Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part IV

BTW, women's rights are not part of this either.

Well, that pretty well frames it I think.

Well it is a starting point anyway

AW, I see. No men's rights, no women's rights (unless we all state that all sex workers are prostituted people and that all men buying sex, including the disabled, are horrible people exploiting a woman's vagina).

The vagina must at all times be kept morally clean. Even if it means personal choice is gone.

And let's forget about all the men who do sex work - out of the debate.

Heterosexist, anti-disability and full on moral control. Yay!!! What's next? War on Drugs? How about the War on Terrorism? I'm ready.

You know, I am pretty glad I threw my hat down into the camp I did because there is no chance in hell I would even assume it is my right to tell anyone who freely does sex work what to do with their vaginas. (Since no abolutionists have even mentioned men's agency - the right to sell their sex - I guess men aren't involved in sex work). Next!

So the frame is set. Vagina's used to procure money in exchange for sex = very very bad. Horrible women really. The men who visit them, all horrible exploiters, just one step away from piling people with GHB for cheap thrills. 

No such thing as women who wish to do this work. No men who are in the work, unless they are johns and never forget the vagina must remain closed unless it is for procreation or recreational sex with strangers and boy-girl friends. Otherwise you sex workers, well, you better repent and confess that you really are exploited and need to be saved from that behaviour, Stat!

Got it.

There's  something  I don't  get.  Women  and  girls  are  trafficked  into  this  country  all the  time  for non sexual  purposes (sewing  buttons  onto  designer  jeans, cleaning  toilets)  but for  some  reason  mainstream  feminists only  pay  attention  to this  kind of crime when it  involves  sex.  Why is that? 

yo star checc ya inbox dont even reply to the older msg jus the newer one

edit - sry for offtopic post

CMOT, those women coming into a country to work in low risk  sewing  jobs, are not like those who  are brought in for high risk sexual intercourse to pleasure men in their leisure time.

Society wants to make the rules  and regulations that would protect all,  and m,ake it lower risk, then perhaps we can  have a meeting place.

Selling sex is not a huiman rights issue for any  gender.

No, but control over women's bodies is remind.

Women can have sex with as many men as they like so there is no infringement on the woman's right to personal choice in what she does with her body.

Canada does regulate what types of work can be done, what can be sold, and under what conditions. 

I'm curious about PEI. It was mentioned (by Ghislaine?) that in PEI there are no strip clubs but I haven't been able to find any information about it online. 

Is it true that their are no legal strip joints in PEI? Has it always been that way? What mechanism was used to prevent them from opening up and was there a reason given?

That isn't true.  The issue of domestic workers has been a feminist issue for a long time. There are laws concerning it and people do get charged in court for it.  There is no case of domestic workers trying to change the law to make it easier for them to be exploited.

Exactly correct. leisure time is much much different that working public time.

Good analogy!

Well, except for the numerous attempts by undocumented workers to stay in Canada and the US to work below the North American market value. For example, from 2006:

Being sexually abused in one's childhood, and/or incest, do not seem like very positive ways in which many prostituted women "choose" to work in the sex industry.

Using the same criteria developed by scientists who study long-term health in the military, researchers concluded that 2 out of 3 women in the sex industry suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs)

Catchfire, I don't think migrants who resist deportation are "trying to change the law to make it easier for them to be exploited."

So, susan, annie, cookiesnscream and all the other sex workers posting here are ignorant about their own exploitation? How many gazillion threads on this issue have we had and yet info, remind, martin, etc. have still been unable to show them/convince them of their own exploitation.  Strange. They must really, really be brainwashed. 

Info: yes there are no strip clubs on PEI. I believe it is a zoning-type rationale. I am not that familiar with it, I just know that there none allowed at all. About 10 yrs ago, one attempted to open in  Chtown and was raided and closed on the same night. 

Wow, that is some good sleight-of-hand, martin. But, I can see you've had some practice in these threads. It shouldn't need to be pointed out that "exploited" is how Info and remind defined the vocabulary, and I was reusing it ironically, since rationality departed these threads long ago. As Ghislaine points out, sex workers are more than capable of determining their own level of exploitation. The point is that under a capitalist system all labour is "exploited" but the major reason sex work is a touchstone for these sorts of dicussions is because it has to do with people fucking. And that gets all sorts of moral outrage a-huffin'.

Unfortunately, I can't use the term "sex worker" because it has been made clear it isn't limited to prostitutes.

I think everyone has acknowledged that there is disagreement and that there are prostitutes who are content in their work. That doesn't mean that the industry isn't exploitative as a whole.

Are you against the bylaw or whatever type of law is being used to prevent strip clubs from establishing venues in PEI? That is, would you support those fighting to establish such venues in PEI?

I think in terms of the thread title, it needs to be pointed out that men's and women's rights ARE part of the framework of this debate. All of these threads started b/c of the Charter challenge, which by its very definition deals with the rights of men and women (and those who self-identify otherwise). As stargazer pointed out, male and transexual sex workers are being completely ignored in this discussion for some reason. Their rights are at stake as well. 

Ghislaine, and catchfire, but yet we have  seen just as many prostitutes  here, or more, state they were exploited, and that the majority are exploited, but I guess that is not convenient  to note.

people can "fuck" all they want in their leisure time,  but I as citizen am not going to condone a public industry without regulations.

Especially not when I know who are the primary targeted "work force" applicants.

Okay ghislaine, I will address one, my partner's best friend from grade school on into adult hood committed suicide because his wife prostituted him out for  a 3 karate gem stone.

Turned out no one knew he had been sexually abused by his father for years, and he could not deal with his partner in life putting a gem stone before him and his well being.

Catchfire, I think you are the one now attempting sleight-of-hand; you pretended to offer a counter-example to Infosaturated's argument. It wasn't one.

Infosaturated wrote: There is no case of domestic workers trying to change the law to make it easier for them to be exploited.

You wrote: Well, except for the numerous attempts by undocumented workers to stay in Canada and the US to work below the North American market value.

I have addressed non-consensual actions, underage and trafficking many times - this is a red herring. There are many industries were some people are exploited and some aren't. Porn is one more relevant example. Should porn be illegal because some are exploited?

I think there should be regulations. I support legalizations, with strict regulation, zoning, etc. Porn and strip clubs have this.

As well, there are people who quite honestly cannot find anyone willing to "fuck" them without money involved. This is not meant as an offense to anyone, it is just a reality.

As long as a sex worker is willing to have a business relationship to fulfill their needs in this way and both parties are consensual and not exploiting each other - what is the problem?

Here is a Toronto "escort" agency that obviously engages in prostitution/sex work etc. There are testimonials of staff and clients - are they all being exploited? It is owned by a woman who seems committed to providing a safe environment for staff. Do you think they should be shut down?

Ghislaine: ...male and transexual sex workers are being completely ignored in this discussion...

Actually male sex workers have been amply discussed since the pro-prostitution lobby's definition of sex "workers" includes pimps and male brothel personnel and owners (johns even, in Stella's view).

And I have been one of those pointing to the plight of prostituted males, here (post #22).

It has been clearly illustrated in other countries that what you are suggesting doesn't work in the case of prostitution.

My brother-in-law is a quadraplegic and still married twice. If people are unable to find a sexual partner they may need help with interpersonal relationships or they may have to adjust their expectations. There is no shortage of women with the same strengths and weaknesses as men have.

Many pros have stated that 60 to 75% of their clientele is happily married.

Ghislaine escort agencies are legal.....

The problem is that organized crime, the trafficking of women and children, underage prostitution, have all been shown to rise when prostitution is fully decriminalized. Police are unable to stop it from happening.  The laws and regulations etc. can't be enforced. 

You seem to think that there is some means of separating the women and children who are exploited or damaged by the industry from the ones who aren't. In practice that is not the outcome of decriminalization.

If there were no real life examples to then I would go for the logic being presented but the logic has been tested and has been shown to fail when applied to real-life.

The study is flawed due to the fact that it uses data only from street workers, and does not include the majority of sex workers.   Hopefully, when referring to any statistics we can keep that in mind. 

There are a lot of different stories, and most of them are not horror stories, btw.  Please do not base your decisions or opinions on such a narrow and biased view.  Even looking into the Swedish ideal, there are all sorts of problems associated with that which I have posted elsewhere.  The police are so diligent in making sure there is no prostitution they will actually collect condoms, used or not.  The clients and sex workers have become afraid to carry condoms, ensuring that there is more unprotected sexual activity going on.  After all, prostitution is legal for the sex workers in Sweden, so of course if a man is willing to break the law so that she can do legal work, that is up to him.  In their zealous efforts to crack down on the continued presence of street work, the police have helped increase the danger.

I suppose the intent is that if they say it enough, considering we are so easily brainwashable, we will eventually believe it lol.  Sometimes people simply don't like being shown the errors of their ways but I am happy that many of you are ready to hear from the silent majority.  No, you can't see us everyday when you drive to work, but we are here, happily going about our day, pursuing our livelihood and hopefully our dreams.  We don't all have traumatic childhoods, or evil pimps, or sinister brothel owners, and therefore don't need or want anyone's help and sympathy.  It would be nice, as I see through many other posters, to see a willingness to listen and accept, and see why what seems like helpful little laws actually disempower us, not help.

It is not convenient, because the statement the "majority are exploited" has no basis in fact.  If the majority are not street workers, chose the profession, and pursue it as independent workers, how can anyone find it convenient to ignore us? 

The industry has regulations.  It is legal, and cities have their own way to monitor and register through licensing the individuals and the massage parlours, as well as the agencies.  The only ones in the grey area are the independents, as the current laws make it difficult for them to do anything other than get an escort license at city hall.  Other things are not available to them, as would be to any other business owner, due to the nature of these laws.  

The Poster Child, New Zealand

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/727258

 The only winners from the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 are men, says the National Council of Women of New Zealand.

The council supported the law change in order to validate and protect human rights -- not to condone prostitution, she said.

"The law was meant to give protection to those over the age of 18.

"And along with that, was the belief that the reform would see prostitution practised only by those 18 and over, but we are still seeing girls as young as 13 and 14 on the streets selling their bodies."

The council was disturbed there appeared to be no disincentive for men for their actions when they were getting name suppression and light sentences for buying sexual services from underage girls, Mrs Bang said.

Normalizing prostitution turns rape into theft and sends the message that prostitution is not particularly harmful. After all, if if was that harmful it wouldn't be legal.

Ghislaine, I really am curious. Do you or do you not support PEI's refusal to allow strip clubs?

Is the National Council of Women similar to our Real Women?

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 says

Associate 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:

• Coercion is not widespread.
• The links between crime and prostitution are tenuous and the report found no evidence of a specific link between them.
  
• Fewer than 17 per cent said they are working to support drug or alcohol use, although when broken down by sector street-based sex workers are more likely to report needing to pay for drugs or alcohol (45 per cent).

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.

Your last sentence is an important one.

Only if you ignore the report copied in #31.   The only thing that statement illustrates is clinging to myths and misconceptions, in spite of all contradictory evidence.

 I read another NZ report somewhere that contradicted that, so there nothing  compelling me to read an absolute bolded post.

And was that report conducted and researched by the actual NZ government?  Without citing the source, it is just a comment, not a fact.  Is there a reason that you do not want to know the truth?  You say nothing will compell you to read it?  Then I think you need to refrain from commenting in these threads since you fail to acknowledge the point of "discussion".  To expand your knowledge so that you can make real fact based decisions.  Ignoring the facts = head + sand + buried.

But you are interested in how to regulate the business of prostitution with the ridiculous laws removed, this is what New Zealand did.  It includes Work Standards protocol, certification and regulation, who can and who cannot work in the business,

www.nzpc.org.nz/page.php?page_name=Law

A sex worker is “at work” for the purposes of OSH when they are providing sexual services. There are Occupational Safety and Health guidelines have been developed by OSH in consultation with NZPC, sex workers and brothel operators. These guidelines are available from the OSH website [37].

Trafficking is addressed with : 

You can be a sex worker in New Zealand provided you are a New Zealand citizen.

Under age addressed: 

If you are a brothel operator, or a client, you can be fined or imprisoned if you hire a sex worker who is under 18.

Operators, clients and sex workers must take all reasonable steps to “ensure a prophylactic sheath (condom) or other appropriate barrier is used if those services involve vaginal, anal, or oral penetration or another activity with a similar or greater risk of acquiring or transmitting sexually transmissible infections”. Failure to do so can mean a hefty fine. This means that everyone should use a condom and/or dental dam for vaginal, oral and anal sex.

All brothels must display health promotion messages.

Operators are required to have “Operators Certificates”. An operator is any person who has any form of control over a sex worker. This includes owners, directors of companies, managers, and may include receptionists. There are some people who may not be able to get an Operators Certificate if they have previous convictions for violence, sexual offences, or certain drug related offences.

In addition, these are also the regulations:

• You have the right to refuse to have sex with a client for any reason, or for no reason. No one- including managers, receptionists, minders, clients, other workers, etc., can force you to have sex with a client, even if he has paid. Managers cannot fine you for refusing a client- it is against the law for them to do so.
• You cannot be coerced (“induced or compelled”) into having sex by having money taken off you, etc., (i.e., fined, etc.), or threatened in any way. Section 16 of the Prostitution Reform Act states any person who does so “commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years”.

Daniela had written: Using the same criteria developed by scientists who study long-term health in the military, researchers concluded that 2 out of 3 women in the sex industry suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs)

fortunate wrote: The study is flawed due to the fact that it uses data only from street workers, and does not include the majority of sex workers. Hopefully, when referring to any statistics we can keep that in mind.

Unfortunately, this can be verified. I looked it up and oops!, it seems that fortunate lied.

The study quoted by Levy is "Prostitution & Trafficking in Nine Countries: An Update on Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder", Melissa Farley, Ann Cotton, Jacqueline Lynne, Sybille Zumbeck, Frida Spiwak, Maria E. Reyes, Dinorah Alvarez, Ufuk Sezgin. In Prostitution, Trafficking and Traumatic Stress. M. Farley (ed.) (2003) Binghamton, NY: Haworth.

It included women in strip club prostitution, escort prostitution, massage prostitution as well as street. Also included men and transgendered people. 854 people in all.

Tsk, tsk. And only a minute ago, she was sermoning us about "the truth" and "the facts"... Babble policy is clear about such tricks: "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this discussion board to post any material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory."

"The study is flawed." You were very clear. Lol indeed...

Yes, thank you for confirming.  The study is flawed, clearly, due to the source lol.

You need to expand your horizons, and mind, and check out the real world.  It is much more simplistic to take that conservative moral high ground and say all bad, no good, but the reality is quite different.  It is ridiculous and offensive to claim that 2/3 of the entire population of sex workers have a history of child abuse, for example.  As far as I am concerned, anyone's insistence on perpetuating that and other myths do so as a way to silence the majority of sex workers who are volunteering their point of views.  Seeking out and sharing real world information about places like Sweden (which is being grossly misinterpreted) and New Zealand (which is being dismissed whenever the facts are inconvenient).  

I work in an industry which by the public has an underlying misconceptions and judgemental attitude approach.  It is clear to see that that exists here as well.   Thank you for sharing your judgements and misconceptions about something you have no real world knowledge or experience in. 

www.nzpc.org.nz/page.php?page_name=Law

I do not know why I should bother to give you access to real facts and information, as I have done in other threads.  If you are anything like remind, you choose not to educate yourself and learn from them.

Not unless REAL women supported the decriminalization of prostitution.

The council supported the law change in order to validate and protect human rights -- not to condone prostitution, she said.

The report has been accused of bias however it can be read online so people can draw their own conclusions. Yes I "cherry-picked" the parts I felt make my point.  This is one of those super long posts but it is a tiny fraction of the information on the site.

http://tinyurl.com/yj79xb5

One strength the study has is that it surveys the full range of types of prostitution which is often difficult to find. But, it also has a lot of weaknesses.

"...we did not have the funds to employ translators. Thirdly, foreign sex workers are especially vulnerable and some may not be working legally."

I find it weird that they couldn't afford translators. There is no mention of what percentage of workers are foreign, 10%? 70%? Also, some brothel owners refused access for the quantitative portion. I'm guessing places that refused access are more likely to be treating their workers badly.

New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective selected the 58 participants for the qualitative from their membership and were the interviewers.  NZPC is an industry stakeholder. Their membership is not necessarily representative of the average worker (although they may be).

The total number of prostitutes interviewed on health was only 58 and that was spread over 5 cities, representing street, brothel, escort and independent, male, female and transgendered.

This is the page that focuses on health:

http://tinyurl.com/yl8mru7 [43]

Of the 58 in the qualitative study, 77.8 always use condoms for vaginal, anal and oral sex.  That means 22% don't! Outdoor workers were at 71.4, so 29% had worked without protection, indoor is 80.5 but that is still 20% that don't always use protection.

Yet in the conclusion they state:

6.5.4 Safer sex practices

Sex workers are very conscious of their health needs and the majority do take precautions to reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections . Research looking at the safer sex practices of sex workers consistently reports high levels of condom use, especially for vaginal and anal sex, but less often for oral sex .

While the "majority" do take precautions 20 to 30% don't aways use protection. I find their conclusion misleading.

They give some interesting anecdotes:

 we started going and um he took his condom off. I actually, to actually grab him, I actually didn’t realize, I grabbed his finger and I actually broke his finger to get him off me.

No, but I make sure, even for a blow job, you know, sometimes if they stink, I put the condom on them.

"Oh I can’t get it up in a condom, blah blah blah… I learnt to put condoms on with my mouth. I can put a condom on now without a client ever noticing I’ve got a condom in my mouth. But I think that’s just experience. I can get a condom on and off and (.) that before they even realize I’ve done it.

Some participants did stress that they had always taken safer sex precautions and the law had not changed this:

I still practise what I practised pre the reform… See, um the law reform bill didn’t make accessibility to condoms and lubes and things like that, um the tools of the trade. You didn’t make accessibility to them any easier. It actually, if you go to mainstream places you have to pay an arm and a leg… Whereas um places like NZPC have made it more accessible for those in the industry, but not the law reform bill. Oh no, it hasn’t changed the way, how I practise, to what I do with my clients.

Yeah I think…one of the big things for me that made me really struggle was the length of the shifts. They make you work like 11 hour shifts.

Refusal of client to pay - 12.6

Money stolen - 8.3

Physically assaulted - street 13.4 managed 10.4 private 12.6  (19.2% percent reported to police)

Threatened with physical violence 15.9

Held somewhere against will street 10.2 managed 4.2 private 3.2 (21.1% reported to police)

raped by a client street 5.3 managed 3.3 private 1.5 (32.1% reported to police)

Even in legal managed indoor work 10.4% experienced physical violence. Do cops even face that rate of violence?

Some participants had not had any bad experiences, but were aware that they had to always be prepared for any eventuality:

Um I haven’t had the bad experiences, no, but um (.) I personally don’t like out-calls at all because I feel superior in the building… And this is my territory. If you’re going to go on an out-call, that’s his territory and I feel so inferior. And I’ve got to always practice to not look it, and feel relaxed and try to and keep the situation calm, even though I’m screaming inside.

Screaming inside

That doesn't sound healthy to me.

There are other numbers that show improvement but not significantly in my view. For example, in 1999 58% of managed workers felt they had to accept a customer they didn't want. In 2006, that dropped to 44%. That's a significant drop but it's still outrageously high given that we are talking about having sex with someone.

There is another part of the study that is quantitative and many more sections and not all the news is necessarily bad. Workers do make positive comments concerning decriminalization.  Nevertheless in my opinion the working conditions are unacceptable.

Would this be tolerated in any other industry? 

Fortunate, I'm not ignoring anything.  I chose to go to the horses mouth and examine the actual report rather than an article on the report. Sometimes it's not possible but in this case it is.

There is no need to insult people personally.

Hahaha. No need to insult people personally? Seems a lot of insult is being hurled on these women who chose to come and siclose their stories that don't fit the view of the anti-prostitution browd. I pretty sure that insinuating that all women were exploited (without them knowing it) is pretty darn insulting.

Thanks for the huge work you've put into this, Infosaturated. Despite the abuse and the lies, some of us insist on the facts before sacrificing human rights to industry interests.

wow, another assertion that allof our families are diddling pervert pedophile rapists.....nice.what a load of shit.

fortunate, don't get too upset. these guys simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. they will not be happy until all sex work is eliminated and our culture along with it. so nice to be in such insightful and inclusive company.

the selctive reading, quoting and minimal research links posted only linking to the same researchers over and over....never mind what the government of new zealand say...or the government of sweden either....they are reviewing that model but yet it is toted as this great success and the "only "solution for canada.

also, proponents of the swedish model here on babble and indeed else where in canada, have not a clue how they would implement decrim of sex workers in canada. they know how they will criminalize business owners and customers but have no plan for any infrastructure for decriming workers.

and when asked to contribute to something we all have consensus on- decriming workers- they don't take part, make no comment and contribute nothing.they talk of support services and drug treatment and housing for workers affected by criminalization and working on the street as if those services exist. they don't. the places that do exist are judgemental and demand a worker renounce sex work in order to access services and supports. talk about barriers. in vancouver at least weare working with the health authority and some of those barriers are being adressed. great projects for housing which are zero barrier have been extremely successful in housiong some of vancouvers most vulnerable and hard to house women. they are allowed to use drugs on premises, are allowed to bring customers into their residence and are not forced to make choices between income and housing.

in other words abolitionists have no plan.and will not, it seems engage with active sex workers in designing one. luckily the abolitionists are not in charge and we are engaged with people wo will be able to make a difference on a systematic level.

they are so caught up in , as stargazer said, keeping our vaginas clean no matter the cost- fuck the international charter of human rights- that they haven't even begun to think that far ahead.

the decrim movement in canada is leaps and bounds in front and we are realizing our strategic plan one piece at a time. we will gain control of our rights, our bodies and our collective destinies in spite of assertions here to the contrary.

the movement supporting the swedish model have no plan for protection of workers and are engaged no where with the systems responsible for our protection....except maybe at john school....

lol love how they are taking sex workers money!$500 for john scool attendance and a clean record. talk about undermining sex workers incomes.....

why not? are men not people? are they second class citizens?who are never vulnerable and never need support?

okey dokey then.......round up all sex workers and let's get them into the "camps" we must immediatley begin medical testing and experiment with emotional responses to exclusion and oppression. we will allow carefully screened men to access the bodies of workers as per government protocal and finally we will never have to look at a sex worker again.let's begin planning how we will trasport all sex workers to these camps. come on, it will take a bit of work but....

it is about rights and to say anything else if absolutely outrageous, have you lost your mind?

This is the feminist forum therefore "men's rights" as a general concept are inappropriate as a focus.

Women and children are overwhelmingly affected by prostitution to such a degree that "sex workers" refer to it as "womans work".  While the effects of prostitution on male prostitutes deserves attention the affects of prostitution on women is by far the primary issue. So, when framing the debate, the focus is on women not men.

With regard to men as customers, they have no right to access women's bodies.

....as a woman, I have knowingly and unknowly been exploited by men and the patriarchial system, over and over, and I am not insulted to have someone say that to me, it is a fact of life for most women, no matter their social standing.

For example, when I agree to take a job, that a man would be getting paid more for than what I am getting paid, I am knowingly being exploited for being a woman.

Or when I am at  another couple's place for dinner, and I jump up and help "the wife" clear up after dinner, I am knowingly allowing myself to be exploited for my labour by her husband.

The fact that women do most of the house work, child care, laundry, shopping and meal prep for the family, probably while working out of the house, without realizing they are being exploited, indicates it occurs all the time, in all facets of life.

So most certainly I can see that unknown/unrealized exploitation  has to be part of the frame of the debate. Why would this instance in life be any different than any other?

Leaving out all the nonsensical rhetoric and though terminating cliches, and ignoring your personal attack, it has nothing to do with women's rights.

Our leisure time personal rights are much different than public job rights and responsibilities.

The 2 cannot be confused, the way you are trying to.

having to have safe, thus highly regulated consumer sex, for men's leisure time ejaculation responses, if it becomes a job industry,  impinges upon no one's rights.

save the women and children!!!!

at what point exactly is a child majically trasformed into a man who no longer needs support and is the pervert pedophole rapist responsible for everything wrong in the world?

well?.......18.......16.......21........

tell me?how can we be so blind as a society.

still no proposed plan i see.....where is your side of the deabte? all you have done so far is to attack our plans and state they will not wrk. well, what will?how will you frame decriming of workers in concrete terms? what legal provisions will be amde? what employment strategies will be implemented for displaced and unemployed workers/ what supports to you propose for trauma survivors?

now you are saying it is about rights....the rights of men to access our bodies......please, make up your mind.

Edited for being unconstructive

I've answered that question so many times it's ridiculous.  Sweden is the model. That doesn't mean prostitution will vanish over night.

The same exit strategies and mental health services for trauma survivors under decriminalization apply.  While I am concerned over the well-being of current workers my primary goal is to reduce the number of women that enter prostitution in the first place. Laws are not passed for the current population alone they are passed for succeeding generations too.

"Men's rights" insofar as the right to access to female bodies is being rejected as a concern that has any bearing on whether or not procuring, bawdy houses and the like should be decriminalized.  This includes the issue of handicapped men, ugly men, men with personality disorders, etc.

"Men's rights" only enter into the picture as a rejection of idea that men have the right to access women's bodies. 

The "right" of men to have access to women's bodies is indefensible from a feminist perspective. Therefore, it can be condemned here but not defended as something men "need" therefore should have access to.

You know framing a debate is usually a briefer preliminary step prior to actually having a debate.  It took less time to frame Sacco and Vanzetti for gods sake.  There is little debate here, it's the #**^%# Roman Colosseum. I'm kind of glad that as a male moderator I take a more limited role in dealing with the feminism forums, but I am looking at these threads and others with no small amount of horror.  People are eviscerating each other, with little regard for hitting below the belt here, and on all the dozens by now, of related threads.   No one is actually convincing anyone of anything, no one is really accomplishing anything, and as far as I can tell no one has a hope in hell of doing so.

It's not that often that I really have no idea what to do.

It doesn't happen just here, Oldgoat. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia process can testify to the constant bloodletting between acknowledgers and deniers of systemic sexual oppression. When the generally staid Presses universitaires de France published a Dictionnaire du féminisme a few years back, the fracas over defining prostitution cut so deep that they ended up publishing two essays defining it: one by supporters of this practice and one by abolitionists.

Still, I do think we have come forward a bit on an issue that had generally been avoided like the plague in the Left, ever since Albert Camus flung across the room the first edition of de Beauvoir's The Second Sex (true story), sixty years ago to this day.

You sound like such an innocent right now oldgoat.  There will never be a consensus on this topic but it will be alive for years as the cases work their way through the courts.  There are two live cases as far as I understand it. One in B.C. and one in Ontario.  In both cases, no matter what the decision, it will be appealed. Then it will go to the Supreme court.  It might also go to parliament either before or after the judgement of the Supreme court.  The battle isn't only being fought in Canada, it's being fought around the world. Many governments are changing their laws and trying different approaches. That means we are going to be seeing on-going outcome reports both formal and informal.

Right now, both sides are just sharpening their blades. (joking)  Framing the debate is part of that process. It's all about exploring every nook and cranny that pertains to the debate and mercilessly dissecting anything we find. I assure you, there is lots more to find.

I suggest full body armor and strict moderating because if overt hostilities break-out, well, it won't be a pretty sight.

Get rid of the ill conceived  "sex worker's rights" forum or rename it, perhaps?

...decrimin is not a matter of rights at all for prostitutes. The court challenge is about johns, pimps and bawdy house owners, not about prostitutes

There is no way, given all the reports from around the world, stating otherwise, that prostitutes will be able to work from their houses/apartments,  nor should they be able to, with out being in the proper zoning area, and with out having strigent health guidelines, just for starters.

Stating that there will have to regulations if there is to be an industry  is not stripping of anyone's rights.

For example, I live on residential agricultural zoned  land, which means no one can have a business operations on said zoned  land unless it pertains to agriculture.

A guy moved in next door with 2 logging trucks that would get started at 2 in the morning, and he was operating his logging show from a place zoned residential agricultural.

Our goats and llama would start freaking out, as did the other neighbour's cattle and horses.

Thus the regional district ended up being called and he had to move his logging operations to  comply with the zoning. His personal rights to own a business play no part in the public's rights in the public/private sphere.

And people in the city cannot have farm animals just because they wantto.

Hell ...another example of personal rights not trumping public rights, is a little patient of mine lived in a high rise on the 26th floor. One day I thought I smelled smoke, and went into the spare bedroom to investigate, she had a wood stove going in the room with the stove pipes hanging from coat hangers attached to the ceiling, going out the window.

No one had noticed on cold rainy and cloudy days that there was smoke coming out of the 26th floor window.

She had absolutelu no right to  put lives at risk, because she did not like water radiated heat.

We're never going forward martin with lines like this:

"Anyone familiar with Wikipedia process can testify to the constant bloodletting between acknowledgers and deniers of systemic sexual oppression."

I feel like I'm on repeat with you. I'm sure everyone does. No one, not ONE PERSON, has denied there is exploitation. Not one. Yet you throw this around while pretending to make nice.

I don't think you should continue to get free passes for this passive-aggressive stunt.

Aw yeah, and remind, you're not helping either.

I say NO to a change in the name. Sorry remind, we' are talking about human rights and I don't think you get to dictate who has them and who doesn't based on your moral position.

No, I really don't think the notion of "sex work" conveys or sits with that of prostitution as systemic sexual oppression, the words I used. And I am not speaking for anyone else than myself, contrary to you, Stargazer.

But I am glad that you, at least, are onside with acknowledging it. It helps in framing the discussion of whether we would be furthering human rights by decriminalizing the actions of pimps, brothel-owners, procurers and johns.

Okay, I've been getting posts flagged all day in this and other threads.

People, the moderators aren't full time here.  We're not even close to it, not even when you combine our hours. Could you please be adults and work things out for yourselves occasionally?  Maybe treat each other with some respect?  Seriously, this is ridiculous.  I no sooner clear out the abuse queue when it gets filled up again with the same types of posts a couple of hours later.  And it's about three or four people who are all flagging each other's posts over and over again.

Please stop attacking each other.  Step back from the computer if you're upset or if you're finding it too difficult to keep your temper.  The thread will be here when you're back and calmer.

Okay stargazer what human rights are we speaking of? List them, I want to see what they are.

And again and for the last time, my moral position has no bearing on whether or not sexual contact for the purpose of male ejaculatory responses  as a leisure time activity*, should be come an industry. As I do not even have one, as I have noted repeatedly.

* use this terminology as prostitutes here and elsewhere, have stated they object to the other term, while those who use the other term do not like the word prostitute, so one is left describing the activity, under discussion,  as I have upon other occasions, in order to respect both voices.

And what about the rights of prostitutes who find the term "sex worker" offensive?  Don't they have "human rights". Shouldn't they feel just as welcome on babble too? 

The global topic that has generated all the threads and will continue to generate threads is "Canadian Laws on Prostitution".   "Sex workers rights" is a subtopic to the debate.

What an amazing paragraph in the present context.

Well, let's take it one step at a time. I'm not familiar with the specific incident, martin, although I'm well aware of the many reasons Camus had to be critical of both de Beauvoir and Sartre, to the point of personal hostility. You seem to be saying that Camus disliked The Second Sex because of something de Beauvoir said about prostitution that Camus disagreed with? If not that, then why is the reference here? Or are you just calling Camus a male chauvinist? If so, wanna give Sartre equal play there?

Cheap shots at Camus always get my back up a bit. So many Paris intellectuals claimed later on to have been part of the Resistance; Camus was one of the few who wasn't, um, tidying up the truth.

Specifically, you might recall that Camus never avoided anything "like the plague" -- in fact, he won a Nobel prize specifically for writing, among his other works, a novel called The Plague.

I'm not quite sure which "left" you're referring to there either, but it is simply not true that women's groups of various persuasions have been avoiding these issues "like the plague" in my adult memory, and my experience as a feminist goes back to the mid-sixties.

I must say, I just don't understand where that paragraph came from in this context, and I'd welcome any enlightening elaboration you might care to offer.

Gladly. I was aware that Camus had written The Plague, thank you, and chose my metaphor for that reason.

When he threw The Second Sex across the room, Camus claimed that de Beauvoir's exposé of gender oppression "shamed the French male." I have no desire to slander Camus - call that anecdote a "cheap shot" if you wish, I find it telling, as many uneasy ambiguities of that era - The Resistance roles and Satre's philandering are two other ones, thank you.

I used this example to point out that leftists (loosely defined) still seem to have a huge blind spot around gender oppression. You may disagree; no one is keeping you from arguing that. But consider how long it took for anyone to agree on Babble that prostitution was systematic sexual oppression, and not some liberal God's gift to women's empowerment, or indeed to broach the issue at all.

It hasn't even been two hours since you yourself said:

babble is only for the strong now! Everyone, leather up!

Well, that sounds like fun at least. :D

Snert, there is a huge difference between not feeling welcome and being emotionally fragile.  They aren't the same thing at all.

sweden is sweden.....how exactly do you propose to implement decrim for workers in canada and criminalization of men?i have laid out many factors inour plan...al you can say is sweden....do you even know the legal wording in sweden?does it reflect canadian views? how dod they word it that sex workers were dercim? what measures were put in palce to [protect workers? what measures do you propose?

or is the answer, you still don't know?have just not thought about it?

i mean seriously, if you want us to support your plan, share it.

and saying sweden is not a clear and definitive answer. i want to know what you propose for canada, in legal terms, language to be used,etc......

You can hurt your ankle backpedalling like that. 

Martin, I will certainly concede that Camus had his blind spots, North Africa not least among them. He did come through when it counted, though, as some other people we could think of didn't.

Me? Blind spot around gender oppression? You're lecturing me on gender oppression?

You keep redefining the debate here in your own terms -- "prostitution" as "systematic sexual oppression." There are a number of people here who are (or were) telling you that you are conflating a number of different legal and social issues under one brutal label.

I came here in the first place because I thought that the occasion for these discussions was the Charter challenge, which I very much support, lover of the Charter (and all such C17-C18 documents) that I am. I expect that challenge to succeed, and I've been very impressed by everyone who has contributed to these discussions out of respect for the full humanity of women.

Me? Blind spot around gender oppression? You're lecturing me on gender oppression?

No, I spoke of "leftists (loosely defined)."

Neither selling of sex nor soliciation is illegal in Sweden therefore the prostitute is not breaking any laws. Buying sex is illegal as well as all other actions surrounding prostitution.  The lawyers can work out the legal wording.

Stop arresting prostitutes for solicitation and start arresting johns. Sweden did have to do some police training so that may be needed here as well.

That's a matter of opinion. I hope that once they understand the results of the decriminalization of bawdy houses, pimps and procurers that they will reject it whole-heartedly.

While not all "sex workers" are assaulted prostitution is an inherently unsafe practice as a whole therefore no system can make it safe. Examining the data from the government of New Zealand underlines that reality. Criminalization of johns on up reduces the number of prostituted women therefore fewer women are endangered. 

All the plans you propose to get women out of the industry, exit plans, youth outreach, treatment of drug addiction, mental health problems, etc. I support 100%.

I do not have to come up with alternative job suggestions for women who would otherwise have become prostitutes anymore than I have to supply job suggestions for former alcohol and cigarette smugglers, or people who make a living running private poker games. They have the same options as every other Canadian for whom prostitution is not an option. Legitimizing an inherently dangerous practice is not a valid response to poverty.

Impact of the Swedish model:

www.petraostergren.com/pages.aspx?r_id=40716    (Official reports referenced are listed at the end)

One positive outcome of the criminalization of clients is that before 1999, Swedish prostitutes did not have an organization.  You can be assured they do now:

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/flashback_sweden.html [80]

"The prostitutes' rights organisations, which exist in many countries, are all against a criminalization of all these reasons. But nobody has asked the Swedish prostitutes. They have until now been unorganised, socially rejected and despised, and therefore powerless, without self-confidence. Easy victims for the politicians' ambitions. Now that the law already is a fact, some Swedish prostitutes at last seem to be working on a union. The prohibition and its bad effects have made a union so necessary that the former inhibitions have been able to overcome."

Until now, the law against buying sexual services in Sweden has lead to:

• Less street prostitution.

   

• Instead, more prostitution in other ways and places.

   

• Increased sex tourism to other countries.

   

• Increased violence, force and compulsion against prostitutes, and more pimp dependence. A worse situation, especially for those who lack alternatives to street prostitution, like the drug addicts.

   

• Less possibilities to fight forced prostitution and trafficing.

   

• Less societal control, and less possibilities to help prostitutes and clients.

   

• A law that can't be implemented, and will diminish either law obedience or legal security. Without getting rid of prostitution. The law is already being ruled out by important legal instances.

   

• The prostitutes have been run over and humiliated by the politicians. Sex workers now, at last, seem to be on their way to create a union, but the law is already a fact and it will take time before it can be abolished.

   

• Sweden has made an example to rest of the world - that this is not a good road to follow. The law is a complete failure so far - whatever some politicians may claim on international conferences.

Many Swedish prostitutes used to go to Norway to work, which increased the numbers of sex workers there, which drove down the prices.  Now they either work underground or go to Denmark, where the rates are lower, and Germany. 

More articles on many topics affecting sex workers (or "sex workers" as some would "prefer") can be found here;

www.bayswan.org/ [81]

From the perspective of a Swedish sex worker  (Remember, prostitution itself is legal in Sweden; being a client is illegal)

www.bayswan.org/swed/rosswed.html [82]

To be a sex worker in Sweden, is dangerous.  It's a hell- mostly dangerous.  We don't know anymore, what, or how to do it.  What we have in Sweden, it's a law who doesn't make us any good, and doesn't give us any choice.  Government in Sweden wants to rehabilitate us, to rehabilitate the sex worker, just like we are victims of some kind of dangerous sickness.  Rehabilitate us as we could spread around this sickness. 

I have, in vain, tried to explain, for politics, feminists, and other ignorant intellectuals, that this is a work, and that's why this is also a choice. I have tried to explain that we should instead, have classes, on sex work.  To do it more safe, and better- especially for the younger generation of sex workers in this country now.

Only because they don't see us, it doesn't mean we don't exist.

Well, one of the worse consequences with this law, is that there comes a lot of underage prostitution in Sweden.  The Mafia come inside- the Russian Mafia that has nothing to do with Sweden at all, should be the Swedish Mafia, okay, but, the Russian Mafia come into Sweden  with a lot of kidnapped young girls, older womens, all ages.  A lot of Swedish hookers get killed because they can't call the Police any more.  Because if they call the Police, the word goes around that they put a call to the cops, come by that they got problems, and they lose all their customers.  So a lot of, um, women have got killed, and men.  Prostitutes, sex workers.  Just like me.  Just like many of us.  Others have moved.  Others have, ah, start, to drink too much, lost their children, and so on, and so on.

Okay, for me, three years ago, before this law came, I was living with my two children.  And now, I'm not.  I have to put my children in Portugal, and be more careful before the Welfare comes and take them away, it's a little excuse.  It's very easy for a prostitute to lose her children now in Sweden.  If they know you are prostitute, they have their eyes on you.  If you get some problem, they take your children away immediately.  As I didn't want to have that risk, I'd rather have my children living with my father's family in Portugal, than with me. 

So this law is splitting up families too, because I am not the only one  who is separated from their children right now, with this law.

All Scandinavian hookers are in panic, from the south to the north of Scandinavia, because of the Swedish law.  So all the neighbour countries, Denmark, ah, Finland, Norway, they want the Swedish to change this law, but it's so very difficult.  Very, very difficult.  Because the Swedish, they are happy because they win money on, ah, public transports to Norway, and Denmark.  Always full of hookers.  And customers.  Because the customers takes the boat over to Denmark, or to Finland

I wanna call a very huge SOS to Sweden, because all countries, trying to copy Sweden in this obviously terrible, and worthless, and fruitless law.  I want to call your attention, because Sweden, it's, a very strong example, where that position can bring us to.  Where the law, so-called law and order can bring us to.  Well, if they won't step back, we shouldn't step back either.  If they are a model now, and they want to continue to be a model, we will let them be a model, and make sure that they will fail internationally.  And, that they will recognise their mistake, because, as a model they are being watched, and everybody will see them fail.  Well, every country that have learned of Sweden, and is trying to hound us away from the face of the earth, they should only need to see that it doesn't work like this, and that, we can only do from Sweden.

And regarding flagging, seriously people thicken your skins.  Unless you are actually being directly insulted and attacked on a personal way, like someone calling you an idiot or moron to your online face, you cannot and should not be "offended" and pester the moderators here simply because someone not only has an opposing POV, they are presently real evidence to back it up.  If this somehow offends your status quo, don't read them and continue to muddle along ignorant of the truth.  

cigrarette smugglers, alcohol smugglers? i am equatible with that?ok then....

could you please post a link to the swedish criminal code or copy an paste the information here as we have to support our arguement?.....or links that talk about the police training you refer too? i myself have trained almost 200 new recruits for VPD as well as members of the RCMP, DND ..... we discuss impacts of enforcement, selective eforcement, impacts of cultural differences such as language, symptoms of ptsd and street medicine......

what do you prospose we teach police .....?

for a person who seems so invested in this issue and who has real lived experience i am suprised to learn that you are not willing to take on a piece of the work....it seems to me that pretending someone else will take care of it just shows how little you have really invested in tis fight.

i am involved in advocacy every day and attend meetings, make phone calls, write letters, write grants, hold consultations.....if you feel so strongly why are you unwilling to take on any of the hard work? it seems a little rough to want to impose a particular model when you are unwilling to see it through to implementation....are you confident in the government? that theywill do a good job representing your position?

Without seeing the hard data opinions and anecdotes are based on there is no way to evaluate the arguments being presented.

Because Melissa Farley is firmly against prostitution when she makes claims I want to see the actual data she is basing her claims on so I can determine for myself the validity of her arguments. It's important to know who she asked, how many people she asked and what questions she asked.

The same goes when reading arguments being presented by those who support full-decriminalization. Recently things have been said about several studies and surveys that were not true. Because I was able to access the actual studies I was able to identify inaccuracies.

Oh, and Scottish sex workers group's 33 Reasons Why Clients of Sex Workers Should Not Be Criminalized  (the Swedish model does this):or

"Harriet Harman, Minister of State, Minister for Justice at the Department for Constitutional Affairs and Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham, is pushing for a Swedish-style law against the buying of sex, saying it will stem the demand for sex workers trafficked into Britain. This has now become incorporated in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2008, which is currently at the House of Lords.

The Sexual Freedom Coalition and Ariana Chevalier have consulted sex workers, clients, lawyers and academics, gathering together many views, all of which disagree with this monstrous proposal."

www.scot-pep.org.uk/33reasons.html

by Liv Jessen

Liv Jessen receives first ever Human Rights Award from Amnesty International for Prostitutes' Rights work. [86]

I am the head of the Pro Centre, a national centre for prostitutes in Norway. I am a social worker by profession and for seventeen years I worked daily among Norwegian and foreign women and men who sell sex and among some of their customers. In talking about prostitution and society's view of this phenomenon, it is natural for me to base myself on the Norwegian/ Scandinavian reality.

As time goes on, we meet more and more people who describe their life in prostitution in a rather different way from the picture drawn by radical feminist research. A picture I myself had obstinately stuck to throughout my initial years at the. The picture becomes more varied and therefore more complicated. It is no longer so black and white.

Like other radical feminists, H¿igard and Finstad, two norwegian scientists, are unable to accept voluntary prostitution because they do not believe that anyone could ever choose to take part in such activity: "no-one wants to rent out her vagina as a garbage can for hordes of anonymous men's ejaculations". Nevertheless, to apply the social victim-object view to individuals in prostitution can at best arouse our sympathy, but at worst can result in her no longer seeing herself as a person, a subject with a choice. If there is anything women in prostitution need to do, then it is to mobilize all their willpower and strength to make a choice - and perhaps chose something other than prostitution. But to do that she must be ascribed humanness, subjectivity and identity. And then we also run the risk that she will not make the choice we want her to; she may choose prostitution. As the wise Hans Skjervheim has said: "The first thing you have to choose, is to make the choice yourself".

The sex trade today covers many different degrees of volition and exploitation. That is why it is fruitless to take a general victim view of prostitution. Free will and force vary in different cultures in the past and in the present, within any one country and perhaps also in any one individual.

Women in prostitution naturally have different views on the subject of prostitution, but to say that only the ones who agree with us are right, while the prostitutes who think differently are not ascribed human qualities like the right to make their own choices or to be believed, is oppressive and a fundamentalist attitude.

www.bayswan.org/swed/livjessen.html [87]

Yes, susi, as far as I know cigarette and alcohol smuggling is illegal.  Prostitution is not.  Hard to make a correlation between these two things, imo.   As far as I know, pursuing an illegal activity and calling it "work" would be a bit of a stretch.

I know it is possible to selectively see what one wants to see in research and readings, but I would assume the researchers themselves already had a bias like the majority of society that is anti-sex work.   If they come to conclusions that support a POV that contradicts their original bias and it is rejected because it doesn't match your bias, then it is not logical for any lay person to come in and discredit the research conclusions, is it?

One in a million, I know.
Ever heard of a "regular" (non drive-by) ?
My last visit to a "pro", a smart girl with "lived experience".
We talked for hours  (I did not even take my pants off)
We discussed therapist/patient very early in our "arrangement".
A deluded harmless john am I ? Do I think I am entitled, NO.
She has done more for me (in my singular experience) than any psychobabbleiatrist , (who seemed to focus on getting data to support his thesis, advance his career, so he didn't have to deal directly with "weirdos" anymore).

Men paying surrogates for sex/intimacy is/should be illegal ???

If "client voice frameworks"  Pros.Part III #4, was a missprint, I'll butt out.

(how did the government get into the gambling bussiness anyway ?)
(Wish this thread could slow down a bit)
About me: College grad (including 10 credits in Social Services), Licensed trade, member CAW

EDIT:added to last line

i so agree with you rework!!

most of my clients are "regulars" and many i consider to be friends. it is so difficult to hear them spoken of in such a degrading way. i hope you know many of us do NOT feel that way. thankyou for sharing your voice here.

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/swed_law.html

You can see the wording at the link above but I am not getting into a debate on the intricacies of legal semantics. Prostitutes aren't charged for selling or soliciting. Everyone else involved from johns on up is charged.

I didn't think saying police needed training to implement the law was controversial, but here you go.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/11/06/29/fcd261a4.pdf [93]

Listed under "action plan measures"

Training for the judiciary, the police and public prosecutors,and for employees of the Swedish Migration Board ".

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/lg/inquir... [94]

There has been a shift of policing the women and men in prostitution, to targeting demand. It has taken time to establish this in a large institution used to non-intervention. Many critics of the law have drawn on the early years of implementation where uncertainty and ambivalence was evident in police and prosecutors. Few note the extensive training programme, nor the emerging new consensus and implementation.

I'm not planning on designing the training program personally.

Finding out what the actual outcomes are on changes to laws surrounding prostitution has been very time consuming and there is still a great deal more research to do. Eventually I hope to have that information well organized so that I can help inform Canadians. That is most definitely "part of the work".

All Canadians have a say in the determination of our laws regardless of the degree of their personal involvement because our laws determine the kind of society we are building of which we are all part of.

Even a layperson can evaluate how the subjects were selected, who the participants were, who did the interviewing, what questions were asked, and finally what data was produced. The layperson can then draw their own conclusions or evaluate if the researcher's conclusions are supported by the data.

info, i never thought it was a contreversial idea. i am just asking for particulars on your plan. i hope you had a chance to look at the web site you linked too!!it's awesome and full of alot of great information.

again, i found the swedish criminal code confusing....i'm not sure that kind of wording will work for canada.....in the event of the inpementation of the swedish model.

i do not support that model still however and in all thereading of done over the last 6 years, the committees i'm on and the people i have spoken to, the only way to truely adress concerns on all sides is through decriminalization and industry regulation,  as in all other industries.

our ideas are really starting to take shape here in vancouver and i have joined 3 newly formed subcommittees. i am so excited to see things moving forward!!

i finally heard from the coop funding pot and for the second time, we were denied funing for development of a business plan around our restaurant /cafe enterprise. it's disappointing but after a recent meeting with some folks, we have been given in kind support from a business planner and architect so i will likely just do the work anyway....it would have been great for other sex workers to be able to take part and benefit from learning about starting and running a business....in the BCCEC our objective is always to raise overall community capacity and to ensure as many sex workers as possible benefit from ay opportunities or project we engage in.

I don't have any particular plans. I am simply comparing global outcomes between systems. 

In terms of supporting arguments with links, it's only an issue if an argument is based on facts that someone challenges. 

For example, we both agree that generally speaking street workers are the worst off in terms of abuse etc. and I think most posters would agree.  So, when using that "fact" in an argument there is no need to support it with a link.

If, on the other hand, I claimed that indoor workers were worse off I would have to support that with some hard data not just random examples of women in captivity.

I'm very disappointed that you were denied funding for planning the restaurant/cafe project. It's very short-sighted.

thanks babe.