what is a sex worker ?

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

Oh good grief, trying to shove this back into the Limbic emotional brain, serves no purpose, in examining the realities.

Actions surrounding prostitution are in the criminal code because it was at one point felt that there was no other forms of protection for the front line sex workers, as it is NOT a recognized industry job.

Make it a recognized job, and all acts that are now deemed criminal will fall away.

Distillers once used to be designated "criminals", until distilling became a legal industry.

Decriminalize the acts surrounding it, without making it a job industry, means there are still NO protections for front line sex workers job wise, as there are no regulations on the industry.

We don't send other workers out into unregulated job situations, and we can't send sex workers either.

It is just that simple.

 

Polunatic2

Quote:
As is frequently noted, it will be impossible to abolish prostitution entirely, just as it has been impossible to entirely abolish slavery. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
In fact, there are more slaves now then there was during the european colonial expansion.  I posted over here a few days back about the scourge of modern day human trafficking including the estimation that 2.2 million women and girls are SOLD into the sex industry every year - sometimes by their own families. That this is a such horrific reality for so many would not be debated by any babbler.  

I think it's an important distinction to make when looking at sex work. I'm not sure how helpful it is to the conversation to group everyone in the sex industry as slaves because I fear that the "willing versus unwilling" argument would obscure the importance of fighting against human trafficking in all of its forms now, as a major priority (not that different battles can't be fought on different fronts simultaneously). That so little is known about human trafficking is proof to me that distinctions need to be made. 

 

remind remind's picture

Polunitic, but really, the whole thing is, decriminalization, as opposed to creating a  front line sex work job industry, that renders the need for any criminalization, null and void, would make in essence tafficking legal, in Canada.

There would be no way, and I mean by this, no official mechanism for any state body, to enforce labour laws, health laws, nor any any other regulatory law.

All front line sex work activities would exist outside of the Industry Canada and social safety net frameworks, unless it was designated an"Industry" and the appropriate structures were built around it.

 

 

martin dufresne

I think that we are only having this tired old "willing vs. unwilling" argument because - as it used to be with domestic violence and rape - the discussion is being steered away from the people with power and substantive choices: the consumers of sexual services and the people and corporations raking in billions from the renting and trafficking of people to serve this market. We know for a fact that these consumers, pimps, brothel owners and corporation are 100% willing. It is their choices and privileges that abolitionists don't want to see escalated and made legitimate, with even more exploitation of the impoverished and the racialized. This is what is up for discussion in a Toronto courtroom with the notion of lifting constraints against them - using the plight of criminalized prostituted folks - so the exclusive focus on the agency attributed to these prostituted folks needs to be acknowledged as a mere red herring.

martin dufresne

If we are going to have "sex workers", then let's talk about what is a "sex boss" and how he gets to control the means of production, i.e. women's and youths' bodies?

Polunatic2

Remind, I think I'm beginning to understand the "decriminalize vs legalize" perspectives better (and abolitionists) after reading several of these threads. And my mind isn't made up with any of these three positions.

One of the striking things about "Call and Response" is that overt slavery also exists in military and industrial/agricultural sectors (although not in Canada) where there are supposed to be rules (even if they're weak). I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that a lot of abuse can still take place in regulated sectors. My main point is that I wouldn't want to see the concept and reality of modern-day slavery lost in comparisons and analogies. While soldiers in the military are "stuck" until their term ends and many workers face bitter consequences if they leave their jobs, I don't see that the same way as the outright buying and selling of people. 

To personalize it a bit, my son has African, European Jewish and North American roots. Whether on the Caribbean plantations, Ontario farms or the nazi slave factories, there is a common history of slavery not too many generations back. I would never suggest to him that there's a blurry line between owning someone and employing them. 

Infosaturated

Polunatic2 wrote:
I think it's an important distinction to make when looking at sex work. I'm not sure how helpful it is to the conversation to group everyone in the sex industry as slaves because I fear that the "willing versus unwilling" argument would obscure the importance of fighting against human trafficking in all of its forms now, as a major priority (not that different battles can't be fought on different fronts simultaneously). That so little is known about human trafficking is proof to me that distinctions need to be made.

The analogy is not to suggest that all sex workers are slaves in the sense of being owned. I specifically referenced the broader definition:

"Many people, especially those who support equality for women, consider women who are prostituted or prostitute themselves to be doing so under a "employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with limited job-related choices"."

The argument being made by those who support full legitimization of prostitution as an industry, present it as a situation where most of the women involved define themselves as sex workers and are there by choice.

Numbers vary but between trafficking victims, economic migrants, women who began as minors or are minors, and women who do not want to work as prostitutes but feel trapped are in the majority, not willing sex workers.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not in the mood to hunt down multiple links so if you don't believe me that's fine. Do your own research or read the report below.

Scotland conducted a broad study when reconsidering their laws which you can find here:

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

It's very long but I found it an interesting read. Here is a small part of their conclusion:

· The links between sex markets, drugs markets and organised crime are expanding.

· Legalisation has not limited trafficking, and there is some evidence that it has resulted in increased flows.

· Tolerance zones in both the legalised and regulatory regimes have failed to deliver the hoped for benefits.

· Street prostitution is both dangerous for women and unpleasant and disruptive for local communities.

· As increased numbers, including trafficked women, enter the sex industry, prices automatically fall, resulting in many feeling more pressurised to offer `services' such as unprotected and anal sex in order to compete, which has serious implications for health and safety of prostitutes.

· Whilst off-street prostitution involves less violence, levels are still high, and when it is subject to limited control more likely to involve minors and trafficked women.

It is also worth noting that in the few surveys which ask the opinion of those currently involved in prostitution, few support legalisation. The extent to which they also view violence as an `occupational hazard', raises serious questions, on this ground alone, whether prostitution can ever be considered as `just another form of employment'.

The argument always comes back to "What about women who choose the work?"  There is no shortage of men willing to act as drivers and pimps etc. They are the ones who risk arrest not the sex worker.

Edited to clarify my last comment.  When a sex worker hires a driver or security the sex worker doesn't face any charges.  The people who would be charged are the driver or the security person. With soliciation decriminalized the sex worker would be completely protected from prosecution. It is only "procurement", "keeping a bawdy house" and "living off the avails" that would be illegal. Some sex workers have proposed a woman's son could be charged just for living with her but I don't think there have been any cases of that world wide so I don't think it's a major concern.

remind remind's picture

Polunatic2 wrote:
My main point is that I wouldn't want to see the concept and reality of modern-day slavery lost in comparisons and analogies. While soldiers in the military are "stuck" until their term ends and many workers face bitter consequences if they leave their jobs, I don't see that the same way as the outright buying and selling of people.

I am not sure where you get that impression from in this discussion?

Quote:
To personalize it a bit, my son has African, European Jewish and North American roots. Whether on the Caribbean plantations, Ontario farms or the nazi slave factories, there is a common history of slavery not too many generations back. I would never suggest to him that there's a blurry line between owning someone and employing them.

Your son sounds like my daughter, heritage wise, but you know, I never factor that into my considerations too much.

As my activisions and decisions are an individual basis, I can not action and make decisions, through the lense of my daughter's heritage. It is her heritage and I cannnot  expropriate it.

And example of that would be, knowing that her heritage puts her at risk, of being  treated by some, as one of the lowest members of Canadian society, I would want everything abolished, only to try and protect her. Thereby robing her of her own agency, for herstory.

Thus, when deliberating on things, that could have strong impacts upon her agency, I must only think about it in the frontal lobes, and not the emotional limbic brain, a really strong due diligence against impinging on her agency, if you will.

Or boundaries get crossed everytime, as the mother, of an adult child whose genes dance through the waves of historical oppressions.

All I can do is understand that women, were chattal property, just 80 short years ago, and project that knowlege into my deliberations, on things that could effect her.

Women, who were not born chattal property, can identify, the differences in those who were born chattal property, or shortly thereafter, its demise. Or at least some can.

For a long time, I could not put my finger on why it was a certain age group of women were "that way", and then I realized, they had no idea what it was like NOT to be born chattal property, until they took it for themselves, by the rejection of patriarchy.

Then I watched for it in other women, so I could get to know their "herstories". Finally, a few years ago, when my grandma was 92, and still living on her own, I got the courage to ask her for "Herstory".

I have not  yet had the courage to read the transcripts.

All I know is, I do not want women back in a position where they were/are, for all intense purposes, again chattal property.

Weakened regulations, indicates, we have allowed slippage to our rights and freedoms, and nothing more. No one else's fault, but our own.

So, IMV,  there is no reason to keep on compounding that area of slippage.

Create a job industry that makes front line sex work regulated, no matter how poor the regulations are at first, at least there will be some, and a place to move forward from.

Decriminalization means NO work standards, nor any other.

And why would we as a society do this?

Polunatic2

Thanks InfoS and Remind for your responses. I'm going to step back from my earlier comments about "wage slavery". There is too much history in the use of that term and I was taking the words too literally and out of context in my response. Here are a couple of the links from the surfing I did from the "Wage Slavery" Wiki page that was referenced. 

Quote:
When you sell your product, you retain your person. But when you sell your labour, you sell yourself, losing the rights of free men and becoming vassals of mammoth establishments of a monied aristocracy that threatens annihilation to anyone who questions their right to enslave and oppress.

"Those who work in the mills ought to own them, not have the status of machines ruled by private despots who are entrenching monarchic principles on democratic soil as they drive downwards freedom and rights, civilization, health, morals and intellectuality in the new commercial feudalism. (From the  "Lowell Mill Girls 1836)"

It's a quote used by Chomsky who had this to say.
Quote:
 It seems to me [that] if you think about it, yeah, why should you work on command? I mean, if you work on command, you're some kind of slave, you know? Why not work because it comes out of your needs and interests?...

 

Unionist

What a repugnant statement.

 

remind remind's picture

The reality is, polunatic2,  for most in sex work, needs being met only factor into the equation, not interests.

When they do factor together in sex work, great, and there should be a industry designation for it, with regulations that are part of the social contract we recognize.

Not to do so, is "othering" and say it is okay for them other there to supposedly "work", though with no regulations and job protections and no access to the  worker's social safety net, it can hardly be called work, and it is definitely not a choice, that an individual choose.

Society in Canada would have made the choice, that they get to "work" without regulations and benefits, that everyone else has.

remind remind's picture

Unionist wrote:
What a repugnant statement.

Care to offer up a reason why you feel this to be so?

Perhaps you are taking something from the analogy, that was not meant?

 

martin dufresne

What a needlessly pugnacious statement, Unionist.

One of the first things I learned on the Net was that sloppy analogies to nazism minimized the Holocaust. I think Infosaturated's point about avoiding such minimization with the use of "slavery" was well-taken. We need to be clear that some of the women and children being prostituted are indeed enslaved, others are indirectly throttled by debt bondage, threats against their family or drug addiction. And then, some are not,  or not yet so.

Infosaturated

Polunatic2 wrote:

Thanks InfoS and Remind for your responses. I'm going to step back from my earlier comments about "wage slavery". There is too much history in the use of that term and I was taking the words too literally and out of context in my response.

Smile  I understand your perspective on it too. Some words are very loaded.  Like references to Hitler have to be very carefully made to ensure that the Holocaust isn't minimized.

 

Edited to correct misspelling

Michelle

Unionist, if you have a problem with something someone has posted, it might be helpful to spell out why you have a problem with it, rather than simply label the statement as "repugnant".  It's not clear to me what is repugnant about it either.

susan davis susan davis's picture

decriminalization does not mean no rules and a free for all. it means industry standards and regulations. not criminal code provisions. legalization excludes sex industry workers from inclusion in processes that affect us and is a government conrtoled system. we want inclusion as an industry n any decisions that affect us and no criminal code provisions for sex work.

exploitation of youth remains illegal, slavery remains illegal. why do people insist on ignoring the fact that we already have laws to protect people from these types of crimes.

why do we need 2 sets of laws to protect people? it others us and makes violence against us seem less, unimportant or different from violence against non sex working people.

Stargazer

Hey I agree with you susan, same way as I agree that we can't force people to take STD tests (I mean Johns). I was thinking about this last night. What other industry enforces it's clients to get tests and show papers before they can enter into a contract with a worker? I can't think of any. And I'm talking about invasive tests (as in privacy).

Do we force people who visit nurses to take flu tests? No we don't, besides, the mandatory testing of johns is impossible and not going to happen.

Polunatic2

To be honest, I'm confused (while still learning quite a bit). I know this is because this not an area with which I have familiarity and it is pretty complex on several levels. Sometimes I think people are saying the same thing, but then they disagree with one another, leaving me scratching my head.

With all due respect, would it not help to try and find out (in a new thread perhaps) what the common ground, if any, is between advocates of "abolition", "decriminalization" and "legalization" and then try to define and work through the differences? The most obvious potential agreement might be that change (of some kind) is needed. Or has this been done already on another thread? Or has everything already been said at least once already with mostly entrenched positions (resulting from long-standing struggles that people have been engaged in)?

remind remind's picture

Stargazer, invasive personal testing happens all the time in almost all jobs industries.

People have to take piss tests, to show they are free of alcohol and drugs in widespread industries.

People who work in health care have to declare to their employer what permanent communicable diseases they have. For example if you have herpes, you have to declare you have it. w have to have testing certifications for diseases done all the time.

Also hep positive people in the food industry have to tell their employers.

When you go into the hospital or lab for treatment, you signs forms stating you are free from communicable diseases, or not.

Let's not pretend this is not the case, and that somehow johns will be singled out for privacy invasion, because they have to submit to  testing.

 

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

no , i think you are right, we do have consensus on some stuff....no exploitation of youth, sex workers must be decriminalized...it would useful to be able to identify where we do have agreement on all sides.

Infosaturated

susan davis wrote:
exploitation of youth remains illegal, slavery remains illegal. why do people insist on ignoring the fact that we already have laws to protect people from these types of crimes.

Because the illegal industry increases right along with the legal one and organized crime stays involved and more women and children are forced into prostitution. Decriminalization has failed to improve conditions for prostitutes so basically it does no good and does do harm.  This would be why countries in Europe that decriminalized/legalized are reversing themselves.

susan davis susan davis's picture

what countries in europe are decriminalized and reversing it? none....legalization has been tried and to my knowledge only germany and sweden are re evaluating their approaches......

new zealand is de criminalization, they are not reversing it.....

legalized is what people here, such as your self are proposing.....that model is being seriously re examined.

you can't just say decrim has failed....where?

i have never supported forced sex work, why can't it be in both our interests to see it ended through a trasparent system that allows us to more easily see traffickers and exploiters?

we will see them more easily, they will still need to run ads and promote their activites, any business operating outside of the system of governance we are proposing would be easy to identify. no trade mark, no industry association membership? it would make it easy for police to seperate the good from the bad and allow them to focus efforts on protection of youth and exploited or trafficked people....

 

remind remind's picture

No, an industry cannot exist outside societal contracts in respect to agreed public constraint parameters, for labour and safety, for all.

There can be no exceptions.

 

Exceptions create inequalities.

 

Self regulation is not an option, for any industry. Especially not for  a high risk industry, where the worst abuse is already occuring..

 

martin dufresne

susan davis: "what countries in europe are decriminalized and reversing it? none...."

As I wrote here, Iceland decriminalized buying and selling sex in March 2007, but quickly went back to criminalizing the purchase of sex two years later, in 2009, in order to stem an escalation of trafficking that followed their 2007 reform. The people of Danemark, who had instituted full decriminalization a decade ago, are considering the same option.

CLES (a Quebec abolitionist group that includes formerly and presently prostituted folks) has reported here that the Dutch government "totally lost control over the situation and is now attempting to close down most of Amsterdam's red-light district, taken over by organized crime." Many people have posted here that the Netherlands concede that the full decriminalization instituted in the red-light area of Amsterdam has been a failure for a number of reasons. They how have to buy back brothels from owners in order to try and stem the problem of organized crime trafficking illegal workers in the area: "In September 2007, the city of Amsterdam spent $15 million Euros ($22 million U.S. dollars) to purchase and shut down one third of the brothels in the red light district...". ("Trafficking & Prostitution in San Francisco")

And one can find here a 2007 critical assessment of how the situation hasn't improved in Germany after decriminalization.

Infosaturated

susan davis wrote:
it would make it easy for police to seperate the good from the bad and allow them to focus efforts on protection of youth and exploited or trafficked people....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-11-Dutch-human-trafficking_N.htm

"It was supposed to be very visible and transparent, and yet behind the facade, horrible things were happening under the nose of the police," said van Dijk.

 Women were beaten and forced to sit in icy water to avoid bruising. They also were tattooed.

susan davis wrote:
new zealand is de criminalization, they are not reversing it......

New Zealand's government report has been accused of being biased because some of the people involved have a personal stake in the industry, even so, the report still had to admit that there had been no decrease in street work, there was no evidence of decreased violence, a police chief claimed there was an increase in child prostitution, aside from other complaints.

New Zealand is next to Australia, where prostitution has been legal for some time. Canada is next to the United States. The potential for explosive growth is much higher here and given that organized crime is already involved and trafficking already exists I don't see it diminishing.

susan davis susan davis's picture

remind wrote:

No, an industry cannot exist outside societal contracts in respect to agreed public constraint parameters, for labour and safety, for all.

There can be no exceptions.

 

Exceptions create inequalities.

 

Self regulation is not an option, for any industry. Especially not for  a high risk industry, where the worst abuse is already occuring..

 

so no links or lists of countries with decrim in europe.....?

i already stated i , and other workers i represent, support government/sex worker support services/ sex workers iclusive review boards......

we want inclusion, not self regulation......

susan davis susan davis's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

susan davis: "what countries in europe are decriminalized and reversing it? none...."

As I wrote here, Iceland decriminalized buying and selling sex in March 2007, but quickly went back to criminalizing the purchase of sex two years later, in 2009, in order to stem an escalation of trafficking that followed their 2007 reform. The people of Danemark, who had instituted full decriminalization a decade ago, are considering the same option.

CLES (a Quebec abolitionist group that includes formerly and presently prostituted folks) has reported here that the Dutch government "totally lost control over the situation and is now attempting to close down most of Amsterdam's red-light district, taken over by organized crime." Many people have posted here that the Netherlands concede that the full decriminalization instituted in the red-light area of Amsterdam has been a failure for a number of reasons. They how have to buy back brothels from owners in order to try and stem the problem of organized crime trafficking illegal workers in the area: "In September 2007, the city of Amsterdam spent $15 million Euros ($22 million U.S. dollars) to purchase and shut down one third of the brothels in the red light district...". ("Trafficking & Prostitution in San Francisco")

And one can find here a 2007 critical assessment of how the situation hasn't improved in Germany after decriminalization.

the countires you list are in a state of "legalization".....and so, justifiably, are re assesing the situation and impacts of non inclusion of sex inndustry workers in the planning of actions....

i can't believe it is alright to constantly allow abolitionists to promote fear on babble.....i am trying to remain calm and not get angry.....

amsterdam was never decrim....it is legalisation and canadian sex workers, including me, have expressed this model of ghettoization does not work.....

how much is our government spending to "eradicate" sex work or ...."prostitution" in canada?

any sane person can see we would be better able to protectt youth at risk and exploited people if money from persectution of sex workers, business owners and consumers were better spent on adressing these most important issues.....

whatever ostriches......burry your head in the sand and pretend it will end or not happen.....

good luck with that.....

Nicole D

I'm not meaning to take this off-track at all, but I think it's really important to remember that many women with experience within these industries are abolitionists. They and their allies are not 'ostriches' or lacking in sanity. They have a valid perspective, and the desire to end the sexual oppression of women within our society. It isn't fair to dismiss that.

To be clear, I don't think that you have to have experience within the industry to have a valid critique. But, if we are going to try to differentiate, it should be as accurate as possible. I often feel like the split of 'sex-workers' versus 'abolitionists' is so false and misleading and it ignores the hard-won voices of so many women with experience in prostitution who have found incredible validation through abolitionist feminist analysis.

Susan, when I read your posts, I often see you promote this false idea. I just thought I'd bring your attention to it. You act as if you represent all women with 'experience', and you simply do not.

remind remind's picture

Do not feel fearful, and perhaps for the first time on a long in respect to this gap in the social safety net.

 

We are talking, we are hearing, we are seeing, and all the bumps and warbles that that implies are happening too. But... so what, when discussion is actually occuring in a national way with common ground being found, it is a good day.

It is a serious subject that requires indepth thinking and examination,

Wrong decisions have serious implications, at all class levels of society, for women.

 

So striving to keep things assertive, deliberative and informative,  is always good.

 

 

 

martin dufresne

Susan, no one is trying to promote fear here: the issue is whether woman and youths will be furher harmed or not in a situation where pimps and brothel-owners, among others, would cease being restrained by legislation.

Now first you tell us that so many countries have decriminalized prostitution and things are going fine there. Then, when it appears that no, things aren't that fine there - to the point where their politicians are acknowledging mistakes and rolling back hasty decisions, as in Iceland and the Netherlands - you turn around and say, no no, that wasn't decriminalization, it was legalization, presumably because the State remained involved with controls. That's a bit like switching the goal posts in mid-discussion.

The difference between decriminalization and legalization is disputed anyway (Prostitutes Education Network, 2007). Insisting on it seems mostly like a strategy to convince liberals - and the occasional libertarian - that it would be progressive to push back the State somewhat in a sexual domain. But, as remind has shown, concern for women's lives and welfare would dictate that health and safety controls be applied to prostitution as to any other health-related job, even more in fact given the lethality factors involved, esp. male violence against women. A government that has been pouring millions in harm reduction strategies can't be expected to suddenly turn its back on the people and the values involved. And then there is all the money to be made taxing women's income.

So let's not play semantics: it would be unfair if, because of a State that is in fact being appealed to by decriminalization promoters, full decriminalization of men's agency in this industry could remain shielded from examination in terms of its fallout for women.

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

Nicole D wrote:

I'm not meaning to take this off-track at all, but I think it's really important to remember that many women with experience within these industries are abolitionists. They and their allies are not 'ostriches' or lacking in sanity. They have a valid perspective, and the desire to end the sexual oppression of women within our society. It isn't fair to dismiss that.

To be clear, I don't think that you have to have experience within the industry to have a valid critique. But, if we are going to try to differentiate, it should be as accurate as possible. I often feel like the split of 'sex-workers' versus 'abolitionists' is so false and misleading and it ignores the hard-won voices of so many women with experience in prostitution who have found incredible validation through abolitionist feminist analysis.

Susan, when I read your posts, I often see you promote this false idea. I just thought I'd bring your attention to it. You act as if you represent all women with 'experience', and you simply do not.

and who do you represent? i have stated numbers of workers i represent....

my voice is just as valid and we have a right to be heard,i never said that abolition is wrong, in fact i said it is a nobel goal. i am dealing with the on going slaughter of my community and am not hiding behind a political view as if it will change the reality on the ground for sex workers. history has shown what attempts to "end sex work" has done to the safety and stability of vancouver sex workers.

i will promote my ideas and they are not false and i do represent a significant number of sex workers.

thanks for trying to make me look like a liar though. i appreciate it.

i think  will start trying to impose myself on other workers during negotiations with unions or employers and state that i do not need experince in their industry or job to have a valuable opinion or critique and that i should allowed to heard in negotiations. i am a worker so i have a right to impose what i believe is right for all nurses, loggers, car manufacturers...

if we are all entitled to do it, then so will i.

i believe all nurses should have an emotional stability/health test to ensure they will not be cruel to patients. i also want nurses to be tested for bias against minority groups in order to prevent them from potentially discriminating against patients.

all auto workers should be given a 6 pack of beer at the end of each day. it is their right as workers.i will not rest until i am heard. beer is the most important issue facing auto workers today.....

ridiculous right?

so please, enlighten me....how many workersdo you represent and what is your position? accept to undermine my credibility?

susan davis susan davis's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

Susan, no one is trying to promote fear here: the issue is whether woman and youths will be furher harmed or not in a situation where pimps and brothel-owners, among others, would cease being restrained by legislation.

Now first you tell us that so many countries have decriminalized prostitution and things are going fine there. Then, when it appears that no, things aren't that fine there - to the point where their politicians are acknowledging mistakes and rolling back hasty decisions, as in Iceland and the Netherlands - you turn around and say, no no, that wasn't decriminalization, it was legalization, presumably because the State remained involved with controls. That's a bit like switching the goal posts in mid-discussion.

The difference between decriminalization and legalization is disputed anyway (Prostitutes Education Network, 2007). Insisting on it seems mostly like a strategy to convince liberals - and the occasional libertarian - that it would be progressive to push back the State somewhat in a sexual domain. But, as remind has shown, concern for women's lives and welfare would dictate that health and safety controls be applied to prostitution as to any other health-related job, even more in fact given the lethality factors involved, esp. male violence against women. A government that has been pouring millions in harm reduction strategies can't be expected to suddenly turn its back on the people and the values involved. And then there is all the money to be made taxing women's income.

So let's not play semantics: it would be unfair if, because of a State that is in fact being appealed to by decriminalization promoters, full decriminalization of men's agency in this industry could remain shielded from examination in terms of its fallout for women.

 

quoting farley again i see.....

how about themillions spent on trials of our murderers? or millions being spent on enforcement? no canadian government program has spent $500 million- trial in the case of the missing women- or even $164 million- VPD annual budget on sex work or the safety of sex workers.

instead more and more money pours into creating jobs for others such as prison guards, police, judges, lawyers, victims services workers, sex worker support services......but nothing changes on the ground.

you talk about it as if our gvernment is doing something....any thing....barely. in majore cities we see some progress but every where else people ae still treating sex wrkers as criminals who must be gotten rid of....

i am asking to be not treated as a criminal. i am not a criminal.

the difference between legalisation and decrim is those criminal code provisions. we are not looking for carte blanch and a free for all. labor laws and workers rights in canada could support sex industry workers safety and criminal code provivions related to violence, kidnapping, extortion already exist. why 2 sets of laws?

should all jobs, professions, industries have special criminal code provisions? i don't under stand why people can't grasp this

section 220- criminal code of canada- it shall be illegal for any person to exploit a nurse.any person trasporting a nurse to a hospital to treat patients is guilty of a crime

any person found in a hospital who cannot make a good account of them selves is guilty of a crime

any person accepting money or gifts from a nurse is guilty of the crime of living of the avails of nursin

sextion 239- criminal code of canada- it shall be illegal to force any person under the age of 18 to become a logger. any person trasporting a person under the age of 18 to a logging camp is guilty of a crime.

again for the thousndth time, we are not looking for special treatment, we want an open an accountable industry.

and martin- legalisation and decriminalization are very different. if we are going to talk about different models it is important we stick to facts. legalisation is encountering problems all over the place. but to label these countries as decrim is not really acurate. crimanal code provisions still exist in those countries.

to be clear, i do not support exploitation of youth or represent traffickers as i am sure will follow this post. i agree we should hold men purchasing services of trafficked or underage people accountable. i am an independent active sex worker and support choices and safety for workers.

susan davis susan davis's picture

and martin, i have never switched sides during all of this banter, it is people opposed to decrim who like to manipulate the facts. legalization is not decrim and i have never supported legalization.

i have never asked for the sex industry to be able to run unchecked, i have never been paid to be a proprostitution lobbiest, i represent workers, not business owners.

i like how you constsntly try to infer i am somehow going to profit or represent traffickers. i really makes me feel welcome. i represent workers, i have a right to be heard and i have a right to be protected from arbitrary attacks upon my honor and reputation.

you know i do not represent business owners. you know i wish to empower workers and give the choices. stop trying to infer otherwise...please. it hurts my feelings.

as a person pretensing to be an expert on prostitution, i would think you would understnad the difference between decrim and legalization. please read the partliamentry subcommittees report, it explains the difference very well.

canadian sex workers support decriminalzation and accountability in the sex industry

Nicole D

Nicole D wrote:

I often feel like the split of 'sex-workers' versus 'abolitionists' is so false and misleading and it ignores the hard-won voices of so many women with experience in prostitution who have found incredible validation through abolitionist feminist analysis.

Susan, when I read your posts, I often see you promote this false idea. I just thought I'd bring your attention to it. You act as if you represent all women with 'experience', and you simply do not.

susan davis wrote:

and who do you represent? i have stated numbers of workers i represent....

I represent myself. I live as a woman in this society and that I have spent my life in poverty as such, and all that that entails. I have known and worked with women who have experience in the sex industries for over 20 years.

susan davis wrote:

my voice is just as valid and we have a right to be heard,i never said that abolition is wrong, in fact i said it is a nobel goal. i am dealing with the on going slaughter of my community and am not hiding behind a political view as if it will change the reality on the ground for sex workers. history has shown what attempts to "end sex work" has done to the safety and stability of vancouver sex workers.

i will promote my ideas and they are not false and i do represent a significant number of sex workers.

I agree that your voice is just as valid as mine or anyone else's. I didn't say your ideas are false. I said that to imply that you represent women with experience in the industries and that abolitionists do not, is false.

I know many women who are abolitionists, and many who are pro-decrim and on both sides there are women with experience; I have met many ex-prostitutes who are against the industry and see it as terrible, and I have to say that most pro-decrim folks I have met do not have experience. So, what I've seen is that pro-decrim is the mainstream, and most often proposed by people who don't have lived experience within. You of course, are an important exception to that.

I think many people who are aware of the slaughter of prostituted women feel passionately for or against the idea of decrim exactly because none of us want more women killed or harmed. It's just that we disagree on what will bring about safety.

But the desire to end the institution of prostituting women does not come from those detached from the reality of violence at all - it comes from women with experience, women who work in shelters, etc. That's my point.

susan davis wrote:

thanks for trying to make me look like a liar though. i appreciate it.

I really think the idea here is to debate ideas, and I'm sorry if it seemed to you that I was trying to make you look like a liar. I know that so many of us as women struggle to be seen as having value for our ideas, and I eally don't want you to think that I'm trying to make you look bad. I think responding to your post means I DO notice your perspective and want to debate or discuss part of them. You have a very powerful voice in Vancouver and Canada, whether you acknowledge or feel that or not, and many people believe what you say at face value because you are a sex-worker. I, on the other hand, see you as an equal, and see your ideas as fair to challenge.

susan davis wrote:

i think  will start trying to impose myself on other workers during negotiations with unions or employers and state that i do not need experince in their industry or job to have a valuable opinion or critique and that i should allowed to heard in negotiations. i am a worker so i have a right to impose what i believe is right for all nurses, loggers, car manufacturers...

if we are all entitled to do it, then so will i.

...

ridiculous right?

No, I don't think it's ridiculous. If your personal safety and wellbeing, and that of your children and community is affected by something then I absolutely think it's okay to add your voice to the discussion. Prostitution doesn't exist in a bubble, it affects all of us, those of us who are doing it, have done it, and those who live in a world where it's accepted.

susan davis wrote:

so please, enlighten me....how many workersdo you represent and what is your position? accept to undermine my credibility?

I don't think my comments undermine your credibility. I think it would strengthen your credibility quite a bit if you were clear that you represent some sex-workers, and that others disagree with you.

susan davis susan davis's picture

i have always acknowledged others experiences, where have i not? i have stated repeatedly that i am trying to bring mine and many others workers perspectives to the table. abolition is no the only side.

i have stated how many workers i represent and feel my credibility is not in jeodardy. i have an obligation to represent my constituency as they have asked me to. i have never dismissed other women perspectives but constsntly and consistently abolitionists try to undermine mine. casting me as a representative of organized crime, as wanting to open "olympic brothels" for wanting to round workers up into brothels , for trying to profit some how from women's abuse, as being the author of reports i didn't write, as not representing sex workers., that  am some a-list escort who has never experienced any pain

i am stating only that not all workers experiences in the sex industry are represented by the abolitionist position and that that position has caused wide spread harm to sex workers in canada. the only perspective on babble prior to my comng here was abolitionist .

the only other representative of sex workers to post here is an ex sex worker who is a very public abolitionist. where do they respect my experience? or the experiences of workers who have never experienced violence in the sex industry? where are the coments on how many of the "facts" they state being debunked?

always, abolitionists choose to ignore our perspective and tote their position as the only correct approach.never has there been any discsussion in which abolitionists respect our experiences and choice.

we all want to abolish violence and exploitation  in the sex industry but exclusion of the prespective of workers who are active and happy in their jobs will only create the gaps abolitionists are trying to prevent.

working with sex workers who are street entrenched survival sex workers does not give you a clear perspective of our industry. those workers comprise 10 to 15% of the overall industry. to base future legalframe work based solely on the experiences of people working on the street or who have experienced violence will a disaster for the remaining 90% of workers in our industry.

we are working towards an open and transparent system for sex industry governance. no one wants to keep it behind closed doors, we want the exact opposite. accountability, for bad business owners, traffickers, exploiters of youth, men who purchase the services of youth or trafficked women, as well as accountability for the systems in charge of our protection or lack there of.

people act as if it is entirely the fault of the sex industry that the situation has degraded as badly as it has.

what about the social workers who deny young women access to support and tell them"you're pretty...become a stripper" or victims compensation denying sex workers access to support becuase we cannot attribute our trauma to one particular event...you know, raped too much, unsaveable....truely helpful as a policy.

or the police man who told me to my face he would risk the safety of an adult consentual sex worker if he thought it could save a youth or the police woman who refused to take a bad date report from my friend who was later mutilated and murdered in the hotel where we lived?

or where were child and family services when my girlfriends pimp crushed her child's head while beating her?

where are the systems who are supposed to protect us?

you all blame the consumers and the sex industry itself, but maybe the system at large should take a good long look in the mirror and examine how we have all contributed to this disaster for my community.

we do not want to be placed in a bubble, we want equal treatment and to not be treated like criminals. we want safe and satbile work environments and support for workers rights. we want people to have access tothe tools to make safe decisions about their work, we want people to access to unbiased supports and the choice to exit if they so desire.

did you read any of the other threads about all this? my position is clear, safety, dignity and stability.

remind remind's picture

Now...I am bringing a most excellent observation of Stargazer's over here from the sex worker's rights forum, as I do not want to interrupt the flow going in that thread, between those who have lived experiences, as I feel that this point needs addressing in a societal contract way and I bellieve  that is what Stargazer is stating she wants to happen to.

stargazer wrote:
As we saw with stripping, things are getting worse and more and more sexual demands are made on the women and men doing this job. Not so with prostitution. It would be nice if the stripping business could get cleaned up in the sense that women who need to make the money can at least do so without having to masterbate a man for 20 dollars. It would be amazing if stripping also fell under the term sex work and became a regulated industry (and I don't mean the way it is now, but the way susan was outlining) so women did not have to do these things if they didn't chose to and they couldd still make money.

I'm not entirely sure if you're stating these two jobs are entirely different to prove some kind of point (if so I'd like to hear it so I can address it) or if you truly believe there is really any difference, sort of stripping being legal. Maybe you would like there to be distinct differences because stripping is legal, and you don't want protitution decrimninalized, I don't know. But any sex act done in exchange for money constitutes prostitution, regardless of where it happens (a club, someone's house, a hotel, an alley).

Stripping does fall under the term sex worker, it is a legal occupation with an Industry of Canada number, they pay taxes and access the social safety net.

In BC there are no lap dances allowed, or touching, or even blowing in public venues.

To allow this to happen, would mean that health and safety regulations are NOT being met in public settings. Nor labour codes for that industry sector.

As such, should disease transmission occur, by physical contact, and exchange of bodily fluids, the employer would have allowed WCB, and health regulations to be broken, and they would be liable for fines, and law suits. And of course would face business closure.

Thus exotic dancers and strippers in BC, do not have to do the things they do not want to do, indeed they are not allowed by law, correctly so,

Breaking health and safety laws is not allowed in any other job sector, nor should it, nor will it be, in this sector.

 

It can't be.

 

This the distinction, between prostitution and exotic dancing, and you outlined it excellently, Stargazer.

So this brings us back full circle, to  what front line sex work/prostitution is, and how it is different from non-exchange of body fluid, sex work.

And we can see that  it is actually, the aspect of the exchange of body fluids.

Once that dynamic is in play, everything shifts legally, into a differing frame.

 

I, as a nurse, do not get to run around wilfully exposing patients, whom I am providing care services to,  to any infectious disease I might have, just because I am allergic to latex gloves. Either I wear gloves, or I do not work in that field. I would be stripped of licensing, union certification and most likely sued, if I lied and said I did not have a infectious disease, did not take the necessary industry standard precautions and gave it to someone else.

Moreover, if I do have a infectious disease, I am also restricted to what types of care I can provide to whomever, even if I do wear  gloves. There is no working with in neonatal units, there is no working with compromised immune systens, and there is no working in surgical units. The risks to other's safety is too great.

ALL people have the right to expect to be given societal contract rights, that ALL others have.

Therefore, making prostitution legal means, that ALL, health and safety standards for public service provision must be adhered to, as well as industry job descriptions.

It cannot function as a state sanctioned industry otherwise,  unless of course it has been falsely recognized as non-regulatable. I say false because it is easily regulatable, and it has to be.

Why?

Otherwise, society is stating that some people, not all, can be compelled to give their lives into the service of others.

As that is what no health regulations means, someone can legally and literally give a front line sex worker a life threatening disease against that person's will, and indeed consent.

 

Men fall under testing restriction on their lives all the time and still manage to adhere to them, why should they not in this cause to?

They have to pass piss tests, hep tests, TB tests, AIDs, measels tests, adding STD tests to that is no big deal.

 

I think it is disrespectful to men, and  treating them like children, to insist that they can't and won't.   And therefore shouldn't have to be tested, like they are in every other area of their life, to ensure  health safety regulations are being met, just for starters.

 

 

 

 

Snert Snert's picture

You note the various precautions that you, as a health care worker, must take.  Do patients have similar precautions that they must take?

As an example, I know that some health care workers are obligated to get regular TB tests.  But are all patients similarly obligated?  Must they have the results of their negative TB test in hand before coming to the ER?

Because I'm thinking that there could be precautions that sex workers are required to take (eg: regular STD testing) but it's harder to imagine how customers could be forced to take those same precautions.

skdadl

Are there lawyers who post to babble? There must be some.

 

I think this discussion could use a cool-headed articulation of the differences among constitutional principles, levels of statutory law, industrial and other regulations, and public-health powers, which in limited circumstances (a pandemic, eg) can become quite draconian.

 

There are claims being made here about the universal applicability of industrial regulations that seem less than believable to me, but I am NAL. I'm just sending up the caution.

 

It sounds to me as though Susan Davis has already worked her way pretty far through this thicket but others haven't. That's why I ask.

Stargazer

Snert wrote:

You note the various precautions that you, as a health care worker, must take.  Do patients have similar precautions that they must take?

As an example, I know that some health care workers are obligated to get regular TB tests.  But are all patients similarly obligated?  Must they have the results of their negative TB test in hand before coming to the ER?

Because I'm thinking that there could be precautions that sex workers are required to take (eg: regular STD testing) but it's harder to imagine how customers could be forced to take those same precautions.

 

I posted pretty much the exact same question in another thread (and also added a clarification regarding a bad john list). You're absolutely right. There is not the same onus on a client who enters into any type of professional relationship. Clients do not have to have flu shots in order to be treated by a nurse., for example

martin dufresne

Snert: I know that some health care workers are obligated to get regular TB tests. But are all patients similarly obligated?

Health care authorities are indeed entitled to enforce obligations on patients. For instance, you will currently be quickly sent home if you present to a hospital with symptoms of a highly contagious disease, e.g. the A(H1N1) flu.

Besides, the analogy between would-be buyers of elective sexual services - because of their disposable income - and truly needy health patients is a bit far-fetched. I don't think anyone needs to elaborate.

The element that constantly gets swept under the carpet in this limited - allegedly pragmatic - perspective of prostitution as work is the fact that the demand for paid access to women's sexuality is quite elastic, and that we are entitled to discourage it - as has been done in Nordic countries - when it is found to create substantial harm to individuals and society.

Conversely, a maximum openness policy has been seen to multiply that (male) demand exponentially, as has happened in economically devastated countries taken over by sex tourism activities and corporate investments, such as Thailand, where up to 70% of males have become consumers over the last few decades.

So, inevitability arguments just don't seem evidence-based. We can and should take responsibility, and not treat prostitution as some necessary evil that "isn't going anywhere". It was devolved in the countries where the women's movement worked with all parties to create a better consensus than the decriminalized free-for-all that the industry was pushing for. Other social ills have been checked in the past: there is no dearth of historical models of standing up to an oppressive system, even when it argues disadvantaged minorities' "consent".

 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

Health care authorities are indeed entitled to enforce obligations on patients. For instance, you will currently be quickly sent home if you present to a hospital with symptoms of a highly contagious disease, e.g. the A(H1N1) flu.

 

Yes, if your illness is visible to the naked eye. But you won't be tested for it, nor will you be required to present evidence of having been tested.

 

Quote:
Besides, the analogy between would-be buyers of elective sexual services - because of their disposable income - and truly needy health patients is a bit far-fetched.

 

Nonsense. Disposable income?? What on earth is that supposed to have to do with being tested for disease? I'm just pointing out that duties of care typically apply to the provider, not the customer. As such, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the day when men must get a battery of tests in order to qualify for their "sex buyer" licence (which must be presented prior to any commercial sex act). This loophole won't hunt.

skdadl

Quote:
For instance, you will currently be quickly sent home if you present to a hospital with symptoms of a highly contagious disease, e.g. the A(H1N1) flu.

 

Well, as anyone who had close contact with the SARS epidemic in Toronto knows, that varies with the circumstances.

 

Depending on how bad things get, the hospital may decide to close its doors and keep you indefinitely. If public health kicks in, anything may happen. I called it draconian above, and I meant that. I came *this* close to losing contact with my husband for three months in 2003, and neither one of us had SARS.

 

Public-health departments are not your friend. They are necessary (if clunky) in emergencies, but they are an obvious offence in the sight of democracy, and they need much more strict policing than they get now.

martin dufresne

Public health departments are at least accountable to elected officials. I see no justification for excepting from vital controls the patrons of a self-alleged "industry" that wishes to be as profitable as possible, damn the human lives being threatened. There ought to be some limits to "pragmatism" as a principle.

For instance,  I recently attended an awareness-raising workshop at Université du Québec à Montréal, given by the STELLA organization, the main proponent in Quebec of the full decriminalization hard line. Whan a woman asked the facilitator (a sex industry operative) "What if I tell the escort agency I won't do blow jobs without a condom?", her answer was a curt "You won't get many referrals."

This from an organization that gets public funding in hundreds of thousands of dollars to convey HIV prevention/safer sex messages...

Infosaturated

remind wrote:
In BC there are no lap dances allowed, or touching, or even blowing in public venues.

To allow this to happen, would mean that health and safety regulations are NOT being met in public settings. Nor labour codes for that industry sector.......Thus exotic dancers and strippers in BC, do not have to do the things they do not want to do, indeed they are not allowed by law, correctly so,

Given that strip clubs can openly flout the law I don't see how legalized pimps and brothels would be controlled especially as other countries have shown their inability to impose controls.

http://www.martiniboys.com/Vancouver/The-Cecil-nightlife.html

Welcome to Showgirls mania. You can find Elizabeth Berkley wannabes going crazy on stage, taking off their clothes, dancing on poles and giving lap dances all for a price, of course.

http://www.yelp.ca/biz/number-five-orange-vancouver#hrid:SBb3mwJ0UKpEwim...

The beer is a little expensive, but the price of bare breasts needs to be offset somewhere. Incidentally, a lap dance goes for $40, but if you wander the neighborhood you can probably find more for less.

http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Robert-Pattinson-Falls-For-Stripper-493104.html

Forget Kristen Stewart or Nikki Reed, Robert Pattinson has reportedly fallen under the spell of an exotic dancer called Kendra.

When he's not filming Twilight sequel New Moon , the actor has been enjoying the view at Brandi's Exotic Nightclub in Vancouver, it's claimed.
Apparently he has taken a shine to one dancer in particular, a curvy stripper
who gave him a private lap dance on his first visit.
An inside source tells Star magazine: “She’s very pretty and...

http://www.paramountgirls.com/

Our upscale atmosphere and grand dimensions make the Paramount like no other in British Columbia and Canada. Most strip clubs prohibit any form of contact but because of the Paramount’s unique situation you can get a true lap dance.

Specials . . .

If you see a girl that you like ask your waitress to send her over.

 

Lap Dances are $25 each

Or

Five Dances for $100

 

If you see two girls you like and can’t decide then take them both

Duo Show - Two girls for Two songs $100

 

VIP Platinum Room

  • Half hour with your favorite girl $200
  • One Hour of pleasure $300
  • Half Hour Duo $300

remind remind's picture

Snert wrote:
You note the various precautions that you, as a health care worker, must take.  Do patients have similar precautions that they must take?

Excellent question snert, and very applicable.

Yes they do.

The more easily contractable the disease is, the more adherence to extended safety regulations patients have to abide by. Including being locked into a quarantine room, if they keep leaving an open door one, when they are not allowed to.

Customers in restaurants and food service places, must wear shoes and shirts,  and yes it is another comparable customer compliance to public health safety regulations, that all people must meet, and do meet.

Just because you want to dash quickly into a restaurant and pick up take out food for example, without shoes and a shirt on, does not mean you get to. Because ya don't, and nobody takes exception to this, as it is recognized as reasonable conduct in a public context, that intersects with personl liberties.

Quote:
As an example, I know that some health care workers are obligated to get regular TB tests.  But are all patients similarly obligated?  Must they have the results of their negative TB test in hand before coming to the ER?

All health care workers are obligated to get TB tests, not just some. All patients are obligated by law to disclose any infectious diseases that they know they have.

That is why patients fill out forms in Drs offices, clinics, ER's and hopitals, attesting to the known state their state health, in both past and present. If you have had TB in the past, it has to be noted. If you have AIDs or are HIV positive it has to be noted, so too if you have Hep and know it, it has to be noted. Genital herpes as well.

That is what those personal health questionaires you fill out are for, in the most part. They register you officially in the system. Do you think Drs and dentists get you to fill those out just so they can waste paper, and because they are snoopy?

You lie, and  leaving out known info is lying, and a worker or another patient gets a disease  from you, you are legally culpable, not the Drs office etc...and not just civil suite wise, but criminallly liable too. Because had full disclosure, as required by law, been given, proceedures would have been put in place that would have prevented transmisson. And you have criminally taken away people's right to protect themselves and to be fully informed of the risks to their personal safety.

When you take occupational safety courses, you learn that you cannot be forced to give artificial respiration to someone, without mouth to mouth safety protection devices, if you do not know their status, communicable disease transmission wise. Nor do you have to handle someone if they are bleeding, or excreting fluid of some type, and you do not have gloves.

Quote:
Because I'm thinking that there could be precautions that sex workers are required to take (eg: regular STD testing) but it's harder to imagine how customers could be forced to take those same precautions.

They would be forced to take those same precautions, just as patients are now, with legally binding full disclosure forms having to be filled out, for past and present  health recordings. Lies and disease transmissions leads to criminal actions and civil actions, being taken against the client, just as it would a  patient who failed to disclose what they knew and thus  threatened the lives of health care workers and other patients.

Setting regulations around how often the health record has to be updated  in order to be legally binding can be made along with having to have a initial STD check  taken out, so  safety certification can be given.

This could, and would have to, be done along the lines of a Food Safe course, or  a occupational safety course, and of course STD testing would be just like the obligatory piss tests employees have to do.

Sex is NOT some mystical state that has to be protected.

 

When you take sexual intercourse, of any type, that exchanges, or could exchange, body fluids, into the public realm, as part of the social contract, then it becomes exactly the same, as any other similar industry where body fluid exhange is possible, governed by the same rules and regulations, it has to.

Or it is not "work" at all, it is slavery. As there are those who exist without job protections and access to the social safety net that others do.

 

So, you can see,  if society allows an unregulated job industry to happen,  when all others are, then it has legally conceded that slavery has a right to exist.

 

People really,  really need to think about all of this, and what it means  for us  all, it can't stay the way it is, so we must clearly look at, and understand, what the impacts could be to everyone, if addressing impulse sex buying by men, is done the wrong way.

 

And I use impulse buying as a sub category specifically, as I do not believe that men, who prefer to, or have to for whatever reason,  purchase sexual access, would have a problem with adhering to set industry standards. As those industry standards would protect them as consumers of services as well. And I believe it is this demographic that willing front line sex workers could exist in safely, as a unionized trade.

The reason why I believe this is, most men I know  and see are reasonable people, the majority follow societal contract demands  in the public realm, all the time.

They do not go to work drunk, they do not make unreasonable demands upon health care workers, or other workers, they care about their own health safety, they fill out they medical history forms as required by law, they take piss tests if their job compells them, they wear seat belts, helmuts on bikes, and wear  shirts and shoes in restaurants....why would they be any different in this context?

Thus it is the impulse consumers who would be the issue around non-adherence to regulations.

E.Tamaran

Is hardcore pornography a form of prostitution? The actors (perhaps "performers" would be a better term) are paid to have sex. The only difference is that it's filmed.

remind remind's picture

skdadl wrote:
Public-health departments are not your friend. They are necessary (if clunky) in emergencies, but they are an obvious offence in the sight of democracy, and they need much more strict policing than they get now.

Though I appreciate, your circumstance with your beloved husband  at that time, we must keep our personal triggers out of  deliberations.

And in your case even, it seems to me, that because you only came *this* close to it, that measures and procedures were pretty well balanced between personal and public  safety rights.

In fact, most everyone would have a hard time accepting such a broad statement that public health departments are not our friends. I could not imagine society without them, it would be chaos and  a massive disaster.

Nor do I believe they are an "obvious offence in the sight of democracy", and you really have to detail those types of thoughts out, so we can see what exactly you mean, or they are just empty, thought and dsicussion terminating cliches, at best.

Like Tommy, I believe public health care upholds democracy principles.

 

"More strict policing", would that not be an offense to democracy, as you have just defined it? Not that I want an answer mind you, as it is just a continuation of your off topic drift into the alleged crimes of public health care.

 

Slumberjack

Is this teaching, or learning....or perhaps a bit of both?

Infosaturated

Slumberjack wrote:

Is this teaching, or learning....or perhaps a bit of both?

I'm not sure.  I am kind of puzzled about discussing specifics on regulation before determining if regulations could even be successfully imposed on the sex industry given the widespread failure to do so in Canada and around the world. Strip clubs aren't following regulations now, exotic dancers claim police fail to protect them, why would pimps and brothels follow the rules?

It's much easier to offer immunity to prostitutes and shut down the pimps and brothels.

skdadl

remind wrote:

And in your case even, it seems to me, that because you only came *this* close to it, that measures and procedures were pretty well balanced between personal and public  safety rights.

 

No, actually. It was sheer dumb luck. The story is private, but it involves a stupid nurse at a private nursing home and a very smart, very angry doctor at TGH, to whom I will be forever grateful. Never met the guy, but thanks.

Pages

Topic locked