We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Prostitution Reform Act of 2082
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2082
Description[?]:
| This bill will not criminalize prostitution, but the government will enforce stricter laws in the field of prostitution. The reasons for this bill are to discourage woman, girls, and men from entering into this profession. Incentives such as education or better job oppurtunities can be used to try to encourage would be prostitutes to pursue other occupations. If they choose prostitution they will still be entitled to the current health services that are presently offered. The brothels of operation will be regulated to ensure the same safety standards as the current law. 1) Prostitutes must be over the age of 18. 2) Prostitutes must be tested for HIV, and other STDS once a month. 3) They are required to use contraception every time they engage in any sex act. 4) Prostitutes must work out of regulated brothels to ensure their safety and to prevent public indecency. 5) The client or "john" must also be at the legal age of 16 and produce a valid ID card. 6) Random inspections of brothels are to be carried periodically to ensure these standards are being met. 7) Increased security such as cameras and security personal will be present. Fake ID cards will be handed over to the police. 8) Prostitutes will be taxed accordingly to their income and all tips must be reported as income. 9) Brothels may only advertise through "adult" or specialized media only. 10) The client must use some form of medically approved contraception. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:27:00, July 18, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | It is best to limit prostitution as much as possible. By providing other options to them such as school or job training, they may have a better life free of prostitution. |
| Date | 17:14:01, July 18, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | We would not recommend pursuing this policy. We would gladly acccept a more formal and detailed employment standards for prostitutes, however the course you are recommending would remove Government regulation, and thusly could endanger the lives of those prostitutes that you are attempting to protect. We would also point out that many prostitutes, at least those within brothels, often choose their profession and enjoy that profession and they could be forced into non-regulated establishments which could endanger both themselves and their prospective clients. The wording of your above bill is also incorrect as you are restricting only female prostitutes and not male (which do exist) so begins a one-sided policy which discriminates against only certain areas of society. |
| Date | 17:22:39, July 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | I see your point. If the prostitute (male or female) decides to remain in brothel, could perhaps the brothel itself be regulated to insure the safety of those prostitutes. This would not deregulate brothels which will ensure some sort of safety, but the act of prostitution itself would not be recognized as a regulated profession. This will confine prostitution to limited areas or brothels which will be regulated, rather then the profession itself. |
| Date | 17:32:21, July 18, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | It's easier to recognise the profession, and then regulate it then it is to say it's not recognised, except it is here...if you see what I mean...? The law (or in this case the proposal) has to be the clearest part and, most importantly, musn't be able to be argued against in courts. What I would recommend, though I leave this over to yourself as it is your bill, would not be to change the proposal aspect of the law from what it is now, but introduce specific regulation of the industry in order to maintain stricter controls, something we are sorely lacking at the moment (it was proposed to be added within the last bill, but got lost and forgotten about over time). |
| Date | 17:44:25, July 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | Thats seems more reasonable then changing the law outright. Stricter control of prostitution laws was what I was hoping to achieve with this. The problem with my current bill is the regulating of brothels would be pointless if prostitution itself wasn't a recognized profession in the eye's of the law. Maybe keeping the current law as is but defining the regulations would work better. Laws such as a legal age for prostitution, screening for diseases, limiting where prostitutes can operate such as only in certified brothels... just to name a few. |
| Date | 18:19:58, July 18, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | That I can support. If you need any help writing the law, I would be happy to assist. |
| Date | 18:27:39, July 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | I'll appreciate your help. This bill will benefit all of Hobrazia so any input from all parties will be a great help. Let's work on a bipartisian bill instead of wringing each others necks. |
| Date | 19:02:52, July 18, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | Prostitutes must be 18+ and clients must not be below the age of 16 (as is, technically adult within the current laws...). Prostitutes may only perform sexual activities within licensed premises (brothels). Prostitutes must be checked for sexually transmitted diseases before they are allowed to be involved in any business activities, and must receive additional screenings throughout their working life (as long as they remain in the business) to help protect both themselves and their clients. Prostitutes are classified as self-employed tradespersons and will be taxed accordingly. Condoms, and any other forms of "protection" required, must be used within all activities. All brothels will be fitted with security cameras and inbuilt alarm systems to help monitor and respond to any distress that prostitutes, and clients, may be placed under. Security will be provided for workers and clients protection. Clients will be required to bring their ID cards with them, and those ID's will be left with security for the duration of visit. Should said clients become unruly, the ID cards will be kept by security and passed onto the Police in order to assist in investigations relating to the clients conduct. Brothels may not advertise within mainstream media and are limited to specialist media only. These are only basic "lists". The wording could probably be improved, and there is probably loads of points I've missed, but I think it makes a good start. |
| Date | 19:13:45, July 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | Ahh, good. We are almost on the same page with my new description of the law. I will change the age to 18, add the security measures, and the tax laws. |
| Date | 19:25:25, July 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | This is a good start. We need to come up with some laws regarding jail time for assault against prostitutes and other major violations. I appreciate your input, and hopefully some of the other parties will have some ideas. |
| Date | 20:47:58, July 18, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | Looks good so far because these measures protect both the prostitute and the client. |
| Date | 21:06:32, July 18, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | Add that the client must also be using contraception. Looks good otherwise. |
| Date | 21:09:22, July 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | Good work on this bill everyone, thanks for your input. |
| Date | 00:28:09, July 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | I don't think this will work at all. How many prostitutes, mostly who are driven to this through organised crime and poverty, will care to adhere to such laws when its money going into their pockets? The only way to tackle prostitution is to tackle poverty, and that is our stance on the issue. |
| Date | 00:58:32, July 19, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | And you know that most of these people are forced into it by organised crime and poverty, how? Also, what is your problem with prostitutes? Many people are quite happy in this business, and these laws merely strengthen the law protecting their rights. Would you deny someone a days work because you don't like their job? I believe you will find that most prostitutes would follow these laws, purely because most prostitutes are like any other person, law abiding citizens. All we are doing is providing these people with a safe, clean environment to carry out their employment, would you have us do any less? |
| Date | 01:15:21, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | They choose this job just like anyone else chooses a job. They make decent wages in a secure, clean environment that has decent security features to ensure their safety. They pay taxes like everybody else and have access to quality health care. There is no organised crime because it is legal, and they make decent money so they are not living in poverty. |
| Date | 03:42:42, July 19, 2005 CET | From | National Imperial Hobrazian Front | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | Perhaps it would be wise to add a clause stating that unemployment benefits cannot be denied if a woman or man refuses to become a prostitute? |
| Date | 14:16:00, July 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | "Would you deny someone a days work because you don't like their job?" Its not that I like or dislike their job, at all. Do you think that the majority of women/men etc enjoy their profession? I seriously doubt it. |
| Date | 14:16:25, July 19, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | These rules are acceptable, but they miss the real issue here - tackling poverty. |
| Date | 17:53:13, July 19, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Prostitution Reform Act of 2082 |
| Message | "Do you think that the majority of women/men etc enjoy their profession? I seriously doubt it." - Perhaps not, but some do. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 400 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval. |
| Random quote: Henceforth, the current system of first and second class stamps, where the rich can pay to have their mail delivered faster than the poor, shall be BANNED. There shall be only one class of mail delivery, and ALL mail shall travel at the SAME speed for EVERYBODY. There can be no class discrimination in the People's Post Office! There must be the SAME class of mail service FOR ALL! ~ Friedrich Pfeiffer General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |