Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

Susan has not demonstrated it is not true. And Susan already has the legal right to her own body and uses it such as she will. No one is controlling her.

It is all about men's dicks, to try and suggest otherwise, especially after listing some of the evidence yourself, is pretty funny.

 

Ghislaine

remind wrote:

It is all about men's dicks, to try and suggest otherwise, especially after listing some of the evidence yourself, is pretty funny.

 

The reason I listed the other "evidence" is because those things are all legal! Do you think all of those things should be illegal too? Or just prostitution?

martin dufresne

Calamities may force people into prostitution
To avoid this, relief should be strategic to help victims rebuild their lives

ABS-CBN - Wednesday, October 21

MANILA - More women and young girls may be forced into prostitution as families lost their properties and sources of livelihood due to the string of calamities that recently devastated the country, a women's group said Wednesday.

In a press conference in Quezon City, the Coalition against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific (CATW-AP) said that natural calamities, like tropical storm Ondoy and typhoon Pepeng, increase women's and childen's vulnerability to the flesh trade.

"We may see the effects of the disaster after a few months, when the relief is not enough and when the affected people are not able to rebuild their lives," Jean Enriquez, executive director of CATW-AP, told Newsbreak.

Storms Ondoy and Pepeng have left hundreds of people dead, displaced thousands of families in Luzon, and caused billion-pesos worth of damage to properties and agriculture.

Enriquez expressed concern that women, especially those who are staying in evacuation centers, would be lured into prostitution after public interest in post-disaster operations dissipates and if the relief provided to the victims is not strategic.

"They will become more vulnerable if it's just relief goods and there is no re-building and rehabilitation," she added.

Pattern in Asia

Enriquez cited the pattern in some countries in the region, where incidence of human trafficking and prostitution increased after they had been greatly affected by disasters.

She cited the cases of Aceh in Indonesia after the Asian tsunami in 2004, and the massive flooding in India in August 2008.

Enriquez said Malaysia saw an increase in the number of cases of trafficking for prostitution after the Asian tsunami while women and children were sold as brides, servants and prostitutes after massive floodings in the Indian state of Bihar.

She said that in the Philippines, incidence of prostitution also went up during the aftermath of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

The disaster, she said, forced women in the evacuation centers to sell themselves to local and foreign customers, especially in the cities of Olongapo and Angeles.

Enriquez, however, said that they were no exact figures on the number of women involved in prostitution during the aftermath of the Mt. Pinatubo since these cases were not well-documented and is based on testimonials of former commercial sex workers.

"Right now, the increase [in the number of women engaging in prostitution] has not yet been observed, but based on that, [there shows a] trend across the region that incidence of prostitution and trafficking increase after the aftermath of disasters," Enriquez added.

Legislation needed

The group also called for the passage of House Bill 970 or the Anti-Prostitution Act, which seeks to impose penalties on businessmen involved in prostitution and provide support services to the victims.

The first version of the bill was filed in 2000. However, the bill, Enriquez said, "barely moved" in the Congress and is sidetracked since most politicians are already busy preparing for next year's election and are using the disaster to gain popularity among voters.

"Apparently there is no urgency for legislators to enact such bill because prostitution is not even their priority issue," said Belen Antoque, president of Lawig Bubai, a group composed of women who used to be involved in prostitution. (. . .)

Full article

 

remind remind's picture

Doesn't matter why you listed them, they're clearly good examples of what I stated.

 

Here is another example of dicks being everywhere, and we even get treated to having the physical representation of the balls of a man on display too, besides the norm of just penis like buildings,  such as the CN and Calgary towers, just to name a couple.

Isn't it cute? It even has a pink head.

Another good example is baby bottles. They don't have to be the shape they are, now do they?

 

Ghislaine

remind wrote:

Doesn't matter why you listed them, they're clearly good examples of what I stated.

 

Here is another example of dicks being everywhere, and we even get treated to having the physical representation of the balls of a man on display too, besides the norm of just penis like buildings,  such as the CN and Calgary towers, just to name a couple.

Isn't it cute? It even has a pink head.

Another good example is baby bottles. They don't have to be the shape they are, now do they?

 

So that should all be illegal too? You are completely missing the point as to why I listed all of those examples - it was to ask whether they should be illegal as well.

Infosaturated

The Vancouver Project "Living in Community" is not planning a coop and does not support full decriminalization.  Their action plan is here:

http://www.livingincommunity.ca/docs/living_in_comm_web.pdf

Action 27: Strike a working group at the local level to review the impact of the enforcement of laws relating to prostitution and explore changes to the current laws that would make communities healthier and safer. Lead organizations: Living in Community development position, in collaboration with government, business and community organizations. Living in Community’s Steering Committee agreed that current laws are not effective and must be reformed; however, it did not achieve consensus about what sort of legal reform is required.

Action 21: Support the call from sex workers for the development and implementation of a multistakeholder cooperative to provide safe indoor workspaces, a code of conduct, education, and training for the most vulnerable sex workers. Lead organizations: British Columbia Coalition of Experiential Women/Communities, with support from community and government organizations, including the Vancity Community Foundation, the Vancouver Agreement, and the Vancouver Police Department. Supporting sex workers to transition to less harmful conditions and non-exploitative environments, particularly from on-street to off-street locations, will reduce harm to them, increase their human rights, and keep neighbourhoods cleaner and safer.

The idea is not to provide a place for streetworkers to bring johns. The support is for the concept of getting rid of street work and is non-financial.

The rest of the Action items focus heavily on physically cleaning up the community, mediation between angry business owners and street workers, preventing recruitment, addiction programs, heavy emphasis on exiting etc. There are some about the safety of workers and their access to health.

 

remind remind's picture

No I did not miss the point at all,  am just noting that they are examples which support my position, of  it having to be about dicks everywhere, all the time.

Think you are missing that that is point I am making and am questioning why it should be so?

 

Ghislaine

remind wrote:

No I did not miss the point at all,  am just noting that they are examples which support my position, of  it having to be about dicks everywhere, all the time.

Think you are missing that that is point I am making and am questioning why it should be so?

 

You are not answering my question. Should all of those thing be illegal? Why should only prostitution of all of those things be illegal? That is my point.

Just tell me one way or another as it will make your position a lot easier to understand. Info already stated that he or she does not think porn should be legal.

Michelle

Snert wrote:

Quote:
It is not about saving the women, not for a moment. It's about men's dicks.

 

I've been waiting three threads for an abolitionist to say this.

Quoting people out of context to make this throw-away comment is not helpful.  Either discuss the issue, or don't post in the thread, okay?

Also, Snert, the feminism forum (or any other discussion where women put forward a feminist position that you disagree with) is not the place to accuse feminists who disagree with you of persecuting or hating men.  Right?  So let's not go there.

Infosaturated

Ghislaine wrote:
So that should all be illegal too? You are completely missing the point as to why I listed all of those examples - it was to ask whether they should be illegal as well.

Well, I didn't miss your point. How will you address the concerns of exotic dancers?  They would be quite offended at being designated no different than prostitutes, at least, my cousin would be.

Laws concerning Porn and Exotic dancing aren't being challenged right now.  I think you are trying to draw a parallel between the three but they are not the same thing and do not affect women as workers in the same numbers. Porn has not been shown to increase the importation of women for sexual services nor is there a widespread problem of minors and vulnerable women being lured into the profession.

There are considerable numbers of women who have worked in the porn industry stating how devastating it is to them and how much abuse they suffered, even big stars. They are talking about how they have been forced to do more and more degrading acts. Producers have gone so far with violence that they are wondering what else they can do. I don't think the porn industry is a good example of positive sex work for women.

But it's very well paid so by all means ensure that your daughters are fully aware of their opportunities. While you may have advised them on what you think they should do surely you want to offer them freedom of choice, make sure they are aware of other perfectly valid lifestyle choices that you would be supportive of if that were their choice rather than chastity until marriage.

Michelle

What?

Caissa

Double what?

martin dufresne

Sorry: I thought the comment was from you. Quoting someone quoting can get confusing on Babble.

 

Caissa

And on the question of moderating, Martin, I think the moderators have been rather even handed on how they have moderated the prostitution threads.

Ghislaine

So I guess we need a thread of whether porn should be illegal as well. All hail the morality police!

martin dufresne

(BACK EDITED TO CORRECT CONFUSION)

Snert: I've been waiting three threads for an abolitionist to say this...

How we wish you would have lain in waiting some more...

Michelle

Please don't call other babblers "morality police".  It's not helpful.

Infosaturated

Ghislaine wrote:
Just tell me one way or another as it will make your position a lot easier to understand. Info already stated that he or she does not think porn should be legal.

It's she, but when speaking of porn I am thinking of the films and I am not calling for it to be made illegal or promoting any change to our existing laws. I am against porn as it exists today from a philosophical perspective.

It's only connection to prostitution is the contention from some workers that johns want to re-enact what they see in porn films.  Johns shove their dick down the prostitute's throat so hard that they are gagging while also calling them bitches and whores while they are supposed to act as if they enjoy the treatment.

I don't know about you but that sounds really degrading to me.

My focus is on prostitution because it is prostitution laws that are currently being challenged.

 

susan davis

remind wrote:

You just don't seem to get the greater picture susan.

If front line sex work was made a formallay recognized job industry, they would have to be a whole infrastructure set up around it, to ensure job safety.

There would have to WCB rules, health safety rules, job standards rules, municipal by-law rules, and a myriad of other rules that would have to be implimented and those trained to over-look said new industry.

It would be a huge expense to society, plus adhereing to it all would drive it all back out into the streets where people would not have to comply with the regulations.

Such regulations would be strict condom use, x amount of john's per day, john's would have to pass disease tests and be certified free of them, as would the workers, plus plus plus....

I am not naive, nor stupid, enough to believe, the majority of john's would go for  adherance to the regulations. Perhaps those who, for whatever reason, only used purchased sex, would, but not the spontaneous, nor those seeking to dominate and abuse. Thus not a damn thing would change.

So why in hell would we waste the 100's of millions, if not into the billions, on a creating a job industry, where the majority do not want to be in it, and would prefer having the opportunities afforded to them, if the same amount of money is spent on what they do want and need?

It is an affront to society at large to believe a whole industry should be created to satisfy men's sexual desires.

It is not about saving the women, not for a moment. It's about men's dicks, and apparently wasting money to provide for "its" satisfaction is A okay..

If it were, about the women, we would already be demanding, as the public at large, for the things that would get people out of front line sex, who do not want to be there.

 

it is hardly a new industry?........no one ever said frontline survival street sex work should considered work or a choice. i have always maintained we need indoor jobs and supports for people needing to exit or who are in survival mode.

you would lump us all in together saying we must save them from themselves, this will not work, has not worked as is causing extreme arm to my community.

as far as infrastructure....what the hell do think we are doing?where's your complex and indepth plan for rounding up all tricks?housing them prisons?

wcb- check-we already qualify

city bylaws and licensing regulations-check- most municpalities already have them

health and safety training-check- we are done trade secrets and it is a national applicable document

ei benefits-check-we already qualify

canada pension-check- we allready qualify....

police specific to sex industry- check- every city or town have a VICE division

you are falling a ittle behind remind, most of what you claim will cost money is already in place....

or are you just obseesed with dick....as you so beuatifully diminshed men.....how would you feel if a man diminished all women in this thread by labeling us merely vagina's? 

susan davis

the full unedited recommendations.....

 

Action 21: Support the call from sex workers for

the development and implementation of a multistakeholder

cooperative to provide safe indoor

workspaces, a code of conduct, education, and

training for the most vulnerable sex workers.

Lead organizations:

British Columbia Coalition of

Experiential Women/Communities, with support from

community and government organizations, including the

Vancity Community Foundation, the Vancouver

Agreement, and the Vancouver Police Department.

A safe place to work is needed immediately for the most

vulnerable survival sex worker populations, who continue

to work in isolated, dark and dangerous locations.

Supporting sex workers to transition to less harmful

conditions and non-exploitative environments, particularly

from on-street to off-street locations, will reduce harm

to them, increase their human rights, and keep neighbourhoods

cleaner and safer.

The British Columbia Coalition of Experiential Women

and Communities (BCCEW/C) is a consortium of sex

worker activists who work to eliminate the oppressive

systems and forces that create harm for individuals in the

sex industry. BCCEW/C has been working in partnership

with community organizations and sex workers themselves

to explore the creation of Vancouver's first sex

worker cooperative: a massage parlour. Health and safety

guidelines and a code of conduct for workers and for

operating the establishment would help to ensure there

would be no exploitation, safety would be maximized,

and that the business was run in a way that was supportive

of the health and safety of the entire community.

 

The cooperative would provide more than just a safe

workspace for sex workers; it would provide health and

safety education and act as a contact point for referrals

and supports. It would also provide educational materials

for people in the industry, such as the XXX (Triple X)

Guide, funded by Quebec's Ministry of Health, which

addresses various aspects of sex work and offers suggestions

and references for living and working with dignity

in a healthy and safe environment. The co-op would also

support sustainable community development initiatives

that increase health and safety for sex workers and the

well-being of the entire community.

BCCEW/C has conducted extensive planning and research

and the Vancity Community Foundation has been supporting

BCCEW/C in the development of a business plan.

Further start-up funding would be necessary but, eventually,

the cooperative would be self-funded.

Current barriers to setting up a co-op massage parlour

include section 210 of the Criminal Code, which makes

the owning and operation of a space that may be

used for the purposes of prostitution illegal. The harm

reduction goals of a massage parlour are therefore limited

by the current legal framework; this will need to be

considered as the project moves forward.

As an important and innovative step in increasing the

human rights of a very vulnerable group of people, and

reducing harm to them and to the communities where

they work, this exploration should be supported by

community partners.

 Action 22: Review City of Vancouver by-laws to

ensure that they support the health and safety of

sex workers in indoor venues, and ensure access

to these venues for community health and safety

support workers.Lead organizations:city of vancouver in collaboration

with sex worker and community organizations.

 

Current city bylaws have unintended impacts that work

against ensuring adequate health and safety conditions

for those working in indoor venues. Although many

indoor sex workers are subject to unsafe working conditions,

significant barriers prevent them from obtaining

adequate health and safety information. This is especially

true for immigrant workers due to language and cultural

barriers. The BCCEW/C has conducted much research

on these issues and has developed recommendations for

changes to the current bylaws. SWAN and the Orchid

Project also have extensive knowledge about how to

best deliver services to indoor workers because of their

ongoing outreach and research work in this area. We

recommend a working group be established by the City,

with input from sex worker organizations, to examine

methods to increase health and safety within establishments

where sex work currently takes place.

Current legislation that makes certain activities related to

sex work illegal also makes it difficult to protect sex

workers by applying health and safety regulations to their

work. This obstacle bears further consideration.

 

 

susan davis

Infosaturated wrote:

The Vancouver Project "Living in Community" is not planning a coop and does not support full decriminalization.  Their action plan is here:

http://www.livingincommunity.ca/docs/living_in_comm_web.pdf

Action 27: Strike a working group at the local level to review the impact of the enforcement of laws relating to prostitution and explore changes to the current laws that would make communities healthier and safer. Lead organizations: Living in Community development position, in collaboration with government, business and community organizations. Living in Community’s Steering Committee agreed that current laws are not effective and must be reformed; however, it did not achieve consensus about what sort of legal reform is required.

Action 21: Support the call from sex workers for the development and implementation of a multistakeholder cooperative to provide safe indoor workspaces, a code of conduct, education, and training for the most vulnerable sex workers. Lead organizations: British Columbia Coalition of Experiential Women/Communities, with support from community and government organizations, including the Vancity Community Foundation, the Vancouver Agreement, and the Vancouver Police Department. Supporting sex workers to transition to less harmful conditions and non-exploitative environments, particularly from on-street to off-street locations, will reduce harm to them, increase their human rights, and keep neighbourhoods cleaner and safer.

The idea is not to provide a place for streetworkers to bring johns. The support is for the concept of getting rid of street work and is non-financial.

The rest of the Action items focus heavily on physically cleaning up the community, mediation between angry business owners and street workers, preventing recruitment, addiction programs, heavy emphasis on exiting etc. There are some about the safety of workers and their access to health.

 

of course it is no finacial....it is a coop......when did i ever say the brothel project was about anyting other than stabilizing safety of workers on the street and communities impacted by sex work?

our coop development was funded by the vancity foundation....are you blind or just selective reading again? the quote you selected completly proves my assertions.....

i never said living n community was all about the coop......i said it was vancouver's action plan to adress issues in and around the sex industry.....

again, i have been on that committee since the begining.....

what exactly do you think workers will be doing indoors as opposed to outdoors? not seeing johns? maybe knitting? or praying?

do not insinuate i would ever or ever wanted to profit from frontline survival sex workers earnings.

supporting sex workers to transition form harmful outdoor to less harmful indoor venues.....what is so hard for you to understand about that?

i notcie you forgot action 22 and portions of action 21 supporting our call for occupational health and safety training, etc....

martin dufresne

More insults from Susan... is telling someone she is"obsessed with dick" now legitimate here?

I think remind's point is well-taken and that people who bristle at discussing the morality of turning out women and youth to sexually service richer men could take a more evidence-based approach and tally up the present costs to prostituted people and to the general population of the prostitution system.

This was done for domestic violence in the eighties and proved a big eye-opener for decision-makers, who had treated the issue until then as mostly a private matter.

Indeed, rather than mere hand-wringing about the costs of the attendant drug addiction, falling property values, policing and judiciarizing, child apprehension, illness and premature death, tax evasion and entertainment writeoffs, political corruption, etc. - almost all of which have INCREASED under full legalization/decriminalization reforms (this to be documented by a process more exacting than anecdotal accounts from sexploitation industry advocates in these countrties) -, we measure these escalating costs and compare them with the savings that could issue from telling johns and pimps that they have three months to desist and find other vessels for their body fluids and investments.

Such savings would go a long way in creating the real jobs women are demanding, along with guaranteed income programs and funding support and remedial initiatives to deal with the long-standing problems created and fostered by the prostitution system.

Shouldn't Opposition political parties be supporting this, instead of siding with pimps and brothel owners, and angling for more, not less prostitution?

 

 

 

 

 

 

susan davis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/13/prostitution-humantrafficking

Who says sex workers want to be 'saved'?

New legislation aimed at scaring away potential punters will only rob those who work within the sex industry of their livelihood

natalie  Nathalie Rothschild guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 March 2009 13.00 GMT

In these times of economic implosion, it seems there is one industry that the government is actually keen on crushing. The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, recently unveiled a proposal for new legislation aimed at bringing the sex industry to its knees (metaphorically speaking). If we tackle the demand, Smith proclaimed, then supply will diminish. In other words, Smith wants to penalise punters.

Under the proposal, anyone who buys sex or other erotic services from someone who is "controlled for another person's gain" could be fined and receive a criminal record. Ignorance of the circumstances would be no defence. Harriet Harman, the minister for women, believes the proposed legislation will help stamp out sex trafficking, which she has described as a "modern-day slave trade".

Yet if speakers at a panel debate this week on sex trafficking held at London's Institute of Contemporary Arts are to be believed, most sex workers - including migrant ones - do not see themselves as slaves, and few want to be "saved" by the likes of Smith and Harman. Scaring away potential punters will only rob those who work within the sex industry of their livelihood. (And this includes everything from charging for sex to pole-dancing, providing attentive dinner company and selling erotic lingerie, literature or DVDs.)

Laura María Agustín, anthropologist and author of the controversial Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry, told the ICA audience that politicians like Smith and Harman are promulgating abolitionism as a benevolent, feminist project. But, Agustín says, "this is state feminism which has nothing to do with gender equality. It's about the state identifying a proper way for its citizens to behave and defining millions of women as victims."

Anyone who does not comply with the political elite's officially sanctioned lifestyle is seen as deviant. In relation to sex, non-conformists become defined either as victims or perpetrators, as abused or abusers.

Earlier this month, on International Sex Workers Rights day, I attended an event in Manhattan organised by the New York-based Sex Workers Outreach Project (Swop). There, I met sex workers and activists who challenged the idea that they are by definition exploited or abused. A transgender woman called Savannah announced that she was proud to be a call girl. She told me: "I've worked as a streetwalker, escort, model, dominatrix, in dungeons ..." Being a call girl is easier, she said, because it means she can avoid police harassment.

For Savannah, the main threat is not from punters, but from the authorities. She and everyone else I spoke to acknowledged that some within the sex industry experience assault and can find themselves in vulnerable situations. At the ICA event, Catherine Stephens, who has worked in the sex industry for 10 years, also acknowledged this, but she believes decriminalisation is the best way of ensuring sex workers avoid harm.

It would be strange to romanticise sex work as something exotic or empowering. But we would also do well to go beyond puritanical rescue missions such as that proposed by Smith and Harman and acknowledge that for many, working within the sex industry is simply an economic decision. After all, for a majority of people, salary is a prime factor in determining what job we pursue. Moreover, some apparently enjoy working within the sex industry. According to Savannah, "some are proud to be sex workers and chose to do it just like others chose to become physicians and are proud of being that."

Georgina Perry, service manager for Open Doors, an NHS initiative that delivers outreach and clinical support to sex workers in east London, has also met women in vulnerable positions and women who have paid to be brought to the UK. These migrants would likely be defined as "trafficked" by the government and various institutions and organisations that work to stamp out "people smuggling".

In Perry's experience, such women happily accept some of Open Doors' services, like free condoms and vocational training advice, but they do not want to be "rescued", thanks very much. They have debts and student loans to pay off, families to support and savings accounts to maintain. They just want to be left alone to get on with their work.

Perry, on her part, is not interested in "forcibly empowering anyone". She said much of the debate around the sex industry is infused with moral panic and pointed out that when women are presented as victims, they elicit sympathy; when they assert their agency, however, they are viewed as a threat to the moral fabric.

Even Jon Birch, inspector at the Metropolitan police clubs and vice unit, acknowledged at the ICA event that not all individuals employed within the sex industry have been coerced into it. He said the vice unit does not aim specifically to target migrant sex workers. Yet this seems disingenuous considering that, according to its website, the vice unit places emphasis on "rescuing trafficked and coerced victims".

It is curious that a term that is impossible to define or quantify, that is often described as a "hidden" or "covert" activity, motivates so much legislation, policy and activism. Individuals who have been defined as "trafficked" or "enslaved" have worked in everything from mining to agriculture, in housekeeping, elderly care and, indeed, in the sex industry. Of course kidnapping - whether within or across national borders - should be clamped down upon. The problem is that today the term trafficking is being applied to more and more forms of migration - and this is making life difficult and miserable for those who must, or who choose to, move across borders for work.

Foreigners who wish to visit or work in the UK have very few legal options available, and so they end up paying strangers to take them on long and risky journeys across the world. When they come over here, they are forced to take jobs in the shadow economy where they are, indeed, vulnerable to exploitation. Yet anti-traffickers rarely reach the sensible conclusion that Britain's and Europe's stringent immigration laws should be revised to allow people to come here to work and contribute to our economies, send remittances to their home countries and go back there when they choose to.

Instead, anti-trafficking campaigners see it as their duty to rescue victimised individuals who may have been trafficked, and to care for them. This does nothing to challenge immigration laws that force some people into the hands of dodgy employers, but it does a lot to paint immigrants as victims who need to be monitored ever more closely.

susan davis

I found out today that Benjamin Perrin is the founder of Future Group, the group he was supposedly doing research for....himslef. so he can put out anything he wants on trafficking, completely free of peer review
(which is what's he's done with his last two reports on trafficking). His first paper on Cambodia, also problematic, was published
(funded?) by Motorola Printers. I'm not making this up.

martin dufresne

As I understand it, it is articles published in scholarly publications that gain from being peer-reviewed, especially when they concern research or new theory. Professor Perrin's have. Like anyone, he may also reports about a problem in collaboration with his associates. I am reading that "Research support for his latest essay about the 2-10 Olympics was "provided by the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Global Anti-Trafficking Working Group in Toronto, Ontario (Michelle Yau, Meagan Toews, Amy Stein and Anna Persson); and the UBC Human Trafficking Working Group in Vancouver, B.C. (Daniel Loutfi)."

Are you trying to use innuendo to smear him, Susan?
 

remind remind's picture

susan davis wrote:
it is hardly a new industry?

Susan, if it wasn'y a new "industry", you would not need to be trying to do what you are doing. Nor wouldt there be a court challenge about  decriminalizing pimps and john's.

Still doing your effort and women a disservice, I see.

 

Quote:
...frontline survival street sex work should considered work or a choice. i have always maintained we need indoor jobs and supports for people needing to exit or who are in survival mode.

Oh yes, do over look the very real fact, it is not going to move indoors, at all. That which is indoors currently may stay iondoors as long as it is not decrim/legalized, as if it is, john's ain't going to be jumping through the hoops they will have to.

Quote:
you would lump us all in together saying we must save them from themselves, this will not work, has not worked as is causing extreme arm to my community.

For the last time, do stop putting words in my mouth. I do not want to save anyone from themselves, I want ALL women to  be able to have true choices in life.

Quote:
as far as infrastructure....what the hell do think we are doing?

Not  realizing what infrastructure would have to be developed and put in place. I give a rat's ass what happens to the johns actually, they do not even factor into my consideration.

Quote:
wcb- check-we already qualify

No actually front line sex workers do not. Stop providing false information.  Perhaps if it ever is legalized you may, but you would also have to adhere to strcick job safety reguulations in order to qualify.

Quote:
city bylaws and licensing regulations-check- most municpalities already have them

If it ever gets fully legalized it will go way beyond where it is now.

Quote:
health and safety training-check- we are done trade secrets and it is a national applicable document

Again wrong, I was talking about training inspectors and regulators to make sure things for best work safe practises are adhered to.  Plus trainging those who wou;ld bde the trainers, plus formal education for sex workers.

Quote:
you are falling a ittle behind remind, most of what you claim will cost money is already in place....

No actually it is not, and again I will state how unbelieveably short sighted of you.

Quote:
or are you just obseesed with dick....as you so beuatifully diminshed men.....how would you feel if a man diminished all women in this thread by labeling us merely vagina's?

Ummm.... that is what all these threads are about, legally wanting to diminish us to merely vaginas, or mouths, or anuses.  Let's not pretty this up by inferring that something other is under consideration here. Men  who purchase access to womens  indwelling body parts, want their dick's serviced, and/or their fantasies about their dick's serviced. Full stop.

skdadl

Heavens, but this discussion moves fast. I've read everything later (although that's likely to have changed by the time I post), but I wanted to go back to an interesting comment from JMartin @ 25:

JMartin wrote:

Morality as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - Morality: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 

I've heard the term "moral panic" used to describe just about everything that isn't full decriminalization of prostitution. It is important to note that no one is without standards of good conduct. Feminists for full decriminalization often have harm reduction and freedom of association and expression as standards of good conduct. Feminists for full decriminalization panic morally at the thought of criminalization or the Nordic Model of prostitution law. 

Feminists for the Nordic Model of Law have the collective right of women and children to live free of sex-discrimination as part of their standards of good conduct. Feminists for the Nordic Model of Law panic morally at the thought of full criminalization or full decriminalization. 

Those who fight for any kind of human right can be accused of "moral panic". 

It is important to specify who's standards of right or good conduct we are referring to and what those standards are and where they come from if we are going to use the term "moral panic". 

I would prefer if we could specify the term "morality" rather than using it as synonymous with individuals or groups who subscribe to a certain set of spiritual beliefs, or groups with right wing political ideologies. I think this would be more clear. I also am concerned that everyone not get painted with the same brush. 

 

JMartin, I don't exactly disagree with you, if we're talking about the context of civil debate, but it is my understanding that that is not the immediately contested territory.

 

The immediately contested territory is current law and its constitutionality. On that turf, we are talking about principles and structures that go deeper, must go deeper, than any group's notions of propriety or "good conduct" or "values." We are not, eg, members of the U.S. Senate prepared to sell out serious healthcare legislation for the sake of making a bill look "bipartisan," yes? We aren't that crazy yet, are we?

 

I suppose you could call equality a "value" -- I mean, it is, by contrast with, say, feudal oppression, in which I'm sure there still are people who believe -- but the values enshrined in our constitutions since the C17 are as close to rock-bottom neutral as values ever get (unless you prefer feudalism). To me, they take precedence, always, over any vote about what one community or another might find distasteful for the time being, which is precisely why they are enshrined in the Charter. You're always free to believe or say whatever you want to believe or say, but there are things our courts are supposed to defend no matter what, no matter how many. 

 

I have spent my life (now regrettably long) uncomfortable with bourgeois proprieties of one kind or another, sometimes horrified at what people who believe in moral propriety are willing to do to other human beans. I don't think this is a trade-off; I don't see the balance or equivalence that you do. I also don't believe that the defence of liberty and equality is a zero-sum game.

 

Like other commenters here (I think of Snert as an example), I've been shocked by some of the idealizing of sexual relations that I've read here. To me, idealizing sex is the fastest route to using it as a tool for repression and tyranny, and I am writing as a widow who still mourns an exceptionally happy marriage. I'm not up to a fisking of the many posts I've read over the past few days in which I sense an undercurrent of sheer revulsion against sex in its many manifestations, but I sure do sense it, and I am shocked.

 

I realize that there are babblers who dismiss civil liberties as a bourgeois concern, but I suspect that those are people who have never bothered to think through the tradition that runs from Rousseau to Marx and haven't any idea why Marx would have riffed off Rousseau. I don't understand why such people do not see, when they look in the mirror, Joe McCarthy and Joe Stalin and the good folks of Salem, Mass, ca 1692, staring back at them, but hey -- we're all about equivalences and bipartisanship these days, eh?

 

This had obviously better be my last post to this topic. I'm just too shocked by much of what I've read. I wish you all the best, Susan Davis, and I wish Alan Young and his students God speed. They are saving democracy for me as much as for any sex worker, and I thank them for keeping the faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

susan davis

don't you twist my words, you are the queen of that.....

talk about short sighted, nice try though.....

keep makin it look as if i don't care about street sex workers, i have to go and meet with some of my cohorts now......

did you even read what is emerging about the mis information on trafficking emerging in england?

900 brothels raids and .....no trafficking victims? the only victims found actually approached police and were not found in the raids. do you een care that you are buying to the same crap? 900 brothels where workers were treated well and safe?

but who cares about indoor workers, we must save all sex workers!!especially on street workers, no matter the cost! especially if it coststhe lives and safety of sex workers who choose, we deserve it after all.

i would remind you remind, the trial in the case of the missing women costed $500,000,000.00.....do you feel we may have been able to spend that money better on protecting vagina's ? or prosecuting dicks who kill vaginas?

prevention is always better than cure.prevent murder by protecting workers safety and creating supports designed for sex workers needing to exit or find help. that money would have gone along way to prevent the tragedy that followed....but no no...let's continue as if everything is alright and the current situation is working.

i have to take my vagina and go, see you later vagina's and dicks! anuses and mouths too!

susan davis

thanks skadl!!!all the best to you too!!!

martin dufresne

skdadl, do you see the laws that prevent the purchase of children or of organs or of house-slaves as inimical to the civil liberties of buyers or self-sellers or, on the contrary, as favorable to those of the persons who would thus be commodified?

(Personally, I don't put much stock in the pimp-dealer as benevolent bulwark against the erosion of women's civil rights.)

remind remind's picture

Ahh yes, the whiff of privilege and pearls, whisking out of the room, while decrying  that others are Stalinists or MCCarthy's, or indeed burners of witches,  if they do not believe marginalized women should be entrenched into the service of male sexually.

And so too, we must be unread, or we would know better.

Cultural eliltism at its finest alright.

Going to be hanging out, or talking one to one, in person, with front line sex workers, either current or out of the business, anytime soon skdadl?

So glad you could stop by and condescend. It was enjoyable.....and just like old times.

martin dufresne

Recommended by an Innu friend: The Price of sex: Women speak

Look beyond tales of plucky White entrepreneurs. It bears repeating that human trafficking is the only way men's demand for "fresh meat," at prices profitable for the trade, could be met in First World countries.

Infosaturated

Susan, my post was solely about "Living in Community" not you.  I accept that you are a content sex worker, nothing more, nothing less. I hope this is the last time I need to reassure you of that.

In another thread you described your coop as a place where street walkers could bring their johns. I understood that to mean the street walkers would still be soliciting on the street.  I don't believe that is what LIC has in mind.

from the same report, and yes it is an excerpt:

Some residents’ concern is that there are used condoms and needles in their back lanes. For others, sex work activity in the vicinity of their businesses seriously affects their ability to do business, or the traffic associated with women working indoors impacts their homes. The Quick Response team would answer their calls and meet with them to resolve each situation through de-escalation and conflict resolution rather than violence and aggression. This initiative is in no way intended to replace the role of the police in maintaining safety in Vancouver.

http://www.livingincommunity.ca/docs/living_in_comm_web.pdf.

That is not a picture of a community that wants brothels, only one that will tolerate them as a lessor evil.

In Sweden, arresting johns just about wiped out the street trade. The johns don't necessarily have to go to jail. Large fines work, and sending letters to their home addresses is also effective given that so many of them are married. Publicizing names works well too. Apparently johns don't want anyone to know what they are doing because it's bad for their reputation. It would probably make it difficult for them to find women willing to date them. I think it's a much simpler and more effective solution than opening up cross-country coop brothels for workers the current brothels reject. Those big fat fines could be used to fund recovery programs.

The focus of "Living in Community" is to deal with the current situation. They are not making a political statement of approval for brothels.

I have no objection at all to your opening a coop brothel. It's perfectly legal at the moment so go right ahead. I just don't see it as a solution to ending prostitution.

martin dufresne

It's perfectly legal at the moment...

Infosaturated, it isn't. Talk to a lawyer if you tend to believe Susan Davis. The reason that police are not busting so called "rub down parlors" and escort agencies is because they are instructed to merely keep the problem under wraps, not solve it. Think about it: Professor Young and his witnesses wouldn't be doing all this work to bring down Section 210, 211 and 212 if brothels were legal.

"Laws pertaining to prostitution, state that "bawdy houses" are illegal (Criminal Code sections 210 and 211), procuring and living on the avails of prostitution of another person are also prohibited (section 212). Procuring and living on the avails are indictable offences, which carry terms up to ten years in prison. If a person under the age of 18 is involved, the term increases to 14 years in prison. A common bawdy house is a place, which is occupied or used by at least one person for the purposes of prostitution. "Keeping" a bawdy house is an indictable offence liable to up to two years in prison (section 210 (1)). Being found in a bawdy house is a summary offence; the offender will receive a maximum term of six months in prison and/or a $2000 fine (sections 210 (2) and 211)."

Source

 

Infosaturated

skdadl wrote:
To me, they take precedence, always, over any vote about what one community or another might find distasteful for the time being, which is precisely why they are enshrined in the Charter.

Nobody here is trying to overthrow the Charter. I am in complete support of the Charter and the courts will decide the outcome of the challenge. I don't believe that the right to prostitute oneself is enshrined in the charter but I'm not the judge.

skdadl wrote:
bourgeois proprieties of one kind or another, sometimes horrified at what people who believe in moral propriety are willing to do to other human beans.

Not a single poster here has suggested that "propriety" has anything at all to do with their opinion. My primary concern is the safety of women from physical violence and the documented effects of PTSD. Decriminalization of pimping is not a solution.

skdadl wrote:
I've been shocked by some of the idealizing of sexual relations that I've read here.... in which I sense an undercurrent of sheer revulsion against sex in its many manifestations, but I sure do sense it, and I am shocked.

Sex as a mutually pleasurable activity is "idealized'?  Wow. I'm shocked.  The only sex I am revolted by is sex in which one party is a minor/forced/coerced and/or physically harmed against their will.

When I read accounts from prostitutes about what they have suffered I am revolted and I would hope any decent human being would be equally revolted.

Infosaturated

martin dufresne wrote:

It's perfectly legal at the moment...

 

Infosaturated, it isn't. Talk to a lawyer if you tend to believe Susan Davis. The reason that police are not busting so called "rub down parlors" and escort agencies is because they are instructed to merely keep the problem under wraps, not solve it. Think about it: Professor Young and his witnesses wouldn't be doing all this work to bring down Section 210, 211 and 212 if brothels were legal

True, but the reason the woman and her daughter who are running a brothel felt free to talk on camera is the existence of a loop-hole.

The johns rent a room for 100$ an hour paying up-front. Once in the room he negotiates directly with the prostitute. I suppose lawyers could claim that the house knows what is going on therefore is still living off the avails because they wouldn't be getting 100$ an hour just for the room.

So, even if it's illegal, nothing preventing Susan from opening up her coop except lack of money, something I thought sex workers were making hand over fist.

Bacchus

Wow way to attack Skdadl remind, and others.

 

Pearls? Skdadl?  Educated but not pearls(well except in demeanor) Not that I'll defend, she is well capable of doing that herself but way to uphold that delcaration that everyone wanted. Why just discipline snert when the snark and insults and generalizations (its all about dicks? not womens rights?) is everywhere

Infosaturated

There are very divergent views between some members of the feminist community and some members of the LGBT community that I, as a straight female, believe are rooted in historical differences.

Traditionally laws have been used to enforce societal rejection of the LGBT community based on false moralistic principles promoted by religious zealots. Until relatively recently the community was mostly concealed with only the bravest willing to "come-out". Even now public displays of affection as simple as holding hands are only accepted in limited places, including in Canada. In fact there are still places in North America where sodomy remains illegal. Worldwide the LGBT community still faces massive prejudice resulting in everything from heartache to death. While in a few places recent laws have enshrined rights the grand majority of laws have been used to suppress the sexuality of the LGBT community not protect it.

Throughout history women's sexuality has been comodified on behalf of men. The rape of women as an act of war is finally being accepted as such even though raping women has always been part of the spoils of war.  Women have been bought and sold by men for the pleasure of men throughout history. Female sexuality has always been presented from the perspective of men and laws concerning female sexuality were based on the interests of men. Army generals considered prostitutes as part of provisions like food and water to be delivered to men on the field. Even now prostitution and rape of local women and sexual assault against female soldiers is rampant based on male entitlement to female bodies by whatever means available. Law is the tool women have used to gain protection from male power. Laws (theoretically) mean the person with more physical might or economic power cannot abuse their power.

I think these different historical realities illuminate possible reasons why there is such divergent thinking on the issue of laws dealing with sexuality.

martin dufresne

I suppose lawyers could claim that the house knows what is going on therefore is still living off the avails because they wouldn't be getting 100$ an hour just for the room.

Yes of course, Crown prosecutors could if the politicians mandated them to. And not use living off the avails (that's for pîmps) but keeping a bawdy-house, obviously. Don't buy their rhetoric: there is no "loop-hole", just complicity at high levels. When they want to bust a brothel, they mount a sting operation and do so.

 

 

Fidel

martin dufresne wrote:
As for dissuading johns, as was done in Sweden,  Norway and Iceland (so far), few would ever go to jail or require probation agents - the Nordic model amply demonstrates that - most of them simply forsake sexually exploiting women in this manner once it becomes a truly risky venture

Other than sharing geography with those countries, Iceland is not considered a "Nordic model" country. Note the collapse of neoliberal ideology in Iceland today.[/nitpick]

Infosaturated

Bacchus wrote:

Wow way to attack Skdadl remind, and others.

Pearls? Skdadl?  Educated but not pearls(well except in demeanor) Not that I'll defend, she is well capable of doing that herself but way to uphold that delcaration that everyone wanted. Why just discipline snert when the snark and insults and generalizations (its all about dicks? not womens rights?) is everywhere

Bacchus, the only arguments I have seen Skdadl present in all the threads on prostitution is that anyone against decriminalizing pimps has something against sex or thinks prostitution is generally "improper" as if we are discussing stuffy dinner manners.  Oh, and that we don't want the charter upheld.

No one has expressed those views here. She is making claims, accusations, against posters who support partial-decriminalization rather than engaging with the data and arguments being presented.

If she wanted to actually discuss the topic with mutual respect then that is what would be happening.

Infosaturated

Fidel wrote:

martin dufresne wrote:
As for dissuading johns, as was done in Sweden,  Norway and Iceland (so far), few would ever go to jail or require probation agents - the Nordic model amply demonstrates that - most of them simply forsake sexually exploiting women in this manner once it becomes a truly risky venture

Other than sharing geography with those countries, Iceland is not considered a "Nordic model" country. Note the collapse of neoliberal ideology in Iceland today.[/nitpick]

Denmark is considering joining the crowd.

http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/denmark_considers_prostitut...

Denmark may be soon joining European neighbor the Netherlands in the growing club of countries who once thought laissez-faire legalized prostitution was a good idea, but are now changing their minds. The Social Democrat party has proposed instituting a full to partial ban on prostitution to prevent the country from becoming "a haven for the sex trade." Prostitution has been legal in Denmark since 1999 and was actually legalized by the same party which is now trying to ban it.

It hasn't happened yet but great news if it does.  Hopefully Canada won't have to make the mistake before correcting the problem.

remind remind's picture

bacchus, funny...I just love to be told I am a burner of witches, a Stalinist and a McCarthyite,  who does not believe in Charter Rights,  and yet you dare to chastise me for naming privilege and pearls where they do live?

 

Please do save your outrage for where it is deserved.

 

 

Tehanu

I think I too must gather up my ruffled skirts, check that my pearls are still clasped around my swanlike neck, and head back out as well. It's been interesting dipping a toe back into babble-waters. I still miss a lot of folks, but I guess I'm a bit of a shrinking violet when it comes to this level of aggression and appropriation. Each to their own, of course, everyone's entitled to their own approach.

Best of luck, all.

Fidel

Tehanu, I thought you were a nice addition to babble. Come back soon?

Infosaturated

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:18

Dutch prosecutors sought prison sentences of up to eight years on Tuesday for 10 Nigerians accused of using voodoo curses to force about 140 Nigerian girls into prostitution in Europe.

...

The trial, on charges of human trafficking and membership of a criminal organisation, opened in March in Zwolle in the central Netherlands.

Prosecutors claim that about 140 Nigerian girls brought by the gang into the Netherlands as asylum seekers had disappeared from asylum centres in 2006 and 2007.

About a dozen of the girls were traced, while the rest were thought to have been forced into prostitution in Italy, Spain and France. Most were minors at the time, their ages ranging from 16 to 23.

...

"The suspects used voodoo to influence the girls," said a prosecution statement. "They had to give blood, nails or a piece of clothing and make a promise to a voodoo priest to repay the 'debts' incurred for their travel to Europe" — between €30 000 and €60 000 each.

"That means that they would have had to have forced sex about 3000 times and give up the proceeds. In a foreign country, far from home, with no way out — living with the fear of going crazy or dying if they disobey their handlers," said the statement.

The suspects were arrested in the Netherlands in October 2007 after an investigation by Dutch police in collaboration with their Nigerian, Italian, Spanish, French, Belgian, British, Irish and US counterparts.

 

http://news.iafrica.com/worldnews/1982660.htm

 

Unionist

Skdadl and Tehanu, I'm going to apologize for the hostility you've encountered here. I know it's small comfort, but I think you'll find it's a very minority trend on babble these days. It's always a pleasure reading your posts.

remind remind's picture

*snerk* @tehanu, so good to experience your standing  in indignant victimhood with someone who has called babblers, Stalinists, witch burners,  and  McCarthyites,  while infering that we are too unedcated to have an opinion that is valid.

That you are doing so, while lobbing bombs of aggression, by telling others they are too aggressive for calling Skdadl on her smearing, and are appropriating something, is even more amusing.

remind remind's picture

Oh unionist... how dare you aologize for me, as if indeed I did something wrong. I was the one labelled a witch burner, a McCarthyite and a  Stalinist, the only smearing name left out was a follower of Hitler ffs. But skdadl knew that would be going to far.

Who do you think you are anyway? That is unacceptable on so many levels, it is unbelievable.

But now the precedent is set, I guess I will be apologizing to all on your behalf, too.

.

 

remind remind's picture

Unionist wrote:
October 22, 2009 - 7:26pm

#1 (permalink)

Skdadl and Tehanu, I'm going to apologize for the hostility you've encountered here. I know it's small comfort, but I think you'll find it's a very minority trend on babble these days. It's always a pleasure reading your posts.

 

And oh, BTW unionist, your post is a personal attack, just because it is passive aggressive, and oblique, does not change it from what it is.

Glass houses, and all that ya know.

And not one person had made a comment to tehanu in this thread , up to the point of your post, but yet you have the audicity to bring her into this, Apparently attempting to validate her  self-alleged victimhood, when indeed she isn't, and neither is skdadl.

Pages