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

661 posts / 0 new
Last post
susan davis susan davis's picture

we appealed our chief who we have a lonstanding relationship with to ask other police chiefs to embrace a vancouver style of policing. he is the president of the canadian police chiefs association and so reached out to the membership. i believe that's why some have choosen no enforcement.

 

Mórríghain

Pondering wrote:
... Media has been flooded with stories, editorials and letters promoting decriminalization. The viewpoint of sex workers who want decriminalization has been amply expressed....

I beg to differ. I confess I am not one to watch nightly news broadcasting but between myself and my partner (who is a bit of a news junkie) we’ve found little if any reportage of prostitution issues in Canada since the Supreme Court made its decision. Sympathetic editorials and letters to the editor may get the faithful worked up to a fist-pumping degree but is anyone else paying attention? I’d guess not.

Our current crop of decision makers certainly don’t seem to be paying attention to the calls for decriminalization. Even in this forum there have been folk complaining that the feds have not ‘listened to sex workers’ ( a popular phrase of late). Did anyone expect they would?

A long time ago in an office far far away Justice Minister Peter MacKay told the press he liked the Nordic model, I suspect we’ll soon see how he interprets it for this country.

lagatta

The Nordic model requires Nordic social services, which require Nordic levels of taxation of the rich (and even the so-called "middle-class"). There is no way arch Con Mackay will support those.

And the snippet posted about Edmonton (among other cities) indicate that Edmonton's approach is shameful indeed, and probably racist as well as sexist and classist.

 

Pondering

Bacchus wrote:
Regardless of what is enacted, several municipalities in Canada are directing their police forces to enforce no anti-prostitution laws (much like they do for minor pot possession)

No police forces have stated they will not enforce the new laws, only the ones that have been overturned. 

Susan Davis wrote:
  we appealed our chief who we have a lonstanding relationship with to ask other police chiefs to embrace a vancouver style of policing. he is the president of the canadian police chiefs association and so reached out to the membership. i believe that's why some have choosen no enforcement.

A tolerance zone in the Vancouver DTES doesn't mean prostitution laws are not enforced in Vancouver.

Quote:
VANCOUVER -- More than 100 people were taken into custody after a massive police raid on 18 massage parlours across B.C.'s Lower Mainland Thursday night.

<http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=40a4fd8b-7d88-4cd9-a8ba-f1481b29d402&k=98761>

Susan Davis wrote:
... making sex workers homeless and seizing sex workers children... Concentration camps...forced labor camp and re education model...

I don't believe Canada is at risk for concentration camps etc.  Sex workers are not the target of the new law. When the new law is revealed it will probably include  property forfeiture laws not labour camps. 

Pondering

Mórríghain wrote:
Our current crop of decision makers certainly don’t seem to be paying attention to the calls for decriminalization. Even in this forum there have been folk complaining that the feds have not ‘listened to sex workers’ ( a popular phrase of late). Did anyone expect they would?

IMO the feds did listen to sex workers; listening and agreeing are not the same thing. Prostitutes are being decriminalized. 

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
…..making it impossible to sell sex without providing actual alternatives of employment or training (with a bursary that covers living expenses) does worsen the condition of the people in the trade and does nothing to free them from it.

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

The strip clubs’ main competition in Toronto today comes from 1,000 massage parlours,…..Mr. Lambrinos has teamed up with Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti “to bring to city council a comprehensive motion that strip clubs should be the entities that bring in prostitution on a legal basis.”

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

Legitimizing prostitution devalues women as a product, it doesn't empower women; it empowers men. Stripping is displaced by prostitution, the ultimate commercialization of female sexuality. Not a step up for womankind. 

lagatta wrote:
Counselling and treatment under duress is still punishment. Those services should certainly exist, but be voluntary. In general, the Edmonton police still seem to have the old outlook of targeting people offering sexual services, not just gangs, pimps or clients.

Under the Nordic model prostitutes are decriminalized so the existing services of counselling and treatment will be voluntary not in exchange for dropping charges because there won't be any charges against prostitutes. 

lagatta wrote:
Sweden's social-democratic model makes it possible to provide social housing, education and training to these people.

Canada is not without any social programs. I agree we need more but offering women prostitution as an alternative to poverty or to fuel their drug addiction is not an acceptable stop-gap measure.  It just forces sex workers to do more for the same or less money.

The prettified version of prostitution being peddled, the kindly madam passing down her knowledge to her protégés in a cottage by the sea, will continue in so far as it exists. Police will not be busting down those doors. That is not the experience of indigeneous women.

Prostitution of indigenous women is a continuation of colonization not a path to freedom and empowerment. 

Sweden is not a perfect society and their social programs were not initiated with prostitution law. The part of the Nordic model that is common to all jurisdictions is that prostitutes are decriminalized. The rest varies considerably by country, to the extent that some people claim the Nordic model doesn't even exist. 

Housing, drug treatment programs, mental health care, education programs, child care, minimum income, are all critical needs but not having the perfect social net does not make prostitution any the less harmful. We have to fight on multiple fronts and take wins when we can get them, and this is a major win for Canadian women. 

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
The prettified version of prostitution being peddled, the kindly madam passing down her knowledge to her protégés in a cottage by the sea, will continue in so far as it exists. Police will not be busting down those doors. That is not the experience of indigeneous women.

Prostitution of indigenous women is a continuation of colonization not a path to freedom and empowerment. 

ya, and when you see drug addicated 'sex workers' delivering drugs and whatever else to the oil patch workers, the myth of the 'kindly madam' is pretty much replaced by an image of the pimp drug dealer reality.

 

Mórríghain

Pondering wrote:
IMO the feds did listen to sex workers; listening and agreeing are not the same thing. Prostitutes are being decriminalized.

As I understand it the activist goal is to see prostitution decriminalized, not just the individual prostitutes.

susan davis susan davis's picture

pondering the vpd enforcement guidlelines we helped to design are not a "zone" in the dtes....but thanks for diminshing the years of work we did to get this implemented...

http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/reports-policies/sex-enforcement-g...

this clearly states that adult consesnual sex work is NOT A PRIORITY for the vpd.

susan davis susan davis's picture

Mórríghain wrote:

Pondering wrote:
IMO the feds did listen to sex workers; listening and agreeing are not the same thing. Prostitutes are being decriminalized.

As I understand it the activist goal is to see prostitution decriminalized, not just the individual prostitutes.

yes, it seems clear and almost any reasonable person can see it but hey, if it serves their purpose, abolitionists will try to own" decrim" as well

Pondering

Mórríghain wrote:

Pondering wrote:
IMO the feds did listen to sex workers; listening and agreeing are not the same thing. Prostitutes are being decriminalized.

As I understand it the activist goal is to see prostitution decriminalized, not just the individual prostitutes.

Then what you are saying is that the feds didn't obey the activists, not that they didn't listen to them. The views of sex workers who want prostitution fully ligitimized were heard along with many other voices. 

susan davis wrote:

pondering the vpd enforcement guidlelines we helped to design are not a "zone" in the dtes....but thanks for diminshing the years of work we did to get this implemented...

http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/reports-policies/sex-enforcement-g...

this clearly states that adult consesnual sex work is NOT A PRIORITY for the vpd.

Which I already quoted in this post: rabble.ca/comment/1439345#comment-1439345

However, your link also provides this note:

As a police agency, the VPD is obligated to enforce the laws of Canada, although police also have considerable discretion in deciding when and how to enforce laws1. Given that some sections of the Criminal Code related to the sex industry are the subject of several constitutional challenges, the VPD recognizes that these guidelines may need to be amended when the courts issue their rulings.

I haven't diminished anything. I specifically quoted numerous police forces including the VPD illustrating the variable enforcement across Canada. Bottomline, consensual or not, you won't be putting up a brothel sign any time soon. 

Quote:
yes, it seems clear and almost any reasonable person can see it but hey, if it serves their purpose, abolitionists will try to own" decrim" as well

The word "decriminalization" has a meaning as does "legalization". That you have assigned those words other definitions doesn't obligate everyone to stop using the words as they are normally defined. 

legalize or legalise  (ˈliːɡəˌlaɪz)  — vb1.to make lawful or legal2.to confirm or validate (something previously unlawful)

decriminalize - to eliminate criminal penalties for or remove legal restrictions against: to decriminalize marijuana.

Both words basically mean the same thing except one is more affirmative, "legalize". 

Decriminalization doesn't necessarily imply acceptance of the activity. It is just removing criminal penalties. Fines or other penalties could still be levied. 

Decriminalization of marijuana is short for decriminalization of marijuana use. The term legalization is used to describe the full acceptance of marijuana as a commercial product the distribution of which is legally protected. 

It is your use of the words that is topsy turvy. Your definition of decriminalization is full decriminalization of every aspect of prostitution. You define legalization as a system under which there is strict regulation such as redlight districts and weekly health checks. 

To say that the Nordic model decriminalizes prostitutes is absolutely accurate. Criminal penalties are being removed from the prostitute but the act of selling sex is not legally sanctioned. 

These words are still in common usage under their official definitions. Criminal penalties are removed from prostitutes under the Nordic model. That is by definition decriminalization. Abolitionists don't own the word, nobody does. 

Mórríghain

Pondering wrote:
... Then what you are saying is that the feds didn't obey the activists, not that they didn't listen to them. The views of sex workers who want prostitution fully ligitimized were heard along with many other voices. 

No, I did not say anything about the feds obeying prostitutes. I said 'Our current crop of decision makers certainly don’t seem to be paying attention to the calls for decriminalization. Even in this forum there have been folk complaining that the feds have not "listened to sex workers" ( a popular phrase of late). Did anyone expect they would?' (post #452). The word 'obey' does not appear, nor do any similar words.

I never expected the feds to seriously listen to anyone regarding the prostitution debate, I suspect MacKay and his friends have their own plan. Perhaps Valerie Scott can explain this better than a member of the viewing audience (me).

 

Pondering

Mórríghain wrote:
I never expected the feds to seriously listen to anyone regarding the prostitution debate, I suspect MacKay and his friends have their own plan. Perhaps Valerie Scott can explain this better than a member of the viewing audience (me).

I listened to the entire video. Scott lacks credibility. She refers to anti-sex worker groups as though they exist. I don't know of a single anti-sex worker organization in Canada. 

This has been working its way through the the courts for seven years. Of course the government has a plan. Anyone with any interest in the topic is familiar with all the arguments in favor of full legitimization and commercialization of prostitution. Everyone also knows that the Conservative government would never in a million years go for it. Their alternative to the Nordic model is not full decriminalization, it's full criminalization. At some point you have to accept that the arguments for a particular solution have been presented and rejected. In that case the goal can only be accomplished piecemeal. 

Scott talks about what she believes are inappropriate applications of the law in Sweden. Knowing that a Nordic model of some sort is coming a more constructive approach would be to offer input on the definitions of pimp and bawdy house as well as ensuring that a person cannot be deemed an unfit parent simply for prostituting themselves unless they exposed the child to it. Forbid eviction of prostitutes unless there is proof of repeated disturbances of neighbours and even then require a hearing before a rental board or family court judge to establish actual harm not assumed harm. Pro-prostitution groups don't seem interested in having a moderating effect on the Canadian model. It's all or nothing. If it were me, I would have started analysing definitions and penalties ages ago. For example, under x number of women working from their home should be excluded from the bawdy house definition. I don't believe their interested in the safety of individual prostitutes. I believe their primary concern is full commercialization so the business can be expanded. 

If anyone is "not listening" it's the people who want the New Zealand model. Argue for it all you like but it's a completely unrealistic suggestion for Canada at this time. If you want to "be heard" argue within the realm of the possible. It was never a negotiation. 

You might as well petition the Conservative government to double welfare rates and increase union powers. Not going to happen. 

terrytowel

Both the Liberals and the NDP shy away from sex-work debate.

Kind of shocking because Libby Davies has been such a supporter of sex workers in Canada.

http://dailyxtra.com/canada/ideas/analysis/opposition-parties-shy-away-f...

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Both the Liberals and the NDP shy away from sex-work debate.

Kind of shocking because Libby Davies has been such a supporter of sex workers in Canada.

http://dailyxtra.com/canada/ideas/analysis/opposition-parties-shy-away-f...

I'm repeating this quote in the other thread dedicated to political parties' response to this issue.

fortunate

Bacchus wrote:

Regardless of what is enacted, several municipalities in Canada are directing their police forces to enforce no anti-prostitution laws (much like they do for minor pot possession)

 

That is a major effect of the SCC ruling.    And to date, they seem to be more focused, and finally more able, to actual find and charge the actual criminals that procure, force and coerce unwilling people into sex work.   Law enforcement reduces their shakedowns of the consensual clients and sex workers, gives them more time to find the ones who are not.    

As it is with the current laws, the decriminalization of the PUBLIC (caps intentional) solicitation laws, neither clients or sex workers will be harrassed on the streets.    We already know this is the minority of the sex trade, so the impact of 'not arresting sex workers' is as it always has been with the laws, minimal.   The majority of sex workers have never been impacted by any of the current laws, and any  attempt to introduce Nordic model will also not impact the majority of workers.   

It will, however, once again impact negatively the ones who work in the public, and could negatively impact the ones who work in semi public conditions, like massage parlours.    

I don't see one person offering up a viable solution to the very real fact that these people have no interest in leaving their work.  That no one can possibly offer them any alternatives to it that they find even the least bit appealing.   If you are going to tell them that it is still legal to do, why would they stop?   The fact is, the abolitionist belief is that 95% of all sex workers want to stop.  What are they going to do when they finally, after all this time and so many people telling them over and over again, that the 95% actually do NOT want to stop?  What will they do with all those action plans and exit strategies and alternatives?

Oh right, there aren't going to actually BE any of those, so it won't matter.

I have no issue with ex-sex workers.  As usual, i have an issue with the organizations who refuse to listen to working sex workers, and only listen to the ones who are making a living by being professional ex-sex workers willing to tell negative stories about their past.

 

 

fortunate

Pondering, not sure what you are getting at.   Legalization versus decriminalization?  The Decrim term is used because prostitution itself is legal.   There are laws that criminalize some activities present when prostitution occcurs.  hence "decriminalization' of those laws (ex. 210 criminal code laws, i refuse to spell them out or copy a link to them).

You refer to pro-sex work groups.  I do not know of any pro-sex work organization.  perhaps you should list them, and quote from some of their statements?

Of course New Zealand is used as an example. It is a perfect example, far more perfect than Sweden, that has a completely different system and situation when it enacted its laws.   In NZ, prostitution was legal and there were 4 main laws that criminalize certain activities around the legal prostitution.  Sound familiar?  They should.  There were 4 laws that were identical to the laws in Canada.    Including the minimum working age, 18.

 

Your link to the massage parlour raids is revealing.  I notice that you do not bother to mention the main abolitionist/anti trafficking issues:  age and foreign workers.   ALL of the 78 women arrested were over 18, in fact in these commercial establishments they usually have to be at least 19.    They were.    ALL of the 78 women working were legal to work in Canada, citizens in fact.    So # 1, they were not under 18, and #2, they were not 'trafficked' here, tricked by false promises of other kinds of work.  For all the quotes in the story talking about 'luring' etc, these women walked into these establishments knowing what kind of work took place, and accepted the jobs.   

And in spite of the nonsense quoted by those people who don't know what they are talking about, but know what the reporters and public want to hear, the tips are kept by the workers.   The management takes a door fee, a minimum charge.     Plus the only charges laid are due to BYLAWS, because of course they do not have a bodyrub license to provide more erotic services.   None of these massage parlours do, makes it easy for the police to target them, easy pickings.  

There is a lot of stuff quoted in the article, that had nothing to do with the women or management or clients in these raids, such as trafficking or whatever.    And at least one of the named massage parlours has been hit with the same bylaws infractions before.    And i guarantee that all of these massage parlours has had multiple visits from police, several times a year, checking ID and working setups.     

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

 

A tolerance zone in the Vancouver DTES doesn't mean prostitution laws are not enforced in Vancouver.

Quote:
VANCOUVER -- More than 100 people were taken into custody after a massive police raid on 18 massage parlours across B.C.'s Lower Mainland Thursday night.

<http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=40a4fd8b-7d88-4cd9-a8ba-f1481b29d402&k=98761>

 

 

My mistake here.    For some reason I thought Pondering was using a recent example, and one that anything to do with the very recent policy changes by VPD.     

The sensationalist story used for this example is 7 years old.     this link has an actual date on the story.   http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=431cc5d2-4496-4400...

Pondering

fortunate wrote:

Pondering wrote:
A tolerance zone in the Vancouver DTES doesn't mean prostitution laws are not enforced in Vancouver.

Quote:
VANCOUVER -- More than 100 people were taken into custody after a massive police raid on 18 massage parlours across B.C.'s Lower Mainland Thursday night.

<http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=40a4fd8b-7d88-4cd9-a8ba-f1481b29d402&k=98761>

My mistake here.    For some reason I thought Pondering was using a recent example, and one that anything to do with the very recent policy changes by VPD.     

The sensationalist story used for this example is 7 years old.     this link has an actual date on the story.   

">http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=431cc5d2-4496-4400...

Then using that example was my mistake.  Nevertheless, the Vancouver police did not say they wouldn't arrest johns or pimps when consenting adults were involved. They said it wouldn't be their focus. 

If you honestly believe that all consensual prostitution is now protected from arrest in Vancouver then why isn't Susan Davis rejoicing and opening up a co-op brothel? 

fortunate

Because no one but abolitionists seem to think that brothels are desired, or wanted, or will open up on every street corner.    It is more sensationalism in an effort to scare the public.    The vast majority of sex workers already have what they need, they simply want it to be decriminalized so that no one can arrest them for seeing one or two clients in their own home.    Or in a massage parlour, out of sight of the public, and inaccessible to anyone under 18.     

You are also continuing to link in your posts 'johns and pimps'.   They are most certainly not the same thing.   A 'pimp' is currently, and will remain, illegal.    A 'john' is a client, and necessary for sex workers to earn a living.    One pays the sex worker, one gets paid by the sex worker.   

It's deceptive to try to connect the two things, just as it is deceptive to try to connect 'brothel' with any single location a single consensual sex worker needs to provide her services to consenting adults privately.    Sex workers are not opening the equivalent of a neon signed 24/7 strip club across from high schools, they simply want to not be detained by guys with guns who handcuff them and have them, in skimpy clothing, sit on the edge of a massage table, because providing services in the relatively safe private location of a massage parlour is currently illegal, and can result in shut downs and shake downs.    

No one said that is a good thing, every sex worker is saying that is a bad thing, and why they wanted the bawdy house laws decriminalized.   THAT along with decrim of public solicitation is the only thing sex workers are able to get charges for, so without them, your main goal of VPD or other law enforcement no longer arresting and charging sex workers is realized.  Why you would object to the decrim of the only laws sex workers have been arrrested for breaking is baffling.    

susan davis susan davis's picture

Pondering wrote:

Then using that example was my mistake.  Nevertheless, the Vancouver police did not say they wouldn't arrest johns or pimps when consenting adults were involved. They said it wouldn't be their focus. 

If you honestly believe that all consensual prostitution is now protected from arrest in Vancouver then why isn't Susan Davis rejoicing and opening up a co-op brothel? 

 

because we have no money. we tried to fundraise for the cooperative but abolitionists skewed our objectives so much.... that no one really understands the goals of that work. i tried for 2 1/2 years to find support...to no avail..

you act like its because of enforcement, its not. if i won the lottery ( i don't actually play) i would open the cooperative in a heart beat. it remains my dream to be able to be a part of something incredible like that.

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
Pondering, not sure what you are getting at.   Legalization versus decriminalization?

There was an accusation that abolitionists are abusing the term decriminalization when applying it to the Nordic model which decriminalizes the seller, the prostitute, while not decriminalizating those who exploit prostitutes. That is what I was responding to.

fortunate wrote:
You refer to pro-sex work groups.  I do not know of any pro-sex work organization.  perhaps you should list them, and quote from some of their statements?

The people I hear promoting decriminalization consider prostitution to be a 100% valid choice on par with any other job or industry and consider it an opportunity for women to make good money. Prostitution is being promoted as not only a valid choice but as a good choice for women to lift themselves out of poverty, that it is empowering. I've read arguments that it should be covered by medicare for the disabled. That is promoting prostitution as a valid positive choice not just tolerating it as a necessary evil. The goal is to expand the industry. 

fortunate wrote:
Of course New Zealand is used as an example. It is a perfect example, far more perfect than Sweden, that has a completely different system and situation when it enacted its laws.   In NZ, prostitution was legal and there were 4 main laws that criminalize certain activities around the legal prostitution.

All the Commonweath countries had a similar system of laws based on the UK model. Most people didn't realize that technically prostitution is legal until it hit the courts. The laws appear designed that way to maintain access for well-off men who could discreetly partake without breaking the law. 

New Zealand is a country of 4.5 million people off the coast of Australia with a population of about 23 million which preceded New Zealand in fully decriminalizing prostitution. Thailand is also a preferred destination for prostitution tourism in that area of the world. Australia is never used as an example for decriminalization even though it is more similar to Canada than NZ is and also had the same system of laws surrounding prostitution. Canada is ajacent to the United States and is a worldwide tourist destination. Human trafficking isn't a huge problem in Canada but it does exist. Immigration is designed to support the formation of Canada as a modern country. Stocking brothels to serve tourists does nothing to further that goal for Canadian women. 

fortunate wrote:
Your link to the massage parlour raids is revealing.  I notice that you do not bother to mention the main abolitionist/anti trafficking issues:  age and foreign workers.

Although age of entry and foreign workers are both major issues they are not THE main issues. The violence and exploitation inherent in prostitution is the primary focus of abolitionists. Youth and women living in poverty are targeted due to their vulnerability.

As to "not mentioning" those issues, every aspect of prostitution can't be covered in one thread nevermind one post. 

susan davis susan davis's picture

and yes they did say they would not arrest consenting adults engaged in the sex industry. they state specifically that consensual sex work is not their priority and that they would be targeting those who are violent or exploit us, not our work places or our customers.

i was part of the group who defined the policy, i am sure of its intended message.

the police are trying to build trust with us...sex workers...and understand the harms caused by the enforcement actions of the past...how it undermined sex worker trust in police and impacted sex worker safety. they understand what is required to move forward.

its working too, more sex workers are reporting when they are a victim of crime, sex workers do not fear police in vancouver as they have in the past. this is increasing the numbers of reports and targeting those who harm us...as it should be....not targeting those who pay our bills....the good, non violent customers....

so, say what you will pondering and twist it in any knot you choose, we are the ones living with the policy, we are the ones who worked with police to define it, we are the ones benefiting from its spirit....you are wrong about its spirit, my spirit and clearly have no connections here in the city or you would understand how much the work we do is helping to ease tensions and increase the safety of sex workers...as well as communities where sex work takes place...

so sick of the way in which everything we do is torn to shreads by abolitionsist. god forbid we ever actually do anything to stabilize the safety of sex working people, who cares if these ideas are working and having an impact...let's go backwards and undo everyhting that has been done...let's try to own everything sex workers have done towards their goals of safety and turn it to our advantage...let's ignore, belittle and undermine the voices of those sex workers who are on the front lines with it....

always so nice to hear from you pondering...

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
because we have no money. we tried to fundraise for the cooperative but abolitionists skewed our objectives so much.... that no one really understands the goals of that work. i tried for 2 1/2 years to find support...to no avail..

The part about abolitionists doesn't seem very plausible to me. Abolitionists have had so little sway on public opinion that polls usually support legitimization. Most editorials and comments also seem to support legitimization. It's been very discouraging. If you aren't getting support I don't think it is due to abolitionists. 

A co-op massage parlour shouldn't be that expensive to start up. I'm told that the vast majority of prostitutes are there by choice and keep the the money they make which approaches or even exceeds a middle-class income. By definition co-op means owned by the workers (or residents).

Sex workers do have organizations so many of you are in contact with one another. Why not pool your resources?

fortunate

But when I asked you to quote from the sources, name the organizations, you didn`t do that, just repeated some vague stuff.   If you ask others to list the names of organizations (abolitionists) as a response to something, then don`t expect anyone to do that either lol. 

I gave an example where `youth`is most definitely not a target, and that example was provided by you.   So I fail to see a valid argument there, just some side stepping.    When the vast majority of sex workers are telling you that violence is not an inherent part of sex work, where does the abolitionist argument side step to then?   I see that the very valid comparison of NZ runs around Australia (which is not 100% decrim, and why i do not use it as an example), off to Thailand!!?? and the USA??!!   Why, when all i did was ask why aren't we discussing the very valid comparison of NZ versus Amsterdam??

Because when abolitionists are forced to look at NZ versus any other country, all of their arguments fail.   They try to deflect attention away from it, as an option for Canada, because it is an ideal example of what actually works.   

susi's co-op idea, once again misinterpreted by an abolitionist 'description', would be for DTES street workers, not the majority of workers.  This idea is for those who really do not have a place to go, other than get picked up in a car and taken to some quiet alley.   Anyone who was truly interested in the welfare and safety of street workers should be embracing this idea.

I do not find the abolitionists lack a voice.  They have a number of high ranking politicians to speak for them.   The decrim crowd rely on the SCC judges.     

The media continue to allow abolitionist 'speak' to colour their headlines.  We'll see 'trafficking' in the headline in regards to some people charged with prostitution related offenses, but nowhere in the list do we see them facing actual charges of human trafficking.   

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
and yes they did say they would not arrest consenting adults engaged in the sex industry. they state specifically that consensual sex work is not their priority and that they would be targeting those who are violent or exploit us, not our work places or our customers.

Which is exactly what I said in my post here: rabble.ca/comment/1439345#comment-1439345 on May 17th and have since repeated multiple times. 

This change is due in large part to abolitionists who have worked for decades to decriminalize prostitutes if not prostitution as a whole. So have sex workers but without abolitionists I don't believe they would be having much success. 

susan davis wrote:
the police are trying to build trust with us...sex workers...and understand the harms caused by the enforcement actions of the past...how it undermined sex worker trust in police and impacted sex worker safety. they understand what is required to move forward. 

Under the Nordic model prostitutes are safe from arrest so they are free to approach police and tell them about bad dates or request help. I realize you still have issues with that model but prostitutes do approach police when they don't fear arrest in Vancouver and elsewhere in Canada as well as some municipalities in the UK and of course anywhere that has adopted some form of the Nordic model which decriminalizes prostitutes.

Elle_Fury

fortunate wrote:

Of course New Zealand is used as an example. It is a perfect example, far more perfect than Sweden...

 

Can we stop pretending the New Zealand model is a huge "success". I think I've posted this before, but I suppose some need to be reminded. The Report of theh Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the PRA CLAIMS decriminalization has been successful, if you actually READ the report, you will see THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  From the report:

(Emphasis mine)

(p. 14)The majority of sex workers interviewed felt that the PRA could do little about violence that occurred,  though a significant minority thought that there had been an improvement since the enactment of the PRA. Of those feeling in a position to comment, the majority felt sex workerswere now more likely to report incidents of violence to the Police, though willingness to carry the process through to court is less common. (i.e. Most  of the violent johns are still getting off scot-free!)

(p.57)Opinion among CJRC informants differed on the impact of the PRA on adverse incidents,including violence, being experienced in the sex industry. The majority felt that the PRA could do little about the violence that occurred.
 

Clients getting stroppy will always happen. This was the case before the Act and after it.
(Brothel operator, CJRC, 2007)
 

There has been no impact. There will always be ugly mugs.
(NGO – health, CJRC, 2007)
 

Others – but less than a quarter – felt there had been an improvement.

(p.118)Auckland outreach workers also reported an ‘influx of sex workers on the streets in the six to eight months prior to June 2007’.

Streetreach is a non-governmental organisation that provides support for street-based sex workers in Auckland and Manukau cities. Streetreach believes there has been an overall increase in the number of street-based sex workers in the Auckland region since decriminalisation.(Streetreach, 2007)

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/documents/report.pdf

Yeah, right. The New Zealand model is a "perfect example".

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
 But when I asked you to quote from the sources, name the organizations, you didn`t do that, just repeated some vague stuff.   If you ask others to list the names of organizations (abolitionists) as a response to something, then don`t expect anyone to do that either lol.  

If you are denying that some sex workers promote prostitution as a solution to poverty for women and as a public service to people who have trouble acquiring free sex partners then fine. I am willing for people to go by your word on that rather than by mine. I actually thought that you saw prostitution in a positive light, sorry about that, my mistake.

I definitely don't want to project views on you or anyone else that are inaccurate. 

fortunate wrote:
 When the vast majority of sex workers are telling you that violence is not an inherent part of sex work, where does the abolitionist argument side step to then?  

No side-stepping. Numbers on both sides are notoriously difficult to come by. By the way, that violence is an inherent part of sex work doesn't mean that every single transaction leads to violence. 

fortunate wrote:
 Why, when all i did was ask why aren't we discussing the very valid comparison of NZ versus Amsterdam?? 

Which is exactly why I explained why NZ is not a valid model for what would occur in Canada. You can disagree with my reasoning but it's silly to ignore it and pretend you didn't get a response.

fortunate wrote:
 susi's co-op idea, once again misinterpreted by an abolitionist 'description', would be for DTES street workers, not the majority of workers.

Then perhaps it's a non-profit but it isn't a co-op. Co-ops are owned by the workers. 

fortunate wrote:
 This idea is for those who really do not have a place to go, other than get picked up in a car and taken to some quiet alley.

I don't believe those are the people who would be using the service. They don't get paid enough to give up anything they get. Their goal is usually to get it over with as fast as they can not get the guy to park and go to a room.

fortunate wrote:
 I do not find the abolitionists lack a voice.

Me either. Where do you get these notions? 

fortunate wrote:
 The media continue to allow abolitionist 'speak' to colour their headlines.  We'll see 'trafficking' in the headline in regards to some people charged with prostitution related offenses, but nowhere in the list do we see them facing actual charges of human trafficking.
  

That is not "abolitionist speak" it is the usual media sensationizing of everything. Misleading headlines have nothing to do with abolitionists.

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
 The vast majority of sex workers already have what they need, they simply want it to be decriminalized so that no one can arrest them for seeing one or two clients in their own home. 

Good, because under the Nordic model they are not arrested and everyone agrees that this sort of prostitution is unaffected. 

fortunate wrote:
You are also continuing to link in your posts 'johns and pimps'.   They are most certainly not the same thing.   

I'm pretty sure everyone reading is well aware that they aren't the same thing. If they are not aware then this discussion is too sophisticated for them. 

fortunate wrote:
 just as it is deceptive to try to connect 'brothel' with any single location a single consensual sex worker needs to provide her services to consenting adults privately. 

Which is why I have stated mutiple times that rather than bemoaning the inevidable, or along with it, people focus more on things like the definition of a bawdy house or brothel. I'm guessing forfeiture laws will be included. Depending on how the law is written prostitutes could lose their homes. Nobody wants that to happen. 

fortunate wrote:
Why you would object to the decrim of the only laws sex workers have been arrrested for breaking is baffling.  

Again I have no clue where you are getting that from. I am in favor of full 100% decriminalization of prostitutes. 

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
The majority of sex workers have never been impacted by any of the current laws, and any  attempt to introduce Nordic model will also not impact the majority of workers.

Excellent, we agree on that. Most sex workers will not be impacted by the switch over to the Nordic model from our current laws. 

fortunate wrote:
It will, however, once again impact negatively the ones who work in the public, and could negatively impact the ones who work in semi public conditions, like massage parlours. 

Streetwalkers will be possitively impacted because they will no longer be subject to arrest. They will be able to continue working more closely with police to identify bad dates who can be detained and identified. Streetwalking may or may not decrease but at least it won't increase at the rate it would if prostitution were fully legitimized. That subjects fewer women to the harms and dangers of street walking which cannot be made safe. 

fortunate wrote:
I don't see one person offering up a viable solution to the very real fact that these people have no interest in leaving their work.  That no one can possibly offer them any alternatives to it that they find even the least bit appealing.

I thought we just agreed that most sex workers won't be impacted. I think legitimization would hurt them due to increased competition putting downward pressure on wages. 

Aside from that, Canada is not Bangladesh. We do have alternatives. Our social supports aren't strong enough but they aren't non-existant. Women on the streets usually have issues such as drug or alcohol addiction or mental health problems which are being exploited. We absolutely need more supports to address those issues but legalizing the exploitation of such women is not an acceptable stop-gap measure. 

Women in massage parlours, assuming they are legal residents of Canada, do have alternatives. They may not be as well paid but they do exist. 

fortunate wrote:
The fact is, the abolitionist belief is that 95% of all sex workers want to stop.  What are they going to do when they finally, after all this time and so many people telling them over and over again, that the 95% actually do NOT want to stop?  

Personally I believe that number applies to street prostitutes but even if that were not the case what do you expect us to do? Haven't we all agreed that most prostitutes won't be impacted? 

fortunate wrote:
What will they do with all those action plans and exit strategies and alternatives?...Oh right, there aren't going to actually BE any of those, so it won't matter.

Well as per you they won't be needed so what's the problem?

fortunate wrote:
I have no issue with ex-sex workers.  As usual, i have an issue with the organizations who refuse to listen to working sex workers, and only listen to the ones who are making a living by being professional ex-sex workers willing to tell negative stories about their past

So you don't have a problem with sex workers, only the ones willing to tell negative stories about their pasts because apparently we shouldn't be listening to them. You seem to think that they are paid shills, that they are lying about their experiences. I believe they are telling the truth. 

Again, "listening to" and "agreeing with" are not synonyms. I bet most abolitionists could recite every decriminalization argument ever made. We aren't just listening to you, we are responding to you. We are explaining why we disagree point by point. 

Pondering

Elle_Fury wrote:

Can we stop pretending the New Zealand model is a huge "success". I think I've posted this before, but I suppose some need to be reminded. The Report of theh Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the PRA CLAIMS decriminalization has been successful, if you actually READ the report, you will see THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  From the report:

(Emphasis mine)

(p. 14)The majority of sex workers interviewed felt that the PRA could do little about violence that occurred,  though a significant minority thought that there had been an improvement since the enactment of the PRA. Of those feeling in a position to comment, the majority felt sex workerswere now more likely to report incidents of violence to the Police, though willingness to carry the process through to court is less common. (i.e. Most  of the violent johns are still getting off scot-free!)

(p.57)Opinion among CJRC informants differed on the impact of the PRA on adverse incidents,including violence, being experienced in the sex industry. The majority felt that the PRA could do little about the violence that occurred.
 

Clients getting stroppy will always happen. This was the case before the Act and after it.
(Brothel operator, CJRC, 2007)
 

There has been no impact. There will always be ugly mugs.
(NGO – health, CJRC, 2007)
 

Others – but less than a quarter – felt there had been an improvement.

(p.118)Auckland outreach workers also reported an ‘influx of sex workers on the streets in the six to eight months prior to June 2007’.

Streetreach is a non-governmental organisation that provides support for street-based sex workers in Auckland and Manukau cities. Streetreach believes there has been an overall increase in the number of street-based sex workers in the Auckland region since decriminalisation.(Streetreach, 2007)

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/documents/report.pdf

Yeah, right. The New Zealand model is a "perfect example".

Thanks for that Elle. I saved it this time, although I may have a copy of it somewhere else too. Even in a partisan report after a decade there is still no evidence of an actual reduction in violence. 

The notion that if street walkers could talk to a man for a couple of minutes before getting into his car they will be safe is perposterous. Nobody would dream of giving any other woman that "safety tip". To any other woman we say never ever ever ever get into a car with a stranger, never ever. 

I also wanted to respond to your post in the Objectification thread. I really enjoyed reading the article you linked to and I will be responding, just not tonight. I am all typed out. 

lagatta

I know several women who were in prostitution. This is a skewed sample, I'll admit, as most of them are Aboriginal women I know from work on native issues, and their stories were related in conferences and meetings about social problems faced by Indigenous people. Thus I can't provide any identifying details. Their stories are very sad ones of exploitation and violence. None are being paid anything to talk about this or about how their communities (including communities of urban Aboriginal people) can heal.

Pondering, of course Canada isn't Bangladesh. However, while despite cutbacks and partial privatisations we still have a generally good health and educational system, income support for people who are trying to reorient their lives is woefully inadequate for a wealthy country. Welfare rates are not enough to survive on, and have driven many women into "part-time" or "end of the month" prostitution.

I posted another story today about hidden homelessness in Montréal suburbs, and in the video, it is clear that the men the young women encountered when she was homeless offered to "help her out" if she would have sex with them.

That happened to me in Italy too, when I was studying there and waiting for my scolarship to be renewed. I remember one guy; I thought he wanted me to work in a café or office, but he wanted me to be "nice" to him.

fortunate

Elle_Fury wrote:

fortunate wrote:

Of course New Zealand is used as an example. It is a perfect example, far more perfect than Sweden...

 

Can we stop pretending the New Zealand model is a huge "success". I think I've posted this before, but I suppose some need to be reminded. The Report of theh Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the PRA CLAIMS decriminalization has been successful, if you actually READ the report, you will see THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  From the report:

(Emphasis mine)

(p. 14)The majority of sex workers interviewed felt that the PRA could do little about violence that occurred,  though a significant minority thought that there had been an improvement since the enactment of the PRA. Of those feeling in a position to comment, the majority felt sex workerswere now more likely to report incidents of violence to the Police, though willingness to carry the process through to court is less common. (i.e. Most  of the violent johns are still getting off scot-free!)

(p.57)Opinion among CJRC informants differed on the impact of the PRA on adverse incidents,including violence, being experienced in the sex industry. The majority felt that the PRA could do little about the violence that occurred.
 

Clients getting stroppy will always happen. This was the case before the Act and after it.
(Brothel operator, CJRC, 2007)
 

There has been no impact. There will always be ugly mugs.
(NGO – health, CJRC, 2007)
 

Others – but less than a quarter – felt there had been an improvement.

(p.118)Auckland outreach workers also reported an ‘influx of sex workers on the streets in the six to eight months prior to June 2007’.

Streetreach is a non-governmental organisation that provides support for street-based sex workers in Auckland and Manukau cities. Streetreach believes there has been an overall increase in the number of street-based sex workers in the Auckland region since decriminalisation.(Streetreach, 2007)

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/documents/report.pdf

Yeah, right. The New Zealand model is a "perfect example".

 

Because it has been pointed out before, when you tried to misuse this data, that the PRA was never intended to solve societal issue of violence against women.  How could it?   There is violence against women in other work places and in the home, and at random times if they attend college or take a bus ride.   Why on earth is this continuously brought up as a failure in the PRA?    

Nor did it in any way promise to decrease street work.  What the outreach program probably saw after the PRA is that the same workers are there, just not hiding in the darker corners of the streets.    

Really, I don't know why i bother.   Sex work reformation laws, decriminalization, etc etc, are not ever meant to solve the ills of society, only to create a safer working environment for sex workers.   We've already seen what criminalization of street work results in, it won't make a bit of difference if only the clients are targeted and the sex workers no longer are targeted.   The result will be the same as it is now:  pushes the street workers in to the darker corners, and makes them jump into a vehicle without proper screening.    They have to, because otherwise their next pay cheque will drive away for fear of being picked up by police.  

 

You also seem to see the result that sex workers are more likely to report crimes against them as a bad thing?    That is bizarre.    In fact, tho the sex workers are not criminalized in Sweden, there are very few reports coming to police about clients.   So how did that 'fix' violence against sex workers?   Except now the bad guys know how much easier it is to get away with things.    

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

Not surprisingly, the experiment has failed. In the 13 years since the law was enacted, the Swedish government has been unable to prove that the law has reduced the number of sex buyers or sellers or stopped trafficking. All it has to show for its efforts are a (contested) public support for the law and more danger for street-based sex workers. Despite this failure, the government has chosen to ignore the evidence and proclaim the law to be a success; it also continues to advocate that other countries should adopt a similar law. ("The Swedish Law to Criminalize Clients: A Failed Experiment in Social Engineering", Ann Jordan, Program on Human Trafficking and Forced Labor, Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law)

 

In 2009, the National Bureau of Investigation estimated that there were about 90 Thai massage parlours in Stockholm and vicinity, most of which were judged to be offering sexual services for sale. At the turn of 2011/2012, the number of Thai massage parlours in the Stockholm area was estimated to be about 250 and throughout the country about 450. (The Swedish National Police Board, Situation Report 13 "Trafficking in human beings for sexual and other purposes" for the year 2011)

The law has been enforced almost entirely against clients of street-based sex workers but the government does not have any evidence of a decrease in sex buyers since the law went into effect. They do not know how many men were soliciting on the street before or after the law. They do not know if men moved from the streets to indoors and on line, or out of the country. They have not collected such data and so cannot prove any success in achieving the primary goal of the law. ('The Swedish Law to Criminalize Clients: A Failed Experiment in Social Engineering', Ann Jordan, Program on Human Trafficking and Forced Labor, Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law)

 

There is very little evidence to suggest that any criminal laws related to sex work stop demand for sex or reduce the number of sex workers. Rather, all of them create an environment of fear and marginalisation for sex workers, who often have to work in remote and unsafe locations to avoid arrest of themselves or their clients. These laws can undermine sex workers' ability to work together to identify potentially violent clients and their capacity to demand condom use of clients. (UNAIDS Guidance Note on HIV and Sex Work)

The approach of criminalising the client has been shown to backfire on sex workers. In Sweden, sex workers who were unable to work indoors were left on the street with the most dangerous clients and little choice but to accept them. Where sex work is criminalised, sex workers are very vulnerable to abuse and extortion by police, in detention facilities and elsewhere.(UNAIDS Guidance Note on HIV and Sex Work)

According to the Swedish National Police Board it is difficult to estimate how many people may have fallen victim to human trafficking in Sweden during 2011. The number of victims discovered in Sweden depends largely on the resources which the police put into detecting this crime and on the skills that exists within the police organisation. The level of these initiatives varies between police authorities and differs from one year to another. Neither is it possible to identify (nor indeed to locate) all of the victims, mostly girls and women, who are mentioned in tapped telephone calls or observed during police surveillance.  (The Swedish National Police Board, Situation Report 13 "Trafficking in human beings for sexual and other purposes" for the year 2011)

 

In her own words, Petite Jasmine speaking in 2012, prior to her death after authorities removed her children from her care specifically because she was considered unfit due to being a sex worker, and killed by her ex, not a client.   Like the majority of women everywhere, killed by a spouse or ex spouse, not a stranger  http://vimeo.com/87450331

 

 

This is the world abolitionists desire for sex workers.  

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/suzi-godson/swedish-prostitution-laws_b_...

and here

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/29/calum-bennachie-the-probl...

She misquotes the Prostitution Law Review Committee report in exactly the same way as anti-prostitution activist Melissa Farley, who was discredited by the Canadian court system. According to Ms. Smith, the “New Zealand Prostitution Law Review Committee Report referenced by Mr. Ivison clearly stated that ‘the majority of sex workers felt that the law could do little about violence that occurred.’ “

.........

Ms. Smith misses the point entirely. The PRA does not decriminalize violence against sex workers; it enables sex workers to complain about it when it does happen. It would be like trying to claim that decriminalizing sex between men stopped all the nasty violence gay men were the victims of. Yet Canada decriminalized sex between men in 1969, and violence against gay men still continues. According to Ms. Smith’s logic, the amendment to section 159 of Canada’s Criminal Code was a failure, because it has not stopped violence against gay men. That’s not how decriminalization works.

 

 

 

btw, maybe pondering needs another time out.    Either that or stop cherry picking and misinterpreting everyone's comments sentence by sentence.   The majority of those replies don't even deserve this much of a reponse.   It's appalling anyone would think that is an appropriate way to discuss anything.   

 

 

fortunate

re: massage parlours, and strip clubs, in Toronto.   The same story was brought out in 2011, before the SCC decision.   TO has one guy after the decision talking about this as an idea  http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/01/20140114-...

 

Nobody in the biz, including the dancers and massage parlour owners, are considering this an ideal option.  For one thing, the massage parlours already have the appropriate licensing, and buildings in the appropriate commercial zoning areas.   A couple of strip clubs, if they get zoning OK, and city licensing OK, and whatever other red tape hassles they need to go through, may consider this an option for the dancers who escort on the side.   But alluding to it as something that is a popular or even viable consideration, based on one article about the same guy is misleading indeed.    

It begs the question, why do the Abolitionists feel the need to misquote, misread, misuse the information out there?   If everything was exactly as they claim, there should be no need for any misdirection or sensationisms.

Pondering

lagatta wrote:
Their stories are very sad ones of exploitation and violence. None are being paid anything to talk about this or about how their communities (including communities of urban Aboriginal people) can heal.

Thank-you, it is a ridiculous slur against survivors anyway. 

lagatta wrote:
Pondering, of course Canada isn't Bangladesh. However, while despite cutbacks and partial privatisations we still have a generally good health and educational system, income support for people who are trying to reorient their lives is woefully inadequate for a wealthy country.

I didn't say our social programs were adequate, I am just tired of the insinuation that prostitutes have absolutely no choice therefore we must legitimize it. That just isn't true. We do need more. We need more transition homes for youth aging out of the fostercare system and we need drug addiction and replacement therapies, we need mental health care, decent affordable housing, etc. I am just fed-up with the insistence that until those problems are solved we must allow street prostitution as thought it helps instead of further victimizing vulnerable women.  

 

fortunate

That's fine, Pondering, then simply accept the current laws that criminalize public solicitation already allowed police to stamp out all that street work.    The laws are still there, and have been for about 30 years now.   And doing a bang up job of elimination of street work.  

 

When will an abolitionist admit that the existing laws, the ones that had been put in place to 'stamp out street work' and all sex work, were there to do all of the things they are shouting out for?  Is it because they were overturned, and rightly so, proven ineffective and dangerous?  And yet, they want something that in effect is an exact duplicate of those laws.    

Is it because admitting those laws were not working, and do not work, and did not do what they were intended to do (eliminate sex work entirely), they will then have to admit, finally, that crying out for Nordic model isn't going to work either?  And once they are left without any nuisance nonsense laws put in place to 'eliminate' sex work, but especially street workers, what will they do?   Start listening to what the street workers are asking for?   Why would they want to do that?   They've already shown over and over that what sex workers want is irrelevant.    Sex workers want to be called sex workers.   The disrespectful manner in which any abolitionist persists in using derogatory terms like "prostituted" shows only that they think that sex workers are irrelevant to the debate.   

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
There is violence against women in other work places and in the home, and at random times if they attend college or take a bus ride. Why on earth is this continuously brought up as a failure in the PRA?

There is a great deal more violence directed at prostitutes than women in general. Massage therapists don't require panic buttons. The issue of reducing violence is central to the arguments of both abolitionists and legitimizers. It is a salient fact that New Zealand shows no evidence of actually having reduced violence against prostitutes. (Neither does Sweden)

fortunate wrote:
Nor did it in any way promise to decrease street work.  What the outreach program probably saw after the PRA is that the same workers are there, just not hiding in the darker corners of the streets.

The argument is frequently put forth that if it were legal more women would be working indoors which some claim is safer. I agree that the argument is invalid.

I don't believe the reports say anything about streetwalkers deserting their former spots in favor of better areas. It may have spread to more areas but there is no mention of prostitutes moving out of a dangerous area as a result of the law (as far as I know). 

fortunate wrote:
The result will be the same as it is now: pushes the street workers in to the darker corners, and makes them jump into a vehicle without proper screening. They have to, because otherwise their next pay cheque will drive away for fear of being picked up by police

I don't believe it's possible to tell what kind of man you are dealing with in five minutes nevermind the more usual maximum two minutes. There is no way to give a "proper screening" on the street. Any woman willing to get in a vehicle with a strange man will always be a target for any man that wants to make women suffer. It's easier than kidnapping. 

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
Is it because admitting those laws were not working, and do not work, and did not do what they were intended to do (eliminate sex work entirely), they will then have to admit, finally, that crying out for Nordic model isn't going to work either?

I thought we already agreed that the majority of prostitution was untouched in Sweden and the same would most likely occur here? I absolutely agree that the Nordic model will not wipe out all prostitution. That would be a very unrealistic expectation. 

fortunate wrote:
Sex workers want to be called sex workers.   The disrespectful manner in which any abolitionist persists in using derogatory terms like "prostituted" shows only that they think that sex workers are irrelevant to the debate.

Better send a note out to the New Zealand Prostitute's Collective. Survivor groups also tend to prefer the term prostitute as they find "sex worker" sanitizes what they experienced.

I'm told the term "sex workers" also encompasses strippers and porn actresses etc. Communicating my thoughts correctly requires being more specific. Trying to disappear prostitution through denying it a specific label won't work. 

In the mid-1970s a highly politicised prostitutes' rights movement emerged in Europe. Starting with the strike by French prostitutes in 1975, which lead to the creation of the French Collective of Prostitutes and in turn inspired the formation of groups such as the English Collective of Prostitutes in England (1975), the New York Prostitutes Collective (1979) which later became USPROS, the Australian Prostitutes Collective (1981) which is now known as the Prostitutes Collective of Victoria (PCV), and the Italian Committee for Civil Rights of Prostitutes (1982). The Canadian Organisation for the Rights of Prostitutes (CORP), the Dutch Red Thread and HYDRA in Germany also assumed significant roles in the movement. The International Committee for Prostitutes Rights (ICPR) was formed in 1985.[5]

 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_for_Prostitutes'_Rights

SOME sex workers prefer the term "sex worker" and when referring to them I generally use the term "sex worker" unless it's misleading within the context of the sentence.  "Prostitute" and "prostituted" are both in common usage. I'm sorry that you consider the words derogatory but you can't force everyone to change their terminology to suit you particularly when all you have to offer in it's stead is a general term that doesn't mean the same thing. 

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
Nobody in the biz, including the dancers and massage parlour owners, are considering this an ideal option.  For one thing, the massage parlours already have the appropriate licensing, and buildings in the appropriate commercial zoning areas.   A couple of strip clubs, if they get zoning OK, and city licensing OK, and whatever other red tape hassles they need to go through, may consider this an option for the dancers who escort on the side.

You completely missed the point of the quotes. Strip clubs have closed in large numbers because of massage parlours. Closing strip clubs left hundreds of strippers without jobs. Now if they want to work in the sex industry they have to prostitute themselves instead of just stripping, and they won't even make more money for it. 

Whether the prostitution is out of massage parlours or strip clubs is immaterial. It is still replacing stripper jobs with prostitution jobs. Not a step up for women. 

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
fortunate wrote:
Nobody in the biz, including the dancers and massage parlour owners, are considering this an ideal option.  For one thing, the massage parlours already have the appropriate licensing, and buildings in the appropriate commercial zoning areas.   A couple of strip clubs, if they get zoning OK, and city licensing OK, and whatever other red tape hassles they need to go through, may consider this an option for the dancers who escort on the side.

You completely missed the point of the quotes. Strip clubs have closed in large numbers because of massage parlours. Closing strip clubs left hundreds of strippers without jobs. Now if they want to work in the sex industry they have to prostitute themselves instead of just stripping, and they won't even make more money for it. 

Whether the prostitution is out of massage parlours or strip clubs is immaterial. It is still replacing stripper jobs with prostitution jobs. Not a step up for women. 

 

ya!!!!

terrytowel

Former US President Jimmy Carter has thrown his support over the Nordic Model penning a letter. The Conservatives Joy Smith (who is championing the Nordic model) sent it to all 308 MPs. Then released it on twitter. Obviously to put the pressure on the Libs and NDP

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jimmy-carter-offers-canada-advice-on-upd...

mark_alfred

Some mainstream media coverage of the issue.  A segment of CBC's The Current dealt with this topic.  link  There's a write up of the show, and a link to listen to it.  They had statements by following for the prohibition side:

  • Joy Smith, the Conservative MP for Kildonan-St. Paul
  • Gunilla Ekberg, a Canadian lawyer and former special advisor to the Swedish government on the prevention and combat of prostitution.

And for the decrim and/or opposed to the Nordic model side, they had statements by:

  • Katrina Pacey, the Litigation Director at Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver
  • Chris Bruckert, a Criminology Professor at the University of Ottawa

There was also a statement by Debi Perry, who is a Senior Manager in the Calgary Police Service.  She's in favour of the Nordic model, but worries about whether there are enough resources to properly implement it here.  Beyond statements, there was a discussion between Joy Smith and Chris Bruckert.

lagatta

That is interesting (though "prohibition" refers to the failed model in many countries that targets people in prostitution as well as, and in practice far more than, pimps, traffickers and clients). I don't see how a Con can seriously claim to favour a "Nordic Model" which is utterly reliant on the scope of social services found in Northern European countries with a long history of social democracy (even though some may have conservative governments at present, none have dared to wreck the social state like Thatcher or Harper).

Ms. Smith's riding is on the northern edge of Winnipeg, where a disproportionate percentage of sex workers are Indigenous women and youth.

voice of the damned

lagatta wrote:

That is interesting (though "prohibition" refers to the failed model in many countries that targets people in prostitution as well as, and in practice far more than, pimps, traffickers and clients). I don't see how a Con can seriously claim to favour a "Nordic Model" which is utterly reliant on the scope of social services found in Northern European countries with a long history of social democracy (even though some may have conservative governments at present, none have dared to wreck the social state like Thatcher or Harper).

It doesn't have to measure up to some Platonic form of the Nordic Model, or even the actual versions practiced in Sweden etc. All it has to do is satisfy the public's semi-educated understanding of what the model entails.

Just speculating, but I'd wager there's probably a majority, or at least a large plurality, of the public who don't like prostitution, AND subscribe to the idea that none of the women involved are there on their own free will. I know fairly conservative people in their late 70s(Conservative voters, probably qualify as moderate SoCons) who will swear on a stack of Bibles that almost every woman in the sex trade is there because she was abused, or brainwashed, or whatever. 

All that these people(and those like them, across the vast middle of the political spectrum) are gonna need to hear is that Harper wants to arrest the johns, not the prostitutes, and that the latter will get assistance from the government if they want to get out of prostitution. They're not gonna sit down with a calculator and say "Wait a minute, Harper's fiscal austerity precludes the optimum mobilization of resources to achieve his stated goals in this regard". To the extent that they think about it at all, they'll just think "Well, there's still welfare, and a few women's shelters in town, so I guess the girls can rely on that."  

  

 

 

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:
They're not gonna sit down with a calculator and say "Wait a minute, Harper's fiscal austerity precludes the optimum mobilization of resources to achieve his stated goals in this regard".

Harper is at the end of his run, laws are not rewritten every four years based on whomever is in power in the moment. Some improvement is better than no improvement. Neither prostitution nor the Nordic model solve the problems of deep poverty, drug addiction or depravation. Neither are a panacea to the decimation of indigenous communities. The problem of insufficient social programs is not solved by legitimizing street prostitution. 

This was about the original Ford tape:

Quote:
“He says they want $100,000,” I told Cooke. “I tried to explain that’s a completely crazy number, but he seems set on it.”

“Can you bring him to the newsroom?” Cooke asked.

Farah offered to drive. He was parked in an alley behind a Starbucks. I had three seconds to weigh the pros and cons of going with him or taking a cab. Pro: I could see his licence plate, run a check and get his name and address. Con: I was alone, and any idiot knew not to get in a car with a stranger. Pro: It would build trust, provided he wasn’t a rapist. Con: He might be a rapist.

“Sure, that’d be great if you could drive,” I said.

The moment I spotted Farah’s black sedan, I sent Cooke an email with a description of the vehicle and the plate number — just in case. I climbed into the passenger side. The car was clean and obviously quite new. I didn’t see a scrap of trash.

 <http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/02/01/crazy_town_the_rob_ford_story_exclusive_excerpt_of_robyn_doolittles_book.html

Would you suggest to the woman above that talking to the man for a couple of minutes would be sufficient to ensure her safety? Was she being overly cautious?

Quote:
OTTAWA — Two weeks ago, police arrested and charged the man, they believe, is responsible for clubbing five women in the head with a hammer. ... One woman was slapped by a man while she was on a bus listening to music near Walkley and Heatherington roads. ... one passenger reported two incidents of groping while riding a bus on Route 96.….Five days later, just after 2 p.m., that same man again sat beside her on the 96 and groped at her leg….

Pasted from <http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Assault+data+defies+violence+against+women+stereotypes/9432139/story.html>

Does anyone seriously believe that street prostitutes (who are often high and/or mentally ill) are made safer by having an extra 3 minutes to assess a potential john before getting in his car? Tell me this is a useful safety tip you would give to any woman who is not a prostitute. 

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

fortunate wrote:
Nobody in the biz, including the dancers and massage parlour owners, are considering this an ideal option.  For one thing, the massage parlours already have the appropriate licensing, and buildings in the appropriate commercial zoning areas.   A couple of strip clubs, if they get zoning OK, and city licensing OK, and whatever other red tape hassles they need to go through, may consider this an option for the dancers who escort on the side.

You completely missed the point of the quotes. Strip clubs have closed in large numbers because of massage parlours. Closing strip clubs left hundreds of strippers without jobs. Now if they want to work in the sex industry they have to prostitute themselves instead of just stripping, and they won't even make more money for it. 

Whether the prostitution is out of massage parlours or strip clubs is immaterial. It is still replacing stripper jobs with prostitution jobs. Not a step up for women. 

 

I'll reply to this one, because you are not cherry picking the quote and dissecting each word and sentence with some kind of rebuttal.  If you do this all the time, we can have a conversation.

 

Please provide the evidence to what you are claiming regarding that strip clubs are literally being replaced by new massage parlours.   There is no evidence that i know for what you are claiming.     You are missing the point of my statement, which replied to your claims, but this reply here, does nothing to address that.   Now you can post that stuff anywhere on babble that you like, but it still won't make it true.  

 

There are massage parlours in Toronto. The majority of them have been there for many years.  They haven't just all popped up in the last year, leading to the demise of strip clubs.   Strip clubs themselves have led to the demise of strip clubs, because frankly the majority of men are not really into ogling women and tossing money at them.    You'd think to anyone looking to abolish objectification, they'd see this as a good thing.    Dancers are sex workers, after all, they should actually just get another job, at least according to the usual mantra.    And not in a massage parlour, why not simply do something else.   Sex workers who do sex services are told that every day, by the same abolitionists.   Why do dancers get sympathy for the loss of their jobs and income, but an escort can't?

Massage parlours do not allow anything more than hand finish, to be perfectly blunt.  no bj, no sex, no gymnastics, massage and release, period.  Just like Jack Layton went for those many years ago.  That is what they are licensed for.   That is what they are zoned for.  That is what they are inspected for.  That is what they are hired for.  That is what they advertise for.   

 

fortunate

lagatta wrote:

That is interesting (though "prohibition" refers to the failed model in many countries that targets people in prostitution as well as, and in practice far more than, pimps, traffickers and clients). I don't see how a Con can seriously claim to favour a "Nordic Model" which is utterly reliant on the scope of social services found in Northern European countries with a long history of social democracy (even though some may have conservative governments at present, none have dared to wreck the social state like Thatcher or Harper).

Ms. Smith's riding is on the northern edge of Winnipeg, where a disproportionate percentage of sex workers are Indigenous women and youth.

 

Yes, and the same place where the police are notorious for enforcing the current anti public soliticitation laws with ride outs to the outskirts of town, and abandoning street people out there.   They currently have one of the highest number of missing people as well, maybe they would find them if they drove out to the outskirts of town where they dropped them off in minus degree temperatures.   

The city itself is disgraceful.   No one takes Smith seriously, she's a complete nut job.   

I found that the Calgary police rep at least acknowledged that the idea of the Nordic model was unworkable, and unlikely to be successful.   It doesn't make sense to use it, and the police know that this method isn't going to work just as the public solicitation laws didn't actually work.   The intent of those laws was to create the scene for no more sex workers, visible or not visible on the streets.  Lots of arrests were made, and lots of businesses shut down, and as we all know, people like Bedford arrested for having a location she worked out of.   

And yet, with all those laws in place, everyone really just goes about doing their sex work business.    And none of that makes one bit of an impact on the abolitionists.    it's like talking to a child.    

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

 

Does anyone seriously believe that street prostitutes (who are often high and/or mentally ill) are made safer by having an extra 3 minutes to assess a potential john before getting in his car? Tell me this is a useful safety tip you would give to any woman who is not a prostitute. 

 

It doesn't matter if I think it is, or if you think it is, or if some church lady in Kelowna thinks it is.   What matters is that the street worker thinks it is better for her, and what matters is that prior to the laws that prevented her from doing this, the facts and the stats support that it is better for street workers as well.    And what matters is that the sex worker Valerie Scott who represented in a way the street worker, thinks that.     And more importantly, the SCC believes that it is as well.    

Whether on the street or on the phone, the best way sex workers have to 'size a guy up' is talking to them.   Some can do it in 2 minutes in a phone conversation, and I have no doubt at all that an experienced street worker, whether high or not, can do the same.   I know for absolute sure that if she is desperate, if the police interfere with the number of customers she can find, or the abolitionists put up more barriers to her customers, that she will jump into that car simply because there will be more obstacles in her way to getting her income.   

You think she's desperate because she's high, or mentally ill, but what the abolitionists want is a scenario where she is going to be desperate because of lack of customers.   She's going to jump in that car with or without more time, because she isn't going to know when the next car is going to show up, if ever.    

The Nordic model should be telling the abolitionists this.  Certainly there are a few articles from street workers and advocates and others in Sweden talking about it all the time.  

This is what abolitionists really want for sex workers in Canada?   Sweden has has this law for 15 years, and this is still happening today?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/view-from-the-streets-new...

But interviews with charities, women’s rights activists and prostitutes themselves indicate that for many sex workers, the effect of the law has not been positive.

“The law is pushing prostitution more underground,” said Jaana Kauppinen, who heads a charity that helps sex workers in Helsinki and Tampere in Finland. “It makes the women more vulnerable and increases the risk of violence.” 

This sums up nicely what abolitionists do not want the general public to know:

Jakobsson, the retired prostitute living in Stockholm, said she thought the law was patronising toward women.

“On one end, some women are exploited, but on the other you have women who do it as a hobby and enjoy it. And you have everything else in between,” she said.

“This law sends a message that women are victims. And the authorities don’t know how to deal with women who don’t see themselves as victims.”

 

quizzical

wow, fortunate knows everybody in canada personally and knows exactly what everyone thinks and believes at all times.

 

MegB

Let's keep this respectful, okay folks?

Pages