Thank you Brachina. The worst part about this debate is the way survivors are dismissed and even denigrated as thought we are have no right to speak out.
To try to stay somewhat on topic I think the Liberals and NDP will continue to be as vague as possible in denouncing Bill C 36. If or when they are forced to take a position I think they will stick to demanding better definitions and more money for exit services.
Alot of people make claims that sex workers die every day, however who does have the stats on this? It's one thing to say it is due to the 'inherent' violence, and another thing to acknowledge that, like every other woman out there, sex workers are much more likely to suffer violence or death at the hands of their spouse.
I don't think the NDP or the Liberals are being 'evasive' about criminalization of clients. I think that they probably think it is one of the stupidest ideas ever, and they don't give it even the time to make a statement as to why they don't plan on doing it. You can't force someone to state their opinion on something based on they have to answer this specific question. They've already said that they are not voting yes for C36, period. that should tell everyone what they think about further criminalization that affects adult consensual sex workers.
"survivors' is put in quotes imo because that is what they call themselves, but the use of the term is sensationalism. If 'survivors' can refer to sex workers by calling them 'sex workers', I think a little of what they spit out is just coming back to them. If these survivor organizationed people were inclusive, instead of condescending, rude, insulting towards adult consensual sex workers, it would be a different story. The antiC36 speaker Naomi Sayers was told to make sure she didn't go anywhere alone during her time at the committee location, due to the potential backlash by some of these rescue 'survivors'. They were reported having cornered sex worker or sex worker advocate speakers in the women's bathroom to say derogatory things to them, and twitter is live with some nasty comments by them to sex workers.
They are not angels, and they most certainly are not interested in the safety and welfare for ALL sex workers.
When you say they have been denigrated and not allowed to speak out? That is ridiculous, because they are the ONLY voices the govt and the media was willing to listen to. Everything they claim, false as it is, is being used to create dangerous legislation. It is only after the C36 was presented and the fallout from that that the media finally had to do a turn around and present those who were opposed. the opposition became so much louder, and made so much more sense of course. Even a lazy reporter like Heather Mallick could muddle their way to figure out it wasn't doing what the govt claimed it was supposed to do.
anyway, just posting to bump past the spambot attack.
Pondering, personal attacks and grievance enhancement is a very bad recovery method, unfortunately used by many support groups lacking professional skills and blinded by their ideologies. It leads to self-fulfilling prophecies. You internalize a self-perception as victim. You attack others who respond, comforting you in your self-perception as a victim.
Now I am asking you to retract the statement suggesting I said I’m a john.
Of course some “survivors” of sex work related aggressions blatantly lie, often in order to get financial gains for themselves or for their organisations. But I think most don’t.
Public policy based solely on “survivors” stories is always bad policy, just as people going into politics with a victim’s agenda often make bad politicians, Bellemarre and Boisvenu being 2 noticeable examples.
I have yet to see a “survivor” dismissed as “survivors” is this debate. It was crucial to hear them. Now if you think that not following their dangerous policy suggestions is dismissing them, you’re wrong. Dismissing and disagreeing are two different things.
I put “survivors” into quotes because I think the greatest way to heal from a trauma is getting rid of the victim self image. I do that out of respect for them and for you, Pondering. I refuse to take an active role in returning them an image that comforts them in their victim status. Compassion expresses itself the best, I think, when it’s not labelling.
The Joy Smitt show “Oh how terrible that must have been, you’re such a victim and how brave of you to come tell your victim story” was demagogic over the top I thought, using them for religious and political purposes. Boivin and Casey looked more humane to me in their expression of compassion because in no way were they showing a will to use them. They think that hurting third parties that do not perceive themselves as victims and do not ask to be taught they are victims may not be a good idea.
That doesn't make sense, because a "survivor" in psy parlance is a person who has been victimized by a traumatic experience and succeeded in overcoming the "victim" status. I have even more experience with (political) torture survivors, moreover, I can talk about it in more detail as I wasn't working in a professional capacity and thus bound by confidentiality, as many of my experiences with sex industry survivors are.
And as there is much bad blood on all sides of this debate, what you say against anti-sex-industry survivors is just as true on the other side - you are using terms like "spit out" about those with whom you disagree.
I'm a PTSD survivor. When the bad people were doing things to me, I was a victim of X, Y, and Z during the specific time periods they were victimizing me. True enough, I am not a victim of those people any more as they can't hurt me any more. So I went to this rah rah rah session and they said we should get rid of 'victimhood'. "Not being a victim" in the eyes of the controllers is basically "getting over it". What are you going to do? Deny that the torture happened? That makes it worse.
In the eyes of the more sympathetic it is "working out your stuff". Which you do have to do if you are going to carry on. True enough, history is history, and we have to move on. So I can go along with that, "victimhood" is not an existential state, but something that you are at the specific time you are victimized. So according to semantics I WAS a victim of X, Y, and Z, and not AM.
There is an old saying that bad cases make the worst law. The government took the worst cases, with which they are going to make a bad law. When things happen to you, there is a natural tendency to want retribution, and you are going to advocate extreme positions which you think are going to prevent what happened to you happening to someone else. Indeed, you are going to want to burn villages down, which in this instance would be manifested in a basic urge to render men impotent.
Degrading the term survivor, however, I have to take issue with. Being a survivor IS an existential state. Despite their words and their behaviour which may not have been constitutionally perfect, these women were forced into prostitution and were victimized by the pimps and the johns. Hearing what they say (without necessarily agreeing with their suggestions) and watching their actions tells us there that there is a truth, and they have lived it.
Having the past in the past and your own existence is the only logical basis for any notion. When you have survived, you have escaped with your life. When you call yourself a survivor, it is because you have been through something that has caused others to die. It is a fair word to use for someone who has escaped a criminal prostitution business (which is to be opposed to consenting sex work), because we have seen and heard of many deaths of these women.
Taking sex-work out of the conversation entirely, there are laws that have been on the books for decades at least, and they are not being enforced. Kidnapping. Forcible confinement. Sex with a minor. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Slavery. Assault. Why is there no will to enforce the law? Because no one dares to ask "Why did you run away from home?"
Why is there no will to enforce the law?Great post montrealer, thanks for sharing. On that last question, police corruption is one reason, very present both in prohibition and traditional regulation regimes (called the French System in UK 150 years ago). Pimps, rich clients and sex workers would pay the police in order to leave them alone. By the way, this is one very important point made by the true abolitionists: the moment the State tries to regulate or prohibit prostitution, it encourages corruption. It was present in Montreal during alcohol prohibition. We also read recently that LE officers accounted for something like 20% of perpetrators in Ohio.
However, I think LE is more and more immune to corruption today and that this is no more a significant explanation.
LE is doing exactly what it should be doing at the present. They don’t care about brothels (210). It’s useless. They don’t care about agency owners (212). It’s useless. They are on a path to stop the useless criminalization of street sex workers.
So those are useless laws that are not applied, and it’s a good thing. But bring them cases of exploitation (rebranded trafficking) and I guarantee you they will investigate to the full extent. They apply laws that make sense.
So to answer that question, IMHO, yes they apply the laws that matter to you, and yes, there is a will to apply them. It’s inherent in a policeman’s genetics: a violent pimp arrest is something that ranks high in the pride of a policeman.
The reason we think there is no will to apply those laws is that there are relatively few arrests, at least in regards of our representations of the level of criminality in that sector. But:
1 the level of exploitation may not be as high as many think;
2 the levels of both international and internal human trafficking may not be as high as many think;
3 the sex workers do not report crimes for many reasons: fear of perpetrator retaliation, fear of police, unwillingness to out themselves as sex workers. A crime nor reported or otherwise witnessed by LE can’t be investigated;
4 But LE could be proactive, would you say. Well they are. it’s part of the surveillance of criminal gangs, those exact one prohibitionists are pointing their fingers at.
Prohibitionists like Malarek and Poulin have concentrated their efforts in building the image of a large scale vertically integrated worldwide sex industry. It’s almost totally irrelevant for Canada. LE concentrates the investigations precisely on those elements. They have a pretty good knowledge of it. It’s present mainly in the strip club sector.
It felt king of weird to see the conservatives reassuring the strip club association representatives before the Justice Committee. You know, the guy who came to say his sector is legit but not the others. Strip clubs owners are the ones pushing for special permits to hire migrant strippers (understand those ready to accept the frequent lousy contracts in the strip clubs.)
That doesn't make sense, because a "survivor" in psy parlance is a person who has been victimized by a traumatic experience and succeeded in overcoming the "victim" status.
A survivor as someone "coping with". But in that sense, you may be a survivor of a common problem, anxiety for example, that may not be linked to a traumatic event (unless you’re Freudian, but then we are all survivors).
In the general public, even though I’m not an Anglophone, I believe the term resonates more with severe traumatic experiences, like the “holocaust survivors” who may be coping with it, not coping with it (but they all do to a certain degree, otherwise they’d be dead) or simply not severely affected by it. That’s why we can perceive it as sensationalist.
I though the idea of “prostitution survivor” was promoted mainly by Farley and McKinnon. I never heard it by any psychologist except those fighting for prohibition. It does not make sense unless you think prostitution in itself is a traumatic experience. Farley’s own data do not support such claim that she makes however. Most traumas she diagnosed (with huge depart from scientific methodology) happened before entry into prostitution.
Taking sex-work out of the conversation entirely, there are laws that have been on the books for decades at least, and they are not being enforced. Kidnapping. Forcible confinement. Sex with a minor. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Slavery. Assault. Why is there no will to enforce the law? Because no one dares to ask "Why did you run away from home?"
Great post, and i agree here with the part i have quoted. When did these things become OK when the victim is doing sex work? Answer: it was never OK. That is why those laws are applied against the people that get caught doing it, or have testimony against or evidence collected. in the case of exploiters of anyone underage, they don't even have to cooperate or testify, the fact of their age denies them the ability to consent, so even an actual true relationship can get someone arrested in the under 18 cases.
The laws are there. Are the police cooperating in enforcing them? Maybe they are now that the trafficking spotlight is on them, but when you look at Evan Solomon's interview with sex workers, including two street workers and the officers who are on the street with them, that is a much more cooperative effort on the part of law enforcement.
Maybe the 20 million needs to go to better policing of child abuse/incest reports, group home monitoring, and other places where children are likely to be. Why worry about whether or not a sex worker may or may not be within 500 yards of someone under 18, they aren't the ones abusing kids. nor are their clients.
@ Gustave, yes, the whole strip club organization presentation/questioning I came into late, and it failed to make sense to me. He's trying to make it clear that dancers aren't prostitutes (we know that) but that sex services could be considered something like a lap dance (which is true, it does involve body contact) Plus, not acknowledged (admitted) is the real fact that sex acts do occur with some of the dancers in the private rooms. And of course the issue for dancers is that not all of them do that, but because some do it, it pressures those who do not being pestered with groping or solicitation for sexual services for extra tips.
@ unionist, on topic, from Elizabeth May
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/elizabeth-may/2014/07/how-not-to-protect-lives-sex-trade-workers
And for those interested in a refresher, here is a link to the laws as they are now http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-109.html#docCont
What will be removed? All of 210, 212 (1) (j) and 213 (1) (c) If you are like me, you will still see many many relevant laws, and these sections don't even cover trafficking or assault or kidnapping, which are still unchanged.
And this is what happened to two of the people who presented represented adult consensual sex workers
http://www.pivotlegal.org/justice_committee_ignored_sex_workers
Being among the highest paid workers in our society, I would hope that police are financially incorruptible.
In today's committee hearings all we hear from the Tories is the Act is for the "children". According to Dechert, lead spokesman for the Government, sex workers will be able to work safely indoors and the police will be able to rescue the teenagers. The Tories on the committee are convinced that schools are hotbeds of sexual recruitment and communication. Something else I didn't know. They have the advantage of Internet surveillance.
Scroll back to the beginning of the day to view the recaps of the discussion/voting, such as it was.
@montreal, it does seem that Dechert believes there is 'recruiting' going on in the playgrounds of schoolyards:) re: the finances of police, i dont' think it is a financial consideration that leads to the abuse of power over sex workers in the street trade, or even in massage parlours.
from the tweets
BC Civil Liberties @bccla · 1h
@kady we do not think that these amendments innoculate against the myriad constit’l probs.
What the hell can they sell, and to whom, has been my question from day one," Boivin sums up her issue with #C36
Dechart won't win the public opinion polls with this one: Police aren't going to arrest you in your own apartment," Dechert reminds sex workers -- choose to stay indoors, where it's safer. (since the public don't want 'brothels' as their neighbours lol)
The Conservative side of the table is pretty well convinced that school playgrounds are hotbeds of sex trade transactions.
This is a very, very well-written, well-balanced bill," Smith assures her opposition colleagues.
The Conservative side of the table is pretty well convinced that school playgrounds are hotbeds of sex trade transactions.
Children, Dechert goes on, also "have the right to their innocence", free of the sex trade going on by the playground slide.
Boivin can't recall any witness worrying about sex work transactions being negotiated down by the school yard.
This isn't a recruiting section," Boivin reminds Dechert, but a "doing section", and suggests he may have gotten confused. #36
"Do not look for your clients in the schoolyard," Dechert says, is a perfectly reasonable approach.
from the tweets
BC Civil Liberties @bccla · 1h
@kady we do not think that these amendments innoculate against the myriad constit’l probs.
What the hell can they sell, and to whom, has been my question from day one," Boivin sums up her issue with #C36
I hope the press jumps on this one and askes her directly if she means that prostitution should be legal.
Gustave, your entire post is an attempt at silencing through shaming and denigrating people willing to speak out. You do not simply disagree with the arguments being presented, you personally attack the people who are brave enough to share their history through insinuating that they are unhealthily embracing victimhood. Others responded with far greater patience than I could have.
Now I am asking you to retract the statement suggesting I said I’m a john.
When a sentence contains the punctuation "?" it means it is a question not a statement so there is nothing to retract. Besides, it's just like getting a hair cut isn't it?
How can they say stay indoors where its safer when they can't advertise? Are clients supposed to guess which apartments have prostitutes, maybe go door to door asking people ic thier prostititutes?
Pondering, can you please retract and/or remobve the statement where you suggest Gustave said he was a john. To my knowledge, he has said no such thing. As it stands that comment is libelious and a personal attack.
Gustave, show people who identify as survivors the respect accorded to them on this forum and do not use scare quotes. Thank you.
Pondering, can you please retract and/or remobve the statement where you suggest Gustave said he was a john. To my knowledge, he has said no such thing. As it stands that comment is libelious and a personal attack.
I did actually think he had. I'm sure someone did and I must have confused him with that person. I really did ask it as a question so I do retract the question if that is meaningful. I definitely accept his response that I was mistaken.
Thanks, Pondering.
The number they did not want us to see in the hidden ipsos survey: 49,8%. Those are the Canadians who want to see sex workers criminalized. The corresponding online consultation gaves 34%. That's a clear demonstration of the invalidity of the online consultation.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/07/16/secret_poll_shows_canadian...
Do note the male - female split in responses to these polls, though...
@ Pondering, there is not only the need to retract, but also go back and edit your orginal comment.
Not that I personally think that being identified as a client of sex workers should be considered libel, since it is legal and shouldn't be consider so negative it would be a libel issue. :)
How can they say stay indoors where its safer when they can't advertise? Are clients supposed to guess which apartments have prostitutes, maybe go door to door asking people ic thier prostititutes?
lol, I actually saw an anti posting comments in an article that was fear mongering just that scenario. Oh, my, she said, if there is a sex worker in my building, some guy might knock on MY door. Well, wouldn't he already know the correct door to knock on, so the chances that happening are pretty low?
True, Lagatta. The split is about the same (11-12%, but we don't get the residuals from the press article, that is the % with no opinion) on both criminalizing seller and criminalizing sellers. Canadian women favor criminalizing sex workers. So do the Swedish women, at a higher percentage today (nearly 70% if I remember well) then when the law came into effect in 1999. The idea that sex workers are victims is pretty high in both countries, but not enough victim, I guess, that they should avoid criminalization. The Swedish governement has obviously failed to convince it's population that sex workers should not be prosecuted. The law had the opposite effect if anything. Of course, Sweden had and still has a much higher rate of migrants among sex workers so that could be part of the explanation there.
The stigma is huge, and social programs cause even more problems. I included a you tube interview with one of the proponents of the Swedish law, which took place at a support services centre in Sweden, and the interviewer was kicked out of the place for bringing up the issues of not providing services for those sex workers who do not wish to exit. The employee of the place was recorded as saying she hopes the interviewer has a problem in the future, but if she does she won't get any help at this location.
And their latest move is to deport foreign sex workers. Altho the EU allows free travel/work, & the workers are working legally by selling sex services, the Swedish govt considers it 'unsavory' way of earning an income, which allows them the opportunity to deport anyone engaged in prositution.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/19/think_again_prostitution
The link includes discussing the problem with the antis coming up with bad stats
Reminds me of the reports of jeering and insults that were directed at anti C36 presenters at the Justice committee. The jeering coming from the Pro C36 presenters and their cronies.
The employee of the place was recorded as saying she hopes the interviewer has a problem in the future, but if she does she won't get any help at this location.
Well not an ordinary employee. It was Gunilla Ekberg herself, showing all the hate she has for sex workers.
True, Lagatta. The split is about the same (11-12%, but we don't get the residuals from the press article, that is the % with no opinion) on both criminalizing buyers and criminalizing sellers. Canadian women favor criminalizing sex workers. So do the Swedish women, at a higher percentage today (nearly 70% if I remember well) then when the law came into effect in 1999. The idea that sex workers are victims is pretty high in both countries, but not enough victim, I guess, that they should avoid criminalization. The Swedish governement has obviously failed to convince it's population that sex workers should not be prosecuted. The law had the opposite effect if anything. Of course, Sweden had and still has a much higher rate of migrants among sex workers so that could be part of the explanation there.
If you want facts on issues of prostitution, migrantion, trafficing, and the rescue industry this is the woman to look to.
Side note her post on Mam is really interesting, as is the implications about NGOs (and it seems pretty clear what she says about NGOs is not restricted to the rescue industry, and I've read a book, I forget what it was called, from a woman who worked in an AIDS NGO would basically admitted to being shall we say invovled in massaging the facts, not fraud, but definately spinning things to encourage donations, although she emphasised it was to get more resources to help people, not to fatten her wallet, either way this sort of thing happens, even NGOs live in a Capitalist society).
I'm a feminist and an ecosocialist, and the idea that women are objects to be bought and sold is heinous from that standpoint.
There all kinds of NGOs, left and right.They include fundie crap, trusts created by capitalists, and progressive groups defunded and persecuted by Harper.
I think that it is absolutely disgusting that people who claim to be on the left view women as commodities to be bought and sold.
And no, of course I don't support the Con law in drag as "abolitionist", since it criminalises exploited people and provides no real alternative. But gilding the ugly sex trade is just as heinous in terms of viewing women (and other marginalised groups of people) as objects to be bought and sold.
We are people, damnit!
No is supporting people being sold, that's slavery not prostitution, there is a difference, a service is being sold, no different then a mechanic selling his skills in car repair, he's not selling himself, he's selling a service. Same with prostitution. If your arguement hinges completely on misrepesentation then it is flimsy indeed.
Excuse me, but the Mods want a remark withdrawn in which one Babbler calls another a john .... but Bachhus' proposal upthread that 3 named political leaders should be killed is allowed to stand?? Seems very odd.
PS And I do agree with Unionist that this persistent thread drift is unhelpful.
Brachina, if you think being a prostitute is the same thing as being a car mechanic, that is indeed misrepresentation.
I agree with sherpa-finn about the thread drift. I was reacting to a post which I thought glamourised prostitution. I don't support the bill being proposed, for several reasons, and think it will be struck down.
My point is they both sell a set of services, not a point by point compareson of thier jobs, or to suggest that the services provided are exactlythe same. And my point was prostitutes don't sell themselves, they don't sell they're bodies, they sell a service. That's it and to suggest otherwise is sensatationalistic falsehood.
Well there isn’t any much else to talk about. Both Boivin and Casey were very solid and both are against criminalization of clients. They knew what this would come down to anyway. They are not in power. Neither party had a platform on the issue. It’s not the role of the opposition to tell what exactly would be their policy. That’s not how the parliament works.
From now on the questions are:
How will LE approach the illegality of sex work?
What will happen to the thousand or so massage parlours in Canada, providing the safest environment for sex work?
How many sex workers will simply be driven into more poverty and how many will be better off in five years because of C-36?
For how long will the fear factor affect the demand?
***
Lagatta, people being bought and sold is called slavery or marriage. I don’t think anyone of the left, of the right as a matter of fact, view women, or men, as commodities to be bought and sold. There is no debate about that.
A rural, not yet married young thai woman knows what’s waiting for her: living a hard life, with no money to rise her kids, under the control of a man she did not choose, with complex dowry exchange between the families. When she decides to get to the city in order to make some money she could not even dream of otherwise, she is in fact extracting herself, at least momentarily, from the marriage market of her community at the exact moment she is most likely to be coopted by it in a vulnerable condition. Paradoxically, she probably considers herself as more free than the other women, more in control of her own life.
She is not forced. And she does not need to be controlled. She goes to work all by herself.
Prostitution has a meaning for her. She feels it’s her best option to improve her present conditions. A year or two in the cities and it’s all done. She has enough to go back and build her own house. She makes a choice considering her conditions. There are not many options in rural Thailand.
We may think she in fact gets corrupted by money and that the money she brings back to the community creates the sort of disparities peasant communities have difficulties living with. When I put myself in her sandals, which is difficult because I’m not a woman, I have no idea what I would do. One thing for sure, however, I would not want the others deciding for me. I would probably not feel very happy about arranged marriage either.
Prostitution is one of the few levers of social mobility left thanks to the neocons. And Laggatta wants to shut it down keeping women poverty and removing choices both in regard to particapating in prostitution, and also the choices created by the income generated by it. Prostitution isn't slavery, proverty is spavery and for some woman and men its the escape route from poverty.
Your not fighting slavery your promoting slavery and I just don't understand why your taking such a patracharical and mysogynistic position about this.
If you really want to end survival prostitution in a way that helps these woman you should be demanding the money that gets wasted on the rescue industry and police harrassment of sex worker and clients and along with other money create a universal minium annul income of a respectable level for everyone, and helping everyone else in poverty as well. Instead you priority is petty vengence against innocent clients, at the expense to the safety and rights of these woman. Why don't you respect these women? I also note you focus on the women and not the men in the sex trade, is a woman who hires a male prostitute buying him in your world or does it not matter because he's male, and if that is the case is that because you believe he matters less because he's a man or because he has enough free agency to decide for himself whereas you don't think women do?
In the end, I do not expect any major changes to the current status quo. Independent sex workers who work indoors and their clients will mostly be left alone, as the cost of going after them will be prohibitive and cracking down on indoor sex work just means that more of it will spill on to the streets and that is the last thing that law enforcement and cities would want. Only the risk of criminality will be transferred from the provider (bawdy house laws) to the client (purchase law) but the law would rarely be enforced for the same reason that bawdy house laws are never enforced against independent sex workers now. The exception would be well publicized stings, but clients who stick to seeing a few well established providers would have little risk of falling for that.
There might be some accomodation for massage parlors, I am not sure, or they might just have to close down with the new laws. But that would mean more sex work spilling into the streets and against that is the last thing that local goverments would want.
For street prostitution, the new laws would just mean that it would be pretty much business as usual. Law enforcement would continue to target clients of street prostitutes as they do today in most cities. It would drive the sex trade further into the shadows, resulting in more violence against sex workers and more deaths.
This is absolutely disgusting:
Prostitution is one of the few levers of social mobility left thanks to the neocons. And Laggatta wants to shut it down keeping women poverty and removing choices both in regard to particapating in prostitution, and also the choices created by the income generated by it. Prostitution isn't slavery, proverty is spavery and for some woman and men its the escape route from poverty.
Your not fighting slavery your promoting slavery and I just don't understand why your taking such a patracharical and mysogynistic position about this.
Of course you spell my webname wrong, but that is hardly out of character.
The idea that I, a left militant for about 45 years, wants to keep "women poverty" whatever the hell that means, is beyond ridiculous; it is defamation. I was involved in the first Bread and Roses march here. Doubt you were.
That is a personal attack. I have a right to disagree with the commercial sex trade crowd. Ending poverty is a struggle involving job creation, income and educational support, social housing and many other factors - not women selling their genitals.
I think the major problem in terms of violence and exploitation involves the prostitution of women. In gay male prostitution, there is not the layer of sexism, and often less risk of violence. Male prostution for women clients is an insignificant part of the picture.
I have reported Brachina's comment as a personal attack. This is a vicious slander against me as a lifelong activist. How long can I refrain from swearing at her?
Excuse me, but the Mods want a remark withdrawn in which one Babbler calls another a john .... but Bachhus' proposal upthread that 3 named political leaders should be killed is allowed to stand?? Seems very odd.
PS And I do agree with Unionist that this persistent thread drift is unhelpful.
Yup Shoot, shovel and shut up is the way to handle them
And yes the thread drift is unhelpful
If you want facts on issues of prostitution, migrantion, trafficing, and the rescue industry this is the woman to look to.
Side note her post on Mam is really interesting, as is the implications about NGOs (and it seems pretty clear what she says about NGOs is not restricted to the rescue industry, and I've read a book, I forget what it was called, from a woman who worked in an AIDS NGO would basically admitted to being shall we say invovled in massaging the facts, not fraud, but definately spinning things to encourage donations, although she emphasised it was to get more resources to help people, not to fatten her wallet, either way this sort of thing happens, even NGOs live in a Capitalist society).
Yes, i've got several posts on the frauds behind these NGOs in the sex worker forum, in the thread called "Myth of Sex Trafficking". It's amazing how few people realize some of the people they are using as victim examples weren't even sex workers.
Brachina, if you think being a prostitute is the same thing as being a car mechanic, that is indeed misrepresentation.
I agree with sherpa-finn about the thread drift. I was reacting to a post which I thought glamourised prostitution. I don't support the bill being proposed, for several reasons, and think it will be struck down.
Have you been one? Are you one now?
If the answers to those questions is NO, then you have no business to tell others what sex work is or is not. When sex workers stand up and tell you what it is, to deny them their voices is just about the worst thing any feminist can do to another woman (assuming the people standing up are female of course). It isn't 'lefties', its about human rights, and dignity, and respect. I have found absolutely zero respect towards sex workers from abolitionists and antiprostitution advocates. they could care less about what the people they claim to be saving or so concerned about want.
The ONLY way sex work would be considered damaging to the adult consensual sex workers who do it is if ALL casual sex between two consenting adults was considered damaging (specifically i suppose to women). Because the fact that $$ exchange hands does nothing to change the facts, it is still two adults engaged in casual sex, and both consent to do it. It's like saying that mechanic can't give consent because he/she 'has' to be a mechanic to pay the bills. He/she still chooses to do that work, possibly they have a knack for it, and they enjoy what they do. It isn't any less true for a sex worker to feel that way about their work than a mechanic. To suggest that it is impossible means that patriarchal societal norms (good girls don't do that) are at play.
In the end, I do not expect any major changes to the current status quo. Independent sex workers who work indoors and their clients will mostly be left alone, as the cost of going after them will be prohibitive and cracking down on indoor sex work just means that more of it will spill on to the streets and that is the last thing that law enforcement and cities would want. Only the risk of criminality will be transferred from the provider (bawdy house laws) to the client (purchase law) but the law would rarely be enforced for the same reason that bawdy house laws are never enforced against independent sex workers now. The exception would be well publicized stings, but clients who stick to seeing a few well established providers would have little risk of falling for that.
There might be some accomodation for massage parlors, I am not sure, or they might just have to close down with the new laws. But that would mean more sex work spilling into the streets and against that is the last thing that local goverments would want.
For street prostitution, the new laws would just mean that it would be pretty much business as usual. Law enforcement would continue to target clients of street prostitutes as they do today in most cities. It would drive the sex trade further into the shadows, resulting in more violence against sex workers and more deaths.
It's possible that instead of being in a commercially zoned business front location, that if these masssage parlours close, these safe places where the sex workers don't have to reveal their home addresses or work alone, then there will be more one or two person home based business being set up, so the real fear "OMG THERE'S A BROTHEL IN MY CUL DE SAC" will come true, for many neighbourhoods. They probably won't realize it, of course, just as no one ever notices that there already is one in many apartment buildings. but will licensing and law enforcement really shut them down?
I know if Vancouver they recently put together a policy to stop doing harmful things, including going into massage parlours to try to lay bawdy house and living off the avails charges. If the charges are different one, i think that they would still follow this new policy. No one wants more street workers. It makes no sense to go after any massage parlour if it means that there will be fewer on the street.
I have reported Brachina's comment as a personal attack. This is a vicious slander against me as a lifelong activist. How long can I refrain from swearing at her?
Personally, I am highly offended by your earlier remark that sex workers 'selling their genitals'. That is a pretty vicious thing to say, has no basis in reality, like many abolitionist sensationalistic terms, and you really should be apologizing to everyone for that. A life long activist, maybe, as long as the victims don't speak up and let you know they do not identify as victim, and they do not want or need your help, because your idea of help is to reduce us all into poverty. We don't do sex work to be poor.
My friend recently retired from sex work because she had achieved her educational goal. She is also very active in sex worker advocacy. Another spoke at the Justice committee, and has done many interviews, and is a law student. Can these young women afford to pursue these goals without sex work? Maybe, but this is what THEY choose, it is legal, and they are consenting adults who know what they are doing, and what they are not doing.
And they most certainly are NOT selling their genitals. No one spends 300/hr (plus or minus 100) for genitals. For that matter, no one stays with a sex worker for one, two, or six hours at a time just to buy their genitals. It is a typical abolitionist twisting of what actually happens, what people actually do, but also what people are actually looking for.
Anyway that it is a drift, and as i must have said 20 times by now, if you want to debate sex work, why can't you just take it to the sex worker forum. Sure you'd have to stop attacking the actual sex workers, and admit that they should have a choice and voice in their own furture, but I'm sure anyone who identifies as an activist should be able to suspend their disbelief long enought to listen? There are so many voices, posted over there, from all over the WORLD. It's time some of you abolitionists took out the earplugs and paid attention.
There is no way I'm going to the sex worker forum, as I simply don't belong there.
This is absolutely disgusting:
Prostitution is one of the few levers of social mobility left thanks to the neocons. And Laggatta wants to shut it down keeping women poverty and removing choices both in regard to particapating in prostitution, and also the choices created by the income generated by it. Prostitution isn't slavery, proverty is spavery and for some woman and men its the escape route from poverty.
Your not fighting slavery your promoting slavery and I just don't understand why your taking such a patracharical and mysogynistic position about this.
Of course you spell my webname wrong, but that is hardly out of character.
The idea that I, a left militant for about 45 years, wants to keep "women poverty" whatever the hell that means, is beyond ridiculous; it is defamation. I was involved in the first Bread and Roses march here. Doubt you were.
That is a personal attack. I have a right to disagree with the commercial sex trade crowd. Ending poverty is a struggle involving job creation, income and educational support, social housing and many other factors - not women selling their genitals.
I think the major problem in terms of violence and exploitation involves the prostitution of women. In gay male prostitution, there is not the layer of sexism, and often less risk of violence. Male prostution for women clients is an insignificant part of the picture.
It wasn't a personal attack, it was an attack on your position, notice I did not say you personally, but rather your position. And yes you have every right to your position, but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to honestly criticize it.
And its wonderful you were apart of that march, but does it give you a free pass to hurt people?
I have reported Brachina's comment as a personal attack. This is a vicious slander against me as a lifelong activist. How long can I refrain from swearing at her?
Personally, I am highly offended by your earlier remark that sex workers 'selling their genitals'. That is a pretty vicious thing to say, has no basis in reality, like many abolitionist sensationalistic terms, and you really should be apologizing to everyone for that. A life long activist, maybe, as long as the victims don't speak up and let you know they do not identify as victim, and they do not want or need your help, because your idea of help is to reduce us all into poverty. We don't do sex work to be poor.
My friend recently retired from sex work because she had achieved her educational goal. She is also very active in sex worker advocacy. Another spoke at the Justice committee, and has done many interviews, and is a law student. Can these young women afford to pursue these goals without sex work? Maybe, but this is what THEY choose, it is legal, and they are consenting adults who know what they are doing, and what they are not doing.
And they most certainly are NOT selling their genitals. No one spends 300/hr (plus or minus 100) for genitals. For that matter, no one stays with a sex worker for one, two, or six hours at a time just to buy their genitals. It is a typical abolitionist twisting of what actually happens, what people actually do, but also what people are actually looking for.
Anyway that it is a drift, and as i must have said 20 times by now, if you want to debate sex work, why can't you just take it to the sex worker forum. Sure you'd have to stop attacking the actual sex workers, and admit that they should have a choice and voice in their own furture, but I'm sure anyone who identifies as an activist should be able to suspend their disbelief long enought to listen? There are so many voices, posted over there, from all over the WORLD. It's time some of you abolitionists took out the earplugs and paid attention.
I've read some escort charge in the thousands of dollars on escort blogs. One changed a minium of 4,000$. 4,000$! Yeah your right you don't spend that of money just for gentials, it has to be scratching deep seated biological drives and phycological needs.
No, you did attack me.
It is ludicrous for me to participate in the sex work forum, which is a "safe place for sex workers". And I agree that it should be.
If the answers to those questions is NO, then you have no business to tell others what sex work is or is not.
Then it also follows that unless someone has been a car mechanic they can't say what that is or isn't either. I think most car mechanics would say their work is nothing like prostitution.
I have found absolutely zero respect towards sex workers from abolitionists and antiprostitution advocates. they could care less about what the people they claim to be saving or so concerned about want.
I think what you mean is that anyone who disagrees with you is being disrespectful which is very convenient way to shut down discussion and silence others. In your world only sex workers and people who lobby in favor of sex work are allowed to speak. That is censorship.
Being paid for sex isn't a human right no matter how many times you claim that it is. It is not a gender, sexual orientation or a race. Prostitution and casual sex are not the same thing.
When sex workers stand up and tell you what it is, to deny them their voices is just about the worst thing any feminist can do to another woman (assuming the people standing up are female of course).
Having a voice is not the same thing as getting to dictate.
Because the fact that $$ exchange hands does nothing to change the facts, it is still two adults engaged in casual sex, and both consent to do it.
The two individuals are still free to have sex. That part isn't illegal. So, it seems that $$$ changing hands does change the facts. Seems like the sex worker doesn't really want to have sex.
Sure you'd have to stop attacking the actual sex workers, and admit that they should have a choice and voice in their own furture,... ..... It's time some of you abolitionists took out the earplugs and paid attention.
The problem is abolitionists are attacked there and are not allowed to defend themselves. You don't want to hear what abolitionists have to say. You also confuse being heard with being agreed with. You equate other voices being heard as yours being silenced.You equate speaking against prostitution with attacking sex workers.
Projecting the behavior of some abolitionists on all abolitionists is the same as projecting the behavior of some Muslims on all Muslims. It is bigotry.
I have a right to disagree with the commercial sex trade crowd. Ending poverty is a struggle involving job creation, income and educational support, social housing and many other factors - not women selling their genitals.
Yes you do and, very sincerely, I appreciate almost all your posts in this discussion, mainly because you avoid using phony stats. I think you are absolutely right on this one. No one should have to sell sex to be able to get out of poverty and we should do just what you suggest. But in the mean time don't you think we are pushing sex workers into more poverty by sending in the cavalry?
My outlook on the sex trade is at odds with yours. However, as I've said before, I don't support the proposed law for many reasons, including criminalization where none existed before (at least on the books), a cruel joke of funding "alternatives" and the fundamental fact that I don't trust the Cons or any religious fundamentalists.
I'm not involved in any abolitionist movement, except in so far at the FFQ and MMF have generally taken that position (in terms of their central demand against poverty and violence - by the way, while of course their central concern is women, it means poverty and violence against any human being). There are people in prostitution whom I mourn to this day - I most certainly don't hold them in contempt for what they had to do. Most of these people were Indigenous women. I have Indigenous family (from more than one people) and as a result have been involved in many Indigenous social and cultural issues.
An aside; the "car mechanic" thing amused me, as I've been an activist for more bicycles, buses, trams and metros, and more walkable cities, and far fewer cars in urban areas, for about 40 years. That is something I've actually been involved in, unlike anything to do with the sex trade. But of course one wouldn't start out with "car mechanics" but with auto and petroleum industry capitalists, and government involved in carcentric planning.
Sure you'd have to stop attacking the actual sex workers, and admit that they should have a choice and voice in their own furture,... ..... It's time some of you abolitionists took out the earplugs and paid attention.The problem is abolitionists are attacked there and are not allowed to defend themselves. You don't want to hear what abolitionists have to say. You also confuse being heard with being agreed with. You equate other voices being heard as yours being silenced.You equate speaking against prostitution with attacking sex workers.
Projecting the behavior of some abolitionists on all abolitionists is the same as projecting the behavior of some Muslims on all Muslims. It is bigotry.
When the subject is sex work and sex workers, then it isn't comparable to say oh boo hoo the abolitionists who are working so hard to take away our jobs are getting an unfair shake. i don't care what abolitionists have to say because I've done the research and I know they are lying, using false claims, using false data, and inflating their numbers.
Sex workers and advocates are not doing this, they are simply trying to tell their stories, and we watch while people like Smith and Ambler try to discredit those stories as 'happy hooker sitcoms'.
@ lagatta, i went with the mechanic analogy because someone else brought it up. It is similar, the mechanic is providing a service. There will be parts sometimes, of course, but not all the time. Just as a sex worker needs supplies and sometimes needs 'equipment', in the case of Bedford for example. Both spend a lot on 'tools'. :)
But no, diminishing them into 'genital' shows a complete lack of knowledge. You can have an opinion because you are squeamish about naughty bits touching, but to rationalize that by inventing something that doesn't or rarely even exists means you miss the memo, The sex worker forum, whether you participate or not, is there for your education. Saying you won't post there doesn't mean you shouldn't be reading the topics and articles. Otherwise you are as bad as this govt, making things up as they go along, with zero interest in the real facts and real sex workers they are talking about, and for.
Look at the CBC video posted by Mme B, and tell me, what are those two street workers saying and in what way is that different from what you are hearing them say, or what the govt is telling you about those two SWs? .
We agree the legislation is a joke as is the funding. I could see during the hearings all those NGOs scrambling with their little paws out looking for the handouts. I didn't see them worried too much about what the working sex workers wanted, or needed, or could use those $$ for. I am assuming some of them will need assistance when the govt/law enforcement starts rattling around their landlords or employers or advertising.
When the subject is sex work and sex workers, then it isn't comparable to say oh boo hoo the abolitionists who are working so hard to take away our jobs are getting an unfair shake. i don't care what abolitionists have to say because I've done the research and I know they are lying, using false claims, using false data, and inflating their numbers.Sex workers and advocates are not doing this, they are simply trying to tell their stories, and we watch while people like Smith and Ambler try to discredit those stories as 'happy hooker sitcoms'.
That's fine but then don't invite abolitionists to talk if all you are interested in is lecturing between insults.
Bacchus, I'm unpublishing your post about what should be done to the three political leaders. No so much because I disagree, but more to the point, rabble doesn't need any more blowback than it already gets.
Conservative MP Stella Ambler was in the headlines by being a bit aggresive in asking pointed questions to several sex workers who testified at committee.
Stella says she is so concerned about vulnerable women.
But if she is so concerned about women being vulnerable, why did she work with Mike Harris in the 90s to cut welfare rates 22% to single mothers?
But Rebecca it was specifically allowed in another thread about Rob Ford. And contributed to by a mod
Gustave, I'll take the 'thanks for sharing' comment for the condescencion it was. You just couldn't resist, could you?
