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

712 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

You're probably right, Brachina. The next question is: How full of shit are the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and Greens? Any predictions?

My opinion: No party will support decriminalization. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.

 

Bacchus

Im sure they are all hoping that the courts will decide it so they dont have to

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

Im sure they are all hoping that the courts will decide it so they dont have to

I don't follow your point. A bill will be presented, likely tomorrow. How will the parties vote? It's a fairly simple question. The courts can't save them from that decision.

 

jas

Brachina, why do you use the term 'Abolutionist'? Does that have a different meaning from 'abolitionist'?

Unionist

And Thomas Mulcair weighs in:

Quote:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair urged the government to put forward ideas for experts to analyze.

"Unfortunately, the Conservatives are probably going to do the same thing that they always do," Mulcair said.

"If they see a touchy dossier like this one, they're going to look for the best way to try to profit from it politically, to try to divide people rather than finding a solution as ordered by the Supreme Court."

As opposed to the NDP, which will always take a position of principle. I guess they're waiting for the "experts" before they make up their mind.

Oh, and Libby Davies:

Quote:
........ [sorry, not allowed to say anything] .............

And the Liberal Party?

Justin Trudeau wrote:
.......... [waiting for someone to tell me what to say] .............

We need some opposition parties.

Pondering

deleting

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
Justin Trudeau wrote:
.......... [waiting for someone to tell me what to say] .............

We need some opposition parties.

Not reasonable. Anxious as I am to hear what all the parties have to say I do want them to take a moment to think about it and to refrain from speaking until there is something to be said. When Trudeau said he sees prostitution as violence against women he made his position clear. This does not mean anyone should vote for the Liberals. The only point I am making is that he has been clear on his position. 

There was a survey not a poll and everyone seems to agree it could be easily gamed and that the law was not dependent on the results and was most likely written prior to the results. 

Really, the only news is that the government is about to table a bill. There is not a lot to be said before it is other than the sort of BSing Mulcair just did. I'd rather hear nothing than hear that. We now know that the NDP thinks prostitution and marijuana are both insuffiently studied for the NDP to take a position on. 

 

Unionist

Pondering - the SCC rendered a decision. Exactly why do opposition parties have to wait for Harper to table something? Why couldn't they draft their own bill(s) and start advocating for them? Or why couldn't one say, "we oppose criminalization of the sale or purchase of sex", and another, "we should look seriously at criminalizing customers and pimps" - whatever - something - anything?

Do they say, "well, we'll wait to see Harper's budget before we say whether health care should be slashed or improved"? No. Then why this?

So - to return to my earlier thesis. They are abject self-serving vote-counting cowards. The Conservatives are not. If they were, they'd just not legislate, period. Easy way out.

That's one of the main reasons this country is in trouble.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
Pondering - the SCC rendered a decision. Exactly why do opposition parties have to wait for Harper to table something? Why couldn't they draft their own bill(s) and start advocating for them? Or why couldn't one say, "we oppose criminalization of the sale or purchase of sex", and another, "we should look seriously at criminalizing customers and pimps" - whatever - something - anything?

Because this is a majority government that will do as they please regardless of what anyone says. There is zero chance in hell that an opposition party could pass a bill. The general public doesn't care enough to give it more than a passing thought. It lends itself to simplistic mantras of personal freedom. 

Unionist wrote:
Do they say, "well, we'll wait to see Harper's budget before we say whether health care should be slashed or improved"? No. Then why this?

Yes they do wait. None of the parties are making suggestions on how to apply the Canada Health Act or how it should be funded. The only time they will make a comment is to condemn whatever decision the Conservatives make and cuts anywhere will be denounced because that's easy to do from the opposition benches. They will not offer a substitute budget. Whenever some health care scandal erupts they will blame it on the current government because that's what opposition parties do the world over. 

Unionist wrote:
So - to return to my earlier thesis. They are abject self-serving vote-counting cowards. The Conservatives are not. If they were, they'd just not legislate, period. Easy way out.

You think the easy way out is for Harper to be the Prime Minister under which prostitution became legal, even though the SCC held it off for a year to give him a chance to rewrite the law. You think it would be easier for Harper to have his biggest legacy be the legalization of prostitution in Canada. You think it is more difficult for Harper to add prostitution to his "tough on crime" agenda than to legalize prostitution. 

I think you are dead wrong. I think Harper sees this as one of the best opportunities he has had in years to please his base and the only opportunity he has had to please major feminist and anti-violence organizations. 

Unionist wrote:
That's one of the main reasons this country is in trouble.

I don't think it is even one of the reasons. I think the reason for current troubles is that the public is too disengaged and preoccupied with their individual lives to question what they really want from life and how government contributes to building societies. 

Brachina

 I don't know what to say Unionist, except that Mulcair does not seem to be looking forward to this fight, percisely because the NDP is the party most likely to be divided by infighting over this, look at the actions of Quiz.

 As for Abolufionists, I'm aware my spelling is horrible and I honestly almost wish I cared, but this demented 5 year old just can't be bothered ;p.

Pogo Pogo's picture

With some issues like this the cost/benefit of taking a stand is weighted as people will likely to react more negatively to a stance they don't approve than positively to a stance they approve.  So there is little reason to take a stance earlier than necessary, particularly as there is going to be a government policy soon enough.  The only reason to take a stance would be if by doing so it would help change the policy direction. 

People and organizations should take this vacuum as an opportunity.

Brachina

 Btw if your in favour of the Nordic model and calling yourself a feminist, please stop calling yourself a feminist, because feminism is about protecting and fighting for full autonomy and liberty and opportunity for women, not for handling a bunch of men the power to take away the rights of women to make thier own sexual choices, both as sex workers and clients.

 

 So before you continue to poison feminism in the eyes of many people stop calling yourself feminist and call yourself what you really are Abolishionists or Prohibitionists aka the socons of the left.

quizzical

Brachina wrote:
Btw if your in favour of the Nordic model and calling yourself a feminist, please stop calling yourself a feminist, because feminism is about protecting and fighting for full autonomy and liberty and opportunity for women, not for handling a bunch of men the power to take away the rights of women to make thier own sexual choices, both as sex workers and clients.

 

 So before you continue to poison feminism in the eyes of many people stop calling yourself feminist and call yourself what you really are Abolishionists or Prohibitionists aka the socons of the left.

 

you don't get to decide this. and attacking feminists this way, from what i've learned here, is attacking another woman for their choices in life, and it's NOT a feminist act.

 

and i've declared over and over here i'm not a feminist. 

Unionist

Pogo wrote:

With some issues like this the cost/benefit of taking a stand is weighted as people will likely to react more negatively to a stance they don't approve than positively to a stance they approve.  So there is little reason to take a stance earlier than necessary, particularly as there is going to be a government policy soon enough.  The only reason to take a stance would be if by doing so it would help change the policy direction. 

People and organizations should take this vacuum as an opportunity.

Ok, here's your opportunity. What stand do you think the parties will take on criminalization of the purchase of sex?

 

theleftyinvestor

Back-formation ideas:

Abolutionist = Those who believe that "abolishing prostitution" is the solution.

Abolutionist = Refusing to allow people who call themselves abolitionists to equate themselves with those who supported abolishing slavery.

Abolutionist = People who pollute the discussion over how to protect sex workers' rights.

I guess I'm off topic too...

lagatta

I dunno. The feminist movement, and the workers' movement, have long considered prostitution something that degrades and exploits, and often kills women. Unlike the Church, they didn't see people in prostitution as evil or perverse, but as people terribly exploited by capitalism. Like Victor Hugo, with his sympathetic but tragic portrait of Fanette.

I share that opinion, and my experiences in the Netherlands and Germany have strenghtened it.

On the other hand, measures to ABOLISH prostitution, which I don't believe can be made safe (much the less after seeing the failure of the Dutch model) require the same array of social and economic supports as in the case of any other inherently dangerous economic activity (asbestos mining) or socially harmful one (the car industry, the weapons industry). We know very well that the Cons want to cut social support further (like the Liberals here in Québec) and will cause more impoverished women to engage in part-time "survival" prostitution). And they are utterly deaf to the demands of Indigenous women. Their stance is nothing buy hypocrisy.

Brachina, you are not going to get away with calling me a false feminist or of all things a SoCon. I'm far to the left of you, and a lifelong atheist.

I agree with the protection of vulnerable people, but i don't think the flesh trade can be made safe, as it feeds on misogyny and the commodification of human beings. (Perhaps gay male prostitution is a bit different, but it can also feed on racism and colonialism).

But Con abolitionism is a lie.

 

Mórríghain

Brachina wrote:

 Btw if your in favour of the Nordic model and calling yourself a feminist, please stop calling yourself a feminist, because feminism is about protecting and fighting for full autonomy and liberty and opportunity for women, not for handling a bunch of men the power to take away the rights of women to make thier own sexual choices, both as sex workers and clients.

How do Canada's prostitution-related laws, old or new, impact on my ability to make sexual choices? From where I sit, not at all. If I were planning on selling intimate sexual services – you know, prostituting myself – then the laws would impact on how I conducted business; my sexual choices would remain my own. Nothing is gained by granting the laws more influence than they actually have.

terrytowel

Watching all the political panel shows, all the sex trade workers are unanimous that the new laws make it much harder for sex trade workers, than the old laws.

Make me wonder if Terri Bedford should have even bother taking this to court, if she knew this would be the out-come.

But I guess we shouldn't be surprised as look what they did with the Insite decision.

 

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Watching all the political panel shows, all the sex trade workers are unanimous that the new laws make it much harder for sex trade workers, than the old laws.

Make me wonder if Terri Bedford should have even bother taking this to court, if she knew this would be the out-come.

Exactly my thought.

But the worst thing remains: There is no opposition in Parliament. Only opportunists and cowards. This may well be the end of Libby Davies as a person worthy of respect - unless she suddenly gets an attack of principle and dignity.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:

Pogo wrote:

With some issues like this the cost/benefit of taking a stand is weighted as people will likely to react more negatively to a stance they don't approve than positively to a stance they approve.  So there is little reason to take a stance earlier than necessary, particularly as there is going to be a government policy soon enough.  The only reason to take a stance would be if by doing so it would help change the policy direction. 

People and organizations should take this vacuum as an opportunity.

Ok, here's your opportunity. What stand do you think the parties will take on criminalization of the purchase of sex?

I am not an expert, even after reading the many posts here.  I tend to support decriminalization, but I have to note the many people whose views I respect that are taking the other side.  I would hope the NDP took a thoughtful stance and followed it up with hard work to get the stance implemented.  That said my bet would be that the average politician knows less about the subject than the averabe babbler.  I do hope that Libby Davies (who you give a pass to that you never give to anyone else) would be working with other knowledgeable caucus members to raise the education level.  I think an inability to back up any stance with coherent arguments is the biggest impediment to the NDP taking a stance.

Sorry to not be clear on where the NDP should be, but frankly I am not clear in my head on where I want them to be.

onlinediscountanvils

Pivot: [url=http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_sex_work_legislation_explained]The new sex work legislation explained[/url]

This cynical, dystopic model does not resolve the problems found by the Court in Bedford to be unconstitutional, and adds new ones such as the prohibition on advertising. The Charter rights engaged by this draft law include life, liberty, security of the person, freedom of expression and equality. Arguably all are breached.

This is not the “Nordic” approach, nor is it a Canadian variation on the “Nordic” approach. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken laws that impose more danger, more criminalization, and fewer safe options, contrary to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada to address these dangerous and ineffective laws.

This made in Canada model will lead to continued epidemic of violence against sex workers in Canada.

theleftyinvestor

I saw part of Françoise Boivin's press conference and she made some good points. I cannot find an article summarizing them but I can copy some tweets.

Storified here: http://sfy.co/diR6

Brachina

 I stand a 100% by my statement, respecting a woman sexual automony isn't just something one does when its convient, and but its just business laws does not change the fact that you are taking womens right to choose thier sexual partners and why away from them and giving that power to a bunch of men (judges, lawyers, police etc...). You can't wiggle out of it.

 

 I'm going to send letters to Libby, Nikki, and Tom urging them to do the right thing and show these men and women the respect they deserve.

 But one thing I'm not going to do is throw a tempertantrum if I don't get my way, instead I will continue to apply pressure on the politicians. 

cco

From the link about Boivin's press conference:

Justin Ling wrote:
Boivin says there are provisions that worries them. Notably, provisions that still criminalize the selling of sex.

So presumably, criminalizing the purchase is still just fine with the NDP.

lagatta

The law is absolutely ghastly, further criminalizing people in prostitution. Nothing to do with "abolition" in the sense of emancipation.

I have no problem whatsoever with criminalizing the purchase of sex. This is largely one of the grossest examples of male entitlement, oppression and misuse of women. The problem is that the Cons will NEVER provide social services, job training etc as an alternative to the flesh trade. It is counter to their DNA, hell, they do utterly nothing about the missing and murdered Indigenous women.

 

 

Brachina

 Boivin is still undecided according to her. But its all moot because there is no way the NDP, including those that support the Nordic model, could vote for this bill. It is the worst designed piece of shit bill the Tories have yet to design.

 For one it uses the term sexual services not prostitution so its reach is insanely fucking huge. This includes prostitution, lap dances, sexual educators, porn, spouses, phones sex operators, sexual surregates, message, manufactures of sex toys, writers of sexual content, and I could go on. 

 And that's just the beginning. Even if you support the Nordic model I hope you understand why the NDP can't support this horrifyingly poor designed bill. 

lagatta

message?

Brachina

 The Tories offered 20,000,000 dollars. Wtf is 20,000,000 dollars going to do? 

 McKay does it again, is thier a cabinate position this fuck up can't fuck up? Seriously.

 I think the Tories did this delibrately to force all the NDP MPs, including those who support Nordic to oppose this bill in the hopes of causing rifts within the party.

 

cco

lagatta wrote:

I have no problem whatsoever with criminalizing the purchase of sex. This is largely one of the grossest examples of male entitlement, oppression and misuse of women.

This is probably best-served in another thread (though I've deliberately kept out of most of the "Nordic model" threads), but why is sex work almost always described in the sole context of heterosexual men purchasing sex from women? The sex trade is broader than that. Not to mention that even within that context, it's not always about "entitlement". The CBC ran a thought-provoking documentary last year about Australian sex workers who work with the severely disabled.

Even if we stipulate to the falsehood that there are no male sex workers and that all clients of sex workers are heterosexual men fueled by "entitlement", if a moralizing criminalization framework can't end sex work in places where both buying and selling sex are punishable by death, how likely is it to do so in Canada? All it will do is make sex workers less safe.

Not to mention the ancillary consequences -- my friend Justin Ling pointed out on Twitter that the bill as it stands, with its ban on advertising of a sexual nature, would essentially put Xtra, which he writes for, out of business.

Brachina

Massage ;p and it doesn't even have to be the erotic kind, anything that can be interupted are sexual services. Like a Pharmasist selling viagra.

 Newspapers like the Sun and Now are also likely to fight this as it bans advertizing for sexual services except by the person doing the sexual services.

 

 

terrytowel

Brachina wrote:

 why the NDP can't support this horrifyingly poor designed bill. 

I seriously doubt they will support this bill as it puts sex workers in a worst position than before. It actually puts them in greater danger.

I can see them voting against it.

 

terrytowel

btw if Jack Layton was still leading the NDP he would make this a whipped vote of NO. He was very much in the corner of prostitutes

MPs debate new prostitution bill

Bob Dechert, Francoise Boivin and Carolyn Bennett respond to new bill on Power & Politics

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2462168519/

Brachina

 I don't know that and niether do you. Jack's dead so we don't know how he'd handle this.

terrytowel

Brachina wrote:

 I don't know that and niether do you. Jack's dead so we don't know how he'd handle this.

Having had him represent me for many years as a city councillor, I know.

He was a leader in the fight against the cops during the bathhouse raids.

He felt what people did in their own bedrooms was no one's business but their own.

theleftyinvestor

Regarding Libby Davies, here are her tweets on the topic today:

Shortly after the bill was announced: "@Cupcakes_n_Rap @nikiashton @PaulDewar @MeganLeslieMP Haven't even had opportunity to see bill yet. And we'll hear from our critic on it"

19 minutes ago she tweeted Rabble's just-posted article: "Peter MacKays proposed new law could drive sex workers back underground | rabble.ca http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2014/06/peter-mackays-pro... "

10 minutes ago: "@taylornoakes our justice critic Francoise Boivin will be making comment on the bill. So please contact her."

So she has not been totally silent but it sounds like she has been asked to defer to Boivin for media answers.

terrytowel

theleftyinvestor wrote:

So she has not been totally silent but it sounds like she has been asked to defer to Boivin for media answers.

I've noticed that she has been absent from speaking out on this issue. In earlier years when this topic came up for debate, she was always front and center. Never turning down a media request to speak out on the rights of sex workers. Her absence is quite curious.

Anyways I was reading an editorial, and the gist is that the Cons know this bill won't fly and will probably get overturned by the Supreme Court. But by they time it gets to the court, the Cons (and Peter MacKay) will be out of government so why would they care?

By drafting this law, they play right to their base. They know it won't fly, but it appeases their base. And again by the time it is overturned, it will be someone elses problem. Not the Cons.

Brachina

What paper?

lagatta

cco, I do know maie sex workers, one in particular, an old friend whom I love very much though many of the gang do not approve of his life choices. At least he isn't a stockbroker or a Liberal MP!. I tend to think that most of them don't face the same kind of constant brutality and danger that women in the sex trade do, but admit that this is a small sample.

I am not speaking about particularly racialised or impoverished young men, who can also be treated like shit, as women in the trade so often are.

I'm a bit sick of the disabled canard, as that is a very small percentage of the client base, if only because disabled people are usually living in extreme penury. But also because it always focuses on disabled MEN, and usually disabled heterosexual men.

It really pisses off a friend with MS. The real question is access for non-commercial sexuality for disabled people of any sex or sexual orientation.

Unionist

theleftyinvestor wrote:

So she has not been totally silent but it sounds like she has been asked to defer to Boivin for media answers.

Oooh, that's such a polite way of saying that Libby has been told to shut her mouth, as she was on Palestine, and she is complying, as she did then. What a fucking shame.

 

cco

lagatta wrote:

cco, I do know maie sex workers, one in particular, an old friend whom I love very much though many of the gang do not approve of his life choices. At least he isn't a stockbroker or a Liberal MP!

And this is where the moralizing element sneaks in. What does it matter how many people approve of his life choices? Will the government criminalizing his client base help the gang feel better? At least because he's not racialised, impoverished, or female, he gets the benefit of the doubt that his choice of vocation is voluntary.

Quote:

I'm a bit sick of the disabled canard, as that is a very small percentage of the client base, if only because disabled people are usually living in extreme penury. But also because it always focuses on disabled MEN, and usually disabled heterosexual men.

It really pisses off a friend with MS. The real question is access for non-commercial sexuality for disabled people of any sex or sexual orientation.

Canard implies there's no truth to it, when there obviously is, even if it's a small percentage. But what's all this about "access"? Shouldn't a disabled man or woman thinking they should have "access" to sexuality fall under the same category of "entitlement"? Whence should this "access" come, if not the existing pool of men and women who've already made their choices about non-commercial sex with the disabled?

I had more to say, but this is already flagrantly off-topic (sorry, Unionist!), so I'll stop here.

Unionist

That's cool, cco. On or off topic, it's time for people to speak up and say that nothing about sex work should be criminalized. Nothing. You can regulate it; you can tax it; you can reduce risk; you can crack down on traffickers and kidnappers and slaveowners; you can preach and work for abolition of selling sex; but you can't make the act of sex for money a criminal offence, because it harms women.

No fucking political party has said this so far. It's what I predicted, pessimistically, all along.

 

Brachina

 I agree with you unionist, yes I'm shocked by that turn of events too ;D.

 I still have hope that the NDP will do the right thing, eventually, after all Francios Boivin tweeted the article from the British Medical Journal, which said it will just drive it underground and endanger women. She seems to keep tweet reasons to oppose the Nordic Model, yet refuses to make a commitment, its frankly biazzaire and annoying. Still I believe she will come around.

lagatta

I don't see how that is "moralizing". I have broken off friendships with several persons over the years because of their chosen professions, and absolutely none of them were sex workers. They were people who exploited others. Usually much more "respectable" according to bourgeois morals.

No, I don't like the fact that he sells himself to rich bastards when there are many socially-useful things he could do. But none of us "moralize" about this - though we do state what we feel about the sex trade.

quizzical

when does this law kick in? after it goes through the House or will police start acting right away?

 

cco

My apologies, lagatta, if I've attributed to you positions you don't hold. Coming from such a socially conservative region as I do, I'm prone to make assumptions about those advocating for legal restrictions on consensual sex.

That said:

I don't think having sex is immoral. I don't think selling sex is immoral. I don't think buying sex is immoral.

And even if I thought all of the above were immoral, I wouldn't say they should be illegal. And criminalizing any or all of them would not help sex workers one iota.

This debate in Canada is certainly infused with a healthy dose of moralizing and slut-shaming. Peter MacKay went on TV today and said that sex for money is "inherently degrading". (Jason Kenney probably believes the same thing about non-commercial sex.) Well, I don't agree. The sex trade can and currently does involve many exploitative factors, certainly. But so does migrant farm work, and nobody's proposing the abolition of farming.

Though I don't agree with it, there's a fair feminist critique to be made of sex work. But criminalization of clients will not "liberate" a single sex worker. It will only serve to inflate the self-righteousness of politicians, police, and suburbanites in the grip of a millennia-old moral panic, while hurting the most vulnerable. Apply the same logic to the drug trade and it's not too hard to see why the so-called "Nordic model" is logically ridiculous, practically harmful, and morally indefensible.

Mórríghain

Hundreds of comments have been posted here about prostitution in Canada since the Supreme Court made its decision last year and ushered in MacKay's 'Canadian-ized' Nordic Model, including dozens and dozens of links to reports, news stories, and videos dealing with various ways to control prostitution. Despite this some of you say you're surprised, dismayed, angry or worse because of the outcome. Why? The outcome was inevitable. This writing was sprayed onto the wall with luminescent paint... last year. I say long before then.

MacKay's new law does not infringe or restrict anyone's sexual choices or sexuality; the selling of sex is not an expression of one's sexuality, tis an expression of one's commercial enterprize. Prostitution is a business, nothing more. If the prostitutes, the activists, and the friendly lawyers hadn't lost sight of that they might not have gotten screwed as badly as they have.

The best prostitution laws are those that prostitutes can easily work around, now the game has changed for some, perhaps for all. I imagine there may also be a few fretfull lattes consumed at Starbucks by Now magazine's advertising staff. Has their bag of money been slashed?

Brachina

 The law does not kick in until it recieves royal assent.

 

 And if they don't rush the bill the house will rise for summer before it goes anywhere. Then they have a short period when the house reconvenes in the fall to pass it, otherwise in december the old laws disappear.

 I personal don't think that they have any intention of passing it, I think they'll blame the NDP for holding it up and then run partly on the legislation.

 So police can't enforce a law that doesn't exist yet.

lagatta

The proposed law has nothing to do with the Nordic model in any case. According to Hélène Buzzetti in Le Devoir, in her article "Ottawa criminalise la prostitution" says:

Le modèle nordique n’a qu’à aller se rhabiller. Le gouvernement conservateur a choisi d’adopter la ligne dure en matière de lutte contre la prostitution. Pour la première fois de l’histoire, celle-ci deviendra illégale au Canada. Et bien que les prostituées bénéficieront d’une sorte d’immunité, en pratique, plusieurs de leurs activités ne seront plus permises. Ce qui fait dire à tout le monde prostitutionnel que ce projet de loi a un rendez-vous assuré avec la Cour suprême.

Prostitution would become ILLEGAL for the first time in Canada...

http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/410104/ottawa-criminalise-la-pr...

I was just thinking about the "think of the children" crap.  And street sex workers I know. Some are very young. A scenario where a girl who is 18 is working alongside another who is 16 or 17 is not fiction... The slightly older girl could be punished by law for working alongside the younger one.

And cco, as a young teen, I was one of the many people up here who were involved in support for farmworkers, the boycott in the US and the movement here. Migrant farmworkers are horribly exploited and Harper's temporary foreign workers act is extending gross exploitation to other trades and professions.  I don't view prostitution as "immoral" but as something the most often causes deep harm to the people involve in it and kills far too many. And I don't think it can be made safe.

Contrary to Martin Dufresne, I don't think C-36 incarnates the Nordic Model. And in the meantime, the murderous Couillard budget will send far more desperate people into "end of month" prostitution, something observed for quite a while now in poor neighbourhoods here.

Edited to add: A press conference today by La Clés, CATHII (a group against human trafficking) and the CSN labour confederation. No, I'm not involved in any of those groups; I did work for the CSN for several years and am still freelancing for them, but working at home, so out of the proverbial loop.

http://www.lacles.org/point-de-presse-sur-le-nouveau-projet-de-loi-sur-l...

As for la Fédération des femmes du Québec, they have been utterly taken up with protesting the disgusting new Québec budget, which will send far more women into precarity.

http://www.ffq.qc.ca/2014/05/budget-provincial-non-a-lausterite-qui-augm...

Nothing about sex work in that communiqué, but the outcomes are obvious, except in the case of the growing number of older women who are in dire straits.

 

Brachina

http://montrealsimon.blogspot.ca/2014/06/the-con-hookers-and-war-on-supr...

 

 Simon has such a way with words and pictures.

lagatta

Indeed. Though I think calling the Cons "hookers" demeans people in prostitution, non?

Pages