Defense of the Nordic Model for dealing with Prostitution (and the right to defend it)

661 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

Rebecca West wrote:

 

Gustave, you're in the Feminist Forum and you are not abiding by its mandate. You've been cautioned by my co-moderator, Catchfire. You've been called on your mansplaining, rightfully so, by Timebandit. So let me tell you this; women run this forum. All are welcome so long as they abide by the pro-feminist guidelines. If you choose not to abide by that, you are free to post your opinions elsewhere on babble. But not here. If you persist in telling the women participating in this thread what they should or shouldn't be thinking, I will, reluctantly, suspend your posting privileges.

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
And there are other similar organizations across the world.    It doesn't have to be WIDE SPREAD for something to be an issue.   

I mean a an organization for the disabled as in all aspects of their lives not just sex, not a sex worker/disabled people organization. 

fortunate wrote:
I recommend just leaving this forum, and discuss/debate the issue of C-36 and laws, and so on and so forth, in either Canadian politics section, or the sex worker forum. 

What makes you think he has any interest in discussing those topics?  He hasn't made a single comment about sex work or the Nordic Model or C 36. 

His sole reason for coming into this topic is to mansplain. 

ygtbk

Pondering wrote:

fortunate wrote:
And there are other similar organizations across the world.    It doesn't have to be WIDE SPREAD for something to be an issue.   

I mean a an organization for the disabled as in all aspects of their lives not just sex, not a sex worker/disabled people organization. 

fortunate wrote:
I recommend just leaving this forum, and discuss/debate the issue of C-36 and laws, and so on and so forth, in either Canadian politics section, or the sex worker forum. 

What makes you think he has any interest in discussing those topics?  He hasn't made a single comment about sex work or the Nordic Model or C 36. 

His sole reason for coming into this topic is to mansplain. 

Hi Pondering.

As a moderately consistent libertarian I don't think that any prostitution-specific laws are required. To the extent that coercion or non-consensual acts occur, I think there is already a legal framework for dealing with them.

Pondering

ygtbk wrote:

Pondering wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

@ Captain Obvious:

You have noticed that babble has a certain amount of asymmetric moderation. You are correct, I think.

I would not expect this to change, however - it seems to be an ingrained part of the way the board is.

If I randomly inserted the neologism "mansplaining" into my posts I would expect zero consequence from the mods. This is despite the fact that it's clearly a lazy way of getting to an ad hominem argument and clearly has no validity.

If I were to hypothetically use the neologisms "femsplaining" or "chicksplaining", I expect I would get into trouble. Therefore I do not do that.

Clearly you are talking through your ass. This is the feminist forum. It’s where we do femsplaining and don’t get called “chicks” by misogynistic jerks. It’s a place where women don’t have to listen to men telling us how we should talk and behave and what words we should or shouldn’t use.

I finally accepted I was atheist but now I have to go back to being agnostic so I can pray for patience. 

Since I was a) not telling anyone how to talk or behave and b) pointing out the asymmetry of allowed language on the forum, I think I would pray for patience too, if I were a prayerful person.

Would you go into a forum for PoC and start lecturing them on language symmetry and how the board should be moderated?

I have the distinct impression you think feminists have pretty much achieved equality in Canada, and equality to you means symmetry. 

This is the description of this forum:

"Feminists discussing feminist issues from a feminist point of view."

You are not a feminist, you are not discussing a feminist issue, and you aren't approaching the topic from a feminist point of view. 

You are not even participating in the thread topic. 

If you feel that the term mansplaining is misandric why don't you ask the moderators to open up a forum for Men's Rights.

Alternately, If you main concern is asymmetry in moderating, I believe there is a rabble reactions place to talk about that. 

By the way, the opposite of chicksplaining is dicksplaining, and you guys have gone well beyond mansplaining. 

 

 

ygtbk

@ Pondering: please see my post at #603 - I think our posts crossed. I am attempting to address the thread topic.

Pondering

ygtbk wrote:

Hi Pondering.

As a moderately consistent libertarian I don't think that any prostitution-specific laws are required. To the extent that coercion or non-consensual acts occur, I think there is already a legal framework for dealing with them.

And I think this is the Feminist Forum not the Libertarian forum and you are not discussing this topic from a feminist point of view. 

ygtbk

Pondering wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

Hi Pondering.

As a moderately consistent libertarian I don't think that any prostitution-specific laws are required. To the extent that coercion or non-consensual acts occur, I think there is already a legal framework for dealing with them.

And I think this is the Feminist Forum not the Libertarian forum and you are not discussing this topic from a feminist point of view. 

Pondering, I am attempting to understand your point of view. Would you describe it as closer to equity feminism or gender feminism (to use the Christina Hoff Summers categorization)?

I personally don't think that being a libertarian and being a feminist are mutually exclusive, (since there are women who have identified as being both), but you may be able to explain why they are.

Pondering

ygtbk wrote:
Pondering, I am attempting to understand your point of view. Would you describe it as closer to equity feminism or gender feminism (to use the Christina Hoff Summers categorization)?

Christina Hoff Summers is an anti-feminist and you ask me to describe my views using her philosophy.

“For those of us who follow the Manosphere we’ve surely read MRA’s praising the work of Christina Hoff Sommers. She is a staunch anti-feminist who coined the term ‘gender feminist’ which she defined as:…..

http://mancheeze.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/christina-hoff-sommers-joins-the-hate-site-a-voice-for-men/

This is the feminist forum. It is for feminists. It is not for men who want women to explain feminism to them so they can poke holes in the explanations.

I’m requesting that you be blocked from the feminist forum. 

 

ygtbk

@ Pondering:

If I am blocked, I am blocked, although I would note that you have been a lot ruder to me than I have been to you. Such is babble. I can only hope that Rebecca is merciful.

So I have two questions, before being banished forever:

1) What kind of Turing Test did you do to determine that you think I'm male?

2) What is the one true definition of feminist? Clearly Christina Hoff Summers thinks she is one, and you think she isn't. Who decides? What is your definition?

ygtbk

@ Pondering: thanks for clarifying why you hold your opinion. Christina Hoff Summers does not make the cut from your point of view (although lumping "everyone else" as gender feminists seems like a bit of a push to me).

Do Virginia Postrel or Tammy Bruce make the cut? Camille Paglia? Carol Gilligan? Andrea Nye? If so, why? If not, why not? I am trying to understand your position.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

ygtbk, I think you know you are hectoring, politely or not. I am not blocking you from this forum, but please take a moment to consider who this forum is for (spoiler: not you). Kindly (and politely) drop the question of Christina Hoff and the rest of it. [/asymmetrical moderation]

Captain Obvious, please don't post in this thread again. At the risk of mansplaining, I will tell you that you are being offensive and obnoxious. Thanks.

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

ygtbk, I think you know you are hectoring, politely or not. I am not blocking you from this forum, but please take a moment to consider who this forum is for (spoiler: not you). Kindly (and politely) drop the question of Christina Hoff and the rest of it. [/asymmetrical moderation]

Captain Obvious, please don't post in this thread again. At the risk of mansplaining, I will tell you that you are being offensive and obnoxious. Thanks.

Thank-you for your moderation, Catchfire.

Caissa

Nice pun.

ygtbk

Caissa wrote:

Nice pun.

Thanks, Caissa. More a double entendre, really, but I'm glad someone's getting the jokes.

Pondering

Sommers recognizes only two kinds of feminism, her kind which is equity and is good, and gender feminism, which is everyone else and is bad. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers#Views_on_feminism

E. Anthony Rotundo of the Washington Post, in reviewing Sommers' The War Against Boys, has stated: "In the end, Sommers fails to prove either claim in the title of her book. She does not show that there is a 'war against boys.' All she can show is that feminists are attacking her 'boys-will-be-boys' concept of boyhood, just as she attacks their more flexible notion. The difference between attacking a concept and attacking millions of real children is both enormous and patently obvious. Sommers's title, then, is not just wrong but inexcusably misleading... Sommers's book is a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic."[32] 

 

Sommers is a men's right's activist. 

Pondering

To return to the topic of the Nordic Model:

Bill C 36 is the Canadian iteration of the Nordic Model

s.1. can override s.7.  http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1391112250275

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

  • the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
  • the government's response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

Term used in preamble:

Quote:
Human Dignity Legal Definition:

An individual or group's sense of self-respect and self-worth, physical and psychological integrity and empowerment.

<http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HumanDignity.aspx>  

The description of human dignity sounds like it would fall within "national values" possibly social harm and almost certainly equality legislation. This is so if part of the legislation fails the s.7 test it may pass the s.1.

Bill C 36 premable:

Quote:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence posed to those who engage in it;

The above frames prostitutes as victims of exploitation that are at risk of violence. I believe that will help withstand an s.7. challenge.

Quote:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity;

Social harm is a valid cause under s.1.

Quote:
Whereas it is important to protect human dignity and the equality of all Canadians by discouraging prostitution, which has a disproportionate impact on women and children;

Defending the human dignity and equality of women and children touches on s.15 and s.28  and s.1

The first three establish why prostitution should be illegal. The rest establish what is needed to stop it.

Quote:
Whereas it is important to denounce and prohibit the purchase of sexual services because it creates a demand for prostitution;

Quote:
Whereas it is important to continue to denounce and prohibit the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution and the development of economic interests in the exploitation of the prostitution of others as well as the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution;

Allowing prostitution to develop as a business would entrench this harmful and unequal industry putting women at risk and undermining their equality.

Quote:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada wishes to encourage those who engage in prostitution to report incidents of violence and to leave prostitution;

This is how the government wants to protect prostitutes. S.7 argument.

Quote:
And whereas the Parliament of Canada is committed to protecting communities from the harms associated with prostitution;

This might be here to protect the no soliciting around minors part. 

There can be no doubt that the legislative goal of C-36 is to prevent prostitution not just the nuisance aspects of it.

They want to prevent it because it is inherently harmful and dangerous, threatens children, and undermines the equality of women.  They want to prevent its development as an industry because that will multiply the harms.

These are very different legislative goals than preventing public nuisance. The government setting the battle to be one of conflicting Charter rights in which the interests of the many take precedence over the interests of the few. 

kropotkin1951

An individual will be bringing the challenge claiming that the risk to her safety from the new laws will exceed the risk to other unspecified women from the act of buying sex. The decision will likely come down to whether this law creates a greater risk of harm to the prositutes who are selling it legally or to society in general.  The Charter is meant to be the balancing point between the rights of individuals and the state power of coercion. The Whereas Clauses are hard to disagree with but they cannot be used as proof of anything. Just because the government says one harm is more important than another doesn't make it so particularily if it becomes an issue in the case.

fortunate

kropotkin1951 wrote:

An individual will be bringing the challenge claiming that the risk to her safety from the new laws will exceed the risk to other unspecified women from the act of buying sex. The decision will likely come down to whether this law creates a greater risk of harm to the prositutes who are selling it legally or to society in general.  The Charter is meant to be the balancing point between the rights of individuals and the state power of coercion. The Whereas Clauses are hard to disagree with but they cannot be used as proof of anything. Just because the government says one harm is more important than another doesn't make it so particularily if it becomes an issue in the case.

 

And if they are going to counter a challenge, they would have to prove their claims that prostitution is 'inherently' harmful to adult consensual women (and i suppose men are allowed to be included tho usually left out) providing the services.   And the fact based evidence shows that prostitution itself is not harmful to women.  It is sexual services, sexual activities, and even non sexual services, it isn't 'beat me with a stick' services.     When a happy ending becomes violently harmful to the women (or men) providing the happy ending is the time to call it all violence.  Until getting a cramp in one's hand becomes violently harmful to women/men, then  forget it.  

While there is violence against women in today's society, the violence isn't caused by prostitution no more than it is caused by short skirts.    And sex workers are not more or less at risk than any other woman working or living in any other situation, provided that other laws enable them to work in safer settings.    

They are also going to have to explain why they think their current laws 211-213 and any trafficking laws already being used on prostitution related offenses are insufficient.  And if they are insufficient, then why did they work so hard to keep the 3 things intact, if they weren't doing what they were supposed to do?   And again, prove that they are not doing what they are supposed to do, because having over a dozen arrested in the past few months in only one city, Toronto, seems to indicate that they are doing just fine:  law enforcement is able to find the bad guys, and laws enable them to charge them with all the things the abolitionists want exploitive pimps to be charged with.   So what's the problem?   Well, the fact is, that abolitionists don't really care about things that make work harder for sex workers, they care about winning, by eradicting prostitution and persecuting sex workers.   

The govt would have to prove cause/effect or whatever (not a lawyer, not even trying lol), and the SCC felt the evidence provided in the recent challenges was compelling, and far better than what the govt was saying, which was basically 'prostitution bad, make it go away"

Hardly an evidenced based fact based statement.    What the opponents are saying is why do we have to go thru another challenge of the new laws in the first place, prove that the SCC is going to agree to the C-36 legislation as it is now, and be done with it.  The fact that they won't do that, given the time constraints they have chosen to work with (they could have had legislation ready the day after the SCC ruling, they did some faux 'investigating and surveying' to take it out as far as possible, so that it would require speedy debate and special committee sessions.   In other words, when parliament normally breaks for summer and many mps are going to be out of the office, potentially being unable to debate, discuss, or do their own research.

They also cannot prove that it 'threatens' children, or anyone else.  They'd have to have evidence proving that anyone under 18 is affected by street sex workers, as they will have zero chance of proving that sex workers who work indoors, at massage parlours or with agencies have any impact or ability to threaten anyone, let alone children.     That's why so many, who even weren't pro decrim, are mind boggled by this legislation and the wording of it let alone the govt seriously thinking it could withstand anything.  Public comments and media articles seem to indicate they believe the govt knows it wouldn't stand up to any test, and that they did it deliberately so that it would fail.  To what end other than garnering support for failed causes, who knows.   As a complaint, it is still a popular complaint:  they put it together knowing it would fail, and that the current criminal laws 211-213 that remain, and any other non prostitution linked laws will be applied to any situation, and that no more attempts to create new laws will be done by them, after all, they'll shrug and look sad and say 'hey, we tried.....and maybe next time we are trying to stack the SCC and the Senate, and whatever else, you'll just let us do it, and see what else we get rammed thru.  Some of it you won't like".   

sherpa-finn

While reading up on the new Ricochet media initiative, I came across this interesting and rather intense exchange on the sex worker / C-36 issue and how it divides both feminists and progressives:   

The opening salvo from Megan Murphy:

http://feministcurrent.com/9172/why-i-wont-be-supporting-canadas-next-top-progressive-startup-ricochet/

Followed by a response from Melissa Fong:

http://melissafong.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/5930/

Pondering

This is what the SCC had to say about the harms:

Quote:
 

[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).

[87]                          Second, even accepting that there are those who freely choose to engage in prostitution, it must be remembered that prostitution — the exchange of sex for money — is not illegal.  The causal question is whether the impugned laws make this lawful activity more dangerous.  An analogy could be drawn to a law preventing a cyclist from wearing a helmet.  That the cyclist chooses to ride her bike does not diminish the causal role of the law in making that activity riskier.  The challenged laws relating to prostitution are no different. 

[88]                          Nor is it accurate to say that the claim in this case is a veiled assertion of a positive right to vocational safety.  The applicants are not asking the government to put into place measures making prostitution safe.  Rather, they are asking this Court to strike down legislative provisions that---- aggravate---- the risk of disease, violence and death.

[89]                          It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes.  The impugned laws deprive people engaged in a risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks.  The violence of a john does not diminish the role of the state in making a prostitute more vulnerable to that violence.

 

The need for panic buttons and exit strategies suggest that it is not a job like any other. The SCC judgement does not blame the laws for the violence, only for having laws that make it more dangerous for the sake of preventing public nuisance. 

Sex workers and their lawyers claim the outcomes are the same but in the same breath complain that it will cut down on prostitution, which is the legislative goal of Bill C 36. 

There is no hard evidence of a reduction in violence in New Zealand or anywhere else and there is plenty of evidence that the industry expands in countries that legitimize prostitution. An explicit goal in the legislation is to prevent institututionalization of prostitution within the economy. 

Legitimization of the drug trade would make that safer too but the SCC isn't overturning those laws. The government doesn't have to prove it will make prostitution safer or that it will eradicate it. It only has to prove that it is taking a reasonable approach to controling it for the right reasons. 

 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Legitimization of the drug trade would make that safer too but the SCC isn't overturning those laws. The government doesn't have to prove it will make prostitution safer or that it will eradicate it. It only has to prove that it is taking a reasonable approach to controling it for the right reasons. 

I gather that you prefer the coercive power of the state in dealing with social issues like drug use and sexual commerce. When this law is enacted there will still be as many workes in the sex trade and there will be no better access to things that women require to avoid being exploited. This bill is a make work program for the misogynist RCMP and other police forces. You know the same cops that routinely violently abuse their female partners both within the force and domestically.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I gather that you prefer the coercive power of the state in dealing with social issues like drug use and sexual commerce. 

You gather wrongly because I favor full legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of users of all drugs and those who are only selling to support their own habit. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:
When this law is enacted there will still be as many workes in the sex trade and there will be no better access to things that women require to avoid being exploited. 

There is no insta-solution to all social problems from mental health issues to runaway girls to drug addiction etc. that lead to girls becoming prostitutes. Prostitution does not improve life for them. Women who are choosing prostitution as a better economic alternative to other forms of employment can choose something else even if it is less lucrative on the basis of protecting other  women from harm. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 This bill is a make work program for the misogynist RCMP and other police forces. You know the same cops that routinely violently abuse their female partners both within the force and domestically.

We more than sleep with the enemy. Men are our fathers, brothers and sons as well as our lovers. We often have no choice but to turn to men for protection from men. If you were robbed would you refrain from calling police? 

If brothels/massage parlours are busted the girls are not longer criminalized. The block on advertising will reduce business with little to no police involvement. While prostitution was technically legal in practice the laws did discourage prostitution. C 36 should be considered an improvement because it takes the focus off of the woman from the perspective of arrest. The reason it is viewed with such fury is that it really does cut down on the ability of the industry to survive. 

The entire argument rests on whether you think criminalization or legitimization of prostitution leads to greater safety/danger for women and the balance between individual and collective rights. 

fortunate

sherpa-finn wrote:

While reading up on the new Ricochet media initiative, I came across this interesting and rather intense exchange on the sex worker / C-36 issue and how it divides both feminists and progressives:   

The opening salvo from Megan Murphy:

http://feministcurrent.com/9172/why-i-wont-be-supporting-canadas-next-top-progressive-startup-ricochet/

Followed by a response from Melissa Fong:

http://melissafong.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/5930/

 

Yes I read that.  did you have an opinion about MM's rampage?   (just so you know what my opinion is lol)

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

 

There is no hard evidence of a reduction in violence in New Zealand or anywhere else and there is plenty of evidence that the industry expands in countries that legitimize prostitution. An explicit goal in the legislation is to prevent institututionalization of prostitution within the economy. 

 

 

 

As mentioned before, the PRA and any other laws legalizing, decriminalizing and/or prohibiting prostitution are never set in place for the outcome to be a reduction in violence against women.  VAW is a completely separate issue, and since there are already laws against assaulting anyone, male or female, sex worker rights advocates are often at a loss, as was the NZ govt, for why anyone uses that as an indication of failure.     PRA or any other law can't prevent violence against women, but at the same time, that wasn't part of it's mandate, so it is not considered a failure that that is or wasn't the outcome of the decriminalization. 

Now what is not mentioned here, or by any opponents, is that the PRA has resulted in more self confidence on the part of sex workers to stand up for their rights as employees, and as providers, and for reporting anything against them.  In fact, overall the incidence of sexual assaults in NZ is much lower than that in Sweden.    Two countries with similar populations.     Proponents of the Swedish law make false claims that the laws resulted in a variety of reductions, when in fact they made no effort to quanitify what was happening prior to the law.  It is impossible to compare the stats of today with the stats of 1998, for example, because there are no stats for 1998.  In NZ, they did research for stats in 2003, when the PRA was enacted, and then did a 5 year study in 2008, so that they could provide an analysis.   

 

at the very least, the Canadian govt will have to prove that prostitution is actually by itself, in ideal conditions, dangerous.    Their preamble introduces it as such, when the SCC basically said that their arguments in court saying the same thing were baseless.  

For the idea of appeal, if the law is past and a challenge presented, this is the plan so to speak 

http://rabble.ca/news/2014/06/sex-work-101-making-sense-out-canadas-nonsensical-sex-work-legislation

Pivot will then issue another charter challenge, arguing the bill violates Section Seven of the Charter (as the previous legislation did), and possibly Section Two (on freedom of speech). The case will go to the BC Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court of Canada.

While Proth does not expect the bill to pass constitutional muster, she notes that the process will take three to five years. She says, "The sad reality is that in the meantime circumstances on the ground for sex workers are not going to change. These laws go further than the previous laws did in terms of creating an environment where sex workers are far more vulnerable to exploitation and violence."

 

btw, if advertising is limited, and sex workers are lacking access to clients, they actually become more desperate to make ends meet, and do things that are much riskier.   Not just outdoor workers, but indoor ones are likely to drop rates, have more clients, do less screening, draw more attentiion to themselves which can lead to eviction, and do more sctivities that are higher risk.  Oh, wait, am I talking about Sweden or Canada?   Well, same laws, same results.    

One of the primary reason the PRA of NZ works is that there was sex worker as a collective (seriously, it is called the prostitutes collective) were involved in the legislation changes.    One of the primary reasons that C-36 isn't working is that they have not taken into account any sex worker input.  For example, they don't have a clue how we advertise, how we work, where we work, and so on.   They assume that they know.   Just as they don't know now how many sex workers there really are, not even a best guestimate, because they don't know where to look.   Escorts, massage parlours and agencies aren't hiding.   Yet no one knows or takes the time to find out more?  But they have lots of stats to pull out of their a**es?     And then what, in 5 years we do a study to prove how successful it was, and compare the stats they don't have now with some new ones pulled out of their a**ses?    

Elle_Fury

There is some good news from Norway:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/11/us-norway-prostitution-idUKKBN0...

"This report does not find any evidence of more violence against prostitutes after the ban on buying sex entered into force," said the report, which was published on Monday.

"The enforcement of the law, in combination with the laws against trafficking and pimping, makes Norway a less attractive country for prostitution-based trafficking than what would have been the case if the law had not been adopted," it said.

"This report shows that the law clearly has contributed to a reduction of demand and volume of prostitution in Norway, which is what it was intended to do," said Steinar Stroem, a professor at the University of Oslo and one of the study's authors.

Street prostitution in Oslo, the country's biggest city, is down between 35 to 60 percent from before the ban, while the indoor market has shrunk by 10 to 20 percent, the report said.

fortunate

It's great that there is 'no evidence' of an increase in violence right?  Considering every research has already proven that sex workers do not report violence against them in a criminalized system the way they are willing to do in a decriminalized one.   

And hat sounds like a reduction in (visible) supply, not a reduction in demand.   Any sex worker can tell you that when someone in their area retires or moves away, their business gets a boost of new clients, sometimes up by 10% or more.     Demand doesn't diminish just because there may be a slight decrease in supply.    

Plus, what I am not seeing in the report is the outcome of the viciousness of the police in Norway in pushing the Operation Homeless policy, or the deportation of migrant (willing) workers who have been assaulted, report the assault, and the police's reaction is to deport them swiftly. 

if they are doing this, and there is a reduction?  If abolitionists are looking for these kinds of results, then they are looking for these kinds of solutions, imo.   Because that is how it works in a criminalized system

How did this year's research not find this information from 2 years ago in Oslo?   http://www.thelocal.no/20120622/rip-up-prostitution-law-says-top-oslo-politician

 

More info from 2012   http://www.fafo.no/prostitution/ban_purchase.html

 

And some information from around the same time indicated that there was a reduction in sexual services openly provided at the Thai massage parlours.   So i'm sure they'd view that as a 'reduction'.  however what apparently now happens is that the sex worker meets the client at the massage parlour, and make arrangements to meet outside of iit.   So while that is a way to work around it, it actually increases her risk, as she is going outside of a safer location to an unknown one.    But let's not let safety be our concern when it comes to sex work, right?

 

The articles are in the sex workers forum.  You are free to ignore them, along with the usual facts, but the truth is out there. 

 

fortunate

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governments-of-norway-and-sweden-recognise-that-the-criminalisation-of-the-purchase-of-sex-the-so-called-swedish-model-is-of-considerable-harm-to-sex-workers-2#

Petition by Swedish sex workers about the Norwegian report:

We, the undersigned, would like to criticise in the strongest possible terms the evaluation of the Norwegian criminalisation of the purchase of sex, which was published in August 2014. The report is inconsistent and misleading in its assertions, and plays down the very real damaging outcomes of the legislation. 

The report claims that the law has been successful in decreasing levels of sex work. However, the only thing that can be demonstrated is that levels of street-based sex work have decreased. Most sex work is off-street in Norway, and levels of indoor sex work cannot be accurately estimated (and the report concedes this). It therefore cannot be claimed that overall levels of sex work have reduced. We note a concerning similarity to Sweden’s 2010 evaluation of the Swedish criminalisation of the purchase of sex, which suggests that the law has successfully decreased levels of sex work whilst only providing evidence of a decline in street sex work.

 

The report also notes that economic conditions of sex work have declined following the legislation. This serves only to exacerbate harm and danger for sex workers, and arguing that it reduces levels of sex work is erroneous given that overall levels cannot be shown to have declined. The report indeed notes that dangers for sex workers have increased, with shorter negotiation times with agitated and stressed clients, and an unwillingness to report violence and difficulties to the police. Though the report asserts that there are no indications that violence has increased, this is again misleading, since the report also notes that sex workers do not report such violence to the police due to the law.

 

Since the law has made sex work more dangerous and made sex workers more vulnerable, the report would do well to emphasise how concerning these side-effects of the legislation are. It is noted that both sex workers and service providers reports increased harassment by the police, including condoms being used as evidence of prostitution and sex workers being accused of encouraging a crime. The focus on condoms, and the avoidance to carry them it has resulted in, is noted as potentially affecting sex workers health negatively, yet there is no concern expressed in regards to harmful and abusive police practices. Again, there is similarity to the Swedish evaluation of the Swedish model, which notes that sex workers experience more harm, danger, and stigma due to the law, and then suggests that this should be regarded as positive in efforts to reduce levels of sex work. 

 

In short, the law cannot be accurately asserted to have decreased overall levels of sex work, as it sets out to do. As with the Swedish model, the law has made sex work more dangerous. The report plays down the harm the legislation has done, whilst it presents its findings in such a way as to suggest the legislation has been successful, when it has been anything but.

 

We demand that Swedish and Norwegian governments focus on the welfare, health, and safety of sex workers. We demand they recognise that the criminalisation of the purchase of sex – the so-called Swedish model – is of considerable harm to sex workers, especially those who are already heavily marginalised and stigmatised.

 

quizzical

"the outcomes, as revealed in the Univ. of London study, in the states under review that had legalized or regulated prostitution were found to be just as discouraging or even more discouraging than the traditional all round criminalization. In each case the results were dramatic in the negative.

Legalization and/or regulation of prostitution, according to the study, led to:

A dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry,
A dramatic increase in the involvement of organized crime in the sex industry,
A dramatic increase in child prostitution,
An explosion in the number of foreign women and girls trafficked into the region, and
Indications of an increase in violence against women.
In the state of Victoria, Australia, where a system of legalized, regulated brothels was established, there was such an explosion in the number of brothels that it immediately overwhelmed the system's ability to regulate them, and just as quickly these brothels became a mire of organized crime, corruption, and related crimes. In addition, surveys of the prostitutes working under systems of legalization and regulation find that the prostitutes themselves continue to feel coerced, forced, and unsafe in the business.

A survey of legal prostitutes under the showcase Netherlands legalization policy finds that 79% say they want to get out of the sex business. And though each of the legalization/regulation programs promised help for prostitutes who want to leave prostitution, that help never materialized to any meaningful degree. In contrast, in Sweden the government followed through with ample social services funds to help those prostitutes who wanted to get out. 60% of the prostitutes in Sweden took advantage of the well funded programs and succeeded in exiting prostitution.*

* The full Scottish government report on prostitution policies can be seen at www.scottish.parliament.uk
So Why Hasn't Anyone Tried This Before?

Why, then, with Sweden's success so clearly lighting the way, aren't others quickly adopting the plan? Well, some are. Both Finland and Norway are on the verge of making the move. And if Scotland takes the advise of its own study, it will go in that direction too. But, the answer to the question of why other countries aren't jumping to adopt Sweden's plan is probably the same as the answer to the question of why governments haven't tried Sweden's solution before.

In order to see prostitutes as victims of male coercion and violence it requires that a government first switch from seeing prostitution from the male point of view to the female point of view. And most, if not virtually all, countries of the world still see prostitution and every other issue from a predominantly male point of view."

http://esnoticia.co/noticia-8790-swedens-prostitution-solution-why-hasnt-anyone-tried-this-before

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Fo Sho Quiz. Won't help until we get the alternative POV. That in itself sounds bad. What's up with the ladies? Y'all better get your shit together. Why the confusion? I don't believe y'all are such dainty flowers. Put your word to the bird.

 

Recognize and rehabilitate. There's no need for this shit these days.

 

My boy:

Struggling

I have a question for Susan Davis. Do you support any kind of policy to help people avoid the industry before they even go into it or either the workers or clients who are already involved and who want out of the industry to do so, whether it involves education on mental health, sex addiction, and coping resources in sex education classes or requiring backpage.com and other such sites to advertise mental health and other related services and products on their sex pages?

Would even public education to inform people of their options be overly intrusive?

I can also say that I cannot see how the risk of prosecution, much less a fine or some other more symbolic punishment, would lead me to physically assault a woman. And if I wanted to assault a woman, I don't see how decriminization would prevent me from doing so.

Besides, wouldn't helping both providers and clients with mental health issues out of the industry make the industry safer? Granted there might not be much of an industry left then, but at least what would remain might be relatively less unhealthy for society. After all, do we really want those who want out of the industry to be in it, whether provider or client? Let us remember too that those with mental health issues are also more likely to take greater risk with their own health and there is no way for either to judge the mental health of the other except if the person voluntarily reveals it or during rare occurences of their mental filters being temporarily down. Don't think people with mental health issues can't look normal and clean cut to the public eye.

Unionist

Struggling wrote:

I can also say that I cannot see how the risk of prosecution, much less a fine or some other more symbolic punishment, would lead me to physically assault a woman. And if I wanted to assault a woman, I don't see how decriminization would prevent me from doing so.

Could you possibly work up the decency to stop talking until after December 6 is over? Thanks.

 

Struggling

Sorry, I was speaking hypothetically. Just to clarify, I would never do such a thing. I was simply commenting on the hypothesis that if I could do such a thing, that I do not see how decriminalization would help.

Anyway, this this will be my last post for today. I just have a habit of typing in the first person when hypothesizing.

Pondering

Struggling, I cannot answer for Susan Davis but you will find many informative threads by her in the Sex Worker's forum that explain her position on the topic. She is an advocate for sex workers who want decriminalization. That is, full legitimization of the industry like any other.

Of course she wants exit services for the women who want and need it and fully supports programs that would prevent women from feeling economically coerced into the industry. Having said that, she also believes that women who choose sex work should be respected and protected under the usual labour and criminal laws that protect anyone else. She favors something akin to the New Zealand model. I recommend checking it out on wikipedia for a quick overview.

I favor bill C-36 except for the provisions that criminalize prostitutes and I think they are silly anyway. I am an abolitionist and favor the "Nordic model" or Swedish model".

Your idea is creative and original but philosopical at this point. Abolitionists such as myself support most of Bill C-36. I may participate in conversations on challenges to the law but that is all.

If you read this thread from the beginning you will see that we have had major battles over it. It has been very polarizing. If people aren't responsive to you that is probably why because as I said your idea is very original.

I commend you for explaining your personal struggle with depression and complusive sex. I agree with those who say it isn't an addiction but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem that is difficult to deal with. We all seek comfort in different pleasures, food is a big one, so it makes sense that sex is too seeing as it was designed to give physical pleasure to motivate us to procreate. I can see that getting out of hand just like eating.

 

 

Struggling

Thanks Pondering.

Therapists advertise themselves as specialists in 'sex addiction', so I used that term. If it were up to me I would maybe call it compulsive sexual behaviour, which is no less inaccurate. The reality is probably between the two with the former term just being a catchier 3-syllable phrase. That said, there are similarities especially with regards to depression and the need for ever riskier or masochistic behaviour or thoughts of self-harm.

The only reason I'd decided to give therapy a chance was because of an escort who recognized I was going too far in some requests and actually recommended it. She contacted me a few days later to show her around town and shopping since my Chinese was far better than her English and again strongly recommended it, and texted me a few days later asking if I had. So I finally had to cave, and started researching it more, discovered an online support network who swore that therapy had helped them out of it, but it would have been nice to know about this years ago.

Unionist

Struggling wrote:

Anyway, this this will be my last post for today. I just have a habit of typing in the first person when hypothesizing.

Got it. When you said that was your last post, you were just hypothesizing.

susan davis susan davis's picture

as i said, read the sex workers rights forum...there's only a couple of hundred posts which answer your question.

short answer, i do not believe that the safety of adult consensual sex workers should be comprimised for any reason. saying, it might help this person or it might help that person is not justification for wide spread harm caused to us by criminalization.

yes, exiting, yes supports but no to comprimising one group to save another.

quizzical

Quote:
susan davis said: yes, exiting, yes supports but no to comprimising one group to save another

 

so... you're saying all women's safety should be compromised equally by legalizing prostitution? 

onlinediscountanvils

susan davis wrote:

as i said, read the sex workers rights forum...there's only a couple of hundred posts which answer your question.

Struggling

I could agree with allowing both men and women who wish to participate in the sex industry of their own free will, whether as providers or consumers, to do so.

That said, I think society has a responsibility to educate those men and women, whether providers or consumers, who are participating in the industry due to material, mental health, or other reasons that compromise a truly free and informed consent devoid of coersion, out of the industry. And since educating them requires reaching them, this leaves us with two options that I could see, neither of which is mutually exclusive  and both of which would likely even need to reinforce one another:

 

1. Incorcorating education about prostitution, its economic, mental health, and other causes and sources of help to leave the industry or better yet, avoid it altogether, in public school sex education classes, which would also be an opportunity to integrate more social studies and mental health awareness into such courses; and

2. Providing compulsory educational advertizing of various economic, mental health, and other programmes on sex services websites themselves. This would put the burden squarely on the shoulders of the advertizing industry and would in no way prevent a sex worker from advertizing his services or the potential client to purchase them. All it would do is ensure that both the sex worker and the potential client can make a freer and better informed and educated decision than they are now. This would not criminalize the industry any more than responsible drinking or pregnancy safety ads in liquor stores and on liquor products prevent people from selling and consuming alcohol.

I would imagine that most people, regardless where they stand on the issue, would support ensuring both providers and consumers have the tools to make a truly free, informed, and educated decision, whether as providers or consumers.

Also, of what use are social programmes, mental health services, etc. if people are unaware of their existence or have misconceptions about them.

susan davis susan davis's picture

www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com

as i said struggling...read the sex workers rights forum. you think we haven't thought of these things? you think we're oblivious to the need for OHS materials and education about how to work safely or get out if you want to? or educational materials for sex consumers?

its all there if you cared at all to actually read what we've written

Struggling

Thanks for the link, Susan. Is there a particular section of the link that addresses providing educational advertizing to get clients out of the industry, or a particular thread in the Sex Workers Forum that addresses that problem?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide in that regard since I could learn from the recommendations made. All I can say from my own personal experience is that I was pretty well left to myself to find the information that I needed. That is not the fault of sex workers at all if course but rather of federal advertizing legislation. I would be interested in reading what proposals have already been made in that regard.

 

Thanks again, Susan. :)

onlinediscountanvils

Struggling wrote:

Also, of what use are social programmes, mental health services, etc. if people are unaware of their existence or have misconceptions about them.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that we have adequate services available for the people who need them.

Struggling

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Struggling wrote:

Also, of what use are social programmes, mental health services, etc. if people are unaware of their existence or have misconceptions about them.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that we have adequate services available for the people who need them.

And even those that are available are inadequately advertised. Just to take two examples, one from the worker's perspective and one from the client's:

A person thinking of entering the sex trade or who is already in the sex trade due to financial pressures, drug addiction, a compulsive sexual behavioural disorder, or a myriad of other reasons that undermine a truly free, informed, and educated choice, but who is also ignorant or unaware of or who has misconceptions about the help that is available, whether in the form of products or services, and who visits the adult jobs section of backpage.com, will find plenty of ads for adult jobs but not one aimed at educating the person of other options. It may be that they are advertized elsewhere, but of what use is it to that person if that person is not looking in those places but rather in the adult jobs section of backpage.com. Certainly we would want to advertise where they are actually looking.

Similar can be said for the consumer looking at the escort section for example.

Though I agree services may be inadequate, what componds the problem is that even these inadequate services are inadequately advertised.

Struggling

Again, such regulation of the advertising of sexual services would not restrict prostitution but rather simply ensure that those involved in the industry, whether provider or consumer, are better educated about alternative choices.

As an example, a consumer might never have heard of srx therapy or sex addiction or Sex Addicts Anonymous or even male chastity cages which if used right can also help to control his behaviour. But how is he to be aware of these options if he is not informed of them or provided with accurate information about them?

Pondering

Advertising of sexual services is illegal as of December 6th under bill C-36.

Struggling

Murder is illegal too.

 

I just went on back page.com and counted 113 ads for individual escorts for 7 December alone!

 

So, to whom do we report this?

 

Seriously, if anyone can find this at a vlick of a button, certainly the police can do it too. Why has backpage.com chosen to continue to allow such ads?

Now if course we mightbsay backpage.com is merely providing the forum but that it is actually the escorts putting up the ads. Either way though, regardless who is breaking the law here, clearly as of Dec. 7 nothing has changed.

lagatta

I don't understand why the most recent posts are in the feminism forum rather than the sex workers' forum.

Struggling

OK, to be fair, the police might be onto this as I typing this and that either backpage.com or some escorts or both will find themselves in a wee bit of trouble with the law in the next few days. We will see, I guess.

 

But if after a month it so they are still advertizing then we will know that this law is a toothless tiger and that it is time to regulate such ads rather than criminalize them.

If the law does its job in the next minth, great, but we will see.

Struggling

O yes, those ads were for my city alone.

Bacchus

And those ads will continue. NOW magazine for example, has stated nothign will change and they are happily awaiting prosecution in order to challenge the law

Pages