Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part IV

still no proposed plan i see.....where is your side of the deabte? all you have done so far is to attack our plans and state they will not wrk. well, what will?how will you frame decriming of workers in concrete terms? what legal provisions will be amde? what employment strategies will be implemented for displaced and unemployed workers/ what supports to you propose for trauma survivors?

now you are saying it is about rights....the rights of men to access our bodies......please, make up your mind.

You know framing a debate is usually a briefer preliminary step prior to actually having a debate.  It took less time to frame Sacco and Vanzetti for gods sake.  There is little debate here, it's the #**^%# Roman Colosseum. I'm kind of glad that as a male moderator I take a more limited role in dealing with the feminism forums, but I am looking at these threads and others with no small amount of horror.  People are eviscerating each other, with little regard for hitting below the belt here, and on all the dozens by now, of related threads.   No one is actually convincing anyone of anything, no one is really accomplishing anything, and as far as I can tell no one has a hope in hell of doing so.

It's not that often that I really have no idea what to do.

Edited for being unconstructive

We're never going forward martin with lines like this:

"Anyone familiar with Wikipedia process can testify to the constant bloodletting between acknowledgers and deniers of systemic sexual oppression."

I feel like I'm on repeat with you. I'm sure everyone does. No one, not ONE PERSON, has denied there is exploitation. Not one. Yet you throw this around while pretending to make nice.

I don't think you should continue to get free passes for this passive-aggressive stunt.

Okay, I've been getting posts flagged all day in this and other threads.

People, the moderators aren't full time here.  We're not even close to it, not even when you combine our hours. Could you please be adults and work things out for yourselves occasionally?  Maybe treat each other with some respect?  Seriously, this is ridiculous.  I no sooner clear out the abuse queue when it gets filled up again with the same types of posts a couple of hours later.  And it's about three or four people who are all flagging each other's posts over and over again.

Please stop attacking each other.  Step back from the computer if you're upset or if you're finding it too difficult to keep your temper.  The thread will be here when you're back and calmer.

Stargazer wrote:

Aw yeah, and remind, you're not helping either.

I say NO to a change in the name. Sorry remind, we' are talking about human rights and I don't think you get to dictate who has them and who doesn't based on your moral position.

And what about the rights of prostitutes who find the term "sex worker" offensive?  Don't they have "human rights". Shouldn't they feel just as welcome on babble too? 

The global topic that has generated all the threads and will continue to generate threads is "Canadian Laws on Prostitution".   "Sex workers rights" is a subtopic to the debate.

martin dufresne wrote:

 

Still, I do think we have come forward a bit on an issue that had generally been avoided like the plague in the Left, ever since Albert Camus flung across the room the first edition of de Beauvoir's The Second Sex (true story), sixty years ago to this day.

What an amazing paragraph in the present context.

Well, let's take it one step at a time. I'm not familiar with the specific incident, martin, although I'm well aware of the many reasons Camus had to be critical of both de Beauvoir and Sartre, to the point of personal hostility. You seem to be saying that Camus disliked The Second Sex because of something de Beauvoir said about prostitution that Camus disagreed with? If not that, then why is the reference here? Or are you just calling Camus a male chauvinist? If so, wanna give Sartre equal play there?

Cheap shots at Camus always get my back up a bit. So many Paris intellectuals claimed later on to have been part of the Resistance; Camus was one of the few who wasn't, um, tidying up the truth.

Specifically, you might recall that Camus never avoided anything "like the plague" -- in fact, he won a Nobel prize specifically for writing, among his other works, a novel called The Plague.

I'm not quite sure which "left" you're referring to there either, but it is simply not true that women's groups of various persuasions have been avoiding these issues "like the plague" in my adult memory, and my experience as a feminist goes back to the mid-sixties.

I must say, I just don't understand where that paragraph came from in this context, and I'd welcome any enlightening elaboration you might care to offer.

Quote:

And what about the rights of prostitutes who find the term "sex worker" offensive?  Don't they have "human rights". Shouldn't they feel just as welcome on babble too? 

It hasn't even been two hours since you yourself said:

Quote:

If you are too emotionally fragile to cope with reading the term "prostitute" then you really do need to take a break.

babble is only for the strong now! Everyone, leather up!

Infosaturated wrote:

susan davis wrote:

still no proposed plan i see.....where is your side of the deabte? all you have done so far is to attack our plans and state they will not wrk. well, what will?how will you frame decriming of workers in concrete terms?

I've answered that question so many times it's ridiculous.  Sweden is the model. That doesn't mean prostitution will vanish over night.

susan davis wrote:

what legal provisions will be amde? what employment strategies will be implemented for displaced and unemployed workers/ what supports to you propose for trauma survivors?

The same exit strategies and mental health services for trauma survivors under decriminalization apply.  While I am concerned over the well-being of current workers my primary goal is to reduce the number of women that enter prostitution in the first place. Laws are not passed for the current population alone they are passed for succeeding generations too.

susan davis wrote:

now you are saying it is about rights....the rights of men to access our bodies......please, make up your mind.

"Men's rights" insofar as the right to access to female bodies is being rejected as a concern that has any bearing on whether or not procuring, bawdy houses and the like should be decriminalized.  This includes the issue of handicapped men, ugly men, men with personality disorders, etc.

"Men's rights" only enter into the picture as a rejection of idea that men have the right to access women's bodies. 

The "right" of men to have access to women's bodies is indefensible from a feminist perspective. Therefore, it can be condemned here but not defended as something men "need" therefore should have access to.

sweden is sweden.....how exactly do you propose to implement decrim for workers in canada and criminalization of men?i have laid out many factors inour plan...al you can say is sweden....do you even know the legal wording in sweden?does it reflect canadian views? how dod they word it that sex workers were dercim? what measures were put in palce to [protect workers? what measures do you propose?

or is the answer, you still don't know?have just not thought about it?

i mean seriously, if you want us to support your plan, share it.

and saying sweden is not a clear and definitive answer. i want to know what you propose for canada, in legal terms, language to be used,etc......

martin dufresne wrote:

Gladly. I was aware that Camus had written The Plague, thank you, and chose my metaphor for that reason.

When he threw The Second Sex across the room, Camus claimed that de Beauvoir's exposé of gender oppression "shamed the French male." I have no desire to slander Camus - call that anecdote a "cheap shot" if you wish, I find it telling, as many uneasy ambiguities of that era - The Resistance roles and Satre's philandering are two other ones, thank you.

I used this example to point out that leftists (loosely defined) still seem to have a huge blind spot around gender oppression. You may disagree; no one is keeping you from arguing that. But consider how long it took for anyone to agree on Babble that prostitution was systematic sexual oppression, and not some liberal God's gift to women's empowerment, or indeed to broach the issue at all.

 

Martin, I will certainly concede that Camus had his blind spots, North Africa not least among them. He did come through when it counted, though, as some other people we could think of didn't.

Me? Blind spot around gender oppression? You're lecturing me on gender oppression?

You keep redefining the debate here in your own terms -- "prostitution" as "systematic sexual oppression." There are a number of people here who are (or were) telling you that you are conflating a number of different legal and social issues under one brutal label.

I came here in the first place because I thought that the occasion for these discussions was the Charter challenge, which I very much support, lover of the Charter (and all such C17-C18 documents) that I am. I expect that challenge to succeed, and I've been very impressed by everyone who has contributed to these discussions out of respect for the full humanity of women.

susan davis wrote:

do you even know the legal wording in sweden?

Neither selling of sex nor soliciation is illegal in Sweden therefore the prostitute is not breaking any laws. Buying sex is illegal as well as all other actions surrounding prostitution.  The lawyers can work out the legal wording.

susan davis wrote:

how exactly do you propose to implement decrim for workers in canada and criminalization of men?

Stop arresting prostitutes for solicitation and start arresting johns. Sweden did have to do some police training so that may be needed here as well.

susan davis wrote:

does it reflect canadian views?

That's a matter of opinion. I hope that once they understand the results of the decriminalization of bawdy houses, pimps and procurers that they will reject it whole-heartedly.

susan davis wrote:

what measures were put in palce to protect workers? what measures do you propose?

While not all "sex workers" are assaulted prostitution is an inherently unsafe practice as a whole therefore no system can make it safe. Examining the data from the government of New Zealand underlines that reality. Criminalization of johns on up reduces the number of prostituted women therefore fewer women are endangered. 

susan davis wrote:

i want to know what you propose for canada, in legal terms, language to be used,etc......

All the plans you propose to get women out of the industry, exit plans, youth outreach, treatment of drug addiction, mental health problems, etc. I support 100%.

I do not have to come up with alternative job suggestions for women who would otherwise have become prostitutes anymore than I have to supply job suggestions for former alcohol and cigarette smugglers, or people who make a living running private poker games. They have the same options as every other Canadian for whom prostitution is not an option. Legitimizing an inherently dangerous practice is not a valid response to poverty.

susan davis wrote:

Infosaturated wrote:

susan davis wrote:

still no proposed plan i see.....where is your side of the deabte? all you have done so far is to attack our plans and state they will not wrk. well, what will?how will you frame decriming of workers in concrete terms?

I've answered that question so many times it's ridiculous.  Sweden is the model. That doesn't mean prostitution will vanish over night.

susan davis wrote:

what legal provisions will be amde? what employment strategies will be implemented for displaced and unemployed workers/ what supports to you propose for trauma survivors?

The same exit strategies and mental health services for trauma survivors under decriminalization apply.  While I am concerned over the well-being of current workers my primary goal is to reduce the number of women that enter prostitution in the first place. Laws are not passed for the current population alone they are passed for succeeding generations too.

susan davis wrote:

now you are saying it is about rights....the rights of men to access our bodies......please, make up your mind.

"Men's rights" insofar as the right to access to female bodies is being rejected as a concern that has any bearing on whether or not procuring, bawdy houses and the like should be decriminalized.  This includes the issue of handicapped men, ugly men, men with personality disorders, etc.

"Men's rights" only enter into the picture as a rejection of idea that men have the right to access women's bodies. 

The "right" of men to have access to women's bodies is indefensible from a feminist perspective. Therefore, it can be condemned here but not defended as something men "need" therefore should have access to.

sweden is sweden.....how exactly do you propose to implement decrim for workers in canada and criminalization of men?i have laid out many factors inour plan...al you can say is sweden....do you even know the legal wording in sweden?does it reflect canadian views? how dod they word it that sex workers were dercim? what measures were put in palce to [protect workers? what measures do you propose?

or is the answer, you still don't know?have just not thought about it?

i mean seriously, if you want us to support your plan, share it.

and saying sweden is not a clear and definitive answer. i want to know what you propose for canada, in legal terms, language to be used,etc......

Impact of the Swedish model:

www.petraostergren.com/pages.aspx?r_id=40716    (Official reports referenced are listed at the end)

One positive outcome of the criminalization of clients is that before 1999, Swedish prostitutes did not have an organization.  You can be assured they do now:

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/flashback_sweden.html

"The prostitutes' rights organisations, which exist in many countries, are all against a criminalization of all these reasons. But nobody has asked the Swedish prostitutes. They have until now been unorganised, socially rejected and despised, and therefore powerless, without self-confidence. Easy victims for the politicians' ambitions. Now that the law already is a fact, some Swedish prostitutes at last seem to be working on a union. The prohibition and its bad effects have made a union so necessary that the former inhibitions have been able to overcome."

Until now, the law against buying sexual services in Sweden has lead to:

• Less street prostitution.

   

• Instead, more prostitution in other ways and places.

   

• Increased sex tourism to other countries.

   

• Increased violence, force and compulsion against prostitutes, and more pimp dependence. A worse situation, especially for those who lack alternatives to street prostitution, like the drug addicts.

   

• Less possibilities to fight forced prostitution and trafficing.

   

• Less societal control, and less possibilities to help prostitutes and clients.

   

• A law that can't be implemented, and will diminish either law obedience or legal security. Without getting rid of prostitution. The law is already being ruled out by important legal instances.

   

• The prostitutes have been run over and humiliated by the politicians. Sex workers now, at last, seem to be on their way to create a union, but the law is already a fact and it will take time before it can be abolished.

   

• Sweden has made an example to rest of the world - that this is not a good road to follow. The law is a complete failure so far - whatever some politicians may claim on international conferences.

Many Swedish prostitutes used to go to Norway to work, which increased the numbers of sex workers there, which drove down the prices.  Now they either work underground or go to Denmark, where the rates are lower, and Germany. 

More articles on many topics affecting sex workers (or "sex workers" as some would "prefer") can be found here;

www.bayswan.org/

From the perspective of a Swedish sex worker  (Remember, prostitution itself is legal in Sweden; being a client is illegal)

www.bayswan.org/swed/rosswed.html

To be a sex worker in Sweden, is dangerous.  It's a hell- mostly dangerous.  We don't know anymore, what, or how to do it.  What we have in Sweden, it's a law who doesn't make us any good, and doesn't give us any choice.  Government in Sweden wants to rehabilitate us, to rehabilitate the sex worker, just like we are victims of some kind of dangerous sickness.  Rehabilitate us as we could spread around this sickness. 

I have, in vain, tried to explain, for politics, feminists, and other ignorant intellectuals, that this is a work, and that's why this is also a choice. I have tried to explain that we should instead, have classes, on sex work.  To do it more safe, and better- especially for the younger generation of sex workers in this country now.

Only because they don't see us, it doesn't mean we don't exist.

Well, one of the worse consequences with this law, is that there comes a lot of underage prostitution in Sweden.  The Mafia come inside- the Russian Mafia that has nothing to do with Sweden at all, should be the Swedish Mafia, okay, but, the Russian Mafia come into Sweden  with a lot of kidnapped young girls, older womens, all ages.  A lot of Swedish hookers get killed because they can't call the Police any more.  Because if they call the Police, the word goes around that they put a call to the cops, come by that they got problems, and they lose all their customers.  So a lot of, um, women have got killed, and men.  Prostitutes, sex workers.  Just like me.  Just like many of us.  Others have moved.  Others have, ah, start, to drink too much, lost their children, and so on, and so on.

Okay, for me, three years ago, before this law came, I was living with my two children.  And now, I'm not.  I have to put my children in Portugal, and be more careful before the Welfare comes and take them away, it's a little excuse.  It's very easy for a prostitute to lose her children now in Sweden.  If they know you are prostitute, they have their eyes on you.  If you get some problem, they take your children away immediately.  As I didn't want to have that risk, I'd rather have my children living with my father's family in Portugal, than with me. 

So this law is splitting up families too, because I am not the only one  who is separated from their children right now, with this law.

All Scandinavian hookers are in panic, from the south to the north of Scandinavia, because of the Swedish law.  So all the neighbour countries, Denmark, ah, Finland, Norway, they want the Swedish to change this law, but it's so very difficult.  Very, very difficult.  Because the Swedish, they are happy because they win money on, ah, public transports to Norway, and Denmark.  Always full of hookers.  And customers.  Because the customers takes the boat over to Denmark, or to Finland

I wanna call a very huge SOS to Sweden, because all countries, trying to copy Sweden in this obviously terrible, and worthless, and fruitless law.  I want to call your attention, because Sweden, it's, a very strong example, where that position can bring us to.  Where the law, so-called law and order can bring us to.  Well, if they won't step back, we shouldn't step back either.  If they are a model now, and they want to continue to be a model, we will let them be a model, and make sure that they will fail internationally.  And, that they will recognise their mistake, because, as a model they are being watched, and everybody will see them fail.  Well, every country that have learned of Sweden, and is trying to hound us away from the face of the earth, they should only need to see that it doesn't work like this, and that, we can only do from Sweden.

And regarding flagging, seriously people thicken your skins.  Unless you are actually being directly insulted and attacked on a personal way, like someone calling you an idiot or moron to your online face, you cannot and should not be "offended" and pester the moderators here simply because someone not only has an opposing POV, they are presently real evidence to back it up.  If this somehow offends your status quo, don't read them and continue to muddle along ignorant of the truth.  

Oh, and Scottish sex workers group's 33 Reasons Why Clients of Sex Workers Should Not Be Criminalized  (the Swedish model does this):or

"Harriet Harman, Minister of State, Minister for Justice at the Department for Constitutional Affairs and Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham, is pushing for a Swedish-style law against the buying of sex, saying it will stem the demand for sex workers trafficked into Britain. This has now become incorporated in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2008, which is currently at the House of Lords.

The Sexual Freedom Coalition and Ariana Chevalier have consulted sex workers, clients, lawyers and academics, gathering together many views, all of which disagree with this monstrous proposal."

www.scot-pep.org.uk/33reasons.html

Prostitution seen as Violence Against Women
- a supportive or oppressive view?

by Liv Jessen

Liv Jessen receives first ever Human Rights Award from Amnesty International for Prostitutes' Rights work.

I am the head of the Pro Centre, a national centre for prostitutes in Norway. I am a social worker by profession and for seventeen years I worked daily among Norwegian and foreign women and men who sell sex and among some of their customers. In talking about prostitution and society's view of this phenomenon, it is natural for me to base myself on the Norwegian/ Scandinavian reality.

As time goes on, we meet more and more people who describe their life in prostitution in a rather different way from the picture drawn by radical feminist research. A picture I myself had obstinately stuck to throughout my initial years at the. The picture becomes more varied and therefore more complicated. It is no longer so black and white.

Like other radical feminists, H¿igard and Finstad, two norwegian scientists, are unable to accept voluntary prostitution because they do not believe that anyone could ever choose to take part in such activity: "no-one wants to rent out her vagina as a garbage can for hordes of anonymous men's ejaculations". Nevertheless, to apply the social victim-object view to individuals in prostitution can at best arouse our sympathy, but at worst can result in her no longer seeing herself as a person, a subject with a choice. If there is anything women in prostitution need to do, then it is to mobilize all their willpower and strength to make a choice - and perhaps chose something other than prostitution. But to do that she must be ascribed humanness, subjectivity and identity. And then we also run the risk that she will not make the choice we want her to; she may choose prostitution. As the wise Hans Skjervheim has said: "The first thing you have to choose, is to make the choice yourself".

The sex trade today covers many different degrees of volition and exploitation. That is why it is fruitless to take a general victim view of prostitution. Free will and force vary in different cultures in the past and in the present, within any one country and perhaps also in any one individual.

Women in prostitution naturally have different views on the subject of prostitution, but to say that only the ones who agree with us are right, while the prostitutes who think differently are not ascribed human qualities like the right to make their own choices or to be believed, is oppressive and a fundamentalist attitude.

www.bayswan.org/swed/livjessen.html

I know it is possible to selectively see what one wants to see in research and readings, but I would assume the researchers themselves already had a bias like the majority of society that is anti-sex work.   If they come to conclusions that support a POV that contradicts their original bias and it is rejected because it doesn't match your bias, then it is not logical for any lay person to come in and discredit the research conclusions, is it?

susan davis wrote:

  could you please post a link to the swedish criminal code or copy an paste the information here as we have to support our arguement?

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/swed_law.html

You can see the wording at the link above but I am not getting into a debate on the intricacies of legal semantics. Prostitutes aren't charged for selling or soliciting. Everyone else involved from johns on up is charged.

susan davis wrote:

or links that talk about the police training you refer too? i myself have trained almost 200 new recruits for VPD as well as members of the RCMP, DND ..... we discuss impacts of enforcement, selective eforcement, impacts of cultural differences such as language, symptoms of ptsd and street medicine......

I didn't think saying police needed training to implement the law was controversial, but here you go.

http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/11/06/29/fcd261a4.pdf

Listed under "action plan measures"

Training for the judiciary, the police and public prosecutors,and for employees of the Swedish Migration Board ".

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

There has been a shift of policing the women and men in prostitution, to targeting demand. It has taken time to establish this in a large institution used to non-intervention. Many critics of the law have drawn on the early years of implementation where uncertainty and ambivalence was evident in police and prosecutors. Few note the extensive training programme, nor the emerging new consensus and implementation.

susan davis wrote:

what do you prospose we teach police .....?

I'm not planning on designing the training program personally.

susan davis wrote:

for a person who seems so invested in this issue and who has real lived experience i am suprised to learn that you are not willing to take on a piece of the work.

Finding out what the actual outcomes are on changes to laws surrounding prostitution has been very time consuming and there is still a great deal more research to do. Eventually I hope to have that information well organized so that I can help inform Canadians. That is most definitely "part of the work".

susan davis wrote:

it seems a little rough to want to impose a particular model when you are unwilling to see it through to implementation.

All Canadians have a say in the determination of our laws regardless of the degree of their personal involvement because our laws determine the kind of society we are building of which we are all part of.

One in a million, I know.
Ever heard of a "regular" (non drive-by) ?
My last visit to a "pro", a smart girl with "lived experience".
We talked for hours  (I did not even take my pants off)
We discussed therapist/patient very early in our "arrangement".
A deluded harmless john am I ? Do I think I am entitled, NO.
She has done more for me (in my singular experience) than any psychobabbleiatrist , (who seemed to focus on getting data to support his thesis, advance his career, so he didn't have to deal directly with "weirdos" anymore).

Men paying surrogates for sex/intimacy is/should be illegal ???

If "client voice frameworks"  Pros.Part III #4, was a missprint, I'll butt out.

(how did the government get into the gambling bussiness anyway ?)
(Wish this thread could slow down a bit)
About me: College grad (including 10 credits in Social Services), Licensed trade, member CAW

EDIT:added to last line

susan davis wrote:

info, i never thought it was a contreversial idea. i am just asking for particulars on your plan. i hope you had a chance to look at the web site you linked too!!it's awesome and full of alot of great information.

I don't have any particular plans. I am simply comparing global outcomes between systems. 

In terms of supporting arguments with links, it's only an issue if an argument is based on facts that someone challenges. 

For example, we both agree that generally speaking street workers are the worst off in terms of abuse etc. and I think most posters would agree.  So, when using that "fact" in an argument there is no need to support it with a link.

If, on the other hand, I claimed that indoor workers were worse off I would have to support that with some hard data not just random examples of women in captivity.

I'm very disappointed that you were denied funding for planning the restaurant/cafe project. It's very short-sighted.