Rights Not Rescue: An Open Letter to the Salvation Army
http://www.firstadvocates.org/rights-not-rescue-open-letter-salvation-army
Rights Not Rescue: An Open Letter to the Salvation Army
September 24, 2009
Dear Salvation Army:
Vancouver's sex workers are distressed and angry over your 'The Truth isn't Sexy'
anti-trafficking campaign. Sex workers are appalled that you never consulted the sex
worker community before launching this highly offensive campaign. Research has
repeatedly found that the involvement of sex workers is critical to the success of antitrafficking
campaigns.
Anti-trafficking initiatives are critically important, but grossly inflating the level of
trafficking and treating most female sex workers as trafficked "sex slaves" does
nothing to improve sex worker safety-it only exacerbates their stigma and
marginalization.
The sex worker community and its allies urgently ask that you end "The Truth Isn't
Sexy" campaign. Equally, we urge the public not to contribute to this fundamentally
misguided and destructive campaign.
The following outlines our specific concerns about the nature and intent of your
campaign.
Your campaign perpetuates myths about the lives of sex workers that will only
jeopardize the safety of its most vulnerable members. It repeats widely debunked
claims and inaccurate statistics about the nature of sex work and the extent of sex
trafficking and needlessly escalates public fears about the sex industry. Indeed, your
campaign website itself is a bewildering mix of lies and half-truths
(www.thetruthisntsexy.ca).
You wrongly conflate trafficking with sex work. Sex work is the exchange of money for
sex, while trafficking is the coerced migration of someone through the use of force,
threat of violence, physical or psychological abuse, abuse of authority, fraud, debt
bondage, or deception. Conflating sex work and trafficking leads to policies and
enforcement strategies that endanger workers and violate their rights.
We note that this is already happening in Canada. For example, there have been
recent raids in Halifax, Ottawa, Grand Prairie, Vancouver, Winnipeg, London,
Hamilton, Barrie, and Calgary. In most cases, these raids have resulted in very few
"rescues" of trafficked women because the majority of those arrested in the raids turn
out to be legal Canadian citizens or permanent residents. We believe these raids have
both a racist and anti-immigrant character because they target vulnerable minorities
and immigrant workers, who have limited resources or are subject to visa restrictions.
Following such raids, many of these workers lose a safe working environment and can
end up in the often dangerous street trade.
The raids themselves are highly intimidating and traumatizing for the workers.
Imagine large numbers of uniformed police officers kicking down the doors, entering
the premises in high alert with their guns drawn, forcing everyone to the floor, and
handcuffing them. The "rescued victims" are frequently treated as criminals-they are
arrested, detained, and even deported, and few are provided with support services.
We also are greatly concerned about the validity of the statistics you use to support
your campaign. On your website, you cite as fact some shockingly high numbers of
trafficking victims. But are there really 4 million women and children enslaved in the
global sex trade, 27 million slave labourers of all sorts worldwide, and 250,000
"slaves" in North America alone?
We know that sex trafficking is a serious crime, and we also know that a wide range of
factors makes it difficult to detect or prevent trafficking. Global estimates of trafficking
victims are often no better than "guesstimates" and can be grossly over-inflated, often
to fit a pre-ordained political agenda. When researchers try to verify such numbers, a
different story often emerges.
For example, a highly respected Cambodian study refuted the common estimate of
80,000 to 100,000 trafficked women and children in that country via a statistical
estimate based on actual counts. Only 2,488 trafficked persons were found. A study of
Vietnamese migrants in Cambodia found that only 6 of 100 women had been duped
and the rest knew they would work in a brothel and were going willingly. In Canada,
the RCMP estimates that 600 women and children are trafficked into Canada each year
for the sex trade, and 200 people are trafficked into Canada for other forms of forced
labour.
Equally, we are alarmed that you choose to repeat the false claim that major events
like the Olympics bring an increase in sex trafficking to meet the demand of tourists
and spectators. Such claims were previously made in regard to the 2004 Athens
Summer Games and the 2006 World Cup in Germany. For instance, about 20,000
forced prostitutes were anticipated for the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, but only
181 trafficked persons were actually reported in Greece for all of 2004. An estimated
40,000 forced prostitutes were expected in Germany for the 2006 World Cup, but they
failed to show up.
In June, a major 150-page report thoroughly debunked the supposed link between
increased trafficking and the 2010 Olympics. The report, Human Trafficking, Sex Work
Safety and the 2010 Games, warned that ill-informed assumptions about 2010 and
trafficking may actually endanger sex workers. The real concern is that Games-related
street closures and the planned security regime may displace sex workers into more
dangerous and isolated areas, in effort to "clean up the streets." The report echoed
an earlier 2009 brief from the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, which found
that "an increase of trafficking in persons into forced prostitution does not occur
around sporting events." Further, the RCMP has stated that there is no evidence to
suggest an increase in human trafficking during the Games (Vancouver Sun, January
7, 2009).
We are horrified by your campaign's images of sex workers. Your posters of women
being abused, a young Asian girl being kicked on the street, and an under-aged sex
worker being stomped on the head are extreme and sensational. They themselves
operate as a form of exploitation because you use them to capitalize on society's fear
of the sex industry to raise money. No one supports the exploitation of any person,
but portraying all sex workers as abused victims and slaves essentially puts workers
beyond human understanding and does absolutely nothing to stem the exploitation
that does happen in the sex industry.
Your campaign asks your members to set up "prayer stations" in areas where street
sex work takes place, as well as at massage parlours, exotic show lounges, and police
stations. Suggestions for prayer stations include displaying a bloody and stained dress
alongside a cracked mirror to represent a sex worker, juxtaposed with a new white
dress reflected in a full undamaged mirror to represent a "rescued" worker. The sex
worker community strongly objects to your use of these highly offensive images
especially when used in a campaign that will never protect them.
To reiterate, the sex worker community urges you to end your "Truth Isn't Sexy"
campaign. In any future efforts, begin by first involving affected stakeholders and then
commit to applying an evidence-based approach to prevent trafficking. The most
important focus now should be to ensure the safety and full human rights of sex
workers before, during, and after the 2010 Games. They deserve rights, not rescue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
FIRST
Feminists advocating for the rights of sex workers and decriminalization of prostitution
(Contact: Esther Shannon, emls@shaw.ca, or: http://www.firstadvocates.org/contact)
Sources:
Measuring the Number of Trafficked Women and Children in Cambiodia: A Direct Observation
Field Study, Part III of a Series. Thomas M. Steinfat, University of Miami/Royal University of
Phnom Penh. Sponsored by USAID. 6 October 2003.
http://preventhumantrafficking.org/reading/measuring-the-number-of-traff...
in-cam.html
Human Trafficking, Sex Work Safety and the 2010 Games: Assessments and Recommendations.
By Raven Bowen and Esther Shannon, for Vancouver's Sex Industry Worker Safety Action Group
(SIWSAG). June 10, 2009. http://www.straight.com/files/pdf/sextraffic2010games.pdf
Trafficking in Persons and the 2010 Olympics. Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women.
February 2009. http://www.chabdai.org/canadaoffice_files/Trafficking in Persons and the 2010
Olympics.pdf
Outstanding letter. Thanks very much for posting this, susan.
This anachronic organization is a relic from 19th century arrogant sexist, racist aristocratic do-gooders. Since then, nothing changed except the never ending increase in sucking of the public purse through its contracts with governments to purchase social services.
I do not want to derail the topic but merely musing: How come those who oppose voucher-schools nevr opened their eyes to the voucher-social services?
mahmud
You know Mahmud, if you are so completely opposed to the Sally-Ann, please feel free to start up an alternate solution. Or at least have the courtesy to propose an alternate solution.
The alternative is no contracting out of public services. I gave the example of voucher schools but you did not get it.
The Salvation Army is blatantly anti-gay. I will never donate a dime to them until they change that, which is unlikely to happen.
http://www.zimbio.com/Gay+and+lesbian+rights/articles/64/Tis+the+Season
From the link:
The Salvation Army boasts that it does its unique service to all peoplein the name of Christ. Well, with that mission, who wouldn't give? The
answer is -- me. And here's why. The Salvation Army is a homophobic
organization; they actively speak out against homosexuality, have
anti-gay employment practices and even lobby Congress in an effort
against gay rights. All of this is justified in the name of religion
and with the use of the Bible, oh and your money.
The Salvation Army is blatantly anti-gay. I will never donate a dime to them until they change that, which is unlikely to happen.
Ditto.
Let me digress, then return to the point at hand, because it all relates.
Salvation Army took over the detox here in London some time back. It's located just by the CN underpass, north west corner of Wellington and Horton. It's also where the kitchen is, and the Men's Mission.
I can well imagine, putting all that stuff into one building is cost effective. But it isn't detox effective. I've seen that with my own eyes, and it's an opinion that our substance abuse rep at work concurs with. And, he is a person of vast experience.
Try walking someone into detox around broken beer bottles and other paraphanalia, while walking past guys you know are there waiting to sell to those walking out of detox. Kinda stacks the odds.
Not taking anything away from the above mentioned homophobia, or other criticisms of the Army, but above all, it seems the overiding problem with them is that the God they serve is Mammon.
So, returning to Susan's opening post, it's not a shock to anyone here when I tell you that this corner of London has become one of the city's premier places for the type of desperate street prostitution we are all concerned about.
The Salvation Army has actually done more in London to create an added venue for the kind of exploitation they claim to battle.
Antonia, is it ethical for any human being to be bought and sold - or just women?
A former prostituted woman Trisha Baptie stated "Allowing a minority of women in prostitution to argue "choice" on the backs of the majority who are out there, in perfect storm of oppression, neglect, abuse, and human trafficking, is absurd.
Choosing exploitation doesn't mean you're not being exploited, and being female does not make you a feminist.[5]
The following are just 4 non-profits that have done the research regarding the harm of legalizing prostitution:
Human beings are not for sale!
[1] Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women & the Rise of Raunch Culture. Also http://jesseharold.ipower.com/spc/spcslideshow-exe.html
[2] Levy, 181.
[3] Carol Smith former porn actress interviewed in Not For Sale via http://jesseharold.ipower.com/spc/spcslideshow-exe.html
[4] Trisha Baptie, former prostituted woman http://www.straight.com/article-232404/trisha-baptie-why-prostitution-worlds-oldest-oppression-must-be-stamped-out%20
[5] Jane Riccobono on Natalie Dylan's auction sale of her virginity.
[6] Merlin Stone, When God Was a Woman. (non-fiction)
[7] http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=74355&AA_EX_Session=6d09ade2f19f544deeaa4aac695af944
[8] http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/838
nice!!!!
welcome to rape relief......nice to see you again.
Hate Crimes
In the BCCEC report, "From the Curb" Sex workers who participated listed the following acts as violence;
Sex workers commented that even children threw garbage at them. People in cars throw beer bottles, pennies, pop and hot coffee. One respondent lost part of her ear due to an assault by a non sex working woman in which the woman threw a beer bottle at her while she was working on the street. Sex workers in our consultation described the pain of being "beaten down by words". Experiences of robbery were also very prevalent amongst respondents. Workers felt they were more at risk after they had made some money.
Their words;
Sex workers described violence as activities ranging from public humiliation and social exclusion to more extreme incidents of beatings, sodomy, rape, extreme violence and the abduction and murder of their friends.
Overwhelmingly sex workers agreed that violence against our community should be considered a hate crime. They also noted that doing so puts their violent experiences into a deeper context. They expressed that violence against our population is done with "specific intent to cause harm" due their social identity and compounded by their sheer accessibility.
The Sex Industry Community as a distinct culture
WCCSIP
Currently violence against sex workers is not considered a hate crime. Although most can agree that there's not much difference between a truck full of good 'ol boys in white hoods jumping in the truck to drive downtown and find some to lynch and a bunch of teenagers jumping in their car to go downtown and throw things at "crack whores". The most disturbing aspect of this is that most of our community members reported the majority of attacks of this nature were being committed by women.
When we delve into history a bit we find references to the sex industry all through out recorded time; Always kept separate, always a distinct and secretive culture. A difficult revelation about recent history is that women in fact are responsible for a lot of the stigma sex industry community member live with today. In 1917 when women received the vote in the War Time Election Act one of the first actions influenced by their vote was the implementation of prohibition. Drugs, alcohol, gambling and sex were all made illegal. Unfortunately for sex industry workers that made us as people illegal.
During this time sex workers were put into asylums under the guise that they were somehow mentally ill thus their immoral behavior. This attack on sex workers in particular female sex workers by other women resulted in great pain and in some cases death for the workers affected. These women went as far as to create an ad campaign depicting sex workers as evil and as the vectors of disease. Their campaign of speeches, posters and radio spots was so broad and far reaching that this stigma exists to this day. We can see in the high numbers of women reportedly attacking sex industry community members and in the way feminist abolitionist groups still promote sex industry workers as victims, helpless and unable to defend or look after our selves. This latest campaign of hatred has gone on for 100 years some of us refer to it as the prohibition war. Since the beginning of this war human rights have come to the fore front and now the sex industry community is seeking recognition as a distinct culture deserving of protection under the charter. We hope to end the campaign to "end sex work" and have our rights to choose employment, be protected from hate propaganda against us, and to be protected from discrimination based on who we are.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 20
Article 26
International Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1.All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person
Part III
Article 6
also, salvation army agreed to meet us and discuss campaign's effects as well as supports to be provided in transition house. we are determined to ensure non judgemental services for victims of trafficking and an inclusive process for designing supports.
as far as childhood abuse.....please. high levels of PTSD are caused by being subjected to oppression via the systems intended to protect us. i have complex ptsd and most of my friends are affected as well. to blame it on being"damaged goods" or to cast all of our families as abusive sexual predators is ludicris.
i respect miss baptie but she is not an active sex worker and does not include exotic dancers, web cam workers, male workers, phone workers in what she sees as our industry. her experiences reflect street level sex work and no one is arguing how dangerous street sex work is.
i am not abused damaged goods and know many workers who also were never abused. perpetuating myths as described above is contributing to our oppression and have been proved over and over to be skewed data and to have no basis in reality.
i hope people here can see through this hateful propoganda and respect our rights as workers.Wow. I guess I should break the news to all the sex workers I know that they were sexually abused as children. Oh, and I better tell them they are too exploited and degraded to speak for themselves. It's a good thing we have all these White Knights, Vancouver Rape Relief and Trisha Baptie included, to speak on our behalves. Imagine if we were left to our devices. Omgosh! I don't think we're competent enough to make our own decisions! (in case you didn't notice, I'm using sarcasm)
One question though. Why all the lies? Why do Rape Relief Vancouver and Trisha Baptie like to tell lies to support their position?
Guess what?! it's because they have no actual, real evidence. There is no evidence that we were all sexually abused as children. This is a figure that was found common among street-based addicts. We are not a handful of sex workers who believe in our right to work safely. We are ALL sex industry workers. We ALL have a right to work safely. You are taking that right away by calling us all victims. You are perpetuating violence in the true sense, not just in your overblown theory way of "porn equals rape." (gimme a break)
The lies, deceipt, and overall campaign to end choice among women and the determination to silence an entire segment of the population should be a source of shame for Vancouver Rape Relief and all the other white knights who join up with Religious organizations and discriminate against transgendered people.
It shocks me that people would dedicate their lives to devaluing the voices of sex workers. Trisha Baptie is ONE former sex worker who had a hellish experience, due largely to her abusive relationship and drug addiction. She should stop presuming to speak for us all. She causes more harm than good. She is a traitor. She hurts sex workers with her deep need to be groomed and loved by the feminazis.
I'm sorry if I'm coming off angry. But I find most of the comments in these forums truly offensive. Do not call me or anyone I know A PROSTITUTED person. You are A DELUDED person. It sickens me on one side. And it's laughable on the other. People devoting their lives to the elimination of other peoples' livelihoods. Oppression of women in the name of feminism. Men becoming man-haters because they've bought into the feminazi rhetoric. HILARIOUS! But disgusting at the same time.
Keep your thoughts off my back. It's your thoughts that are lewd. It's your thoughts that are perverted. Sex is a healthy, natural experience. Men are our brothers, fathers, and sons. They are not inferior and predatory. They are just as oppressed around issues of sex as we are. Just in different ways. Stop shaming my son. I want him to grow up into a world where he is accepted and respected for being a man.
Back off and find something else to desperately hang onto in your delusion. Your hatred will never make you successful. Why do you think the women's movement is such a joke these days. Take a look in the mirror.
Hey Annie, welcome to babble, but comments like this are out of bounds:
She is a traitor. She hurts sex workers with her deep need to be groomed and loved by the feminazis.
This is a personal attack against another forum member. Feel free to disagree with her and state why, without name-calling and attacking. And as I said in the other thread, the word "feminazi" is not to be used on babble, ever.
These are the ground rules for participating on this forum. Please follow them.
Thanks for giving me a bit of time to get used to the forum. Sorry Trisha! I admit I was very triggered when I first started reading. I reacted instead of responding. Thanks for clarifying the rules.
Babble policy can be found here:
http://www.rabble.ca/about/babblepolicy
Thanks. I read it through. Ooh, good thing I did! lol
hi annie!!!welcome to babble!!!
Then it's a darn good thing that claim has never been made.
There are many ex-prostitutes who agree with Trisha concerning the nature of the business over all. Trisha and others are entitled to their opinion of the business as a whole. Of course individuals will have different opinions, and it is perfectly clear that there are women who defend their willing participation in prostitution as is their right. That right does not supercede the rights of others to express their opinion. Given the current court cases and people such as yourself it is very unlikely that the public won't realize you exist. So, Trisha will express her point of view and you will express yours. There is no need to attack her.
If you don't consider yourself to be a prostituted person, then when you hear the term you can assume you are not included as part of the population being referenced. There are many women who do identity with and fall under the term "prostituted people". When the term is used, those are the people being referred to.
where are these many women? actual sex workers with lived experience are expressing themselves. annie is hardly a "priveleged"business owner. how dare you attck her experiences in this way?
1 former sex worker here on babble supports the term prostituted person. we are sex workers.
That's not true. Neither Trisha nor I identify with the term "sex worker" because it doesn't mean the same thing as "prostitute". It's like refusing to name grapes as distinct from fruit. It isn't illegal for Exotic dancers to solicite work and it isn't illegal to hire Exotic dancers. So, if you are just a "sex worker" there isn't anything to discuss because there is nothing illegal about being a "sex worker". Prostitution laws have nothing to do with you.
edited to add:
This isn't a private club. The term "prostitute" is in wide use and many prostitutes identify with the term. They do not become unmentionable because someone here decides they don't have a right to self-identify under that label.
There is a difference between the term "prostitute" (an individual) and "prostituted" (suggesting coercion). I don't like the word prostitute just because it has been requested by sex worker activists to reject it. "Prostituted" offended me all on its own. It is assuming that every sex worker is controlled, exploited, violated, or otherwise victimized. At least I can respect that other workers have bad experiences in the industry. Why cannot people who use the word "prostituted" also respect that some have it good?
Saying that prostitution laws have nothing to do with me is naive. Exotic dancers (as anyone in the sex industry) are stigmatized by the same oppressive rhetoric that escorts are subject to. As long as our laws support and perpetuate the stigma, all sex industry workers will be treated the same by community members, police, support agencies, anti-sex feminists, and religious fanatics - as second-class citizens, the lowest of the low. Our destinies are linked. Our ties are deep. In some parts of the world exotic dance is synonymous with "prostitution." In other places, exotic dance is a non-contact option for women. Regardless of where you live, if you are an entertainer in the sex industry, you are labeled a whore by greater society.
Lots of derogatory terms are used by people who are usually identified by those terms. There is also a concept called internalized oppression, where sex industry workers are taught to be ashamed and don't realize there is another choice. I once suffered from it. Realizing there is no shame in providing an in-demand service between consenting adults leads to empowerment. Because even if you don't want to stay in the work, you won't look back on it with remorse and regret.
I am not ashamed. I've done nothing wrong. Supporting sex workers in finding their voices is rewarding. Watching others try to shame us, silence us, and condescend to us - I am not the one who should be ashamed.
excuse me?are you a prostitute?prostitution has everything to do with me, it is my JOB. is it yours?
another worker has jojned babble and also does not subscribe to the work prostitute or prostituted people.where are the "many "prostsitutes who like to be called prostitutes?
i have explained at length about terms adopted by the sex industry worker community and how those terms change over time. in a thread intended to be about sex workers, not prostituted people- it is extremely rude and demeaning to use terms other than those used by the people affected. sex workers.
i have asked over an over for you to start your own threads for prostituted people and those who identify as such but you can not resist chiming in and derailing topics.
this thread, started by me, was a response to the SA anti traffickng campaign. as it turns out they are completely un prepared and not building any house as they claim to be but instead seem to be intent on housing the "many" victims of trafficking for the olympics in a half way house where dangerous men also live. in direct conflict with recommended supports. these 10 beds....for the "many people" are not by any stretch going to be helpful or accessible to the workers they intend to protect.
we are going to meet with them and hold them accountable. we will not stand by and allow revictimization of trafficked women.
what are you doing to increase safety for sex workers? oh right, you are arguing that a term YOU prefer should be the term used to describe all sex workers.
very helpful.
There was no request that this thread be limited to "sex workers" or those who agree with the term "sex workers"
"prostituted" doesn't mean a 3rd party does the prostituting. Women can prostitute themselves. Some people promote the term as being better than saying "prostitute"
I prefer just saying "prostitute" because it is straight-forward and everyone knows exactly what it means. Trisha Baptie and myself have both made it clear that we prefer the term "prostitute" to "sex worker".
We have every right to use the term as does everyone else because there is no consensus over the use of the term "sex worker" and in fact it has been made very clear that it does not mean the same thing as "prostitute".
If you choose to use it that's fine, I won't object or try to insist that you use the term prostitute. By the same token I expect you to respect my choice of terminology which is broadly accepted.
Exactly. It does not mean the same thing.
Sex worker refers to people who WORK in the industry. Prostitute carries connotations of VICTIMS who are not WORKING, but incidentally get paid for their victimization. The only people who use the term prostitute either use it as a synonym to "sex worker" (as in people who currently work in the industry referring to themselves as prostitutes or others who refer to sex workers as prostitutes because that's the word they've always used); and people who are trying to impose a derogatory term onto a marginalized group of people (as in feminist abolitionists and religious fanatics - one and the same if you ask me - directing hatred and contempt towards sex workers).
Not all sex workers are prostitutes.
That's not true at all. People use the term "prostitute" because it is NOT a synonym for "sex worker". Using the term "sex worker" would encompass people who are not prostitutes. Both prostitutes and ex-prostitutes resent the attempt to make the act of prostitution invisible by making it impossible to differenciate between prostitution and other forms of work within the sex industry.
Everyone I know wants prostitutes themselves to be immune from all legal action against them and neither hate them nor have contempt for them.
How is a service provider supposed to be immune from legal action if his or her "bread and butter" (read: customer) is arrested for accessing services?
The "service provider" is not charged with any crimes even though prostitution in general is deemed harmful. That does not mean every individual "service provider" is unwilling or being victimized.
It means that overall the industry is considered to cause more harm than good to individuals and to society as a whole. For example, not everyone who didn't wear seatbelts was hurt in a car accident. There were even rare incidents in which it was claimed that the seatbelt did the harming. Nevertheless, it was considered of benefit to society as a whole and to most individuals that seatbelts be required by law.
please, now i am akin to a seat belt and the sex industry a car crash i guess.....
Not at all. The point being made is that individual rights do not automatically supercede the rights of society to make decisions based on the greater good.
Annie, feminist abolitionists are NOT necessarily "religious fanatics". Please be respectful of those feminists who disagree with your stance on sex work when you're on babble. Thanks.
I wonder how well it would work out for women if Canada decided that a woman has a legal right to abort a pregnancy, but that doctors would be criminalized for performing an abortion?
Wouldn't that just be so incredibly transparent? Wouldn't anyone with half a brain be able to see that as nothing more than a (very slightly, almost negligibly) veiled attempt to outlaw abortion?
"Oh, but women aren't being stopped from having an abortion", the anti-choice kooks would say. "Nobody wants to see a woman in crisis suffer further, so there would be no law against her having an abortion". Except of course that with nobody to perform it, it may as well be illegal.
So gosh, ya, let's just make buying sexual services illegal, but allow women who want to sell sexual services to go ahead and do so.
Hint: it's just as transparent.
Not a good analogy. The analogy (if you were to use one for women getting abortion services and men getting prostitution services, which is incredibly problematic if you ask me) would be the woman being criminalized for seeking the abortion, and the doctor being immune from prosecution for providing it.
There is nothing veiled about the desire of abolishionists wanting to abolish prostititution. A good clue is the word "abolish".
The intent of decriminalizing soliciting and servicing is to protect the prostitute from charges not to sanction prostitution.
If you really insist that an all or nothing approach is the only one that makes sense I suppose we could criminalize every aspect of prostitution but personally I don't see the sense of that.
Very well. But now I'm kind of curious what makes an analogy "problematic"? I should think that some analogies help clarify, and others not so much, but they're just a comparison of two things. People love to say "you're comparing apples and oranges". Try it. They actually have a lot in common.
Ok. I haven't really been following these threads word-for-word, since they've become both verbose and prolific, but I haven't really gotten the sense that any abolitionist has stepped up to tell susan davis and others "yes, we mean to put you out of a job". But that's basically the goal? Ensure that susan and others aren't criminally charged, just unemployed?
The abolishionist stance is that prostitutes/sex workers/prostituted people, should not be personally subject to any criminal sanctions but that everyone else involved should be.
From the perspective of ideology the idea is for it to be abolished in the same sense that it would be nice to abolish illegal labour conditions, but it's not likely to happen any time soon. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
The abolishionist standpoint is that on balance more harm than good is done by decriminalizing prostitution.
That some women choose to do it, and that some brothels are lovely places, doesn't outweigh the various harms associated with prostitution as a whole and negative outcomes that have occured everywhere that prostitution has been decriminized or legalized.
I see. And so then ensuring that susan and others like her end up unemployed is just "collateral damage", so to speak? An unfortunate but inevitable sacrifice to the common good?
This, to me, reads like:
I mean, it's certainly true, in a sense. Alcohol costs us billions a year, and countless lives. But we also seem committed to the idea that we address things like alcoholism, DUI, broken families, FAS, etc., separate from those who can drink responsibly.
Very well. But now I'm kind of curious what makes an analogy "problematic"? I should think that some analogies help clarify, and others not so much, but they're just a comparison of two things. People love to say "you're comparing apples and oranges". Try it. They actually have a lot in common.
Ok. I haven't really been following these threads word-for-word, since they've become both verbose and prolific, but I haven't really gotten the sense that any abolitionist has stepped up to tell susan davis and others "yes, we mean to put you out of a job". But that's basically the goal? Ensure that susan and others aren't criminally charged, just unemployed?
that is how it makes me feel, end sex work at all costs, nevermind there aren't enough jobs to go around .....who cares if sex workers are forced into deeper poverty.....
I see. And so then ensuring that susan and others like her end up unemployed is just "collateral damage", so to speak? An unfortunate but inevitable sacrifice to the common good?
Susan, and others like her, are working now. I don't foresee that changing with the exception that decriminalizing solicitation would protect them from arrest. Many of our laws are based on the common good taking precedence over individual interests.
I mean, it's certainly true, in a sense. Alcohol costs us billions a year, and countless lives. But we also seem committed to the idea that we address things like alcoholism, DUI, broken families, FAS, etc., separate from those who can drink responsibly
Prohibition failed to achieve it's objectives and led to more problems than it solved. Drinking was a common activity not something a small percentage of people participated it.
Prostitution is not a common activity. Empirical evidence illustrates that laws against it do work and that legalization increases the harms and doesn't allivate the problems associated with prostitution. People who are in favor of decriminalization dispute that conclusion.
I believe that ideological and logic based arguments can play a part in the debate but only after examining outcomes throughout the world and evaluating them keeping in mind that the circumstances can differ from Canada therefore outcomes might not be identical.
the parliamentry sub committee report states 1.5 million men in canada purchase direct sexual services from escorts, sex workers, prostitutes every year. that's not including purchasing adult film or exotic dancing services.
hardly an uncommon activity.
One and a half million out of 33,831,000 Canadians constitutes a minority. I see no reason why the demands of this group should dictate public policy in a domain where harm is so egregious, especially when other countries have demonstrated that this demand could be reduced with public education and the offer of alternatives to the women being exploited. But there seems to be a matter of principle involved: one of male access to women, IMO.
i can't believe how derailed this thread is....
The abolishionist stance is that prostitutes/sex workers/prostituted people, should not be personally subject to any criminal sanctions but that everyone else involved should be.
From the perspective of ideology the idea is for it to be abolished in the same sense that it would be nice to abolish illegal labour conditions, but it's not likely to happen any time soon. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
The abolishionist standpoint is that on balance more harm than good is done by decriminalizing prostitution.
That some women choose to do it, and that some brothels are lovely places, doesn't outweigh the various harms associated with prostitution as a whole and negative outcomes that have occured everywhere that prostitution has been decriminized or legalized.
Then the Swedish model, the ideal that should criminalize the customers will not have any negative effect on sex workers, from what I understand of those with the abolishionist view.
As for Sweden, a report from the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police (2004) found that “Sweden’s legal experiment did not greatly reduce the number of women engaging in street sex work. Figures from Stockholm show that the total number of women on the street has remained stable 1999-2003. The report found that during this period street sex workers became more fearful of violence, were pressured to reduce prices and were pressured to engage in unprotected sex.” (Ironically, Norway is now considering the Swedish Model.)
A study by the Sweden’s own National Health and Welfare Board also found that the law had put sex workers at increased danger of violence due to fewer customers to choose from. A study by the Swedish Police Board found that competition for few clients meant that prices dropped and sex workers were more likely not to use condoms or take more clients to try and earn enough money. The same study reported that people in the health care system expressed concern about health getting worse among sex workers.
The police board further mentioned that the law was an obstacle to prosecuting traffickers, since clients, who had previously assisted women and been key witnesses, were no longer willing to come forward since they were considered criminals themselves.
According to 20 Swedish sex workers that Petra Ostegren interviewed, many sex workers have moved to work indoors by placing ads on the internet. However, sex workers in flats complain that they must work alone and face isolation. Ostegren reports that the sex workers who were in the worst conditions to begin with, often drug-users or homeless sex workers, have seen the worst changes since they have remained on the street where conditions have deteriorated the most.
Sex workers report that police in trying to enforce the law swarm the streets where women are working with video cameras, even filming inside cars to find “evidence”. Police have also used condoms “evidence” of prostitution, discouraging both women and customers from carrying them.
What are other “reduce or end-demand” programs?
http://swannet.org/en/node/577
Well, that is good news. How soon can we make prostitution completely illegal in Canada?
(And why do people continue to say that the activity of prostitution is illegal anyway. The act of prostitution is legal in Canada, has been since the 1800's and this fact has been specifically mentioned numerous times in courts of law, the fact that it is legal is the sole reason for the addition of the sections 210 to 213 in the first place. It is these laws that impede upon sex workers rights to pursue this LEGAL occupation) It is neither illegal to sell nor buy sexual activities, and these activities cover an extremely wide range of services, including those that would be described as BDSM. These are facts. And the majority of the people who work in this legal profession do not want laws that will make any part of it illegal, including the ones that have been added on just to try to reduce the "nuisance" factor of having street workers in their neighbourhood. You have to ask yourself, if these little laws came about to protect street workers, how come they failed?
Ah.
You don't maybe see criminilizing Susan's clientele as perhaps changing whether she's working or not?
Seriously. You REALLY don't think that the precious "Swedish model" might, you know, basically put Susan and others out of work?
Apparently, from the video Susan linked to, not only are they still working they can charge more too. I don't expect the law to work overnight.
As noted in many other posts there are many harms and financial costs to society when buying, procuring, and bawdy houses are decriminalized. Society is not bound to accept these costs based on the personal preferences of a limited number of individuals.
Laws often put people out of work. When it became against the law to install asbestos insulation it put people out of work. They had to find another job. Maybe it was a lower paying job, maybe not, maybe they stayed unemployed. Nevertheless their individual preferences did not take precedence over the collective cost to society.
Policing has been shown to be ineffective in preventing negative outcomes including trafficking, street work, involvement of minors, organized crime and industry growth in general. Industry growth means more women are exposed to the violence that is inherently connected to the industry on a multitude of levels.
But when it does work, and if it works as intended, it will put Susan and others out of a job.
So unless you're pretty convinced that this will fail (and therefore Susan will get to keep working and prostitution will not be abolished) then it's pretty inevitable things will change. How you could not forsee that is beyond me. Or else you could forsee that but preferred not to say, for reasons beyond me.
But this is all just too coy by half.
"Oh, things won't change (other than sex workers being unemployed). Sex workers wont' get arrested for solicitation (as much as anything because they won't bother soliciting for a clientele that don't exist). Everything will be rosy (uh, except for that unemployment, but let's not go there...)"
Prostitution is inherently harmful and abolition doesn't wipe it out any more than other laws wipe out criminal activity. Reducing the industry as a whole results in less harm over all. That may or may not be true for individuals who choose to remain in the industry despite the inherent danger.
The restrictive laws surrounding prostitution are a clear indication the prostitution is not viewed as a valid means of self-support.
We can correct the confusion by criminalizing buying and decriminalizing soliciation.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prostitution-unsafe-anywher...
Judge Himel pointed out that a group of prostitutes who are behind the court challenge have conceded that prostitution is an unsavoury, risky trade.
Society does not have to validate an inherently risky trade that has resulted in the inability of other countries to control the associated harms through policing.
Or else you could forsee that but preferred not to say, for reasons beyond me.
But this is all just too coy by half.
With the laws as they currently stand Susan is working and I doubt any changes will impact Susan's employment possibilites personally or others who are in her particular situation.
The goal is for fewer women to be "employed" in the industry over time. Laws involving employment do result in some people not getting whatever jobs would have been generated were a particular law not in place.
I don't feel bound to spend untold amounts of money on policing and regulating a business that is inherently risky and sacrifice the well-being of other women so that some women can choose to support themselves through prostitution.
Choose a different job, men do.
If you want less policing, may I humbly suggest NOT criminalizing paying for sex? Not criminalizing something usually results in less need for policing than criminalizing something does (See: Drugs, War On)
If it's that simple then I suggest that those sex workers who feel they're being mistreated or exploited just choose a different job and leave sex work for those who prefer it?
Would you be OK with that solution? Have we just squared the circle here?
Decriminalization of prostitution leads to more crime which increases the costs of policing. Criminalizing of johns has proven to be much cheaper and more effective.
Would you be OK with that solution? Have we just squared the circle here?
No we haven't. Minors and vulnerable women are lured into the industry and end up trapped due to the harmful nature of prostitution. Others are physically forced into the industry. Trafficking also increases. Decriminalization or legalization increases the number of women who are victimized at the expense of those who state they are not victimized. Policing has failed to prevent this outcome.
Prostitution is no more necessary than the oil sands projects.
Or alcohol (though it's a lot less harmful overall).
Or alcohol (though it's a lot less harmful overall).
The argument that they are required because they provide employment is baseless. You think prostitution is relatively harmless which is your right but the facts tell a different story.
Or alcohol (though it's a lot less harmful overall).
The argument that they are required because they provide employment is baseless. You think prostitution is relatively harmless which is your right but the facts tell a different story.
The facts do not tell a different story, that is the point. Prostitution in and of itself does not harm people. What is the facts regarding the incidence of violence or coercian in Germany or New Zealand? What are the facts regarding the majority of sex workers in Canada who do not have to face the issues of criminalization of solicitation? You don't know because you either don't care to ask or because there are no studies on it. It is like making all judgements and conclusions about the Earth by arriving in a sealed capsule then exiting it in the Grand Canyon. It is a small portion of the real world, but you would take what you see there in that one spot and draw all illogical conclusions from that.
I thought others might like to see the quote in context, rather than taken out of context as it was presented earlier.
"And your point is?" she asked Ms. Hallett.
Judge Himel pointed out that a group of prostitutes who are behind the court challenge have conceded that prostitution is an unsavoury, risky trade.
Rather, the litigants maintain that striking down the laws would at least enable prostitutes to screen potential clients and operate in a more secure environment, Judge Himel said.
The challengers contend that a reasonable legal regime would be one in which prostitutes can work in brothels, hire security personnel, and freely communicate with prospective clients.
This is a quote from one of the comments in the globe & mail article linked earlier:
If the government lawyers in this court challenge think the present laws are so important and useful, how do they explain that the authorities can't be bothered to honestly enforce them? They knowingly tolerate and often license prostitution operations under laughably false labels of "escort agencies" and "massage parlours". In practice we already have a de facto legalized system, despite the largely unenforced laws. Decriminalization would change almost nothing, except allowing the sex workers the same rights and protection as those in any other business, and perhaps some criminals (and possibly corrupt vice cops they may be paying off, as was happening in Australia before they allowed legal brothels) to get driven out of business by legal competition.
Canada is at the same point as New Zealand several years ago. New Zealand decriminalized the sex business in 2003, and five years later an exhaustively researched government report was issued. While not a total panacea, it improved the safety situation for sex workers. And the fear mongering from the prohibitionists was shown to be have been unfounded.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/act+helps+health+and+safety+sex+workers+report+says
And reading articles and comments elsewhere, there seems to be an lot of fiction that gets naively believed and repeated by prohibitionists looking to somehow justify keeping the unenforced laws.
From the article linked above:
Act helps health and safety of sex workers, report saysAssociate Justice Minister Lianne Dalziel today welcomed a report which shows the Prostitution Reform Act (PRA) 2003 has had a positive effect on the health and safety of sex workers and has not led to a predicted increase in their numbers.
"The report indicates that the numbers have remained more or less the same since the Act came into force and that most sex workers are better off under the PRA than they were previously, which was the intention of the Act.
"There's no evidence of increased numbers of people being used in underage prostitution. In fact, the PRA has raised awareness of the problem," Lianne Dalziel said.
"The PRA has had a marked effect in safeguarding the rights of sex workers. Removing the taint of illegality has empowered sex workers by reducing the opportunity for coercion and exploitation."
The report says many of the perceptions held about the sex industry are based on stereotypes and a lack of information.
Lianne Dalziel said the report shatters several myths with the following findings:
Much of the reporting on the numbers of sex workers and underage involvement in prostitution has been exaggerated.
There is no link in New Zealand between the sex industry and human trafficking.
Prostitution is inherently harmful and abolition doesn't wipe it out any more than other laws wipe out criminal activity. Reducing the industry as a whole results in less harm over all. That may or may not be true for individuals who choose to remain in the industry despite the inherent danger.
The restrictive laws surrounding prostitution are a clear indication the prostitution is not viewed as a valid means of self-support.
We can correct the confusion by criminalizing buying and decriminalizing soliciation.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prostitution-unsafe-anywher...
Judge Himel pointed out that a group of prostitutes who are behind the court challenge have conceded that prostitution is an unsavoury, risky trade.
Society does not have to validate an inherently risky trade that has resulted in the inability of other countries to control the associated harms through policing.
nice, who cares that harms may increase for consentual workers, as long as sex work is eridicated......do you feel no kin ship with us? as a former sex worker do you not wish to make those currently involved safer? or are you just out to satisfy your own need to "end all sex work"?
ending sex work is your political opinion and you are entitled to it. but you still have offered no plan for your decriming of workers and what that would entail. exactly what do you plan to do to eradicate us?...i mean customers and business owners....but us by default.
it's ok if harms increase for consentual sex workers as long as sex work is reduced over all? that has to be one of the most hateful comments i've seen from you yet.we exist. get used to it. we will choose.
how many workers will have to die for you to realize your goal?
She has. You are to "Choose a different job, men do."
I believe that strategy derives from the highly successful "Just Say No" program that eliminated drug use in the U.S.
She has. You are to "Choose a different job, men do."
I believe that strategy derives from the highly successful "Just Say No" program that eliminated drug use in the U.S.
hahaha!!!
so true....yup the drug war has been a complete success!!!!
how many workers will have to die for you to realize your goal?
If you realize your goal the assaults and murders of women on the altar of prostitution will multiply.
I don't agree that your desire to work as a "consentual sex worker" trumps the rights of other women to be protected from assault and murder.
You have the choice to continue the work and while "security" may be illegal there are still plenty of men willing to take the job. You also have the choice to not put yourself at risk in the first place as it has been illustrated that prostitution is inherently dangerous. (see statistics from New Zealand's "success story") A little bit less dangerous is not an acceptable outcome.
Over time jobs become obsolete. For example, there are very few blacksmiths left and carriage-makers are very uncommon as well. Sometimes that's the cost of progress.
yup, and oil workers, fisher men, miners and loggers NEVER die on the job.
you are out of it
6000 years of recorded sex work on the planet and you think it will become...obsolete?
She has. You are to "Choose a different job, men do."
I believe that strategy derives from the highly successful "Just Say No" program that eliminated drug use in the U.S.
And we can also see the results of an almost complete prohibition of prostitution in the US too. Completely illegal (excepting Nevada) so everyone and anyone who wants to engage in the business of prostitution only does it in Nevada. Well, there you go. Complete success.
hahaha!!!
so true....yup the drug war has been a complete success!!!!
until we can overcome our infantilizing and condescending attitudes about women we do nothing to improve the situation for everybody (including male sex workers who are consistantly ignored in these prohibitionist discussions).
how many workers will have to die for you to realize your goal?
If you realize your goal the assaults and murders of women on the altar of prostitution will multiply.
I don't agree that your desire to work as a "consentual sex worker" trumps the rights of other women to be protected from assault and murder.
You have the choice to continue the work and while "security" may be illegal there are still plenty of men willing to take the job. You also have the choice to not put yourself at risk in the first place as it has been illustrated that prostitution is inherently dangerous. (see statistics from New Zealand's "success story") A little bit less dangerous is not an acceptable outcome.
Over time jobs become obsolete. For example, there are very few blacksmiths left and carriage-makers are very uncommon as well. Sometimes that's the cost of progress.
Well, as long as we outlaw marriage as well, since more women are assaulted and killed by their partners than sex workers are killed by clients. And while we are at it, perhaps we should outlaw walking across the road, since more people are killed by drivers while crossing the street than those who stay home and don't go anywhere.
It is convenient that given the overwhelming evidence to contradict everything you use for examples, you decide to choose one thing from the New Zealand report and ignore everything else lol. Just as you ignore real reports from the front line workers like the police and social workers who reported on the aftermath of the Swedish laws. You mention that some sex workers don't use condoms with blow jobs; well that is against the law in New Zealand. It has nothing to do with prostitution or danger or safety, but the reluctance of someone to actually follow the law. Big surprise, like people who still don't buckle up in the car. Just because someone chooses to not follow the regulations doesn't mean the whole thing needs to be discarded lol.
And, furthermore, as far as I know assault and murder are against the law, in any country, regardless of the legality or illegality of prostitution. Additional, yet ignored, evidence stated categorically that the overall safety of both indoor and outdoor workers is affected by criminalization of prostitution.
http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/02/77/77/cb79a8a3.pdf
Aperson who obtains casual sexual relations in exchange for payment
shall be sentenced-unless the act is punishable under the
Swedish Penal Code-for the purchase of sexual services to a fine or
imprisonment for at most six months. Attempt to purchase sexual
services is punishable under Chapter 23 of the Swedish Penal
Code.7
the swedish criminal code is very confusing.......it only seems to recommend at most a 6 month term but mostly a fine....not sure how that will make sex work obsolete....or deter johns anymore than they are now with john school programs....it appears no one thought too much about infrastructure in sweden either as this law is under review again....