Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part III

As this is a very important discussion Canadians should be having, alll perinent aspects of this  deserve and require examination beyond thought terminating cliches, and alienating positions.

From the last thread susan davis wrote:

There is not 2 sets of laws, there is not even 1 set of laws, if you want to know the reality of it all, and decriminalization without regulation keeps it that way.

 

There is 1  voice of  sex workers here and that is your voice, there are 3 or 4 voices now that are here that have detaild clearly their discomfort with the forum the way it stands now.

From this perspectively susan it is your personal forum, as you are the only voice here of "sex wokers" who do actual front line sexual intercourse.

Why would prostituted women feel safe in such a forum?

 

Answer they would not,  3 of them said so for sure here already.

 

IMV, they are already exploited and marginalized, why would they open themselves up for mocking and snide commentary?

 

Why would they accept label imposed upon them by babble, some babblers who are not affliated in anyway with the capitlistic endeavour, and a woman that is a front line sex worker because she wants to be?

 

I stepped into one thread and read all the nasty stuff going on, and I did not feel safe to enter.

 

Glad to hear that, as I am trying very hard to too.

Yes, I think this is very important as a thread, and a thread title, michelle, as the  debate has many dimensions and frames, surrounding the issue of decriminalization.

 

I think the lst thread fully depicted an accurate depiction of several of the frames, that surround decriminalization

Such as:

prostitute voices framework

sex worker voices framework

client voice frameworks

lobby voices frameworks

interested observer voicers frameworks

interdisciplinary voices framework, in several areas that intersect with the whole dynamics that will be at play, no matter what happens

uninformed voice frameworks, of those who want to know more about it all

 

All these views and voices are valuable and pertinent, even those who are uninformed, as they clearly indicate a disconnect with how society functions in their awareness of relaity. Thus, a weakness in the social safety net  has been indentified, that is very pertinent to any public health situation.

If people understand why they should be taking safety precautions like washing hands before  touching your face, or food, the more likely they are to do it. We would not be facing fast spreading epidemics and pandemics like H1N1, SARs, and Norwalk, if more personal health safety was known.

Apparently, most  people need a quick generalized  education on personal health safety, and how the health care system works for them, not against them, for example.

and I know that I am listening and learning from them all. And given the livliness of the discussions and the interest in the threads, others are too.

Placements of discussions and parameters/frameworks matter in this discussion, that people are afraid to do anything and have been for a long time, as nothing has been done, indicates this more than anything.

 

We need to take the  unknown out of the equation, and that is done by revealing frameworks, be they macro ones, or micro ones. Or anything in between those.

 

Honesty, respect and due diligence needs to be given, no matter what side you come down on in this, social justice and socialist thinking demand it. Anything else indicates, other.

 

It is the social mapping that needs to be done, and  rabble/babble is up to it, I think.

double post

In actual fact, we KNOW that pimps, procuers and brotherl owners are not being victimized the most. Thus they fall back from society's contemplations on this as a primary action for change.

They are doing fine where they are, they are not dying in the streets at the hands of johns, nor being beat up by the women they are prostituting, and the customers are not ripping them off.

 

Also, by making any decriminalization of soliciting by prostituted folks conditional to that of solicitation by johns, pimping, procuring and brothel-keeping, i.e. the industry, I feel that some are abetting an ugly piece of blackmail that is stalling progress on a reform crucial to women in prostitution. The Opposition parties that insisted on this package deal, at the 2006 Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Sub-committee on Solicitation Laws, may someday be held accountable for this instrumentalization of prostituted women.

There are ALREADY laws against trafficking in humans, having sex with monors and various other laws. I'm not sure how you can possibly see there are no laws.

 

Martin - keep your hands off our bodies k? I really don't care that you are a "feminist". Please just stop. It is insulting.

 

RE: the thread title it is clear that a handful of you here wish to change the debate fine, but don not pretend you have no voice, as yours is the onbly voice I have been subjected to this last 4 weeks - far more so than susan, skdadl and the others who I would, you know, really like to hear from.

 

It's early and I'm cranky. can't you tell?

It is ironic that you would acknowledge our minority status - "a handful of you" - and yet claim ours is the "onbly voice" you are being subjected to. You may remember I counted speakers and screens in two other threads a while back and got more than a dozen opposing 4 of us, with susan alone occupying 39-41% of thread space. Pace. This is an important discussion - about mostly male actions - that doesn't take well to expressions of "crankiness".

Janet Bagnall's reminder - nearly two years ago - of how decriminalization was framed early on and a look at the social issues involved in kow-towing to sex industry interests: The shame of Olympics prostitution, with quotes that some might want to see forgotten....

Preparations for the 2010 Winter Olympics are well in hand: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is getting ready for violence. The province of British Columbia is keeping to its tight construction schedule. And Vancouver's mayor is preparing to meet the sexual needs of tourists attending the Games.

 

sex industry workers in vancouver are experiencing an economic crash. there will be no increase in trafficking or demand for the olympics. it has been proven over and over, just call any of the other host cities and/or places who hosted hallmark sporting events. it did not happen there and will not happen here in vancouver. many workers are preparing to leave during the games as we feel the high security proceedures will make work impossible for most.

these myths are debunked martin, and are basically a fundriasing tactic and a way for the abolitionist movement to creat fear about the sex industry and further their political goals.it is harming sex workers all over vancouver and the lower mainland and indeed is causing raids and arrests, police in maple ridge are now sweeping street level sex workers, arresting them all in an effort to look like they are doing something about that "prostitution thing".

please do not perpetuate myths such as olympic trafficking or increased demand. it is simply not true. i have posted the link many times to the 2010 impacts study on the vancouver police website.please read it.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=0057e9b8-1503-499c...

Susan Davis, a prostitute, argued last fall that the city, provincial and federal government should provide a safe working environment for prostitutes in 2010 when, she is quoted as saying, tens of thousands of visitors to the Games will be looking for sex.

this is a misrepresentation by a reporter. i never lobbied for olympic brothels ever.....i stated there were 5 distinct street strolls in vncouver and that each could develope a coop of their own.

the article also states what i have said all along, the construction boom was the money....it is over.this reporter was overwhelmed with all the information i gave and simply was mistaken about my position. gee, a reporter was wrong...what a suprise....

nice selective quoting though.

 

martin wrote- in feminist men- words that wound-as one example- in post number 26

I take it then, susan, that you can't support your allegation that Farley's work isn't peer-reviewed.

As for the project of decriminalizing brothels, to which you are closely associated, you and I know that one of the main speaking points used to sell it to the State is that such discreet establishements will allow it to "clean up" the streets. So I have to take with a grain of skepticism your sympathy for intoxicated street-prostituted women who would never be hired by a licensed establishement and whose lives will be made even more harsher. Heavy class issues there.

As for your suggestion that all women prostituted elsewhere than on the street are all exercising free choice, you will have to count me among the non-believers, especially since it has as much support as your slur against Farley's research.

 

martin wrote in post #17 of http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/religious-groups-seek-standing-oppose-f...
Again, there is a mounting body of evidence showing that child prostitution thrives where the activities of pimps, traffickers and johns are facilitated. The cops just give up, feeling that society has given a green light to the trade and they defer to the "self-governance" touted above. As for "consensual", well even the current promoters of brothels and prostitution acknowledge that it's mainly survival sex extracted from impoverished or strung-out women that allows men to get their rocks off at will. Do we want to institutionalize that? I don't.

being called the "chick up front" and the promoter of brothels and prostitution......?

whatever remind, so tired of your bs. i posted examples of my statements but you go ahead and ignore that too, it's what you are good at......

the "pro prostitution lobby" comments came from an article in the vancouver courier in which my reputation was defamed. martin realized it upset me and continues to use the term although not as much lately.infering i represent brothel owners and organized crime and making it seem as if i am backed by orgaized crime.

in one instance i was even accused of being paid by business owners and that the charter challenge was being funded by organized crime, business owners and traffickers.

give your head a shake, go back and read what has been said.

Thanks for the effort to pull those strong quotes, Susan. I stand by every one of them and think they need to be taken into account in framing the debate over full or partial decriminization. I agree with remind that - as everyone can verify - none of them can be construed as an attack on yourself, unless you count as that my politely pointing out an unfortunate misrepresentation of Melissa Farley's research as not having ever been peer-reviewed - when I have documented that it has, in a host of prestigious publications.

Could we cut the "personal attack" mischaracterizations of critiques of a very real industry and lobby - I could certainly complain of many real personal attacks! - and get to work together on getting communities, political parties and the State to finally decriminalize the actions of prostituted women/sex workers and to really take on the actions of the folks and businesses who exploit them, especially those with little agency in their plight?

No, there is definitely a bigger lobby than you susan.

 

 

because that is the truth info, most business owners are ethical.

no one is saying abuse and exploitation don't exist in the sex industry but to cast all business owners as pimps and traffickers is not realistic. it is our tradition to become madames as we get older and to share our knowledge and experience with less experienced workers.

we need places to work. no one should have to enter the sex industry alone and try to "sink or swim". people need tools to make safe decisions about their work and need people who can share the secrets of our trade.

i believe business owners are silent because they are terrified of speaking out. woyldn't you be? i mean look how people are treated when the come out.....

madame scarlett lake is a very vocal person and is in favor of decriminalization. as a result of coming out, she has been bashed repeatedly by people naming her a pimp, trafficker, etc. she is not. she is an ethical business owner providing safe working conditions for women.

alan young is doing the work pro bono.

PIVOT accept donations and so they should. the work they do in the community is amazing.offering free legal advice and support to sex workers specifically as well as many people in the DTES community.

rape relief also pay their staff and take donations. they claim to be volunteer run but staff do get paid.

you assume traffickers, pimps etc will stand to gain the most but you really have no knowledge of how we live. it is workers who want to bring down the laws becuase it will empower us. business owners, pimps etc who in your estimation- want to control us will not benefit from workers being empowered with rights.

eithical business owners are supportive of worker rights and support workers taking the challenge forward.

"most business owners are ethical."

 

Well.....that would be a first in human history, and if it were the case, we would not be seeing the exploitation and trafficking that we are.

Certainly some business owners are ethical in the  general world, but I do not know if I would say most, or could say most, or 50/50 even, as I do not know all business owners. And unless you know most of the business owners in the sex industry, I do not believe you can make such a generalized statement either.

 

Moreover, that other countries are having issues with unethical business owners in the sex industry, indicates the same would be happening here, which is happening here, which is why there are issues with exploitation and trafficking.

 

 

 

remind: No, there is definitely a bigger lobby than you susan.

susan: on babble? i am the target of these sorts of comments...were is the big huge pro prostitution lobby on babble?right here....

I for one have been discussing prostitution and its lobby not on babble but in the Canadian community. That is the locus of the attempt to institute full decriminalization of an industry that is, I am sorry to say, anything but ethical, and that is mostly composed of and funded by men. The struggles of women throughout the land for safety and for respect that both you, remind, infosaturated. others and I have been documenting make that crystal clear.

 

What would happen if a John dropped a few comments here ?
(testing, testing, one, two, three)
I have read the 230 some posts in this thread. (I may read them over again)
Although I have read only one line that equates pimps (criminals) with johns (???),

what is the prevailing opinion here ? Can we hear more sides of this story ?

Soliciting by johns is also a crime (see Section 213 of the Criminal Code) although rarely enforced.

If we can come to acknowledge their prostituting of usually disadvantaged and marginalized women and youths as harming these people and society, then the most effective harm reduction strategy appears to be a) getting a serious conversation going about johns' dynamics, e.g. a book such as Victor Malarek's The Johns - Sex and the Men Who Buy It (who has read it here?), b) awareness-raising among arrested johns, e.g. "johns schools," c) general prevention, e.g. education campaigns among youths, to keep some men from becoming that, and, once we have a realistic dialogue going - d) taking a collective decision as to whether allowing men to buy sex should be protected or not. This is what was done in Nordic countries such as Sweden, Norway and Iceland, and penalization reduced the prevalence of that behaviour among men and, by direct consequence, had a huge impact on the extent of trafficking impoverished women to meet their demands.

Sofar sogood, avoiding absolutes like "all", and "every" and using more reasonable  words like "most" and "usually".
As for Malarek (absolutist) is no expert on anything in my eyes (still googling for his academic credentials).
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I am a part time john (I prefer client).
Never have, never will prostitute disadvantaged, marginalized women or youths.  Never have, never will seek out a SW or visit a brothel. IMO an independant  entertaining a client in her private home or apartment, is not a john visiting a brothel, but technically we are both criminals.
No pimps, no agency, no public soliciting etc.
She has screened me, as I have screened her. I respect her person, property and her neighbours. I am guilty of what ? Am I average, maybe not. Am I one of a kind, I know I am not.
Not allowing men to buy sex means not allowing anyone to sell it either !
More prisons for pimps and traffickers, where do I donate ?

rework: Not allowing men to buy sex means not allowing anyone to sell it either !

Not true; it's easy to think of interactions where only one party is sanctioned. This is what I meant by men's use of the "chicks up front" strategy, using women as human shields to protect male privilege.

What is missing to frame the debate is a collective, evidence-based awareness of the harms of prostitution: Demand Change! is a U.K.-based joint campaign by Eaves and OBJECT which aims to promote an increased understanding of the myths and realities surrounding prostitution and calls for prostitution to be seen and widely understood as a form of violence against women.

in your opinion, the minority.....please

$100 room rental- do you have any idea how much it costs to maintian a space such as a body rub parlour? the advertising- $500 a week per girl for all papers and online--, hydro electric, computers and equiptment, laundry facilities, furiture, towels, sheets- toys and props, security....water- in vancouver businesses pay a tax on water waste generated by the business.

this rate - when put next to the wage- $300-$800 and hour in parlours- is reasonable compared to the safty and stability provided by the busniess owners.

you act as if the $100 isn't justified, it is.

once again, your assumptions are not based in lived experience and you continue to show you have no idea how we live.

Yes, and this is another UK-based campaign which deals with the actual reality, that prostitution laws are the problem. If you get a chance, you should see the documentary.  It is almost Monty Pythonish lol.

www.nzherald.co.nz/prostitution/news/article.cfm?c_id=612&objectid=10524269

That is a moralistic POV not a fact based POV.   It is like saying that since the majority of bank tellers are female, then bank telling can be seen as a form of violence against women because bank tellers are on the front line when someone comes in and robs them.  Or nursing is a form of violence against women because nurses can be assaulted by violent patients, so often inf fact that they have protocols in place to deal with this. 

As far as street workers numbers not significantly decreasing, then that is an issue for having a safe work place, isn't it?  Not that you need to outlaw prostitution to get rid of it.  a + b does not necessarily equal c.  If you want me to see arguments from a logical perspective, the clauses must make sense first and logically draw a conclusion.  The statements made thus far do not.  

 

 

 

Fortunate, the argument is not that every prostitute is assaulted or that every brothel is a hell-hole. The argument is that prostitution as a whole is violence against women as a whole. As can be seen below, legalized prostitution creates more problems than it solves, even in New Zealand. 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/prostitution/news/article.cfm?c_id=612&objecti...

The accused, a 47-year-old computer programmer, was granted continued name suppression, but his alleged victim was revealed as Nuttidar Vaikaew.

Her body was found on May 12 at a house in Warwick St in Western Springs, where she worked as a prostitute.

Police believe that Miss Vaikaew, also known to her clients as "Sky", was killed on April 17.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/prostitution/news/article.cfm?c_id=612&objecti...

Property managers at high-end Auckland apartment buildings are going to desperate lengths to evict illegal brothels.

One said prostitutes were openly soliciting other residents, but she couldn't evict them until they fell behind with their rent.

Others have resorted to shaming clients and calling in police to "muscle out" prostitutes.

Property managers Jacqui Cheal and Larry Dickie, who manage about 80 central city apartments, said it took five months to remove a brothel from an expensive property in the Viaduct Harbour.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/prostitution/news/article.cfm?c_id=612&objecti...

A 2005 report by the Prostitution Law Review Committee estimated there were 423 sex workers in Manukau, of whom 150 were on the street. The report also found that street prostitution was the most likely entry point for underage people to the sex industry.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/prostitution/news/article.cfm?c_id=612&objecti...

"[Street prostitution] has been an ongoing problem since 1998. We've been battling to get them out for a long time - we will continue to battle this," Pakuranga councillor Mr Quax said.

"We tried to bring in a local act, to get prostitutes off the streets in Manukau only - only to be told to that wouldn't work unless it was outlawed.

Mr Banks acknowledged that Manukau City was not the only council battling street prostitution and illegal brothels popping up in various suburban streets throughout the city.

Although he knew of the many problems caused by prostitution - and the dangers prostitutes were inadvertently putting themselves in - he would not judge a person's chosen lifestyle.

"[Street prostitution] isn't going to go away - it will continue to grow and we will have to deal with it."

So much for the prostitution industry in New Zealand not growing:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10597283

It will also discuss an urgent need for research into the high rate of sexually transmitted infections among Asian women because of cultural sexual attitudes and the growing Asian sex worker industry.

...

Angel Zhang, originally from China, has been re-infected with chlamydia, a sexually transmitted infection, three times - by her husband - whom she says visits prostitutes regularly.

 

 

I don't recall saying there were happy neighbours, only that they are able to work from home environment legally without fear of breaking a law.  Individuals working out of one location do not need a license, they can also have someone work for them.  This eliminates two of the three laws, and reduces the overall stress of not only working illegally at home but also unable to have a security or friend around to help out.  In NZ, this is perfectly legal.

Not at all. I am saying that other populations are more important than the ones that are currently working out of their homes and are apparently content in their chosen profession.

Yes, I get that these other populations are more important to you personally.  But what about what is more important to the majority, if not all, sex workers?   What can be more important than that people can be breaking the law doing legal work?   Worker's rights should be just as important as any other.  If you apply a very simple and harmless solution to something that affects 100% of all sex workers, even if the immediate benefit is only seen immediately by 85+%, then these 80+% can now feel empowered to work towards lending their hands to helping that 15%.

The practise of not charging the women in these illegal incall locations is based on the cost and time it would take to find them all; I find your use of "most" in this case to be deliberately misleading.  "Most" are not involved due to societal pressure or constraints in any form or other.   "Some" are.   Unless "societal pressure" means all adults need to work to pay our bills, lol.

What do you mean "don't feel victimized"?   Once again your language is trying to imply something that is not true.   If, by what you are saying, that those who say they are not vicitimized are simply misinformed?   Are we not capable of deciding these things for ourselves?  Would you not prefer that the majority of sex workers who are working happily in such a privileged experience not become 100% of all sex workers, such that no one should be compelled or feel compelled?  Does not empowering through acceptance and not labelling us all as "victims" do more to help reduce and eliminate the women and men who are compelled or under duress?   But aren't those already marginalized due to addictions and mental health concerns, and should not those two things be society's main concern right now?  Should we not all be striving towards harm reduction in addictions and drugs and mental health issues instead of attacking a perfectly legal form of work?   Prostitution, usually street work, enables addicts to pay for their drugs.  If they were men, they would break&enter to steal for money for drugs.

Johns are purchasing a legal service, provided by sex workers.  The only reason they get arrested right now is that some of them either go to an illegal work place or engage in conversation in public.   That is like saying a hotdog vendor can sell hotdogs, but no one can ask how much they are.  And when the customer buys it, not only can he not eat in public, he will have to rent a hotel room in order to eat it legally.  And in the meantime, he will have to call up the hotdog vendor and have it delivered, and that will make the whole thing not only ridiculous, but at least it will be legal.

 

Alan Young is an advocate and an amazing professor. He has always been fighting morality laws. If you are interested in Alan young, Google is your friend, or you might read his book aptly (for this subject) titled Justice Defiled: Perverts, Potheads, Serial Killers and Lawyers. He has been a very very strong advocate of legalizing marijuana. As a former Criminology student I would have jumped at the chance of working with him on any of his projects. He has been an idol of mine for quite some time.

Here is an exert from the back of the book:

Once you recognize the law's destructive potential, keeping the law within the narrow boundaries becomes a political imperative. It should extend only to target behaviour that is seriously harmful to others. It should never be used as a tool of moral hygiene....The state should have nothing to say about our choice of girl- or boyfriends or our choice of diet or our artistic proclivities or our choice of intoxicants. Some people will hump themselves to death or intoxixate themselves into oblivion, but that is no business of the state unless the excess decadence truly hurts an innocent third party...The frnezied crusade to apprehend illegal pleasure-seekers not only fosters violence and corruption, it takes away valuable resources needed to combat serious predatory crime...Thousands of law abiding Canadians get dragged before criminal courts for pursuing alternative lifestyles... (snip) 

copyright 2003

Oh so that's what you got from that martin? How did I know you would reduce it to a quaint little sound bite? Damn I wish I had the ignore feature.

 

Care to address what Alan Young is actually talking about? Nope? Didn't think so. I think you may be fully incapable of realizing just how pissed off it makes women feel to have a man tell them what they can or cannot do FREELY with their bodies. How about addressing those who chose sex work? Oh right, you don't think they do, right? They are really just fooling themselves, but you...you have the answer and gosh darnit, those women will never sell sex as long as you can stop them.

 

What year is this?

I am quoting Professor Young's most salient point: (The law) should extend only to target behaviour that is seriously harmful to others. I happen to agree with him on that.

But many women who are or have been in prostitution are calling seriously harmful the behaviour of johns, pimps and brothel owners, that traffic women internationally and domestically. I am not ignoring their experience or their words and I am siding with them against these men. Sorry if that "pisses you off," Stargazer, and that you apparently feel the need to repeat that tired straw man argument that would have me "telling women what they can do with their body." Not true, period.

The Cause of Sex Trafficking is the Demand for it.

Just like arms and drug trafficking, human trafficking exists to meet the demand.

An estimated 2 million women and children are held in sexual servitude throughout the world, and between 800,000 and 900,000 are trafficked across international borders for the purposes of sexual exploitation each year. These women and children make up the "supply" side of sex trafficking.

This supply has been created to meet a demand. Without this demand, there would be no need for trafficked women and children. The demand side of the trafficking equation includes those (mostly men) who buy sexual services and/or consumer goods (videos, Internet pornography, etc.) created from the sexual exploitation of trafficked persons. Little attention has been given to the demand created by those people and organizations that benefit from the commercial sexual enslavement of women and children.

To combat sex trafficking, much more information is needed to understand the root causes and conditions that create a need for a supply of trafficked women and children. Without this information, those who are motivated to exploit and use trafficked victims will continue to remain a mystery. By understanding the dynamics of demand, we can develop the legal and political policies necessary to control and end this horrific practice.

 

 

 

I am referring to the logic behind the law not arguing whether or not that is the actual situation. Whether or not it is true that most women are victims, the law is based on holding women innocent and considering prostitution as a crime against them.  The law was not written that way to condone prostitution as a legal form of work.

I'm not implying anything. I am saying the law regards prostitutes as victims not perpetrators therefore prostitutes aren't charged even if they themselves don't agree that they are being victimized.

It's not an either or situation. It's disingenuous to claim that because prostitutes aren't arrested for the actual act that prostitution is legal.

If you feel the law needs to be clearer I am all for tightening it up by specifying that the act prostitution in and of itself is illegal on the part of the purchaser.

http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/viewMediaRelease.php?id=29&sid=36&nid=66&year=2009

She needs to review rudimentary principles of science ;

“While there has been a growing body of qualitative evidence documenting the negative impacts of criminalization of prostitution on the health and safety of sex workers, our study demonstrates – empirically – a direct link between the criminalization of sex work and the increased odds of violence against female sex workers,” says Dr. Kate Shannon, the lead author of the study.

Conducted over two years in partnership with the WISH Drop-In Centre Society in Vancouver, the study involved 237 female street-based sex workers. Of the 237 women, 57% experienced some form of physical or sexual violence during the 18-month study period. Key structural factors of homelessness and inability to access drug treatment continue to further elevate the risk of violence against female sex workers. 

Her study doesn't show any causative link between criminalization and and the harms suffered. What the study does prove is that street prostitution is dangerous.  There has been no reduction in streetwork anywhere it has been decriminalized or legalized and no claims that it has become safer. There is evidence that streetwork increases under both.  Sweden has successfully reduced streetwork.

I would very much like to see the "qualitative evidence" she refers to.

"This victim mentality is a convenient way of absolving oneself of blame for making ill-conceived or unwise choices."

I find this incredibly woman-blaming.

Sweden has simply driven it underground, where no one can be visually impacted or affected by the sight of street workers and thus become offended by their presence.  That is the reality of anti-prostitution laws after all.  

If you need qualitative evidence, then you need to do your research.  You cannot invalidate this study, yet embrace every other one that has nothing to back it up other than it agrees with your own POV.  

Just google Sweden escorts and get:

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=sweden+escorts&btnG=Google+Searc...

These new laws certainly don't seem to have affected anything other than what someone can see from their car window.

 

The conclusion drawn is automatically invalid based on the most rudimentary scientific principles.

I reject any and all factual claims if the study doesn't support the claims. For example, street-based data cannot be extrapolated to indoor workers.

 

Street work, which is the most dangerous, has been reduced. Montreal doesn't allow pretzels and hot-dogs to be sold on the streets either.  There is no automatic right to ply one's trade on the streets.

That escort services continue to exist doesn't mean they always will. Many laws aren't 100% effective and I certainly don't think that prostitution will be wiped out anytime soon.  The goal is preventing it from expanding and reducing what already exists.

 

 

and perrin and farley's research isn't........?

in kamploops the city officials tols us of how great their programs of arrest and humiliaiton were working and how there had been 85 sex workers on street the year before and now it was down to 72....

when asked where the sex workers went, authorities did not know.....i asked are they dead.....?shorlty after the highway of tears was extneded to kamloops.....

what does decreased numbers mean? are they dead, are they ebing held prisoner?are they forced to take any work they can get in order to eat?

sometimes your short sightedness maked me wonder dude.....

where did these workers go? did they evaporate, were they taken by aliens?

wheres the numbers showing how many sex workers accessed supports, or exited successfully?

Some people earn a living smuggling alcohol from the States to Canada. We don't make it legal because that's the way they earn their living or because unemployment exists.

You asked where they went. Maybe they accessed this program.

From Kamloops:

http://www.askwellness.ca/shop.html

The Social and Health Options for Persons in the Sex Trade program is offered in partnership with the Elizabeth Fry Society.  S.H.O.P.is funded through the City of Kamloops and enhanced through generous donations from individuals and organizations such as Kamloops United Way.  Its mission is to provide opportunities for people in the sex trade to exit the trade. This is done in three parts; community development, outreach and support groups.

The Goals of S.H.O.P. are:

• To assist individuals in exiting the Sex Trade and in maintaining their exit
• To advance education and prevention
• To increase community awareness and promote partnerships between sex workers, residents, community groups, businesses and government
• To improve the health and safety of individuals and our community through crisis intervention and harm reduction strategies

If you have any comments or questions, or would like to get involved, please do not hesitate to contact us. To discuss the community development aspects, volunteering within the S.H.O.P. program or S.H.O.P.’s outreach services, please contact Heidi at 250.376.7558 ext.233 or heidi@askwellness.ca.

edited to shorten the post

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/339/aug11_3/b2939

Conclusions Our results demonstrate an alarming prevalence of gender based violence against female sex workers. The structural factors of criminalisation, homelessness, and poor availability of drug treatment independently correlated with gender based violence against street based female sex workers. Socio-legal policy reforms, improved access to housing and drug treatment, and scale up of violence prevention efforts, including police-sex worker partnerships, will be crucial to stemming violence against female sex workers.

The study did not conclude that criminalization CAUSED the gender-based violence.  They did not suggest that decriminalization would lead to a decrease in violence either. Everyone agrees that street work is dangerous which is the only conclusion that can be drawn from that report.

http://tinyurl.com/y8uab35

Page 12 of the actual report states that there was a decrease of 32% in Stockholm, 65% in Gothenburg, and 15% in Malmo for a total reduction of 41% from 1998 to 2003 (in street work)..... (Ironically, Norway is now considering the Swedish Model.)

Maybe not so ironic, and Norway isn't considering, they have done it as have others and with more countries considering it. That report was completed in 2004.

http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article1424

Interestingly, despite the country’s extensive planning prior to passing the legislation, the first couple years into this novel project nothing much happened at all. Police made very few arrests of johns and prostitution in Sweden, which had previously been legalized, went on pretty much as it had gone on before. Naysayers the world over responded to the much publicized failure with raucous heckling, "See ? Prostitution always has been, and it always will be."  But eminently secure in the thinking behind their plan, the Swedes paid no heed. They quickly identified, then solved the problem. The hang-up, the place where their best efforts had snagged, was that law enforcement wasn’t doing it’s part. The police themselves, it was determined, needed in-depth training and orientation ...

No one expects the laws to change everything overnight.  Reduction has been slow but it is happening and to have stopped the industry from continuing to expand is a success in it's own right. Sweden is also a less attractive target for trafficking. The trend is in the right direction.

The studies by Sweden’s National Health and Welfare Board and the Swedish Police Board weren't  properly cited so I wasn't able to track down the origins of the claims that were made. Given that false claims were made about the studies I did find I have my doubts about these claims which weren't attributed to any particular person or to any dated statement by these organizations.

The claims made about the studies above aren't wrong because the writers were biased, they are wrong because the writers made demonstrably false claims about what the studies indicated. In the first case the study's conclusion was misrepresented and in the second case the data was misrepresented.

To get back to the issue of framing the debate, all studies, pro and con, should be examined for bias and for conclusions that aren't substanciated by the data. But, that a researcher, such as Melissa Farley, is percieved to be biased doesn't automatically invalidate her work.

It's also about men, i.e. our challenging their current right to access/control/pimp women's bodies.

I wish it was perceived as such but no, so far, Professor Young is defending as an element of women's control men's hardly challenged privilege to pimp, sell and rent women's body .

Some may remember we have gone down that road before... Thirty years ago, many were arguing against arresting wife batterers, claiming that this detracted from women's agency to remain with these men.

And to cease focussing exclusively on women's agency in the matter, as was the custom then...

Janine Benedet and Trisha Baptie discussing Professor Young's all-or-nothing shell game and questions of legacy to our children, in a video done by student journalists at BCIT who came to cover the announcement of Vancouver's Abolition Coalition.

 

That's correct. We started to focus on the men battering women.

 

Not the men NOT battering women, please note.

 

It's a shame that a similar approach won't satisfy abolitionists, who seem to feel a need to focus not only on the men assaulting or harming sex workers, but also on those who aren't.

 

I'm glad abolitionists weren't around back in the day, or I expect a lot of men would find themselves lumped in with the batterers (especially if Sweden is doing it!!)

This is a personal attack and out of line.  Don't.

Has anyone ever told you how incredibly rude you can be, Remind?

Actually, this could serve as a textbook example of a personal attack. May I plead, for remind, the shock effect of being subjected to continuing sacasm on an allegedly progressive board, for trying to oppose conditions widely acknowledged to be akin to slavery for millions of women and children worldwide?

"act prostitution in and of itself is illegal on the part of the purchaser."
That's news to a hole wack of dudes that call a girl over to their hotel room !

Can we concede that, since tthere are different kinds of sex workers/prostitutes, that there are also different types of client/johns (with various reasons/excuses) ?
Any John surveys, anywhere ?
Ever heard of White Knights, Lap Dogs ?
(This is part of the "client voice")

If one thinks that it is "all" about mens dicks, then ignore the following.

Google: sex surrogate (notice the difference between U.S. and Canada)
(dont want to be "the test case")
? What is this society really doing for the disadvantaged, marginalized.
Wealth Redristribution (care to part with some of yours for the greater good) ?

(I am all for serious, respectful debate. If I'm rehashing what has already been said, or getting off topic, just say so)

 

Martin, I asked a simple question after being rudely attacked. We all know the difference between a question and a statement, correct? The attack I received was in response to a clear, succinct, emphatic statement of what I believe is the framework. Now are there questions which need to be addressed within the framework? Of course, they are but the personal attacks taking place around here lately sure aren't allowing that to happen.

Because other countries have tried policing and not been able to control trafficking and the involvement of organized crime and a multitude of other harms associated with the industry.

Society is not morally bound to spend untold amounts of money on policing and other costs associated with prostitution so that some women can choose it at the direct expense of other women.

Barring pretzel sellers on the streets of Montreal is also "denying them consensual agency" by your definition.

Nothing prevents women from having sex with men. Their personal agency remains intact.

It is valid for the state to evaluate businesses based on their impact on government costs and on harm to the community or to individuals.

OK, here's what's left of the abolitionist argument at this point:

"Blah blah greater good harm harm PROSTITUTED blah blah Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden greater good mucous membranes".

At least martin did not ever once make a blatent statement that he believed abolition was mandatory to women's self determination rights.

 

Men stating in the feminist forum, that they "believe" they know the truth of it all, and this whole thing is about the right of women to control their body, full stop,  as your quote below says, then it is patriarchial and insulting You also said full stop, thus meaning no discussion beyond that need exist, only you know what  the reality is in otherwords, not me, a woman, nor any other women who sees it differently than you.

 

 

My words are not a gross exaggeration of your words as they stand, if you meant other, perhaps you should have expressed it differently?

 

And standing in my rights to freedom of conscience of what my beliefs are in this matter as a woman, and a feminist  in the feminist forum, does not indicate rudeness, nor a personal attack, when I challenge  your assessment and pronunciation on it, as a man.

 

Should martin have been running around yelling  rude personal attacks in the feminist forum too, when stargazer too stood up for what she believes to be the truth in this?

 

 

Same with marriage. Martin mentioned batterers above; they still exist. We (I pray) aren't tempted to criminalize marrying a woman in order to stop battering. Somehow we remain committed to addressing batterers as the problem, not marriage and not all men.

 

Look harder.

rework: (I am all for serious, respectful debate. If I'm rehashing what has already been said, or getting off topic, just say so)

No no, your input is precious; you are the first to seriously present prostitution as "wealth redistribution", and we certainly can use a different perspective. Come to think of it (pun not intended), just think of the billions being handed out to (mostly female) welfare recipients with practically no sexual counterpart for the rich!

"Truly" was an adverb modifying "talking", Remind. As a former Writing Centre Consultant, I am finding your interpretations "amusing", to use your word.

There is nothing suggesting that outlawing marriage would lead to a decrease in battered women or decreased policing costs.

Raising children can be done by same sex couples and single women but the most practical means society has of reproducing itself still lies in male/female coupling. Therefore, the act of marriage is of benefit to society as a whole.

 

But definitely all men buying sex, yes?

 

No difference between, say, a violent man buying sex and a non-violent man buying sex. We can apparently differentiate between a normal husband and a batterer, but you cannot seem to differentiate between an abusive john and a man who has sex, hands over the money and leaves.

 

And of course by "can't" I mean "don't want to". But why don't you want to, Martin? You seem peculiarly fixated in lumping them together.

 

Why? (I'm hoping for a personal answer here, not "because Sweden does".)

The suggestion here is that if anyone disagrees with your 'belief" that the entire frame for debate rests in that single point they must not truely be talking about framing the debate.  

Emphasizing your assertion that "the right of women to control their bodies" is the only frame that pertains to laws regarding prostitution.

Which, by the way, is ridiculous. Laws concerning prostitution don't prevent women from having sex which is the aspect that pertains to "controling their bodies".

Maybe an analogy can help you see that there is a structural problem with men using their disposable income to buy someone's sexual agency, i.e. not bother with niceties such as mutual interest.

When Whites used to lynch Afro-Americans in the U.S. - of course they didn't experience it as such, it was more akin to "Sunday family entertainment", simply "the way things were" and "what some people deserved" -, one could have argued that the only guilty parties were the one or two guys actually slipping the noose around the victim(s). Today, we can agree (I hope) that it was the social system that was criminal, and that all attendants shared in the responsibility, without focussing on the agency of the actual purveyors of a socially-sanctioned violence.

[graphic photo of incident described below removed by moderator]

The lynching of Laura Nelson in Okemah, Oklahoma in 1911; she had tried to protect her son, who was lynched together with her. Both had reputedly been involved in the killing of Sheriff Deputy George H. (Source: Wikipedia)

This is getting long.  I suppose there'll be a part IIII

Some one let me know when the debate gets framed.

I had closed this but I'm reopening to respond to some feedback on Martins post which I had missed.

 

Jesus Martin, what are you thinking!  You have at once managed to be totally offensive to everyone on the other side of the debate from yourself, as well as to demean the memory of those who went through those nightmarish times in the US, and who struggle with the aftershocks today.

FURTHER, images like that are triggers for anyone from any of hundreds of the worlds more conflicted spots who are dealing with PTSD.

How 'bout next time just sticking with more pedestrian debating tactics.

 

I apologize to the entire Babble community.

However I disagree that historical and occasionally graphic accounts of lynching are "snuff and torture porn" - I don't beat my meat to this horror and I am convinced none of you do - so I disagree that such images should be censored as they just were.

Finally, I think we should have a calm and respectful discussion on in rabble reactions about the use of the word "appropriation" because I have noticed that it gets used as a debating tactic and rather loosely IMO.

There is a lengthy and honourable tradition to analogizing the struggle against lynching (abolitionism it was called - and a fight waged by White women foremost) and the struggle against a prostitution system that is just as murderous and racist.

Oh yeah, I was closing this, wasn't I

I would appreciate if you would not conflate the abolitionist movement with the anti-lynching movement...

 

Thank you for that distinction. I have much to learn.

And I appreciate the time you took to make that point despite your justified anger. I realize what a pain it must be to have to deal with half-baked arguments that can seem opportunistic but that I assure you are heartfelt. I had made the choice to use an image of a murdered woman because lynching and racism in general - is usually associated with that of an oppression leveled against men, making the lot of racialized women - as are many in prostitution -  even more invisible and difficult to address.

And what part of not illegal in Canada seems to need clarification.?   I, for one, can't exactly take legal in Canada and turn that around in any way to say that the law makers did not intend for prostitution to be legal.   What happened, after 50 or 60 years, is that some conservative wackjobs came in and asked how could they control women a little bit easier.  Especially, considering that sex work is relatively high paid work, something not that easy to come by at that time for women.

The additional laws were added on not that long ago, and simply in an attempt to NIMBY the activities surrounding street work.  The researchers you try to invalidate were making the logical conclusion that the anti solicitation laws, not street work per se, were what was contributing to the dangers street workers face.  Especially if you link that to the fact that indoor workers do not, overall, experience these dangers or pressures overall.

Besides, the conclusion you draw is flawed.  Prostitution has been clearly legal in Canada for over 100 years.   The laws were added about 20ish years ago.   The added laws certainly did nothing to legitimize prostitution, only control women doing it.  People who do sex work off street experience little or no impact from these additional laws, Revenue Canada is happy to take our money, city bylaw departments are happy to sell escort licenses, and newspapers and yellowpages are thrilled to sell advertising space.  

Just because someone claims something is untrue doesn't mean it is lol.  You will have to do a lot better to back up your claims regarding the legality of something that I have experienced, researched and examined for several years now.   IMO, the unjustifiable cannot be justified by wild accusations, unsubstantiated claims, and because I say so statements.   The reality is out there, and right here, for anyone who truly wants the information.

The primary concern of a civilized society should first and foremost to do no harm.  Abolitionists are doing a great deal of harm, simply because they do not care to ask the very people they claim to be "helping" a very simple question:  "What do you want?"

The answer:  We want to do our jobs, and we do not want neither ourselves nor our customers to be criminals for doing it.

Just like any other worker in Canada (or self employed "business owner" if you prefer, remind)

Either way, in my opinion the solution lies in Sweden's approach not in dismantling the laws concerning bawdy houses and procurement.

The actual study did not reach that conclusion because it would be a logical fallacy to do so. "Correlation is not causation" is not something I made up.