is similarly harmful to sex workers -- discrimination against sex workers can come even in scopes wholly unrelated to the industry, eg Berthe, (2018): "during job hunting, during divorce proceedings implicating custodial care, and when accessing certain services". See also, NSWP, (2017): "many End Demand campaigns conflate sex work and violence, fuelling stigma, undermining sex workers’ call for rights, and promoting dehumanisation of sex workers".

Overall, the evidence strongly shows that banning sex work will facilitate abuses against sex workers, due to greater failure to report such abuses and greater stigmatisation. Nations may have customary prohibitions on lots of things that are yet legalised by the World Assembly for very good reason, eg abortion, apostasy, euthanasia, or homosexuality. Dogma and customs do not justify enacting a policy which is shown to be hugely detrimental to the group it ostensibly intends to protect. Nor is it true that practical reasons to halt the industry, such as an STI outbreak, justify outlawing the industry -- there is still very little evidence that such a policy would actually halt the industry, so the question is rather on the rights of sex workers: in particular, those of life, non-discrimination, and bodily autonomy.
 
Last edited:
Against.

Acknowledging @Ice Empire and their point that there are research, HRW reports, etc etc that attempt to show that legalizing sex work seems to be the way in reducing the stigma faced by such workers. While I believe some form of decriminalization does make sense, this proposal calls for a legalization of sex work, with clause 2 making it clear with the line "To that end, no member nation may penalise or outlaw all participation in, provision of employment in, purchase of, or facilitation of sex work." Basically, forcing all WA member states to agreeing with decriminalization. The issue of prostitution law also largely depends on a community's attitude towards it, and decriminalization may not seem to be the best one-sized fits all approach, especially for more conservative societies who view prostitution as a vice that should be banned.

Having a WA law doesn't help in countries who attempt to take the middle ground with other approaches; examples include the Nordic Model (Neo-abolitionism) as well as abolitionism methods (such as that employed by IRL England). Such approaches would effectively be illegal because Clause 2.
 
Last edited:
Fregerson:
Against.

Acknowledging @the ice states and their point that there are research, HRW reports, etc etc that attempt to show that legalizing sex work seems to be the way in reducing the stigma faced by such workers. While I believe some form of decriminalization does make sense, this proposal calls for a legalization of sex work, with clause 2 making it clear with the line "To that end, no member nation may penalise or outlaw all participation in, provision of employment in, purchase of, or facilitation of sex work." Basically, forcing all WA member states to agreeing with decriminalization. The issue of prostitution law also largely depends on a community's attitude towards it, and decriminalization may not seem to be the best one-sized fits all approach, especially for more conservative societies who view prostitution as a vice that should be banned.

Having a WA law doesn't help in countries who attempt to take the middle ground with other approaches; examples include the Nordic Model (Neo-abolitionism) as well as abolitionism methods (such as that employed by IRL England). Such approaches would effectively be illegal because Clause 2.
Click to expand...
While the Nordic Model and other neo-abolitionism models are certainly preferrible to directly punishing sex workers, it's still harmful to sex workers. Such a model is still proven to force sex workers to go underground -- no rational sex work institution or sex worker will work in public where they will get no client. Further, reporting an abuse by a sex work institution or client is still likely to dry up one's income stream entirely, and thus no sex worker will report that they are being abused by an institution or client for fear of losing their source of income; see also Goldenberg, (2020): "end-demand laws that shift the focus of criminalization away from sex workers toward clients and third parties do not alleviate existing barriers to police protections for sex workers, particularly among im/migrant and in-call workers".

Similarly, per eg NSWP, (2017), quoted in my earlier post, the Nordic Model still promotes stigmatisation of sex work by branding sex workers as "victims" regardless of the actual circumstances surrounding their employment. Nor is a Nordic model or other neo-abolitionist model effective in preventing the industry -- a UNDP paper similarly shows that "street-based sex work is halved in Sweden, according to the police, but the sex trade remains at pre-law levels".
 
Last edited:
Ice Empire:
While the Nordic Model and other neo-abolitionism models are certainly preferrible to directly punishing sex workers, it's still harmful to sex workers. Such a model is still proven to force sex workers to go underground -- no rational sex work institution or sex worker will work in public where they will get no client. Further, reporting an abuse by a sex work institution or client is still likely to dry up one's income stream entirely, and thus no sex worker will report that they are being abused by an institution or client for fear of losing their source of income; see also Goldenberg, (2020): "end-demand laws that shift the focus of criminalization away from sex workers toward clients and third parties do not alleviate existing barriers to police protections for sex workers, particularly among im/migrant and in-call workers".

Similarly, per eg NSWP, (2017), quoted in my earlier post, the Nordic Model still promotes stigmatisation of sex work by branding sex workers as "victims" regardless of the actual circumstances surrounding their employment. Nor is a Nordic model or other neo-abolitionist model effective in preventing the industry -- a UNDP paper similarly shows that "street-based sex work is halved in Sweden, according to the police, but the sex trade remains at pre-law levels".
Click to expand...
I note, however, that the actual benefits of a legalised regulated sex industry may not actually be as huge as some papers argue. A report by the European Parliament found that legalising prostitution may actually led to an influx of migrants coming in to take part in the trade, and "an indirect support to the spreading of the illegal market in the sex industry". Also, it is not easy to reduce stigma especially in more conservative countries, this research, although slight dated, found that people in New Zealand continued to have stigma against people in the sex industry.

My point here is, there is no straight forward solution to this issue. Some countries may be able to have strong regulation to prevent such the issue - this requires the country to be able to strongly enforce the rules, especially the regulations on trafficking. Others, who may not be able to do so, may find themselves in similar situation before and after the decriminalisation, rendering the proposal useless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top