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

712 posts / 0 new
Last post
cco

Pondering wrote:

I agree with hard drugs being illegal for sellers who are not also users.


So you support the elements of prohibition that lead to all the problems of the drug trade, but not the ones that invite media sympathy. I went over this problem with "criminalize the seller" in this thread.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

http://becauseimawhore.com/2011/07/30/consent-to-this/

Another perpective from A different prostitute blog.

 So far it seems to some people you can't give consent if your a woman, if your straight, and if your disabled now. When will th clear power mad bigotry of the prohibitionist/rescue industry end? Will they next be saying racial minorities can't consent  because they pysche has been distorted because of historical oppression. Where does it end? 

So what? The existence of happy consenting "sex workers" does not negate all the harms that accrues to other women. It is valid for society to decide that overall an industry is too damaging and dangerous to police. Race, sexual orientation, disability, gender, are all states of being. Prostitution is not a state of being it is a choice for the women you are describing. 

Women are not losing the right to consent. You are confusing the right to bodily integrity with the right to sell a service. In Canada I have the right to be a surrogate, but not to get paid for it. You may argue that that is wrong, I should be able to get paid, but it is not breaching my human rights to prevent commercialization of surrogacy. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

All of our labor laws are based on the moral judgement that money gives employers an unfair advantage over employees, that money can be coercive.

As a retired labour lawyer I disagree that is the basis of our labour laws. If only they were they would probably be better than the master/servant relationship at common law that forms the underlying legal framework in most of the country.

fortunate

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

 

They could.  It is perfectly possible to have the bill sent directly to the SCC for review.  Justice opposition critics ended up calling for exactly that.    So i guess we did get some late to the party responses as to what their opinions are:  against anything the Harper govt comes up with regardless of what it is or isn't?

fortunate

Gustave wrote:

I think the Bloc's position was mainly influenced by Serge Ménard, a criminalist. Mourani later provided some weight to the other position.

My present feeling:

1 The bill will not be submitted to the SCC as announced by McKay yesterday.

2 The bill will pass as is, however stupid it’s consequences: it will hit the most vulnerable sex workers, doing their business in the open air. But Harper wants to satisfy his conservative base. He told them this is the best he can do: keep prostitutes out of their sight and leave it to their local police to decide what that means. I see no way he would capitulate to the request of the rescue industry to have total decriminalization of street sex workers.

3 Trudeau will impose a vote against the bill on the reasonable ground that he thinks the law is not based on firm constitutional grounds. 

4 The NDP will do the same.

5 Janice Benedict is probably right when she says it might take a few years before a court challenge can be initiated. Wishful thinking of course, coming from a radical prohibitionist, but I guess accurate.

6 The next five years will be difficult business wise for those most in need because of the fear of the clients.

7 Sex work will become more dangerous because of all the reasons provided by the health agencies all over the world. The philosophy of prohibitionists, by the way, is radically opposed to harm reduction.

8 The rescue industry will cash in 20M$. It’s funny how this is translated in the discourse as money going to sex workers. I just can’t see even 10% of the money going to sex workers. The money is for NGO staff dealing with no extra provincial social and health programs. McKay was so hypocrite in his press conference when he said money could go to housing. It’s nice to see him taking engagement in the name of provinces and municipalities.

9 And then everything will go back to the previous state some five years from now, the time necessary for clients to feel the risks are reasonable. Oh no! Wait! They will have been re-educated by information campaigns explaining the pricks they are if they continues to pay for sex. OK then. Prostitution will have stopped to exist. End of the story. Otherwise, I expect to SCC to render its next decision 15 years from now.

I'm so sorry for the sex workers. Now that it is licensed by the government, we may expect the rescue industry to hit them even more than they do now.

 

 

You are so right, especially that final line.  The things i am learning about fraud and corruption in the NGOs rescue industry is absolutely appalling.   That they want to promote the idea of 95% victims, exploitation, and/or that the current laws are insufficient is to get their piece of the $$ action.   If there are few victims, what do they do with themselves all day?   

 

terrytowel wrote:

Listening to Peter McKay he is saying over and over again that he is doing what the Supreme Court asked the government to do. To get women out of the sex trade industry.

That is NOT what the Bedford decision was about. It was about the safety of sex workers and how the law wasn't protecting them.

I think the Cons are taking a page from Rob Ford.

Like when Ford said he saved tax payers a billion dollars.

If you repeat something long enough publicily, people will believe it.

 

Exactly.   That is so not what the SCC intended, that everyone seems to acknowledge that, even to a certain extent, Benedet and Perrin.   It is encouraging that the overwhelming slant of both articles and comments in articles from many news agencies is wtf, omg, what is this BS bill c-36.    The polls, of which even rabble has going on, are also overwhelmingly disapproving of this bill.

http://rabble.ca/polls/what-do-you-think-about-peter-mackays-proposed-se...

 

Brachina wrote:

 No one is excusing those who punch, rob, or rape prostitutes (which btw is not the majority of clients). But prohibition does make it easier for the ones who are thugs, both by driving it underground, and by driving away good clients leaving prostitutes relying on those who hate women instead.

 

 I do agree, that there needs to be antianger training in schools, but I wouldn't restrict them to men, my step mother has a temper that's scary, and my dad's bestfriend, a man who was friendly and gentle, an artist got stabbed in the back by his wife. Everyone should get this training.

 

 I suggest ACT, Acceptance and commitment theapy/training, especially as its useful for more then just anger, but addiction, depression, and all sorts of painful issues.

Swedish sex workers, particularly the street workers, have made it very clear that their risk and danger increased only after the passing of the ban of purchase.   before then, they had more opportunity and more options to reduce their risks.    No one is ever saying that there is no risk to women, but it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what a women does, the risk is there.   Ask the recruits in the military or RCMP if they feel safe, as women, in that environment?   Ask the female students at any university how safe they feel, how many of them have been assaulted.     It is disengenuous at best to say that sex work itself is dangerous, without acknowledging that the world, for women, is dangerous.   

 

Brachina wrote:

 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

 

Do as i have done, and stop reading her posts.  posts by abolitionists are irrelevant and biased at the best of times, and usually rely on falsified data by debunked researchers.    

 

cco wrote:
Porn next, presumably?
   

Is it not part of the bill, along with something about children?  i mean, isn't this bill supposed to be about adult consenual sex work, or not.    

Mercedes blog about porn   http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mercedes-allen/2014/06/could-anti-prosti...

 

 

 

 

 

 

cco

This thread is off-topic enough. We should probably take the drug prohbition talk to that thread. My bad.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

I agree with hard drugs being illegal for sellers who are not also users.

So you support the elements of prohibition that lead to all the problems of the drug trade, but not the ones that invite media sympathy. I went over this problem with "criminalize the seller" in this thread.

The situation in Portugal is not what you claimed. 

The drug policy of Portugal was put in place in 2000, and was legally effective from July 2001. The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, since 2001 all drugs were 'decriminalized' and there is no punishment for possession of drugs if not more than the amount allowed....

In Portugal, recreational use of cannabis is forbidden by law; also the medicinal use is not yet officially recognized (there is debate and legislators have proposed bills in the Portuguese Parliament). Portugal signed all the UN conventions on narcotics and psychotropic to date. With the 2001 decriminalization bill, the consumer is now regarded as a patient and not as a criminal (having the amount usually used for ten days of personal use is not a punishable crime) but repression persists.

I would go farther as I am all for full legalization of cannabis and decriminalization not only of users but also sellers of hard drugs who are users because they are doing it under the duress of addiction. 

None of this pertains to prostitution because prostitution doesn't involve selling an inanimate object and buyers are not addicts, certainly not in the same sense as drug addicts. 

Are you seriously suggesting that the media is sympathetic to the Nordic Model? There is no doubt in my mind that most of the media has glommed on to the much sexier narrative of proteges giving kind and grateful men the boyfriend experience under the tutelage of a an even more kindly madame when they aren't busy serving the disabled out of the goodness of their hearts. 

fortunate

Unionist wrote:

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.

 

 

It is still a good topic for discussion.  I agree, that there is no reason why either political parties, law enforcement, clients, bad guys, sex workers, abolitionists, morality police, no one really, should pretend they do not know the difference between consenting adult sex work and trafficking/coercion.   Bill C-36 and abolitionists really really want you to believe that right now, with the SCC ruling turning over specific laws, that the predators and pimps have free reign because there is no way to find them, and nothing to charge them with.    

voila, they can find them, and they have plenty of laws to charge them with. Anyone who tries to tell you that c-36 is necessary to protect exploited victims is a damn liar.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/29327

List of charges against just one of 8 different people, and keep in mind, these people were caught.  meaning it is entirely possible with current laws and enforcement to 'rescue' victims.  Do you see anything in the new bill that would add to anything in this list?  or would need to be added?

Brian Mackenzie, 22, of Toronto, was charged with: 

1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years 
2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons 
3) Procure to become a Prostitute 
4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution 
5) Exercise Control 
6) Uttering Threats 
7) Forcible Confinement 
8) Telecommunication Agreement to Commit Specific Criminal Offences 
9) Fail to Comply with Probation Order 
10) Make Child Pornography 
11) Import, Distributes, sells or possess for the purpose of Distribute 
12) Possession of Child pornography 
13) Import, Distributes, sells or possess for the purpose of Distribute. 

 

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 agree. I have found nothing but contempt for adult consensual sex workers amongst some of the same people who would argue to infinity about the rights for women to choose anything other than to be a 'slut' aka sex worker. It comes down to that, for many, that these people don't even want to listen to sex workers, and what they have to say. Even tho many points have been debunked, i still see the abolitionist camp posting their misleading (deliberately misleading) information, cherry picking what they want you to see and ignoring what they don't. 90% of sex work in Australia is illegal? Even tho prostitution is legal in Australia? Not credible? Of course not, and no links to where this preposterous story comes from.
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. 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.
i agree, i think the NDP, the Green, and the Bloc all have a great opportunity to do the right thing here. For one thing, they fully have public opinion on their side. They even have some abolitionists willing to concede that the bill is fatally flawed. I'd prefer they take the approach that no new laws are necessary. I've posted above link and list to why that is the case. Aolitionists won't rest until clients can be thrown in jail of course, but maybe they will just have to live without that happening.

 

@ Gustave, i am glad you brought up McDonalds being degrading.  It leads me to posting this link for you (and everyone else, read it you'll be illuminated :)  

https://kwetoday.com/2014/06/04/enddemand-why-bill-c36-is-like-working-a...

The blogger is a former sex worker, in law school now, and First Nations (and female) so she kind of hits all the points presented by the victimization crowd.    Somehow her words have more impact, don't they, knowing that she doesn't consider herself in need of saving, and she believes the new law really won't do that, plus she wants to know why people who don't talk to sex workers think they know what is best for them.     It is a familiar question.   

I choose MacDonald’s because, in our society, it is a stigmatized job. The argument that the antis always bring up is, “Nobody dreams of becoming a prostitute!” And when I was growing up, I heard similar arguments for MacDonald’s (nobody wants to work at MacDonalds!). But you know what, some people do work at MacDonald’s whether they like it or not. The difference is that they can file complaints to address rights violations. Sex workers can’t … and that is because of criminalization. This will be the case under Bill C-36. It won’t help with accessing services, like health care, any better either. And if you are thinking this analogy is ludicrous, good job! That’s the Bill for you: it’s so ludicrous that it’s downright unbelievable!

Anyways, my final point is this: Instead of having everyone suddenly claiming to be a sex work expert, let’s just all sit back and let actual sex workers be the real experts on the issue. Just because you had sex once, doesn’t make you a sex work expert

 

Gustave wrote:
Pondering wrote:
.
Thanks for posting this link. The author has an impressive pedigree: Her text is of no interest but there are many interesting readers comments.
lol, I agree. I wonder if you found my comments. But what i found more interesting, are the comments by Gaye Dalton. Another former sex worker, she admittedly felt that is was the a last resort choice. However, she is quite adamant that the Rescue industry is filled with frauds, and that however anyone else might feel about sex work, denying the right to choose it is what is wrong.

 

Quote:
In most countries these attitudes are more likely to stack up as a mission to use law to coerce sex workers into interaction with useless, irrelevant, often abusive and always overpaid self appointed NGOs. ..... When a women has no choice but sell sex for economic reasons, if you take her market and her income away you give a human being the status of hopeless and destitute. As I understand it, that isn't terribly good for people. Melissa Farley of "Prostitution Research" has been formally condemned for unethical research methodology and frankly, talks a lot of self serving cr*p. The Swedish government just speil out random facts and statistics and announce this shows the Swedish Model works whether it does or not. In reality there is no data from before 1999 for comparision. Besides, nobody is really defining "working". Does a law "work" if it destroys families and lives? Is a law "effective" if it hounds and harasses vulnerable women and leaves them without hope? I shouldn't have thought that was law "working".

and 

Women are not toys for a self appointed NGO sector to play "get rich quick" with and it is overdue that laws reflect that.

I have never seen a single "program" that was remotely relevant to the needs and natures of real sex workers, and that would be worldwide...how could they be predicated upon a philosophy that insists sex workers are incapable of autonomy, agency, opinion and abstract thought?

They do no treat sex workers as the intelligent women they are but as if they were dogs for rescue in the pound, and commodities to trade in.

You can't "argue over the validity of research from both sides" because there *is* no research on the abolitionist side just asserted propaganda, any references, once checked out turn out to be:

1) Irrelevant and/or invalid premise for the statement they are used to support.

2) Do not say anything like what it is claimed they say

3) Are outright fictions

Mostly by chance I have been associated with sex workers in 3 countries over 40 years and was a sex worker myself for several years and I can tell you, as an eyewitness, abolitionism is complete b*llsh*t.

Aboltionism is the biggest active scam on the planet today, coldbloodedly placing hundreds of thousands of innocent people's lives on the line for personal gain.

The "Nordic Model" is one of the most dangerous, deceitful and abusive hings I have seen come down the pike in a very long time.

 

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
Women are not losing the right to consent. You are confusing the right to bodily integrity with the right to sell a service. In Canada I have the right to be a surrogate, but not to get paid for it. You may argue that that is wrong, I should be able to get paid, but it is not breaching my human rights to prevent commercialization of surrogacy.

 

good example

fortunate

Unionist wrote:

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

 

maybe she could remove the entire quote.  It is irrelevant that she can find one single indoor worker who agrees with abolitionists victim theory.    The issue isn't and never has been do all sex workers love their jobs each and every single minute.  The issue is should they be able to work at something that is legal without criminalization of everything they need to work safely.  

Anything else is completely absolutely irrelevant.   

 

Brachina wrote:

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.

 

 

That's my point thanks.  In fact, the blog of maggie mcneil is filled with articles, links and blogs about all sorts of sex workers from all over the place who do enjoy sex work, or at least have made the choice to do it, and enjoy the freedom to make that choice.  Even former sex workers who may not have wanted to make that choice are still opposed to those who want to take it away from those who do.  

 

June 9, 2014 - 9:32pm    Not quoting the post by Pondering, just commenting:  cue for new passive aggressive what is that sarcasm?    When losing the battle, as in people trying to get a straight answer that makes sense, we see pondering ponder about everything except the facts.    If in doubt, bring up the exact same bits of false research, misleading conclusions, and at the end of the day we still have the same issue:   if you don't want to talk to (and in this case listen to) sex workers, then stop talking about what they want, need and think, or who and what they are, or what their history are.   I've got blogs by actual FN former sex workers who disagree with your claims.  Are you going to call them liars, or privileged, or are they simply too self deluded to understand what you are telling them they are supposed to think?   

In other words, we call this slut shaming.  no one is better at it than an abolitionist, but the ones ready to twist the knife in the back of sex workers would be your progressive feminist abolitionists.  Even the nuns of Ruhama still want to save them.    Abolitionists usually want to eradicate them. 

 

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Obviously, many others, not just here, disagree with your predictions. Personally, I think that you are mistaken, and little would change if the laws against prostitution were simply allowed to lapse. Of course I could be wrong, but so could you, and your projections sound surprisingly similar to the "reefer madness" style anti-drug vision. However, this is clearly an empirical question. Do you have any evidence to back up your dire predictions, or simply your "gut" feeling?

 

 

You are quite right, little would change.     Some abolitionists want you to believe that there will be no laws to deal with the things they consider the big issues.  There are plenty of laws, including laws specific to prostitution, that even today are being laid against criminals who seek to exploit people for the purpose of prostitution.    Why aren't these laws sufficent for the abolitionist?   Because they want to control both sex workers, and because at the bottom of it they fear freedom of sex maybe?   You can see a post by me in this thread, or the sex work forum, listing one guy being charged with 13 different offenses, all related to gang run sex work ring.    13 without the SCC overturned laws, and without the C-36 laws?   And the abolitionists want you to believe it couldn't be done.    In fact, police seem more than ever to be able to find the same criminals they couldn't find prior to Dec 2013?    

 

Arthur Cramer wrote:

"Obviously, many others, not just here, disagree with your predictions. Personally, I think that you are mistaken, and little would change if the laws against prostitution were simply allowed to lapse. Of course I could be wrong, but so could you, and your projections sound surprisingly similar to the "reefer madness" style anti-drug vision. However, this is clearly an empirical question. Do you have any evidence to back up your dire predictions, or simply your "gut" feeling?"

Michael, NAILED IT!

I've posted elsewhere probably in this thread, about research into the issue of 'sensationalism' used specifically by abolitionists.   It is a pretty manipulative thing, but it seems to be encouraged by those types.    

theleftyinvestor wrote:

I think it's fair to say that as long as the NDP and Liberals can each cite as broadly supported a reason as possible for opposing this bill - it's unconstitutional, it will be struck down again, it puts women in more danger, etc - they don't have to touch the hot potato of exactly how decriminalized they would want sex work to be if they were writing the legislation themselves.

I don't think any of their supporters will mind if they object to this bill, since it seems very clear that the majority of news articles, the general public polls, and comments in the articles all seem to think the bill needs to be thrown out.  the mps of all opposition parties will have the support of the majority of their voters, and if they take a firm stance on this, may find the old supporters of Harper govt also come over to their side.    All polls i have seen regarding this bill have run at a minimum of 80% against it, and rabble;s poll  is no exception.    

 

Gustave wrote:

 

Large is an impressive term that says nothing. The relation does not work like this, at least according the Farley's data. She had very high % who had suffered all sorts of aggressions in childhood. PTSD may as well be prior to sex work. It is of course very plausible that some sex workers develop PTSD following an armed aggression at work. There is simply no data available on this. We do not know the prevalence, therefore we cannot compare with other groups in the population.

There are a lot of "I believe" in the prohibitionist discourses. McKay believes, his government believes. The path to the useless and harmful laws cemetery is paved with beliefs, religious most of the time.

 

 

Just so we are clear, nothing presented by Farley is to be considered proper research or information that should ever be used to support anything related to sex work or sex workers :)    Just google Melissa Farley discredited, and that should do it.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Pondering, you can't pass judgment about someone else's sincerity on this issue simply by holding up some tactic they don't happen to be working for. If you are really wondering why, perhaps it is a question best addressed to them.

Yes I can. The motivations of abolitionists are in constant question even though abolitionists aren't the ones who want to open brothels to profit off of prostitution. Apparently, the rescue industry pays so well that abolitionists don't actually believe they are fighting a just cause, they are just there to collect a paycheque. All the testimony from survivors is attacked as being self-serving because apparently they too are being paid and if they are not being paid then what they have to say doesn't matter anyway because they don't want to be prostitutes. According to sex work advocates the only people that should be allowed to speak is them. Funny how that works. 

Has corruption occurred at the top of many NGOs, undoubtedly, does that mean every single person supporting or working at those NGOs is tarred with the same brush? The grand majority of abolitionists and survivors don't make a dime from the so-called "rescue industry". Furthermore, even if they did, it would not necessarily make their arguments wrong. 

So yes, under the circumstances I think it is perfectly fair to question the motives of sex work advocates who most certainly have a personal economic interest in the com­mercialization and institutionalization of prosti­tution. Some of them are also paid advocates.

When they fail to promote possibly the only concrete solution that actually makes prostitutes physically safer, one that is well-known, it is valid for me to extrapolate from that that street walkers are not their primary concern. 

In my opinion the primary concern of sex work advocates is the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution as a profit generator. That is the sole model they ever suggest. 

If abolitionists have self-serving interests they are miniscule in comparision with the money to be made in unlimited commercialization of prostitution. 

fortunate

 

theleftyinvestor wrote:

If the legislation will not survive a court challenge then the end result is independent of whether or not the bill passes. If it passes, it will be challenged again (draining huge buckets of money from activist organizations and vulnerable individuals) and once again the courts will strike it down leaving another legal vacuum. If the legislation somehow does not pass, there will also be a similar legal vacuum.

I think my point would be that there is no 'vacuum'.   C-36 is unnecessary.  There are plenty of laws currently available to address the major and minor concerns.   Including sexual assault.   

 

Pondering wrote:

For example, if prostitutes on the DTES strolls were arrested based on a 16 year old being present, even if she is a "working girl", is it reasonable to expect the other women to expect that the girl is underage, or to expect to see minors present? I don't think so. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect that minors are present in the DTES in the areas where the women are actually plying their trade. I think most reasonable people would not expect minors to be present and would expect the police to be picking up the minors, not expecting the women to move along. The women using the stroll would not have a greater responsibility to report minors than any other passerby. 

In the case of underage workers, the law doesn't recognize 'reasonable' expectation.   if they are underage, anyone near them is chargeable.  this is how they have always dealt with underage sex workers, whether it is a client thinking they are of age, or being in a bawdy house with one, or whatever.   

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The way we deal with moral outrage is to create laws against that which we believe to be morally indefensible. 

I don't get the connection actually, between that and why advocates aren't proposing a specific tactic you think they should.

As for the main point, if it was as simple as being outraged and passing a law none of this would be an issue.

On the most basic level, you have to be able to enforce that law. And there have been plenty of historical examples of that being a complete ballsup. Just because someone is morally outraged doesn't make a damned bit of difference.

And beyond that you have plenty of people who don't share that outrage, in fact whose outrage is directed at those who would pass such a law, and tell them what they can and cannot do. You might have a point, but they also have one in asking why extra laws are needed for things which are already covered under existing legislation. There are plenty of things which outrage some people which are not, and in fact should not be criminal.

I just don't see much point, or any solution to be reached by those on both sides of this issue who assume they are absolutely right. Not directing that at you personally, but bringing up moral absolutes kind of begs the question. Of course we have some strong dividing lines on this issue. I seriously doubt one side is going to beat the other into submission so how is a solution to be reached?

 

What is not mentioned is that the 'tactic' refused for consideration that was proposed by sex worker advocates was to decriminalize the communication aspect, and decriminalize bawdy houses, so that these same (minority) street workers could have a safe place to take their clients, around other people, in a community coop brothel, for example.   Why anyone would think that stalls like car washes would be a viable consideration, when it isn't necessary, is just another attempt to misdirect away from what sex workers are saying they need.    

 

Brachina wrote:

 These women survive by instincts and insticts are born from the unconcious mind, which can make judgement far more rapidly utilitizing a great deal of info in auch shorter time then the concious mind.

I can assess someone very well within a one minute phone conversation, however i have the leisure to do that, without fear of police car coming up behind me while i am trying to do that, and having the potential client drive away.  We aren't discussing whether 30 more seconds are enough, on top of one minute, we are discussing whatever amount of time, however long it might be, for any street worker to assess the potential client.    With no communication laws, they can take all the time they need, with no criminalization of clients, they will be able to be choosy because there will be more potential clients to choose from.    I totally fail to see how jumping into their car and have them drive into a stall, away from where they were standing, is a good alternative to what they are saying they want and need.

 

Pondering wrote:

There is not an unbiased lawyer to be found so I have been rereading the judgement that overturned the laws myself and comparing it to the new law. I think the entire thing will survive constitution challenge and I don't think that is due to any bias on my part. 

 

 

Where have you been hiding this sense of humour of yours!    This is one of the most amusing things i have ever read.    thanks for that.  lol

 

Brachina wrote:

http://becauseimawhore.com/2011/07/30/consent-to-this/

 

 Another perpective from A different prostitute blog.

 So far it seems to some people you can't give consent if your a woman, if your straight, and if your disabled now. When will th clear power mad bigotry of the prohibitionist/rescue industry end? Will they next be saying racial minorities can't consent  because they pysche has been distorted because of historical oppression. Where does it end? 

 

I thought everyone already knew that minorities were incapable of not just rising above the patriarchal whatever that keeps women oppressed, but they are double whammied by the racial intolerance that further oppresses.  It is impossible for the progressives to believe that any one of them capable of independent thought or choice.  

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Prohibition and criminalization, whether it be prostitution, alcohol, or drugs, has never resulted in eradication.  Aside from its other negative side effects (part of the reason we are in this current legal semi-vacuum), my point was that to simply pass laws based on moral outrage doesn't actually do much. That solution has been tried in one form or another since laws were first codified.

 

You can't use logic with an abolitionist.  You can also have already provided all the links to all the research, corroborating evidence, and probably 1000 anecdotal testimonials from sex workers, and they'll respond with a post comment saying "Links?"   in other words, i'm going to passive aggressively tell you to F-off, without actually saying it out loud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

damn double

vincentL311

My main problem with the Nordic model is that it is basically......unfair. If an activity is objectionable enough to be a criminal offense for one side of a consensual transaction, then the other party must face some consequence.

I do realize that some Prostitutes are driven by drug addictions and poverty; single mothers trying to support their kids. But if a single father turned to pick pocketing or some other petty crime to support his kids, he would still be thrown in jail. Why should women get a free pass, especially if we consider prostitution a serious enough crime to send a john to prison for 5 years

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
What is not mentioned is that the 'tactic' refused for consideration that was proposed by sex worker advocates was to decriminalize the communication aspect, and decriminalize bawdy houses, so that these same (minority) street workers could have a safe place to take their clients, around other people, in a community coop brothel, for example.   Why anyone would think that stalls like car washes would be a viable consideration, when it isn't necessary, is just another attempt to misdirect away from what sex workers are saying they need.
   

Street prostitution is dominated by women who are mentally ill or drug addicted or otherwise desperate and are in no position to pay 15$ for a room. The majority of street walkers do not end up in brothels, co-op or otherwise, anywhere in the world. We know this because we can see that street prostitution continues even in New Zealand and the population on the street is the same as anywhere else.  Youth, women, trans people, aboriginals, and minorities are all radically over-represented.

Brachina wrote:
 These women survive by instincts and insticts are born from the unconcious mind, which can make judgement far more rapidly utilitizing a great deal of info in auch shorter time then the concious mind.

Yeah well they had lots of time with Pickton partying and doing drugs before he murdered them.  Their spidey senses failed horrifically. Gut instinct might save someone from a mild “bad date” but the only way one would know is if another woman goes with the guy, which will happen, and gets hurt or ripped off or doesn’t come back. So some woman is going to get hurt, it’s just a matter of which one. Abusive men aren’t going to give up because one girl said no. The next one will say yes. 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Pondering, you can't pass judgment about someone else's sincerity on this issue simply by holding up some tactic they don't happen to be working for. If you are really wondering why, perhaps it is a question best addressed to them.

Yes I can.

Well certainly you are capable of doing it; my point is I think you are seizing on one fine point and reading far more into it than is at all fair.

And not to revisit too much another point I don't think we're going to agree on (#400), but moral outrage is not the foundation of all criminal law, in fact I'd say the law is more there to PREVENT the chaos that would reign if people did simply react with outrage to every abuse or dispute. But more to my point, that outrage is often completely irrelevant, and counterproductive when it comes to crafting a law that can be made to work for the common good.

Again, you have people who are equally outraged by what they see as imposing laws on their freedom. And that you might think that is trumped by its effect on the community at large? Still doesn't resolve it.

 

theleftyinvestor

fortunate wrote:

I think my point would be that there is no 'vacuum'.   C-36 is unnecessary.  There are plenty of laws currently available to address the major and minor concerns.   Including sexual assault.   

Well, legal vacuum in the sense that the law of the land would not explicitly address sex work, even if other laws not written for sex work provide obligations and protections. And then any ambiguities get ironed out on a case by case basis, e.g. a judge may be responsible for deciding how various subsections of labour law apply in a sex worker's place of work.

Pondering

vincentL311 wrote:
My main problem with the Nordic model is that it is basically......unfair. If an activity is objectionable enough to be a criminal offense for one side of a consensual transaction, then the other party must face some consequence.

I do realize that some Prostitutes are driven by drug addictions and poverty; single mothers trying to support their kids. But if a single father turned to pick pocketing or some other petty crime to support his kids, he would still be thrown in jail. Why should women get a free pass, especially if we consider prostitution a serious enough crime to send a john to prison for 5 years

It's not actually gender specific. Take minimum wage, an employer paying less than minimum wage is criminalized but not the worker recieving the wage. The person with the money is in the position of power not the reciever. Likewise the John/Jane has the power in a transaction with a prostitute so the burden lands on them.

 

 

vincentL311

Pondering wrote:

vincentL311 wrote:
My main problem with the Nordic model is that it is basically......unfair. If an activity is objectionable enough to be a criminal offense for one side of a consensual transaction, then the other party must face some consequence.

I do realize that some Prostitutes are driven by drug addictions and poverty; single mothers trying to support their kids. But if a single father turned to pick pocketing or some other petty crime to support his kids, he would still be thrown in jail. Why should women get a free pass, especially if we consider prostitution a serious enough crime to send a john to prison for 5 years

It's not actually gender specific. Take minimum wage, an employer paying less than minimum wage is criminalized but not the worker recieving the wage. The person with the money is in the position of power not the reciever. Likewise the John/Jane has the power in a transaction with a prostitute so the burden lands on them.

 

 

 

I dont really see the analogy here, in this case it is clear, whichever way that you look at it that the employee is being exploited by not being paid a livable wage.

I would agree with the Nordic model when it comes to trafficked or co-erced women; in this case it is absolutely clear that she is a victim and the john is pretty much a predator who deserves to be thrown in jail. In the case of a single mother driven to prostitution by poverty I would agree that the john is being unethical by taking advantage of her desperation. And I would be fine if he faced a fine (but not prison time, especially if the woman faced no penalty, thats when it starts to get unfair)

But when it comes to a consesual agreement with a high class, college educated escort who nets a couple of thousand dollars a night and with a millon dollars in the bank, I would find it grossly unfair if she got off scott free and middle or working class john had to go to prison for 6 months.

Gustave

vincentL311 wrote:
 In the case of a single mother driven to prostitution by poverty I would agree that the john is being unethical by taking advantage of her desperation. And I would be fine if he faced a fine (but not prison time, especially if the woman faced no penalty, thats when it starts to get unfair)

There are a lot of single moms who choose prostitution for obvious reasons:

1 It precisely drives them out of poverty;

2 It gives them more time to spend their kids;

3 They control their working hours;

4 They can quit the job whenever they want.

If I wanted to buy a sexual service, I would find more ethical to give my business to them then any other sex worker.

Brachina

 Its not women, drugs, and achohol, its sexual services, drug abuse (includibg booze).

 

 You get a service you don't take her home and get to keep her, anymore then you do a plumber (side note does plumbers crack count as a sexual service? ;p

 

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

POWER & Pivot: [url=http://www.powerottawa.ca/Briefing_Note_C-36_Social_Science_Evidence.pdf... Workers and Bill C-36: Analysis based on Social Science Evidence[/url]

fortunate

vincentL311 wrote:

 

I dont really see the analogy here, in this case it is clear, whichever way that you look at it that the employee is being exploited by not being paid a livable wage.

I would agree with the Nordic model when it comes to trafficked or co-erced women; in this case it is absolutely clear that she is a victim and the john is pretty much a predator who deserves to be thrown in jail. In the case of a single mother driven to prostitution by poverty I would agree that the john is being unethical by taking advantage of her desperation. And I would be fine if he faced a fine (but not prison time, especially if the woman faced no penalty, thats when it starts to get unfair)

But when it comes to a consesual agreement with a high class, college educated escort who nets a couple of thousand dollars a night and with a millon dollars in the bank, I would find it grossly unfair if she got off scott free and middle or working class john had to go to prison for 6 months.

 

I don't agree that the client is a predator in the case of someone who is being advertised as willing, of age and consensual.  He can only be responsible for checking the age, not whether she is there willingly or not, he can't determine that from an advertisement, in other words.     It is true tho, that recent cases of trafficked and coerced teenagers (by other female teens) were caught because of a client, not in spite of them.    he responds to an ad that makes statements about the sex worker, and doesn't have the ability to psychically know that she isn't as advertised. 

The Nordic model won't change the fact that the real exploiter is the one who foced, coerced, and confined her in the first place.  And existing laws are clearly more than adequate to deal with the exploiters.    Whatever was the concern, it is addressed, from trafficking, as well.   Even 17 year olds involved in this recent case, Project Dove, are being charged.  Just as the 14 year old girl in Chilliwack a couple of years ago, and the 16-17 year olds in Ontario last year.    There are laws and resources for everything any abolitionist or politician will claim are the issues and problems.  C-36 has nothing new for these issues.  It is primarily set up to control, restrict and potentially endanger the indoor worker as well as further marginalize the outdoor workers. 

http://www.powerottawa.ca/Briefing_Note_C-36_Social_Science_Evidence.pdf

Gustave

Here is the latest Angus Reid poll on the subject (june 6-7, 2014)

http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ARG-C-36-Prost...

On interesting aspect of it is the high proportion of women who would criminalize the sellers, 49%, compared to those who would not, 40%. That inconsistency with the purpose of the law is also observed in Sweden.

Pondering

vincentL311 wrote:
...... And I would be fine if he faced a fine (but not prison time, especially if the woman faced no penalty, thats when it starts to get unfair)

But when it comes to a consesual agreement with a high class, college educated escort who nets a couple of thousand dollars a night and with a millon dollars in the bank, I would find it grossly unfair if she got off scott free and middle or working class john had to go to prison for 6 months.

The act of buying sex is not illegal because it produces harm in every single instance. It is enough that it produces a lot of harm for many women. Drunk driving is illegal regardless of whether or not you crash into anything. Saying it's 4 AM and there is no one on the street but you changes nothing. You still broke the law. It's not up to the individual to decide that in a particular situation no harm was caused. That the escort appears to or does have a lot of money doesn't mean she wasn't caused physcological harm. 

The john knows he is breaking the law by offering or agreeing to pay the escort in exchange for sexual services. 

fortunate wrote:
 C-36 has nothing new for these issues.  It is primarily set up to control, restrict and potentially endanger the indoor worker as well as further marginalize the outdoor workers. 

http://www.powerottawa.ca/Briefing_Note_C-36_Social_Science_Evidence.pdf

That is not what the report says. Bill C-36 is "set-up" to prevent prostitution. I dispute other aspects of the report but it's focus is on predicting effects not the intent of the law. 

 

Pondering

Gustave wrote:

Here is the latest Angus Reid poll on the subject (june 6-7, 2014)

http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ARG-C-36-Prost...

Damn, I was afraid this would be the reaction. In answer to the following question:

Now we'd like to ask your opinions on some specific aspects of the sex trade, and whether you think they should be legal or illegal: Selling sex in public places where children might be

89% of people answered that it should be illegal. That is major support for the most harmful provision:

(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; 

The rest of the public is sufficiently divided on the other questions and most opinions for legitimization are casual. They just swallowed the most simplistic pro argument without considering the reality. 

Canadians will not accept the New Zealand model or anything close to it. I hope abolitionists will be able to convince the parties to fight that clause but after this poll I doubt. I predict full steam ahead all parties on board at vote time. 

fortunate

Gustave wrote:

Here is the latest Angus Reid poll on the subject (june 6-7, 2014)

http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ARG-C-36-Prost...

On interesting aspect of it is the high proportion of women who would criminalize the sellers, 49%, compared to those who would not, 40%. That inconsistency with the purpose of the law is also observed in Sweden.

 

I think it isn't a surprise how thrilled the Rescue industry is by the $20,000,000 the govt wants to give them.  You can be sure they will be 'rescuing' sex workers left, right and centre, even if it means forcibly confining, trafficking or coercing them into their locked 'rescue' centres lol.     Oh, right, those are laws abolitionists claim don't exist, and therefore are not available to be used against the real criminal exploiters.    no wonder they are happy.   

 

Comments copied from this article http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/canadas-new-prostitution-bill-is-far-from...

 

Annabelle Malo ·   Top Commenter · Concordia University>> Trisha Baptie:"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." <<

So you just want prostitutes to be broke after their clients have been arrested, you want to force them to take more risks because their clients are now worried about being arrested...but you draw the line at them facing charges. Well, aren't you nice. You want to punish and shame them (for their own good, of course) but facing charges, well, that's just going too far and unacceptable. OK Got it. Good to know.

>> Baptie says she feels hopeful that Canada's proposed legislation could enable prostituted women to develop better relationships with the police. "If prostituted women aren't breaking the law, there's nothing holding them back from approaching the police if they need help." << 

How in the world is having laws that mean their clients are breaking the law going to make these women likely to want to 'develop better relationships with the police'? Seriously are you really all that disconnected from reality?? SMH.

>> Hilla Kerner:"...[the proposed law] doesn't fully address the compounding inequalities of race, class, and gender in prostitution." <<

I don't understand. How do you 'address the compounding inequalities of race, class and gender in prostitution" with a law??

>> Janine Benedet: "If we really believe that women in prostitution are overwhelmingly exploited and coerced into prostitution through poverty, sexism, and racism, the location of where they are being exploited should not determine whether or not we criminalize them," <<

Right. But you don't think that criminalizing their clients is going to accomplish the same and affect
" primarily to women on the street, many whom are Aboriginal." ?

 

John Dinsmore · Manchester Business School It's silly to think that criminalizing the demand side of sex work won't also harm the sex workers themselves. Targeting their customers means targeting their income, so all this bill does is move the state from committing physical violence against sex workers to committing economic violence against them. That's not much of an improvement. The Nordic model doesn't work. Sex work still exists in Nordic countries, but it has been driven underground because sex workers need to protect their clients from arrest if they want to maintain their income. This exposes them to greater levels of violence.

 

Bob Kyuss ·   Top Commenter · Victoria School Of Performing And Visual ArtsThe Nordic model is a failure, and only appears to have reduced prostitution because it has been driven underground. Naturally those governments who have adopted it would disagree, because they cannot admit they have been wrong.
Anyone who cannot distinguish between workers (of any kind) that are being exploited and those who choose their jobs (again, I work because of money, not for any other reason...do i get a rescue industry too?), then they are an idiot. You would think people who claim to speak for sex workers might actually listen to some, but then, they might say something the abolitionists don't want to hear.

 

And finally,from people who have experienced the Nordic Model, http://theconversation.com/the-nordic-model-of-prostitution-law-is-a-myth-21351

Gustave

Opinion polls on prostitution are very tricky to interpret. Most people have virtually no direct knowledge of it, very low interest and attention to it and rarely a clear opinion on the appropriate public policies. Poll designs (information provided, wordings, question ranking, etc.) influence the results. I’m not criticizing this one. Angus Read probably did the best possible design to explain what the government intends to do and ask clear questions.

The poll shows a very large disapproval of the law by the NDP and the Liberal electors. But we can’t tell on what grounds they oppose. Unfortunately the results for the main variables (sections of the bill) are not broken down by party affiliation. It would have been useful for the party leaders.

Pondering wrote:
Canadians will not accept the New Zealand model or anything close to it.

I’m not so sure about that. The poll was not designed to answer that question.

When asked simply the question should prostitution be legal, Canadians have consistently said yes in large majorities in the past, opposing prohibition. Some may think that Canadians would hate the New Zealand model because brothels would pop-up in the landscape. Well, they do not get support in this poll, nor any other in the past. Canadians think brothel should be legal, 47% against 41%. 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
(addressed to Susan) Would you be willing to explain why some who call themsevles "progressive feminists" support the Nordic model.

I didn't think Susan was the one to explain so I said this. 

Pondering wrote:
"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."

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering, what about those Professionals who say they don't want Mordic Model implementation? Do Progressive women think they know what is good for these women? And this naturally leads to another question, do Prossevive women think they know what's good for women other then themselves? Are you sure that's Progressive?

You asked why people who calls themselves progressive feminists would support the Nordic Model. I answered you. I am not going to waste time justifying Sweden as a progressive feminist country which decided that the Nordic Model was the most progressive feminist position to take. If Sweden feminism isn't progressive to you, fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I won't try to convince you otherwise but don't mistake that for agreement. Personally I don't find your argument that Swedish feminists aren't progressive very convincing so I am not too worried. 

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Clearly she is suggesting she understands why Female Sex Workers do what they do, regardless of what they say about why they do, even when it doesn't match with Pondering's assertions, better, the Sex Workers, themselves.

No, I was referring to street prostitutes not female sex workers. Street prostitutes are a much smaller population than female sex workers.

You are not here to have a conversation about prostitution. You aren't interested in learning any new information even though you admit you don't know much about it.  You are here to pick a fight. I used to have respect for you even though you had none for me because I thought you were sincere and genuinely cared about the well-being of disadvantaged people. Maybe you do but I don't see it anymore. Now we are even. I don't respect you either. 

Pondering, first off, and just in case you hadn't figure this out, I don't give a damn what you think of me. I don't care if you respect me or not. Frankly, that's completely irrelevant. You don't respect, me really? Big deal! I'm hearthbroken.

I'll tell you what my issue is with YOU. You seem to think that you have a duty to do what seems to me to be one of "saving SEX WORKERS" from themselves. You know, Matrarchy is just as bad as Patricarchy. I can only tell you that Sex Workers seem to want to be able to respond to this issue as they see fit. You seem to say, they don't know what they are doing and they have to be, basically, saved from themselves.

Sorry, I don't think women deciding what is best forother women is any better for them is any better then me deciding what is best for women. OK, so I said Prostitution, really, this is about the idea of Sex workers. Based simply on what I have read and the small amount of contact I have had on twitter with self-identified Female Sex Workers, I think it is an open question as to wether they actually WANT, or even feel, they need, your help. At least, based on the condiitions you choose to define, freely on your own.

As to what you arer implying is my misogyny towards, "progressive women", sorry, I am not willing to accept because you say so that thinking the way you seem to do, is progressive. When I was a kid, many years ago, I felt as a Jew, I knew what was right regarding Israel and the Palestinians, soley because I was Jewish and the critics, non-Jews, weren't Jews; that is ciruclar reason. It may reasonate well among your peer group, but when I took the time to actually look around, I saw this for what it was. A faulted set of intellectual justifications that were open to question, regardless of whatever validity I BELELIVED they had, simply because people had a right to their opinion, regardless of who or what they are.

Many years before you and I were born, people like my long departed mother (blesssed be her memory) were fighting for the rights of all women, and welcomed the full input and challenge of their male peers, without questioning what was being said because they were male. The strenght of argument is intrinsic to itself, it will withstand challenge. If you feel that you need to set a scene were some people are disqualifed, simply because of who they are, all that says is you know your argument is faulty.

There has been plenty of counter to you on this board by many who are easily wiser, and more intellectually capable and superior to me. I don't know, are they "full of it as well", simply because you say so.

I say it to you again. You ought to have a good look in the mirror. Over my long life, including my time in the Service, I was challeged by many, femaile and male alike, wheo easily were and still are your and my, superior. But one thing remains, they NEVER dismissed me because of who I was. I am not dismissing you for who you are, as a person, but I am for the intellectual framework you are trying to advance. It is faulted beyong repair or recognition. I am very comfortable telling you that NO ONE who defines themserlves as progressive would be prepared to tell anyone what was best for them. I am not dismissing you because you are a women. I am dismissing you and any other progressive women, who think they are best qualifed to decide what is best for others. That is the point. You don't seem to get it.

And I say it again, because as an ex Naval Officer, I don't like how you have spoken to me and the consistently insulting, dismissive, and partornizing tone you have used, and remain oblivious of having done so; I could sincerely care less about what you think of me. But I will tell you what, I don't take that from anyone, including you. It happens nothing to do with your gender. It has everything to do with YOU. Figure it out, and start paying attention.

quizzical

oh my .........

vincentL311

fortunate wrote:

I don't agree that the client is a predator in the case of someone who is being advertised as willing, of age and consensual.  He can only be responsible for checking the age, not whether she is there willingly or not, he can't determine that from an advertisement, in other words.     It is true tho, that recent cases of trafficked and coerced teenagers (by other female teens) were caught because of a client, not in spite of them.    he responds to an ad that makes statements about the sex worker, and doesn't have the ability to psychically know that she isn't as advertised. 

 

It might seem harsh, but I would like to consider it as a point of compromise in this difficult and divisive issue, when all sides are entrenched in the positions and determined to get their entire way without any consideration for opposing viewpoints.

Like 'I didn't know she was underage' is not automatically a defense, 'I did not know she was trafficked' is not automatically a defense unless the john can show that he took reasonable steps to ascertain that, or if discovered it too late, took reasonable steps to inform the authorities.

I would also be willing to consider the criminalization of men who frequent street prostitutes, if for no other reason than to encourage both the sex worker and the client to take their activity indoors where it is safer and out of sight.

vincentL311

Gustave wrote:

Here is the latest Angus Reid poll on the subject (june 6-7, 2014)

http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ARG-C-36-Prost...

On interesting aspect of it is the high proportion of women who would criminalize the sellers, 49%, compared to those who would not, 40%. That inconsistency with the purpose of the law is also observed in Sweden.

I think the gender disparity when it comes to prostitution laws is due to the fact that prostitution does lower the price of sex for men generally speaking. Dont mean to be offensive, ofcourse views on prostitution are diverse and based on a lot more than simple gender self interest; there is a large minority of men who oppose it as well.

vincentL311

Pondering wrote:

The act of buying sex is not illegal because it produces harm in every single instance. It is enough that it produces a lot of harm for many women. Drunk driving is illegal regardless of whether or not you crash into anything. Saying it's 4 AM and there is no one on the street but you changes nothing. You still broke the law. It's not up to the individual to decide that in a particular situation no harm was caused. That the escort appears to or does have a lot of money doesn't mean she wasn't caused physcological harm. 

The john knows he is breaking the law by offering or agreeing to pay the escort in exchange for sexual services. 

I don't agree with the analogy again. A drunk driver could still kill inocent bystandars at 4 AM, even if his odds are marginally lower common sense would dictate that he faces the same consequences for his actions as a drunk driver at a more crowded hour.

On the other hand a client who sees a high class escort knows with certainty that she is not in the same position as a trafficked or drug addicted street worker who has been co-erced by a pimp. This idea of 'physcological' harm, it seems to suggest that any woman who has a lot of casual but consensual sex outside of an intimate or romantic relationship suffers some form of harm. Are there any studies or research to back this up?

How does it stack up against the real harm that a sex worker would face as a result of working in more dangerous conditions because of criminalization? And if you are going to justify ruining the life of a client, which is what would happen if he was sent to jail and hit with a criminal record for the rest of his life, I would like this 'physcological harm' to be something more than a narrow ideological concept in radical feminist circles.

 

 

Gustave

vincentL311 wrote:
I think the gender disparity when it comes to prostitution laws is due to the fact that prostitution does lower the price of sex for men generally speaking. 

In their "Theory of Prostitution", Edlund and Korn say it from the other side perspective:

"Combine this [that one normally cannot be both a wife and a whore] with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone-marriage market earnings,”

 

fortunate

vincentL311 wrote:

fortunate wrote:

I don't agree that the client is a predator in the case of someone who is being advertised as willing, of age and consensual.  He can only be responsible for checking the age, not whether she is there willingly or not, he can't determine that from an advertisement, in other words.     It is true tho, that recent cases of trafficked and coerced teenagers (by other female teens) were caught because of a client, not in spite of them.    he responds to an ad that makes statements about the sex worker, and doesn't have the ability to psychically know that she isn't as advertised. 

 

It might seem harsh, but I would like to consider it as a point of compromise in this difficult and divisive issue, when all sides are entrenched in the positions and determined to get their entire way without any consideration for opposing viewpoints.

Like 'I didn't know she was underage' is not automatically a defense, 'I did not know she was trafficked' is not automatically a defense unless the john can show that he took reasonable steps to ascertain that, or if discovered it too late, took reasonable steps to inform the authorities.

I would also be willing to consider the criminalization of men who frequent street prostitutes, if for no other reason than to encourage both the sex worker and the client to take their activity indoors where it is safer and out of sight.

 

I didn't know she was underage is not currently a defense.  The sex worker either is or she is not underage, it isn't something he can get out of should he have a session with one.   It also is chargeable in the cases of police doing online ads where they then specifically tell the people responding that she is 16 or 17.  However, the last time they did this, the only arrested two, one of whom had no clue (ESL immigrant) what the minimum legal age in Canada was (different from his home country) plus they had him asking if her age was legal, to which he was told yes, or he wouldn't have gone, and even then he claims he went to make sure she was OK, whether that is true or not, I'd like to think if guys are being told by someone she is underage that they too would go to see her and make sure she is OK.  However, they should just call police of course.  

Anyways, re: trafficked, if police can't determine if someone is or isn;t, just by asking them and they deny it, it still shouldn't be a criminal offense for the clients (johns).    The criminal is the person procuring and forcing the sex worker, that is the obvious criminality.    It is a deflection of responsibilty and a smoke screen to say that clients now have to be responsible.  However, you can certainly educate them thru ads on the internet which will no longer be legal if C-36 goes thru, about what to look for and what to ask, and where to go if they suspect someone is trafficked. 

 

which of course NO ONE is going to do if C-36 passes and they are considered criminals for seeking the services of sex workers.    Funny thing, if you admit you saw and paid someone, the last thing you are likely to do is call the cops and tell them that.

 

I went to look for the article Gustave mentioned:   http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/324390?__redirected

i can't say i understand why they studied to compare these two things, but they did a lot of research on both things lol   Plus the formulas are rather interesting

1. Can She Cook?

This subsection considers a third occupation for females: full‐time housewife, which pays  To simplify the exposition we shall assume that this is a possibility for any woman. Let  (i can't copy the formula, it is an image)

We shall assume that  is financed out of the  that is spent on the other good; that is, we assume that the full‐time housewife does not provide more sex or children than the working wife, and thus the willingness to pay for a housewife stems from the goods and services she produces and the husband would otherwise have purchased on the market. In this case, the male side is unchanged. For the housewife option to be relevant, that is,  it must be the case that  Female income is now given by  (see fig. 5). Women who earn more than  will work and marry. Among the  women who do not hold a regular job, a random  are prostitutes and the remaining  are housewives.

 

 

fortunate

ON topic, twitter feeds here

Copying comments by the mps

 

https://twitter.com/AfterBedford

Boivin: 'human trafficking is ALREADY in the Criminal Code"

Boivin: 'what i've heard from a lot of sexworkers is that they use practices to vet clients'

Boivin: 'limiting the ability to advertise will send prostitutes out into the streets"

Boivin: 'what's in #C36 is completely disproportionate in nuisance v safety'

Boivin: #C36 doesn't work to meet the legislative goal to hit one's right to life, liberty & personal safety

Boivin: #C36 is imposing dangers upon those in prostitution; preventing safety measures

Boivin: #C36 doesn't make prostitution illegal, so ppl are skating around the issue

 

Other info

 

https://twitter.com/kwetoday  Former sex worker and FN, currently law student

Then #c36 = criminalization of Indigenous women and girls

If that's #c36 starting point then imagine what that will translate to for Indigenous women: child apprehension + forced rehabilitation.

 

re: Liberals, this article seems to indicate they are the only hope for sex workers against C-36

http://www.straight.com/news/660346/justin-trudeau-only-hope-sex-workers

 

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

fortunate wrote:

ON topic, twitter feeds here

Copying comments by the mps

 

https://twitter.com/AfterBedford

Boivin: 'human trafficking is ALREADY in the Criminal Code"

Boivin: 'what i've heard from a lot of sexworkers is that they use practices to vet clients'

Boivin: 'limiting the ability to advertise will send prostitutes out into the streets"

Boivin: 'what's in #C36 is completely disproportionate in nuisance v safety'

Boivin: #C36 doesn't work to meet the legislative goal to hit one's right to life, liberty & personal safety

Boivin: #C36 is imposing dangers upon those in prostitution; preventing safety measures

Boivin: #C36 doesn't make prostitution illegal, so ppl are skating around the issue

 

Other info

 

https://twitter.com/kwetoday  Former sex worker and FN, currently law student

Then #c36 = criminalization of Indigenous women and girls

If that's #c36 starting point then imagine what that will translate to for Indigenous women: child apprehension + forced rehabilitation.

 

re: Liberals, this article seems to indicate they are the only hope for sex workers against C-36

http://www.straight.com/news/660346/justin-trudeau-only-hope-sex-workers

 

 

Mr Trudeau endorses the Nordic Midel and has said so publicly on several occassions. My understanding is there significant opposition to the Nordic Model among Sex Workers. On what is Mr. Smith basing his judgement. This mindless cheeleading of Trudeau without actually taking note of where he stands and hoping he will do the right thing instead is slowly driving me insane. What nonsense Mr. Smith.

fortunate

Randall Garrison, the NDP mp for Esquimalt has come out to say he will not vote for this bill.    He is basing his decision he says on discussing the issue with PEERs in Victoria, which is a non-judgmental sex worker support organization with about 450 members (according to him)   He met with several representatives, got a lot of information from them, a phone call, and a letter, and based on that and other things (he also brings up several times that if the govt is so confident that C-36 will pass inspection by the SCC, then they should have NO problem submitting it to them as is.    

He was also curious about why they won't do that :)

And to eliminate any accusations he is a privileged white male entitling himself to paid sex with trafficked children, he's gay, Ok, so let's just shut that down now

So i do finally have a confirmed story with the Liberal press release (previously what i had was a wikileaksporn site which i edited out as possibly inappropriate lol)

 

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/c-36-and-the-prostitution-debate/

 

The Liberal Party of Canada is opposing C-36. We have serious concerns that this legislation fails to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the requirements outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bedford decision. We are also concerned that this legislation fails to adequately protect the health and safety of vulnerable people, particularly women.

We have called on the government to produce evidence of the legal opinions they sought in drafting this legislation; the Conservatives continue to refuse to release this information.

We also note that the government has refused to submit this legislation as a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to determine its constitutional validity.

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
When I was a kid, many years ago, I felt as a Jew, I knew what was right regarding Israel and the Palestinians, soley because I was Jewish and the critics, non-Jews, weren't Jews; that is ciruclar reason.

So because you, as a kid, were ignorant, grown feminist abolitionists today must be too. Feminist groups across the world including in Sweden support the abolitionist view therefore it does not define a feminist woman as being non-progressive to support abolition although we can also support other positions.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I am not dismissing you for who you are, as a person, but I am for the intellectual framework you are trying to advance.

I’m dismissing you because you are a man who admits he doesn’t know what he is talking about but still thinks he can pass judgement over abolitionists on a gendered topic that impacts primarily women.

 

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Sorry, I don't think women deciding what is best forother women is any better for them is any better then me deciding what is best for women...... I am very comfortable telling you that NO ONE who defines themserlves as progressive would be prepared to tell anyone what was best for them.  

That’s what the entire legal system does. It’s what women are doing when we condemn FGM. We are telling women what is and isn’t good for them. Unions are a quintessential example of progressive imposition when employees are forced to pay dues even though they do not want union membership. By your measure “right to work” legislation is more progressive because it doesn’t tell anyone what’s best for them.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
And I say it again, because as an ex Naval Officer,

A Naval Officer! That changes everything. The military has such an excellent record of how they treat women within the forces and during invasions and occupations.

You make it impossible to not be condescending due to your insistence on personalizing discussion and passing judgement over feminist abolitionists, or using abolitionism as a tool with which to attack me because you don’t like my politics. Presenting your military rank as though it gives you some sort of credibility on this topic is a reflection of your patriarchal notion that it means you deserve some sort of deference for it.

That might be true if we were discussing military maneuvers but it means less than nothing when it comes to appropriate use of female sexuality. 

 

Pondering

Gustave wrote:
vincentL311 wrote:
I think the gender disparity when it comes to prostitution laws is due to the fact that prostitution does lower the price of sex for men generally speaking. 

In their "Theory of Prostitution", Edlund and Korn say it from the other side perspective:

"Combine this [that one normally cannot be both a wife and a whore] with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone-marriage market earnings,”

And the MRA rides to the rescue! Recent scientific advancements have revealed that women enjoy sex too. Marriage in deeply patriarchal societies more closely resembles slavery than prostitution but yes, prostitution is an extension of that patriarchal view of women and their sexuality as commodities for trade. “Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?”

It is possible for a woman to be both a “whore”, as they so respectfully put it, and a wife at the exact same time. I have no doubt that there are many otherwise typical and not so typical housewives that have turned to prostitution to cover a gas bill. 

 

Pondering

vincentL311 wrote:
I would also be willing to consider the criminalization of men who frequent street prostitutes, if for no other reason than to encourage both the sex worker and the client to take their activity indoors where it is safer and out of sight.

That is the old nuisance model that was declared unconstitutional. Street prostitutes are generally not choosing between indoor and outdoor locations. These are among the most marginalized women in Canada, the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the homeless, minors of both sexes.  That is even truer now that the internet and cell phones are at hand for making contact.

The reason for the new laws is not that prostitution is a nuisance; it is that prostitution is inherently dangerous and exploitative.

Whether or not you agree that it is, that is the reasoning.

 

fortunate

That is the excuse, just as the prior laws were presented with the excuse that they were for the protection of sex workers.  It became very clear only later that in fact they were NIMBY laws.  

I am wondering why no abolitionist will address the fact that all the laws in the criminal code were not overturned by the SCC, only one full section (210), and two subsections  212 (1)(j),   213 (1) (c) 

Which one of these remaining laws is insufficient to deal with prostitution (other than the ridiculous criminalization of purchase of services)  Keeping in mind the BOLDED parts are the ONLY laws the SCC have removed from this section of the criminal code.

 

Quote:
210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. (Amended to 5 years, 2010)[24]
Landlord, inmate, etc.
(2) Every one who (a) is an inmate of a common bawdy-house, (b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or (c) as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Notice of conviction to be served on owner
(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court shall cause a notice of the conviction to be served on the owner, landlord or lessor of the place in respect of which the person is convicted or his agent, and the notice shall contain a statement to the effect that it is being served pursuant to this section.
Duty of landlord on notice
(4) Where a person on whom a notice is served under subsection (3) fails forthwith to exercise any right he may have to determine the tenancy or right of occupation of the person so convicted, and thereafter any person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) in respect of the same premises, the person on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) unless he proves that he has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the recurrence of the offence.

Transporting person to bawdy-house

211. Every one who knowingly takes, transports, directs, or offers to take, transport or direct, any other person to a common bawdy-house is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Procuring  212.

(1) Every one who(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prostitution,(c) knowingly conceals a person in a common bawdy-house,(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that person in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, directs or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,(g) procures a person to enter or leave Canada, for the purpose of prostitution,(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,(i) applies or administers to a person or causes that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual intercourse with that person, or(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another personin circumstances of exploitation (italicized phrase appended by the Ontario Court of Appeal - see notes above)is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Living on the avails of prostitution of person under eighteen
(2) Despite paragraph (1)(j), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.

Aggravated offence in relation to living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of eighteen years
(2.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(j) and subsection (2), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person under the age of eighteen years, and who (a) for the purposes of profit, aids, abets, counsels or compels the person under that age to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally, and (b) uses, threatens to use or attempts to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person under that age, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years but not less than five years.

Presumption
(3) Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(j) and subsections (2) and (2.1).

Offence — prostitution of person under eighteen
(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

Offence in relation to prostitution

213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle, (b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definition of “public place”
(2) In this section, “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
When I was a kid, many years ago, I felt as a Jew, I knew what was right regarding Israel and the Palestinians, soley because I was Jewish and the critics, non-Jews, weren't Jews; that is ciruclar reason.

So because you, as a kid, were ignorant, grown feminist abolitionists today must be too. Feminist groups across the world including in Sweden support the abolitionist view therefore it does not define a feminist woman as being non-progressive to support abolition although we can also support other positions.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
I am not dismissing you for who you are, as a person, but I am for the intellectual framework you are trying to advance.

I’m dismissing you because you are a man who admits he doesn’t know what he is talking about but still thinks he can pass judgement over abolitionists on a gendered topic that impacts primarily women.

 

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Sorry, I don't think women deciding what is best forother women is any better for them is any better then me deciding what is best for women...... I am very comfortable telling you that NO ONE who defines themserlves as progressive would be prepared to tell anyone what was best for them.  

That’s what the entire legal system does. It’s what women are doing when we condemn FGM. We are telling women what is and isn’t good for them. Unions are a quintessential example of progressive imposition when employees are forced to pay dues even though they do not want union membership. By your measure “right to work” legislation is more progressive because it doesn’t tell anyone what’s best for them.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
And I say it again, because as an ex Naval Officer,

A Naval Officer! That changes everything. The military has such an excellent record of how they treat women within the forces and during invasions and occupations.

You make it impossible to not be condescending due to your insistence on personalizing discussion and passing judgement over feminist abolitionists, or using abolitionism as a tool with which to attack me because you don’t like my politics. Presenting your military rank as though it gives you some sort of credibility on this topic is a reflection of your patriarchal notion that it means you deserve some sort of deference for it.

That might be true if we were discussing military maneuvers but it means less than nothing when it comes to appropriate use of female sexuality. 

 

Pondering, WHATEVER!

The CF hds been promoting women to Command positions and Senior Ranks, at a serious and deliberate rate long before it was fashionable to do so in either Civil Serive, NGO, or Private Industry circles. I was, and remain, very proud of this and always supported it, even though it likely affected my career progression. Just as with everything else  you have posted, you display a complete and continued, willingness to arrognatly comment on things about which you know nothing. I am not surprised.

More deliberate ontuseness regarding my comments about Israel. My point is that unlike you, I am able to realize that just because I am what I am, that doesn't mean that fact, that accident of birth, makes me singularly qualifed to pass judgement. In your case, you think, soley, because of your gender, you must be considered the authority. All that shows is you know your argument is weak.

And I stand by what I said; where do "Progressive Women", get off telling Professional Sex Workers what is best for them? Matriarchy is no better then Patriarchy. They DON'T WANT YOU, PONDERING, telling them what is best for them. Got it?

Seriously, try to really start paying attention.

Gustave

fortunate wrote:
And to eliminate any accusations he is a privileged white male entitling himself to paid sex with trafficked children, he's gay, Ok, so let's just shut that down now

By the way, shouldn’t gays be submitted to the same no-solicitation-where-kids-could-be found restriction? I'm quite sure many conservatives presently slashing sex workers think it should apply to gays.

Cause what's basically at stake here, applying to both, is the corruption of our fragile kids. Religion and some conservative radical feminism share a common ground in the way they see kids. Kids have to be taught rigidly about moral values, be guided on the path to a good life and become perfectly dedicated members of their community.

I’m not siding with the 90% of Canadians polled on this issue. I have not the slightest problem with kids seeing prostitutes working on the street. What’s the drama? Is it as if the kids will suffer trauma from that vision and have their moral constructs totally destroyed in the process? I think that’s taking kids, any age from 4 to 18, for idiots. They don’t even see the prostitutes and they are not at all interested in them. I never taught my kids moral values. They have built their own set and it’s as good as mine. They are perfectly able to use it in order to interpret the real world we live in.

Steet prostitution is on the decline in Canada. It causes very few problems over all. Those can be further reduced with intelligent action. A brutal attack on the the livelyhood of street prostitutes, throwing them into poverty in order to solve our moral concerns about our kids defies the intelligence of the kids, of the prostitutes themselves and of many community members who have developed a sense of tolerance.

Boivin’s tweets are one knocker after an other. She’s doing a great job for the NDP.

Last note to Pondering. I have come to the conclusion that you are simply a troll and yes, that intention reading. So no more answering to you.

Pondering

Gustave wrote:
By the way, shouldn’t gays be submitted to the same no-solicitation-where-kids-could-be found restriction? I'm quite sure many conservatives presently slashing sex workers think it should apply to gays. 

Gay people aren't soliciting on the street any more than straight people are. 

Gustave wrote:
Religion and some conservative radical feminism....................I’m not siding with the 90% of Canadians polled on this issue.

I don't think 90% of Canadians are religious or conservative radical feminists. It's pretty normal for parents to want to keep their kids away from all forms of adult entertainment. Many don't want to give their sons the idea that female sexuality is bought or their daughters the idea that their sexuality is for sale. It sets up an unhealthy dichotomy of male and female sexuality that some parents would rather their kids not absorb.

My daughter asked questions about everything she saw. Many extreme statistics are discounted because they rely solely on street walkers but those terrible statistics do apply to them. These are women who have been abused and are being further abused. The SCC acknowledged that their choice is illusionary. No, I would not have wanted her to witness that. 

If that portion of the law is included and passed I bet it will never be applied because there are no prostitutes in Canada hanging around areas where a judge would agree that children can reasonably be expected to be. Judges will also reject charging prostitutes for being in the vicinity of other prostitutes that are minors unless they are profiting by them. 

Gustave wrote:
Boivin’s tweets are one knocker after an other. She’s doing a great job for the NDP. 

I'm surprised the NDP and Liberals have both come out against it but I am also suspicious. Neither have said what part of C-36 they oppose nor what they support as an alternative. They are focusing on have the SCC vet it which feels a bit like a dodge to me. We don't know if they agree with the preamble or which clauses they are against. 

vincentL311

Pondering wrote:

I'm surprised the NDP and Liberals have both come out against it but I am also suspicious. Neither have said what part of C-36 they oppose nor what they support as an alternative. They are focusing on have the SCC vet it which feels a bit like a dodge to me. We don't know if they agree with the preamble or which clauses they are against. 

As the recent poll indicated, prostitution is deeply divisive issue, and with a large gender gap which makes it a political loser for any party that comes out strongly in favor of either criminalization or decriminalization. While there might be few voters who would switch their vote based on the prostitution issue, there are some who feel strongly about it; like some feminists who have indicated they will vote Conservative if this becomes an election issue.

 

The Conservatives appear to have made the calculation that by coming out against Prostitution they placate their religious base, and appeal to some female voters. Nevertheless, they might have caused some amount of silent resentment among some of their core supporters, i.e. middle aged mostly white men, the demographic perhaps mostly likely to see prostitutes. Whether this might be large enough to be a factor in the election remains to be seen.

cco

Gustave wrote:

Cause what's basically at stake here, applying to both, is the corruption of our fragile kids. Religion and some conservative radical feminism share a common ground in the way they see kids. Kids have to be taught rigidly about moral values, be guided on the path to a good life and become perfectly dedicated members of their community.

I’m not siding with the 90% of Canadians polled on this issue. I have not the slightest problem with kids seeing prostitutes working on the street. What’s the drama? Is it as if the kids will suffer trauma from that vision and have their moral constructs totally destroyed in the process? I think that’s taking kids, any age from 4 to 18, for idiots

A big fat WORD to this, and I'd like to add that I'm getting increasingly sick of the idea that it's government's job to step in and stop children from seeing or being exposed to anything their parents don't want them seeing. (See also the debate about whether someone's kids will see an e-cigarette and think it's "normal". The horror!) Doubly so when said laws restrict the freedom of adults, like Joy Smith's attempt to block all Canadians from viewing porn, UK-style, just in case a kid stumbles on your computer or something. Unless you homeschool 'em, your kids are going to know what a prostitute is by fifth grade at the latest anyway. Ask a refugee from Bountiful how well bubble parenting works out.

I'm trying to remember the last time I heard a new law justified as "for the children" that wasn't a really terrible one.

susan davis

Pondering wrote:

 

That might be true if we were discussing military maneuvers but it means less than nothing when it comes to appropriate use of female sexuality

 

use of female sexuality...? really? that's your objective now? to legislate how female sexuality is "used"? and who gets to define what's appropriate? you? harper?

next we will be wearing burqua's....so that our sexuality will be appropriately legislated/ supressed and so it won't corrupt children...cause you know the world goes crazy when a woman's sexuality is used inappropriately... 

 

Unionist

fortunate wrote:

So i do finally have a confirmed story with the Liberal press release (previously what i had was a wikileaksporn site which i edited out as possibly inappropriate lol)

 

Quote:
The Liberal Party of Canada is opposing C-36. We have serious concerns that this legislation fails to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the requirements outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Bedford decision. We are also concerned that this legislation fails to adequately protect the health and safety of vulnerable people, particularly women.

We have called on the government to produce evidence of the legal opinions they sought in drafting this legislation; the Conservatives continue to refuse to release this information.

We also note that the government has refused to submit this legislation as a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in order to determine its constitutional validity.

 

Great news, thank you fortunate! Doesn't exactly endorse decriminalization, but I'd be shocked if the Liberals had the nerve to do that.

And same goes for all the others.

Any statements yet from the NDP, Greens, Bloc? (Not tweets, not rumours, ...)

 

theleftyinvestor

I suspect the NDP response will be similar. As long as they have broadly agreeable grounds on which to oppose the bill, they won't get into details of decriminalization. With a lawyer at the helm you can be sure they are tearing every single sentence apart before making a statement.

Pages