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

712 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

 I got the above from Libby Davies. She does say the magic word decrimalization, but I can not interupt it any other way as written. After all I doubt consulted sex workers will demand that they and they're clients be criminalized! 

 And to provide a safe work place, means there has to be a work place.

 Reading Nikki and Libby's responses I've come to the conclusion that the NDP is going to support decrimalization, but they won't call it that. To am olive branch to those with reservations about the position I'm betting that it comes with some kind of labour rights legislation of some sort.  Like making it illegal for employers of sex workers to blackmail employees into free sex, and stuff like that. And allow provinces and municipalities to handle stuff like zoning.

cco

The NDP Québec 2014 general council is being held today and tomorrow. I'm asking some attendees who seem better-connected than I am if they can put out feelers on what the policy is going to be and get back to me. No one seems to know for sure.

Brachina

Cool.

Brachina
cco

Nobody at the general council knew, though I've been told Libby Davies made a speech in the House a couple weeks ago while I was on vacation wherein she said she didn't support the Nordic model. That's the sum total of the information I was able to acquire.

Unionist

cco wrote:

Nobody at the general council knew, though I've been told Libby Davies made a speech in the House a couple weeks ago while I was on vacation wherein she said she didn't support the Nordic model.

Well, she may have give such a speech in [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1727153&L..., but someone will have to show me one single word she has said on the subject since the Bedford decision (besides, of course, her [url=http://www.libbydavies.ca/news/pressrelease/2013/12/20/statement-supreme... statement[/url], in which she shamefully doesn't even call for decriminalization). I don't believe she is free to say anything at all. But I would be thrilled to be corrected on that.

 

cco

I got the message on the 17th that she was speaking in the House on the matter. I was busy enjoying myself greatly in Halifax at the time (and staying at a hotel with no CPAC), so I took his word for it. Someone with more patience than I can dig through Hansard and see if the summary I got was remotely accurate.

Pondering

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

As per April 13th, 2013

A proposal to repeal prostitution laws in order to uphold sex workers’ “rights to life, liberty, security and equality” was slated to be voted on Saturday afternoon. But behind the scenes, party members opposing the motion pushed for it to be delayed.

A compromise was reached and Vancouver East MP Libby Davies moved an amendment calling on the proposal to be put off for further study.

Legalizing sex work will now be studied by the party’s federal council. It must report back by November with a policy, but it will not go before the membership until the party’s next policy convention.

That would have been November 2013. As we haven't heard anything I think it's safe to assume the NDP will not be supporting decriminalization of pimps and brothels. 

lagatta

Obviously, this reflects the huge divide WITHIN the women's movement on this issue.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
Obviously, this reflects the huge divide WITHIN the women's movement on this issue.

Why do you say that?  I know there are a couple of women in the NDP that support full decriminalization or legalization but I have seen no indication that they are numerous, or that the women against it are numerous either, or heard which identify as feminist for that matter. 

 

susan davis

being feminist does not mean being abolitionist. and not only women are affected. all gender identities work in the sex industry. and decriminalization does not let exploitation go unpunished. slavery and human trafficking as well as sexual exploitation of youth would all still be illegal.

it is disingenuos to say "decrim pimps and brothels". it eludes to the governement supporting exploitation if the go for broad decriminalization. it suggests that any movement towards decriminalization would support rampant abuses and crime...

not true

Unionist

cco wrote:
I got the message on the 17th that she was speaking in the House on the matter. I was busy enjoying myself greatly in Halifax at the time (and staying at a hotel with no CPAC), so I took his word for it. Someone with more patience than I can dig through Hansard and see if the summary I got was remotely accurate.

I have patience and I dug through Hansard. Libby didn't say a word on the issue, so I'm somewhat surprised at the report you got. I'd be even more surprised (shocked) if Mulcair allowed her to comment. We know her personal views, and we know her public views. It's really too bad.

 

Unionist

From another thread:

terrytowel wrote:

Both the Liberals and the NDP shy away from sex-work debate.

Kind of shocking because Libby Davies has been such a supporter of sex workers in Canada.

http://dailyxtra.com/canada/ideas/analysis/opposition-parties-shy-away-f...

fortunate

Unionist wrote:

cco wrote:
I got the message on the 17th that she was speaking in the House on the matter. I was busy enjoying myself greatly in Halifax at the time (and staying at a hotel with no CPAC), so I took his word for it. Someone with more patience than I can dig through Hansard and see if the summary I got was remotely accurate.

I have patience and I dug through Hansard. Libby didn't say a word on the issue, so I'm somewhat surprised at the report you got. I'd be even more surprised (shocked) if Mulcair allowed her to comment. We know her personal views, and we know her public views. It's really too bad.

 

 

Perhaps everyone is waiting to see what is presented before having any sort of opinion about it.   I think people are expecting something that may not happen.  After all, they are not going to recreate laws that already exist, so they have laws about minimum age, procuring, coercion, human smuggling, slavery, etc etc.   It will be interesting to see what they think they need to add to the laws that already cover the majority of issues the general public has with sex work. 

Even now, with so many police departments no longer pursuing bawdy house or street solicitation infractions, they have managed to find actual criminals and charged them with those laws, the same ones that the SCC challenge did not affect.    In fact, it actually seems like there are MORE reports of these arrests and charges than there ever were before, when the police spent the majority of their time harassing street workers?  

 Seems like things could work just fine the way they are, without the criminalization of sex workers and where they work.    

Unionist

fortunate wrote:

 Seems like things could work just fine the way they are, without the criminalization of sex workers and where they work.    

Yes. And why can't at least one political party say so - rather than letting Harper/Mackay set the scene with whatever draconian legislation they're planning, and then react to that?

 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
being feminist does not mean being abolitionist. and not only women are affected. all gender identities work in the sex industry.

Although rare someone could be abolitionist and still support full decriminalization if they felt the law was the wrong tool. While not only women are involved they are the primary population that is negatively impacted and the focus of feminism is women. I wouldn't say that someone who supports full legitimatization of prostitution can't be a feminist but I would certain question if they really are feminist or if they are just using the label as cover. 

susan davis wrote:
... decriminalization does not let exploitation go unpunished. slavery and human trafficking as well as sexual exploitation of youth would all still be illegal.

As Amsterdam has discovered they were unable to keep out organized crime and trafficking. Same goes for Australia, and Germany. The business expands beyond the capacity of law enforcement to control it so yes indeed crime increases and exploitation does go unpunished when prostitution is legitimized as a job like any other proving it isn't a job like any other. 

Brachina

 Of course one can support full legitamization and be a feminist, I don't go for the tend amoung some circles of feminiam of purity tests, feminism is about empowerment, which is a complex and personal issue that have a vast amount of differing opinions, perhaps more so then any other idealogy.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

fortunate wrote:

 Seems like things could work just fine the way they are, without the criminalization of sex workers and where they work.    

Yes. And why can't at least one political party say so - rather than letting Harper/Mackay set the scene with whatever draconian legislation they're planning, and then react to that?

They all support the Nordic Model so there isn't anything to say until the details are revealed. Once it comes out the criticisms will most likely focus on the need for more supports and exit programs. I expect the law will pass with close to unanimous support. NDP and Liberals will probably allow a vote of conscience. 

fortunate

Pondering, another main point the abolitionist camp seems to misunderstand is that 'trafficking' is not sex slavery, nor is it necessarily sex work.  There are migrant sex workers, especially in Europe where there are virtually no borders.  Of course someone from Sweden is going to go to Amsterdam or Germany to work.  It would be ridiculous to call that 'trafficking', just because they get on the train and cross a border to do it.   

Also, it appears that Sweden has much more of a problem of real coercive trafficking than the Netherlands or Germany.  Certainly they have a lot of migrant asian sex workers, as they have a lot more Asian style masssage parlours.   Those sorts of setups flourish in countries where there is criminalization of location, workers or clients.    

If Amsterdam is so bad, why is it continued to be used as an example, when New Zealands efforts and results have been far more positive.    NZ is still more like Canada than any other country.    Amsterdam began homogenous, NZ and Canada began with a mix of European immigrants and British laws, imposed upon a large and vibrant native population.     There are so many other similiarities, it begs the question of why politicians and abolitionists refuse to compare it to Canada, on this topic especially considering their Reform Act has been in place since 2003, plenty of time to see that it is far more effective than other models.   

If abolitionists are not concerned with the safe working conditions of sex workers, and they prove over and over that they are not, then their 'concerns' have no place in the discussion of improving working conditions of sex workers.  Not only do they have no place in the discussion, they actively try to silence or dismiss or discredit the very people they claim to want to help.  

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

They all support the Nordic Model so there isn't anything to say until the details are revealed.

If so, then they support it secretly - unless you've seen some quotes that I haven't. Other than Mackay's hints, that is. What makes you think any other supports the Nordic model? Not saying you're wrong - just saying they haven't said anything.

Which leads me to repeat my question. Why would political parties not simply state what legislation should, or should not, be adopted in the wake of Bedford, when the court has set a deadline? Were they also secretive in advance of the legalization of same-sex marriage?

 

Brachina

 Abolutionists are filled with hypocracy, none want to admit the truth, and that is that they desire for Abolution has nothing to do with the interests of sex workers, but rather thier own, its makes them uncomfortable so they rationalize taking away the rights of others.

quizzical

^ bunch of bs. stop trying to take away my voice and tell me or others what i think or believe.

Bacchus

Im pretty sure both sides are doing that

Brachina

 Wow, doesn't feel good dors it Quiz? Why do Abolutionists do it to others?

Pondering

Concerning the comments on New Zealand I responded to that here: http://rabble.ca/comment/1440342#comment-1440342 in the more general thread on the Nordic model. I'll try to get back on topic in this thread. 

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

They all support the Nordic Model so there isn't anything to say until the details are revealed.

If so, then they support it secretly - unless you've seen some quotes that I haven't. Other than Mackay's hints, that is. What makes you think any other supports the Nordic model? Not saying you're wrong - just saying they haven't said anything.

When asked Trudeau described prostitution as violence against women. A politician would not say that then decriminalize violence against women. The NDP dodged taking a vote on full decriminalization twice. That is a pretty clear indication to me that neither party supports full decriminalization. If they did support it they would be speaking out against the Conservatives now. 

Unionist wrote:
Which leads me to repeat my question. Why would political parties not simply state what legislation should, or should not, be adopted in the wake of Bedford, when the court has set a deadline? Were they also secretive in advance of the legalization of same-sex marriage?

Because there is nothing to be gained politically by it. They would be attacked by the pro-prostitution lobby and it isn't a popular issue with the public. Once the new legistlation comes out they will have something concrete to criticise or support. 

 

 

Pondering

Bacchus wrote:
Im pretty sure both sides are doing that

Then call it out when you think it's happening. In this particular case there is evidence of non-abolitionists claiming to be expressing the views of abolitionists without providing any quotes.

Two wrongs don't make a right and in this case the wrong is the underhanded dishonest attacks being made on abolitionists. 

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:
Because there is nothing to be gained politically by it.

Ok, I pretty much agree, Pondering. When I said, "why would political parties" not state their position, I kind of meant - if they care about people and justice and fairness, why wouldn't they speak out, instead of hiding in the bushes and watching polls and focus groups because all they really give a shit about is capturing government so they can line their pockets and those of their backers.

But yes, given that Liberals and the NDP (and others) don't really give a shit about people as their first priority, that would explain why they haven't spoken out. It's really the only profound analysis I've encountered so far.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
Wow, doesn't feel good dors it Quiz? Why do Abolutionists do it to others?

Since when is that okay for anyone to do on a supposedly progressive board? Misappropriation of anyone's voices is or should be unacceptable. When you have a specific example of Abolitionists doing the same call it out. It's wrong. Saying "abolitionists do it too" does not justify anything.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Because there is nothing to be gained politically by it.

Ok, I pretty much agree, Pondering. When I said, "why would political parties" not state their position, I kind of meant - if they care about people and justice and fairness, why wouldn't they speak out, instead of hiding in the bushes and watching polls and focus groups because all they really give a shit about is capturing government so they can line their pockets and those of their backers.

But yes, given that Liberals and the NDP (and others) don't really give a shit about people as their first priority, that would explain why they haven't spoken out. It's really the only profound analysis I've encountered so far.

It's not that they don't give a shit about people it's that getting elected requires compromise. It's not like being a lobby group that can just keep beating it's drum. A federal political party has to try to gain support from across the country if it has any hope of being elected. It is a difficult balance between leading people versus being responsive to what they want, not only to get elected but also to get the funding and support needed to run campaigns to even try to get elected.

There is a fairly wide range of numbers but in developed countries about 15% of men admit to having used a prostitute at some point in their life, but when the time is narrowed to the past year, only 1% answer in the affirmative. Assuming there are more customers than service providers that means there are far less than 1% of women who have prostituted themselves in the past year. 

Polls actually say there is majority support for legitimization of prostitution. Just my guess, but from what I have seen in comment sections most supporters are envisioning a strictly regulated framework with brothels stuck in industrial areas. I think most parents would strongly object to women openly doing business in the apartment next door or a brothel at a local shopping mall. While these things may already occur when they become known they are objected to in most residential areas including in the shopping malls situated to serve them. The Cons fought this tooth and nail because they did not want to touch the prostitution laws, not even as a part of their tough on crime legislation. 

Like abortion this is a political hot potato. With abortion there is a consensus that there should be some sort of limitation but no consensus on what the limits should be. 60% of people would rather the topic remain closed even though some of those people think there should be a law. Opening that can of worms can only piss people off. 

Much the same situation exists with prostitution. So few people are involved that it would be much easier to just keep the status quo, not stir the pot. The SCC has forced the government's hand. In my opinion all three parties know that the reality of legitimized prostitution would not be popular with most Canadians and it would anger a lot of them. The Nordic model is an easy sell because it is a moderate change and people will be happy that prostitutes are no longer arrested. It is still a step forward for prostitutes even if it isn't everything that some wanted. 

If Toronto starts shutting down the faux massage parlours the sex workers at the strip clubs will be happy.

Brachina

 Doing that is the very nature of the Abolutionist arguement, ignoring what those in the professiin have to say, and taking away both thker voice and thier freedom  its inherient to to being an abolutionist and you can make all the excuses you want at the end of the day your still taking away someone rights and freedoms away and taking away the sexual autonomy from adults. There is no arguement, no rationalization that gives you that right. I could point to various research, the words of prostitutes, and so on to debunk your arguements, but the fact is, it doesn't matter that I right say about worker safefy, because even if you were right about worker safety of prostitutes for example its doesn't change or alter the rights of prostitutes to sexual autonomy that everyone else gets to enjoy.

fortunate

Brachina wrote:

 Doing that is the very nature of the Abolutionist arguement, ignoring what those in the professiin have to say, and taking away both thker voice and thier freedom  its inherient to to being an abolutionist and you can make all the excuses you want at the end of the day your still taking away someone rights and freedoms away and taking away the sexual autonomy from adults. There is no arguement, no rationalization that gives you that right. I could point to various research, the words of prostitutes, and so on to debunk your arguements, but the fact is, it doesn't matter that I right say about worker safefy, because even if you were right about worker safety of prostitutes for example its doesn't change or alter the rights of prostitutes to sexual autonomy that everyone else gets to enjoy.

 

I agree.   Abolitionists are in the business of shouting louder, and discrediting all other voices, dismissively by referring to them as pro-violence against women, or decriminalizing violence, or other such nonsense.   The stats support decrim, not more criminalization.  If it supported criminalization, then the SCC would never have overturned those specific laws.    I find the ignorance regarding what those laws were, and what they were not, is what is promoted by an abolitionist argument.   They claim it is something that it is not.   They claim that what the laws were are completely different from what they are proposing, and they are not.   Criminalization of a street worker client is no different than criminalization of public communication law, which was overturned.    Anyone who thinks that the results would not be police telling street workers to 'move along' is delusional.  they don't have to arrest a street worker to harass them, it's ridiculous to suggest not criminalizing them just being there isn't affecting them.  Police still have anti loitering laws to charge them with, if they wanted to be aggressively seen to be cleaning up the streets.  

 

What i am finding recently is a new phrase to sensationalize:  "decriminalization of violence" against women we presume.   Altho I'd guess that transgendered and male sex workers experience a great deal more violence than the vast majority of female sex workers.  

I also thought that rabble had a policy against the infantalization of sex workers by not allowing the terminology of the abolitionist which includes 'prostituted' or 'prostitute' or 'being prostituted' or any other variation of what could be an acceptable term, but is twisted by abolotionists to dismiss the ability of any sex worker to speak for themselves.  Of course a 'prostituted woman' is incapable of having an opinion, according to them.  

 It is passive aggressively hostile terminology, similar to the forbidden  f-word used to describe certain types of feminists,  to any sex worker.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
   Doing that is the very nature of the Abolutionist arguement, ignoring what those in the professiin have to say, and taking away both thker voice and thier freedom  its inherient to to being an abolutionist and you can make all the excuses you want at the end of the day your still taking away someone rights and freedoms away and taking away the sexual autonomy from adults. There is no arguement, no rationalization that gives you that right. I could point to various research, the words of prostitutes, and so on to debunk your arguements, but the fact is, it doesn't matter that I right say about worker safefy, because even if you were right about worker safety of prostitutes for example its doesn't change or alter the rights of prostitutes to sexual autonomy that everyone else gets to enjoy.

Sexual autonomy is not affected by prostitution law. Not even a tiny bit. 

Commerce is regulated because we recognize that the financial system is a societal creation that gives people with money unbridled power over other people. It is just a different iteration of might makes right that demands "voluntary" subjugation. 

57% of the prostitutes in the DTES are First Nations women.  You demand for them the right to debase themselves in their desperation. You call this freedom.  I call it subjugation and a continuation of colonization.  We definitely need more support programs but legalizing the degradation of FN women (nor any other women) is not the next best thing to having more and better prevention and exit services. 

fortunate wrote:
I also thought that rabble had a policy against the infantalization of sex workers by not allowing the terminology of the abolitionist which includes 'prostituted' or 'prostitute' or 'being prostituted' or any other variation of what could be an acceptable term, but is twisted by abolotionists to dismiss the ability of any sex worker to speak for themselves.

Those words don't belong to abolitionists or survivors of prostitution or anyone else. They are used in law, in the names of prostitutes organizations that support prostitution, and in the names of survivor groups that don't, in studies and in dictionaries. "Sex worker" can't be used because it isn't a synonym for "prostitute". Sex workers themselves insist it has a broader meaning. 

If it is of any comfort to you both sex workers and prostitutes have been so vocal that I don't think there is any chance of anyone being convinced that they are unable to speak for themselves. So, even if that were the goal of abolitionists you can be certain that the plot would fail miserably. 

I don't think sex workers or prostitutes are in any danger of being shouted down. On this very board there is an entire forum chock full of supportive threads. 

To get back on topic....

I'm very curious to know how the parties will react to the new laws and how quickly they will react. I'm expecting tentative support at first while claiming the need for careful study. April 27th they said it was expected in the coming weeks so we should see it very soon. I hope they haven't decided to hold it back until September. 

fortunate

Saying "Sex workers and prostitutes" just shows me the contempt with which you hold all sex workers.  It is just more passive aggressive nonsense.    Whether they are FN DTES marginalized sex workers or exited ones who've been exploited, or the others, the majority that abolitionists keep trying to sweep under the carpet, muzzle and discredit.   

You also disrespect the tone of rabble/babble, by continuing to use sensationalistic terminology.  

If abolitionists have their way, FN women and men   won't be listened to anyway.     I for one demand that the abolitionists allow them to do what it is they have chosen to do, for whatever reason, and maybe, just maybe, less judgmentalism will attract them to the services that they need.   Their issues go  far far beyond whether or not they are sex workers, by the time that happens, they need the income.  Leave them alone, and leave them to the people who actually are concerned about what they need day to day, not tomorrow or ten years from now.   

 

On the positive side, thanks so much for doing a simple quote and reply, with an entire section of what i wrote, rather than 3 or 4 words from one sentence that allows you to misdirect and mislead others as to what I actually said.   

quizzical

fortunate wrote:
Saying "Sex workers and prostitutes" just shows me the contempt with which you hold all sex workers.  It is just more passive aggressive nonsense.    Whether they are FN DTES marginalized sex workers or exited ones who've been exploited, or the others, the majority that abolitionists keep trying to sweep under the carpet, muzzle and discredit.

 

this is your opinion and nothing more.  and i call it nonsense.

 

Quote:
You also disrespect the tone of rabble/babble, by continuing to use sensationalistic terminology.  

more nonsense in fact i would say the pro crowd have done more damage to rabble and babble than any other posters around through disrespect and fabrications and sensationalistic spew.

Quote:
If abolitionists have their way, FN women and men   won't be listened to anyway.

talk about sensationalistic bs and expropriating of people's views and voices. you're simply unbelievable.

Quote:
   I for one demand that the abolitionists allow them to do what it is they have chosen to do, for whatever reason, and maybe, just maybe, less judgmentalism will attract them to the services that they need.   Their issues go  far far beyond whether or not they are sex workers, by the time that happens, they need the income.  Leave them alone, and leave them to the people who actually are concerned about what they need day to day, not tomorrow or ten years from now.

this is so offensive it make me ill. have you ever lived on a rez? are you Aboriginal? already know the answer and know you haven't a freakin clue.  

 

 

Unionist

The reason I opened this thread was to discuss how the political parties are responding or should respond to the Bedford decision. I don't think it's a good idea to repeat all the debate which is taking place in the feminism or sex workers' forums. Why isn't it possible to just take the debate to those forums please?

I'm not a moderator and I don't pretend to be one. But it's just damn difficult to concentrate on a topic when it ends up being discussed (or sometimes shouted about) in several different threads and forums at once.

Sorry for the thread drift.

To get back on topic, I still find it offensive and irresponsible that opposition parties are "waiting" for the fucking Conservatives to come up with a bill and frame the debate. The parties are all running shit scared, counting polls and votes, instead of simply taking a stand of principle on the rights and protection of women, sex workers, etc. - and whether or not the problems associated with sex work should be dealt with by criminalization, whether of sex workers or their customers or employers.

I've heard rumours about the NDP federal council. I've seen second-hand reports (which turn out to be false) about what Libby Davies did or did not say in the House of Commons. Why is this issue shrouded in secrecy and silence?

If anyone has noticed any of the parties taking a clear stand on the Criminal Code and what should and shout not be in it, please let us know - preferably before Peter Mackay tables whatever anti-human crap he is now formulating.

Thanks.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
I'm not a moderator and I don't pretend to be one. But it's just damn difficult to concentrate on a topic when it ends up being discussed (or sometimes shouted about) in several different threads and forums at once.

Whenever prostitution is discussed on babble supporters of it disrupt discussion through personal attacks, insisting that no one else has a right to speak or be heard or claiming that no one is listening to them. How many times have abolitionists been attacked for using the word "prostitution" on babble? 40, 50, 100, more? How many times have they been accused of being responsible for the deaths of prostitutes? Survivors of prostitution, obviously a marginalized and victimized group, are accused of being paid shills without a murmur from moderators. These kinds of attacks are obviously going to throw every single discussion on prostitution off topic, which is the point. It's a means of silencing the opposition or preventing other people from having a reasoned discussion. 

Unionist wrote:
To get back on topic, I still find it offensive and irresponsible that opposition parties are "waiting" for the fucking Conservatives to come up with a bill and frame the debate. The parties are all running shit scared, counting polls and votes, instead of simply taking a stand of principle on the rights and protection of women, sex workers, etc. - and whether or not the problems associated with sex work should be dealt with by criminalization, whether of sex workers or their customers or employers.

I've heard rumours about the NDP federal council. I've seen second-hand reports (which turn out to be false) about what Libby Davies did or did not say in the House of Commons. Why is this issue shrouded in secrecy and silence?

If anyone has noticed any of the parties taking a clear stand on the Criminal Code and what should and shout not be in it, please let us know - preferably before Peter Mackay tables whatever anti-human crap he is now formulating.

Thanks.

Trudeau has stated that prostitution is violence against women. I don't see how he could support any degree of legitimization of prostitution after saying it's violence against women. 

Libby Davis' attempt to get the NDP to support full decriminalization failed at the last two conventions. If the NDP supported it as a party she would have succeeded.

Both parties agree with the Conservative approach of a Canadian version of the Nordic model but they aren't going to spend the summer telling everyone the Conservatives are right. 

Both the Liberals and NDP will look for details in the bill to criticize once it comes out. I think the primary criticisms will be insufficient exit services, drug programs, housing, etc. 

I don't think polls have much to do with this issue because in my opinion they would show significant (or majority) support for legitimization and control through red light destricts and compulsory health checks while there would also be significant opposition from major women's groups on both sides of the political spectrum. If all the parties could just leave things the way they are now they would. Notice there was never any criticism of the Conservatives for fighting this all the way through to the SCC rather than writing a new law years ago.  Now the SCC is forcing the Conservatives to act because if they don't prostitution will become fully decriminalized. For debate to occur the parties would have to be in disagreement. There is no correct answer that will solve the ills of prostitution. 

The Nordic model is the obvious solution because it is moderate and it accomplishes goals from all sides of the debate. Prostitutes can call police without fear of arrest which gives them a bit of power over johns. The people who profit the most are penalized. 

It is true that the general public doesn't know a great deal about the issue and haven't explored it in great depth. It's not because they don't care. Pretty much everyone is against any form of forced or coerced prostitution. Many/most agree that consensual adult prostitution should be legal under strict controls but don't feel strongly about it because it isn't a part of their lives. A tiny minority see it as something they would personally participate in. There are way bigger issues than this that the parties aren't debating and aren't putting out detailed positions on.  

fortunate

Unionist wrote:

The reason I opened this thread was to discuss how the political parties are responding or should respond to the Bedford decision. I don't think it's a good idea to repeat all the debate which is taking place in the feminism or sex workers' forums. Why isn't it possible to just take the debate to those forums please?

I'm not a moderator and I don't pretend to be one. But it's just damn difficult to concentrate on a topic when it ends up being discussed (or sometimes shouted about) in several different threads and forums at once.

Sorry for the thread drift.

To get back on topic, I still find it offensive and irresponsible that opposition parties are "waiting" for the fucking Conservatives to come up with a bill and frame the debate. The parties are all running shit scared, counting polls and votes, instead of simply taking a stand of principle on the rights and protection of women, sex workers, etc. - and whether or not the problems associated with sex work should be dealt with by criminalization, whether of sex workers or their customers or employers.

I've heard rumours about the NDP federal council. I've seen second-hand reports (which turn out to be false) about what Libby Davies did or did not say in the House of Commons. Why is this issue shrouded in secrecy and silence?

If anyone has noticed any of the parties taking a clear stand on the Criminal Code and what should and shout not be in it, please let us know - preferably before Peter Mackay tables whatever anti-human crap he is now formulating.

Thanks.

 

 

I have yet to see anything other than the political abolitionist nordic pushers commentating, all other representatives of all political parties seem to be under the cone of silence.    And I know that in March i think it was, Libby Davis appeared on a panel discussing this very topic at Carleton university (don't quote me on the location :)  )    but just normal googling hasn't come up with a single quote or comment by her or about this panel discussion, outside of the announcement itself.    

Rumour amongst sex work related forums is that the government is going to pretend to follow the results of the online questionnaire, but they are going to hide the actual results (which will be easy to do because they chose to not do a proper polling style questionnaire, there is no one to tell us what the real Yes/No results are.    They will then use these falsified 'facts' to present what they were always going to present, which will also most likely be a direct violation of what the SCC already concluded when they overturned the 3 laws.    At which point, everyone will just proceed as they always have, just as they did with the 3 ridiculous laws that got overturned.  The majority of clients and sex workers and law enforcement simply ignored the ridiculous laws, and followed the ones that made sense: age of consent, exploitation, procuring, etc etc.    

 

regarding the highjacking, I find that some people are very aggressive, and rather than just present their opinions or cases, they spent a great deal of time dissecting and denying the others comments and facts.   I've repeatedly asked at least one person to stop.

quizzical

seeing as how the CTV got a copy of the the government's position on criminalizing pimps and johns the other parties must have access to it too.

 

i just went to the NDP's site and there's no comments yet. and i would bet they say nothing against it when it is tabled shortly. the backlash against them would be large imv. if they don't support it i will be voting liberal in the next election. for all the shit "justin" doesn't get or goes along with the Conservatives on, his stance on prostitution is the right one. it's violence against women.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
i just went to the NDP's site and there's no comments yet. and i would bet they say nothing against it when it is tabled shortly. the backlash against them would be large imv. if they don't support it i will be voting liberal in the next election. for all the shit "justin" doesn't get or goes along with the Conservatives on, his stance on prostitution is the right one. it's violence against women.

Justin's unequivocal statement increased my support for him too. I am curious to see if the parties whip the vote on it. If not they will have to allow some MPs to abstain. 

I strongly suspect it will only be released in September or when the Conservatives need a distraction. 

Brachina

 First off saying its violence does not magically become violence, its just you making stuff up.

 Secondly if taking away the basic human rights to freedom of associotion and safety from Prostitutes and thier clients is more important to you then issues like Keystone, Healthcare, pharmacare, education, social housing, cap and trade, and the continued survival of this country, then by all means vote Liberal, or better yet skip straight to the architechs of the bill, and vote tory, because if violating human rights is more important to the helpinv those in need and  making this country the best it can be then clearly the Tories and thier junior wing (liberal party) is where you realy belong.

quizzical

no one is making anything up...just because you believe it's not violence against women doesn't mean it's true. there's no human right to make an industry out of prostitution.

violence against women is more important to me than most anything.

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I strongly suspect it will only be released in September or when the Conservatives need a distraction. 

Would you believe, tomorrow?

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-prostitution-bill-to-be-introduced-t... prostitution bill to be introduced this week[/url]

And guess what will be in it?

Quote:

But MacKay has insisted the forthcoming bill will be a uniquely Canadian solution.

He said the online public consultations showed a "clear majority" of those who took part felt that purchasing sexual services should be illegal.

Allow me a moment of vulgarity: Now that Harper will table his crap, perhaps it's time for the NDP, Liberals, Bloc, and Greens to shit or get off the pot?

 

Unionist

fortunate wrote:

Rumour amongst sex work related forums is that the government is going to pretend to follow the results of the online questionnaire, but they are going to hide the actual results (which will be easy to do because they chose to not do a proper polling style questionnaire, there is no one to tell us what the real Yes/No results are.  

The results may have been falsified - but they're now out:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/prostitution-survey-finds-support-for-ma... survey finds support for making selling sex legal[/url]

Stupid headline, but whatever. No one understands the current state of the law anyway.

Quote:

Tallying the response, the department found that 56 per cent felt purchasing sexual services should be a criminal offence, while 44 per cent thought it shouldn't be criminal.

But 66 per cent said selling sex should not be a criminal offence, while 34 per cent though it should be.

And 62 per cent felt that benefiting economically from the prostitution of an adult should be a criminal offence, while 38 per cent said no.

Supporters of legal prostitution were asked about limitations and their responses were sorted by key words. The largest response dealt with public health and supported regular medical testing. Almost as many mentioned taxation, licensing and regulation.

terrytowel

Bob Dechert, Françoise Boivin and Marc Garneau debate the Government's recent survey on what Candians want in the new sex trade laws.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2461754769/

Brachina

quizzical wrote:

no one is making anything up...just because you believe it's not violence against women doesn't mean it's true. there's no human right to make an industry out of prostitution.

violence against women is more important to me than most anything.

 

 

 Your right just because I say it isn't violent does not make that true, but the fact that it does not invovled violence does.

 

 The only way it would be an inherient act of violence is if either sex itself was inherantly violent or the consentual exchange of funds between people was inherantly violent, because these are the only universal traits that all acts of prostutition possess.

 

 Callinv it act of violence is an attempt to by pass people's rational logical thinking process to engage with thier fear and the resulting anger. Its manipulation pure and simple.

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I strongly suspect it will only be released in September or when the Conservatives need a distraction. 

Would you believe, tomorrow?

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-prostitution-bill-to-be-introduced-t... prostitution bill to be introduced this week[/url]

And guess what will be in it?

Quote:

But MacKay has insisted the forthcoming bill will be a uniquely Canadian solution.

He said the online public consultations showed a "clear majority" of those who took part felt that purchasing sexual services should be illegal.

Allow me a moment of vulgarity: Now that Harper will table his crap, perhaps it's time for the NDP, Liberals, Bloc, and Greens to shit or get off the pot?

I am delighted it will be introduced so soon. Over a month ago we were told it would be a few weeks so I had given up hope. I'm sure all the parties will weigh in once it's announced. 

Not too hard to guess what will be in it. I'm looking forward to reading the penalties. 

The thought of Canada installing outdoor drivein stalls to degrade women in was appalling. The promoters never mention that "harm reduction" tactic. 

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Bob Dechert, Françoise Boivin and Marc Garneau debate the Government's recent survey on what Candians want in the new sex trade laws.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2461754769/

Thanks for this, terrytowel. As expected, the NDP and the Liberal spend all their time attacking how the Cons did their so-called survey and demanding they release the full results. Not one word as to where they stand on any issue of substance - except once, Boivin says the legislation should be informed by what the SCC had to say in Bedford (which, with all due respect, is something of a no-brainer).

And, at 10:30 of the video clip, Dechert touches Boivin's thigh. Not sure how she resisted slugging the bastard.

 

Brachina

 2 thought experimentals

 

 1) Mr. X has sex with Ms. T, (letters picked at random), for free. Mr. X is gentle and kind and focuses mostly on her pleasure..is this a violent act?

 

 A year later Mr. X and Ms. T have sex again, time Ms. T charges Mr. X blank amount of dollars. The sex is exactly the same except thier is a transfer of funds at the end. Is the transfer of funds inheriantly violent.

 

 Mr. X later goes to his mechanic and pays whar he owns the mechanic for fixing his car. Is this an act of violence?

 

 Experiment 2) Mr. X hires a Dominatrix who ties him up and does blank. How exactly does some tied up and helpless commit an act of violence.

 And its more then protecting an industry, its about protecting two or more adult individuals right to engage in sex together for the reasons that they see fit.

 And lets also stop pretending that Abolutionists actual care about the well being of these women, they don't care enough to listen to them, they don't respect them enough to allow them autonomy over they're own bodies, the only thing Abolutionist care about is protecting thier own interests, weather its power/influence (the rescue industry is profittable), weather fear that a spouse might stray, or weather its simply the fact that the idea makes them uncomfortable.

Unionist

For fuck's sake, Brachina, read the title of this thread and try to discuss what's going on. There are a dozen other threads where you can debate your views about sex work. Same with quizzical and fortunate.

Brachina

 I think we all know the resulted were decided before the survey was ever done. Polls taken shows how full of shit the Tories are. Not to meantion a survey like this is totally swarmable by Abolutionist forces both religious and otherwise.

Pages