"Progressives" abandon class analysis for prostitution YXXX

94 posts / 0 new
Last post
susan davis

i have never asked for "special" laws for sex workers. never. i have always said, we are looking for equal treatment not special treatment....not sure where you are getting this from...

the decriminalization push is for removal of all laws related to prostitution as they creat an environment where violence against sex workers is different, seperate from violence against other canadians.

living off the avails (pimps) for example.- the violence pimps inflict involves human trafficking-illegal- unlawful confinement- illegal - rape - illegal -assault - illegal....

why do we need a seperate law for sex workers?

or for youth exploited in sex work - sexual interference - illegal - unlawful confinement - illegal -youth exploitation - illegal - human trafficking -illegal - unlawful confinement - illegal - rape -illegal - assault -illegal .....

we have never asked for special treatment. show me once where i advocated for special laws....

it is the abolitionists who want special laws for sex work....no?

quizzical

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.

susan davis

for the record, i am not out of the industry. i work and visit clients every single day. have you got any understanding of how hard it is to operate a small business without any credit? i work at sex work to build myself a way to retire one day, like all canadians. yes i would like to be old and comfortable...ish....

i work 13 hrs a day at 3 jobs to see this through. only one job actually pays me. sex work. and since the other 2 jobs don't pay, i still am left in extreme poverty as every penny i get goes into my other jobs.

you act as if none of this affects me, it does. you act as if once again i am some kind of elitist sex worker. i am not.

don't assume you know me or my life in any way. you don't.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

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

bull shit, i never said that. why would be create occupational health and safety training materials if we wanted that? all businesses are subjected to licensing restrictions in terms of where they can be...bars for example...or any commercial space....the same laws that apply to anyone should apply to the sex industry....

i have never said that and never advocated for special laws....you can't find me saying it because i never said it. c'mon ...find a link of me saying any of these things you accuse me of...i would have to be calous self centered bitch to think i had the right to what ever i want in spite of every one else...and oh yeah that's me...i only care about myself ...what an insult.

the laws and regualtions you refer to are labor based, not criminal code based....

here's the occupational health and safety material we created... www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com

tell me how again we don't want occupational health and safety...? i still think your "special snowflake" remark was a reference to my race and that you feel i am some kind of elite escort of priveledge...what a crock.

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.

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....

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

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.

quizzical

frankly i've a right to have my own opinion on this and everything else!!!!! hopefully for me to be a better social unit it's an informed one. in this case i'm sure it is!

and i wasn't just making up susan's belief sex worker's need special laws and rules because of privacy issues for john's and all. her comments solidified my opinion against decriminalization and for the absolute criminalization of johns and pimps.

susan many people here, read women when i say people, have 4 jobs to survive you're not unique in your circumstance. it's happening all over BC.

 

mark_alfred

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

i was being sarcastic...everyone who follows my posts knows this....

susan davis

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....

wage zombie

Timebandit wrote:

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..."

This is pretty clearly sarcasm.

susan davis

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...?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

...aaaaaaaaaand cue personal attack.

Look, susan, sarcasm doesn't always play well on the internet.  Sometimes it just doesn't read through.  Especially in a highly charged debate like this one.

You're still not dealing with the substance of what I've posted, namely that the law already does technically apply to sex workers, although in practice law enforcement and the justice system have not always behaved as if they do.  And we're in agreement that this is something that needs to change.

Where we disagree is on whether the sex trade is something that should be enabled or discouraged.  I'm trying very hard to debate this with you in a respectful tone, but it's difficult to do that when you resort to calling names.  If you'd like to argue any of the points I've made, that would be fine and I will do my best to respond to you as thoughtfully as I can, but I will report you to the mods if you continue to lob personal attacks.

 

susan davis

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.

 

quizzical

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.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

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. 

susan davis

trisha baptie is one sex worker, a former sex worker who will not be affected by any changes moving forward. the voices of those people who have experienced exploitation in the sex industry are important but so are the voices of those who have not. i have experienced violence and exploitation but am not in support of recriminalization under the nordic model.

that link provided no evidence at all, no links to any research....

the united nations link is from 2009 as were the posts...

here's what the UN think now....2012

  1. “Decriminalise private and consensual adult sexual behaviours, including same-sex sexual acts and voluntary sex work.”
  2. “Reform approaches towards drug use. Rather than punishing people who use drugs but do no harm to others, governments must offer them access to elective HIV and health services, including harm reduction programmes and voluntary, evidence-based treatment for drug dependence.”
  3. “Work with the guardians of customary and religious law to promote traditions and religious practice that promote rights and acceptance of diversity and that protect privacy.”

and an actual link to real research;

http://www.snap-undp.org/elibrary/Publications/HIV-2012-SexWorkAndLaw.pdf

“Removing legal penalties for sex work assists HIV prevention and treatment programmes to reach sex workers and their clients,” the UN said in its report titled “Sex Work and the Law in Asia and the Pacific.” By legalizing prostitution, the government can make sex work safer, extend health services to sex workers and thus slow the spread of the virus.

The UN said the criminalization of sex-related jobs increases workers’ susceptibility to HIV by “fuelling stigma and discrimination, limiting access to sexual health services, condoms and harm reduction services; and adversely affecting the self esteem of sex workers and their ability to make informed choices about their health.”

The recommendation is also a move to stop the exploitation of sex workers and to give them basic rights by suggesting that their jobs, too, should have typical workplace standards in line with the law and government.

“Decriminalization enables sex workers to organize within their communities and register their organizations, obtain identification documents so that they can fully access services and entitlements, engage in advocacy and respond to the health and safety needs of their peers,” the UN said.

The UN report referenced a 2003 study that found that many street-based sex workers refused free condoms offered by outreach workers because of the police issue.

and then here you can read many reports which counter all the claims you make...

http://www.gaatw.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=666&Itemid=73

i have answered the questions about the "emmancipation" of all women and i still remain stead fast. to say that for the betterment of all women at the price of a few women...is illegal.

under the charter the rights of one group do not superceed another. you cannot undermine the rights of one group of people to "save" another.

the charter makes exception for women and children, we are still women.

you ideology of sacrifice some for the many is not an "arguement" it does not present facts.

if you raise the value of one group of women, it stands to reason you will raise the value of all. to say that consentual sex workers rights are notg as important as non sex working women's rights flies in the face of everything charter stands for.

i am still waiting for one shread of evidence to back any of the claims made by abolitionists in this thread....

 

susan davis

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.

fortunate

lagatta wrote:

cco, actually, I believe the Nordic Model advocates do demand a guaranteed annual income, training and social services. Any I have read do. However that is easier in the social-democratic Nordic countries than in many other places.

There is no easy solution to any of this, as legalization has also been hijacked by the predominance of human trafficking, in the Netherlands and Germany.

And no decent solution at all (whatever the policy) for the people in the huge bordellos in some Southeast Asian countries. Personally, I'd tend towards abolitionism as a goal (like eliminating asbestos production) but at the same time support organising efforts by people in the sex trades. Yes, that is contradictory, but so is capitalism.

 

 

REally?   And do the nordic model proponents have any idea how much a busy sex worker makes?   More than i do, but do they even realize how much that actually is?   Are you prepared to see the government start paying mp wages to former sex workers just to make sure they aren't doing that sex work anymore?    

 

Interested to find out lol

On the other point, there is still this believe, perpetuated by the media, that suddenly brothels will be popping up on every corner because all sex workers really just want to be an employee at a brothel.   

No, they don't,, and anyone who does want to be employeed by someone else is already employed that way, massage parlour or agency.  The rest work independently, already in your neighbourhood or apartment building.  don't worry, you won't notice them any more today than you did yesterday.    

fortunate

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.

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

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

Laws only work if they can be enforced.  If many banks were robbed every day the police could not respond. Society relies on the fact that most people will be law-abiding.  When marijuana is legalized the trade will expand enormously.  The B.C. industry will at least double.  There will probably still be a lot of low-level illegal production but it doesn't matter because no one will be harmed and all the big farms and big dispensaries will follow the law. Most people will buy legal supplies because it's easier and safer.  Some private growers will sell to close friends and family like people do with wine.  Smugglers and organized crime will be out of business.

With prostitution, the opposite occurs. The illegal industry expands along with the legal industry and grows beyond police ability to control as it has in Amsterdam, Germany and Australia.  Many more thousands of women enter the lower levels of the trade where they are terribly abused. Child prostitution increases. "Let the police take care of it" you say, and if they can't, well that isn't your fault. What's important to you is to legitimize and expand the sex industry. The rest is someone else's responsibility. 

susan davis wrote:
admit it...you think sex workers are a lower class

Most people probably consider me lower-class so if sex workers are lower class they are in excellent company.  I think you should do some admitting of your own. 

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. 

There are a lot of escort services and massage parlours and strip clubs in Canada.  I wonder how many of them are owned by women.  The strippers can't just strip in clubs, they have to do lap dances to make money ever since lap dancing became legal. If prostitution were legal, why would men pay 10$ for a 3 minute lap dance?

susan davis wrote:
we need our own set of laws...cause you know...violence against us is different...we're different...seperate from other canadians...

No, the point is you are not different from other Canadians. Being a sex worker is not a human right. You are not a special snowflake. The prostitution industry brings a plethora of problems that society is forced to deal with. Canadians have a right to decide the price is too high to pay on multiple fronts.

 

Two of the main massage parlour/agencies in the Vancouver area, the only ones with body rub licenses, are owned by women.  Many other agencies are owned by women, some former sex workers.  

You would be misleading the readers to imply otherwise, simply because you have not taken the time to do some basic research before making assumptions.    

And actually, being a sex worker is a human right.  It is legal in Canada, and protected by the Charter, we recently discovered.  So someone who is denying this and at the same time trying to take away our basic rights, well, i think most people would have a problem with that, don't you?   

What is your profession by the way?  Any danger of some abolititionists coming along to figure out a way to shame you into quitting, forcing a confession that you hate it, and/or criminalize it?

 

With decriminalization, and regulation, law enforcement can now concentrate on finding the actual law breakers.  It is actually, shocking i know this will be to you, illegal to purchase the services of an underage sex worker.  It is not legal to coerce someone into providing sexual services for money, and it is not legal to kidnap or hold them captive.  And it is also not legal to do that to any domestic or construction worker, and yet neither of those two occupations require special laws, and no one is talking about making those illegal.  But as recently as last year, people were charged with human smuggling and trafficking and so on, regarding both domestic workers and construction workers.  

And yet the current laws on those issues were sufficient.   I fail to see why they would not be sufficient in the cases where sex workers are being exploited, truly trafficked or forcibly confined.  Is it that society doesn't see sex workers as adults, and have to have special laws as if they were children or mentally capacitated to deal with them?

 

fortunate

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.

fortunate

I also notice a ton of locked threads, on similar topics, and wondering why so many new ones started under the one issue.   

 

I wondered this because I thought the one about exploitation that referred to a NZ article was interesting,  if only because it seemed to completely miss the point.  The sex worker on a tourist visa working illegally seemed happy and no one but immigration seemed to be concerned about her either.   Other than some think it would be better if she had a work visa, and others think she is undercharging lol.    i am not convinced it is the best example of trafficking if someone is trying to make a point about how that woman must have been tricked to get here.   in fact, it echoes many many stories i have heard about traveling sex workers.   :)

MegB

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

Pondering

cco wrote:
  (Oh, sorry -- presumably stripping would still be legal, it would just be illegal to watch.) 

No, it wouldn't be illegal to watch either. It would just be illegal to pay to watch.  In any case no I do not think stripping should be illegal now or at any time in the foreseeable future. 

I would like lap-dancing to be made illegal again so strippers could just strip on a stage like they used to instead of being forced to do lap-dances for a living and dance on stage for free. Something no one else is commenting on even though they are sex workers too.

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
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.

I did not call you a special snowflake, I said that you are not a special snowflake. 

You believe that migrant sex workers should have a right to stay and work without going through the usual immigration channels.  You speak of doing sex work as some sort of human right.  You compare the fight to legitimize prostitution to the fight for abortion and for gay rights which trivializes them because you are claiming that sex work is just a job like any other. If prostitution is a job like any other then it cannot be compared to abortion or gay rights.  Gay is something people are born being, not a commercial transaction.  Abortions are a medical service that women need access to, not a job.

There is no reason sex worker migrants should be treated any differently than other migrants.  Sex workers are not special snowflakes. Society is not obligated to accept prostitution as a valid industry. 

You try to have it both ways. If sex work is a choice, a job like any other, then you can decide not to do it. If sex work is not a choice, then it is oppression.

Pondering

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.

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.

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.

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/>

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.

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
With decriminalization, and regulation, law enforcement can now concentrate on finding the actual law breakers. …...  I fail to see why they would not be sufficient in the cases where sex workers are being exploited, truly trafficked or forcibly confined. 

I should think you would be eager to prove that instead of avoiding it by changing the subject all the time.

Both you and Susan are afraid to tackle the subject of prostitution one argument at a time because you don't want people to find out the truth. The only way you can prevent it from surfacing is if you make every thread general so you can create circular arguments.

Until you are willing to face each argument concerning prostitution in isolation I say your goal is to obscure not clarify. 

Prove me wrong, have one on topic thread that focuses solely on the issue of violence and prostitution. I dare you. It will be interesting to see if you take me up on it.

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

cco wrote:
  (Oh, sorry -- presumably stripping would still be legal, it would just be illegal to watch.) 

No, it wouldn't be illegal to watch either. It would just be illegal to pay to watch.  In any case no I do not think stripping should be illegal now or at any time in the foreseeable future. 

I would like lap-dancing to be made illegal again so strippers could just strip on a stage like they used to instead of being forced to do lap-dances for a living and dance on stage for free. Something no one else is commenting on even though they are sex workers too.

 

Seriously, so you want to take away the dancer's ability to pay their rent now?  Illegal to pay to watch but legal to do?   Wow.   

 

Nobody dances on stage for free, they still get tips from that afaik.   But what do I know, i don't go to strip clubs, i will have to consider you the expert here.    

You can revise the laws in clubs to go back to no touch.     However, i believe they already have the no touch, and the lap dancing falls into the category of not being considered 'touching' because the guy isn't allowed to put hands on her.    

You would need a dancer to come online to discuss this field, all sex workers are not created the same.

fortunate

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.

Pondering

 How do you get:

fortunate wrote:
Seriously, so you want to take away the dancer's ability to pay their rent now?  Illegal to pay to watch but legal to do?   Wow. 

From this:

Pondering wrote:
  No, it wouldn't be illegal to watch either. It would just be illegal to pay to watch.  In any case no I do not think stripping should be illegal now or at any time in the foreseeable future. 

fortunate wrote:
Nobody dances on stage for free, they still get tips from that afaik. But what do I know, i don't go to strip clubs, i will have to consider you the expert here.

Well in Quebec they are considered independent workers so it is customary to pay the bar a fee for the privilege of lap-dancing. Stage dances are compulsory. Yes customers can tip for a stage dance but the lap dances (and private dances) are where the money is otherwise stage dancing wouldn't be compulsory. The girls would be fighting to do it.

fortunate wrote:
You can revise the laws in clubs to go back to no touch. 

They are already no touch. You missed the point. When lap dancing became legal the bars only hired girls who would lap dance so strippers were effectively forced to do more. Lap dancing is the only way for them to make money now. The strip clubs have already announced their desire to expand into prostitution. 

fortunate wrote:
You think that 99% of all men who purchase the services of sex workers can't afford 200-300 an hour? Seriously?   uh, OK.     

"The 1%" refers to a segment of the entire population. The term was popularized by the Occupy Movement. The 1% probably represent a comparatively high percentage of the men who use prostitutes in relation to the broader population but I couldn't guess how high. The women serving the 1% are happy campers indeed and many of them are well-educated and have lots of choices. Do you disagree?

fortunate wrote:
  There are no brothels in Canada, number one. I think you are thinking about massage parlours that provide full services

If they provide full services they are brothels but I wasn't referring to Canada. I was stating the various levels of prostitution as I see them not describing the current situation in Canada or any particular country.

 

fortunate wrote:
 it is pretty offensive to me to see you refer to them as somehow more vulnerable because some may not speak English well. 

If you don't speak the language of the country you are in it puts you at a disadvantage, you are more vulnerable. It's pure common sense.

fortunate wrote:
If there were all these legal brothels, there would not be any illegal workers or underage workers. 

That's just not true. There is an illegal market that exists alongside legal markets everywhere that prostitution is allowed. There is no country in the world including Canada that can claim they have wiped out child prostitution.  I could present a bunch of links but I will leave readers to use their own judgement.

fortunate wrote:
I have seen blatant lies by you, and have addressed a few of them. 

Then you should have no trouble quoting one.

fortunate wrote:
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. 

Police did investigations, not visits, not inspections, investigations. Thank-you for supporting my argument.  With brothels and living off the avails illegal, police are able to exert more control than places where brothels and living off the avails are legal.

fortunate wrote:
Like every other country in the world is OK with someone coming into the country on false pretenses, then goes gets a job somewhere and overstays their visa.  …..Like there isn't already laws that deal with people who do this, no matter what they are doing to make their money illegally.  

 Susan Davis posted a link arguing that deportation of illegal migrants who are sex workers somehow proved that the Nordic model was a myth.  Thank-you again for confirming my point that the deportation of illegals has nothing to do with whether or not prostitution is legal.

fortunate

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.

Bacchus
Pondering

Bacchus, the proposal is from the B.C. youth wing and it may not even make it to a vote. The article analyses why it is unlikely to be adopted.

Do you have a point to make or are you the link fairy?

lookielou

Pondering wrote:

Bacchus, the proposal is from the B.C. youth wing and it may not even make it to a vote. The article analyses why it is unlikely to be adopted.

Do you have a point to make or are you the link fairy?

And the beat goes on. And on, and on. Do you have a point to make or a position to state, or are you just determined to prevent any sort of rational debate from taking place? 

MegB

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.

Pondering

lookielou wrote:
And the beat goes on. And on, and on. Do you have a point to make or a position to state, or are you just determined to prevent any sort of rational debate from taking place?

Yes, I do have a point. There is an entire thread on the SCC decision here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/sex-worker-rights/terri-jean-bedford-case-supreme-court-canada

The thread on the Nordic model is already discussing the SCC decision as well.

I am limited to only two threads to discuss every aspect of prostitution, 3 now that there is another thread in the political area, but that too is about the SCC. Rational debate about the SCC ruling would be lovely. Just not in every thread about prostitution.

There has been no mention of the SCC nor of Trudeau in this thread at all. I don't follow the logic of putting that link in this particular thread so I got frustrated.  It just seems like these are just two dump threads to shove abolitionists in, and yet lots of people want to engage us on different aspects. There is such a cacophony of arguments that it makes engaging discussion on any one of them impossible. 

Pondering

Rebecca West wrote:
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.

If it's about posts that haven't been indicated to me yet rather than multiple complaints on the same posts I would appreciate a heads up on which ones.

MegB

We investigate every complaint that arrives in the queue, but we don't always respond. Suffice it to say that in almost every thread that you've started/participated in recently there have been complaints. Any personal attack, regardless of position on a particular, can't be allowed. Disagree, be pissed off, etc., all are part of healthy debate. Personal insult is not, regardless of whether one is an abolishionist or in favour of sex work, or whatever. All of us blow up from time to time. We're human. But when it becomes a consistent way of dealing with opposing views, it's a problem.

Pondering

Thank you for responding so promptly.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

Bacchus, the proposal is from the B.C. youth wing and it may not even make it to a vote. The article analyses why it is unlikely to be adopted.

Do you have a point to make or are you the link fairy?

lookielou wrote:

And the beat goes on. And on, and on. Do you have a point to make or a position to state, or are you just determined to prevent any sort of rational debate from taking place? 

Bacchus' post was especially challenging for Pondering because her participation here has been limited to 1) promoting the Liberal party and 2) promoting the abolition of prostitution.  She has to nip that one in the bud or she's in a no-win situation with her two causes.

Pondering

Now there is one of those unfair digs wage zombie. It did cross my mind that the link was placed here due to knowledge that I currently support Trudeau, (not the Liberals in general). I have no trouble discussing Trudeau's position on this issue or any other in the appropriate thread if I am wanted there. I would have no trouble with a "heads up" post saying something like "Hey, Pondering, Trudeau released a statement and it's being discussed here <link> come on over, we want to challenge your views. I would welcome it if the request was sincere, not just a ploy to get me into a beat-up thread.

I left "Canadian Politics" topics that have anything to do with Trudeau because I learned my lesson in the summer that I am not welcome there and nobody wants to hear my views. I just dipped my toe back in on topics that I don't think I will be attacked over even though one of them does mention the Liberals. But really, if you don't want me there say the word and I won't waste my time.

I want to have conversations with people who want to have conversations with me. You are not one of them so why don't you just leave me alone? You weren't even commenting on anything I said in this thread.

Abolition and feminism are close to my heart. I won't be chased out of the feminist forum so easily.

wage zombie

Check your private messages.

Pages