Taijitu
Forum Meta => Office of the Delegate => Executive Offices => May 2008 - Government of Taijitu => Government Archive => Archive => UN Resolutions => Topic started by: Eluvatar on January 08, 2007, 12:51:25 AM
-
Sexual Privacy Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
| Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Karmicaria |
Description: The United Nations,
RECOGNIZING the inherently private nature of sexual intimacy, and
DESIRING to guarantee an individual's right to such privacy,
1. DEFINES sexual activities, for the purpose of this resolution, as behavior, in the form of consensual physical intimacy, that may be directed to reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification. Excluded from this definition are acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant.
2. FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual who has reached the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place.
3. BANS the criminalization of any form of sexual activity provided that, a) it is performed in privacy, and b) all participants are consenting adults.
4. FORBIDS governments, their agents and agencies from interfering with, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults, subject to the exemptions below.
5. EXEMPTS from clause 4:
a. Obtaining evidence for determination of paternity,
b. Collecting information for epidemiological investigations,
c. Criminal or civil investigative activity where probable cause has been established requiring such information, and
d. Actions in situations where there is probable cause that death or serious bodily harm will result without immediate intervention.
Voting Ends: Tue Jan 9 2007
-
Let me explain my vote in the poll--
I believe that we should vote for this resolution as it provides for individual freedoms from government intervention. It does not go and create some bureaucratic commission or do something irrelevant, it helps protect individual liberties.
-
I am basically in favor of this as well, though the language could be stronger.
-
Wait, scratch my vote, I am not FOR
I am strongly against, based on the operative clause 5, subsection A and B and C
A is a moral high ground where a father can force the mother to test for paternity, which itself is infringing upon the mothers rights. Subsection B is ignoring the civil right of a victim to refuse a rape kit etc. for being raped. C also ignored a witnesses right to freedom of speech (or rather lack thereof) and right not to testify, to force a witness to give up evidence because of probable cause is not legal in the US. You can not pin a man down and swab his dick based on probable cause that he might have raped a woman.
Under the phrase "EXEMPTS from clause 4"
4. FORBIDS governments, their agents and agencies from interfering with, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults, subject to the exemptions below.
That means the government (police) is/are allowed to force a person to undergo a test for investigation and paternal purposes, and everyone knows a government can manipulate this as in "i was a paternity test" and gets a free DNA sample. If anyone has ever been a rape victim, they know that they have to give their prints to the police, and that even as a victim their prints remain in the system for the duration of their lifetime despite the fact they have no reason to be in the system. Therefore I find Clause 5 paradoxical and hypocritical.
For the most part, I like the Document. If this was the real model united nations I would motion to get rid of that clause. The government shouldn't be able to force people to do anything, and should not be exempted from this law.
-
I voted FOR and to answer your points Xyrael I belive that clause 5a promotes the right of a child to find their biological parents and also makes it harder to commit fraud by intentionally naming the wrong father.
Clause 5b is nessecary to determine and limit spread and facilitate effective treatment for STDs and other grave debilitating diseases and is thus a situation where it imo would be warranted to overrule the interests of the individual in favour of protecting the yet unaffected populace.
-
But it still is not specific enough to limit government abuse. Therefore I vote no because I do not trusted governments.
-
I voted "For."
-
Heh, it wouldn't help me to score if I knew someone is may be watching me.
-
Against. Not because I don't agree with it but because the UN shouldn't be interfering.
-
If you dont want them interfering, then quit the UN. ;)
-
Ah but to fight a beast...
Nah, I kid. I'm in it because to play at a decent level, you have to be!
-
The UN is evil and I don't want to join. Of course, one of my other nations has a different opinion. ;)
-
You fox!
well, what did you vote, ha? ha?? ha???