Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part III

personally I support the right of any person male or female to a safe work place in a legal profession.

I would strongly support the legalization of all aspects of the survival sex work industry so that it could also be regulated and safe/supportive work place conditions developed.

Labour law has evloved over the years as more and more worker rights have been recognized and things like Union behaviour have been taken out of the Criminal Code. 

It is a simple matter of progress towards the gentle, peaceful society that the Christian church for one has looked for for much of its history.

I am from a conservative Christian family and will not be a date for any sex worker.  But I know some of these people and they are strong, brave persons worthy of any civilized societies respect and support.  Not our scorn.

I have seen my share of strip acts, and I can readily see the acrobatic talent, and I am envious.

Shalom

Thank-you for continuing the topic Remind. 

Within the category "sex workers" the function "Exotic Dancer" exists. There are various functions recognized under "sex workers" but there is one that is glaringly left out.  There is no designator for "prostitute" as a sub-category of "sex workers".  That which has no label cannot be discussed. 

The designator "sex worker" is therefore a means of making invisible the function of "prostitute" as unique from other sex workers in the same way that "exotic dancer" is unique from other sex workers.

Street walkers are only 10 to 20% of the propulation of prostitutes.  They are used as a reason for decriminalization with the claim that it would reduce street work. When that claim has been proven false, they are dismissed as unrepresentative of prostitutes therefore immaterial to the discussion of decriminalization. I find this incredibly unethical on multiple levels. First, it is trying to buy support from communities by suggesting decriminalization will get them off the street when it doesn't. Worse, it is using the most vulnerable prostitutes to do it. Lastly, plans for various programs to help these women are used to present an altruistic and generous persona while ignoring the fact that all those programs can be implemented without decriminalization therefore have nothing to do with it.

The racial component prevalent not only on the street in the form aboriginal women but also in "massage parlours" is minimized.  Many massage parlours are staffed with primarily immigrant women. Asians are prevalent in Vancouver many of whom cannot communicate adequately in English. The idea of importing minority women into Canada to provide sexual services is highly questionable. I don't know what percentage of the industry is in massage parlours but I would guess that they are a significant portion of the industry.

Many European countries site 70 to 80% of prostitutes in their countries are foreigners.  That is, few existing citizens want to do this job.

There is evidence of legalization resulting in increases of trafficking women and children into prostitution and the involvement of minors in general.  This is dismissed as a legal problem that should be handled through other laws. This ignores the fact that other countries have been unable to deal with it through other laws. The existence of a legal industry makes it easier to conceal the illegal aspects of the industry.

Next there are escort services and independents. These would seem to be the two top tiers.  From what I can tell these are the women that are most likely to want decriminalization but they are firmly against red light districts.

The argument presented is that these women have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies but I am not convinced that they represent the majority of Canadian prostituted women,or that their interests supercede the rights of the many women who are victimized as a result of pimps, procurers and brothel owners being legitimized by society.

By framing the debate in such a way as to make invisible the many women who are victimized against their will, or who are involved due to childhood abuse or drug addiction, or who are imported for that purpose, a false picture of the industry is presented.  I also think failing to make the general public aware that the goal of independents is to be able to work from home is misleading.

Manipulative framing has become a powerful propaganda tool but I have faith that as Canadians become aware of the facts surrounding this issue they will reject the decriminalization of pimps, procurement and brothels whose business it is to sell access to womens bodies.

There is no designator for "prostitute" as a sub-category of "sex workers".  That which has no label cannot be discussed. 

We cannot allow prostitutes to be made invisible.

There are ALREADY laws against trafficking in humans, having sex with monors and various other laws. I'm not sure how you can possibly see there are no laws.

Martin - keep your hands off our bodies k? I really don't care that you are a "feminist". Please just stop. It is insulting.

RE: the thread title it is clear that a handful of you here wish to change the debate fine, but don not pretend you have no voice, as yours is the onbly voice I have been subjected to this last 4 weeks - far more so than susan, skdadl and the others who I would, you know, really like to hear from.

It's early and I'm cranky. can't you tell?

It is ironic that you would acknowledge our minority status - "a handful of you" - and yet claim ours is the "onbly voice" you are being subjected to. You may remember I counted speakers and screens in two other threads a while back and got more than a dozen opposing 4 of us, with susan alone occupying 39-41% of thread space. Pace. This is an important discussion - about mostly male actions - that doesn't take well to expressions of "crankiness".

Janet Bagnall's reminder - nearly two years ago - of how decriminalization was framed early on and a look at the social issues involved in kow-towing to sex industry interests: The shame of Olympics prostitution, with quotes that some might want to see forgotten....

Preparations for the 2010 Winter Olympics are well in hand: The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is getting ready for violence. The province of British Columbia is keeping to its tight construction schedule. And Vancouver's mayor is preparing to meet the sexual needs of tourists attending the Games.

Hi All, I've been following the prositution and sex work threads with interest for about a week now - reading non-stop to catch up - phew!

So. Where to start?

Here, I guess:

Stargazer wrote:

Martin - keep your hands off our bodies k? I really don't care that you are a "feminist". Please just stop. It is insulting.

I've noticed similar sentiments in a couple of other threads. 

I am initially more leery of men who chime in to debates such as these, especially when they appear to be pro-feminist (with good reason, I believe). For me, the proof is in the pudding. The comments I've read from Martin have been consistent, thoughtful, and frankly brave given the climate in many of the conversations.  

I can only count one pro-feminist man in these discussions who is in support of the abolition of prostitution - talk about a minority voice! I am glad to hear it.

Radicaljoful wrote:

Hi All, I've been following the prositution and sex work threads with interest for about a week now - reading non-stop to catch up - phew!

So. Where to start?

Here, I guess:

Stargazer wrote:

Martin - keep your hands off our bodies k? I really don't care that you are a "feminist". Please just stop. It is insulting.

I've noticed similar sentiments in a couple of other threads. 

I am initially more leery of men who chime in to debates such as these, especially when they appear to be pro-feminist (with good reason, I believe). For me, the proof is in the pudding. The comments I've read from Martin have been consistent, thoughtful, and frankly brave given the climate in many of the conversations.  

I can only count one pro-feminist man in these discussions who is in support of the abolition of prostitution - talk about a minority voice! I am glad to hear it. 

i believe you should re read some of the threads then, martin can be very agressive and constsntly and consistantly tries to diminish the voices of sex workers who were not abused and chose their profession.

i welcome martins perspective but to call it thoughtful and brave? what about his references to me as the proprostitution lobby? or insinuations made that i would somehow profit from kickbacks or funding from traffickers and pimps? or that my feelings about street level workers were fake, unbelievable, empty in a story i told about a woman pulling her hair out on the street...?

hardly the brave and thoughtful poster being described above....

love ya martin but you are giving me grey hair!!dang it!

susan davis wrote:

i welcome martins perspective but to call it thoughtful and brave? what about his references to me as the proprostitution lobby? or insinuations made that i would somehow profit from kickbacks or funding from traffickers and pimps?

Susan, my perception is that you interpret statements as being directed at you personally when they are not.  For example, a reference to the "pro-prostitution lobby" is not a statement about "Susan".  I have certainly never read anything from Martin suggesting you get "kickbacks" of any sort.

martin wrote- inhttp://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/religious-groups-seek-standing-oppose-f... post 11

Not so. What susan calls "martin's way" is simply full decriminalization for sex workers, a solution that feminists have been struggling for both in Canada and elsewhere. That has never been implemented in Canada so far. And now that it is coming, because it is proving itself in Nordic countries, the industry is trying to coopt that dynamic by attempting to include pimps, johns and procurers in an "inclusive" all-or-nothing offer. To me, it looks a lot like the infamous old "Chicks Up Front" strategy that was used by some Leftists against cops in demonstrations forty years ago before women decided to stand up for their own interests.

remind wrote:

Neither one of those statements, that  you have provided ,indicate what you are accusing martin of..susan

 

shall we start having discussions about the supporters of prodecrim persons, and ascribe motives  to all their actions too?

a

decrim persons? what the hell does that mean? and people already do question persons who support decrim- like when martin accused professor young of using his status to force law students who are women to work on the challenge.

my character has been called into question many times.

so what would be different from now?

for once martin, i agree completely.let's do some work. are you ready with proposed by laws and regulations for the workers you wish to decriminalize?

being published does not constitute research ethics review. and it was personal, i take it personally and it is directed at me- the only "pro-prostitution lobbiest"here. there may be many supporters but your characterisation of me and my work is personal for me. i am the only person here actually working on these issues from my stand point- decrim- and constantly you refer to the "proprostitution lobby on babble. me.

who else is the prostitution lobby meaning here on babble? it is directed at me and no amount of trying to justify yourself can take that away.

Susan, Alan Young, as I understand it, is a University professor at a prestigious law school.  I have seen no claims that he is doing this work pro bono although that doesn't mean that he isn't.  Even if it is on the surface pro bono it doesn't mean he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart. It is the norm in progressive circles to examine who all the beneficiaries of changes will be, and to look for connections.  The Pivot Legal Society also looks extremely altruistic with lots of upstanding support aside from their "donations" button on their website.

What makes me suspicious is the absolute silence from those who stand to gain the most from decriminalizing pimps, procurement and brothels.  "Body rub parlours" and "Escort Services" are operating openly in Canada yet not a peep out of them.  They stand to gain the most.

Given the usually exploitative relationship between business owners and workers, and the nature of this business in particular, I hear very few complaints of how women are currently being treated in the majority of these venues. (from people arguing for decriminalization). Rather the suggestion seems to be that other than a few bad eggs the majority of body rub parlours and escort services are run by really nice people.

remind wrote:

No, there is definitely a bigger lobby than you susan.

 

 

on babble? i am the target of these sorts of comments...were is the big huge pro prostitution lobby on babble?right here....

what trafficking cases.....?i have heard of one in canada......

remind: No, there is definitely a bigger lobby than you susan.

susan: on babble? i am the target of these sorts of comments...were is the big huge pro prostitution lobby on babble?right here....

I for one have been discussing prostitution and its lobby not on babble but in the Canadian community. That is the locus of the attempt to institute full decriminalization of an industry that is, I am sorry to say, anything but ethical, and that is mostly composed of and funded by men. The struggles of women throughout the land for safety and for respect that both you, remind, infosaturated. others and I have been documenting make that crystal clear.

My opinion and perception is that most johns see themselves as innocent participants. I don't see them that way. I see prosecuting johns with hefty fines as an important tool for reducing prostitution on the streets and in brothels. 

Susan:  "you assume traffickers, pimps etc will stand to gain the most but you really have no knowledge of how we live. it is workers who want to bring down the laws becuase it will empower us. business owners, pimps etc who in your estimation- want to control us will not benefit from workers being empowered with rights."

I too have seen comments here that pimps, johns, and brothel owners currently exploit sex workers.   So, that is WITH the current laws, the ones people do not want removed?   Then perhaps someone can explain how the removal of these laws through decriminalization, is going to cause something that already exists?  With the socalled protective laws?   Removing the laws will by necessity make it much more difficult for unethical business owners and unethical customers to take advantage of sex workers, simply because, like any other Canadian worker, they will know and understand that they have as much right to a safe work environment as any other Canadian worker.   Keep in mind that most sex workers are self employed and do not have employers, and now you have another group of people who will be able to work from home, or with others, for a safer and more comfortable experience, which is now denied to them due to these laws.  Some sex workers are uncertain about their legal rights under these current laws, so some unethical customers and business owners go unreported.  Will they be charged if they report unsafe working conditions, or a stalker they encounter?   Under the current laws, they certainly could be.  The police departments, tho, are not insensitive so they most likely will not be.  But, such reports draws their attention, and that alone will make the worker wary about how or where they work.

yay!!i agree with you rework!

down with the swedish model!!

love susie

Fortunate, as far as I know, posters here are not defending the current model.  Everyone believes that solicitation should be decriminalized creating a situation in which the women involved cannot be charged with a crime.

Sweden's model is the only one that has been shown to reduce street prostitution.  Neither decriminalization nor legalization has been shown to get women off the street anywhere in the world.

"Body rub parlours" attempt to circumvent laws by having the women be "self-employed" while charging a 100$ an hour for room rental.

While some places that have decriminalized or legalized have passed laws with the intent of providing some form of protection for prostitutes none have been shown to actually work to reduce harm over all, and in most places increases in business mean that more women are exposed to harm.

Women that are currently discreet, working out of their apartments or homes, are in my opinion in a minority and are unlikely to be affected by the laws either way. It is women in the streets and body rub parlours that are impacted the most as well as women who are imported for the sex trade.

martin dufresne wrote:

rework: Not allowing men to buy sex means not allowing anyone to sell it either !

Not true; it's easy to think of interactions where only one party is sanctioned. This is what I meant by men's use of the "chicks up front" strategy, using women as human shields to protect male privilege.

here we go again. we are not the chicks up front defending male privelge, we are workers/women fighting fighting for our rights dang it.....

this particular comment seems to return again as a result of me bringing it up. we do not represent men, we represent our selves.

susan davis wrote:

$100 room rental- do you have any idea how much it costs to maintian a space such as a body rub parlour? the advertising- $500 a week per girl for all papers and online--, hydro electric, computers and equiptment, laundry facilities, furiture, towels, sheets- toys and props, security....water- in vancouver businesses pay a tax on water waste generated by the business.

Hotels share most of the expenses you mentioned and they charge 100$ a night not an hour. While there are some extra expenses in running a "body rub" parlour I don't agree that it justifies a room rate of 100$ an hour.

susan davis wrote:

once again, your assumptions are not based in lived experience and you continue to show you have no idea how we live.

I have lived experience as has been discussed in multiple threads so your accusation is inaccurate. I shouldn't have to discuss it in every thread so I would appreciate it if you stopped raising the issue.

Infosaturated wrote:

Fortunate, as far as I know, posters here are not defending the current model.  Everyone believes that solicitation should be decriminalized creating a situation in which the women involved cannot be charged with a crime.

Sweden's model is the only one that has been shown to reduce street prostitution.  Neither decriminalization nor legalization has been shown to get women off the street anywhere in the world.

"Body rub parlours" attempt to circumvent laws by having the women be "self-employed" while charging a 100$ an hour for room rental.

While some places that have decriminalized or legalized have passed laws with the intent of providing some form of protection for prostitutes none have been shown to actually work to reduce harm over all, and in most places increases in business mean that more women are exposed to harm.

Women that are currently discreet, working out of their apartments or homes, are in my opinion in a minority and are unlikely to be affected by the laws either way. It is women in the streets and body rub parlours that are impacted the most as well as women who are imported for the sex trade.

Law in New Zealand:  There are 16 licensed brothels in Auckland City. Small, owner-operated brothels don't need a licence if the operator lives on the premises, employs only one full-time equivalent person, and the business has no more impact on neighbours than a residential property.

I think that all the independent sex workers want is something similar to this one.  Owner operator live and work from home.  Considering that this affects the majority, and I am unsure why people want to ignore the numbers and keep repeating "minority", then  the current law debate does affect the majority.   Yes, independents can work from a permanent home like location --  but they are breaking the law.  Your point emphasizes that these women are criminals, and can be punished and charged for a legal activity that takes place only through illegal means.  They are certainly not a minority.

I am not sure where you get the body rub rates and stats. Licensed premises pay city license fees in the thousands every year, much higher than any other sort of business.   A lot of money is spent on advertising, reception, booking appointments, etc cleaning, supplies, etc, in order to increase business to keep the girls busy enough so they will stay.  The majority of them are not "charged" per se, but get paid an hourly or half hourly rate per call.   This is taken out of the total any client pays.  I don't know many businesses who are in business to operate at a loss.   Sex workers who choose to work thru an agency or massage parlour, as I am sure they as I do resent the term "brothel", do so because they do not wish to work from home for whatever reason, do not wish to book their own appointments, are not comfortable working on their own for safety issues, prefer having someone else screen their calls and ensure them of a positive experience.  They can certainly make more if they work independently, but for a variety of reasons choose not to. 

That would be similar to anyone, really.  A Registered Massage Therapist could choose to set up her own office, or set her table up at home and deal with the hassles of self employment, or simply work at a spa or massage clinic and have them set up their schedule and appointments. 

You have said elsewhere that you don't want any independent sex worker setting up a private incall location in your neighbourhood, or your building.  But are you suggesting it is ok?

  The majority of illegal immigrant workers do not work at a licensed establishment.  They are also, as evidenced by numerous raids and so on, not trafficked or work under duress.  The majority are inconvenienced by these but not deterred. 

I cannot see how you get increased business through any changes.  How will business increase?  That would be awesome lol.