Prostitutes have no right to safety, government asserts
March 9, 2011 - 11:10pm
That's just disgusting.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
i couldn't believe this when i saw it this morning. i had to meet the NDP women's caucus/committe...? this morning to disucss our position so haven't had time to respond yet...or even absorb it at all really... it makes me afraid.
i am afraid that nothing we are doing will matter, that change will never come in time, that people truely don't care what happens to us and are willing to let us die over an ideal.
for 25 years i have worked in an industry with no occputional health and safety, no labour complaints process,no unbiased access to supports and health care or even protection of law.
the government says, we get what we deserve, abolitionists say, we harm all women so we get what we deserve, church groups say we harm families so we get what we deserve, the police say we're criminals so we get what we deserve....
don't people get it? when women are missing and murdered it is because we as a society say, they get what they deserve...
instead for working to increase the safety of sex workers and empowering them with rights...why?
the thing that vexes me is it is technically legal to prostitute, yet it is the government regulations that you can't pay for it, etc. that make it violent. Doesn't the government have a duty to it's citizens to not enact laws that worsen violence re: legal professions?
I mean, this is even more obvious than the argument that making pot illegal leads to violence, at least the drug is actually illegal. this is like saying, sure you can be a pilot but you can't put enough gas in the plane to fly it, you can't use your landing gear to land it and you have to fly blindfolded. then claiming it's not their fault planes keep crashing, since they don't really have an "obligation" to protect passengers, it's at your own risk.
this is double speak if i've ever seen it.
Since when does the government have the moral and ethical right to decided which members of society will be afforded the protection of the legal system. Quite frankly, this position taken by the government is bullshit.
Could it be that some these lawyers and lawmakers like beating up prostitutes in their spare time?
Just to clarify something I think may be slightly misleading in this article:
http://rabble.ca/news/2011/03/criminalizing-sex-workers-harms-most-vulnerable
I believe negotiating fees in exchange for sex is not necessarily illegal if done privately, though doing so in a publicly visible location would violate section 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is one of the three sections in question, along with 212(1)j and 210.
212(1)j involves living on the avails of prostitution of another person, basically an anti-pimping law. But its reach is so broad that sex workers cannot legally hire security (or anyone else), in effect requiring them to work alone.
210 involves "common bawdy houses", basically an anti-brothel law, but in effect it requires sex workers to work only in locations that are unfamiliar to them.
These three laws in effect combine to tell sex workers that, in order to work within the confines of the law, they must work alone in unfamiliar places hidden from public view. In my opinion this situation makes no logical sense. Sex work is a legal profession, yet needlessly confined to potentially dangerous circumstances. Presumably an intention of laws and regulations regarding most professions or activities should be to limit potential danger, not increase it.
In my opinion the government lawyers latest argument also makes little sense in attempting to characterize sex workers as placing themselves in danger by skirting the law. They are actually being guided by the laws into working in the only manner they are legally allowed, and not violating these laws.
Outside of the specific issue being debated in this particular court challenge, I would also question the possible motivations of some of the government and police officials arguing to maintain s.210 and 212(1)j in their present form, when the enforcement of these sections has obviously become very minimal and most violators are expediently tolerated, if not actually licensed by municipalities as "escort agencies", "body rub parlours", or similar euphemistic labels. This type of ambiguous situation can easily invite, enable, and encourage a corrupt system, with authorities accepting bribes to turn a blind eye to these types of operations, while perhaps selectively prosecuting their perceived competition. This was found to be occurring in the Australian state of Queensland in the late 1980s, and was a major factor in leading several Australian states and New Zealand to eventually reform their laws (which had been very similar to Canada's) to allow brothels to operate legally.
Criminalizing sex workers harms the most vulnerable
"is not obliged to minimize hindrances and maximize safety for those that [engage in prostitution] contrary to the law."
As an Aboriginal woman, this concerns me. This concerns me because women from our communities represent the vast majority of street-level sex workers across Canada, and men and transgender people from our communities remain invisible despite their involvement.
It concerns me because violence against Aboriginal people -- of all ages and genders -- goes ignored on a national scale. This "blame the victim" mentality is what allowed a serial killer to operate for years in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside without any response from police. The violence there was expected, seen as normal, excusable. This is the case in many other communities that have high Aboriginal populations. It's not as though I think more policing is the answer. But I do think that criminalizing sex workers and blaming them for other people's violent actions is what enables the high rates of violence in the first place.
What is the government saying by arguing in court that it's not their job to protect sex workers? They are placing the blame on the victims of violence, who may already be struggling with the impact of poverty and neglect in their lives. Is that their fault too?
Criminalizing sex workers harms the most vulnerable
"is not obliged to minimize hindrances and maximize safety for those that [engage in prostitution] contrary to the law."
As an Aboriginal woman, this concerns me. This concerns me because women from our communities represent the vast majority of street-level sex workers across Canada, and men and transgender people from our communities remain invisible despite their involvement.
It concerns me because violence against Aboriginal people -- of all ages and genders -- goes ignored on a national scale. This "blame the victim" mentality is what allowed a serial killer to operate for years in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside without any response from police. The violence there was expected, seen as normal, excusable. This is the case in many other communities that have high Aboriginal populations. It's not as though I think more policing is the answer. But I do think that criminalizing sex workers and blaming them for other people's violent actions is what enables the high rates of violence in the first place.
What is the government saying by arguing in court that it's not their job to protect sex workers? They are placing the blame on the victims of violence, who may already be struggling with the impact of poverty and neglect in their lives. Is that their fault too?
Toronto Coun. Giorgio Mammoliti is proposing a red light district on Toronto Island, arguing it would generate millions of dollars in revenue for the city and provide a defined, out-of-the-way place for sex-trade workers to ply their trade.
One of a group of small islands located a short ferry ride from downtown, Toronto Island currently serves as park and has a small community of residents.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/03/23/mammoliti-sextrade-toronto-island.html
Mammoliti's "idea", aka "Mammoliti Has his Head Up his Ass" is being discussed, as it were, here.
Thanks, Maysie. I missed that thread.
Sadly, I am the only BC NDP Leadership candidate who is talking about the rights of sex-trade workers.
http://www.straight.com/article-374511/vancouver/ndp-leadership-hopeful-...
As part of the "Smart on Crime" pillar of my campaign, I am calling for the right of sex-trade workers to form unions and co-ops.
Here's the specific policy proposal from my http://www.VoteDana.ca website:
=====
e) Unionize sex-trade workers: As Premier, I would stop the enforcement of laws which prohibit sex trade workers from working together, hiring security or maintaining a safe workspace.
I would also allow sex-trade workers to unionize and form co-operatives to protect their rights and safety.
This would be in keeping with recent court decisions. In 2010, the Ontario Supreme Court struck down these federal laws as unconstitutional because they put women's lives at risk.
=====
cool dana!! thank you for supporting rights and self determination for sex workers!!please let me know if i can do anything to support your leadrship bid!! smart on crime....i like it!!
susan davis
I agree that sex workers should be safer, but don't think the legal changes should stop here. Just legalizing the communication and employement/avails will not be enough to make this situation safe or just for prostitutes and other affected women, especially if the goverment is heading in the direction of legalization without any recourse related to hazards on the job... Another way of letting clients off scot free, it appears.
I suppose that anything that makes it easier for women to leave prostitution is not on the agenda here either in some kind of sex-positive fantasy that all prostitutes would rather do this than other things. Speaking of safety and oppression, client wives and girlfriends don't consent to the harms visited upon them by the easy male access to prostitution. And yes, legalization will remove even more stigma for men and make it much easier to buy sex. I'm concerned that this isn't being addressed because in the discussions around legalization I've seen many statements where client wives are blamed for not putting out enough at home, and for being cold - usually this from a client perspective, of course, and something a prostitute would want to hear. There is no protection for client partners who catch things transmitted from cheating with prostitutes and this 'they asked for danger' government argument will undermine prostitute health and client screening initiatives.
All women are sure getting the short end of the stick here. Legalizers should address how the legalized profession should be set up to benefit everyone, so as not to pit women against each other. As a nonprostitute, I am uncomfortable not seeing talk about a very well regulated and screened profession that doesn't put me at added risk from a mainstream prostitution that has less stigma for johns. I know, that won't please the free market types and may be seen to take all the fun out of it, but if sex workers want to be safe, why not take the next step to health protection processes that go beyond the bare minimum that may not even work?
Stigma will remain for sex workers of all genders regardless of the law, and will still result in hazards without tougher safety protection than just permission to communicate and hire security or work indoors. Many prostitutes will continue to exist with less access to security, and less attractive or poorer or addicted prostitutes who are not desired by coops and brothels will still bear the brunt of violence without laws that make it nearly impossible that would have to be much stronger than this, and raise the price of sex creating another black market. Abuses happen to stigmatized groups all the time without the communication laws interfering. Unless it's more about bare convenience than making a much safer sex industry or better still a low hazard enviroment for sex workers, I don't see why the discussion stops here.
first, sex workers do not want "legalization". prostitution is legal in canada already.
we want "decriminalization" making us criminals will not adress any of the issues you have mentioned.
sex workers DO have plans for bringing occupational health and safety to the sex industry see www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com our sex industry occupational health and safety information as well as we have detailed plans for labour complaints mechanisms, setting up occupational health and safety committees in sex industry work places, specialized policing which is focused on sex worker safety rather than sex workers as criminals, policy/ procedure mannual reform for ALL sectors that interact with sex workers including victims services and police and of course processes to ensure migrant sex workers are included being given rights and access to resources should they need them.
also, our cooperative development plans, completely scuttled by abolitionists, to support exiting opportunities and safe/worker controled work spaces.
finally, the terms of reference for sex industry organizing/stabilization- created to ensure people in the sex industry understand the ultimate goals of the decriminalization movement.
saying that "lots of people experience stigma" does not make hatred towards sex workers ok or diminish our right to occupational health and safety, criminalizing any part of the sex industry will make open organizing impossible and allow the murder, abduction and violence against members of my community to continue.
i suggest you read a little more about what sex workers feel could best support their safety here in this forum or on our websites;
www.wccsip.ca
www.bccec.wordpress.com
susie
The city of Sydney will soon be home to Australia’s biggest brothel. The biggest brothel in Oz will be official when the remodeling of the current building is finished, and a three story, 40 room resorts will officially claim the title of the biggest of its kind in that country. The individuals that live in the neighborhood of this facility aren't too terribly pleased over it being there. The proof is here: Largest Australian brothel to open in Sydney, newstype.com.
Go flog your right-wing e-rag elsewhere, friend.
I've always said that the CPA opposes any decriminalization of prostitution for much the same reason as they oppose decriminalizing drugs.
The loss of funding,jobs and power and an end to the rampant corruption and perks they enjoy from the exploitation of certain marginalized groups.
As crude as this sounds,tell me that there aren't any beat cops working the prostitution districts of our cities scoring favours by threatening to exert their powers to persecute.
And this also applies to the hundreds of teen runaways who are currently the most vulnerable of being exploited.
As for the government's stance on this subject,it's ideology.ideology and demented theology.
And when the government's official stance is to make segments of the population into sub-human or dehumanized,lower than a rodent and basically dismissed as garbage,society is that much closer to becoming a zoo.
This regime's anti-crime strategy will,no doubt,increase our cities crime rates unlike anything we've ever seen.
And the punchline is that this amoral scumbag government's plan will soon translate all this into private sector profits.
It's always offensive when someone claims that sex workers have stds, and that anyone visiting them is MORE likely to get one because of that. For those I'd say, that of all things decrim and regulation of this legal occupation go hand in hand. You can't force testing and condom use for instance unless you acknowledge and regulate it as a Occupational Health and Safety issue. New Zealands regulations are EXTENSIVE, and certainly address every possible concern anyone could possibly have about it.
As it happens, professional sex workers are fully aware of std and transmissions, and are tested regularly, many several times a year. The average person never gets tested. Ever. Don't you think that dating is far more dangerous to your health than seeing a professional? The problem with sex work is that uneducated and unprofessional people can post an ad and engage in less safe activities, because, like the majority of the general population, they haven't bothered to educate themselves about it. Even street workers, usually considered the source of all disease, get frequent visits by health workers, getting tested, getting information, and getting free condoms all the time. Even they probably have a lot more knowledge about stds than the average person.
Heck, we still see that most common stereotype from the non-sex worker, i.e. that their SOs are putting their health at risk by visiting sex workers. Such uninformed generalizations, well, approaches slander imo. Not impressed by generalizations or false claims, by people who don't bother to find out for themselves, and possibly have never even had one std checkup in their lives, and may indeed already have something from that teenage indiscretion 10 years ago.
REally, I've been doing this for more than 10 years, and even the most recent checkup shows NOTHING. All of my checkups over all of the years have shown nothing, never, ever.
yay!!! hi fortunate!!!
love susieXXXO
Gettin' really tired of people using 'women and trans'... especially people who consider themselves allies... but good piece in general. (*grumbles elsewhere*)