How will parties approach the legality of sex work after the Supreme Court decision?

712 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caissa

thread drift/ It is spelled "Saint John"/ end thread drift.

fortunate

Caissa wrote:

thread drift/ It is spelled "Saint John"/ end thread drift.

 

In the west, we call that a 'highjack', but only if the topic is turned by the highjacking.  In this case, if someone replies to you, and then another replies to me, on the topic of spelling correctly, then it is successfully 'highjacked', and we then have a completely new topic.    

 

:)

 

On topic, Newfoundland police are following the Saint John method of focusing their attention on other things that are more important than whether or not two consenting adults are talking about what they plan to consent to on the street corner.   

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/prostitution-charges...

Bärlüer

CROP has polled the issue in Quebec. The basic gist is that a majority of Quebecers favor a regulatory approach.

The poll first asked whether the government should: 1) allow prostitution while regulating its practice; 2) prohibit prostitution. On this question, the respondents were divided 67%/19%.

The second question was on the "Nordic model". It was phrased this way:

Quote:
Le ministre de la Justice Peter MacKay du Parti conservateur du Canada propose de criminaliser l'achat d'actes sexuels ainsi que toute tierce partie tentant d'en profiter afin de protéger les travailleuses du sexe. Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous en accord ou en désaccord avec cette affirmation ?

Results were 43% disagreeing with the Nordic model proposition and 39% agreeing with it.

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-prostitution-bill-expected-well-before... prostitution bill expected 'well before' deadline, Peter MacKay says[/url]

Maybe we will be really lucky and find out what the positions of the NDP and the Liberal Party and the Bloc and the Green Party are, before Mackay tables his bill criminalizing everything in sight?

Where are Mulcair, Trudeau, and May (and whoever for the Bloc)?

ETA: Does anyone know if this is still the Bloc's view:

Quote:
Le Bloc Québécois est contre l’exploitation sexuelle et considère la prostitution comme en étant une forme. Cependant, nous ne croyons pas que la criminalisation de l’achat de services sexuels règlerait le problème, tout au contraire, cela risquerait d’avoir pour effet d’augmenter les risques d’agressions liés à ces pratiques déjà suffisamment périlleuses.

Here's the official English of that:

Quote:
The Bloc Québécois opposes sexual exploitation and regards prostitution as a form of it. In our opinion however criminalizing the purchasing of sexual services would not solve the problem; on the contrary, this could increase the risk of assault relating to these practices, which are already dangerous enough.

fortunate

I do like that the Bloc recognizes that criminalization of purchase is going to lead to more danger.  It is true the SCC overturned laws led to this, and that wasn't even direct prohibition.   And Sweden's sex workers take risks every day due to their ban.   

 

If the government proposes something, tho, does everyone then end up voting on it, or do they just put it in place.    i can see it not going thru if it takes a vote and the other parties disagree with the way it is being done.     

i'm a big fan of regulating.  many cities already have a history of doing this and I don't have a problem with it.  If you want this biz to be legitimacized you have to be prepared for what that really means.     

Unionist

fortunate wrote:

If the government proposes something, tho, does everyone then end up voting on it, or do they just put it in place.

Parliament will have to vote, if it's an amendment to the Criminal Code (which it pretty well has to be).

Quote:
  i can see it not going thru if it takes a vote and the other parties disagree with the way it is being done.    

There's no way a majority of MPs, even in a "free" vote, will vote against criminalization of some aspect of sex work. Have you heard a single MP from any party (other than the Bloc - and I'm not sure where they stand today) say: "Get sex work out of the Criminal Code"? I'm asking because I haven't seen that yet.

 

fortunate

Unionist wrote:

fortunate wrote:

If the government proposes something, tho, does everyone then end up voting on it, or do they just put it in place.

Parliament will have to vote, if it's an amendment to the Criminal Code (which it pretty well has to be).

Quote:
  i can see it not going thru if it takes a vote and the other parties disagree with the way it is being done.    

There's no way a majority of MPs, even in a "free" vote, will vote against criminalization of some aspect of sex work. Have you heard a single MP from any party (other than the Bloc - and I'm not sure where they stand today) say: "Get sex work out of the Criminal Code"? I'm asking because I haven't seen that yet.

 

 

 

I don't think even Libby NDP has said that lol.    

There are some things that must be in the Criminal Code, such as minimum age.    Of course that could be left to provinces, provinces don't have a problem setting minimum ages to do other things.   Cities also do regulate ages, in that if someone wants to work at an actual escort agency, in Vancouver, they must be 19.     BC's drinking age is 19 as well.    it seems a reasonable age, but i can see a case where provinces all have different ages, which is problematic.  

 

What the decrim anti regulation camp is telling most people is that they do not want sex work isolated from other work and actual crimes.    If it is illegal to smuggle in a foreign domestic or construction worker, then why is a 2nd set of laws needed to deal with illegal sex workers.   It is not.    If it is illegal to enslave someone working as a nanny or housemaid, then why is a 2nd set of laws needed if someone is trapped in doing sex work, in these cases they are not working illegally but they can be virtual house slaves.   If kidnapping a 14 year old student and holding them hostage for ransom is illegal, then why can't a 14 year old kidnapped for the purpose of prostitution see justice done by the same set of laws that would seek justice for the student?    

Why perpetuate the surrounding stigma, is the question?   Why  is someoone who takes a sex worker's entire income treated differently than someone who witholds a construction worker's income, or a tree planter or a per piece factory worker?    It shouldn't be different and there are already laws there that can help either a sex worker, a nanny or a tree planter.    

 

fortunate

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/faculty_franke/FTW2009/Agustin%20Sex%20and%...

Excerpts  

 

 

The Idea of Evidence

Legalistic proposals about prostitution purport to be based on evidence, claiming that when correctly obtained research results are properly examined—lining them up,disaggregating them, shining a clear light on them—the best type of legislation to solve the problem will become obvious.Yet neighboring countries with not dissimilar cultural and political situations arrive at opposite solutions, and countries fluctuate from one solution to another within their own borders over time, allowing brothels to exist, then banning them, then later considering reopening them, or permitting solicitation in particular public spaces, later prohibiting solicitation again in the same place.

These fluctuations demonstrate that progress based on the evidence is not what is occurring; rather, governments change policies as social climates shift and as legal solutionsinevitably fail to solve the perceived social problem. Societies tire of a particular phenomenon (street prostitution, for example, with its used condoms in front gardens and sometimes raucous noise) and conclude that the opposite policywould be a better remedy (in this case, sex sold inside buildingsrather than outside them).

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Although street prostitution offends social sensibilities more than other types of commercial sex, it is by no means the only form for which societies want solutions.Those who believe that all of life has become oversexualized,with dire consequences for women and children,want to see the Internet monitored and censored, lapdancing banned, men who buy sex punished, pornography eradicated, and sexual relations delayed until marriage.Yet the legal regimes debated barely touch on the majority of these activities or on most sex businesses: the erotic phone lines, peep shows, lap dance and hostess clubs, Internet web pages, X-rated videos, and fetish venues.

 To legislate a model without considering commercial sex as a wide field is simply incoherent, not onlybecause no clear boundaries separate activities or workers from each other but also because unhappiness and injustice can and do occur anywhere and everywhere

fortunate

And a brief bit from here 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/08/prostitution-law-and-the-death-of-whores/

 

I explained my skepticism about prostitution law at length in an academic article, Sex and the Limits of Enlightenment: The Irrationality of Legal Regimes to Control Prostitution. All prostitution laws are conceived as methods to control women who, before ideas of victimhood took hold, were understood to be powerful, dangerous figures associated with rebellion, revolt, carnival, the world upside down, spiritual power and calculated wrongdoing. Conversations about prostitution law, no matter where they take place, argue about how to manage the women: Is it better to permit them to work out of doors or limit them to closed spaces? How many lap-dancing venues should get licenses and where should they be located? In brothels, how often should women be examined for sexually transmitted infections? The rhetoric of helping and saving that surrounds laws accedes with state efforts to control and punish; the first stop for women picked up in raids on brothels or rescues of trafficking victims is a police station. Prostitution law generalizes from worst-case scenarios, which leads directly to police abuse against the majority of cases, which are not so dire.

 

In theory, under prohibitionism prostitutes are arrested, fined, jailed. Under abolitionism, which permits the selling of sex, a farrago of laws, by-laws and regulations give police a myriad of pretexts for harrying sex workers. Regulationism, which wants to assuage social conflict by legalizing some sex-work forms, constructs non-regulated forms as illegal (and rarely grants labor rights to workers). But eccentricities abound everywhere, making a mockery of these theoretical laws. Even Japan’s wide-open, permissive sex industry prohibits “prostitution” defined as coital sex. And in recent years a hybrid law has arisen that makes paying for sex illegal while selling is permitted. Yes, it’s illogical. But the contradiction is not pointless; it is there because the goal of the law is to make prostitution disappear by debilitating the market through absurd ignorance of how sex businesses work.

Brachina

 Honestly I've come to believe in the case of elites in society, the real thing that bothers them about prostitution is the social mobility and economic freedom it provides to the men and women who practice it.

 Think about it, picture a young woman with beauty and/or charm who is poor, without the resources for an education or other opportunities. Lets be honest, there is very little room for social mobility, absent pure luck, she basically trapped in poverty. But that womaj decides to become a prostitute and now she's making 10 or more times her previous wage. Game changer. Now she has money for school or to invest, her life style improves and she has effectively moved into the middle class. Her healh and happiness increase as a result, she has little or no dependance on corporate entities for her well being, avoiding being at thier mercy. She has greater economic freedom which is key to true liberty.

 But now introduce antiprostitution laws. She ends up out of work or possibly  in jail, either of which means an end to school. Her buying power evaporates and her middle class or higher life style evaporates with it. She becomes a wage slave, desperate enough the 1% effectively owns her. And the 1% monoloply on prosperity is maintained.

 That's what the powwrful really fear, woman and some men gaining true autonomy.

Bacchus

Not to mention the Rich guys can ALWAYS still get hookers when they need them

Brachina

LMAO true.

fortunate

^^^^  that is a great way of putting it.

 

I do know of some young women who do this and end up with PhDs, or at least Masters.  In this economy, and without parental support, going beyond the basic university degree would be overwhelming,and many may not do it at all.

 

Then there are artistic people.  I think it can be said that many writers and artists would be difficult to pursue their art without sex work.   it covers all expenses and still allows a great deal of freedom  and free time.  

 

In either scenario when the goal is achieved, the sex worker is free to pursue that vocation.    

Bärlüer

The Department of Justice is conducting a public consultation "on the criminal law's response to adult prostitution", from February 17 to March 17. It says that "[i]nput received through this consultation will inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision."

Here are the questions on which input is being sought:

Quote:

1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.

2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.

3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain.

4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain.

5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision?

6. Are you are writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role:

 

lagatta

Fortunate, I've always worked in and around the arts (and communications). Yes, of course it is very difficult, but that certainly does not mean that all or even most cultural workers would do such a thing.

fortunate

lagatta wrote:

Fortunate, I've always worked in and around the arts (and communications). Yes, of course it is very difficult, but that certainly does not mean that all or even most cultural workers would do such a thing.

 

 

No certainly not all, or most,   nor do all or most single mothers use sex work to support themselves, and have more time to actually spend with their children (saw a study by Elizabeth Pisani (The Wisdom of Whores)  about this while researching sex workers in other countries) b  For example, in some countries a 6 day long hours work week in factories is common.     Some find that sex work allows them more time to actually raise their children.   

 

It is most defnitely not done by a large number of people anyway, anywhere really.   There is stigma, shame, fear of exposure, the assumptions of being 'unclean" or addicted, or damaged, etc.    So it will never, as some fear, be a mainstream easily made choice.     I know a handful of sex workers who have pursued art courses, and paying for it and supplies with this, others announcing they have gotten that Masters degree, and so on.    Even Belle, the writer of the Secret Diary of a Call Girl, Magnanti, worked her way thru university with this work.    

 

Others just wish they had thought of it at the time!

Unionist

Bärlüer wrote:

The Department of Justice is conducting a public consultation "on the criminal law's response to adult prostitution", from February 17 to March 17. It says that "[i]nput received through this consultation will inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision."

So, to the point of this thread:

Have any political parties - or representatives thereof - publicly shared their own replies to these questions?

Or are they waiting to see which way the wind blows?

 

cco

I was told yesterday by an NDP staffer that the Federal Council did, in the end, adopt the pro-sex worker resolution that got sent to committee at last year's convention. I can't find any proof of that online, though. Certainly Mulcair isn't saying much about it.

DLivings

fortunate... you make a good point...   on issues that stir "underground" emotions, we tend to want to complicate it to demonstrate we are taking a stand.  Keeping our laws and regulations simple serves all of the population well...  when there are fewer laws (and fewer wrinkles in the law for each sector) we are all able to live within the defined framework much more easily.

fortunate wrote:

Unionist wrote:

fortunate wrote:

If the government proposes something, tho, does everyone then end up voting on it, or do they just put it in place.

Parliament will have to vote, if it's an amendment to the Criminal Code (which it pretty well has to be).

Quote:
  i can see it not going thru if it takes a vote and the other parties disagree with the way it is being done.    

There's no way a majority of MPs, even in a "free" vote, will vote against criminalization of some aspect of sex work. Have you heard a single MP from any party (other than the Bloc - and I'm not sure where they stand today) say: "Get sex work out of the Criminal Code"? I'm asking because I haven't seen that yet.

 

 

 

I don't think even Libby NDP has said that lol.    

There are some things that must be in the Criminal Code, such as minimum age.    Of course that could be left to provinces, provinces don't have a problem setting minimum ages to do other things.   Cities also do regulate ages, in that if someone wants to work at an actual escort agency, in Vancouver, they must be 19.     BC's drinking age is 19 as well.    it seems a reasonable age, but i can see a case where provinces all have different ages, which is problematic.  

 

What the decrim anti regulation camp is telling most people is that they do not want sex work isolated from other work and actual crimes.    If it is illegal to smuggle in a foreign domestic or construction worker, then why is a 2nd set of laws needed to deal with illegal sex workers.   It is not.    If it is illegal to enslave someone working as a nanny or housemaid, then why is a 2nd set of laws needed if someone is trapped in doing sex work, in these cases they are not working illegally but they can be virtual house slaves.   If kidnapping a 14 year old student and holding them hostage for ransom is illegal, then why can't a 14 year old kidnapped for the purpose of prostitution see justice done by the same set of laws that would seek justice for the student?    

Why perpetuate the surrounding stigma, is the question?   Why  is someoone who takes a sex worker's entire income treated differently than someone who witholds a construction worker's income, or a tree planter or a per piece factory worker?    It shouldn't be different and there are already laws there that can help either a sex worker, a nanny or a tree planter.    

 

fortunate

DLivings wrote:

fortunate... you make a good point...   on issues that stir "underground" emotions, we tend to want to complicate it to demonstrate we are taking a stand.  Keeping our laws and regulations simple serves all of the population well...  when there are fewer laws (and fewer wrinkles in the law for each sector) we are all able to live within the defined framework much more easily.

 

 

Here is an article that might interest you   http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/thinking-of-sex-work-as-work/283843/

Brachina

cco wrote:
I was told yesterday by an NDP staffer that the Federal Council did, in the end, adopt the pro-sex worker resolution that got sent to committee at last year's convention. I can't find any proof of that online, though. Certainly Mulcair isn't saying much about it.

 Glad to hear it, I doubt the council would have supported it if Mulcair was opposed to it, so its a sublte sign of support.

Brachina

cco wrote:
I was told yesterday by an NDP staffer that the Federal Council did, in the end, adopt the pro-sex worker resolution that got sent to committee at last year's convention. I can't find any proof of that online, though. Certainly Mulcair isn't saying much about it.

 Glad to hear it, I doubt the council would have supported it if Mulcair was opposed to it, so its a sublte sign of support.

Unionist

Is it [url=http://blogs.canoe.ca/davidakin/politicsndp/ndp-convention-6-31-13-resol... resolution[/url]?

Where's the announcement that the Federal Council voted to adopt it - or is that a secret?

And why did Libby Davis move to stop it from being voted on at convention?

 

cco

I have no information beyond what I was told in an informal conversation, and no way to verify it. At the convention, my assumption was that Mulcair made Davies wield the hatchet to get it sentenced to committee to die a quiet death. Regardless of whether Council ended up adopting it, that's still my assumption.

Brachina

 What exactly has Mulcair ever said or done to make you think that?

 I give you a far more likely reason for Davies choice that is actually in character for her, she sent it off to the council so that it wouldn't get amended by certain femanist elements of the party that would try and change it into the Nordic Model so she moved it to the council where she could talk to them and guide it within without things getting caught up in politics and senationalism. 

 

 Does this not make more sense then a Conspirancy Theory that throws an unfair attack against Davies and Mulcair that is based on nothing?

 As for your contact, I see no reason for them to lie or make this up so its likely the truth. The council I sure doesn't advertize all thier decisions especially before the leader is ready to go public with it. Things like this need to be managed amd timed right.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:
The council I sure doesn't advertize all thier decisions especially before the leader is ready to go public with it. Things like this need to be managed amd timed right.

Seriously - the Federal Council's proceedings are secret? And when will they (or the Leader) be "ready to go public" with the party's position on the criminalization of sex work? 2015?

 

Brachina

 Ask Mulcair, honestly I don't think thier in a rush to announce it right now, and I have no idea when they will decide to announce. I don't think its a secrect, if one asks a rep of the council would likely answer, but that doesn't mean they want to advertize it at the moment.

Unionist

Any news on the positions of the opposition parties on what to do next? Or are they leaving Harper to have his phoney consultation and draft whatever new criminal laws he wants?

Or are they polling on the issue?

Or have they simply forgotten about it?

 

Brachina

 Why don't you email the party and ask?

fortunate

Interesting that they don't express an opinion, maybe they believe it will just go away?   I understand the govt is making a big show of 'studyin' it all, but if nothing happens by Dec 19, I doubt if the sky will really fall or that chaos will ensue.   

 

Brachina
fortunate
fortunate

http://www.straight.com/news/615581/open-letter-300-researchers-call-decriminalization-sex-work-canada?comment_mode=1#add-new-comment

 

Re: Evidence-Based Call for Decriminalization of Sex Work in Canada and Opposition to Criminalizing the Purchasing of Sex 

We, the undersigned, are profoundly concerned that the Government of Canada is considering the introduction of new legislation to criminalize the purchasing of sex. The proposed legislation is not scientifically grounded and evidence strongly suggests that it would recreate the same social and health-related harms of current criminalization. We join other sex worker, research, and legal experts across the country and urge the Government of Canada to follow the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision and support decriminalization of sex work as a critical evidence-based approach to ensuring the safety, health, and human rights of sex workers.

A large body of scientific evidence from Canada,[1] Sweden and Norway (where clients and third parties are criminalized), and globally[2] clearly demonstrates that criminal laws targeting the sex industry have overwhelmingly negative social, health, and human rights consequences to sex workers, including increased violence and abuse, stigma, HIV and inability to access critical social, health and legal protections. These harms disproportionately impact marginalized sex workers including female, Indigenous and street-involved sex workers, who face the highest rates of violence and murder in our country. In contrast, in New Zealand, since the passage of a law to decriminalize sex work in 2003, research and the government’s own evaluation have documented marked improvements in sex workers’ safety, health, and human rights.[3]

Therefore, we call on the Government of Canada to join with global leaders, community, researchers and legal experts in rejecting criminalization regimes, including those that criminalize the purchase of sexual services, and instead support the decriminalization of sex work in Canada as scientifically-grounded and necessary to ensuring the safety, health, and human rights of sex workers. Below, we briefly outline our key concerns.

more in the link

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

The NDP better come our for decrimminalization. "Prostitutes", followed Hannibal across the Roman Empire. This is as old as time itself. Listen to Sex-Workers. They've already spoken on this; come into the Modern Age for crying out loud!

Unionist

I'm concerned that it's too late for any party to come out in favour of decriminalization. What conceivable reason would there be for waiting?

We have a majority neocon government. If it wants to decriminalize any aspect of sex work, it will do so. We should be pushing petitions like the one posted above. But we also need opposition parties to emerge from their cowering little shells and speak up for what is right. And no timorous "free votes" either. Where are the petitions addressing the opposition parties?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well I don't think you can expect Opposition parties (read NDP) come out and do the right thing when the Liberals willl pounce on them for it. You first Justin.

Nothwithstanding its pobably policial suicied, I wish the NDP would do the right thing here; pragmatism really, realy, really, sucks!

Brachina

 Prostitutes also helped protect the great wall of China, I mean normally they just had sex with soldiers stationed at the Great Wall, but they were also given military training for when things got out of hand and they had to defend themselves.

 

 And a Prostitute was Emperess of Byzintine Empire at one time.

 Anyway we've had reports on this thread that the  motion on this issue from the convention has passed at the council thingy so I'm not worried about it right now. If Mulcair was opposed to decriminalizing prostitution he'd have stopped it dead in its tracks. Right now he's busy with other stuff and its not going to come up for awhile as I honestly believe the Tories haven't actually made a decision on what to do yet, or at least the details. 

 

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

 

 Anyway we've had reports on this thread that the  motion on this issue from the convention has passed at the council thingy so I'm not worried about it right now.

"Reports"? Show me.

Quote:
If Mulcair was opposed to decriminalizing prostitution he'd have stopped it dead in its tracks. Right now he's busy with other stuff and its not going to come up for awhile as I honestly believe the Tories haven't actually made a decision on what to do yet, or at least the details. 

 

You favour secret policies on social issues?

So if Mulcair announces the policy tomorrow, you'll condemn him for not paying attention to "other stuff"?

Wake me up when that happens.

Here's the real truth. The NDP inner circle is scared shitless that if they adopt the convention resolution, it may backfire on them - because they consider "the people" as a backward bunch of unpredictable dolts. In that, they are just like the Liberals and Conservatives. There is no principle involved.

So - it means people have to mobilize - to influence them - to threaten them - so that the price of doing the wrong thing is higher than the price of doing the right thing. It ain't easy, but it's necessary.

 

mark_alfred
cco

Brachina is referring to my "report", which I said at the time was an unsubstantiated offhand comment from an MP's staffer, not anyone involved with the national party. As of now, I formally retract any such report until such time as there's a shred of evidence for it that doesn't come from an "I think I heard" that I was told at a bar in the course of a relaxing evening.

Brachina

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1123268-ndp-delays-proposal-on-prost...

 

  This explains why the motion was delayed and that its backed by Deputy Leader Megan Leslie and I believe Deputy Leader Libby Davies. As far as I can see Mulcair had nothing to do with delaying it, it was a deal broker between supporters and those with concerns.

 

 It will be voted on at the next convention, does anyone know when that will be? Mulcair will not have that long to decide unless one is planned for this year, which means he will likely make the choice on how to handle this with consulation from both cacus and the NDP federal council before then.

 Two Deputy Leaders in favour is a good sign, it shows backing for the policy at the highest levels.

Brachina

http://alexatamanenko.ndp.ca/the-nordic-law-the-swedish-experience

 

 Well at least who know who opposed it. Thank goodness he's retiring.

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

http://alexatamanenko.ndp.ca/the-nordic-law-the-swedish-experience

 Well at least who know who opposed it. Thank goodness he's retiring.

So, there must be some NDP MP who has supported decriminalization on their web site sometime since the Bedford decision? Or elsewhere? Like, not a rumour, but a statement? Yes?

I looked for one, but all I found is this:

[url=http://jonathangenestjourdain.ndp.ca/20120321-211834-html]Prostitution on the North Shore: The NDP sounding the alarm[/url]

Quote:
The Member of Parliament for Manicouagan is sounding the alarm to speak out against a new phenomenon affecting the North Shore: prostitution.

Jonathan Genest-Jourdain hasn't announced any retirement plans.

The only exception I know for sure is Libby Davies. She took (I think) an excellent principled position for years in favour of decriminalization and showed real leadership.

What happened to her since 2009, though?

Unfortunately, in her statement on the Bedford decision, she seems to have forgotten to mention decriminalization.

Mind you, she doesn't talk much about Israel or Palestine these days either.

 

Brachina

 Its pretty clear from the Chronicle link I posted that Megan Leslie is in favour of decriminalization. 

 

 

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

 Its pretty clear from the Chronicle link I posted that Megan Leslie is in favour of decriminalization. 

The article is so bad, it talks about "legalization". It never mentions "decriminalization". And there is no quote whatsoever from Megan Leslie saying she supported the motion. So it's the same idiot who didn't do his research about decrim that we have to trust when he tells us (without a quote) what Megan was "planning" to do.

The only quotes from her are the same as Libby - making excuses as to why the party can't deal with this issue until there's "overwhelming support, that everyone’s comfortable with it.”

When will that be, exactly? When Jonathan Genest-Jourdain has retired? P.S. He's 34 years old.

 

Brachina

 Jonathan never once mentioned being opposed to decriminanalization, he was alarmed about rising prostition on the North Shore, but no wbere did he propose any "solution". 

 

 And no fhe journalist didn't get a direct qoute from Megan and should have, doesn't mean he made it up. So I'm willing to believe him until I have evidence otherwise.

 

 Look were on the same side of this issue, I'm someone who believes that prochoice doesn't stop at the abortion, to be truely consistant one most support being prochoice, aka support a persons rights over thier own body consistantly.

 

 So that means supporting sex workers rights.

 So that means supporting insite.

 So that means supporting decriminalization.

 So that means at least for me being opposed to bans on cloning.

 And so on.

 Also on a practical  note prohabition has failed a 100% every time its been used. It also causes an increase in violence.

 I did sign the petitition. 

 And I'm sure the battle for decriminalization continues within the cacus. 

 I have faith in Libby and Megan Leslie to be the voices of reason

Unionist

I know you and I are on the same side of this issue, Brachina.

My question - and this thread - is about something different: "Which side is the NDP on?" Same goes for Liberals, Greens, Bloc. And no, there is NO good reason for a political party to have a secret position on an issue which the Supreme Court has given Canada one year to fix.

 

lagatta

Remember that Jonathan is an Innu, and he was raising the same questions as the leading Aboriginal women's groups (and many other women's groups) in Québec, in particular in the context of Charest's "Plan nord".

He did not state any remedy in this article, or speak out against decriminalisation.

I don't think the NDP has any "secret position". But is is a very contentious issue among feminists, as we all know.

Brachina

 I think the NDP will choose decriminIzation,  but they're trying to figure out how to make it salable, including to doubters in the cacus. I council patience.

 

 And I will point out to Alex if he ever reads this that if he wants to end survival prostitution he doesn't need to remove the customers, he needs to remove the poverty. Ending poverty is insanely simple, give people enough money to survive reasonably and poof they're not poor anymore, that leaves only those who choose for what ever reason to work in the sex industry for none survival reasons.

 

 Its soooo fucking simple I don't understand why people like Alex doesn't get it.

 And suggesting prostitution is inherantly violent is pure stupidity.

 

 Example lets say John Doe and Jane Doe have sex. John Doe nothing violent, just vanilla sex,  with no money exchanged as a booty call say no Alex would not  call that an act of violence. A year later Jane Doe offers John Doe sex again, this time for money, and they have sex exactly the same way. Then John Doe hands Jane Doe some money and the previously none violent act becomes an act of violence converted the transfer of funds. A year later the same act occurs but Jane Doe pays John Doe this time,same exact sex acts, but now because of the transfer of money Jane Doe has just made an act of violence against John Doe.

 So that leaves me wondering would did the transfer of money turn an act that was previously none violent into an act of violence? And if trnasfering money to another is a violent act is the sex violent or is money its self an act of violence?

 

 Just alittle thought exiperment.

cco

Brachina wrote:

 I think the NDP will choose decriminIzation,  but they're trying to figure out how to make it salable, including to doubters in the cacus. I council patience.

It's always easiest to be patient when it comes to the rights of a group you don't belong to. In this case, however, the Supreme Court has given a deadline, the Harper government has already indicated it intends to introduce legislation, and the NDP is broadcasting radio silence while the "Nordic model" types dominate the debate. Tick, tock.

Waiting on the doubters to come around will be just as effective for sex worker rights as it was for marriage rights. If there's going to be a caucus revolt over this, let's get it out in the open.

Pages