[GA - Missed Quorum] Sex Work Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
magecastle_embassy_building_a5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Sex Work Act
Category: Moral Decency | Area of Effect: Mild
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic​

Recalling that this body has indirectly acted to protect sex workers via:

  • GA#23 "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking," which forbids trafficking in persons,
  • GA#383 "Sexual Privacy Act," which authorises all private, consensual sexual activity between multiple people that does not harm others, and
  • GA#606 "Universal STI Counteraction," which expands access to free tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for sex workers (among others) and institutes contact tracing programmes to alert those who may have been infected with STIs, but
Noting that it has said nothing about sex work in itself since the repeal of GA#179 "Clean Prostitute Act," and

Seeking to balance the member state's right to authorise sex work, the participants' rights to engage in it and the interests of public health...

The General Assembly hereby:

  1. reserves to each member the decision to legalise, decriminalise or forbid the sale or purchase of sex,
  2. forbids any person in a member from selling or purchasing sex if they:
    1. do not, or else cannot, affirmatively consent to doing so (including due to being under the age of consent), or
    2. are currently infected with an STI which they can transmit to other people,
  3. requires purchasers of sex to follow the seller's instructions on the proper use of barrier protection while having sex with them,
  4. similarly encourages sellers of sex to properly use barrier protection while having sex,
  5. further requires sellers of sex to be regularly tested, free of charge, for any STIs that are prevalent in their area,
  6. demands that members which do not forbid the purchase of sex ensure that prospective purchasers of sex can readily access free STI testing, and
  7. clarifies that:
    1. this resolution is subject to prior and standing international law, except Article b(i), and
    2. Article b(i) does not require or encourage members to punish those who do not consent to selling or purchasing sex.
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
0300
 
Last edited:
Against. Section g.ii remains a poor band-aid. Now it just nullifies the effect of b.i; instead of actually addressing the problem in b.i's wording. Section a also remains a non-starter.
 
Magecastle:
Against. Section g.ii remains a poor band-aid. Now it just nullifies the effect of b.i; instead of actually addressing the problem in b.i's wording. Section a also remains a non-starter.
Click to expand...
I disagree on that interpretation of clause g-ii. An interpretation which would render a section nugatory is not a good-faith interpretation. Taking b-ii and g-ii together, member-nations must prohibit someone from selling or purchasing sexual services if that person does not consent, but can not impose any punishments on said person for doing so. In other words, member-nations must work to prevent the activity described in b-ii from occurring, but, per g-ii, cannot punish the nonconsenting party in order to achieve that prevention.

Incidentally, I have noticed that the proposal’s representation in this thread displays only numbers, rather than letters. That might make it confusing for anyone looking through the thread quickly, though I’m not sure how easy it would be to fix.
 
Kenmoria:
I disagree on that interpretation of clause g-ii. An interpretation which would render a section nugatory is not a good-faith interpretation. Taking b-ii and g-ii together, member-nations must prohibit someone from selling or purchasing sexual services if that person does not consent, but can not impose any punishments on said person for doing so. In other words, member-nations must work to prevent the activity described in b-ii from occurring, but, per g-ii, cannot punish the nonconsenting party in order to achieve that prevention.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a possible interpretation; how can you prohibit someone from doing something, without punishing them for doing so? The only interpretation I can see is "doing sex work without one's consent is illegal, we just have no penalties for it!". I don't think that's possible in good faith; and if it was it would still render b.i inoperative.

That said, regardless of g.ii I am still against due to Section a.
 
Last edited:
Magecastle:
I don't think this is a possible interpretation; how can you prohibit someone from doing something, without punishing them for doing so? The only interpretation I can see is "doing sex work without one's consent is illegal, we just have no penalties for it!". I don't think that's possible in good faith; and if it was it would still render b.i inoperative.

That said, regardless of g.ii I am still against due to Section a.
Click to expand...
The interpretation of “this is illegal but without penalty” was what I was describing. Member-nations must prevent said practice from occurring, but must not impose penalties on the nonconsenting participants. It is more than possible for this to happen. Member-nations could prevent someone currently violating b-ii from doing al, but could impose no ex post facto restrictions on said person. There is a major difference in legal theory between something being criminalised but not penalised and something being neither criminalised nor penalised. In any case, good-faith interpretation is no longer a rule, given that GA #002 has been repealed and the replacement has not yet passed, so I suppose it is rather moot.

(Non-WA) That said, regardless of g-ii, I am still for this proposal.
 
Tinhampton:
Article a allows member states to forbid sex work. That is the entire point of the Article.
Click to expand...
I am aware that the point of the Article is that, but it means that this act is unnecessary to be passed in the WA, for it does not affect any nation that prohibits sex work.
It would work better as individual pieces of legislation for nations, but that's my opinion, and my opinion could be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top