How will parties approach the legality of sex work after the Supreme Court decision?

The NDP Québec 2014 general council is being held today and tomorrow. I'm asking some attendees who seem better-connected than I am if they can put out feelers on what the policy is going to be and get back to me. No one seems to know for sure.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpo...

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1123268-ndp-delays-proposal-on-prost...

As per April 13th, 2013

A proposal to repeal prostitution laws in order to uphold sex workers’ “rights to life, liberty, security and equality” was slated to be voted on Saturday afternoon. But behind the scenes, party members opposing the motion pushed for it to be delayed.

A compromise was reached and Vancouver East MP Libby Davies moved an amendment calling on the proposal to be put off for further study.

Legalizing sex work will now be studied by the party’s federal council. It must report back by November with a policy, but it will not go before the membership until the party’s next policy convention.

That would have been November 2013. As we haven't heard anything I think it's safe to assume the NDP will not be supporting decriminalization of pimps and brothels. 

lagatta wrote:

Obviously, this reflects the huge divide WITHIN the women's movement on this issue.

Why do you say that?  I know there are a couple of women in the NDP that support full decriminalization or legalization but I have seen no indication that they are numerous, or that the women against it are numerous either, or heard which identify as feminist for that matter. 

Unionist wrote:

cco wrote:

I got the message on the 17th that she was speaking in the House on the matter. I was busy enjoying myself greatly in Halifax at the time (and staying at a hotel with no CPAC), so I took his word for it. Someone with more patience than I can dig through Hansard and see if the summary I got was remotely accurate.

I have patience and I dug through Hansard. Libby didn't say a word on the issue, so I'm somewhat surprised at the report you got. I'd be even more surprised (shocked) if Mulcair allowed her to comment. We know her personal views, and we know her public views. It's really too bad.

 

Perhaps everyone is waiting to see what is presented before having any sort of opinion about it.   I think people are expecting something that may not happen.  After all, they are not going to recreate laws that already exist, so they have laws about minimum age, procuring, coercion, human smuggling, slavery, etc etc.   It will be interesting to see what they think they need to add to the laws that already cover the majority of issues the general public has with sex work. 

Even now, with so many police departments no longer pursuing bawdy house or street solicitation infractions, they have managed to find actual criminals and charged them with those laws, the same ones that the SCC challenge did not affect.    In fact, it actually seems like there are MORE reports of these arrests and charges than there ever were before, when the police spent the majority of their time harassing street workers?  

 Seems like things could work just fine the way they are, without the criminalization of sex workers and where they work.    

susan davis wrote:

being feminist does not mean being abolitionist. and not only women are affected. all gender identities work in the sex industry.

Although rare someone could be abolitionist and still support full decriminalization if they felt the law was the wrong tool. While not only women are involved they are the primary population that is negatively impacted and the focus of feminism is women. I wouldn't say that someone who supports full legitimatization of prostitution can't be a feminist but I would certain question if they really are feminist or if they are just using the label as cover. 

susan davis wrote:

... decriminalization does not let exploitation go unpunished. slavery and human trafficking as well as sexual exploitation of youth would all still be illegal.

As Amsterdam has discovered they were unable to keep out organized crime and trafficking. Same goes for Australia, and Germany. The business expands beyond the capacity of law enforcement to control it so yes indeed crime increases and exploitation does go unpunished when prostitution is legitimized as a job like any other proving it isn't a job like any other. 

Unionist wrote:

fortunate wrote:

 Seems like things could work just fine the way they are, without the criminalization of sex workers and where they work.    

Yes. And why can't at least one political party say so - rather than letting Harper/Mackay set the scene with whatever draconian legislation they're planning, and then react to that?

They all support the Nordic Model so there isn't anything to say until the details are revealed. Once it comes out the criticisms will most likely focus on the need for more supports and exit programs. I expect the law will pass with close to unanimous support. NDP and Liberals will probably allow a vote of conscience. 

^ bunch of bs. stop trying to take away my voice and tell me or others what i think or believe.

 Wow, doesn't feel good dors it Quiz? Why do Abolutionists do it to others?

Bacchus wrote:

Im pretty sure both sides are doing that

Then call it out when you think it's happening. In this particular case there is evidence of non-abolitionists claiming to be expressing the views of abolitionists without providing any quotes.

Two wrongs don't make a right and in this case the wrong is the underhanded dishonest attacks being made on abolitionists. 

Brachina wrote:

Wow, doesn't feel good dors it Quiz? Why do Abolutionists do it to others?

Since when is that okay for anyone to do on a supposedly progressive board? Misappropriation of anyone's voices is or should be unacceptable. When you have a specific example of Abolitionists doing the same call it out. It's wrong. Saying "abolitionists do it too" does not justify anything.

 Doing that is the very nature of the Abolutionist arguement, ignoring what those in the professiin have to say, and taking away both thker voice and thier freedom  its inherient to to being an abolutionist and you can make all the excuses you want at the end of the day your still taking away someone rights and freedoms away and taking away the sexual autonomy from adults. There is no arguement, no rationalization that gives you that right. I could point to various research, the words of prostitutes, and so on to debunk your arguements, but the fact is, it doesn't matter that I right say about worker safefy, because even if you were right about worker safety of prostitutes for example its doesn't change or alter the rights of prostitutes to sexual autonomy that everyone else gets to enjoy.

Brachina wrote:

   Doing that is the very nature of the Abolutionist arguement, ignoring what those in the professiin have to say, and taking away both thker voice and thier freedom  its inherient to to being an abolutionist and you can make all the excuses you want at the end of the day your still taking away someone rights and freedoms away and taking away the sexual autonomy from adults. There is no arguement, no rationalization that gives you that right. I could point to various research, the words of prostitutes, and so on to debunk your arguements, but the fact is, it doesn't matter that I right say about worker safefy, because even if you were right about worker safety of prostitutes for example its doesn't change or alter the rights of prostitutes to sexual autonomy that everyone else gets to enjoy.

Sexual autonomy is not affected by prostitution law. Not even a tiny bit. 

Commerce is regulated because we recognize that the financial system is a societal creation that gives people with money unbridled power over other people. It is just a different iteration of might makes right that demands "voluntary" subjugation. 

57% of the prostitutes in the DTES are First Nations women.  You demand for them the right to debase themselves in their desperation. You call this freedom.  I call it subjugation and a continuation of colonization.  We definitely need more support programs but legalizing the degradation of FN women (nor any other women) is not the next best thing to having more and better prevention and exit services. 

fortunate wrote:

I also thought that rabble had a policy against the infantalization of sex workers by not allowing the terminology of the abolitionist which includes 'prostituted' or 'prostitute' or 'being prostituted' or any other variation of what could be an acceptable term, but is twisted by abolotionists to dismiss the ability of any sex worker to speak for themselves.

Those words don't belong to abolitionists or survivors of prostitution or anyone else. They are used in law, in the names of prostitutes organizations that support prostitution, and in the names of survivor groups that don't, in studies and in dictionaries. "Sex worker" can't be used because it isn't a synonym for "prostitute". Sex workers themselves insist it has a broader meaning. 

If it is of any comfort to you both sex workers and prostitutes have been so vocal that I don't think there is any chance of anyone being convinced that they are unable to speak for themselves. So, even if that were the goal of abolitionists you can be certain that the plot would fail miserably. 

I don't think sex workers or prostitutes are in any danger of being shouted down. On this very board there is an entire forum chock full of supportive threads. 

To get back on topic....

I'm very curious to know how the parties will react to the new laws and how quickly they will react. I'm expecting tentative support at first while claiming the need for careful study. April 27th they said it was expected in the coming weeks so we should see it very soon. I hope they haven't decided to hold it back until September. 

fortunate wrote:

Saying "Sex workers and prostitutes" just shows me the contempt with which you hold all sex workers.  It is just more passive aggressive nonsense.    Whether they are FN DTES marginalized sex workers or exited ones who've been exploited, or the others, the majority that abolitionists keep trying to sweep under the carpet, muzzle and discredit.

this is your opinion and nothing more.  and i call it nonsense.

Quote:

You also disrespect the tone of rabble/babble, by continuing to use sensationalistic terminology.  

more nonsense in fact i would say the pro crowd have done more damage to rabble and babble than any other posters around through disrespect and fabrications and sensationalistic spew.

Quote:

If abolitionists have their way, FN women and men   won't be listened to anyway.

talk about sensationalistic bs and expropriating of people's views and voices. you're simply unbelievable.

Quote:

   I for one demand that the abolitionists allow them to do what it is they have chosen to do, for whatever reason, and maybe, just maybe, less judgmentalism will attract them to the services that they need.   Their issues go  far far beyond whether or not they are sex workers, by the time that happens, they need the income.  Leave them alone, and leave them to the people who actually are concerned about what they need day to day, not tomorrow or ten years from now.

this is so offensive it make me ill. have you ever lived on a rez? are you Aboriginal? already know the answer and know you haven't a freakin clue.  

Unionist wrote:

I'm not a moderator and I don't pretend to be one. But it's just damn difficult to concentrate on a topic when it ends up being discussed (or sometimes shouted about) in several different threads and forums at once.

Whenever prostitution is discussed on babble supporters of it disrupt discussion through personal attacks, insisting that no one else has a right to speak or be heard or claiming that no one is listening to them. How many times have abolitionists been attacked for using the word "prostitution" on babble? 40, 50, 100, more? How many times have they been accused of being responsible for the deaths of prostitutes? Survivors of prostitution, obviously a marginalized and victimized group, are accused of being paid shills without a murmur from moderators. These kinds of attacks are obviously going to throw every single discussion on prostitution off topic, which is the point. It's a means of silencing the opposition or preventing other people from having a reasoned discussion. 

Unionist wrote:

To get back on topic, I still find it offensive and irresponsible that opposition parties are "waiting" for the fucking Conservatives to come up with a bill and frame the debate. The parties are all running shit scared, counting polls and votes, instead of simply taking a stand of principle on the rights and protection of women, sex workers, etc. - and whether or not the problems associated with sex work should be dealt with by criminalization, whether of sex workers or their customers or employers.

I've heard rumours about the NDP federal council. I've seen second-hand reports (which turn out to be false) about what Libby Davies did or did not say in the House of Commons. Why is this issue shrouded in secrecy and silence?

If anyone has noticed any of the parties taking a clear stand on the Criminal Code and what should and shout not be in it, please let us know - preferably before Peter Mackay tables whatever anti-human crap he is now formulating.

Thanks.

Trudeau has stated that prostitution is violence against women. I don't see how he could support any degree of legitimization of prostitution after saying it's violence against women. 

Libby Davis' attempt to get the NDP to support full decriminalization failed at the last two conventions. If the NDP supported it as a party she would have succeeded.

Both parties agree with the Conservative approach of a Canadian version of the Nordic model but they aren't going to spend the summer telling everyone the Conservatives are right. 

Both the Liberals and NDP will look for details in the bill to criticize once it comes out. I think the primary criticisms will be insufficient exit services, drug programs, housing, etc. 

I don't think polls have much to do with this issue because in my opinion they would show significant (or majority) support for legitimization and control through red light destricts and compulsory health checks while there would also be significant opposition from major women's groups on both sides of the political spectrum. If all the parties could just leave things the way they are now they would. Notice there was never any criticism of the Conservatives for fighting this all the way through to the SCC rather than writing a new law years ago.  Now the SCC is forcing the Conservatives to act because if they don't prostitution will become fully decriminalized. For debate to occur the parties would have to be in disagreement. There is no correct answer that will solve the ills of prostitution. 

The Nordic model is the obvious solution because it is moderate and it accomplishes goals from all sides of the debate. Prostitutes can call police without fear of arrest which gives them a bit of power over johns. The people who profit the most are penalized. 

It is true that the general public doesn't know a great deal about the issue and haven't explored it in great depth. It's not because they don't care. Pretty much everyone is against any form of forced or coerced prostitution. Many/most agree that consensual adult prostitution should be legal under strict controls but don't feel strongly about it because it isn't a part of their lives. A tiny minority see it as something they would personally participate in. There are way bigger issues than this that the parties aren't debating and aren't putting out detailed positions on.  

seeing as how the CTV got a copy of the the government's position on criminalizing pimps and johns the other parties must have access to it too.

i just went to the NDP's site and there's no comments yet. and i would bet they say nothing against it when it is tabled shortly. the backlash against them would be large imv. if they don't support it i will be voting liberal in the next election. for all the shit "justin" doesn't get or goes along with the Conservatives on, his stance on prostitution is the right one. it's violence against women.

 First off saying its violence does not magically become violence, its just you making stuff up.

 Secondly if taking away the basic human rights to freedom of associotion and safety from Prostitutes and thier clients is more important to you then issues like Keystone, Healthcare, pharmacare, education, social housing, cap and trade, and the continued survival of this country, then by all means vote Liberal, or better yet skip straight to the architechs of the bill, and vote tory, because if violating human rights is more important to the helpinv those in need and  making this country the best it can be then clearly the Tories and thier junior wing (liberal party) is where you realy belong.

Bob Dechert, Françoise Boivin and Marc Garneau debate the Government's recent survey on what Candians want in the new sex trade laws.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2461754769/

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I strongly suspect it will only be released in September or when the Conservatives need a distraction. 

Would you believe, tomorrow?

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-prostitution-bill-to-be-introduced-t... prostitution bill to be introduced this week[/url]

And guess what will be in it?

Quote:

But MacKay has insisted the forthcoming bill will be a uniquely Canadian solution.

He said the online public consultations showed a "clear majority" of those who took part felt that purchasing sexual services should be illegal.

Allow me a moment of vulgarity: Now that Harper will table his crap, perhaps it's time for the NDP, Liberals, Bloc, and Greens to shit or get off the pot?

I am delighted it will be introduced so soon. Over a month ago we were told it would be a few weeks so I had given up hope. I'm sure all the parties will weigh in once it's announced. 

Not too hard to guess what will be in it. I'm looking forward to reading the penalties. 

The thought of Canada installing outdoor drivein stalls to degrade women in was appalling. The promoters never mention that "harm reduction" tactic. 

 2 thought experimentals

 1) Mr. X has sex with Ms. T, (letters picked at random), for free. Mr. X is gentle and kind and focuses mostly on her pleasure..is this a violent act?

 A year later Mr. X and Ms. T have sex again, time Ms. T charges Mr. X blank amount of dollars. The sex is exactly the same except thier is a transfer of funds at the end. Is the transfer of funds inheriantly violent.

 Mr. X later goes to his mechanic and pays whar he owns the mechanic for fixing his car. Is this an act of violence?

 Experiment 2) Mr. X hires a Dominatrix who ties him up and does blank. How exactly does some tied up and helpless commit an act of violence.

 And its more then protecting an industry, its about protecting two or more adult individuals right to engage in sex together for the reasons that they see fit.

 And lets also stop pretending that Abolutionists actual care about the well being of these women, they don't care enough to listen to them, they don't respect them enough to allow them autonomy over they're own bodies, the only thing Abolutionist care about is protecting thier own interests, weather its power/influence (the rescue industry is profittable), weather fear that a spouse might stray, or weather its simply the fact that the idea makes them uncomfortable.

 I think we all know the resulted were decided before the survey was ever done. Polls taken shows how full of shit the Tories are. Not to meantion a survey like this is totally swarmable by Abolutionist forces both religious and otherwise.