Sex workers require better protection

That's a great arcticle. From what I've been hearing, everyones getting pretty caught up in the more grisly sensational aspects of this case, and talking about the accused.

Whoever committed these crimes is obvously a pretty pathological person, but the real crime is how these women went missing for so long, and how friends and relatives asked for help but were rebuffed. No one with power gave a damn until they were facing public embarrasment.

The G&M ran a poll Monday - which is closed now, I think - and the results were interesting:

For the safety of all concerned, should Canada legalize and regulate brothels?

Yes (65%) 27961 votes
No (35%) 14994 votes
Total votes: 42955

I'm glad that the Picton trial is raising issues about safety and prostitution, but I'm concerned about the conflating of the issues of 1. Women who are devalued because they work in the sex trade. This includes not only prostitution but women who work as strippers, etc, in clubs. And 2. The issue of helping women who want to get out of prostitution to do so.

The reality that women who work as prostitutes are not valued is something that the women are, of course, painfully aware of. Davies' comment that current laws and "selective law enforcement" leads to women working the streets being more vulnerable is a fucking understatement.

I'm concerned when these two issues are conflated, as it adds to the mythology of women who are sex trade workers as only victims, and it further marginalizes such women as "those women". The rest of us are presumed to be respectable women, than? Until we too don't meet some patriarchal standard? Bullshit.

What infuriates me about this is that many more women were killed because of police inaction and of societal indifference.

And Nanuq, legalizing prostitution may not solve all the issues facing sex workers, but it sure as shit would solve a lot of them, saving lives in the meantime.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

double post edited out

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

[url=http://www.missingpeople.net/mayor.htm]This goes back to April of 1999.[/url]

At that time, Mayor Phillip Owen, also chair of the Police Board, seemed to have changed his mind under some very public pressure from friends and families.

His previous position was summed up as follows:

quote:

---

...Owen had given the impression he wasn't in favour of a substantial reward in the cases of the missing women. He had said there was no evidence of a serial killer at work and he wouldn't finance "a location service" for hookers.

---

This was after the Board had issued a $100,000 reward regarding a series of property offences in a more affluent area.

Palamedes, I'm a bit concerned with how you've framed some of this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
Even if there is a way around brothels, the majority will still prefer safe environments and prostitutes that are free of disease.

---

Just to be clear, I don't care about the service users, only the service providers. In the case of women working as prostitues with male customers, the women are the ones at risk. That's of course the whole point of this discussion, and why Pickton was allowed to continue his behaviour for what appears to be an extended period of time. This has never been about the customers.

quote:

---

Yes, there will be unregulated women/girls who are either diseased/underage/don't follow the rules - but I think the majority would go to brothels if confidentiality could be assured.

---

Again, I'm seriously not giving a shit about customers, and most sex workers insist on safe sex, because it's their bodies after all, and the majority aren't stupid or "in it for the money and will engage in risky behaviour" as you seem to be implying. Calling the women "diseased" is a gigantic assumption (who do you imagine gave them such diseases? Their disease-ridden johns dontcha know.) Please eduate yourself. Starting with Maggies or CORPS (Coalition for the Rights of Prostitutes) are good places to start. I'll fill the links in later.

And, again, I don't give a damn about the confidentiality of the johns, nor is that the main reason that legalization is a good idea.

quote:

---

At one time, people didn't believe that alcohol could be regulated - that the underground would exist - and you know, if you really wanted to - you could go out and buy some underground stuff a lot cheaper - but you don't see too many people doing it.

---

That's a good point. See I can be positive too!

There are things that could go a long way to help, like legalizing brothels, for one.

But, it's no panacea, as pointed out.

The panacea is to create a society that doesn't celebrate the exploitation of the powerless by the powerful, and revel in the availability of disposable people.

But since we're a few years away from accomplishing this, creating safe work places for all women should help.

so when the police implied that these woman were not tax payers did that mean that they never bought anything?

Taht they never paid GST?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling_Jenn:
[b]...should be looking at why it took so long for the police to act.
...70 women went missing over 20 years and no one thought to investigate?..[/b]

---

This recent [url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070324/sex_workers... story[/url] mentions that 7 years ago a not-for-profit facility, which included a room sex workers could use (for a fee), was opened by activist Jamie Lee Hamilton. A [url=http://24.85.225.7/PACE2/docs/pdf/House_Rules_Vancouver_Magazine-April_2... Vancouver magazine story[/url] went into more detail.

quote:

---

Amid prostitutes' belief that a serial killer was stalking the Downtown Eastside, in 1999 Hamilton opened Pandora's Box, a storefront at the edge of the "Low Track" prostitute stroll. The place was a registered charity, advertising "safe room rentals" -- from zero to $15 a day, no questions asked.
Within a few months... She was arrested.

---

Yet the article points out other well-known brothels in Vancouver have been operating for years. Susan Davis named some of them when [url=http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?COM=0&SourceId=127... spoke to the parliamentary subcommittee[/url]. In the magazine article, the VPD vice squad guy weakly defends this highly questionable selective law enforcement by claiming the tolerated brothels earn so much money that they could easily afford to pay any fines.

Could the situation involve something more directly dishonest than apathy, incompetence, and negligence? In addition to causing more harm than good, the outdated laws can support a corrupt system, as was found in more than one part of Australia before their laws were reformed.
[url=http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/extras/oq/book10lewis.html]link[/url]

quote:

---

The inquiry and (police commissioner) Lewis's subsequent trial showed he had been deeply involved in protection of illegal brothels and had taken more than $600,000...

---

[url=http://www.geocities.com/gregskables/archive/2002a.html]link[/url]

quote:

---

The first thing that happened when you were at the Vice Squad, was you were taken round to collect what he called 'taxes' and 'fees' from working girls and brothels.

---

...and behind the substance abuse is likely some kind of physical and or emotional abuse.

Where are the abusers and the indifferent leadership getting their cues from that this is okay to shrug off?

I think they get it from us, ultimately.

This is no longer theoretical for me. I have become involved with someone struggling with substance abuse issues, psychological issues, and yes there were periodic episodes of sex trade work, and a childhood history of sexual abuse.

It's easy to be articulate about this when it's theoretical. I'm not sure I should be trying to articulate now. When I really give this some thought, my emotions get on this strange knife edge where I'm simultaneously engraged and on the verge of helpless tears. I think it's a dangerous way to feel.

Theoretically, I can think of this law or that law to enact or repeal, but things are not going to change that way. Ever. Despite a number of good and decent people like Libby Davies, our government is by and large there to perpetuate the exploitation of the weak by the strong.

You know what? Maybe when I have my thoughts together, maybe when I've learned a bit more, I can add something coherent.

I'm going to leave this for now.

I think I have gotten a grip.

I have been rightfully accused here, from time to time, of the awful sin of reductionism-- like it was a bad thing. But let me reduce this subject matter, and then, hopefully at the end I will tie it into Picton.

But where to start?

It is viewed, I think, that there isn't enough support for those who have spiralled down due to trauma, mental illness or substance abuse.

But, that's not true.

There's a whole powerful infrastructure that supports these people-- but it's to support their decent into invisibility.

Every town of any size has it's "cracktown". You might pass through during business hours, and you get that feel that you are in a "bad" part of town. What are your cues? Street walkers? Guys selling crack or meth like the newsboys of old, crying out "Crack here! get your crack!".

Of course not.

You can tell by the sudden preponderance of Pay Day Loan places and Pawn Shops.

Before a kid sells him or herself on the street, they make a stop at those places. They'll support the downward skid, 'cause there's money to be made by loaning money at a billion percent interest, and there is money to be made on junk stolen from you and I.

------

I remember when massage parlours started opening in London, back when Dianne Hasket was mayor, and Meagan Walker was a councillor. What strange political bedfellows they were, tripping over each other to protect the women who worked there. Although both insisted it wasn't about controlling sex, it was an astonishing leap into the Provincial juristiction of health and safety-- that never extended to women workers in non sexual work. Another consideration was the "associated crime" that comes with massage parlours.

But what about the associated crime that is ?supported by pawn shops and pay day loan places?

The Haskets of the world worship the God of Mammon. And the Walkers want to be the alpha female who decides what women get to have sex and how.

And these are the best of the bunch when it comes to help for these people.

Of course, there comes a time when the usurers at the pay day loan places have been tapped out, and the pawn shops have to be carefull about the stuff you bring them.

So, it's time to sell yourself. Now there's a movement afoot to try to stop this by arresting the johns. But it's not really a big threat. The problem here is that we live in a society that really doesn't think too badly about someone that would exploit someone addicted to drugs for sex. In my book it's rape-- consent being rather foggy in this circumstance. We call them johns when coward and rapist is a more fitting title.

But you and I, we keep our mouths shut, don't we?

----

Did you know that London's detox is right in the same building as community outreach programs? The Salvation Army on Wellington road. That's right, mix the users with those on the first step to taking charge of themselves again.

Why not just put a rock in the bedside table of those in detox? It will shorten the turn over and make a positive effect on the cash flow.

----

I was at London's psych hospital last night, visiting a friend. London, you may know, has a brand new World Class hospital complex at Wellington and Commissioners. So big and so new, the top administrator earns nearly 700,000 a year.

But, that's not where my friend is. My friend is at the "old Vic" on South street. An old, dreary building that was deemed obsolete.

Except for psychiatric patients, who are not slated to move over to the New Vic untill someime in 2010. Maybe.

See, by the time people end up in psychiatric care , they have usually hit rock bottom. So, there's no additional private medical insurance for them, just OHIP.

Crazy people just aren't profitable, I guess.

-----

So all these parts, as I like to say, paint a picture. And it's a picture of systematic exploitation for profit of ill people. And, I haven't even mentioned the new wave of socially acceptable drug dealing-- percs and oxycontin, and the methadone clinic.

You may think that Picton is the face of evil in all this. But I don't. I think the face of evil wears a nice business suit. It talks the lingo of helping, it went to university to study medicine, it's the grandmother who processes loans at usurous rates on disability cheques.

Picton? A neophyte when it comes to evil.

That's a great first post, Amelia. Welcome to babble!

You make some great points, but I would be careful about conflating the law with morality. If anything, the law tends to flatten complicated moral questions. If someone finds a law questionable, they can often evade it by stating: "well, it's against the law." What we should understand when discussing the law is that it is a powerful fiction, not a code of ethics or regulations. There is no greater act of imagination than the declarative statement: "Thou shall not steal."

I find the question of legalizing prostitution far too difficult and I do not have enough facts at my disposal to make a decision. I prefer to leave it to feminists and sex-work experts. But a law legalizing prostitution by no means endorses it (does legalizing pornography endorse [i]Hustler[/i]?) While your concerns are apt and probing, I think that prostitution's relationship with the law, especially in the context of legalization, would invite a great deal more nuance than simply engendering sex work as a "good paying job."

quote:

---

Originally posted by SubHuman:
[b]The 'experts' everyone seems intent on ignoring are the actual sex workers. They are the ones [url=http://www.chezstella.org/stella/?q=en/medias]demanding decriminalization[/url] and organizing the [url=http://spoc.ca/]court challenge[/url] to the laws. Or see the posts by former sex worker "tarot" in [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000850]this babble thread[/url].[/b]

---

Exactly! Thanks for this.

Also, re: the argument that if prostitution is legalized, women will be forced to take jobs as prostitutes because when they apply for welfare, their caseworkers will point to job vacancies in the prostitution market and ask why they aren't doing them...

Well, right now there are all sorts of sex industry jobs that ARE legal. Like phone sex, stripping, acting in porn films (I've never understood why it's legal to solicit someone to fuck in front of a camera for pay, but not legal to solicit someone to fuck in a hotel room for pay), etc. Have there been a rash of cases where social workers have been telling their clients, "I'm sorry, but I'm cutting you off welfare because there are constantly ads in NOW Magazine for phone sex operators but you're not applying for them"? Don't think so.

[ 08 May 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b]So all these parts, as I like to say, paint a picture. And it's a picture of systematic exploitation for profit of ill people.[/b]

---

Well, this situation goes beyond sex workers, and though I had a lengthy response, I decided not to deflect away, even a little.

There are 2 separate issues occuring here. The one of drug dependancy, that leads one to chose work actions that one would otherwise not choose, in another circumstance. And actual sex workers, that fully practise their trade, based upon personal choices and goals.

Truly, the 2 must be separated, when building a system that will better protect sex trade workers. But yet the first step for both is making prostitution formally legal, and then registering it as a trade with Industry Canada, and thereby bringing it under all labour standards, government rules.

quote:

---

[b]And, I haven't even mentioned the new wave of socially acceptable drug dealing-- percs and oxycontin, and the methadone clinic.[/b]

---

Though appreciating everything you have said, it really should be discussed in its own thread. It is worthy of its own discussion. But this thread really is about sex trade workers, not systemic issues that cross all lines and fields of endeavor.

quote:

---

[b]You may think that Picton is the face of evil in all this. But I don't. I think the face of evil wears a nice business suit. It talks the lingo of helping, it went to university to study medicine, it's the grandmother who processes loans at usurous rates on disability cheques.[/b]

---

It is too reduced actually, and because of this, you are painting with way too broad of a brush.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mini Cooper:
[b]I'll admit to using the services of a prostitute, but it wasn't in Canada. It was not very pleasureable, and in fact I wish I had just kept the $20 and jacked off into a kleenex, but lesson learned. Sex is not worth doing if you have to pay money for it. That is all.[/b]

---

So, you're a "Girl" born in 1990 and you've travelled out of the country to use the services of a prostitute?

Gaw-lee. That was a quick edit for a newcomer.

Please explain how I am wasting your time. No one is forcing you to read my posts. And yet you do. Almost as if you can't resist them...

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
[b]If someone tells you to bug off twice you take that as a sign of mutual interest? There's a grownup discussion here that requres a certain adult sensitivity. On the off-chance that you really are under the age of fourteen and doing this as a dumb prank, I'll just go straight to the mods after all. Someone's got to do it I guess.[/b]

---

Gonna tell on me, huh? Real manly! Bet you were a real teacher's suckhole in school, huh?

This is fucking the funniest thing EVER!!! We're just laffing our ASSES off at you fuckers thinking all serious and shit LOL You fuckers on this lame ass board suck ass hair LOL We're all gonna get accounts here under different IPs and really have some fun!!! Wankers!!! LOL LOL LOL

Remind,

quote:

---

But yet the first step for both is making prostitution formally legal, and then registering it as a trade with Industry Canada, and thereby bringing it under all labour standards, government rules.

---

Which shows we are in agreement, if we reference my post from Jan. 25.

quote:

---

Though appreciating everything you have said, it really should be discussed in its own thread. It is worthy of its own discussion. But this thread really is about sex trade workers, not systemic issues that cross all lines and fields of endeavor.

---

I would agree, except that I don't think you can separate this issue, or addiction issues from prostitution.

quote:

---

It is too reduced actually, and because of this, you are painting with way too broad of a brush.

---

Well, on this we will disagree. We excuse too much for the pursuit of mammon. We have collectively bought into a big lie.

Or, as is likely the case, a random drive-by by a frootloop.

Not worth the notice.