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

661 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

lol......lookielou you're all washed up!!!!!

unionist pondering was told to stay out of the sex worker forum and other women here have said they won't participate  in the sex worker forum then you come along into the feminist forum and tell e1 to go 'overthere'

fortunate

[email protected] wrote:
Actually under where and how an outright ban is easy..ie everywhere and always. That is a completely consistent statutory framework. Bedford is not a s. 15 case, it is a very smart s. 7 case. It is about allowing sex for but crippling and making dangerous dangerous working conditions at the same time. An outright ban is consistent.

 

 

When you say 'everywhere' that is basically what the now overturned laws were meant to do.  

 

I don't see this as an option that could legally expect to withstand any future challenge.     I think the recent challenge would be the reasoning behind future challenges in other words.   

 

I think you have to explain s.15 and s.7, btw, for those of us who are not lawyers.   

fortunate

lookielou wrote:

Fortunate said:  "police can and do assault them"

I've wondered about the Highway of Tears murders. Assuming the girls weren't complete idiots, why so many? I figure it's a cop.

 

 

I would say a truck driver type rather than cop   I just usually have a good opinion of police, until i see otherwise, which I of course does happen, unfortunately.        I'd rather not see them as murderers.     

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

lol......lookielou you're all washed up!!!!!

unionist pondering was told to stay out of the sex worker forum and other women here have said they won't participate  in the sex worker forum then you come along into the feminist forum and tell e1 to go 'overthere'

You're right - I totally didn't correlate that. Sorry.

Do you (or anyone else) think it's possible to have a thread in the feminist forum - or even maybe in Canadian Politics or whatever - where we just talk about the politics and legalities of what the Harper government might do in response to the Bedford decision - without everyone weighing in and repeating that "Sex work is horrible" or "Sex work is a basic human right" - or am I dreaming in what used to be called Technicolour? I just would really like to have a conversation about what's likely to happen over the next year, where the parties stand, what the Charter situation is, etc. I forgot that the Bedford thread is in the Sex Workers' forum.

lookielou

fortunate wrote:

lookielou wrote:

Fortunate said:  "police can and do assault them"

I've wondered about the Highway of Tears murders. Assuming the girls weren't complete idiots, why so many? I figure it's a cop.

I would say a truck driver type rather than cop   I just usually have a good opinion of police, until i see otherwise, which I of course does happen, unfortunately.        I'd rather not see them as murderers.     

I'd prefer to see the cops as good guys also, but there are so many disappointing examples. The shooter in the movie-theatre texting murder in Florida was a retired police captain. i'm actually from a military & police family. My mother's father was one of the original Northwest Mounted Poiice, and my father was career Navy. My mother cringes whenever the police make the news these days. She was and is so proud of her father, but man, whenever the RCMP hit the news these days, it's never good. And just for the record, my mother never saw another white kid until she was eight and moved south (yes, south) to Edmonton - her friends had been all Dogrib and Slavey Indians.

lagatta

We have every right to use pseudonyms on public fora. Many of us, early on, revealed too much personal data and got spammed like hell as a result.

I don't want to post on the Sex Worker rights forum, and others are of the same position.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist wrote:

You're right - I totally didn't correlate that. Sorry.

Do you (or anyone else) think it's possible to have a thread in the feminist forum - or even maybe in Canadian Politics or whatever - where we just talk about the politics and legalities of what the Harper government might do in response to the Bedford decision - without everyone weighing in and repeating that "Sex work is horrible" or "Sex work is a basic human right" - or am I dreaming in what used to be called Technicolour? I just would really like to have a conversation about what's likely to happen over the next year, where the parties stand, what the Charter situation is, etc. I forgot that the Bedford thread is in the Sex Workers' forum.

You might be dreaming, U.  I also don't think the feminism forum is the ideal place for it, either - IMV, sex work is inherently and fundamentally anti-feminist. 

The Bedford case focused on s. 7 of the Charter, the right not to be deprived of life liberty and security of the person except in a manner that conforms to natural justice. Translated it means that a government actor can only endanger or incarcerate a person in a basically fair way. No one has ever challenged if the state can ever endanger someone. Most cases have been about courts and due process. The smart argument was to focus on the deprivation of safety.

Section 15 is the right to be free of discrimination. It has never included economic rights. Most SCC cases have provided wonderful rhetoric but denied the actual case remedy the appeal ants asked for..

susan davis susan davis's picture

i am a feminist...so how is sex work or sex workers anti feminist? its nice that some women feel they can own the definition of feminism...

re- police/ highway of tears.

there were policemen and a judge in prince george who were routinely raping women working on street there. they got caught however and so i think you maybe right, that they learned to kill the sex workers rather than let them report to anyone....

the truck drivers too...i think we are dealing with an environment where multiple predators can operate, in smaller rural communities, sex work has been outright banned, agencies closed, shaming of touring workers...this has forced them to have to work on desolate looging roads and in isolated areas to avoid detection.

so ya, an outright ban would be a disaster once again for the anti feminist sex workers, who get what they deserve for being anti feminist...

the visciousness of this forum has never ceased to amaze me. just when i feel like i have heard the worst, someone comes up with something else which tops the last one.

the lack of tolerance for sex workers and our knowledge is anti feminist imho.....

lagatta

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. Lack of tolerance for any people is bad, lack of tolerance for practices we may consider harmful is a different matter.

I fail to see how one can be feminist and willingly sell sex.

Protection for people in the sex trade, or any trade, is a different matter. All people deserve protection from violence and predation.

quizzical

susan davis wrote:
re- police/ highway of tears.

there were policemen and a judge in prince george who were routinely raping women working on street there. they got caught however and so i think you maybe right, that they learned to kill the sex workers rather than let them report to anyone....

is it just me or is this making accusations of murder against  judges and police in PG?

Quote:
the truck drivers too...i think we are dealing with an environment where multiple predators can operate, in smaller rural communities, sex work has been outright banned, agencies closed, shaming of touring workers...this has forced them to have to work on desolate looging roads and in isolated areas to avoid detection.

you basically stated here all the women who've died on hwy 16 are sex workers. they weren't!!! and there's plenty of sex workers working the streets of PG and they are fully visible not giving a shit about detection. and in small towns across the interior they ain't out on logging roads doing it. wth? try dealing in reality for a change!!!!!!

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

susan davis wrote:

i am a feminist...so how is sex work or sex workers anti feminist? its nice that some women feel they can own the definition of feminism...

I'm sure you think you are.  I know there are many interpretations of what feminism means in the details, but I think we all agree that the full emancipation of women is the basis and foundation of feminism, is it not?  However, I would argue that there is a logical dissonance between your chosen profession and pursuing the end of the full emancipation of women. 

Quote:
... snip ...

so ya, an outright ban would be a disaster once again for the anti feminist sex workers, who get what they deserve for being anti feminist...

the visciousness of this forum has never ceased to amaze me. just when i feel like i have heard the worst, someone comes up with something else which tops the last one.

the lack of tolerance for sex workers and our knowledge is anti feminist imho.....

See, here's where the argument gets overheated.  I didn't say anything about anyone "getting what they deserve" at any point in any of these discussions - here, you attribute an emotion, intention and implication that I did not make.  The "viciousness" is purely a fabrication on your part.  It's unnecessary and uncalled for. 

I've explained it before, and I'll give it one more try:  Feminism strives for the full emancipaiton of women. Full emancipation of women cannot occur while male entitlement to sex on demand exists in our culture.  Sex work perpetuates that entitlement by providing sex on demand (largely for men by women).  Therefore, sex work is something that works counter to the ends of feminism.

It's not personal.  It's not about wanting women to be harmed - quite the opposite, in fact.  It's the position that sex work does not benefit women in general.  If you can address the cognitive dissonance and give me a rational, hyperbole-free argument regarding how sex work helps women be regarded as equal, I'll be happy to entertain it.  But so far, it looks like all you've got is "You're a big meanie for not saying my job is great." and "You're vicious because you don't agree with me."

Please consider that. Asking someone to disclose who they are and asking that they present their sorrow in pubic can be re victimizing We should address what they write without justifying it through personal sorrow.

mark_alfred

Timebandit wrote:
It's not personal.  It's not about wanting women to be harmed - quite the opposite, in fact.  It's the position that sex work does not benefit women in general.  If you can address the cognitive dissonance and give me a rational, hyperbole-free argument regarding how sex work helps women be regarded as equal, I'll be happy to entertain it.

Two consenting adults decide to have sex, under the contract that one pays the other for it.  Why does this harm other women?  Or other anyone, for that matter?  The argument is given that prostitution makes a commodity of women, making a sale be solely attributable to a body rather any consideration of the mind.  Yet, consider the following:  naked, still, silent, viewed by others for hours, then paid.  Basically, a description of a model who's modelling for art students who are studying to paint nudes.  Here the body is almost purely a commodity.  Prostitution generally involves discourse, sales, a playing of a role -- which most service industry jobs also do (IE, a social worker, counsellor, lawyer, sales clerk, nurse, bartender, receptionist, etc -- all of who at times feign interest in clients even when that interest may not be present.)  Prostitution is far less the body "commodity" role then the silent nude model is (and I'm not knocking the nude model -- Michelangelo's David or Praxiteles' Venus are wonderful -- thank heavens people allowed themselves to be "commodities".)

Also, the fact that some people may choose to be prostitutes does not reflect upon everyone (male or female) any more than the fact that some people choose to be butchers (yuck, I'm vegetarian), UFC fighters (yuck, I'm a pacifist), preachers (yuck, I'm atheist), television ad execs (yuck, I prefer radio), corporate employer lawyers (yuck, I'm a supporter of unions), etc.  These choices of profession also do not reflect upon everyone.  Thus, disapproving of something shouldn't automatically lead to feeling it should be illegal.  Granted some things, where the harm is so great, like the sale of handguns, should be banned, I feel.  But I do not feel prostitution, which is sex between two consenting adults involving the exchange of an agreed upon sum, is anywhere near this in any rational disapproval rating.  In fact, some of the aforementioned professions (like corporate lawyers) should rank higher in societal disapproval than prostitutes.  Ban corporate lawyers and/or their clients, and leave the prostitutes alone :)

Many things can be seen not to benefit women (or at least to undermine women).  Religion, for example.  Yet, very few argue that religion should be made illegal (Elle Fury sort of did in one post, I think, and likewise has argued that prostitution should be criminalized, and I kinda found the consistency of argument admirable, though naturally I disagree on both fronts).  My feeling about religion is that it can be a positive as long as it's kept out of government (IE, as long as it's controlled).  Banning it would be wrong.  And also, allowing preachers and ministers to exist but criminalizing church goers would be an insane and stupid thing for Canada to do.  Leave the preachers and church goers alone.

I do feel that the Sweden Model is defensible for Sweden.  Likewise, I feel the New Zealand model is defensible for New Zealand.  What's best for Canada is harder for me to say.

commodity galcommodity guy

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

lookielou wrote:
@Pondering

I kind of wish you would decloak. Your posts are pretty tedious, but you clearly are very agitated and even obsessed with these issues. Are you a sex worker, or the mother of a sex worker? You have someone like Susan on the back foot because she actually uses her real name, whereas you hide behind a preudonym without making it clear what axe you're grinding. There's nothing wrong with using pseudonyms on the web, particularly if you're conscious that potential employers might Google you, but you have attacked Susan based on stuff from her personal web site without being at all clear about what hidey-hole you're sniping from. Yes, you are anti-sexwork, but why? Why so persistent?

This kind of commment is absoultely unacceptable. babblers should never feel obligated or compelled to un-anonymize themselves. That is a long-standing policy of babble and this kind of comment is a personal attack. Don't do it.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Also, the fact that some people may choose to be prostitutes does not reflect upon everyone (male or female) any more than the fact that some people choose to be butchers…………………………...These choices of profession also do not reflect upon everyone. 

 Thus, disapproving of something shouldn't automatically lead to feeling it should be illegal. 

Pasted from <http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/defense-nordic-model-dealing-prostitution-and-right-to-defend-it-0?page=7

There is a basic feminist philosophy that the commodification of female sexuality in all its guises has an impact on how women are perceived in the world.  Women wear spike heels and men don't. We are not predisposed to wear them because we are female. We wear them due to cultural conditioning.  Acknowledging this is not an argument for making high heels or prostitution illegal. 

It is a basic feminist philosophy  that should not be up for debate in the feminist forum.

Feminists do not see sex work, or modeling, as empowering professions for women as a group. That doesn't mean individual women shouldn't do those jobs and it doesn't mean that feminists can't wear spike heels because we exist within this world however flawed.  We do not however declare wearing spike heels a feminist action.  It might be an action to look extra sexy for your boyfriend, but it is not feminist.

A model can say "I am a feminist". A model can say I find modeling personally empowering. A model cannot say that modeling is an empowering feminist profession for women.  Well she can, but she'd be wrong.  Empowering maybe, feminist no.

Sex work in general, not just prostitution, does not empower women as a group.  It is heavily gendered with the vast majority of customers being men and the vast majority of prostitutes being women, girls and boys.

Technically one could claim to be a feminist abolitionist, that is, have the goal of the eventual eradication of prostitution, while still supporting the New Zealand model of prostitution.

Timebandit never said anything about this being a reason for prostitution to be illegal. 

lookielou

Catchfire wrote:

lookielou wrote:
@Pondering

I kind of wish you would decloak. Your posts are pretty tedious, but you clearly are very agitated and even obsessed with these issues. Are you a sex worker, or the mother of a sex worker? You have someone like Susan on the back foot because she actually uses her real name, whereas you hide behind a preudonym without making it clear what axe you're grinding. There's nothing wrong with using pseudonyms on the web, particularly if you're conscious that potential employers might Google you, but you have attacked Susan based on stuff from her personal web site without being at all clear about what hidey-hole you're sniping from. Yes, you are anti-sexwork, but why? Why so persistent?

This kind of commment is absoultely unacceptable. babblers should never feel obligated or compelled to un-anonymize themselves. That is a long-standing policy of babble and this kind of comment is a personal attack. Don't do it.

 

Oh fuck off. Can you read? I wasn't asking her to reveal her real name, just to clarify why she is so hostile to sex work. This forum drives me nuts. Might come back, might not. Bye.

mark_alfred

Thanks for the response to my post Pondering.  I agree that often the jobs that people are in (or the choices that people make, IE to wear high heel shoes) are not feminist in and of themselves.  Actions such as enacting pay equity legislation to ensure good decent working conditions and fair appraisal of wages for women within their jobs is (in my opinion) feminist action, however.  Judging such jobs to be unworthy of such legislation, which was a historical norm for a great many of the jobs that were occupied primarily by women (before pay equity), was not (in my opinion) a feminist action of society.

fortunate

lagatta wrote:

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. Lack of tolerance for any people is bad, lack of tolerance for practices we may consider harmful is a different matter.

I fail to see how one can be feminist and willingly sell sex.

Protection for people in the sex trade, or any trade, is a different matter. All people deserve protection from violence and predation.

 

And I can't see how someone who sells sex cannot be seen as a feminist.   It is, after all, not being dependent on a man to support you, self motivating, self employment, no need for unions or employers, no sexual harrassment from coworkers making life impossible and uncomfortable, sex positive in a society that still tries to shame women who embrace their own sexuality.    Do I need to go on?    

Many non-sex worker feminists have overcome their knee jerk reaction to their unsubstantiated steretypes of what and who sex workers are, opened up their own minds to what they can be.   I think what susi and the Bedford challenge, and all the members of all the national and internation sex worker organizations, and all the sex work activists and lobby groups, and all the women working in politics, social sciences and medicine or whatever, funded by their choice to do sex work while working on BAs, Masters, and PhDs, and yes there are many (including Dr.  Magnanti)   are demanding their right to do what they have chosen to do.   I don't see it as any different from any other group of workers demanding the rights that every other person working in a legal business have, and what any other human being has.    The right to be free from stigma, stereotyping, shaming and those who are trying to take the work away.    

I mean, do many other people working at things that are completely legal have to deal with groups who make up lies about what the work is, and falsified statistics and data in order to prove their baseless theories?   Seriously, we can't even say the tobacco industry has to go thru all that, because the groups can and do use actual facts to support their activism.   That is most definitely not the case with sex work and sex workers.     They take a select piece out of a small portiion, and extend that to the entirety.  In this case, it is not appropriate to only research one select group to make determinations about the entire population.  It would be like Stats Canada filling out forms for the downtown eastside of vancouver (or your city's equivalent), and whatever they find there will be the truth for the entire population of Canada.    

They will publish that the 80% of the population of Canada live below the poverty line.   75% of them are addicted to heroin or crack, or are recovering alcoholics.     90% of them smoke.   60% of the population of Canada is Native, 35% are Caucasion, and 5% are 'other'.    55% are HepC and/or HIV positive, and of those 90% are IV drug users.   30% are under 18, and none of them are over 70.

 

What?  Why not?    That's the population researched to determine what and who all sex workers are, so what's the problem?

 

Anyways, more on sub forum topic focused stuff, please take the time read the whole list.   :   

http://oliveseraphim.wordpress.com/articles/how-to-be-a-feminist-ally-to...

 

 To be honest, I have all but given up on feminism. Feminism doesn’t want me or people like me, people who refuse to allow them to appropriate our realities in support of their own ideology. Although I am very close to discarding this identity label altogether, I am hoping that at some point feminists are going to get their shit together about sex work and stop deliberately pushing us out when we won’t play by their rules. That is why I wrote this little ten point list. This is by no means comprehensive but hopefully it is a starting point for a true pro sex worker feminism, with space for us in it.

 

 

........

 

Acknowledge how feminism actively pushes sex workers out of feminist spaces

A non-sex worker said to me the other day something feminists have been saying to women they’re trying to silence for years; but your analysis isn’t nuanced! (Insert whatever excuse to ignore our perspective you like, as there are many feminists like to use against us and this is but one example). Of course, this is actually code for; I don’t like what you’re saying so I’d rather shut you out of the conversation completely by getting an academic who has no experience with what you’re saying to word things in such a way that you can’t understand them while complicating the issue into a philosophical argument so we don’t need to address the real life shit you have to deal with on a daily basis. Feminism needs to stop being academic to the exclusion of everyone else, especially if you take privilege theory seriously and realize that those with intersecting identities may well have had less access to education than your privileged ass.

...............

As a continuation of the importance of self determination, but as something that also needs to be stated in it’s own right; Respecting us means respecting our language.

First of all, the word Whorephobia has been used by sex workers to describe the discrimination we face for fifty years. Nitpicking at the use of the this word, which is usually along the lines of ‘but it’s not a phobia’ is a diversion tactic that takes the conversation away from the REAL issues we need to address (e.g. actual discrimination towards sex workers such as housing ability, custody of our children, access to medical care, police harassment, criminalization, etc). Also, you cannot use the word whore for any reason ever if you are not a sex worker yourself. The term sex worker exists so that we can be referred to in the context of our work (while keeping the emphasis on the fact that it IS work) without resorting to epithets. If you want to refer to someone who offers full service (actual sex as opposed to erotic massage, stripping etc.) then you can say just that; full service sex worker. You’re going to have to drop the word prostitute from your vocabulary completely as well. Prostitute is a word that has been used specifically to de-legitimize and criminalize sex work. Words like Hoe also have a racialized aspect in addition to being offensive when used by non-sex workers.

MegB

lookielou wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

lookielou wrote:
@Pondering

I kind of wish you would decloak. Your posts are pretty tedious, but you clearly are very agitated and even obsessed with these issues. Are you a sex worker, or the mother of a sex worker? You have someone like Susan on the back foot because she actually uses her real name, whereas you hide behind a preudonym without making it clear what axe you're grinding. There's nothing wrong with using pseudonyms on the web, particularly if you're conscious that potential employers might Google you, but you have attacked Susan based on stuff from her personal web site without being at all clear about what hidey-hole you're sniping from. Yes, you are anti-sexwork, but why? Why so persistent?

This kind of commment is absoultely unacceptable. babblers should never feel obligated or compelled to un-anonymize themselves. That is a long-standing policy of babble and this kind of comment is a personal attack. Don't do it.

 

Oh fuck off. Can you read? I wasn't asking her to reveal her real name, just to clarify why she is so hostile to sex work. This forum drives me nuts. Might come back, might not. Bye.

Well, if you're going to tell a moderator to fuck off for reminding you of babble policy, you might as well not come back.

Pondering

Rebecca, this is almost my last post so I hope you won't ban me even though it is definitely hostile. I may want to post on the rest of the rabble site someday but it won't be anytime soon.  I promise I won't post on babble anymore and I would never tell a moderator to fuck off. 

If you still feel I should be officially banned please give me a couple of hours to send a PM I wrote to Catchfire and read Wage Zombie's message, answer anything else directed at me then go. It won't take me very long so hopefully by the time you read this I should be finished and gone.

lookielou wrote:
Oh fuck off. Can you read? I wasn't asking her to reveal her real name, just to clarify why she is so hostile to sex work. This forum drives me nuts. Might come back, might not. Bye.

Are you so privileged that you can't comprehend that some things are too painful to share in a place where you're under constant attack? Or is that the point, to sucker me into giving you more ammunition.  I know that no one here gives a shit.  What you've all done because I said I will vote for Trudeau and I'm an abolitionist is so extreme why would you ever think I would give you more information to disparage me with? I've stupidly cried twice now over your idiotic posts so hurray for you. Not even fortunate managed that.  Now you can celebrate knowing you achieved your goal. You sure put me in my place.  Banned or not I won't post anymore so you can all have a big celebration. You win. 

 

 

Pondering

Bärlüer wrote:

Pondering wrote:
The SCC said parliament can make prostitution itself illegal so your interpretation of the ruling is inaccurate.

No, the Court did not say that.

It said that:

- Prostitution itself is not illegal under the existing regime (paras. 5 and others)

- "Parliament is not precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes." (paras. 5 and 165)

You may argue that Parliament can make prostitution itself illegal — it's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made. A reasonable argument can also be made that Parliament cannot do that, as that would entail the same effects that have caused the SCC to declare the 3 provisions to be unconstitutional.

That's it.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Thanks for the response to my post Pondering.  I agree that often the jobs that people are in (or the choices that people make, IE to wear high heel shoes) are not feminist in and of themselves.  Actions such as enacting pay equity legislation to ensure good decent working conditions and fair appraisal of wages for women within their jobs is (in my opinion) feminist action, however.  Judging such jobs to be unworthy of such legislation, which was a historical norm for a great many of the jobs that were occupied primarily by women (before pay equity), was not (in my opinion) a feminist action of society.

I am such a sucker I actually thought you were being sincere. I won't be around for you to toy with anymore. Too bad. So sad.

mark_alfred wrote:

That's a more speculative political discussion, which is fine, while this is a more celebratory legal discussion, which is also fine.  Thus, I'll post in both.  And those who aren't comfortable with sex workers rights, well, I'm glad they aren't comfortable polluting this thread.  They can espouse their view that disempowering sex workers is somehow feminist elsewhere, but not herre.  Those comfortable with sex workers' rights can then freely discuss the legalities and benefits of empowering this group of workers, who historically have been victimized and discriminated against due to prejudice and stupid laws.  Let's stop prejudice and stupid laws and empower some workers.  And the first battle was won by Bedford over the yokels in the current government.

Pasted from <http://rabble.ca/comment/reply/101636/1426499?quote=1#comment-form>

mark_alfred

Sorry you're disappointed I see it more in a workers rights frame of mind than you do.  Different people have different opinions, I figure, which is what debate is all about.  Naturally people have the right to defend or debate the Nordic Model, or most any legal structure surrounding this issue. 

As I see it, the defence of the Nordic Model is the claim that it will cut demand for full-service sex-trade workers while not vilifying the workers themselves. 

The Grid did an article on full-service sex-trade work, where they summarized what the arguments for or against the Swedish/Nordic model are.  From the article:

The Grid wrote:

THE NORDIC MODEL

Used in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland, and supported here by Conservative MP Joy Smith, this would legalize the act of selling sex, but make it illegal to purchase it, thus criminalizing the client. With this approach, pimps and traffickers are also targetted.

Proponents say: This will decrease the demand for prostitution while allowing sex workers to report crimes and work with law enforcement.

Opponents say: Valerie Scott, of Sex Professionals of Canada, calls the model “paternalistic.” In Sweden, safety procedures such as working in groups, distributing condoms, or keeping “bad-date books” are discouraged, while anyone employed by a sex worker, like a driver or accountant, can be charged for living on the avails of prostitution. A 2004 Swedish ministry of justice report found that the number of clients had decreased under the model, but a higher proportion were violent.

The Grid article also summarized other approaches too.

Given the anti-procuring and/or anti-living off the avails of prostitution aspect of the Nordic Model, I don't know how legally it would be acceptable here given the Bedford decision deciding that such a law was too broad.  Possibly the government could modify it, but I'm not sure how.  Also, does Canada or any other commonwealth nation have a law where the sale of a service is legal but the purchase of it is not?  How would that fit into contract law?

MegB

Pondering wrote:

Rebecca, this is almost my last post so I hope you won't ban me even though it is definitely hostile. I may want to post on the rest of the rabble site someday but it won't be anytime soon.  I promise I won't post on babble anymore and I would never tell a moderator to fuck off. 

If you still feel I should be officially banned please give me a couple of hours to send a PM I wrote to Catchfire and read Wage Zombie's message, answer anything else directed at me then go. It won't take me very long so hopefully by the time you read this I should be finished and gone.

lookielou wrote:
Oh fuck off. Can you read? I wasn't asking her to reveal her real name, just to clarify why she is so hostile to sex work. This forum drives me nuts. Might come back, might not. Bye.

Are you so privileged that you can't comprehend that some things are too painful to share in a place where you're under constant attack? Or is that the point, to sucker me into giving you more ammunition.  I know that no one here gives a shit.  What you've all done because I said I will vote for Trudeau and I'm an abolitionist is so extreme why would you ever think I would give you more information to disparage me with? I've stupidly cried twice now over your idiotic posts so hurray for you. Not even fortunate managed that.  Now you can celebrate knowing you achieved your goal. You sure put me in my place.  Banned or not I won't post anymore so you can all have a big celebration. You win. 

 

 

No, you are not going to be banned for being hostile. Your viewpoint is very much appreciated, but so long as you keep to the issues and do not make personal attacks (for which your opponents are also censured) you are more than welcome to post here.

quizzical

welcome to paradise link in the nordic model is a myth thread post number 52 (can't get links to copy and paste today) has an article about the failure of legalized prostitution in Germany and how their "lofty"  goal has failed and badly.

men are getting rich exploiting the women and the women are getting ever poorer. and really? franchised brothels where the owners brag how rich their getting of the women trying to exist is horrendous.

neither the owners or the prostitutes are paying taxes, employment benefits etc in any significant amounts. and this is after 12 years of it being legalized.

trying to soft soap us in Canada it would work here and things will be different is absolutely nonsensical if not outright insulting.

 

quizzical

i decided it's outright insulting given its mainly men here in support of unfettered prostitution and think how wonderful it is!!!!

Mórríghain

quizzical wrote:

i decided it's outright insulting given its mainly men here in support of unfettered prostitution and think how wonderful it is!!!!

Are you surprised? lol

fortunate

quizzical wrote:

i decided it's outright insulting given its mainly men here in support of unfettered prostitution and think how wonderful it is!!!!

 

 

I don't see that at all.   The main proponents of decriminalization are sex workers, along with sex worker advocates who have seen the real harm of the criminalization of sex work in Canada since the mid 80s.    Along with that are numerous researchers and experts, in many European countries, including Sweden, who also point out the very many flaws.   Complicit in this, is Sweden's law enforcement, who produce reports on the topic, that fail to show any real benefits, and numerous negative side effects.    

 

I find it puzzling that someone can have an opinion on this topic while deliberately ignoring all of the well researched information about it.    Are you suggesting that university research teams, and experts in the field of sex work, and sex workers themselves living and working in those countries, PLUS the reports from Sweden's own police department and social services departments still don't resonate?     

 

The Nordic model is a failed social experiment:

http://policestalking.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/deconstructing-the-nordic-model-how-it-brought-about-an-increase-in-street-prostitution-and-police-criminality-in-norway/

What is described above is also reportedly happening in Sweden.  

After the relevant law was passed in 2008 and enforcement began in 2009, the police and the Labour party used lots of resources on spinning the supposed success of its implementation. Eventually, however, even the official reports grew a bit more uncertain in their language, and the critics of the “Swedish model” in Norway grew louder. A good assessment was provided by Norway’s biggest daily VG in October 2012, when it found that prostitution had actually gone up during the period since the implementation of the law, and sex workers soliciting clients seemed to be more openly on display in central Oslo than at any point.

Apart from actually increasing the prostitution, the “Swedish model”  has also had the side effect in Norway of considerable police criminality on the part of the “organised crime” section of the Oslo police which was given a lead role in enforcing it through a separate project called Stop, headed by Harald Bøhler. The project has consisted ofsystematic harassment of sex workers, including throwing many of them on the street in a project officially called “operation homeless” (where the intention was just that, i.e. make the sex workers homeless even though the law only criminalises buying sex.) Other achievements of the Stop project include publicly belittling transvestites as a group. (VG 22 August 2011).

 

 

 

http://rightswork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Issue-Paper-4.pdf

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ruth-jacobs/prostitution-laws_b_4851224.html

 

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

in germany they have legalization...the same thing we had here...it failed and many workers died.....i do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand the difference....

 

we do not want to be like germany.....we do not want legalization....

 

its decriminalization...

 

if people wish to discuss this it might be usefule toget this very basic aspect of the discussion correct...

 

unless the goal is to confuse canadians about what is on the table....the nordic model is legalization...like they have in germany...if its so bad...why support it then?

susan davis susan davis's picture

and as if it will be unfettered....what kind of fear propoganda is that? all cities have zoning and by-laws which restrict businesses...

quizzical

lolololol everyone's commentary is dishonest except for the pro-exploitation of women crowd....lololol

fortunate

No one mentioned anyone being dishonest.   My comment still applies tho, to anyone who has an opinion on this topic, why are you deliberately not doing proper research before making the statements.    

I recently watched a documentary, about the SCC court challenges and decision when it came down (the first time) and all this abolitionist rhetoric repeated (without evidence) as to how it is going to be the decline of civilization and a declaration of it is ok to attack sex workers without recourse.     

 

None of that is true, and in fact, let's take a re look at the current laws, the ones overturned.   All the anti sex worker organizations want to tell us that without those laws, it will be chaos.  Well, what happens WITH those laws?    

That's right, nothing but street workers are targeted, the most marginalized of the group, and also the most visible and the most accessible, and the smallest number.  90% of all enforcement is directly related to street work, but they account for 10% of the sex worker population.   How is that helping anyone?     How will continuing to do that help them?    Or anyone else for that matter.   

What happened with the laws is a bigger  increase of assaults, violence and deaths, of those same street workers. Just like in Sweden, the good clients stay away for fear of getting arrested, but the bad ones are already criminals and don't care.    Keeping in mind the majority of enforcement and police action was direct to them, and yet the majority of problems and deaths were suffered by them.   So how did those laws help any of them?   How does the presence of those laws assist them, when to report a crime against them they have to also admit that they were soliciting on the streets, something that is illegal and could be charged themselves for doing it.    People say, oh without the laws, then X wouldn't have died.  Well, X died with the laws intact and enforced, on a daily basis, so what is really to blame for that death?   I see the two things directly related.  

 

This is an older story, but includes interviews and some stats directly related to the laws and what really happened/happens.   

http://www.missingpeople.net/the_law_has_hounded_hookers-june_15,_2002.htm

 

It's easy to blame men, after all as Lowman says, they are the ones holding the knife.   But there is no reason to continue to make things even more difficult for people working under extreme conditions already.   These are not people who are going to work indoors.  They are not people who are going to get hired.   i just don't see any good reason to throw them under the bus, and ignore what it is they want and need in order to work safely.  Because they aren't going to stop working, just because the government tries to take away their clients.   

With the current laws, a lot of clients and sex workers believe sex work is illegal, but they still do it.   Making it truly illegal for all clients isn't going to change that, because frankly, that is what they already believe.   And they still do it.

 

quizzical

i did do proper research as did many others here against the exploitation and commodification of vaginas......lol..... but why bother putting anything more up? waste of time and energy with all the bs the pro-exploitation throw up saying "no proof" when there's lots.

and seeing as how the pro-explotation clique's position is getting tenuous given all the facts from other countries coming out showing just how bad it is for women it's just icing on the cake of no fking way it'll fly.

 

 

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

so now we are pro exploitation? how is that not a personal attack on those of us fighting for our rights? its one thing to blindly follow debunked research and some news paper articles as if they are the bible of prostitution but to then turn around and slam people, sex workers, actually working canadian sex workers who are trying to prevent a disaster for our community, 

and say we are "pro exploitation" as if we are representing the pimps, supporting human trafficking, enabling rape and exploitation...?how is that not a personal attack and how is that feminist in anyway? we are women, we have voices, we are not representing exploitation nor are we in favor of it.

 

i am simply trying to reiterate, that we do not want legaization, as you keep saying we do....its nice that you listen to anything at all we say.... we want decriminalization like in new zealand...we don't want what they have in germany. we don't want what tey have in holland...we had legalization and it killed many people....the nordic model is more legalization...we know what the price will be....

i will continue to post corrections to your misrepresentation of canadian sex workers goals in spite of your personal attacks or insinuations that we are some how pro exploitation or represent pimps and traffickers...

that's really nice though, to be called names and labled by people who clearly have no clue what the reality of our lives are...really feminist....

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

quizzical wrote:

susan davis wrote:
re- police/ highway of tears.

there were policemen and a judge in prince george who were routinely raping women working on street there. they got caught however and so i think you maybe right, that they learned to kill the sex workers rather than let them report to anyone....

is it just me or is this making accusations of murder against  judges and police in PG?

Quote:
the truck drivers too...i think we are dealing with an environment where multiple predators can operate, in smaller rural communities, sex work has been outright banned, agencies closed, shaming of touring workers...this has forced them to have to work on desolate looging roads and in isolated areas to avoid detection.

you basically stated here all the women who've died on hwy 16 are sex workers. they weren't!!! and there's plenty of sex workers working the streets of PG and they are fully visible not giving a shit about detection. and in small towns across the interior they ain't out on logging roads doing it. wth? try dealing in reality for a change!!!!!!

yes i am accusing police and judges in pg of murder....yes i am.

i never said they were all sex workers, but many of them were. i met with sex workers in PG many times over many projects. new hope - sex worker org in pg- was founded by a member of the bccec, of which i am the director....

to find a place where you can engage in the sex act without interruption, you have to drive to an isolated area...ie a logging road....this was told to us by workers on the street in pg. this was what they reported about the way they were forced to work because of a lack of jobs in the safer indoor environment...

instead of attacking me or the research we have done, why don't you try reality for a change quizzical? why don't you take your own advice and stop attacking me as if i am outside of whats happening....

my resume speaks for itself, i have engaged workers across the spectrum and across the country including in rural regions...

quizzical

personal attacks where? other from the pro camp towards me i don't see any.

i live, and was born in the northern interior, my family lives in pg and all over the pg area...have done for decades. i moved away for a decade or so and have lived back here for 3 years now. and i'm in no way separate from what's going on here. i don't visit for a "conference" or meeting and get 2nd to 3rd hand info.

and i don't throw out accusations of murder, indicating complicent silence on the part of the whole legal community, it's just not the justice system community you are slandering, even though i understand and have experienced the deep racism existing here and nothing surprises me anymore....

i don't know but aren't you putting rabble in a bad position by making sweeping and targeted criminal accusations against an identifiable target?

quizzical

susan davis wrote:
quizzical wrote:
susan davis wrote:
re- police/ highway of tears.

there were policemen and a judge in prince george who were routinely raping women working on street there. they got caught however and so i think you maybe right, that they learned to kill the sex workers rather than let them report to anyone....

is it just me or is this making accusations of murder against  judges and police in PG?

Quote:
the truck drivers too...i think we are dealing with an environment where multiple predators can operate, in smaller rural communities, sex work has been outright banned, agencies closed, shaming of touring workers...this has forced them to have to work on desolate looging roads and in isolated areas to avoid detection.

you basically stated here all the women who've died on hwy 16 are sex workers. they weren't!!! and there's plenty of sex workers working the streets of PG and they are fully visible not giving a shit about detection. and in small towns across the interior they ain't out on logging roads doing it. wth? try dealing in reality for a change!!!!!!

yes i am accusing police and judges in pg of murder....yes i am.

i never said they were all sex workers, but many of them were. i met with sex workers in PG many times over many projects. new hope - sex worker org in pg- was founded by a member of the bccec, of which i am the director....

to find a place where you can engage in the sex act without interruption, you have to drive to an isolated area...ie a logging road....this was told to us by workers on the street in pg. this was what they reported about the way they were forced to work because of a lack of jobs in the safer indoor environment...

instead of attacking me or the research we have done, why don't you try reality for a change quizzical? why don't you take your own advice and stop attacking me as if i am outside of whats happening....

my resume speaks for itself, i have engaged workers across the spectrum and across the country including in rural regions...

forgot to put this in my post above as who i was talking to

susan davis susan davis's picture

judges and police were arrested for raping underage girls who were working on street in PG....its not a baseless accusation to make....they raped and were caught....why is it not reasonable to think they decided to murder rather than get caught...?

thus the reason no more police officers and judges have been caught for raping outdoor workers, vulnerable youth?

you live up there, do you not remember this?

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=e0cfd66a-d774-4428-...

Const. Justin Harris and the Prince George RCMP[edit]

Following the 2002 case of a Prince George judge, David Ramsay, who pled guilty to misconduct with young prostitutes, similar allegations were made against Constable Justin Harris and other RCMP officers. Harris was accused of having touched an underage prostitute, paying a prostitute for sex, and refusing to pay at all, between 1993 and 2001.[18]

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act forbids a hearing to take place more than one year after a senior officer has been made aware of such allegations, but because the allegations had been made against nine officers with little evidence, the RCMP did not launch a criminal investigation against Harris, and did not launch a misconduct hearing until 2005.[18] On October 4, 2006, the RCMP disciplinary board decided to stop all proceedings against Harris because the investigation conflicted with the RCMP Act. (This decision has since been appealed by the senior RCMP officer in B.C.)[19] Public outcry from people like Daisy Kler of Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter criticized the RCMP's internal investigation policies.[19]

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

i also find your calling the voices of sex working people in PG mere second or third hand information insulting and dismissive. sex workers cannot just simply come forward and speak for oursleves . there is a huge risk and stigma keeps many from sharing their experiences. diminishing the ways we have found to communicate as a group to being third hand experiences says basically we're not believable or that we are making it up, that sex workers voices don't matter or aren't real unless they fall into the victim role, which any sex worker who has been abused is believable...unless they support decrim...then they are delussional....when would you believe a sex worker?

what is it about the voices of sex workers that you are afraid of? why do you always question my credibility or my ability to communicate what my community have shared with me?

and engaging in research is not a "meeting" or little conference....its research...research which qualified in the supreme court case....unlike farely, poulin, raymond et al.

that's right sex workers are more ethical than your abolitionist hero's....

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Susan, disagreeing with you does not constitute an personal attack.  The fact is, prostitution contributes to the continuation of the rape culture we  live in by commodifying the female body and enabling the male privilege of male-oriented sex on demand. 

I haven't seen any "debunking", just the claim that studies you don't like are "debunked".

To the German example:  You've stated numerous times that sex work should be treated like any other kind of work.  Taxed, regulated, etc.  That appears to be what they've done in Germany.  Can you please explain how this is any different than what you've advocated?  Or does "decriminalization" just mean "I get to do what I want to" without the regulation?  Even if you accept that sex work is a business like any other (it isn't, despite mark alfred's misguided and disingenuous little mansplain upthread), that doesn't seem to provide any kind of long term benefit to anyone.

susan davis susan davis's picture

new zealand sex workers pay taxes and the sex industry businesses must have licenses....this is not legalization its decriminalization.

in germany some criminal code provisions remain about prostitution. in new zealand there are none excpet those related to underage sex work. in canada we had legalization in that prostitution was legal but criminal code provisions remained making it very dangerous...as it remains in germany....

we do not need 2 sets of laws to protect people if we are all equal canadians. decriminalation is the only route to safety for our community.

here are the linke to where i have posted about perrin....

http://rabble.ca/babble/sex-worker-rights/perrin-evidence-joins-farley-r...

and here about the rest;

http://www.lauraagustin.com/remembering-judge-himel-bold-assertions-and-...

[353] I found the evidence of Dr. Melissa Farley to be problematic. Although Dr. Farley has conducted a great deal of research on prostitution, her advocacy appears to have permeated her opinions. For example, Dr. Farley’s unqualified assertion in her affidavit that prostitution is inherently violent appears to contradict her own findings that prostitutes who work from indoor locations generally experience less violence. Furthermore, in her affidavit, she failed to qualify her opinion regarding the causal relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder and prostitution, namely that it could be caused by events unrelated to prostitution.

[354] Dr. Farley’s choice of language is at times inflammatory and detracts from her conclusions. For example, comments such as, “prostitution is to the community what incest is to the family,” and “just as pedophiles justify sexual assault of children….men who use prostitutes develop elaborate cognitive schemes to justify purchase and use of women” make her opinions less persuasive.

[355] Dr. Farley stated during cross-examination that some of her opinions on prostitution were formed prior to her research, including, “that prostitution is a terrible harm to women, that prostitution is abusive in its very nature, and that prostitution amounts to men paying a woman for the right to rape her.” [356] Accordingly, for these reasons, I assign less weight to Dr. Farley’s evidence.

[357] Similarly, I find that Drs. Raymond and Poulin were more like advocates than experts offering independent opinions to the court. At times, they made bold, sweeping statements that were not reflected in their research. For example, some of Dr. Raymond’s statements on prostitutes were based on her research on trafficked women. As well, during cross-examination, it was revealed that some of Dr. Poulin’s citations for his claim that the average age of recruitment into prostitution is 14 years old were misleading or incorrect. In his affidavit, Dr. Poulin suggested that there have been instances of serial killers targeting prostitutes who worked at indoor locations; however, his sources do not appear to support his assertion. I found it troubling that Dr. Poulin stated during cross-examination that it is not important for scholars to present information that contradicts their own findings (or findings which they support).

so, no...its not the "get to do what i want to" and pay no taxes....its not the fight for special treatment...its the fight for equal treatment...rights as other canadian workers enjoy....

and she is not simply disagreeing, she has called us pro exploitation in a very snith way saying the "pro exploitation clique"...how is that not a personal attack?

quizzical

susan...how many women have died since 2002? you're going back over a decade...

if you say they were the ones doing it, how come so many women have died since they were all found out and prosecuted or dismissed from the force and i would bet none of them are there now would be the same ones as back then....so your slandering imv by saying they're continuing the trend of murder, exploitation and cover up at the least.

you've no idea anything about me i guess even though i've been quite frank here.

your recounting what "you've heard" here is 3rd hand, just how much weight should we give you on this pg slander? i live in the north and i don't even believe 2nd hand shit. and when you describe things i'm not seeing i put even less omph into 3rd hand statements of fact.

sure enough i see my sisters on the stroll in pg and i see them back in the same spot 15 mins later. they had no time to go to a logging road and get back. many of the dead and missing girls and women were not on the stroll they were actually walking or hitch hiking from point a to b. one was even in parking lot. i find it offensive you're making sweeping claims not supported by fact.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Susan, that's not debunking, that's someone providing an opinion on Farley.  Not the same thing.  I've read the threads and I've read your links - most of them, time permitting.  None of them "debunk" per se.  Some of them have just been ad hominem attacks. 

So what criminal code laws against sex work exist in Germany?  It seemed, from the article, to be pretty straightforward.  Sex work is an industry that is regulated like other industries, the buying and selling of sex is perfectly legal and brothels are licensed, taxed and allowed to operate much as any other business.  Sex workers are entitled to sign up for pensions and benefits, like any other employee.  Isn't that what you've been advocating for?

I'm not seeing a double set of laws.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the fundamental issue that sex work perpetuates the most anti-feminist aspects of our culture, which is the crux of the problem, IMV.

susan davis susan davis's picture

and debunking farely...? is not an opinion....

its the writing of justice himmel...an ontario supreme court judge...discussing the credibility of farely, raymond and poulin.....

it is the canadian judicial systems assessment of the credibility of the abolitionist researchers data....

it gives it no weight....

this is from sections in the german criminal code...

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1568

Section 181a
Controlling prostitution

(1) Whosoever

1.  exploits another person who engages in prostitution; or

2.  for his own material benefit supervises another person’s engagement in prostitution, determines the place, time, extent or other circumstances of the engagement in prostitution, or takes measures to prevent the person from giving up prostitution, and for that purpose maintains a general relationship with the person beyond a particular occasion shall be liable to imprisonment from six months to five years.

(2) Whosoever impairs another person’s personal or financial independence by promoting that person’s engagement in prostitution, by procuring sexual relations on a commercial basis, and for that purpose maintains a general relationship with the person beyond a particular occasion shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(3) Whosoever commits the offences under subsection (1) Nos 1 and 2 above or the promotion under subsection (2) above in relation to his spouse shall incur the penalty under subsections (1) and (2) above.

exactly like the living off the avails provisions just struck down by the supreme court.

so, no germany is not decrimina;ized ;like new zealnad and as i have said over and over....we do not want legalization like germany...we had it...it sucked...people died...

Timebandit wrote:

 

I'm not seeing a double set of laws.

 

 

with all due respect...you cannot see the forest for the trees...and playing the osterich does not mean we are wrong...

 

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

and these ominous provisions....

Section 184e
Unlawful prostitution

Whosoever persistently contravenes a prohibition enacted by ordinance against engaging in prostitution in particular places at all or during particular times of the day, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding one hundred and eighty daily units.

table of contents

Section 184f
Prostitution likely to corrupt juveniles

Whosoever engages in prostitution

1.  in the vicinity of a school or other locality which is intended to be visited by persons under eighteen years of age; or

2.  in a house in which persons under eighteen years of age live,

in a way which is likely to morally corrupt these persons, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine.

looks like justification for imprisonment, evictions, seizing of children and generally harassing any sex worker they like...when ever they like...

this is not what is happening in new zealand....

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

@ quizzical - i have never said any of that and never said the police were the only murderers potentially responsible.

if you had ever read anything we wrote, you would know that all you have said is also what is recorded in our research...we made recommnedations echoed by the foresaken report for all kinds of things intended to protect the safety of women and girls traveling between communities in rural areas...

please try to refrain from insulting me and going in circles. you know very well that we have done more than what you are saying infact, i have said as much in this very thread...i also accused truck drivers...remember?

please stop attacking our work and misrepresenting the arguements being made here.

please provide one link to actual ethical research in support of the nordic model....

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Sounds like they don't like pimps.  Okay, I think we can all agree that pimps are bad news.  But your main complaint about the Nordic Model is that it criminalized the john.  That's not happening in Germany.  The women are indoors for the most part, usually in a safe place, often with security and the right to refuse customers and as freelancers, controlling their business and income.  These are all things you've advocated for, susan.  So forgive me if I'm under the impression that the goalposts get moved every time an example arises that doesn't fit with your predictions of how all of the above would make things rosier for sex workers here.

PS - Yes, those are largely opinions.  Even the legal opinion made by the judge.  Judges are subjective and fallible, that's why they have courts of appeal.  And his statements had more to do with his sense of things than they did with fact.  He didn't like Farley's hyperbole and he found some of the testimony inconsistent.  That doesn't necessarily mean the research itself is incorrect - he didn't like the testimony that grew out of it.  There was very little quoted above about the data itself.  Ergo, that is not a "debunk".  To debunk you have to show substantively that the data itself is incorrect.

ETA:  You really think having a brothel next to a school is okay? Maybe don't set up in residential and school zones?

lagatta

Where I live, there are a lot of brothels, mostly "massage parlours" (salons de massage) set up in school zones, as it is densely populated and most are on busy streets where there are also kids going to schools. There is no kind of zoning of these, though now the local borough council has enacted a moratorium on them. A bit farther east, indeed I've seen them on streets in somewhat deprived and hardscrabble residential zones.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Isn't the reasoning for Amsterdam's red light district along the same lines?  And really, other than the language around morality, there are a number of different businesses that people don't want in their residential areas and zone so that they are located elsewhere.

Pages