"Progressives" abandon class analysis for prostitution YXXX

i don't know what thread on all of this it was in susan, maybe it was in the now suspiciously missing in defense of the nordic model thread, but it was right after i first joined a couple of years ago....where you clearly stated you and your fellow decrim supporters wanted a "deregulated" industry as health safety regulations weren't applicable and violated people's privacy. you also stated you felt it should be your right to function in any neighbourhood or blding without restriction as you believe it's your right to to provide sex work wherever you want.

have you changed your opinions on this?

i don't want special laws for sex work. i want johns pimps managers criminalized and perhaps fined huge. the money from the fines can go into the fund to assist sex workers out of the industry. i mean you got out and own your own business now....something not available to street workers.

Well, for starters, susan, please reference comment #40 of this thread, where you are quoted as saying "we need our own set of laws...cause you know...violence against us is different...we're different...seperate from other canadians..."

Maybe you meant something else, but everybody outside your head is stuck with the words themselves, and it looks pretty contradictory to what you're saying now.  It's difficult to understand where you are coming from when you write one thing, then write that you never wrote it because you think the opposite.

Living off the avails involves more than violence and confinement, so your argument there doesn't quite stand up. So sure, prosecute the assault and confinement as you would for anyone else.  But is brokering sex okay?  I mean, do we want that to be a legit profession? (Hint: I don't.)

susan davis wrote:

laws against john's and pimps ae special laws for sex work. how are they not? it once again seperates violence against sex workers as different. why can't a rapist be charges as a rapist? why can't a murderer be charged as a murderer? why can't a human trafficker be charged as a human trafficker...? you want to seperate violence against us as different and to paint us all as victims incapable of making decisions about our own bodies and access to them.

As I said above, the rapist can already be charged as a rapist, it's getting the cooperation from law enforcement that is the issue there.  Same with murders and trafficking charges - which are laid some of the time, although not often enough.  The laws governing johns and pimps are about giving and taking money in the brokering of sex, not violence-related.  You are conflating a number of things here, which only muddies the water rather than making your case.

Quote:

workers on street ? lkike SWUAV...? who fight for decriminalization? the women from the DTES? you need to speak to active workers on street before you pretense to represent their feelings on this. maggies toronto also...their members are primarily street based...? they support decriminalization.

you guys are really reaching here....

I don't think quizzical has attempted to represent anyone's feelings but her own.  Nor have I.  I don't think you do, actually, have to talk to active sex workers to come to the conclusion that it's all a destructive, sorry business and we'd be better off without it.  Although you may be making assumptions yourself on whether any of us have or haven't done so.

Pondering wrote:

You want to open up a brothel, but I doubt you would be working one of the rooms there. Admit you aspire to be the "manager", not one of the service providers.

In my experience within service industries (in my case, community work) I have found that the best managers are usually those who've had a background of relevant frontline experience.

susan davis wrote:

we had LEGALIZATION...we want DECRIMINALIZATION...what the hell....LEGALIZATION does not work.....we agree......stop skewing the sex worker position in support of decriminalization....

we have laws to protect people from rape, murder, kidnapping, human trafficking, slavery, unlawful confinement, extortion, debt servitude....

why 2 sets of laws? admit it...you think sex workers are a lower class....not worthy of the same laws which are in place to protect all canadians....we need our own set of laws...cause you know...violence against us is different...we're different...seperate from other canadians...

its easy to post my comments out of context, when you read the whole post...unless you are a moron...you can see that i do not want 2 sets of laws....

Pondering wrote:

 

You are no streetwalker. You get to screen your clients.  You were not vulnerable to Pickton.  I googled, you have been interviewed by the press.  You won't be getting repeated  gonorrhea infections in your eyes from letting men come in your face.  You want to open up a brothel, but I doubt you would be working one of the rooms there. Admit you aspire to be the "manager", not one of the service providers. 

you know...i testified to the missing women's commission...part of my testimony was about being sexually assaulted by that person....i worked on the street and lived the hotel in the DTES. i guess you don't know me as well as you think....

your accusation of me wanting to profit from "exploitation" as you call it by managing others is absolutly based in lies. i worked with my fellow sex workers to open canada's first sex worker cooperative....you know, where no one person is managing anyone...?

all you guys can do is twist my statements and make assumptions about who i am....

i have been in prison, survied 4 overdoses and numerous attempts on my life.

you keep stating the "gohnorea in the eyes", why do you think that couldn't happen to me...?

what personal attacks? have not attacked anyone or called anyone names.

i have been called "special snowflake", aspiring pimp, elite escort, self centered....

where have i called any of you names? or attacked you? i will and always have responded especially to mis representation about my community. you claim to represent the voiceless victims ...on street workers...who i engage with and worked with...on the street...in the dtes, toronto, surrey, montreal, halifax...new west and burnaby....yes all on street....

all you guys are doing is attacking my motivations and credibility. you are not posting any research (by ethical researchers) you are not posting any real arguements at all.

there is no substance to anything you have posted. it is all supposition and assumption.

susan davis wrote:

what personal attacks? have not attacked anyone or called anyone names.

i have been called "special snowflake", aspiring pimp, elite escort, self centered....

From post #60.  "unless you are a moron"

You weren't called a "special snowflake", it is a colloquial term referring to someone who expects to have exceptions made for them - I believe Pondering was pointing out that was unreasonable.  She probably could have put it in a kinder way, but it's not the same as calling you a moron.

Quote:

where have i called any of you names? or attacked you? i will and always have responded especially to mis representation about my community. you claim to represent the voiceless victims ...on street workers...who i engage with and worked with...on the street...in the dtes, toronto, surrey, montreal, halifax...new west and burnaby....yes all on street....

Bold mine.  No, I explicitly have NOT made any such claim. 

Quote:

all you guys are doing is attacking my motivations and credibility. you are not posting any research (by ethical researchers) you are not posting any real arguements at all.

there is no substance to anything you have posted. it is all supposition and assumption.

Your motivation has been challenged, but I wouldn't characterize it as an attack. 

I have posted an argument, which you steadfastly refuse to address - namely that the ongoing commodification of the female body interferes with the goal of the full emacipation of women in our culture.  It's kind of a foundational tenet of feminism.  I'm not sure why you need references to research for that.  It's pretty clear that as long as men's entitlement to sex on demand is reinforced, we all lose.  Well, except for the brokers. 

my motivation has always been clear. i care about my community and take exception to people attacking me saying i represent or want to be a pimp/ profiteer/ manager...it is not true and respresents a defamation of my character.

i never said you were a moron, i said even a moron could see i was being sarcastic

and whatever you want to say about me being called "special snowflake", i have never heard that term , its not some common thing people say. it was a slam on me during a misrepresentation of what sex workers are fighting for.

Pondering wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

No they will just be driven further undereground or be exploited by people  'protecting' them by supplying undergroiund brothels or at more risks for unsafe/murderous/assaulting customers

You completely ignore the fact that the illegal brothels grow faster wherever prostitution is legalized. I guess those women don't matter as long as the ones serving the 1% are fine.

I am curious, what do you mean by 1%?

I thought you  have previously posted that you understood that the majority, 85-90% of sex workers, were working under privileged conditions as in not street work.  

Also curious,  pondering as it were, how illegal brothels increase under legalization, when in another post you seemed to be someone alarmed at the possible increase of legal brothels and the apparently huge number of sex workers who want to work in them?

And, for the record, i am appalled by the outright lies in one of your earlier posts, including your claim that massage parlours are staffed by 'illegal' migrant workers.    Massage parlours have to be staffed by workers who are legally able to work.   Their ID is checked by police for two things:  age and status.      

It is shocking that you would even imply that they are not.    It makes all of your posts suspicous as I wonder what other deliberately misleading or inaccurate 'facts' you are posting.

quizzical wrote:

read post 9 at the below link

http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/what-sex-worker

more facts like the NZ ones in the defense of the nordic model thread and there's no negating the fact NZ is the #1 western nation for violence against women.

http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/un-dutch-try-defend-abject-failure-liberalization-prostitution-laws

 

eta people who keep on stating we've no proof of our beliefs are simply wrong or misdirecting and there's links to all of the evidence showing legalized prositution has not stopped violence against prostitutes nor  other women in society right here at babble.

Well you sum it up yourself:  this is a violence against women issue, not a violence against sex workers.    You said 'nor other women in society".   

You really haven't provided proof that the NZ model isn't working, if the independent research report says it is working, and quotes from sex workers say it is a positive step, then where is the proof that it isn't?   I am curious, only because i actually read the comments from actual sex workers in actual other countries, so i think i have  a pretty good idea of what they experience.    Plus someone debunked the article that claims that the NZ model isn't working, so we can't really refer to that article at all now, because it is just embarrassing lol

In other words, i don't rely on people like Melissa Farley to spoon feed me only what she wants me to know.

And i can't help but repeat, the Nordic model (susan's point in some comment somewhere is there is no 'nordic' model, the law is in Sweden and does not represent all Scandinavian countries.  'nordic' is something someone somewhere made up because they don't want to admit it is referring only to one law in one country.  Sounds fancier when they say "nordic".   ANYWAYs, the 'nordic' model is on it's way out the door because the new government is planning to remove it entirely.    Making Sweden once again the forefront of advanced society and free will.

I locked the threads because of duplication of subject matter and needless proliferation of threads on the same perspective. Just housekeeping.

Pondering wrote:

fortunate wrote:

I am curious, what do you mean by 1%?

I mean the men who can regularly afford to pay between 200-300$ a hour (and more) to be serviced sexually. 

You think that 99% of all men who purchase the services of sex workers can't afford 200-300 an hour? Seriously?   uh, OK.   If you meant 1% of the male adult population are in that category, maybe you are right, but i would hazard a guess that at least 90% of all men who rent the services of sex workers can well afford 200-300 an hour.    It is a luxury service, the men know that.   some prefer to spend less, but it doesn't mean that they cannot afford more.   200 is definitely a lower rate, and 300 is higher.   

Just fyi.

Quote:

fortunate wrote:

I thought you  have previously posted that you understood that the majority, 85-90% of sex workers, were working under privileged conditions as in not street work.

Just not being on the street does not translate into privileged conditions.  Privileged conditions means higher end brothels, non-craigslist independents, and higher end escort services not massage parlours full of women who don't speak English. 

There are no brothels in Canada, number one.    I think you are thinking about massage parlours that provide full services, of which there are almost none in Ontario, but it is more common in Alberta, MB, and BC.   However, the majority of the ones outside of Vancouver are not staffed by asian attendants, and the ones in Vancouver that are, are Canadian citizens, and it is pretty offensive to me to see you refer to them as somehow more vulnerable because some may not speak English well.  A good portion of their clients, due to the locations of these mps, are asian as well.     

Non CL independents, are who exactly?   backpage independents?   Independents who have somehow figured out a way to  work without advertising?     (i notice your assumption that mid-level sps don't have to advertise, which i am still in hysterics over.  I don't know any sex workers who go without advertising, lol)    

There are more agencies in the Toronto area than other areas, but agencies are not the norm elsewhere in Canada.  The majority i would say are independent or independent contractors who choose to work out of a massage parlour or agency setting.   To assume otherwise diminishes their abilities and personalities.    Just because someone is unwilling or unable to set up their own location and do their own ads doesn't mean they are exploited or incompetent, they just don't want the hassle of dealing with the business side.   A LOT of other types of businesses have employees who do NOT want to become managers or supervisors, they just want to show up for their shift and go home when it is over.    HUGE assumption, and shows a very superficial understanding of the way this business operates.   

Quote:

fortunate wrote:

  Also curious,  pondering as it were, how illegal brothels increase under legalization, when in another post you seemed to be someone alarmed at the possible increase of legal brothels and the apparently huge number of sex workers who want to work in them?

The problem is the expansion of both legal and illegal brothels and the lack of women willing to work in them which fuels the demand leading to  exponential expansion of illegal immigration as well as trafficking in women and children. 

As mentioned, since there are no legal brothels, there cannot be any expansion of them.  Also, who do you assume is going to staff these mythical places?  The majority of sex workers are already working legally and in the locations that they have chosen to work.    It is unlikely there will be any mass exodus of workers from one province to any other.   Illegal operations are already here, changes to the laws are unlikely to change that either.    

And if you had read anything not corrupted by Melissa Farley about the working regulations in NZ, you would know, just like here in Canada, that underage workers are not permitted.   Just like a 16 year old cannot get a job as a bartender.    If there was a lack of bartenders, do you also think someone is going out recruiting high school students for that as well, and if not, why not?   

If there were all these legal brothels, there would not be any illegal workers or underage workers.   Police have right of access and bylaws enforcement officers would also have access, to check ID and ensure legal working ages.   I am not sure why you are OK with that in other industries, but not this one.  Do you believe there are a lot of underage dancers too?

Quote:

fortunate wrote:

And, for the record, i am appalled by the outright lies in one of your earlier posts, including your claim that massage parlours are staffed by 'illegal' migrant workers.   

Police raid three massage parlours linked to human trafficking

The raid comes nearly a month after Marius Trifu Miclescu and six others were charged for human trafficking and forcing Romanian women to work as sex slaves in erotic massage parlours

Pasted from <http://globalnews.ca/news/999006/police-raid-three-massage-parlours-linked-to-human-trafficking/>

 

And guess what, they were found because they were in a massage parlour and massage parlours are regularly visited by police to ensure, again, that this doesn't happen and if found, they can stop it.   That is my point, which you quote and comment on below.   Do you think this could have been discovered had prostitution had been illegal and/or the clients been criminal?  They were charged with bawdy house, not trafficking by the way it is misleading and misdirecting to suggest otherwise.    

And you linked that story because of the Romanian women mentioned in it, but the link wasn't a story about those women, it was about an asian massage parlour with multiple locations,  charged with bawdy house violations and nothing to do with the Romanian situation.  Romanians were also used as construction worker slaves.    

Quote:

fortunate wrote:

Massage parlours have to be staffed by workers who are legally able to work.   Their ID is checked by police for two things:  age and status.  It is shocking that you would even imply that they are not.  

Police are not going around checking the age and status of all the women working in all the massage parlours.  When they do it's called a raid and they only do a few at a time. 

Your accusation that I am lying is just bizarre. Don't paraphrase me because you are creating  straw man arguments by projecting views that I did not express.  It seems your arguments are so weak that all you can do is deflect.

How do you know they are not going around checking the age and status of workers?  In Vancouver, they visit massage parlours, each of them, randomly, about once a month.   They have issued warnings to a handful of them for non compliance (usually regarding operating a bawdy house).   Of course they check.    

Again, if they weren't checking there would be no raids.    Every time they enter a massage parlour it isn't a 'raid' lol.    You can't contradict yourself and not be shown to be contradicting yourself.   My comments hold up.  I say they check, and you show the links to articles that prove that they check.   There is no contradiction there.

I have seen blatant lies by you, and have addressed a few of them.  You have no real idea of where sex workers work, where and how they advertise, and have repeatedly said there are legal brothels in Canada.   

It actually isn't 'deflecting' to show and provide actual information, unless you feel that any real data that contradicts what you want people to believe is considered deflection?   

The best example of deflection I have is Melissa Farley reporting on NZ law reform lol.       Some of the points in the article i linked are pretty hilarious.      

From Bob Usui, from the Vancouver Police department, speaking at a committee meeting, about concerns around the 2010 Olympics

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4306833&L...

Mr. Bob Usui:    Thank you.

 

    I really want to thank all of you for inviting me here to address the issue of human trafficking and the Olympics. It seems to be very topical and seems to be in the news a lot. I've been called by different agencies, as well as the media, to give some press conferences or interviews on this issue.

 

     I feel that we are very prepared for this. We work very closely with a lot of other agencies, those being CBSA, the RCMP, and OCTF, the Organized Crime Task Force, as well as other municipal departments. The vice unit, which is one of many units that fall under me, deals strictly with investigations regarding bawdy houses, as well as Internet luring—those are the big ones that we investigate—and those who live off the avails, the pimps who are victimizing these women and really taking advantage of them.

     So far we haven't seen an increase in trafficking and we have no intelligence to indicate otherwise. However, we've had some cases--the most recent one was about two and a half years ago--where we did an investigation at a massage parlour and one of the women who was working there had been trafficked. Most of the other ones we see right now in our bawdy house investigations are Asian-based, and they appear, through our investigation and through interviews with these women, to be there of their own free will and they are there to make money.

 

    We do a lot of education and training with outside agencies, as well as with our own members, in regard to these types of investigations. We work very closely with a lot of outside agencies such as WISH and PACE, these groups that support sex trade workers.

 

 

I am quoting him because as you can see, the VPD does regularly visit massage parlours and incall locations with multiple people and seem more than capable of find all that human trafficking going on, you know like the one case of the one woman in 2007.

I wish you would stop this point by point, just say what you intend to say, because it seems clear that point by point style is meant to edit and delete full intention of posts meant to be read in their entirety.  

How can you bold one part of your statement, and ignore that I was referring to this part of that same quote : 'it would be illegal to pay to watch', and not see the connection to my statement which you also quote: so you want to take away their ability to make money.   The two go hand in hand.   

I believe your style is meant to deceive or mislead other readers.   Your comments and mine should be able to stand on their own.  You quote me saying that i had seen some very blatant lies from you, but you've edited out the places where i have actually quoted or referred to them and/or given examples.   That is deflection.     Instead, it would be better to simply address the comments that I was taking issue with, not come back with a delay tactic.   "Oh, did I?  Well, you should provide a quote of that then?"  It is very passive aggressive.    Instead of just addressing the issue you delay and try to act like if the posts are long enough and there are enough of them, no one is going to read back thru the pages to find out what I am referring to.  It should be enough to put in a post #, but there are always so many other people's comments within yours, that would also be hard to do lol. 

It just comes down to this, give us the respect that we also give.  When you make a big leaping claim, provide the proof.  When you do that, make sure it is in fact proof, and not just someone else's opinion based on what day of the week it is, and how many raisons appeared in their breakfast cereal that day.    

And fwiw it's worth, police visit the massage parlours regularly.  The quote is referring to the fact that in one of their investigations, which had absolutely nothing to do with their regular visits, they found little evidence of trafficking.  You are trying to connect these two things in ways that are not intended, and it makes me wonder why.   The fact that VPD visits massage parlours regularly is quite different from them doing an investigation.   They don't set up surveillance, do  interviews, look into the criminal records of employees, look into the travel history of management, etc when they are doing their visits.   It is a bylaw requirement that massage parlour businesses are open for view to police.   

I am not even sure why i am explaining the difference.   And you've still ignored the fact that you said that massage parlours are staffed by illegal workers, instead focused on language instead?     Their lack of English is not a problem in that situation, in this city, because there is no lack of access to resources in Vancouver just because someone doesn't speak English.   The Chinese community is huge.   Plus, there is an organization in the area that regularly visits massage parlours outside of the city and police force, that is culturally aware of this.  They provide information for resources available to them, plus sexual health education information and a variety of other things.

   No one works in a vacuum, but if abolitionists were allowed free reign in this country, the majority of sex workers would have to work under conditions similar to the ones street workers have endured for decades.    

Your goal is to eliminate the dangers that exist for streetworkers.  The majority are reporting that there is much less dangerous conditions in fully legalized and regulated countries, under the NZ model as a potential ideal.    To claim you want to help the victims, but to ignore that there are readily available models that do work out there, is naieve, possibly dangerous.    If you want to eliminate the dangers to female sex workers you will first have to eliminate the dangers that exist for all women, all workers (construction, health care, cab drivers, etc) , the dangers that exist for transgenders or gay men, the dangers that exist for children from family members, the dangers that exist for reasonably healthy men who cross the street at night, the people who drink and drive, the truck drivers who operate unsafe equipment, the teachers who fail to recognize someone who is in emotional distress that end up getting shot by those students, the postal workers who are at work when their recently laid off coworker comes back with a shot gun, the ....... well, you get my point.    The best way to eliminate the perceived dangers to sex workers is to simply eliminate all the people in the world first, and that should do it.

Enough already. Pondering, your constant belligerence toward anyone who is or has disagreed with you is as tiresome as it is unacceptable. If you cannot be respectful in your posts, you will not be posting at all. Every day, it seems, the abuse queue is filled with complaints about you. You have been asked, repeatedly, not to attack other, yet you persist. Last request.