How will parties approach the legality of sex work after the Supreme Court decision?

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Susan, you pretty much nailed it and thanks for sharing it. I think I finally get it now, its about wanting to call women victims; I don't know why I didn't figure this out sooner. Would you be willing to explain why some who call themsevles "progressive feminists" support the Nordic model. Also, what do you think it is that keeps the NDP from just coming out in support of legalization? From my standpoint, we should just legalize this. I don't understand why we have to stay stuck in the Dark Ages. I have no real experience with this in any way, but its time to be pragmatic and develop a workable solution that is implemented passed on what "those in the know", so to speak thinks will work best. Enough is enough.

Progressive feminists support the Nordic model because we see classes of people not just individuals. We know that even willing women who think they are doing just fine end up with PTSD because of the "pretty woman" version of prostitution being peddled. We know that 95% of the women on the street want out. They do not want to be doing what they are doing. They hate it. They feel trapped. 

Why aren't more poor men giving oral to other men? If it's just a job, anyone can do it. Doesn't have to be women. Anuses are tight. Men can use those too. If it's just like a massage anyone can do it. 

Not so fast you say, can't choose your sexual orientation.  No kidding, because sex isn't just like a massage. Even so I think more men could make a good living at it. So men, honestly think to yourself, if you could legally make 100$ an hour giving bjs, would it be worth it to you? If you have a son, and it were legal, would you recommend it as a means of getting through school?  Sexual orientation doesn't matter because the server doesn't need to be enjoying themselves. Like the woman in my previous post, you just have to learn how to suppress your sexual responses. 

Human sexuality is complex and we have reactions we can't easily stop. Sex, without physical damage, can be horrifying or transcending. No other human experience compares.

always good points

do men  know what's good for women? do men know what's good for "these women"?  do men think they know what's good  for any women at all? are you "sure that's progressive"?

quizzical wrote:

do men  know what's good for women? do men know what's good for "these women"?  do men think they know what's good  for any women at all? are you "sure that's progressive"?

Quizzical, I never said a thing about anyone knowing better "what is good for them", then the Sex Workers themselvesf. Pondering has self-identified as belong to a group, the "Progressive Women Gang", and that "Progressive feminists support the Nordic model because we see classes of people not just individuals. We know that even willing women who think they are doing just fine end up with PTSD because of the "pretty woman" version of prostitution being peddled. We know that 95% of the women on the street want out. They do not want to be doing what they are doing. They hate it. They feel trapped."

Clearly she is suggesting she understands why Female Sex Workers do what they do, regardless of what they say about why they do, even when it doesn't match with Pondering's assertions, better, the Sex Workers, themselves. I don't recall saying men knew anything better, although, it seems to me this issue transcends gender, and in fact shows Pondering's very uninclusive, "unprogressive" approach (because Pondering has told us all that Progressives are inclusive and "leftists" aren't) is exclusivist and based on assumptions, which based on what she actually wrote suggests Progressive Women knows what best for other women.

Now, I don't recall saying any man knew anything better about this issue then anyone else, male, or, female. All the language, all the weakness of argument, all the contradictions, and confusion were introduced and enthusistically embraced by Pondering. It seems to me that Pondering hoisted his/herself on his/her own Petard. If you have any argument with anyone, I'd suggest it should be with Pondering. After all, you believe in "inclusion", right, Quizzical?

Pondering wrote:

Brachina wrote:

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.ca/2014/06/strip-clubs-criminalized-by-ne...

 Someone else who realizes the scope of this bill goes well beyond prostitution.

That person is being misleading:

I don't think that person is being misleading. The post identifies a plausible interpretation of the proposed law as currently written, correctly noting that the expression "sexual services", which is not defined, could be interpreted broadly in light of the objectives outlined in the preamble. The only other requisite conditions for the "obtaining sexual services" offence are: the fact that the sexual services are obtained for consideration and the fact that the sexual services are obtained from "a person" or through communication with someone else.

It could be interpreted more restrictively, but it is absolutely plausible that it would capture a wide range of activities other than what is usually thought of as "prostitution" (one could say it isn't for nothing that this last word, less ambiguous as far as (judicial) interpretation goes, was not used by the legislator).

The wide range of activities that could conceivably be captured might in fact give rise to "overbreadth" problems in terms of constitutional validity (aside from the other constitutional defects the proposed law might present [though I'd like to very quickly note here that I don't think it's a given that courts would find the proposed law unconstitutional; my opinion is that it's hard to predict how a challenge would end up {I personally think the proposed law should be found unconstitutional, but that's a whole other ball game}]).

I realize now that much of this discussion is not about prostitution. It's about libertarianism and anarchism.  I can't debate political theory and prostitution at the same time.  We live in a patriarchal capitalist social democracy. That is the reality within which prostitution exists in Canada.

Those of you who tend towards the anarchist model must also be against seatbelt laws because they infringe on the rights of the individual.  The thing is, other people have to scrape people off the road if they have an accident. If they survive they use a Medicare system we all pay for.  Society therefore has an interest in people wearing seatbelts due to the impact on society at large. 

When I was young and we would go on car vacations the backseat was leveled off because sleeping bags etc. filled the leg space. We loved it. The backseat was our play area. Cars had seatbelts but they weren't used in my family.  I don't think anyone did.  Think of the thousands of lives that have been saved since the law came into effect.  Think of all the people who wouldn't have bothered picking up the habit if it were not the law that would be dead today, or mangled, because there was no seatbelt law.  I bet they are very grateful that we do have seatbelt laws that "forced" them to buckle up even though it can be said that the law infringes on individual rights and freedoms.

I have been wearing a seatbelt since sometime in my childhood without ever being in a car accident in which it protected me from anything. I would guess that for the vast majority of people seatbelt law has been nothing but an infringement on their  individual rights and freedoms,  didn't protect them from anything.

In my opinion infringing on the rights of the majority to not wear a seatbelt is justified on two counts. First, we live in a society that grants us rights, such as to rescue and health care that we pay for collectively.  Everyone pays the consequences of people who don't wear seatbelts and get in an accident.  Second, we live in a complex society in which we expect dangers to be limited by the state.  We accept age related driving restrictions and the requirement of a licence.  We accept gun restrictions. It doesn't matter if someone is really into as a hobby so wants to keep an arsenal in their basement.  We restrict the freedom of the majority of innocent individuals to prevent a tiny minority of individuals from gaining access to weapon that allows them to commit mass murder.

If I believed the legitimization of prostitution would lead to a decrease in violence against women I would be 100% in favor of it. I don't see how anyone couldn't be. I don't believe that. I believe that the legitimization of prostitution will lead to many more victims and much more violence against women. I believe large numbers would end up with PTSD or much worse. I don't believe our police could prevent a huge increase in illegal migrant workers as well as trafficking and the prostitution of minors. I read of some teenage girls who forced another younger teen into prostitution. Somehow they had no trouble finding johns for her.  I don't think teens are children, but there seems no limit to the number of johns willing to have sex with or be serviced by girls that are 13, 14, 15 and 16. I know, not all men, but enough men that there is no need to be particularly secretive about it.  That means even the men who won't don't report. Our sexuality is heavily molded by our experiences of sex. Even at 21 few young women have fully come into their own sexuality.  They are being imprinted in a way that cannot be undone. It's why rape is so disturbing even if there are no physical wounds. Sex forever includes the memory of rape. For prostitutes, sex always includes the memory of prostitution. I accept that some women, maybe even many women, can handle that, but for many their sexuality is permanently damaged. 

The women I want to "save" are the ones that are young and vulnerable and not wearing seatbelts that aren't mature enough to understand the ramifications of what they would do.  The impact of doing it once, or five times, or for a few months, can still be permanently damaging, but some of the damage creeps up over time.  I want to discourage the women who would be damaged by prostitution in the future from becoming prostitutes in the first. Not only do prostitutes put themselves in harms way, but society has to pick up the costs through treating the inevitable ills of prostitution.  As with seatbelt laws society has a vested interest in preventing damage from occurring.

Canada is not like Germany in that we are not surrounded by other countries that draw in sex tourists.  We are not like New Zealand either, a country of 4.5 million people, off the coast of Australia who legalized prostitution first, and has the typical problems associated with prostitution. The ills of prostitution did not go away.  It did not get easier to catch traffickers.

The United States has Nevada but is unlikely to legitimize prostitution.  Canadian cities are all strung out along the border like a crown.  We also have a big tourism industry and a larger population than New Zealand to police and NZ is still having problems.

Looking at Canada realistically, if prostitution were legitimized, the industry would grow and become entrenched.  We would see an increase in trafficking both internally and externally. We would see a jump in illegal migrant workers. We would have an increase in child prostitution, teen prostitution, and an increase in "soft" crimes against women.  Like everywhere else, minority women, especially non-Caucasians, would be over-represented in visible prostitution, in particular for Canada, aboriginal women on the street. 

First Nations are the niggers of Canada so it is no surprise that aboriginal concerns are at the bottom of the heap.  I have been accused (here) of being one of those white middle class feminists trying to impose my notion of white feminism on under-privileged women.  It is the very opposite. Cool middle-class white women accept the notion of sex as female empowerment and the power of personal choice.  They would never choose it for themselves but they don't want to stand in the way of the "choices" of other women. They have visions of  happy hookers and sex therapists, some may even secretly think they can do that kinky porn stuff their husbands ask for. Either way who cares if some Chinese women is doing a rub and tug as long as it's discreet and not in their neighbourhood. It's really not something that impacts them. No visible prostitution will occur in their neighbourhoods or parks.

No one on this supposedly progressive board brings up survivors. No one wants to hear them. The only story most people here want to hear about is the happy sex worker story with an occasional bone thrown to faceless victims that police should just enforce the current laws and everything would be just fine if only prostitution were legitimized. Sex workers would be safe and protected. That is the middle class narrative. Few people here are genuinely speaking for the women who give 10$ bjs. Nobody even suggests the stalls of Germany for them. They are a complete after thought. The only kind of prostitution that really exists here is the one where a lady has an apartment with regular " men friends" that are kind and thoughtful and just happen to leave a bit of cash on the dresser as a thank you because they enjoyed themselves so much. 

If middle class white feminists want to do right by aboriginal and other minority women they will put them first, not sophisticated white prostitutes with escort services and drivers etc.

If you are libertarian or anarchist I would see why you would support legitimization based on your political beliefs but that has nothing to do with whether or not prostitution is harmful to large numbers of women.  Within the context of the capitalist social democracy we live in we do take measures based on the interests of the majority that lead to limitations on the freedoms of individuals.

In many of the debates about prostitution it isn't prostitution being debated. It's social democracy versus libertarianism and anarchism.  It is unfair to expect those of us who are abolitionists to defend social democracy in a thread about prostitution.  The discussion has to begin from the premise of today's reality in Canada which is a social democracy in which the freedom of individuals is balanced against the common good. 

quizzical wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

quizzical wrote:

do men  know what's good for women? do men know what's good for "these women"?  do men think they know what's good  for any women at all? are you "sure that's progressive"?

Quizzical, I never said a thing about anyone knowing better "what is good for them",

i was repeating your words back to you arthur, as your questioning, of other women on whether they were progressive or not is unprogressive both as a male and as a self identified progressive one.

 

What are you talking about; what a strawman. I didn't question who was or wasn't progressive as it related to this discussion. I was asking whether identifying yourself as a proressive automatically entitles you to say you know what is best to someone. I fail to see how, using Podering's own language, anyone that claims to know what is good for someone could call themselves proressive. Your inference is nonsensical.

OK, lets try this. If being a Progressive means you know what is good for someone else, just because you say so, then if all that is left is "leftism", I'll take it. Go ahead, be a Progressive. I'll be a leftist and let women decide for themselves what is good for them. If beiong a Progressive means telling people what is good for them, you can have it. Go ahead, take ownership of that; Its all yours. I gladly surrender that to you.

As for me, I think I'll let women decided for themselves what is best for them. I think I'll stay away from telling what their choice is. That was once called partriarchy, and I want no part of that. Congraulations, you own it! Bravo for you.

And one other thing, and after re-reading your comments, knock off the misogynism inferences. You don't know a think about me. If you want to post here, be prepared to be challenged. Debate is rough and tumble, If you can't take it, get another hobby. I apologize for nothing, and regret nothing I have said.

I haven't entered into this discussion until now because I find the issue very difficult. As a man, I usually look to the feminist consensus for guidance on issues of particular importance to women. In this case, there does not seem to be a feminist consensus, with strong and cogent cases being argued on both sides. However, I would like to make a few comments on Pondering's latest post, which I perceived as being sincere throughout, but of questionable validity in places.

Pondering wrote:

I realize now that much of this discussion is not about prostitution. It's about libertarianism and anarchism.  I can't debate political theory and prostitution at the same time.  We live in a patriarchal capitalist social democracy. That is the reality within which prostitution exists in Canada.

I don't think there are very many libertarians on this board. There have been a few, over the years, but none of them have posted in this thread. There are also very few anarchists, although I think kropotkin and I consider ourselves part of that intellectual tradition. The posters you are complaining about are much more social democratic civil liberties advocates than libertarians or anarchists. I'm sure they all understand that we live in a "patriarchal capitalist social democracy". They simply disagree with your idea that the criminal law is an appropriate tool for dealing with the social issue of sex work. Harm reduction has been mentioned a few times, and it could well be a better approach than the very blunt instrument of criminal law.

Pondering wrote:

Those of you who tend towards the anarchist model must also be against seatbelt laws because they infringe on the rights of the individual.  The thing is, other people have to scrape people off the road if they have an accident. If they survive they use a Medicare system we all pay for.  Society therefore has an interest in people wearing seatbelts due to the impact on society at large. 

This seems to me a quite inappropriate analogy. The only reason a person would refuse to fasten a seat belt in a car is because he is an asshole. On the contrary, many individuals engage in sex work because they feel they have no other choice, given the realities of the insane, capitalist economy in which they are forced to live. This is much more than simply "I can do whatever I wish." As an aside, in an anarcho-syndicalist society, people would have no need to worry about how to make money, because there wouldn't be any money, and the necessities of life would be free to everyone.

Pondering wrote:

If I believed the legitimization of prostitution would lead to a decrease in violence against women I would be 100% in favor of it. I don't see how anyone couldn't be. I don't believe that. I believe that the legitimization of prostitution will lead to many more victims and much more violence against women. I believe large numbers would end up with PTSD or much worse. I don't believe our police could prevent a huge increase in illegal migrant workers as well as trafficking and the prostitution of minors.

<snip>

Looking at Canada realistically, if prostitution were legitimized, the industry would grow and become entrenched.  We would see an increase in trafficking both internally and externally. We would see a jump in illegal migrant workers. We would have an increase in child prostitution, teen prostitution, and an increase in "soft" crimes against women.  Like everywhere else, minority women, especially non-Caucasians, would be over-represented in visible prostitution, in particular for Canada, aboriginal women on the street.

Obviously, many others, not just here, disagree with your predictions. Personally, I think that you are mistaken, and little would change if the laws against prostitution were simply allowed to lapse. Of course I could be wrong, but so could you, and your projections sound surprisingly similar to the "reefer madness" style anti-drug vision. However, this is clearly an empirical question. Do you have any evidence to back up your dire predictions, or simply your "gut" feeling?

Brachina wrote:

If you really care about decreasing survival prostitution its really simply, support a minium income! Give them cash, then they won't need to sell sex to survive!

I do support a minimum income. Liberals have talked about it so I am hoping it will be in the next platform. Even so it isn't nearly enough. The problems that lead under-privelged women to the streets are deeply entrenched. Fetal alcohol syndrome, child abuse both sexual and otherwise, neglect, lack of education, alcoholism, drug abuse, lack of family, lack of pretty much everything. Minimum income is certainly a good start but we need to do so much more. 

Kids aging out of the foster care system need low-income housing that is halfway between a dorm and a bachelor. No direct supervision but staff on hand to discuss life choices, common rooms so tenants can form relationships. Make it mixed housing, reserving maybe 10% for foster kids or emaciated kids, another x% of larger units for single mothers, others for regular low income kids, maybe students. Anything like that is a long way off but it's needed. 

In the shorter term drug replacement therapy is important. Once someone is addicted replacement therapy isn't "keeping them addicted" it's stablilizing them. Not just mathadone either, some need heroin or oxy. Once they are stablized they can begin to deal with other problems. Not for all, but for many, the only reason they prostitute is to pay for their addiction. Let them have the drugs without prostituting themselves and they will gladly stop. While not appropriate for everyone some may need rehabilitation houses where they could live with 10 to 20 other people transitioning out of prostitution. There is comfort in being with people with shared experience of something no one else can really fully understand. 

It is heartening that "housing first" is starting to take off as the best way to help people instead of treatment first but it has a long way to go. 

"Obviously, many others, not just here, disagree with your predictions. Personally, I think that you are mistaken, and little would change if the laws against prostitution were simply allowed to lapse. Of course I could be wrong, but so could you, and your projections sound surprisingly similar to the "reefer madness" style anti-drug vision. However, this is clearly an empirical question. Do you have any evidence to back up your dire predictions, or simply your "gut" feeling?"

Michael, NAILED IT!

cco wrote:

The idea that the Liberal Party of Canada will ever implement a guaranteed minimum income is, hands down, the most ludicrous thing anyone has said in this entire thread.

There is a strong economic argument to be made for it that it actually saves public funds. There would be no more EI, no more welfare, no more income supplement for seniors and less direct savings would come from health care savings. It's not just a lets be nice to poor people plan. 

Pondering wrote:

In many of the debates about prostitution it isn't prostitution being debated. It's social democracy versus libertarianism and anarchism. 

Could it be that some people strongly react when others try to impose at gunpoint their moral standards about sex?

Pondering wrote:

The women I want to "save" are the ones that are young and vulnerable

That's great and there are many NGO where you can give time and money. But could we leave the others, taking their own decisions, alone? Use other methods to convince then a brutal attack on their livelihood, of course without their consent, and re-education camps in the faith based groups and sectarian abolitionist organisations? 

Pondering wrote:

I believe large numbers would end up with PTSD

Large is an impressive term that says nothing. The relation does not work like this, at least according the Farley's data. She had very high % who had suffered all sorts of aggressions in childhood. PTSD may as well be prior to sex work. It is of course very plausible that some sex workers develop PTSD following an armed aggression at work. There is simply no data available on this. We do not know the prevalence, therefore we cannot compare with other groups in the population.

There are a lot of "I believe" in the prohibitionist discourses. McKay believes, his government believes. The path to the useless and harmful laws cemetery is paved with beliefs, religious most of the time.

theleftyinvestor wrote:

I think it's fair to say that as long as the NDP and Liberals can each cite as broadly supported a reason as possible for opposing this bill - it's unconstitutional, it will be struck down again, it puts women in more danger, etc - they don't have to touch the hot potato of exactly how decriminalized they would want sex work to be if they were writing the legislation themselves.

If the NDP or Liberals were writing the legislation they would likely have consulted the opinions of experts and the general public to a much greater degree than the Conservatives did. So it makes sense that they don't have a specific alternative. The Conservatives under Harper seem totally incapable of listening to anyone outside of their tight cadre. They don't even seem to care about consulting friendly provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. This kind of policy should be part of a very wide ranging and open public process including as many deverse opinions as possible.

Gustave wrote:

No study has ever demonstrated an increase of internal demand after legalisation. The expansion of the trade in the Netherlands and Germany was fuelled by external demand.

Being fuelled by external demand is just as bad as internal demand and internal demand has been reduced in Sweden. 

Gustave wrote:

Street walkers and brothel women are two totally different groups. Neither is exploding. In the cities I know best, Montréal and Québec, social workers will tell you street walking has been on the decline for decades, even more rapidly since the Internet. I don’t think it’s any different in cities across Canada. 

Ummm, okay, so the current laws were working to reduce demand even before the advent of the internet. That's good. I'm still glad we are going to switch focus away from prostitutes and towards johns. That should reduce demand farther. 

Gustave wrote:

There is no reason to believe the growth of the massage parlour sector is anything else then a displacement of the demand.

Most experts agree that street workers don't usually transfer to massage parlours and no I am not going on a link hunt. If people believe your scenario is plausible so be it

Gustave wrote:

There was no explosion of brothels either. Brothels are illegal in Canada. I don’t think these 2 groups add up to more than 20% of sex workers together.

I am referring to if prostitution were legitimized, not the current situation.

Gustave wrote:

But then, it depends if you conflate indoor with brothels and if you conflate massage parlours with brothels. There has been a rise (not an explosion) of massage parlours here in the East during the last fifteen years. 

Quote:

(stripper) “The industry seems to be declining in the past few years,”….“The girls in the club used to just bat an eyelash and the guys would run right up. Now we have to go up to guys, chat with them and try to convince them to buy a lap dance.”….

(Tim Lambrinos heads the ... Adult Entertainment Association of Canada, representing 33 strip clubs from Ottawa to Windsor…. )

The strip clubs’ main competition in Toronto today comes from 1,000 massage parlours,…..

 <http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/16/why-dancing-naked-at-a-bar-is-a-declining-profession-in-toronto/>  

Gustave wrote:

Why would there suddenly be more women in prostitution? That makes no sense. The general tendency is less women in prostitution.  

A brothel owner from Nevada is already talking about opening up a chain in Canada and if prostitution is legitimized he will not be alone. They will advertise with the goal of increasing business and I think they will succeed. It's why businesses advertise, otherwise it would be a waste of money.

Gustave wrote:

Thanks for posting this link. The author has an impressive pedigree:

« is a political writer and broadcaster who frequently comments in both English and French. In her student days, Tasha was active in youth politics in her hometown of Montreal, eventually serving as national policy director and then president of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation of Canada. After practising law and a stint in the government of Mike Harris, Tasha became the Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and co-wrote the 2005 bestseller, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Tasha moved back to Montreal in 2006 and served as vice-president of the Montreal Economic Institute, and later director for Quebec of the Fraser Institute, while also lecturing on conservative politics at McGill University. Tasha now lives in Whitby, Ontario with her daughter Zara, born in 2009. » “

Was in response to this quote:

Quote:

A parallel can be drawn with the way the law differentiates between crimes involving sex and those which do not, between sexual assault and simple assault. Sexual violence represents a more personal form of attack. It crosses the boundary between the physical and the emotional. It represents a violation of spirit, not just flesh.

 <http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/06/05/call-prostitution-what-it-is-sexual-abuse/>

When you judge someone's words by who they are rather than what they said that is bigotry.  If information is being provided that could be more or less credible based on someone's credentials then sure, who they are matters.  This isn't one of those situations. The quote doesn't even refer to prostitution.  Human spirit, human psyche, whatever you call it, we are not merely flesh unless you think PTSD is just malingering. Regardless of whether or not prostitution should be legitimized sex is not just like shaking hands. You ignored the argument I was making in favor of gamesmanship.

In the countless threads covering years about how legitimization will make street prostitution safer I have never read any suggestion of opening up stalls in parking lots for street prostitutes like they have in Germany.  They aren't safe, but they are safer than getting in a car and driving off.  If this is really all about harm reduction and helping street workers why hasn't this solution be raised anywhere?  Why hasn't anyone said that instead of just having an extra 2 minutes to "size up" a john the street workers could have drive in stalls?

I know why. Because the thought is instantly repellent.  It forces people to realize that stalls are a step up. It forces people to realize exactly what they are condoning. 

lagatta wrote:

should discuss this in another thread.

Over here?

 I don't think you have to see it as empowering, that's a personal matter, you just have to repect thier autonomy. No one is asking you to become a fan of prostitution, you just don't have the right to make the choice for other people. 

 Its like abortions, you don't have to belueve in abortion to realize that women have to make the choice for themselves.

Pondering wrote:

They will still eventually have to vote for or against the bill. If they vote against it prostitution will become fully decriminalized. They will vote for the bill even if they object to the part that criminalizes selling where a minor may be present in order to not be responsible for the full decriminalization of prostitution. That is the threat being held over their heads by Harper. 

I'm sorry did I miss a bunch of Conservative MPs resigning? Harper still has a majority. Unless Conservatives vote against the bill for totally different reasons. The Liberals and NDP can justify why they refuse to support the bill, vote against it, and still be certain that it will pass. They can defend their "no" vote on the grounds that they cannot vote for unconstitutional legislation.

If the legislation will not survive a court challenge then the end result is independent of whether or not the bill passes. If it passes, it will be challenged again (draining huge buckets of money from activist organizations and vulnerable individuals) and once again the courts will strike it down leaving another legal vacuum. If the legislation somehow does not pass, there will also be a similar legal vacuum.

theleftyinvestor wrote:

I'm sorry did I miss a bunch of Conservative MPs resigning? Harper still has a majority. Unless Conservatives vote against the bill for totally different reasons. The Liberals and NDP can justify why they refuse to support the bill, vote against it, and still be certain that it will pass. They can defend their "no" vote on the grounds that they cannot vote for unconstitutional legislation.

You are right of course. This law will pass regardless of what the opposition parties want.  From what the opposition parties have not said my bet is they will support it. Even though it would not fail on their votes they don't want to give Harper ammunition for the election. That is why they are being so careful about what they say. Neither wants to be labeled in favor of prostitution. 

theleftyinvestor wrote:

If the legislation will not survive a court challenge then the end result is independent of whether or not the bill passes. If it passes, it will be challenged again (draining huge buckets of money from activist organizations and vulnerable individuals) and once again the courts will strike it down leaving another legal vacuum. If the legislation somehow does not pass, there will also be a similar legal vacuum.

I don't believe for a second that it will be struck down, certainly not entirely. The court can choose to strike down aspects of the new laws but I am not even sure the aspect that criminalized prostitutes themselves will be struck down because it is ostensibly intended to protect minors.  

(e) create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present; 

Feminist abolitionist organizations have come out opposed to the above aspect of the law while the religious groups have said nothing against it. 

"Reasonably be expected" has to be interpreted by police and courts. It suggests a moderating effect on "expected to present" to allow judges greater latitude in rejecting charges based on reasonability.

• In law and law enforcement, the Reasonability Rule is often used to determine the extent of charging a person of a crime, the person's culpability in a tort or civil suit, the appropriateverdict or sentences, and the ultimate questions of "Is justice being done here?", "Does the punishment fit the crime?", and "What is the best way to obtain justice?"

 

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reasonability_Rule> 

So, I had thought that "reasonablity" was too vague a concept but it is actually a legal term with a purpose that has a moderating effect on the law. It makes the law more acceptable not less so. It specifically allows room for challenge protecting it from being overbroad. 

For example, if prostitutes on the DTES strolls were arrested based on a 16 year old being present, even if she is a "working girl", is it reasonable to expect the other women to expect that the girl is underage, or to expect to see minors present? I don't think so. I don't think it would be reasonable to expect that minors are present in the DTES in the areas where the women are actually plying their trade. I think most reasonable people would not expect minors to be present and would expect the police to be picking up the minors, not expecting the women to move along. The women using the stroll would not have a greater responsibility to report minors than any other passerby. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I know why. Because the thought is instantly repellent.  It forces people to realize that stalls are a step up. It forces people to realize exactly what they are condoning. 

I just see that as one step toward dealing with a contentious social issue in a mature fashion. It's better than turning a blind eye to it of course. But until you ask yourself what you can actually do to deal with it that moral outrage doesn't have any practical meaning at all.

The question I am asking is why sex worker advocates aren't suggesting it as a solution. This isn't new. It's been around for years. There are multiple examples in Europe. Sex worker advocates have been claiming a longer chat with johns would make prostitutes safer. They have suggested brothels are for safety even though they know that most street prostitutes would not be hired by them. Why aren't sex worker advocates explaining stalls to the public to illustrate how prostitution can be made safer if it were decriminalized? 

The way we deal with moral outrage is to create laws against that which we believe to be morally indefensible. 

Gustave wrote:

Could it be that some people strongly react when others try to impose at gunpoint their moral standards about sex?

Both sides feel very strongly on this issue based on moral grounds. I think it's important to note that this isn't about sex. Men and women can have as much sex as they want anyway they want as long as both are consenting. No sex is being prevented. The issue is commercialization, not sex in and of itself. Conflating the two is the same as saying sex with a 15 year old should be fine as long as they consent because otherwise we are moralizing about sex. We are arbitrarily picking an age. Many 15 year olds are capable of consent so they are being discriminated against. We have arbitrarily decided they are a minority and that most 15 year olds are not capable of consent. I don't think there are any empirical studies suggesting youths are transformed on the night of their 16th birthdays. 

Pondering wrote:

The women I want to "save" are the ones that are young and vulnerable

Gustave wrote:

That's great and there are many NGO where you can give time and money. But could we leave the others, taking their own decisions, alone? Use other methods to convince then a brutal attack on their livelihood, of course without their consent, and re-education camps in the faith based groups and sectarian abolitionist organisations?

Some of them aren't even born yet. The idea is to prevent them from being victimized in the first place. Prostitutes who are currently working are not a permanent closed population. In the grand scheme of things they are a tiny minority. 

The core difference is this. Some people believe prostitution is inherently harmful in a global sense even if some individual prostitutes are enthusiastic consenting participants. Other people believe that the harm is confined to the individuals directly involved therefore existing laws against criminal behavior are sufficient to deal with the problems, and indeed the laws impose more danger, (which I agree is true under the current regime but not under the Nordic Model). 

I am not comparing FGM to prostitution, just using it as a metaphor for clarity concerning the concept of imposition of moral judgement. Many women are enthusiastic supporters of FGM and it is heavily immersed in tradition and culture. Yet feminists are perfectly comfortable condemning it. In so doing we are imposing our moral values on others. 

All of our labor laws are based on the moral judgement that money gives employers an unfair advantage over employees, that money can be coercive. There is a wall somewhere in Canada at risk of collapsing and there are cars that cannot be retrieved. It would be immoral to pay someone to try to retrieve the cars almost no matter what the value of the cars or their contents even if the person was willing to take the risk. If they did it, and weren't hurt, they would say see, I am fine, it was my right to accept the challenge in exchange for what was offered. I have a right to work. I have no job and 3 kids to feed. The 15K I got was well worth the risk. On the other hand, what if the car contained a bomb big enough to blow up half the city and there wasn't enough time to evacuate?  We would want a bomb expert to get in there and at least try to stop it. It would be the moral thing to do. 

Judging money as a coercive instrument, relative risk versus reward, freedom versus potential harm individually and to the broader world, are integral to living in community. It is a balancing act based on our moral beliefs. 

Pondering wrote:

The women I want to "save" are the ones that are young and vulnerable

Gustave wrote:

There is simply no data available on this ( PTSD). We do not know the prevalence, therefore we cannot compare with other groups in the population.

There are a lot of "I believe" in the prohibitionist discourses. McKay believes, his government believes. The path to the useless and harmful laws cemetery is paved with beliefs, religious most of the time.

I very much doubt the feminists of Sweden are religious fanatics. Hard data is difficult to come by but that supports neither side over the other. People can and do make judgement calls based on the information we do have even though it is not empirical. Our laws do change over time and we do decide that previous decisions were based on faulty data or no longer apply. Other activities which used to be acceptable become objectionable as humanity becomes more or less enlightened depending on your point of view.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't get the connection actually, between that and why advocates aren't proposing a specific tactic you think they should.

I am saying that if the primary motivation of sex work advocates was to protect street workers they would be advocating stalls not an extra 30 seconds to "assess" whether or not a john is safe. 

Pondering wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't get the connection actually, between that and why advocates aren't proposing a specific tactic you think they should.

I am saying that if the primary motivation of sex work advocates was to protect street workers they would be advocating stalls not an extra 30 seconds to "assess" whether or not a john is safe. 

Pondering, you can't pass judgment about someone else's sincerity on this issue simply by holding up some tactic they don't happen to be working for. If you are really wondering why, perhaps it is a question best addressed to them.

Pondering wrote:

Conflating the two is the same as saying sex with a 15 year old should be fine as long as they consent because otherwise we are moralizing about sex. We are arbitrarily picking an age. Many 15 year olds are capable of consent so they are being discriminated against. We have arbitrarily decided they are a minority and that most 15 year olds are not capable of consent.

I'm not sure who the "we" is who decided that. Harper raised the age of consent in his "Tackling Violent Crime Act", with the unfortunate support of the opposition, and utterly unnecessarily, if you ask me. The previous law had clear exceptions for relationships that were coercive in nature (teacher/student, for example). The only "problem" it fixed was enabling freaked-out parents of 15-year-olds to get their high school boyfriends locked up. (If I recall correctly, it didn't equalize ages of gay and straight consent, either.)

So your example is interesting in another way -- it's a reminder of the war on sexuality that this government has been quietly waging since 2006.

http://becauseimawhore.com/2011/07/30/consent-to-this/

 Another perpective from A different prostitute blog.

 So far it seems to some people you can't give consent if your a woman, if your straight, and if your disabled now. When will th clear power mad bigotry of the prohibitionist/rescue industry end? Will they next be saying racial minorities can't consent  because they pysche has been distorted because of historical oppression. Where does it end? 

Brachina wrote:

Stalls, dear Goddess Pondering thier woman not horses, why are you being do misogynistic Pondering?

For someone who has such strong opinions you haven't done much research on the topic. That is what they are called. 

http://www.thelocal.ch/20110908/1098

A Zurich city council committee has agreed to seek a 2.4-million franc loan ($2.8m) to build a new red light district where punters can meet prostitutes at purpose-built stalls away from the city centre.

The Zurich sex stalls will be the first of their kind in Switzerland if the project goes ahead. Ten garage-like booths will be erected in Alstetten, complete with parking spaces and alarm buttons. The model is based on German "performance stalls" set up in Cologne in 2001 where clients drive into the enclosures with their cars to conduct their business.

Local authorities say the development should be easier to monitor and better organised than the existing open-air red light district and will give women more protection against attacks. 

www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-...

A Big Mac for Sex

In the northern part of Cologne, where drug-addicted prostitutes work along Geestemünder Strasse not far from the Ford plant, no taxes are levied. As part of a social project, so-called "working stalls" -- essentially walled off parking spots for car sex -- are built into a space under a shed roof. Although there are no signs plainly indicating that the facility is for prostitution, a speed limit of 10 kilometers per hour is posted for the fenced area, and drivers are required to move in a counter-clockwise direction.

On a cold spring evening, about 20 women are standing along the edge of the area. Some have brought along camping chairs while others are sitting in repurposed bus shelters. When a john has agreed on a price with one of the women, he takes her to one of the stalls. There are eight of the stalls under the shed roof, as well as a separate room for cyclists and pedestrians, with a concrete floor and a park bench. There is an alarm button in each stall, and a Catholic women's social service group monitors the area every evening.

Is the object using pretty words or protecting women? The reality is a lot worse than the word, but better than the alternative sex worker advocates are suggesting.  Why doesn't that offend your sensibilities? Whose interests are you defending?

These women always appear to be an afterthought:

[86]                          First, while some prostitutes may fit the description of persons who freely choose (or at one time chose) to engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution, many prostitutes have no meaningful choice but to do so.  Ms. Bedford herself stated that she initially prostituted herself “to make enough money to at least feed myself” (cross-examination of Ms. Bedford, J.A.R., vol. 2, at p. 92). As the application judge found, street prostitutes, with some exceptions, are a particularly marginalized population (paras. 458 and 472).  Whether because of financial desperation, drug addictions, mental illness, or compulsion from pimps, they often have little choice but to sell their bodies for money.  Realistically, while they may retain some minimal power of choice — what the Attorney General of Canada called “constrained choice”  (transcript, at p. 22) — these are not people who can be said to be truly “choosing” a risky line of business (see PHS, at paras. 97-101).

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do

Go ahead, defend their "right to work".  I'm sure all the women that will follow in their footsteps will be grateful for the jobs provided. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Prohibition and criminalization, whether it be prostitution, alcohol, or drugs, has never resulted in eradication.  Aside from its other negative side effects (part of the reason we are in this current legal semi-vacuum), my point was that to simply pass laws based on moral outrage doesn't actually do much. That solution has been tried in one form or another since laws were first codified.

ALL criminal laws are based on some sort of moral outrage. Which of these items don't belong:

Women, Drugs, Alcohol. 

I agree with hard drugs being illegal for sellers who are not also users. Prohibition against alcohol failed because it is too easy to produce coupled with it's popularity. Same goes for marijuana except that marijuana is less damaging than alcohol. 

Somewhere around 15% of men, depending on country, use a prostitute in their lifetime. Only 1% say they have in the past year. That is not nearly as high a demand as exists for mind altering substances. The percentage of Canadian women who want to be prostitutes is likely less than the number of men who want to hire one, so that would be less than 1%. Even if that increased under legitimization it wouldn't approach alcohol use. Prohibition against marijuana has been more successful in that I am sure had led to fewer people partaking than otherwise would. Even so, because it is so harmless, many people have used marijuana. 

Prostitution on the otherhand definitely has associated harms that are not caused by the illegality of the profession. If you want to argue that the laws surrounding prostitution cause ALL the harm I won't engage because I think it's a stupid argument leading to link wars and the SCC has acknowledged that prostitution is risky immaterial of the laws. If it were not there would be no need for panic buttons.