I use the term “prostitution” because I am only discussing prostitution and “sex worker” is a more umbrella term. It is in common usage and no disrespect is intended.
I wanted to first deal with the issue of the equality of voices on the topic of decriminalization of prostitution. I do not claim that these voices justify prohibition. My sole point is that there are many stakeholders and they all deserve equal consideration. The notion I read in another thread that only people intending to work as prostitutes should be listened to. I could not disagree more. I am a liberal socialist not a libertarian anarchist.
Unionist’s entire post explained an important point perfectly. Here is the conclusion:
http://rabble.ca/comment/1405214#comment-1405214
“There is no fundamental right in any constitution that I know to be an employee in a particular field, or to employ others in particular fields. The state can decide that no one should set up a plumbing business within city limits. It may be dumb, or it may seem unfair, but it's not an infringement on human rights.”
I can’t think of any field of legal work that matches anywhere close to the rate of injury suffered by prostitutes even when it is legal. 100% of workers are not harmed by prostitution but the acceptable rate of worker injury is strictly limited in a progressive society. It does not have to come close to 100% or even be as majority of workers. If an industry cannot meet very high worker safety standards it is shut down.
Proponents of decriminalization and/or legalization claim that when prostitution is legal it is just like any other job, like massage therapist, therefore much safer because it can be regulated. For Canada to legitimize an industry being “safer” is not enough. It has to be safe, not just safer.
Making moral judgements has become demonized as though the only morality that exists is religious and that the only just laws protect people from force. If all participants in an exchange are in agreement then it is no one else’s business what they do.
This is not the theory behind Canada. In Canada we believe in collective rights like health care and minimum wage. We also set an age under which children may not work. Driver’s licences are also controlled by age. A responsible 14 year old can’t drive but an irresponsible 18 year old can. We just chose an arbitrary age that we believe is a reasonable balance. We did these things not just to protect society but to mold our country and our communities into the kind of place we want to live. A place where children go to school for an extended period of time and are fully supported. We have a right to demand people wear seatbelts because accidents cost society. The price of living in a community is adhering to its laws regardless of personal agreement.
I believe it is PEI that bans strip clubs, and Verdun does not allow bars. It made the news when they allowed a micro-brewery to serve beer. Street food has been illegal in Montreal for ages. They are just beginning to allow a limited number of highly controlled food carts. We use community zoning because we believe that people in a community have the right to band together to mold their community to suit their desires. Some members of the community might not like it but majority rules. We have a right as Canadian citizens to mold our entire country not just our individual communities. That includes the right to consider fully banning prostitution.
Harm does not have to be proven for us to set standards that reflect our values as a country.
Many women in Saudi Arabia are perfectly content and happy with their lot in life. They consider themselves privileged that men must take care of them. That doesn’t mean western women can’t consider that life demeaning.
Individual prostitutes may feel that prostitution is not demeaning and that is their right but it does not mean that other people can’t argue that the profession as a whole demeans women as a whole. That is not a personal attack.
Prostitution does not just have an impact on prostitutes and their customers. It has an impact on broader society. It affects how children grow up perceiving women and sexual intimacy and their place in the world every bit as children are affected by how woman are viewed and treated in Saudi Arabia or Sweden.
New Zealand is the posterchild of the pro-decriminalization lobby:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/483694/20130627/sex-trade-streets-prostitution-sexual-new-zealand.htm
June 27, 2013 - Sex Trade on Streets: New Zealand Urged to Address Rampant Street Prostitution
The New Zealand government is urged to do something about the rampant street prostitution in Manukau, Christchurch and other areas as it plans to shift the responsibility of dealing with the issue to local councils….
Ten years after prostitution in New Zealand has been legalised, sex workers can still be seen in suburban shopping streets. Residents have grown frustrated especially along Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe. …
Street prostitutes have been accused of thrashing and vandalising the neighbourhood and having sex in public. Some businesses have closed because of prostitution in nearby areas.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10875922
The world's first transsexual mayor, former street prostitute Georgina Beyer, admitted yesterday she was naive when the trade was legalised….
Beyer, a former Carterton mayor and Labour MP who championed the push to decriminalise sex work a decade ago, said lawmakers glossed over the issue. "We thought, naively, that with the liberalisation of prostitution, that it would not be desirable necessarily to be a street worker."
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said human traffickers were probably involved in the importation of prostitutes. "My Asian informants tell me how rampant it is," Peters said.
However Debbie Baker, of the Street Reach support group, says one 12-year-old was working the streets for her parents.“She was going out there and earning money, taking it home and giving it to her parents.” Ms Baker says the girl’s parents knew what she was doing. A 14-year old girl arrested last night reveals she is working to streets to fund a drug habit. Police don’t charge the girls, instead calling in CYFS or family. But it’s not long before they are back on the streets. One girl who spoke with Ms Baker told he she would work the streets until she dies, aged 30.“I say, ‘Why 30?’ and she goes, ‘Cos that’s all I think I am worth’,” Ms Baker says. Her team tries to re-educate the girls, while police want better lighting in the streets. But underage prostitution has always existed; it used to be Hunter’s Corner in Papatoetoe, now it’s Auckland City. But with the pressure on in Operation City Door, business will no doubt move somewhere else.”
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2002/prote...
However, research and anecdotal evidence suggest that child prostitution is a growing problem in New Zealand. ECPAT NZ has recently completed the first stage of a three-stage research project on the extent of CSEC in New Zealand. Initial findings revealed that child prostitution is reported throughout New Zealand, in rural districts and towns as well as cities.
The racial aspect:
While the number of Maori children involved in prostitution is unknown, it is likely that Maori are over-represented among child prostitutes because the risk factors that give rise to children becoming involved in prostitution are more common among Maori families. Maori youth are more likely to have family problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, live in poor neighbourhoods, and lack positive cultural identity. This latter point is exacerbated for many young Maori by the cultural alienation that has been produced by a perception of historical injustice; the urban drift of Maori; and the subsequent breakdown of traditional support structures. Some aboriginals consider prostitution an extension of the damage of colonization.
In Quebec strippers argued against the decriminalization of lap dancing. They believed if it were allowed that eventually it would be a requirement for the job. Now it is. Women don’t even get paid for their stage work. They have to pay the bar and do a certain number of free stage dances. They only make money from lap dances. Allowing strippers to lap dance did not improve their working conditions nor lead to higher pay. It just ensured that if you can’t work as a stripper unless you are willing to do lap dances. They do private backroom dances too but the men are not allowed to touch them and there are guards close by. I don’t think the rule is there because the owners want to protect the girls. I think the rule is there because they want to protect themselves. If prostitution is decriminalized I am certain that rule will vanish quite rapidly. The job of stripper will demand even more of them. A regulation law saying they don’t have to won’t help any more than the lap-dance law protected strippers from lap-dancing becoming the norm in their field of work. They won’t make more money either. They will just have to do more for their money.
There are a myriad of survivors of prostitution who believe that full decriminalization will lead to more harm for women not safer working conditions. These are experiential women. I give them great weight because these are women who have been the most harmed by prostitution excepting those who have not yet escaped. Who better to speak than the actual victims we want to protect?
Willing participants that want to continue working in the field are the very ones that are empowered enough to leave if they so choose. They have money, they can retrain and get out of the business. They don’t have to subject themselves to the violence of the industry. There is no moral imperative forcing us to accept and protect prostitution as an industry. We can deem it too harmful and expensive to be of net benefit to society.
Be it decriminalization or legalization everyone gets a vote on what kind of country we want Canada to be. We have a right to look at a full range of countries to see how it has affected them. We should be looking at the connection to increasing trafficking and child prostitution. We should be listening to survivors who are the acknowledged greatest victims. We should be listening to aboriginal women who consider it a vestige of colonial conquest. It is not progressive to ignore these voices because they are not as loud or not present on this message board.
To be progressive is to actively seek out the oppressed and listen to their voices not just the voices that are loudest.
I am not going to cite a bunch of studies unless absolutely necessary because they have already been cited in many other threads on this topic.
As I noted in my introductory post New Zealand is the decriminalization posterchild.
I don't believe that New Zealand is an effective model for Canada because it is so different. It has a total population of 4.4 million which is about the size of B.C. It is off the coast of Australia which had already decriminalized. It is also near Thailand which is renound for prostitution. It's location does not lend itself to a radical increase in sex tourism or trafficking. Easier to just set up in Australia.
Even so there is evidence of problems with prostitution in New Zealand including trafficking, child prostitution and unhappy communities that simply don't want prostitution on their streets or next door to their homes or in buildings with daycare. There is a racial component because Maori women are over-represented in New Zealand as are aboriginal women are every where. There is also a happy Prostitutes Collective that is very happy with decriminalization even though it has not addressed all the ills of the profession. Other organizations claims decriminalization has caused more harm than good.
My own opinion, no studies, is that normalizing prostitution has a adverse effect on atitudes towards sex and towards women. I am particularly disturbed by the rise of child prostitution. I can see how young people see it as easy money and don't realize how deeply it could scar them. I am horrified at the thought of streetwalkers parading in front of my home or operating (as opposed to just living) next door to me. I don't want to pass by a brothel at the local mall. Even if Canada were similar to New Zealand I would not want our country to be like that. I believe the majority of Canadians would be appalled. Support in Canada is high for legalization, not decriminalization. People would be expecting compulsory health checks and red light districts.
Amsterdam and Germany are more likely models for Canada. Both are struggling with uncontrollable trafficking and migrant workers. Anyone who cares enough to explore beyond the promotional material can see problems that have grown instead of shrinking.
There is no human right to work as a prostitute or anything else. No one has a human right to sexual services either. The issue is what is best for all women and what reflects the society we want to built. For some people the balance will come down on the side of decriminalization or at least legalization. For others like myself it is the Nortic model. What disturbs me the most about this debate is the attempts to shut it down, to pretend that there is a clear unequivocal answer. There is very little hard evidence on either side. What we do have is examples of how things have gone in various countries. Which places have systems that make you think you would like to live there with both the benefits and the drawbacks? Which country does Canada most resemble and what was the outcome there? This is, at the very least, a very complex topic that affects all of society not just the women who choose to work in the industry voluntarily.
Why isn't this in the sex workers forum?
No, they do not.
The voices that speak from lived experiences should be prioritized: the voices of sex workers themselves. There is by far NO agreement across the board on this, from sex workers, so it's not as if this would be an easy discussion.
Why do I prioritize the voices of sex workers? Because it is their bodies that are being talked about, theoretically dissected and pondered over. They live their lives. The rest of us are just yammering. Or, shall we say, babbling.
Um, WHAT?
What is best for all women?!?!? Wow, this exists? Who'da thunk it? And who will tell us what this is, this magical thing? Not the women themselves, noooooooo. (Also, "all" women are a hell of a lot of people. Seems a bit grandiose.)
Oh I get it. Men will decide this. Men will take care of us in this and other complex matters. Yippee!! What a great idea!
And hey, leave Saudi Arabia out of this, your ignorance, racism and xenophobia are showing.
P.S. There ain't no supply if there ain't no demand. Blaming, focussing on and targetting sex workers (as "the problem") (and even framing sex work in general as a "problem" that "means" something about our society and needs to be "fixed") is classic top-down, hierarchical, patriarchal thinking. Way to go. In the feminism forum. In 2013.
P.P.S There's a difference between legalization (which your New Zealand quotes are all about) and decriminalization.
I think this is in the feminism forum and not sex workers rights forum because Pondering does not want to discuss sex worker rights but abolishing prositution -- is that correct?
Pondering, I appreciate you leaving the other thread when I asked you to hop off (really, that was great). The statement:
is a complex one.
To give said benefit of the doubt (and your preface), I'm assuming you want people who are in 'prostitution' who are there not out of choice to not have to be there. I think we can all agree we don't want that -- that's not really a discussion.
But, your points on who deserves consideration first and "what society we want to build" are making some disrespectful statements.
I agree with Maysie that the first consideration goes to the people doing sex work -- what do they want? If, like you gave the parameters for, they are there because of oppressive situations, etc., and want to leave, then yes, we obviously need to have those resources available.
And, saying that women in sex work are creating an undesirable (not your word, but it seems close) society is not okay.
...
I must say, it is difficult to discuss these, well theories, because they take place in an unrealistic vacuum. There are many types of sex work, sex workers and reasons why sex work happens.
If we are talking about women forced in under oppressive situations, well I agree with Unionist on the previous thread that it is the sex trade, or, like a situation common in Vancouver street prositution, the women are escaping terrible circumstances and it is the only choice.
So, while I appreciate you leaving the other thread to have this conversation elsewhere, I'm not sure how productive/viable it is if it is discussing a model and situation that only includes one part of a situation (somewhat generalizing it) and does not include the other voices in the sex work conversation.
I certainly don't agree with everything pondering said - including defending some very repressive community models such as the archaic dry laws in Verdun (yes, lighter side, but socialism should not mean the "nanny state" rightwingers always decry). And don't think the ills associated with sex work are sex workers' fault - they are the fault of patriarchal, capitalist society, but I think pondering was just being clumsy there.
However, I'm sick of susan attacking and berating anyone on this board who has an outlook different from hers, including former sex workers who are speaking out against the ills, violence and oppression in that trade. I most certainly don't want any sex worker killed, hurt or starving - I've participated in several marches for the murdered women (most, but not all, sex workers of Indigenous descent in Vancouver and elsewhere).
Sometimes socialists do want an end to certain industries - asbestos mining and processing is a big one, especially here in Québec, where entire towns and regions depended on it. But finally even the Québec government came down against it. It is our duty then to help people in such sectors find other work or adequate compensation if that is not possible.
There will be more such sectors if we are serious about transition to an ecosocialist, post-petroleum society. Of course if there are far fewer cars produced and used in cities and towns, that will mean, in the short term, a big boost in electric trains, buses and trams, and even bicycles and e-bikes. But there are other sectors, such as arms production, which have no place in such a society. Many would also include publicity - no, not ads saying someone has opened a grocery or clothing store, but the whole glittering interface created by publicity.
My major area of disagreement with susan is that I'm of the opinion that the harms to sex workers are inherent in the trade. Sure, there are sex workers who like their jobs, earn a decent living and don't have to rely on drugs to face the alienation from their own bodies. But a great many serious studies show that they are in the distinct minority. I know my own personal "sampling" is skewed in the opposite direction from susan's as I've mostly had contact with street sex workers and other street people, most of them Indigenous, and people who work with this clientele. And have seen very dire consequences.
I do not claim to be an expert on this subject, but a great many feminists here in Québec and other French-speaking societies share this general orientation, while insisting on safety and support to people in sex work.
Thank you, Lagatta. I had been afraid to post something similar. In fact, I had been afraid to post anything at all. But I have been reading all these threads carefully and I truly believe that you and Pondering are offering an awful lot to the discussion.
And Maysie, your interpretation of what Pondering said is ridiculous. You're just looking to be indignant.
Whoa!!!!!!!!!! No not even a little bit close. The women are welcome, the industry (in my opinion) is not. What a terrible mindset, that a woman who works as a prostitute cannot be separated from it, as though it is integral to her being.
Yes, but it is not necessary for it to be 100% harmful in order for a country to deem an activity causes enough harm to ban it. There is no obligation on the part of society to support any particular activity or industry. We could decide that the pollution caused by air travel is too damaging to validate it's use. The fact that air travel also has many benefits and employs many people does not supercede the collective right to decide it's not something we want in Canada. Oil workers voices do not carry more weight than anyone else's on the topic of the oil sands. Verdun banned bars. Bar workers did not have more right to an opinion than anyone else. Drinkers didn't have a larger voice than anyone else.
I don't agree that it is the only choice, that it is their destiny to live in terrible circumstances or worse circumstances. I agree with AWAN http://www.awanbc.ca/aboutus.html. That terrible conditions drive disadvantaged women into prostitution doesn't make prostitution better than the original circumstances they are trying to escape.
I didn't realize that anyone's voices were barred from the conversation in the feminist forum. Rather, the Sex Worker's Forum seems at least unofficially limited to pro-decriminalization proponents and quite hostile to any other perspective.
Given that the Nordic model is strongly supported by many major feminist organizations this seemed like a more appropriate venue to inject some balance, especially as some feminists support decriminalization.
The characterization of people who are against prostitution as judgemental authoritarians who don't care about the safety of prostitutes is bullyng.
Because I was cautioned in one thread. Looking around at other threads in that forum suggested to me that it was the wrong place to present this argument. If a mod thinks otherwise and wants to move the thread there I have no objection. It wasn't my intent to be disrespectful. Just the opposite.
I think that is pretty disrespectful. How about what is best for women in general or most women? This insistence on claiming only experiencial women are impacted by prostitution and have a right to a voice seems like an attempt to silence opposition.
I wish we had a better balance between men and women in government but until we do it's that or anarchy. I'm not an anarchist. I think your sarcasm is disrespectful especially in the feminist forum.
I don't know why it is xenophobia to use Saudi Arabia as an example in which some women embrace what many other women would consider a demeaning situation. I think your attack is inappropriate.
The Nordic model focuses on the johns and pimps as "the problem". Prostitutes themselves are not breaking the law. They cannot be arrested. This has led to a reduction of stigma for the women and an increase in stigma for the johns and pimps.
Feminism is neither anarchist nor libertarian. You could say that about all forms of collectivism. When people act collectively there will always be some that don't get their way. Your comment seems more directed at political systems than feminism. Being against prostitution is certainly not anti-feminist. The windows of Amsterdam displaying women like cuts of meat and the drive-in stalls in Germany turn my stomach; even the name, stalls, not cubicles.
Decriminalization means there are no criminal laws concerning prostitution. New Zealand has decriminalization not legalization. My quotes concern how decriminalization has impacted people in New Zealand. It is not just prostitutes that are affected.
I think that your entire post has been pretty insulting and dismissive. There are many feminist organizations that are against the legalization (edited to add decriminalization) of prostitution. Unless you are claiming that Sweden is a non-progressive patriarchal country the Nordic Model is a valid feminist and progressive viewpoint.
Thanks for replying Pondering, and Lagatta and FA as well.
I don't want anyone to feel "bullied" on this thread and feel they can't express their opinion. It is babble after all! So thanks :)
Okay, let's start over because I think there are lots of people who would like to discuss this topic and this sort of frame that lagatta has stated
Maybe we should all set some parameters? I think SD can provide great info and context to the conversation, but being that it is a trickier subject, stuff gets heated. A good way to hopefully increase conversation is by knowing we're all on somewhat the same page.
Lets create some grounded observations that we all adhere by and then continue the conversation? As mentioned in a previous thread, we don't have official rules worked out, but I think we can start this conversation again.
For example, Can we all agree that there are many types of sex work and though some people choose sex work, there is a larger population that is there under either oppressive circumstances and not choice?
How does that sound for everyone, and then maybe we can create a better outline for future conversations on sex work and sex worker rights and use it as guidance in that forum?
i don't get why you think this? as your point below in quotes doesn't ring factual to me.
you seem to be selective about what voices from lived experiences you wanna listen to even though you quite readily state there's no agreement between those who have lived experiences.
no actually you are only prioritizing here at any rate 1 voice. and it's the voice of 1 white woman who wants to run a brothel. i spent a lot of time and effort reading everyone of the threads here on this! you’re ignoring all the voices of aboriginal women here in Canada and around the world who considers the reality their over represented in the field and consider the legalization or "decriminalization" of prostitution to be an extension of patriarchy and colonial occupation. you try to appear "equal" above by saying we're all babbling yet your remarks are downright nasty and uncalled for towards pondering. incredibly mean and slanted commentary on your part above and below meant to shut down this conversation i think....
Um, WHAT?
i agree with ponderings comment. a few days ago i may not have until i spent hours reading. from just using the Netherlands experience where violence against ALL women has gone up 40+ % since they legalized prostitution are under UN supervision now i think ALL women need a voice. to me there's no damn difference between decrim and fully legalized except fully legalized has more regulatory aspects than decrim from what i've read anyway.
^ this is really uncalled for!!!!!
huh?
this is quite the rant. i think making laws catering to white male sex tourism and white male exploitation of indigenous women classic top down, hierarchical, patriarchal thinking!!!!!
i don't think so legalization has more ability to regulate and the results seem to be the same anyway...cheap sex for white men while wages drop for women....and all the rest of the social implications and crime trafficking stuff.