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

712 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

So - regardless of re-arguing all the stuff that belongs in other threads...

How will the NDP, Liberals, Green, and BQ vote on this bill?

Tough question, I know, since they're all still too chickenshit to say where they stand on decriminalization.

Predictions?

 

mark_alfred

I predict the NDP will vote against it.  They'll justify this by saying that the bill is not legally sound enough to withstand a constitutional challenge.

The Greens and the Liberals will either do as I predict the NDP will do, or they will vote in favour of the bill (perhaps after a few amendments have been made).  So I'm sort of undecided.  But, when push comes to shove, I feel they will ultimately vote in favour of the bill..

Not sure about the PQ.  They'll likely also follow what I believe the NDP will do, or they'll openly declare that decriminalization is the route Canada should go.  Regardless, I see them voting against it.

Pondering

The fewer johns and prostitutes there are, the easier it will be to catch the sadistic ones. Prostitutes will not be subject to arrest so bad cops can't blackmail them. 

The term "sexual services" is fine. It means prostitution. 

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sexual-services

Definitionsplural noun

  1. prostitution

 

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_services&redirect=no

Sexual servicesFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRedirect page#REDIRECTProstitution

Australia uses the term "sexual services" in law to mean prostitution.

The bill was crafted to survive constitutional challenge and looking at the specific wording it seems to meet that threshold. 

For example, one of the complaints was that women couldn't have guards and receptionists etc. and that even their families could be subject to arrest.

From the new law:

Exemptions 

(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit

(a) in the context of a legitimate living ar­rangement with the person from whose sexu­al services the benefit is derived;

(b) as a result of a legal or moral obligation of the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;

(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and condi­tions, to the general public; or

(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the per­son from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good. 

 

Lots of people including legal experts and sex work advocates are claiming this law is "the same" and won't pass constitutional muster but they aren't addressing major differences from the old laws and the specific reasoning of the SSC.  They are not addressing the SCC's heavy focus on the purpose of the laws and that prostitution itself was legal. They are also treating the new law as though it is a monolith that isn't broken up into many constituent parts. The courts, if it is brought to trial, could also choose to invalidate only individual parts of the law not the entire thing. 

It's interesting how the MSM is so overwhelmingly in favor of legalization. 

lagatta

cco, Ms Mallick does get into the purple prose (and self-absorbtion), but really, it is not a matter of "having sex".  I strongly doubt that she cares who has sex with whom.

vincentL311

There is legal precedent in that, Prostitution can be illegal but a law criminalizing it can still be found unconstitutional. Infact the onus will be on the Government to prove that their law does indeed make sex workers safer which they claim is one of the main purposes of the law, when there is strong evidence that the opposite is true. In which case the law might be found overbroad and thus unconstitutional.

While Parliament does have the right to criminalize activity that it deems harmful, there is also precedent that the court can find that the defined harm is based on narrow or ideological reasons as opposed a reasonable assesment from scientific evidence, in which case the law can still be found unconstitutional.

I agree that it is not guaranteed that this law will be thrown out, but it will be challenged. and it is far from certain that will gain constitutional muster

susan davis

"The violence of a john does not diminish the role of the state in making a prostitute more vulnerable to that violence."

pondering, it seems you are reading the decisions selectively. the above is from your own post and clearly demonstrates that the court understands the laws have put us at risk. the source of our lack of safety is not simply "pimps and johns". it is broad systematic biases and discrimination which for the most part are responsible for our risk...

 

Brachina

 I couldn't make it through her writing style, it was too painful and that's saying something from a "demented 5 year old" Cool

Brachina

 For the record I have great admiration for Susan Davis, standing up for her sisters.

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
"The violence of a john does not diminish the role of the state in making a prostitute more vulnerable to that violence."

pondering, it seems you are reading the decisions selectively. the above is from your own post and clearly demonstrates that the court understands the laws have put us at risk. the source of our lack of safety is not simply "pimps and johns". it is broad systematic biases and discrimination which for the most part are responsible for our risk...

Not at all, taking the section in it's entirety that statement is conditional on prostitution being a legal activity. Some posters are claiming that if selling isn't criminalized then it is legal but I don't agree. The seller is still attempting to engage in an illegal activity that has been deemed dangerous. 

Pondering

vincentL311 wrote:
 Infact the onus will be on the Government to prove that their law does indeed make sex workers safer which they claim is one of the main purposes of the law, when there is strong evidence that the opposite is true.

You need to reread the rationale I posted. No where does it suggest that the law is intended to make prostitutes safer. It is clearly intended to prevent women from becoming involved in prostitution, to encourage women to leave prostitution, and to prevent prostitution from becoming established as a commercial institution. 

vincentL311 wrote:
While Parliament does have the right to criminalize activity that it deems harmful, there is also precedent that the court can find that the defined harm is based on narrow or ideological reasons as opposed a reasonable assesment from scientific evidence, in which case the law can still be found unconstitutional.

That hasn't worked so well for marijuana. There is plenty of harm associated with prostitution worldwide for the government to support the claim that prostitution is inherently harmful and cannot be made safe through policing. 

vincentL311 wrote:
I agree that it is not guaranteed that this law will be thrown out, but it will be challenged. and it is far from certain that will gain constitutional muster

I agree. I am no lawyer, not even close, not even a fan of legal judgements, I am just applying regular non-legal logic to what I understand the judgement and new law states. I don't think it's being discussed seriously anywhere. I don't mean debated, I mean dissecting what is actually said and what it means in practice. 

Brachina

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.ca/2014/06/strip-clubs-criminalized-by-ne...

 

 Someone else who realizes the scope of this bill goes well beyond prostitution.

susan davis

Pondering wrote:

susan davis wrote:
"The violence of a john does not diminish the role of the state in making a prostitute more vulnerable to that violence."

pondering, it seems you are reading the decisions selectively. the above is from your own post and clearly demonstrates that the court understands the laws have put us at risk. the source of our lack of safety is not simply "pimps and johns". it is broad systematic biases and discrimination which for the most part are responsible for our risk...

Not at all, taking the section in it's entirety that statement is conditional on prostitution being a legal activity. Some posters are claiming that if selling isn't criminalized then it is legal but I don't agree. The seller is still attempting to engage in an illegal activity that has been deemed dangerous. 

legal...i thought you wanted to make the workers legal...? or are you acknowledging that this will once again criminalize the workers and as such will put us at risk for all of the harms associated with that criminalization?

listening to the  political panel this morning on CTV was heartening, the ndp justice critic seemed well informed as did the liberal mp. the conservative seemed unarmed and misinformed....

i guess its not over til its over....

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
legal...i thought you wanted to make the workers legal...? or are you acknowledging that this will once again criminalize the workers and as such will put us at risk for all of the harms associated with that criminalization?

Not legal, decriminalized. 

susan davis wrote:
listening to the  political panel this morning on CTV was heartening, the ndp justice critic seemed well informed as did the liberal mp. the conservative seemed unarmed and misinformed....

Happy to hear it. I will go look and see if I can find it. 

This is from the summary section of the new law:

(e) create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present; 

I find the above very problamatic because it criminalizes the seller of sexual services and does so in a way that further endangers teens.  

 

 

Brachina

 Irwin Colter I think is the lib justice critic and one of the few liberal MPs that isn't a useless asshole, so I'm not surprised he knew his stuff. I still think the Libs will end up supporting the bill, but its still possible if unlikely they will oppose it. It depends on what Butts tell Trudeau to think.

Pondering

I am hoping support from abolitionist groups will help the parties argue against the minors clause:

Hilla Kerner, a collective member at Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter told VICE News over the phone that while "it's useful that the proposed law begins to recognize the harm in prostitution, we are critical of the fact that it doesn't fully address the compounding inequalities of race, class, and gender in prostitution."

One aspect of the tabled bill that Cherry Smiley, co-founder of Indigenous Women Against the Sex Industry (IWASI), found troubling is that it would criminalize communicating for the purposes of prostitution in a public place "where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present."

Trisha Baptie, a prostitution survivor and activist, agrees. "I have guarded optimism," she says. "This is a huge stride in terms of criminalizing demand but if there's anything on the books that could mean prostituted women face charges, that's concerning."

While the communication aspect of the bill is limited to locations where children might be present, it remains a fairly broad definition. Janine Benedet, lawyer for the Women's Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution, an intervener in the Bedford case, is worried that this will apply primarily to women on the street, many whom are Aboriginal.

"It continues to provide a hook for police to push them around to different neighborhoods and to target the women," she says. If the purpose of the bill is to help vulnerable women, advocates say that offence should be dropped.

 

 <https://news.vice.com/article/canadas-new-prostitution-bill-is-far-from-perfect

In practice a 26 year old aboriginal woman addicted to crack and alcohol could be arrested because she is near a 16 or 17 year old runaway that she has zero control over. 

This is very concerning. The "minors" clause makes it sound reasonable, of course we don't want soliciting around children. I don't know if the courts would consider it overbroad because the qualifier "reasonable" was added which does serve to exclude a downtown corner at night. 

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.ca/2014/06/strip-clubs-criminalized-by-ne...

 Someone else who realizes the scope of this bill goes well beyond prostitution.

That person is being misleading:

Strip Clubs Criminalized By New Prostitution Legislation? Could well be"Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity" 

This is part of the preamble to Bill C-36, the "Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act". 

Note the objectification of the human body is seen as a social harm to be stopped - and heavy criminal penalties are imposed. 

Objectification and commodification of sexual activity not "of the human body". 

Anyone paying for "sexual services" is guilty of an offence with mandatory minimum sentences. The Act provides: 

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consid- eration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of [an offence] 

Note that "sexual services" is not defined. And if we accept that the preamble's description of objectification of the human body is a harm to be avoided, then surely "sexual services" must be defined broadly. It could, on a simple reading of the legislation, include paying someone to take off their clothes so that the viewer can obtain sexual gratification. Certainly a "lap dance" where a naked stripper sits of the lap of a customer - who has paid for the dance - is caught by the legislation.

Lap dances could be caught but if they are I don't have a problem with it. I'd like it if strippers could go back to table dancing, reverse the escalation of what they have to do. I don't think police will try to apply the law that far but it would be interesting if they did. 

cco

Porn next, presumably?

lagatta

cco, you do know that in the late 20th century, feminist activism was very anti-porn. I'm not talking about evangelical Christians, or any other reactionary group. We were very much outraged at the exploitation involved in porn, and how it depicted women. Yes, I know (and knew then) that porn could be liberating for, say, gay people (mostly gay men) in small towns, isolated. One of my best friends was a leader of the gay liberation movement back then. Young gay and lesbian people were disowned outright by their families and found themselves in the streets.

The problem is the commodification of sexuality, and many other aspects of life, in modern capitalist society. Perhaps that is one reason why backward and frightened people shelter in fundamentalist religions?

cco

lagatta wrote:

cco, you do know that in the late 20th century, feminist activism was very anti-porn. I'm not talking about evangelical Christians, or any other reactionary group. We were very much outraged at the exploitation involved in porn, and how it depicted women.

I know. And this is where I get off the boat. Not specifically with porn, but with censorship and crackdowns on sexuality in the name of liberating women (or men). In fact, I find it rather distressing when some feminists (certainly not all, or even most) align themselves with the worst social conservatives. During the Charter debate I heard a non-Muslim woman talk about the niqab as an instrument for women's liberation from male-driven sexual culture. Really.

Quote:

Yes, I know (and knew then) that porn could be liberating for, say, gay people (mostly gay men) in small towns, isolated. One of my best friends was a leader of the gay liberation movement back then. Young gay and lesbian people were disowned outright by their families and found themselves in the streets.

So all porn is exploitative and evil except gay porn? That sounds straight out of Ann Coulter's fantasies about liberals.

Quote:

The problem is the commodification of sexuality, and many other aspects of life, in modern capitalist society. Perhaps that is one reason why backward and frightened people shelter in fundamentalist religions?

I don't agree, quite frankly, that "commodification of sexuality" is so uniquely evil that it needs to be treated criminally. And those who would ban pornography, erotica (gay or otherwise), prostitution, and any sexual encounter that doesn't have their stamp of approval are far more frightening to me than Larry Flynt, whether they call themselves feminists or cardinals.

'Cause it's all about protecting women, we promise, by making sure that no sexual encounter ever involves an explicit exchange of money. After that we can get to the implicit exchanges of money (this part is usually expressed along the lines of "What a whore that V. Stiviano is!").

While we're at it, how about some of the kinkier fetishes? Surely there aren't women out there who actually find it arousing to be treated in ways we deem degrading. And then, to fight single motherhood and broken homes and "hookup culture", maybe it wouldn't be so bad if we required women to get married before they could consent to sex? Certainly we can raise the age of consent, because NOBODY TOUCHES MY DAUGHTER!

I think it's fair for those who are considering supporting the "Nordic model" to have some idea of where this train leads. Sure, we can't stamp out porn entirely, but hey, we can arrest kids who sext, and what could go wrong with Joy Smith's internet filter idea?

Those who seek to criminalize consensual sex can count me out as an ally, no matter who they think they're protecting. One of the only things I'd agree with ol' P.E.T. on is that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation -- whether there's a whip on the table, a Playboy, or an envelope of money.

lagatta

Come now, you know that Québécoises have done more than anyone else in North America to fight compulsory marriage!

I really think you are defending macho entitlement, sorry.

Larry Flint is, or was, a capitalist pig. I don't know or care whether that piece of shit is still alive. I feel exactly the same about him as I do about religious fundies who seek to exploit and degrade women.

cco

If the right of adults to have consensual sex without anyone else deciding the exact parameters it must occur under is "macho entitlement", then I suppose we aren't likely to agree on this subject. And I didn't say Flynt was a great guy. I just said he scares me less than those who want to poke their noses into the sex lives of others to make sure every consensual encounter is up to code.

Unionist

Lagatta: Do you believe a person who pays for consensual sex should be guilty of a criminal offence? Full disclosure: I don't. Even if one believes sex work is a symbol and a reality of the subordination of women, I honestly don't see that being "resolved" by the use of police and courts. If the criminal justice system has a hard time distinguishing between trafficking/coercion and consensual customers, then it should simply try harder. Subsuming them under the "criminal" label will not advance equality and freedom of anyone.

I just broke my own rule for this thread. We're supposed to be talking about the positions of the parties. But at a certain point, I guess our own thoughts come into the picture.

 

cco

Well, until such time as anybody but the Conservatives takes a position, I suppose we can be forgiven for using the extra room.

lagatta

I am not very fond of criminal punishment of anyone except the violent (and I include capitalists who hire goons or kill people as in Lac Mégantic) but I do find it odd that supposed leftwing men are springing up in defence of those who degrade women. It is sickening.

You know very well that I'm an atheist and loathe both the Cons (of the libertarian capitalist and social conservative varieties) and any religous or moralistic people who want to control people's sexuality. But the sex trade is a morass of exploitation and degradation of oppressed and vulnerable people, most of them women and girls.

Indeed, I don't know how much laws can do, as they must not further oppress or stigmatize those who are already stigmatized. But I've been seeing the shits who are here for the Grand Prix, and if I were younger or crazier I'd get out my gun and shoot those bastards in the balls.

Some shits were riding a Ferrari at speed on my street - it is a farily wide street for an old Montréal neighbourhood because there used to be a tramline - lots of kids playing, and as there are bicycle lanes, on a Sunday, parents riding with wobbly kids in tow. Just the kind of rich bastards for whom women are commodities on sale. I'm just enraged about all this misogynist exploitation that comes to a heat here this time of year, as we pay off the Hitler-admiring, wife-beating, extortionist Bernie Ecclestone, the guru of all such shits.

 

 

 

 

Brachina

Who are you Lagatta to decide for other adults what is degrading or not? 

 Who gets to be the moral police? And why do you Lagatta get to decide what sex means between people, that a matter of personal feelings that you push on others. Some women don't find it degrading, such as Susan Davis, are you saying you know more about her feelings.

 You also put up double standards, its degrading for women, but not gay men? What are woman not as adult as gay man to make thier own decisions? 

 

 At the end of the day Lagatta its not your life, its other peoples lives and no matter what you say you don't have the right to treat them and as childern and you don't get to run thier lives, they will not thank you for it and many of them will hate you for it.

 You attempt is destined to fail, will hurt countless sex workers male and female, not to meantion, the clients again both male and female will be hurt as well (there people too not drooling demonic trench coat wearing charactures), and you are forcing your sexual values on other people, something that always ends in disaster and is inheriantly wrong.

 Why can't you understand when its not you bo

dy your feelings and opinions don't matter, niether do mine, only the participants opinions matter.  you don't get to have a say in how they use thier bodies anymore then they get to say pick your spouse or boyfriend. People like you Lagatta are why so many people, normal people hate the left, because instead of compassionate people they just see some one who wants to control thier lives and we all pay for it, when they roll they're eyes when they see a lefty approaching them. I joined the NDP to support help for those in need, not to bully and boss people around or tell them how to live thier life, I'm not a God Lagatta and you need to learn neither are you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Everyone is bringing it down to the individual as though nothing supercedes what individual people want to do. That is an anarchist notion. 

No one can deny that once an industry become legitimized it grows. If we look at most countries that have legitimized prostitution both the legal and illegal trade has grown. I have read estimates that 90% of the trade in Australia is illegal. Even if that is an exageration there must still be a lot of illegal prostitution. There is a ring of brothels around Germany and Germans are starting to see what legitimization has turned their country into and they don't like it. 

Susan Davis is not representative of the streetwalking/brothel women and that is the part of the industry that explodes. It is staffed by migrant women from economically impoverished countries. Not even New Zealand claims to have reduced violence and they are a tiny country of 4.5 mil off the coast of Australia. 

Just use other laws to deal with the the criminal behavior they say, but experience has shown it doesn't work. The police aren't able to keep up. Prostitution becomes normalized and it becomes entrenched as an industry. More men use prostitutes but sex tourism seems to dominate.  Germany's brothels are majority staffed by migrants who serve mainly tourists. 

Just because some women don't get hurt by it and believe it is a good option for them and doesn't feel degraded doesn't mean that prostitution as a whole is harmless or not degrading to most women individually and as a class.

More women in prostitution means more women being harmed both physically and pyschologically. That all women are not harmed doesn't mean society has to take on the cost of legitimizing prostitution especially when it can be argued that it will lead to more victims through expansion of the industry. 

That is a specific goal in the preamble, the prevention of institutionalizing prostitution as an industry. 

A parallel can be drawn with the way the law differentiates between crimes involving sex and those which do not, between sexual assault and simple assault. Sexual violence represents a more personal form of attack. It crosses the boundary between the physical and the emotional. It represents a violation of spirit, not just flesh.

 

Pasted from <http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/06/05/call-prostitution-what-it-is-sexual-abuse/

That may not be true for everyone but it is the norm. Many prostitutes explain that they disassociate themselves from their bodies to endure what is happening to them even as they claim it is their choice to do so. What percentages of prostitutes do you think do that to get through it?

To institutionalize this as a business, an industry, to profit by it, is immoral. We have no idea which women will end up suffering PTSD and which ones won't. 

There are degrees of exploitation. While some prostitutes may be just fine, many are not. I posted in another thread about strip clubs losing business to massage parlours to the extent that many strip clubs have had to close. What about those displaced workers? Do you think they would rather work in massage parlours?

You simplify the entire argument down to an anarchist model, if two consenting adults want to do something they should be able to do it no matter how damaging it is to the community. 

lagatta

Brachina, that was extremely nasty. This is one of the most divisive issues in the feminist movement.

Brachina

 How can it be divisive when one side is feminist and trusts women to make thier own choice treating them as adults, fighting for thier rights to choice what to with thier lives and bodies and the other side who pretend to be feminists when its convienant, and yet as soon as woman make choices they don't like they snatch the power away from them and hand it over to men who don't give a shit about them and who have a long history of abusing said power, how can one call these people feminists, I just don't understand? You either respect woman amd fight for thier liberty and opportunity or you believe female sexuality is something that needs to be controlled and contained by committee and thugs with guns.

Brachina

@Pondering say your right and Susan is not representive of street wslkers, not saying she isn't but for arguement sake lets say your right. Why should she have her rights taken away because of what other people do. We don't shut down regular textile factories because some asshole runs a sweat shop. You don't punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

 

 As for collective vs. Individuals people made the same sort of arguements against the gay community and gay literture and movies, community standards. 

 I just don't understand why you people can't treat woman with repect.

Brachina

 Well said AC.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

The NDP should legalize this. They should tax it, regulate it, provide support services to the "sex-workers" as deemed necessary BY sex-workers and ensure they can "ply their trade", for lack of a better way to put that, in as safe an environemnt as possible. This is NEVER going to go away; there will always be men who want this, and women who will provide it, regardless of circumstance, and vice versa. The issue isn't whether its moral or not, the issue is what are we going to do about this in a mature, and realistic, thoughtful way? The war against drugs didn't work. Prohibition didn't work. And continuing to handle this as a crimminal matter will not work. Its time for a mature, adult disucssion. I think any woman who calls themselves a "feminist" would be all for any woman deciding how she was going to use her body, regardless of the circumstance. This is a trade probably as old as time itself; lets deal with this and toss the Medevial attitudes towards this on the scarp heap of history. One man's opinon. Its the 21st Century and the Modern Age; lets approach this issue like it is.

For my money, I'd like to see the NDP lead on this issue this way. I'm guessing the public would be with the NDP on this if the NDP approached this in a modern nature. The old foggies who thing of sex-work, as "Prostituion" are dying off. Their opinons on this, frankly, and as I say this as an older male, don't matter. You're old and completely out of touch on this; get out of the way and let modern society deal with this. I have had enough. I want the NDP to lead on this, period.

Gustave

lagatta wrote:
I am not very fond of criminal punishment of anyone except the violent

Knowing from nearly all sex workers testimonies that most buyers are not violent by any mean, should we understand that you oppose the bill on the basis that there should be no across the board criminalisation of buyers without due court process providing evidence of violence?

lagatta wrote:
I do find it odd that supposed leftwing men are springing up in defence of those who degrade women.

I find it odd that some left wing feminists (I am not talking about you) got in the very right wing business of fabricating criminals. Considering the plurality of views on sex in our society, it is hard not to see their attitude as authoritarian. I also question the representativeness of some union’s position, like the CSN.

I don't think anyone from any political perspective has come up in defense of those who degrade women. But then no one sees exactly the same way what degrading means. The typical sex worker statement on this is that working in a McDoanald’s is more degrading considering the working relations standards in those places, than being an independent sex worker making much more money and having a lot more control over their working conditions. Very few sex workers have pimps in Canada, even on the streets. Some, however, have working conditions even worst than in a McDonald’s.

Obviously some right wing people think differently: they don’t see working in a McDonald’s as degrading. They like working people to be subservient and McDonald’s are great indoctrination schools.

What if we agreed that criminalization threats are not the good way to solve these issues? What if we simply stopped putting in jail people who cause no harm even though we may think their actions are degrading?

lagatta wrote:
The problem is the commodification of sexuality.

This is a perfectly sound and sincere moral judgement. I see no problem with commodification of sex unless it’s not consenting. This is also a perfectly sound moral judgement. We are nor going to agree on our moral position about sex. But that’s fine. I don’t want to teach you what your moral values should be and I don’t think sex workers want to be taught either what their position should be. The use of violence to impose moral values simply attracts more hate and violence.

 

Gustave

Pondering wrote:
If we look at most countries that have legitimized prostitution both the legal and illegal trade has grown. .

No study has ever demonstrated an increase of internal demand after legalisation. The expansion of the trade in the Netherlands and Germany was fuelled by external demand.

Pondering wrote:
Susan Davis is not representative of the streetwalking/brothel women and that is the part of the industry that explodes.

Street walkers and brothel women are two totally different groups. Neither is exploding. In the cities I know best, Montréal and Québec, social workers will tell you street walking has been on the decline for decades, even more rapidly since the Internet. I don’t think it’s any different in cities across Canada. There was no explosion of brothels either. Brothels are illegal in Canada. I don’t think these 2 groups add up to more than 20% of sex workers together. But then, it depends if you conflate indoor with brothels and if you conflate massage parlours with brothels. There has been a rise (not an explosion) of massage parlours here in the East during the last fifteen years. The working conditions in those parlours are probably not much different than Susan’s conditions. There is no reason to believe the growth of the massage parlour sector is anything else then a displacement of the demand.

Pondering wrote:
More women in prostitution means more women being harmed both physically and pyschologically.

Why would there suddenly be more women in prostitution? That makes no sense. The general tendency is less women in prostitution. Of course, if the unemployment rate reaches Spain’ numbers, there will be more survival sex workers, whatever the legislative regime of prostitution.

Thanks for posting this link. The author has an impressive pedigree:

« is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. In her student days, Tasha was active in youth politics in her hometown of Montreal, eventually serving as national policy director and then president of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation of Canada. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009. » “

Her text is of no interest but there are many interesting readers comments.

 

6079_Smith_W

This issue is divisive enough without us stooping to the point of targetting each other on this - especially since it's not going to do anything at all to solve the issue.

Personally, I am for harm reduction, and going after root causes, because looking at the track record of other abolitionist campaigns I don't see it working out too well. That doesn't mean I question the sincerity, rationale or dedication of those who support abolition, and I certainly don't throw the whole mess at them as if it is their doing.

THis is a very difficult social problem. There is no one clear solution. Can we keep this on the issue please? This is pointless and unsettling, especially considering that it is in the feminist forum.

 

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The NDP should legalize this. They should tax it, regulate it, provide support services to the "sex-workers" as deemed necessary BY sex-workers and ensure they can "ply their trade", for lack of a better way to put that, in as safe an environemnt as possible.

You mean, something like [url=http://ylcbc.liberal.ca/2013-policy-conference/protecting-the-rights-of-...?

Quote:

Protecting the Rights of Sex Trade Workers

WHEREAS the judicial and criminal systems over the years have consistently marginalized the most vulnerable people in our society;

AND WHEREAS prostitution itself is not illegal, but the actions surrounding prostitution are, such as solicitation, occupying a common bawdy-house or brothel, or communicating in public or in a motor vehicle for the purposes of buying or selling sex;

AND WHEREAS limiting sex trade workers to the street puts them at a greater risk of human trafficking, assault, murder, and other violent and malicious crimes;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada will table to the Parliament of Canada a bill to marginalize the persecution of sex trade workers by ensuring that they are legally able to secure all materials and spaces required to run a safe and successful business;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this safety be ensured by proper business licensing with criteria specific to the prostitution industry to protect employers, employees, and clients alike;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that because prostitution is a legitimate service, shall be taxed with the federal GST as well as other applicable PSTs as assigned by individual provinces and territories, just as any other commercial enterprise currently in operation.

This was obviously proposed pre-Bedford.

Too bad none of the political parties (including of course the Liberals!) have seen fit to go in this direction yet - and as long as everyone keeps saying: "My party is perfect! Just give them time! We wouldn't want them to lose any votes over this little issue!!!" - I'm afraid that Peter Mackay will have his way.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The NDP should legalize this. They should tax it, regulate it, provide support services to the "sex-workers" as deemed necessary BY sex-workers and ensure they can "ply their trade", for lack of a better way to put that, in as safe an environemnt as possible.

You mean, something like [url=http://ylcbc.liberal.ca/2013-policy-conference/protecting-the-rights-of-...?

Quote:

Protecting the Rights of Sex Trade Workers

WHEREAS the judicial and criminal systems over the years have consistently marginalized the most vulnerable people in our society;

AND WHEREAS prostitution itself is not illegal, but the actions surrounding prostitution are, such as solicitation, occupying a common bawdy-house or brothel, or communicating in public or in a motor vehicle for the purposes of buying or selling sex;

AND WHEREAS limiting sex trade workers to the street puts them at a greater risk of human trafficking, assault, murder, and other violent and malicious crimes;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada will table to the Parliament of Canada a bill to marginalize the persecution of sex trade workers by ensuring that they are legally able to secure all materials and spaces required to run a safe and successful business;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this safety be ensured by proper business licensing with criteria specific to the prostitution industry to protect employers, employees, and clients alike;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that because prostitution is a legitimate service, shall be taxed with the federal GST as well as other applicable PSTs as assigned by individual provinces and territories, just as any other commercial enterprise currently in operation.

This was obviously proposed pre-Bedford.

Too bad none of the political parties (including of course the Liberals!) have seen fit to go in this direction yet - and as long as everyone keeps saying: "My party is perfect! Just give them time! We wouldn't want them to lose any votes over this little issue!!!" - I'm afraid that Peter Mackay will have his way.

So the Libs proposed this and have no intention of actually implementing it, this is news, how, exactly? Yeah, I know where the NDP stands on this right now. More pussy-footing around big issues by our cowardly leadership. What was the point of this post? Just one more chance for you to say I gotcha? You know full well the Libs pass resolutions and don't implement them. You're a smart-ass.

susan davis

for the record...i worked on the street, in brothels, for agencies and for myself....my testimony to the missing women's commission was about working on street...

an inconvienient truth for some around here is that my experiences are far more the norm then they are willing to admit...

even though i have told you all many times, i am not some"priveledged" sex worker and that the work of the bccec is mostly focused on the experiences of on street workers...people still want to dismiss what we/i say because it doesn't fit into their victim paradigm...

ugh....

and we mostly DO pay taxes.....if you want a cra loan or credit card, you need a declared income....most of us already pay.

Brachina

 If you really care about decreasing survival prostitution its really simply, support a minium income! Give them cash, then they won't need to sell sex to survive!

 They do it in Survival Sex work because they need the money to survive, which btw your cutting off depriving them.of the money they need for surviving, so to eliminate it without removing  the resources from them you have to replace the money, if you replace the lost income they no longer need to offer sex in exchange for it, so you don't need antiprostitution laws to stop it, because the rest are thier for thier own reasons, such as a higher level of social mobility, religious reason in rare cases, curiosity in others, niave romantic notions born from watching pretty woman too many times (don't laugh I read it happens), and so many others that do not relate to survival and thierfor are none of our business.

 And yes they are in fact anrchists on this site and I do concider myself a moderate anarchist, although I've fused anarchism to my transhumanism and to form a political idealogy I can transhumanityism (still trying to figure out the best way to spell that).

 

 Basically I believe in the importance of the freedom of the individual, the importance of humanity evolving both on a biological, personal, societial, and creavtively towards a diversified paradise that while looking after collective interests interfers to only most needful level in personal expression.

 There are a few other elements as well, I'm trying

to draw on the wisdom of ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Theory), as well. Maybe I'll create a thread on my emerging idealogy when I feel ready, I don't want to derail the thread to much.

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Susan, you pretty much nailed it and thanks for sharing it. I think I finally get it now, its about wanting to call women victims; I don't know why I didn't figure this out sooner. Would you be willing to explain why some who call themsevles "progressive feminists" support the Nordic model. Also, what do you think it is that keeps the NDP from just coming out in support of legalization? From my standpoint, we should just legalize this. I don't understand why we have to stay stuck in the Dark Ages. I have no real experience with this in any way, but its time to be pragmatic and develop a workable solution that is implemented passed on what "those in the know", so to speak thinks will work best. Enough is enough.

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

So the Libs proposed this and have no intention of actually implementing it, this is news, how, exactly?

It's not news. It was a test - to see if you'd read the link. It was a proposal by the BC Liberal youth wing last year to their youth convention. Obviously the Liberal Party never even proposed this, let alone adopted it.

Quote:
You know full well the Libs pass resolutions and don't implement them.

The Liberals never passed this. Pay more attention. But do you think the NDP should adopt it? It was a serious question.

Quote:
You're a smart-ass.

Well, that's 50% better than some people I know.

 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

for the record...i worked on the street, in brothels, for agencies and for myself....my testimony to the missing women's commission was about working on street...

an inconvienient truth for some around here is that my experiences are far more the norm then they are willing to admit...

......ostly DO pay taxes.....if you want a cra loan or credit card, you need a declared income....most of us already pay.

You do not work on the street now. You may know many people who do but you personally are not offering your services on a street corner. 

I'm sorry that you pay taxes, I know you have to or could get dinged on revenue laws, but I wish you didn't. If prostitution were ever legalized I wouldn't want a penny going to government coffers. 

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

@Pondering say your right and Susan is not representive of street wslkers, not saying she isn't but for arguement sake lets say your right. Why should she have her rights taken away because of what other people do. We don't shut down regular textile factories because some asshole runs a sweat shop. You don't punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

If women were treated with respect there would be no prostitution. Prostitution and textile factories have nothing in common. Have you made any attempt to read the accounts of willing prostitutes? 

As a semi-anarchist you won't ever get it because you place the individual above the collective. Personally I think anarchism leads to serfdom. Serfs were willing workers. 

Are you against minium wage too?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

So the Libs proposed this and have no intention of actually implementing it, this is news, how, exactly?

It's not news. It was a test - to see if you'd read the link. It was a proposal by the BC Liberal youth wing last year to their youth convention. Obviously the Liberal Party never even proposed this, let alone adopted it.

Quote:
You know full well the Libs pass resolutions and don't implement them.

The Liberals never passed this. Pay more attention. But do you think the NDP should adopt it? It was a serious question.

Quote:
You're a smart-ass.

Well, that's 50% better than some people I know.

 

Sure the NDP should. I already said that. "Prostitution" (I hate that word), has been discussed throughout recorded history. Prohibion didn't work, and neither is making this illegal. Just legalitze it already. Enough is enough. Why do waste our time on things like this?

Pondering, in a perfect world, yep, there'd be no prostituion. This isn't a perfect world. Just legalize it already. Same with Marijauna and probably drugs. Educate, explain, regulate. No problem.

As far as I am concerned, this isn't Rocket Science.

Unionist

Pondering - please, please, remove the extra [ / quote ] tag right after the hyperlink in your previous post. Please.

 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Susan, you pretty much nailed it and thanks for sharing it. I think I finally get it now, its about wanting to call women victims; I don't know why I didn't figure this out sooner. Would you be willing to explain why some who call themsevles "progressive feminists" support the Nordic model. Also, what do you think it is that keeps the NDP from just coming out in support of legalization? From my standpoint, we should just legalize this. I don't understand why we have to stay stuck in the Dark Ages. I have no real experience with this in any way, but its time to be pragmatic and develop a workable solution that is implemented passed on what "those in the know", so to speak thinks will work best. Enough is enough.

Progressive feminists support the Nordic model because we see classes of people not just individuals. We know that even willing women who think they are doing just fine end up with PTSD because of the "pretty woman" version of prostitution being peddled. We know that 95% of the women on the street want out. They do not want to be doing what they are doing. They hate it. They feel trapped. 

Why aren't more poor men giving oral to other men? If it's just a job, anyone can do it. Doesn't have to be women. Anuses are tight. Men can use those too. If it's just like a massage anyone can do it. 

Not so fast you say, can't choose your sexual orientation.  No kidding, because sex isn't just like a massage. Even so I think more men could make a good living at it. So men, honestly think to yourself, if you could legally make 100$ an hour giving bjs, would it be worth it to you? If you have a son, and it were legal, would you recommend it as a means of getting through school?  Sexual orientation doesn't matter because the server doesn't need to be enjoying themselves. Like the woman in my previous post, you just have to learn how to suppress your sexual responses. 

Human sexuality is complex and we have reactions we can't easily stop. Sex, without physical damage, can be horrifying or transcending. No other human experience compares. 

Brachina

That's one personal perpective I bet I can find plenty of blogs from prostitutes who feel differently. But it doesn't matter, her enjoyment or not does not change its still her choice not yours. If I fired everyone who hated thier job and disaccoicated from it unemployment would fucking sky rocket. I don't get to do that.

 

 

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

 How can it be divisive when one side is feminist and trusts women to make thier own choice treating them as adults, fighting for thier rights to choice what to with thier lives and bodies and the other side who pretend to be feminists when its convienant, and yet as soon as woman make choices they don't like they snatch the power away from them and hand it over to men who don't give a shit about them and who have a long history of abusing said power, how can one call these people feminists, I just don't understand? You either respect woman amd fight for thier liberty and opportunity or you believe female sexuality is something that needs to be controlled and contained by committee and thugs with guns.

 I’ve mostly gotten over revulsion towards my own body’s responses, probably because I’m better at controlling those responses now. But I still usually want to maintain a distance while I work. I want to maintain my sexual privacy which can be done even while having intercourse. I’m not there for my own sexual pleasure or fulfillment and I don’t like pretending that I am.

http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-contex...

That is from a willing prostitute who wants to keep working. 

She prefers the men who don't care how she feels to the ones that want to believe she is having a good time too.  Subjecting herself to the degradation is easier if she doesn't have to pretend she likes it. 

She uses deliberate dissociation from her body to endure it. Many women start prostitution thinking they can handle it but end up deeply damaged by it. They think it's no different than having sex with a casual pick-up but it is different. 

If sex is no different than a massage then the term "rape" shouldn't even exist. It should just be simple assault because there is nothing different about sex. 

I'm an atheist but I still acknowledge that the human spirit can be harmed by abuse of all sorts not necessarily sexual or physical. 

I believe in community, that we have a moral responsibility to one another and especially to youth and leading youth to believe that prostitution doesn't damage women is lying to them. Prostitution is alluring because it's fast money and it is something you can say to yourself is "just this one time" or "it's worth it" because money is hard to come by. Women quit prostitution and go back to it just like an addiction because they need fast money and they know it's a way they can get it. They don't go back out of genuine choice because if they did they wouldn't regret it. 

Progressives are supposed to know that money represents an unfair advantage that some people hold over others. In fact even non-progressives know that which is why we have minimum wage. We know that people will accept far less when they are in need. We don't say well it is their choice.  

That guy in the papers who accepted money to be kicked in the balls was not making a free choice. I don't think what he did, accepting the money to be kicked in the balls, was morally wrong. I think the man who paid him to kick him in the balls was morally wrong and using an unfair advantage to bribe someone to submit to personal harm. 

Having sex is not like being kicked in the balls but anyone who claims that women in general can turn their normal sexuality off like a light and back on when they are with a boyfriend are self-delusional. 

Maybe some women are capable of that but I do not believe it is the norm. Human sexuality covers a broad range so I have no doubt that some women are not only not damaged, but revel in the profession and gain not only money but a sense of personal satisfaction from feeling that they are helping people. That for some women the experience is positive does not outweight the vast majority of women who are harmed by prostitution even if they are "willingly" choosing it. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering - please, please, remove the extra [ / quote ] tag right after the hyperlink in your previous post. Please.

Damn, I do preview my posts and I still didn't catch it. I am going to have to try harder! Thanks for the heads up. 

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
And yes they are in fact anrchists on this site and I do concider myself a moderate anarchist, although I've fused anarchism to my transhumanism and to form a political idealogy I can transhumanityism (still trying to figure out the best way to spell that).....

 There are a few other elements as well, I'm trying

to draw on the wisdom of ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Theory), as well. Maybe I'll create a thread on my emerging idealogy when I feel ready, I don't want to derail the thread to much.

You would never win me over in a million years but I would find it interesting to read. 

susan davis

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Susan, you pretty much nailed it and thanks for sharing it. I think I finally get it now, its about wanting to call women victims; I don't know why I didn't figure this out sooner. Would you be willing to explain why some who call themsevles "progressive feminists" support the Nordic model. Also, what do you think it is that keeps the NDP from just coming out in support of legalization? From my standpoint, we should just legalize this. I don't understand why we have to stay stuck in the Dark Ages. I have no real experience with this in any way, but its time to be pragmatic and develop a workable solution that is implemented passed on what "those in the know", so to speak thinks will work best. Enough is enough.

i can't explain why they support it, it makes no sense....

we already had "legalization", it sucked, many people died....we want to be decriminalized...we do not need 2 sets of laws to protect people, rape, unlawful confinement, murder, human trafficking, youth exploitation...are already illegal...we need decrim so we can implement our OHS plans and begin to move our labor efforts forward...we cannot do that until the laws will allow for it...

read the sex workers rights forum here on babble, it should explian where sex workers are coming from.

 

Pages