Terri Jean Bedford case at the Supreme Court of Canada

163 posts / 0 new
Last post

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:
Back to the thread. Part of the significant problems with the NZ. Swedish and German systems is that they are used I conjunction with immigration deportations.Sex workers who are undocumented migrants are deported. This also puts their safety at risk.


I thought Germany had a system for allowing migrant sex workers to get the permission for working in Germany.  Don't quote me on it because i saw it as part of a news story.     I believe that one of the main reasons for promoting the Swedish model in Sweden was specifically to deal with migrant workers, and more specifically those of African origins.    Many of the migrant workers were street workers, so were even more visible.    A lot of prostitution related laws are mostly concerned with street work, mostly because that is what can be seen and being seen is what people object to.     If everything was indoors, there probably would be anyone interested in legislation for protection reasons.   

I think anyone coming into any country with the intention of working without the proper documentation is wrong.  I don't see any reason to except sex workers.   if a guy from Ireland can't come to Canada to work at Whistler without a work visa, then neither should any sex worker coming from Thailand.    If he gets deported, they should get deported.  he hasn't got access to any more money or resources than they do, and he is just as deceitful for coming into the country as they are.   Both take jobs from Canadians or legally documented migrant workers.   i have no sympathy for either one of them.    


susan davis wrote:

quizzical wrote:

fortunate wrote:
.  It's 'sick' as mentioned by quizzical.  


this is an absolute fabrication on your part i never said a fkn word about "sick" you retract this asap or i'm will make a report to the mods about you slandering me.

hey fortunate, does this remind you of anyone else....? lol


yes indeed lol.   and she is STILL doing it, lol


look jas changed her post it's immediately above mine the "dirty" still remains but she took "sickos" out and replaced it.

stop attacking because i was quoting someone else.



For those who think that outspoken sex workers are a minority, and abnormal, check out the comments section in this link




A small portion of the comments by the signers of the petition are shown, and click more for older posts.  



In Toronto we have been pushing for a don't ask policy for good Samaritans or others asking for safety or health request from municipal services so that undocumented residents will seek help.


<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:
In Toronto we have been pushing for a don't ask policy for good Samaritans or others asking for safety or health request from municipal services so that undocumented residents will seek help.


That is a good policy.   It is unfortunate that some of the migrant workers work under the radar, not accessible.  We have a group that visits the mostly asian massage parlours, distributes information, and has worked hard to gain the trust of both the workers and the management.   But no one can really access the illegal home based mini brothels that are set up with migrant workers, no one except clients.    




This is a pretty good article that covers a lot of things.




The immediate result of turning (pseudo-)scientific inquiry upon sex was that taking money for it was no longer considered merely something that “unladylike” or “sinful” women did for a living or extra income; instead, the “prostitute” was defined into existence as a specific type of woman, separate and distinct from other women.2  For most of the century the prevailing view was that women who took money for sex were congenitally defective, but in the 1880s the idea arose that most or even all were forced into the profession by evil men.3  It was about this time that “avails” laws started to appear, under the rationale of “protecting” women from exploitation by such men. 

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the “white slavery” hysteria was in full swing.  Progressives were determined to “rescue” women from the clutches of the “pimps” who were abducting them by the thousands from homes, railway stations, and dance halls, and for the first time in history the act of taking money for sex was itself criminalized on a large scale.  In the United States, it was illegal almost nowhere in 1909, but almost everywhere by the end of 1914.  The sociological reasons for this hysteria are outside the scope of this essay,4 but the reader may wish to compare the current moral panic over sex work with the one of a century ago, and recognize that both eras were characterized by widespread fears over immigration and the sexual behavior of young women.  Laws which had never been considered even advisable were now considered indispensable, and that opinion is still the prevailing one in most of the world today.

The common belief in criminalization and legalization regimes is that sex work is unique among all forms of work; this view is solidly rooted in an archaic and sexist view of women as particularly fragile and vulnerable, and the “Swedish model” posits that paying for sex is a form of male violence against women.  This is why only the act of payment is de jure prohibited: the woman is legally defined as being unable to give valid consent, just as an adolescent girl is in the crime of statutory rape.  The man is thus defined as morally superior to the woman; he is criminally culpable for his decisions, but she is not.  In one case, a 17-year-old boy (a legal minor in Sweden) was convicted under the law, thus establishing that in the area of sex, adult women are less competent than male children. 

One would expect that feminists would be vehemently opposed to a law that so thoroughly infantilizes women, but it was first enacted in 1999 under pressure from state feminists; its radical feminist supporters in Sweden and other countries seem wholly oblivious to its insulting and demeaning assumptions about women’s agency.  Nor is the damage caused by this remarkably bad legislation limited to dangerous precedent; despite unsupported claims by the Swedish government to the contrary, the law has been demonstrated to increase both violence and stigma against sex workers, to make it more difficult for public health workers to contact them, to subject them to increased police harassment and surveillance, to shut them out of the country’s much-vaunted social welfare system, and to dramatically decrease the number of clients willing to report suspected exploitation to the police (due to informants’ justified fear of prosecution).  Furthermore, these laws don’t even do what they were supposed to do; neither the incidence of sex work (voluntary or coerced) nor the attitude of the public toward it has changed measurably in any country (Sweden, Norway and Iceland) where they have been enacted.




And this is an article that exposes both the lie of the law having reduced the sex trade itself, as well as the lie that trafficking (bringing in migrant workers, willing or not) has decreased (or vanished).




I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. The picture that advocates of the Swedish model are painting outside of Sweden is clearly very different to the realityinside Sweden. Furthermore, the Swedes don’t seem unaware that they still have significant issues with prostitution and sex trafficking – they just don’t want the rest of the world to know about it. And so, they send their spokespersons out to lobby for the sex purchase ban in other countries, by making claims that are directly contradictedby their own officials in their own media. And credulous moralists and anti-sex work feminists swallow it wholesale, no questions asked.

What’s the Swedish for “con job”?





I questioned the bald assertion by Stockholm Police Department Detective Inspector Jonas Trolle that it is “impossible to run a brothel in Sweden” thanks to the country’s sex purchase ban.

Now we have this article in which no less than the head of the anti-trafficking section in the very same police department laments that there may, in fact, be a brothel on every Stockholm corner:

Police and the tax authorities have launched closer surveillance of Thai massage parlours in the country, suspecting that the sharp increase in their number indicates sex trafficking and tax evasion…

“We also hear of and witness other, more advanced sexual services, which means that you may soon wonder if we have a brothel on every or every other street corner,” said Ewa Carlenfors, head of the section against trafficking at Stockholm police




An analysis of the Netherlands which is very detailed.    




the number of detected victims actually remained fairly steady for a few years after the law reform, and in fact was significantly lower in 2003 than it was in 2000. Bear in mind, these are only detected victims, and the actual number could have varied in either direction. But on the face of it the numbers don’t seem to support the claim that legalisation itself is behind the increase. You might expect there to be some lag in the law’s effects, but a sharp increase after an initial slump strongly suggests there’s something else going on there.

The real spike in the numbers occurred after 2005, and it should be apparent from the shape of the curve that something significant happened at that point. Sure enough: in 2005 the Dutch law on trafficking was amended, to cover non-sexual labour and the trade in organs as well (previously it had only applied to sex trafficking). So, a certain amount of that increase has nothing to do with the sex industry. How much of it? Well, on pages 174-175 the total number of victims specifically linked to the sex sector in the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 is given as 338, 473 and 419 respectively





This article may be more appropriate in the police state topic on a different section:




It is difficult to estimate whether the law has helped to reduce the amount of sale of sexual services in Norway, but there is little doubt that the law has contributed to a significant weakening of prostitutes’ rights. The law has led to women in prostitution now experiencing a major invasion of privacy. This happens for example when the police reveal sensitive information to homeowners and hotels, or when the police deliberately carry out their operations with the press in tow so that the woman’s identity will be published in the media (pion Annual Report 2010).

Previous research and current surveying shows that women in prostitution are highly vulnerable to various forms of violence and abuse (Bjorn Dahl and Nordli 2008). The sex-purchase law has helped to raise the threshold to report violence and abuse, so abuse now increasingly remains unannounced and with impunity. There are also clear indications that the extent of violence has increased (PION Annual Report 2010).

Despite the fact that there is no prohibition against the sale of sexual services in Norway, women in street prostitution are chased away from the street by the police with the message that they encourage criminal activity. The health situation of many women in prostitution is exacerbated, in part because many are now reluctant to have contact with service providers. The buying-sex act seems to have contributed to the development of a service with significant health risks for women in prostitution, including sex without using condoms. There are reports of an increase in the number of pregnant women and STD, especially chlamydia and gonorrhea (Pro Centre Annual Report 2010).

A vulnerable group that has been further marginalized by the introduction of the sex-purchase law is female migrants, with and without legal residence status, who often lack basic knowledge of Norwegian, networks and relevant education. This is also the group that has experienced the biggest obstacles to getting out of prostitution and into regular employment.




The simple fact is that even if the sex purchase ban worked to prevent sex trafficking to Sweden, there is no reason to believe it has prevented a single person from being trafficked. None whatsoever. It is not, in any sense of the matter, a solution to the trafficking problem. And it is diverting people’s energies from looking for real solutions. Trafficked persons, and persons at risk of being trafficked, deserve better than being told we’re “helping” them by trying only to keep them out of our country


I admire much of what Jimmy Carter has done since leaving the presidency - but this morning, he's on CBC radio The Current, and he just expressed his hope that Canada adopts the Nordic model.

Thanks for the advice, Mr. President!

Even so, the book he's talking about ("A Call to Action") sounds light years more progressive, from a feminist standpoint, than anything any U.S. politician would dare pronounce. It's a low bar, but still.