Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part II

Summary

The goal of the Charter challenge on prostitution is full decriminalization.

Those opposed want partial decriminalization. Prostitution and solicitation would be legal, johns, procurement, living off the avails and running a bawdy house would be illegal.

Full decriminalization means it's a business like any other.

Legalization means legal but with limitations imposed such as registration, health checks and red light districts.

The three main arguments are based on: worker safety, worker rights and personal freedom. 

1) Safety, decriminalization could result in either greater or lessor safety.

Safety, meaning physical harm, rape, assault, unsafe sexual practices, physical coercion, forced trafficking, child prostitution.

2) Individual worker rights versus the collective right of women to be protected from exploitation.

Worker rights include UIC, pensions, etc. but also the right to be protected from exploitation. "Voluntary" migrant workers fall under this category as does economic coercion and luring under false pretenses like exagerating the amount of money to be made.

3) Freedom of the individual versus community rights to control environment through barring harmful practices.

Communities can be negatively impacted by criminal elements, citizens being accosted on the street, condoms and needles strewn about and a repellant atmosphere.  Linked to this is the more ideological argument of promoting equality, respect for women and Canada's image in the world. Do we want sex tourism? Freedom of the individual is self-explanatory.

Proponents of full decriminalization believe that harmful and exploitative practices can be handled through existing laws against rape, assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, trafficking, etc. Proponents of partial decriminalization contend that despite laws the illegal components rise with legal acceptance of prostitution leading to more trafficking and child prostitution. Also the attitudes towards women that it engenders undermines the ability of women to achieve respect and equality in a broader sense.

Each argument can be supported or undermined by outcomes where decriminalization or legalization have occurred.

New Zealand is held up as the ideal model for full decriminalization. Sweden is held up as the ideal model for partial decriminalization. There are many other countries with varied forms of legalization. Each of the examples has to be viewed in the context that Canada is a different country therefore outcomes won't necessarily be exactly the same here.

New Zealand is right next to Australia where prostitution is legalized. Canada shares a border with the United States. Sweden believes strongly in affirmative action for women. It is their contention that left to the marketplace it would take another 100 years for women to achieve equality. Canada is less willing to actively pursue equality for women leaving it up to the individual.

Australia, Germany, and others went with legalization which the sex workers in Canada don't want so they consider the experiences of those countries inapplicable. There is only one example of full decriminalization, which is similar to legalization. Therefore supporters of partial decriminalization think the experiences of these other countries can't be so easily dismissed especially as Canada might choose legalization rather than complete decriminalization.

Sex workers in this context refers solely to what is commonly referred to as prostitution. Sex workers use the term to indicate that they have willingly chosen their profession even if it was to avoid poverty.

Prostitutes, in this context refers to women who do not want to be prostitutes but were forced into it through physical violence, coercion, or poverty.

I re-edited my first post and edited my second post so they are both different from the first thread.  I tried very hard to offer an unbiased overview.

If anyone considers the posts unbalanced please say so.

Only female flesh of the royalty type, as always.

And damn, I hate dial up, I went to look at this link below, from the former thread, that I had not yet got to and it has mini films, that I can't watch,  or at least I think it does, as the pages took fo ever for me to just get a trailer to load. But the word trailers seemed very interesting. 

Our class consciousness is a huge barrier in understanding what it feels  like to be trafficked for sex, perhaps we have experienced "used for", and/or taken against our will, but trafficking, is really being raped several times a day, with someone profitting on your being raped, so hearing their words too, for me could grow my understanding further.

http://www.priceofsex.org/

Infosaturated: thanks for this work, it really is useful in thinking things thru.  In general I agree with your summaries although I might have constructed them somewhat differently, but that is not an important difference i think.  But I also think I see a couple of things that disappear or get blurred in your summary number one:

re: In the section on indivudal rights vs collective rights I think you blurred a couple of things

1. what is a right? are we talking here of Human Rights as per the International Declaration of Human Rights and what it has meant and what we want it to mean? or a 'right' the way some use the word to mean I am entitled because I am ok and I think I ouhtta hava right?

I would say that I agree abolitionists we are questioning individual "rights" of the second sense to the Human Rights in the first sense.

And there is also a  fight between those who claim a Human Right to freedom from sexism and those who want to establish a Right of BUSINESSES  to sell sex.  A battle between individuals and capitailist entities.

2. I would say we are considering the individual rights 1. to be free of government but 2. also framed as the rights of workers (which is usually fought for as a collective right so that it does not become the phoney 'right to work' used against unions 3. the individual rights are also framed as the right to sexual liberty (as though the context of economic and gender and race factors do not change or affect sexual liberty) 

Workers also have collective rights so blurring individual and worker is a disservice to both in my opinion.  It gets rid of women's collective rights not to harrassed or discriminated against on the job or in employment; the Human Rights already won by women

3 the collective right to which we refer is not just the right of women not to be exploited but rather the collective right of women to action of government to interfere with exploitation and violence and the right of women to be treated as fully human beings that is a right for full range of interlocking Human Rights so that each woman stands a better chance of accessing her individual Rights.  Since women are a declared disadvantged group ths too requires positive government action all all of womens human rights

4 But I would also say that this fight also exists outside the "Rights" discussion altogether and that Abolitionists see a court and government battle as necessarily incomplete.  It is a failure that women have been abandonned to poverty and violence and inequality and now abandonned to this venue.  This fight should have been won by the political solidarity of the progressive forces to insist men stop using prostitutes.

In your second summary I don't agree that the terms "strict" and not strict or less strict apply to Abolitionist interpretations of the the Palermo Accord.  The first rounds of that Accord spring from the work of human rights workers and peace activists after the second world war and the forced migrations and terrible treatment of women by the armies of occupation and by the terrible treatment of women and children of the "displaced peoples" in post conflict zones and migrations.  It has been weakened since in some uses but it has nver been defeated.  "Consent" was understood as irrelevant in the situation of the disposessed and it ii in  that sense that we apply it here.  I agree it is contested as is evertyhing as thr world slides to the right but I would say in the strictest sense that the Accord supports partial decriminalization even more in this world of globalized capitalism and where human rights law still requires us to "read together" both domestic and internatinal law

As I have stated before I am interested in this debate to completely clarify the issues and my thoughts. So ask. is there a difference between a woman's right to control her reproductive life ie. the pro-choice position and a woman's right to willingly engage in sex work?

i haven't read all the posts on this subject, but today as i have some time and energy, i'd put in my two cents worth.

i don't think the practice is criminal.  Criminal is for things like murder, rape, exploitation, etc.

if it's about consenting adults, it may have lots of problems but i don't think is criminal.

the problems then would be the same as any business in this country, subject to the broader exploitation of people by powerful monied interests, but at least not then under the gun of additional abuses.

that's my thinking on it now in any case.

Michelle, I think your idea is a great one. It took me awhile to give up on posting in the many threads - I was mainly trying to support susan's efforts.

What is "willingly" caissa?

And just plain common sense, says of course there is a difference between the 2.

People.  are  not just allowed to go out and put their lives on the line at a high risk job, just because they are "willing" to do so. There are rules and regulations, and indeed punishments, if they are not adhered to.

Let's take a look at deep sea welding, as a comparable high risk job, though really it too is not even as high risk, as what front line sex work is, where the welder is only allowed to be under water for x amount of minutes at a time, to a max amount, per day. This is done for his safety, even though he may  feel he can be down there for longer than what the law allows and would like to stay there for another minute, to just get the job done. Said welder is not allowed, but yet he retains his body's integrity.

Thus, he is not prevented bodily from doing his job, there are just severe restrictions placed upon him because of its high risk nature. He does not adhere to them, he loses his ticket.

Long distance truck drivers, even though they  may feel they could drive non-stop, are strictly restricted to the amount of time they can drive per day, and are even told how much sleep they have to have per day. Same too with pilots. If not, they lose their licenses.

The more the high risk the job is, for both personal and public safety the more rules there are.

Nurses, cleaning staff and Drs, are not allowed to go into quarantined patients rooms without proper attire, and training on how to be in there, would be another example, of where they all may believe they can "quickly" go in and out of the rooom, without harm to themselves and others, but they are not allowed. Nor are visitors, even though they all still retain every right to their personal body's integrity.

Fire fighters are not allowed on the fire lines, when the risk evaluations are too high, even though they may believe they would not be in danger. And they too retain their body's integrity, even though they are prevented from rushing in, just because they believe they can.

aaah, have another example, a few years back a fishing boat tipped over in the mouth of the Fraser. The rescue diver's could not go down and in, in a immediate way, because it was too risky for them and there were regulations against it. So they did not go down and into the boat and try to rescue those who may have been drowning below them, even though they were "willing" to do so. Thus several poeple died, who may have been rescued.

And of course, in none of the instances above, did anyone think to say; "well...it is their body, so it is up to them to do whatever they want with it, while on the job".

I am not sure what people are not getting about the designation of a legal  industry, that has formal job positions, when they think about this.

..."safe space" for sex workers and people who support their efforts at harm reduction to discuss the issue on babble...

Caissa, in response to your question, the difference is that, contrary to abortion and even contraception rights, no one is challenging "a woman's right to willingly engage in sex work," despite the lobby's efforts to make it sound that way. It is the rights of johns, pimps and traditional brothel owners that abolitionists are taking on in defending those sections of the Criminal Code against full decriminalization.

One-sided discussions, Martin?  How about this for a one-sided discussion?  I just counted the posts by everyone in that last thread, and four people posted vastly more than everyone else: susan davis, martin dufresne, Infosaturated, and remind.

We have one sex worker posting there, and she posted 22 times in that thread.

Infosaturated posted 23 times.

martin dufresne posted 15 times.

remind posted 12 times.

I think I'll create the new forum now.  Enough waffling on my part. :)

Michelle wrote:

We have one sex worker posting there, and she posted 22 times in that thread.

Infosaturated posted 23 times.

martin dufresne posted 15 times.

remind posted 12 times.

Here is my tally of the (sex workers voices...) thread:

Four people posted critiques of full decriminalization.

Thirteen people (including the three mods) posted in support of it. One alone posted 35 of the thread's 85 screens - 41 % - including extraordinarily misogynist insults against critics of the industry, which drew almost no public rebuke from the mods.

Still not enough one-sided for y'all?

We are having a difficult but crucial dialogue, one that seemed impossible here only months ago. Can we get ourselves past the uncomfort and press on, as respectfully as possible, and without validating back-channel attempts to scuttle the process?

Michelle, my concern, as someone who wants to critically think on this topic, is that often little dialogue seems to be taking place and instead at times I feel like I am reading a serious of monologues. It is possible that the participants are so far apart philosophically that they cannot find common ground upon which to have a dialogue.

The forum isn't even created yet, Martin, so no one is being "badmouthed in absentia" in it. 

And yes, that's exactly what will happen in the new forum - you will be asked to leave and post elsewhere if you are dominating the discussion or posting aggressively against sex workers or their allies in that forum.  You will, however, be free to post whatever you like about it in the feminism forum, because I recognize that there are many, many feminist ideas about prostitution and sex work, from complete abolition to complete legalization and decriminalization. 

Marginalized voices get more protected space.  Your voice is hardly marginalized here, especially in the feminism forum.

BTW, a great number of those "screens" were because susan davis was posting full and very long articles instead of posting a bit and linking to the rest, which is something I should be keeping a better eye on.

Would like to carry on with this thought.

To think that sex workers should be paid, pay, that is  not commensurate with the high risk nature of the job, is sexist thinking, as such, it cannot enter my diliberations about its legalization.

As it is clearly stating that it is "women's work"  even if it is he highest risk profession around, and therefore it is not as valuable as men's high risk work.

We cannot build institutions on that type of thinking anymore. It is building in inequities, when we know better.

sorry about posting entire articles, i will watch myself in the future....it just seems as if people don't even follow the links....and sometimes partial posts can be taken out of context, ie- the partial living in community post about the brothel and coop.....

my thinking was to not create 100 different threads, i posted some articles in the news section but they were eventually moved to the feminism forum. sorry

perhaps a seperate forum topic is a good idea. then artices could be posted seperately and different aspects could be discussed seperately in individual threads....

we may have an opportunity in vancouver to test our sex industry ethics commission? sex industry working group? i don't know what to call it....it would be great to hash out some potential terms and a mandate..... and to be able to discuss individual aspects of potential processes and policies for that group....

such as group composition, the design of a complaints process- we support an inclusive by committee process, the re design of the licensing process- we support license applications reviewed for appoval by committee, minimum code requirements, etc are defined in city by laws but there are gaps which dis empower workers so revision should take place...

have i ever posted our rpoposed by law revisions on babble?

anyway, it could be an open forum for everyone, but we could spread it out a bit and people could choose what they were interested in looking at....perhaps some policies about decrim supporters posting in abolitionist threads? and abolitionists posting in decrim threads?

we could respect each others right to fight for what we believe in and agree to not engage in disproving each other. instead we would post our opinions seperately in order both sides to be able to engage in productive converstaions without the other fighting to be heard...i mean this on both sides. i am sure people in favor of abolition are just as frustrated as i am.

i would agree to completely abstain from posting in threads opposed to decriminalization. 

maybe we could have "battle ground" thread as a sticky....lol

i am too tired to play today. i need to work and pay some bills, i hope everyone has a nice weekend. it'll be a good soggy day for rugby tomorrow at brockton oval...go rowers!!

I'm not exactly sure what this means? Who is doing the "not allowing" part? In actuality people are quite free to engage is risky sexual behaviour all the time. For example. having sex fully consentual and without a condom, with a person who is HIV positive.

Michelle and oldgoat, please forgive me, but I am just doubled up laughing at precious bodily fluids.

Ok, everyone: line up in straight rows. I said straight! Rows! We are going to test your precious bodily fluids. There are unregulated exchanges of bodily fluids going on, and we cannot permit that activity to continue without public-health controls, all of which will be very expensive and will expand the size of the bureaucracy in satisfyingly bizarre ways.

Only when commercial, you say? Your husband just handed over his pay packet for the week? Join the queue, and make sure that he does too.

This is Dick Cheney's one per cent doctrine: if there is a one per cent chance that someone might be a terrist, he may be kidnapped, transported, tortured, held in limbo indefinitely, even after we've figured out that he is innocent, all because paranoia trumps liberty every time. Freedom is just so, y'know, dangerous.

Skdadl, you do not think sex workers should be protected from diseases just like all other employees, who may come in contact  with bodily fluids?

As a nurse I am affronted, we have to take ever manner of precautions that are there to protect us and the public. As do paramedics, lab techs, Drs, and even lowly accident scene clean up people.

We have food safe courses and certifications for those dealing in the public realm, for a reason too.

For pete's sake, even nowadays with H1N1, people are told to wash their hands, do not touch public bathroom doors etc, etc in order to stop the spread of the disease, by body fluid exchange. Viruses are spread by droplet infection, aka  body fluids.

It is as simple as that.

They are not precious, they are, or can, be deadly. And that is why we have health regulations to protect us.

We do not want restaurant employees using the washroom without washing their hands, and coming backs to us and preparing or serving our food.

It is again bodily fluids that spread some diseases, while others take direct contact.

Thus we as a society have created rules, and regulations protecting ourselves and workers.

It is employment that has life threatening implications, and I do not believe mockery of those with concerns, and who are out lining them, is beneficial to anyone, especially not sex workers, who have the absolute right to expect full employment safety rights that other workers have, if society is going to somehow legitimize their work.

I would say a pre-screening clinics must be set up, before access is allowed. It is the only way, that front line sex workers could be recognized officially, as sex workers equal to other workers in similar fields. Or rather = to other high risk fields. Where equal commensuration and safety regulations can take place.

I do not think this is an amusing topic at all.

The reality is, it is high risk and needs to be viewed from that position and not a romantic one, or one to be taken lightly, by stating "okay decriminalization", without understanding where that leaves front line sex workers.

They would be in limbo, no work place regulations, nor job safety regulations. Thus nothing would change for them safety wise, only legalization and full legitimate job status could do that.

You and I both know that a front line sex worker cannot go and lay charges upon a man for his giving her Hep, or HPV, or any STD.

That STD's have their own classification states everything.

It wouldn't be,  in general IMV, but if society is going to legitimize it, they have to do it in an all, or nothing way. Otherwise they are legalizing the right to exploit marginalized women, as that is what decrim alone will do.

They will not be covered by WCB, CPP, or EI.

In order to access that aspect of the social safety net, work place regulations, plus human rights, labour and other rules, like that which I have noted prior, must be adhered to.

So decrim only, would deny their right to access the social safety net, not enhance it. It would give them NO work place rights.

Legalization would enhance it, but it would place a huge burden upon society  to make sure it was enforced. And I am not opposed to that, at all,  it is their rights just like everyone else has work place rights.

Well no, not really, it would be placed upon society, not the sex worker, at least not anymore than any other worker must take rsponsibility for thermselves while on the job, by adherence to labour laws and work place safety laws.

John's/clients would just have to be willing to prove their state of health, both physically and mentally, upon demand to access.

Drunks are not let on buses, nor allowed to disturb the publics peace, and no one thinks their civil rights are being denied.

And people are not allowed to go into WCB offices and hold people's lives hostage and theaten their personal safety. And so it should be with front line sex workers, as their work is such a high risk to their own and the public's safety. Clients should not be allowed to threaten their well being, either ovetly, or covertly. Neither should their employers, which is what could  and would happen,  if only decriminalization occurs,

I hear you with this, it is something I have long struggled with too.

But then I realized  it is not about civil liberaties at all, it is about worker's rights in the work place, and about public safety regulations, as an extension of that reality, if it is legitimized as "work" by society.

Sex work is not mystical, it is work. Full stop. And every consideration must flow from that realization.

Exactly my view. However one has to be pragmatic and look at every, and I mean every aspect of it.

Me too, but I find the struggle remains, in my realization that we would be building an industry solely  to uphold men's rights to exploit people's bodies, unless we  build it to be a flat out profession, and  resist appeasing ourselves, by thinking decriminalization will do anything to help people in front line sex work.

It has to be full legalization and all  that that entails. Now and into the future.

I do not understand this, I just can't get my mind around it, and the discontinuity of it all.

We all  are told, what we can and cannot do with our bodies in the work place.

Sex work is not some "special" trade that should be exempt. Nor can it be exempt.

As a nurse, I have to keep my nails short, my hands clean between every contact with people, even if my hands bleed from over washing,  I must wear appropriate attire when going into a quaratine situation and be trained in  the proper techniques.  I cannot wear scents in the work place, nor inappropriate to the work place clothes. This is not against my civil rights, it enhances mine and others civil rights.

Front line sex work, as I have been trying to detail, takes sex work to a whole  other level of work place regulations and safety factors. It is not like other sex work, there are serious implications. No matter the gender.

We cannot accept decriminalization under any circumstances, it creates a no where land, where there is no protections for sex workers. They have no work place labour laws, nor health safety laws that apply to them, as their field of work is not recognized in work industry standards.

While those you note are.

There are currently laws and regulations regarding the transmission of disease. There is the Criminal Code, which handles cases of intentional infections of HIV and there are current Health regulations already in place for other STDs. If you have an STD, you have to tell any previous and future partners that you have an STD. Of course in reality this doesn't happen too often, but they can be forced to do so under section 21 of the Ontario Public Health Act  (I'll need to look up the specific section as it has most likely changed). In the case of HIV or AIDS you can have someone charged under the Criminal Code. Of course that will be harder for anyone with more than 1 sexual partner as you have to prove beyond a doubt that the infection came from a specific person. But these laws apply equally to all people. So there is recourse and existing law (not to menton established case law on intentional HIV infections).

I agree there should be standards of care but we actually do have specific regulations and laws. People just need to be made aware if them.

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/pubhealth/oph_stan...

And there are newer regulations (I've been out of the loop for awhile, clearly):

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/pubhealth/oph_stan...

Sexual Health and Sexually Transmitted Infections Prevention and Control Protocol (above)

Going to link with this thread

Actually no, the law applies to equally to everyone.

Re: getting men to get tested - you know that isn't going to happen. Sex isn't usually something someone plans way ahead of time. Like hey, in a few weeks I want to see a sex worker so I better get my test and have my papers ready. Seriously, that isn't the reality a lot of the time. Cabbies for example are notorious for prowling very early morning downtown for sex. You think these guys are going in to get tested? Especially given many of them are refugees or newly landed immigrants? Not going to happen. Not to mention the men who are married. Are they going to get tested prior to having sex? Not likely that most will.

I agree men should take responsibility for getting tested themselves, freely and of their own will, but I really do not think that will happen and I'm not in favour of forcing people to undergo tests to enter into a consensual exchange. Note I said consensual. Not talking forced.

No idea what the solution is or what other options there may be in this area.

sure, certification, safe sex etc......but comparing us to nurses is a little crazy....are a nurses patients criminals? is the hospital where she works illegal?

in new zealand, condom use is law.we support the same measures here. and i might point out, we have designed health and safety training and it is ready...in partnership with vancouver coastal health authority.we could base a certification process around that ....

i am all about limiting harm from exposure to infectious disease as well but don't believe some of the ideas put forth by other posters will be possibile in reality.

if customers are frced to be checked to see legal"certified"workers, they will not see us. this will force workers to work outside of "government santioned" work spaces and we will be faced with the same problem as now.

rules yes, sex industry treated as other industries yes, but it will a system designed specifically for the sex industry as it is a unique set of circumstances. we can draw on the experiences of other industries to help design any strategies but in order to prevent gaps from forming we must accomodate the industries inner workings....ie- confidentiality and discretion 

Interesting. I read that in New Zealand customers who want to go "bareback" use minors on the street (non government sanctioned workers). Customers figure their youth makes it less likely that they are infected with anything and it's easier to pressure them.

Now, I cannot be that hardlined about it, Martin. No way.

The reality is, it is sex work. That is the only term we have for it, prostitution aside.

I think the distinction was made adequately, that there is a portion of sex work, that is not prostituted peoples, nor would they identify as such. In fact, I found a personal experience applicable in this scenario.

About 20 years ago now, long before poker  became the fad it is today, I was offered 60,000, for 6 weeks of "my time", on a warm equatorial island. Now sure enough, it was not just made for sexual access, but also for access to my mind, and thoughts,  believe it or not, for a 6 week rental purchase agreement.

A  professional poker player, from southern Europe, met me in a game of high stakes poker, and thought  he should get to know me, after I had calmly told all the other men in the game, that I would flip the table over, with 10's of thousands on it, if I heard another sexist remark, so they had better stop, or keep count of their chips. And I meant it.

Not too many women played poker professionally back then, and if they did, they just went with the  intense patriarchial norm.

Yes, it would have been legally defined in a document. He even sent a formal agent to my door, with the contract parameters and Concord tickets.

And had I decided to take the offer, I would not have thought of myself as a prostituted person. It would have been a choice that I made, after careful deliberation.

Was much less meek 20 years ago, than I am today. Pretty damn mellow, nowadays in compare, as a matter of fact.

And I would have been, and would be, deeply insulted to have my choice, labelled as an act of prostitution upon me.

I am well able to make my own choices, then and now.

PS: after I refused to accept the contract, subtle threats were levelled against my partner as an inducement to accept, had I caved to that pressure, I would have fetl prostituted.

Thank you for allowing us to hear your voice trisha.

This says it all for me:

If men are not willing to keep those safe whom they purchase services from, and indeed themselves, then society at large must  insert regulations for it to occur.

We don't allow men to go into other places of business, and behave how they want, endangering the lives of others. it would be ludicrous to think such.

So if we are going to be sex worker positive, and call it work, then we must do so in the correct way, that creates worker's rights, not diminishes them.

Thank you so much for returning Trisha.

That's the whole point Remind. Sex is not legitimate work.  A big clue is that for the most part only women and children can do it. It is men buying access to women's bodies. That is why virgins cost more. Is there any other "job" in which the least experience person makes the most money?

The story you told of your own experience (or non-experience) wouldn't be affected by prostitution laws.

http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article689

Venezuela ruled that "prostitution cannot be considered work because it lacks the basic elements of dignity and social justice." It also ruled that since one of the main purposes of forming a labor union is "to promote the collective development of its members and of their profession," a decision in favor of unionizing so-called sex workers would in fact promote the development and expansion of prostitution (Republica De Venezuela, 1998).

In Venezuela women's rights are promoted through things like opening up a woman's bank and increasing female political representation not putting women to work having sex.

The rights of individual women should not supercede the rights of the majority of women who are harmed by prostitution both directly and indirectly. Your vision of a Canada in which prostitution is a well-regulated industry is dangerously based in an idealistic world that doesn't exist. Not a single country in the world has managed to create a system that significantly improves the lives of prostitutes. Every system has lead to increased numbers of women and children being repeatedly raped multiple times a day, day after day.

Weight the good against the bad. Higher end "sex workers" are already protected if they choose to be.

Ex-prostitutes are saying the industry is not the benign one being painted by the industry in which laws are increasing the danger to them. It is just the opposite. Laws are preventing women and children from being abused and exploited by pimps, brothels, and traffickers.

There is only one group of people set to benefit from legalization no matter what legal framework is set up. The "business" men who run the industry.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

I don't have time either Trisha, to stay in the hourly back and forth of this discussion, so I am glad for your contributions and I will be glad of what time and attention you choose to give to this. 

The talk of legalization and the problems of regulating is very hot, but seems well carried and I am still way back at working over the topic of framing this debate.  I hope it is not diversionary to post on this now.  I know that a new thread has been opened based on the sex worker identification so before this one closes I focused on the other choices of framing the debate. 

Sorry I kept the quote below but not the name of the poster

"It's true that members of a marginalized group learn to fight most effectively when they recognize that they have been marginalized as members of that group, and therefore must fight back as a group, demand recognition, compensation, defence, as a group, for however long that may be necessary. That's when we learn how to free ourselves, and in my experience (now regrettably long), it's the only way that oppressed peoples ever are freed. (Lord save us from people who think they can free us in spite of ourselves -- I'm not an Iraqi or an Afghan, but I suspect that many of them would echo that sentiment)" --posted on Rabble.ca

I find this argument quite compelling. Even though the person who wrote this was arguing against feminists speaking for the criminalization of men who buy prostitutes.  The writer seeems to suspect feminists patronize prostituted women by fighting for the end of prostitution: a group de-gendered in this post. 

The writer seems to be led by the belief that the marginalized group is composed of and for all purposes properly limited to those who are currently in prostitution.  And in the course of accepting that, argues to prostitutes that they are better served by grouping as sex workers, in some terms a tiny group. 

This belief draws a line between those who escaped prostitution and those who did not.  It is as though the writer considers those who have escaped the institution of prostitution as not “marginalized”. The post seems not to recognize most of the prostituted, as life-long members of the oppressed group women. It assumes it can separate their marginalization from that oppression. 

It is in the best interest of the women’s movement in Canada to listen carefully to the women in prostitution not only as a way to include them in the movement but especially for their expertise on proposed solutions specific to their needs and their understanding of how men exercise power in this institution.  Better still is the opportunity to support leadership from among the oppressed against this marginalization and all marginalization of women.

But perhaps this poster challenges feminist abolition speech because the writer cannot see me or other abolitionist feminists as members of the oppressed even though it is clear that we are women.  Perhaps the writer would not agree that all women are oppressed all threatened by prostitution. But Canadian law does.  And it promises in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to take sex equality into account in any and all future law and governance.  The global women movement too recognizes our shared oppression.  We call on the forces and lessons of the rest of the fights for the advancement of women toward full human status.  It seems to me this is the best political tactic and movement-building for those of us currently caught in prostitution as well as those of us who have escaped or managed to evade the institution of prostitution in spite of being women.

The Charter and the movement recognize too that women's individual rights are not accessible unless the group rights of women as a disadvantaged group are recognized, taken into account and protected.  It accepts that any discrimination against women built into the laws (and lack of laws) of the land and Canadian public policy will adversely affect each individual woman trying to access her individual rights. 

But when we try to use the forces of feminism against this sexism we are spoken to as though this particular sexism had nothing to do with women as a group, is of no danger to us, is not a force against us and is a matter in which we should abandon prostituted women to their own devices.  In the name of their agency and autonomy.

These discussions documented that it is women who are disadvantaged by the ills of prostitution even if some women seem to, or claim to, or do benefit.  The disagreement among caring and thinking people is what to do about the plight of women in prostitution.  Almost no-one disagrees with the sexist label on prostitution now. 

When I and other women built the movement to end the assaults on wives and children by men in the family we did not insist that only those women who stayed in the family were allowed to speak, nor did we insist that those women who escaped abusive men must be silent.  We did not bury the voices of women who managed never to be beaten or raped.  Certainly we did not silence the ones who escaped incest or who evaded attacks of any kind.  We did not require women to marry in order to fight wife assault or to speak against wife assault or even to speak against marriage and its effects on women.  We spoke as a movement recognizing that this was a battlefront in the power struggle against patriarchy.  All women bring vulnerability, “marginalization”, personal experience and expertise to that discussion. 

So in this case the group is women; a group that includes but is not limited to those women who are caught in prostitution.  Many of the forms of relief that could aid women caught in prostitution are needed by all women: income security, social and legal interventions to protect us from men’s violence against women, childcare, healthcare, public education, progressive immigration policies, international protections for migrants, labour laws to minimize the informal unregulated economy etc. 

We seek routes for all women to move toward autonomy as the group moves forward.  We have arguably done better than most movements at protecting the agency and individuality of each woman in our shared struggle to release each other from the prescribed social roles and forced impoverishment and subjugation. 

Clearly some feminists are arguing that women as a group are not served by decriminalizing the behaviour of men who act in predatory ways toward our group.  We observe and consider that most of those badly affected by the institution of prostitution are members of our group and should be defended by our group.  The debate is how best.

In this case of buying sex, it often seems the debate gets a bit reversed. Abolitionist feminists continue to articulate our position to decriminalize the prostituted.  In debates we find those who would legalize or decriminalize agreeing with us that we all want those being prostituted to be decriminalized.  

We are debating with each other about the wisdom and usefulness and the political value of criminalizing those who buy sex, those who buy women outright to sell as sex objects, those who set up businesses to sell, or rent women, or sell sex, or sell sex with children as the case may be.  And we Abolitionists are saying, with some evidence, that allowing that sale, increases the demand for more and more of such sales.

So it seems a distortion, a mis-shaping of, and mis-informing of discussion to talk of protecting the rights of the individual women to sell sex.  Not only because many of us are fighting for the right not to prostitute but because it is not women who stand to gain rights in this current Canadian debate.  On the whole, what we disagree about is the individual and group "rights" of men to have sex on demand, even if for dollars and the "right" of anyone to buy or sell access to bodies of children and women.  These rights do not exist yet in Canadian law and are in fact the aspiration of the current cases.

Thank you for an authentic hands on herstory summation of the VAW movement and a united voice against accepting patriarchy and its exploitation of women.

trisha's, commentary about men not caring abou women's safety in this realm,  and others is extremly salient.

I find the educated cultural elite, open regulation stance alarming.

There are no other social contract work place actions that would have such a status.

To make such a non-regulated status, in a realm that is already functioning poorly at best, because of no regulations, is hardly a fix.

I know, and neither am I, but it still does.

Thank you for this JMartin, it would be hoped that your voice is heard,  noted and respected.

Much damage is done to society, when people claim non-bias and wanting to hear  equal voices, but then act in an opposite manner.

Apparently, by it's inherent nature, based upon the name of the forum itself, it  is perceived that it cannot be for both sides.

So far, there is only 1 experiential voice  here, who is willing and wanting to call prostitution, sex work

While there are at least 3 other voices of experience, who reject the use of the sex worker title designation, for themselves.

....thus if they used said forum, and accepted a label being forced upon them, that they did not recognize and dislike, then they would be allowing themselves to be victimized and their voices and experiences to be diminished.

Should they do that, because someone else wants to label them in a manner that they do not want to be labelled?

One can clearly see how troubling  negative labelling  would be to them,  as they have already been stigmatized, marginalized, and exploited,

....and now, in supposedly safe parameters, they are suppoosed to accept  further removal of their rights, by additional marginalization and unwanted labellling, all of which further diminishes their voices.

why would they do that to themselves, in order to appease those that want to labell them?

....after a call for their voices has gone out, so that people here can see and hear their lived experiences, in order to determine the best way forward  with this, one would think every effort would be made to address all's civil rights, when they do show up.

the 3 experiential voices are clearly stating, either create another venue, that recognizes their lived experiences and opinions as valid,  or make the sex worker forum name more unbiased and inclusive, if you want to hear our voices.

Pretty simple  and clear cut  equity civil liberty rights, IMV.

civil liberty in this case, to which I was refering, was their statement...not legal principles, that they would be adhering to their own right, to  stand in their civil liberties,  which gives them the right to reject negative labelling...

after all this exercise is supposed to be about them, their rights, and voices, and not about phoney posturing, is it not?

in as much as people have the right, maybe in some instances, to negatively label peoples,  said  labelled people have a right to reject it publically, and vocally, across the nation, in any venue, if they wish.

...  those in the majority, who have come here, after a call to action was given,  are testifying that they find themselves being placed in a position, that requires them to relinguish their self identity, from the get go.

How offensive is that, after a call out was made to hear their voices? Indeed a call out that stated their voices would be weighted more heavily, as they are the voices of lived experiences.

That they come here now, only to find that their voices are not really wanted, unless they conform,  is a huge disgrace...

This has serious implications, for allies and alleged friends,  who use babble as a progressive hub,...

thus...as I see it, their comments here regarding the forum title, are a notification to rabble, and babblers, if you will,  that they were/are:

not accepting the labels  that are being forced upon them, by the dominant elite non-prostituted  babblers,

not accepting the class oppression actions of labelling them against their will  that is going on here,

are giving, and have gave,  formal notice of rejection of what they see, as more oppression, at what has been alleged to be progressive site that said it wants their views.

are watching to see how events play out, in respect to recognition of equity, before considering their next actions

~

It is pretty damn tacky, at best, to ask for voice to come in and speak, and when they do, have a framework already built that excludes them.

The discontinuity in social justice "walking the talk" being exhibited,  is astonishing to say the least. And has far reaching consequences, both now and in the future.

Okay. So what is the way forward for respectful discussion if people feel it isn't taking place now over these issues?

Even worse.  It has been made clear the term "sex worker" includes numerous jobs within the sex industry, all of whom have their own label, with the exception of prostitute which effectively makes it invisible. That which has no name cannot be discussed.  This is the equivalent of saying whenever we talk about "man" we are also talking about women therefore there is no need for "women" to have a separate label.  That is what makes the term "sex worker" so offensive.

I will tell you one thing for sure. I will not participate in that forum again. I am sorry I started a thread it in. I won't make that mistake again.

It does seem to get to the heart of the identity of the board.

This thread is about the Charter challenge to decriminalization.

No, this thread is about framing the debate for decriminalization. And deciding who is not entitled to speak and what arguments (or words!) are not admissible in this debate seems totally relevant.

(BTW, how come I don't see "moderator" under your name, Unionist?)

ok, i am going to try to enlist some of our supporters to join babble and contribute to these discussions.

unfortunatley, sex industry community members are largely unaware of how society at large view them. it is always so hard to watch workers who have been the victim of a crime trying to access unbiased supports and realizing that we are seen as less.....

i will do my best to convince them it is a safe space, but i can tell you that the way things tend to play out here....i don't know how many will be interested .....

I'd like to help out but I'm still realing from the line I read yesterday that sex work (or prostitution) is not "really" work.

Oh, for pity's sake, martin -- we already had that conversation.

There are other laws that define non-consensual sex as assault. No employment agency, EI or welfare officer could "refer" anyone to sex work who did not freely consent to it.

That to me is a totally illogical conclusion, martin. People who choose to do sex work choose it as such. But everyone may also at any time refuse to consent to sex itself, and there is very strong law backing up that choice, law that is not going to change.