Prostitution - Framing the Debate for Decriminalization Part III

Infosaturated wrote:

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.

 

 

Alan Young is an advocate and an amazing professor. He has always been fighting morality laws. If you are interested in Alan young, Google is your friend, or you might read his book aptly (for this subject) titled Justice Defiled: Perverts, Potheads, Serial Killers and Lawyers. He has been a very very strong advocate of legalizing marijuana. As a former Criminology student I would have jumped at the chance of working with him on any of his projects. He has been an idol of mine for quite some time.

Here is an exert from the back of the book:

Once you recognize the law's destructive potential, keeping the law within the narrow boundaries becomes a political imperative. It should extend only to target behaviour that is seriously harmful to others. It should never be used as a tool of moral hygiene....The state should have nothing to say about our choice of girl- or boyfriends or our choice of diet or our artistic proclivities or our choice of intoxicants. Some people will hump themselves to death or intoxixate themselves into oblivion, but that is no business of the state unless the excess decadence truly hurts an innocent third party...The frnezied crusade to apprehend illegal pleasure-seekers not only fosters violence and corruption, it takes away valuable resources needed to combat serious predatory crime...Thousands of law abiding Canadians get dragged before criminal courts for pursuing alternative lifestyles... (snip) 

copyright 2003

Buying sex from people that have little choice in the matter, and making money off people selling sex, are seriously harmful to people.

 

 

fortunate wrote:

Infosaturated wrote:

The practice of not charging the women is based on the notion that most women are involved due to societal pressures or constraints of one form or another.

I find your use of "most" in this case to be deliberately misleading.  "Most" are not involved due to societal pressure or constraints in any form or other.

I am referring to the logic behind the law not arguing whether or not that is the actual situation. Whether or not it is true that most women are victims, the law is based on holding women innocent and considering prostitution as a crime against them.  The law was not written that way to condone prostitution as a legal form of work.

fortunate wrote:

Infosaturated wrote:

Women who don't feel victimized by prostitution get a free pass because of those who are.

What do you mean "don't feel victimized"? Once again your language is trying to imply something that is not true.

I'm not implying anything. I am saying the law regards prostitutes as victims not perpetrators therefore prostitutes aren't charged even if they themselves don't agree that they are being victimized.

fortunate wrote:

  Should we not all be striving towards harm reduction in addictions and drugs and mental health issues instead of attacking a perfectly legal form of work?

It's not an either or situation. It's disingenuous to claim that because prostitutes aren't arrested for the actual act that prostitution is legal.

If you feel the law needs to be clearer I am all for tightening it up by specifying that the act prostitution in and of itself is illegal on the part of the purchaser.

Infosaturated wrote:

 

That the prostitute isn't charged doesn't make it "legal work".  The john is breaking the law because it isn't "legal work". 

The scenario you paint isn't what happens in practice as can be seen in every single country where prostitution is either decriminalized or legalized. 

Your 80% figure is insupportable however whatever percentage wants to reach out and help others is free to do so right now.  There is nothing at all illegal about that.

10 to 20% of workers are on the street. What percentages are in body rub parlors, escort services or working independently is arguable. The notion that all off-street workers chose the profession of their own free will as adults is definitely not true.

Since prostitution, the exchange of sexual acts for $ is legal in Canada, I am assuming that you are describing the ideal world where, like in Sweden, it is illegal?  The percentages are based on a university study that was, not unusual, used in the media recently to grossly exaggerate some std statistics amongs service providers.   How many street workers do you believe are out there?   The outreach vans and workers have a pretty good idea, I am sure.  It would be difficult but not impossible to estimate the number of indoor "privileged" service providers simply by looking at advertisments.  The assumption that they "definitely" did not choose to be there is not true.  "Some" may not, but it would be untrue to imply that they all did not.  Certainly you cannot say that the asian service providers did not choose to be here, as it has been proven over and over that they are not trafficked or tricked into coming here.  There are enough willing service providers in Asia who are happy to come here to make more than they would at home that it is simply unnecessary to "traffick" them.  It is easier to traffick women in countries where prostitution is illegal, because the entire thing is underground and hidden, making it much more easy to keep them under control.

This is another study, which seems to directly contradict what I am hearing here.

http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/viewMediaRelease.php?id=29&sid=36&nid=66&year=2009

Vancouver, August 12, 2009 – In a study conducted by the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and published today by one of the top medical journals, British Medical Journal, researchers demonstrate a direct correlation between Canada’s prostitution laws and the likelihood of violence against female sex workers.

“While there has been a growing body of qualitative evidence documenting the negative impacts of criminalization of prostitution on the health and safety of sex workers, our study demonstrates – empirically – a direct link between the criminalization of sex work and the increased odds of violence against female sex workers,” says Dr. Kate Shannon, the lead author of the study.

 

Isn't it time to address the real issue of actual violence against women, decriminalize the entire issues surrounding prostitution, and stop worrying so much about what might happen?  There are things that are happening with the laws in place that purport to "protect" sex workers.   The fact is that what is happening, for the majority, is pretty good, but it can be better by ridding ourselves of these outdated laws.  Young women today are not victims, they are not stupid, they are not so easy to lure into the trade.  Take a look at the virtually deserted high track down town.  This is more due to the fact that young women are doing it for themselves, than an attempt to move indoors and be controlled there instead.  Men are unable to exert the same power over them the way they once did.   I cannot think of more than a very few clients I have seen who think of themselves as the ones with the power in our relationship.  Sure, in a way that they have the $ and I have the service, but how does that differ from any client-provider relationship regardless of the actual work?  

Myths about prostitution:    www.walnet.org/csis/groups/swav/johnschool/fictionfact.html

FICTION:
Prostitutes are victims.

FACT:
Some "recovery" programs and women's groups like to regard prostitutes as victims, despite the fact that many current and former prostitutes believe themselves to be nothing of the kind. This victim mentality is a convenient way of absolving oneself of blame for making ill-conceived or unwise choices. Typically applied to female rather than male prostitutes, it reinforces the archaic notion that women don't know what's good for them and are incapable not only of making their own decisions, but also of taking responsibility for those decisions.

 

 

Infosaturated wrote:

 

It's not an either or situation. It's disingenuous to claim that because prostitutes aren't arrested for the actual act that prostitution is legal.

If you feel the law needs to be clearer I am all for tightening it up by specifying that the act prostitution in and of itself is illegal on the part of the purchaser.

 

The law where?  Prostitution, as defined by the criminal code, is legal.  The law itself could not be any clearer although I do find that the added on laws are confusing.  I understand if you did not realize that prostitution is legal in Canada.  Many sex workers do not understand it either.  Some still believe that they cannot discuss rates and services in a phone conversation, but that too has emphatically been ruled legal.

  Please see my earlier post regarding the effects of making prostitution illegal.  To support illegalization of prostitution means supporting an increase of violence towards women, according to that recent study.  

 

“Prostitution is not illegal in Canada. We find ourselves in an anomalous, some would say bizarre, situation where almost everything related to prostitution has been regulated by the criminal law except the transaction itself.”  Chief Justice Lamer.  Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1 (1)(c) of the Criminal Code.  1990 1 SCR 1123

 

While a variety of venues would qualify as a bawdy-house, Canada's Supreme Court, in 2005, in what was probably an attempt to “keep the state out of the bedrooms of the nation”, excluded private swinger clubs, even when the members engage in orgies within a licensed barBut that case can be distinguished from prostitution as it stated that there was no harm to society in swinger or orgy clubs .

It is important to note, as did Justice Wilson in Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, that the Code: “does not prohibit prostitution which remains a perfectly legal activity. It does not even prohibit solicitation; it only prohibits solicitation in public places”. 

In addition: 

the Criminal Code has other offenses which suppress prostitution-like activity including the offense of a parent or guardian procuring sexual activity, that of a householder permitting sexual activity and the offense of corrupting children.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/CriminalLaw/LawArticle-121/Prostit...

Infosaturated wrote:

http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/viewMediaRelease.php?id=29&sid=36&nid=66&year=2009

She needs to review rudimentary principles of science ;

“While there has been a growing body of qualitative evidence documenting the negative impacts of criminalization of prostitution on the health and safety of sex workers, our study demonstrates – empirically – a direct link between the criminalization of sex work and the increased odds of violence against female sex workers,” says Dr. Kate Shannon, the lead author of the study.

Conducted over two years in partnership with the WISH Drop-In Centre Society in Vancouver, the study involved 237 female street-based sex workers. Of the 237 women, 57% experienced some form of physical or sexual violence during the 18-month study period. Key structural factors of homelessness and inability to access drug treatment continue to further elevate the risk of violence against female sex workers. 

Her study doesn't show any causative link between criminalization and and the harms suffered. What the study does prove is that street prostitution is dangerous.  There has been no reduction in streetwork anywhere it has been decriminalized or legalized and no claims that it has become safer. There is evidence that streetwork increases under both.  Sweden has successfully reduced streetwork.

I would very much like to see the "qualitative evidence" she refers to.

Sweden has simply driven it underground, where no one can be visually impacted or affected by the sight of street workers and thus become offended by their presence.  That is the reality of anti-prostitution laws after all.  

If you need qualitative evidence, then you need to do your research.  You cannot invalidate this study, yet embrace every other one that has nothing to back it up other than it agrees with your own POV.  

Just google Sweden escorts and get:

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=sweden+escorts&btnG=Google+Searc...

These new laws certainly don't seem to have affected anything other than what someone can see from their car window.

Sweden has simply driven it underground...

This claim - a pseudo evidence-based version of the myth of prostitution's inevitability - comes from some pro-prostitution Swedish people/organizations; it is contradicted by government authorities who speak of a 50% reduction of prostitution and a 90% reduction of trafficking. Indeed, some members of the pro-prostitution lobby are arguing that the law adopted in 1999 is making their jobs more dangerous because the safer "johns" have been scared off, leaving only more dangerous clients for women who want to go on prostituting rather than chosing another employment. The contradiction is obvious: either the demand has "simply been driven underground," or its has been seriously reduced, through education, alternatives and the threat of sanctions for what is merely an opportunistic behaviour.

 

...are they forced to take any work they can get in order to eat?

Respectfully, I think it's the other way around. MANY women and youths are forced into prostitution in order to eat. This is what we need to change through social programs and reforms, not make life even easier for the men and businesses who exploit their poverty and lack of options.

Infosaturated wrote:

 

The conclusion drawn is automatically invalid based on the most rudimentary scientific principles.

I reject any and all factual claims if the study doesn't support the claims. For example, street-based data cannot be extrapolated to indoor workers.

The claims are actually supported by the actual study lol.  Did you look for the study itself to come to this conclusion?  The researchers were working with sex workers who work under illegal conditions, i.e. street solicitation.  They concluded that this, not street work per se, put the workers at risk.  It was necessary for them to jump into the car to discuss rates, rather than simply staying outside, checking the guy out, discussing $, then deciding to get in or not.  Understand that this was published in a peer reviewed reputable journal, not just someone's personal blog.  There is a huge difference, after all.  I wouldn't want this actual scientific study to be compared to that Farley wacko lol. 

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/339/aug11_3/b2939

About the British Medical Journal

The BMJ is an international peer reviewed medical journal and a fully “online first” publication. The BMJ’s vision is to be the world’s most influential and widely read medical journal. Its mission is to lead the debate on health and to engage, inform, and stimulate doctors, researchers, and other health professionals in ways that will improve outcomes for patients. It aims to help doctors to make better decisions.

 

fortunate wrote:

Sweden has simply driven it underground, where no one can be visually impacted or affected by the sight of street workers and thus become offended by their presence.  That is the reality of anti-prostitution laws after all. ...

These new laws certainly don't seem to have affected anything other than what someone can see from their car window.

Quote:

Street work, which is the most dangerous, has been reduced. Montreal doesn't allow pretzels and hot-dogs to be sold on the streets either.  There is no automatic right to ply one's trade on the streets.

That escort services continue to exist doesn't mean they always will. Many laws aren't 100% effective and I certainly don't think that prostitution will be wiped out anytime soon.  The goal is preventing it from expanding and reducing what already exists.

As for Sweden, a report from the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police (2004) found that “Sweden’s legal experiment did not greatly reduce the number of women engaging in street sex work. Figures from Stockholm show that the total number of women on the street has remained stable 1999-2003. The report found that during this period street sex workers became more fearful of violence, were pressured to reduce prices and were pressured to engage in unprotected sex.” (Ironically, Norway is now considering the Swedish Model.)

A study by the Sweden’s own National Health and Welfare Board also found that the law had put sex workers at increased danger of violence due to fewer customers to choose from. A study by the Swedish Police Board found that competition for few clients meant that prices dropped and sex workers were more likely not to use condoms or take more clients to try and earn enough money. The same study reported that people in the health care system expressed concern about health getting worse among sex workers.

The police board further mentioned that the law was an obstacle to prosecuting traffickers, since clients, who had previously assisted women and been key witnesses, were no longer willing to come forward since they were considered criminals themselves.

According to 20 Swedish sex workers that Petra Ostegren interviewed, many sex workers have moved to work indoors by placing ads on the internet. However, sex workers in flats complain that they must work alone and face isolation. Ostegren reports that the sex workers who were in the worst conditions to begin with, often drug-users or homeless sex workers, have seen the worst changes since they have remained on the street where conditions have deteriorated the most.

Sex workers report that police in trying to enforce the law swarm the streets where women are working with video cameras, even filming inside cars to find “evidence”. Police have also used condoms “evidence” of prostitution, discouraging both women and customers from carrying them.
What are other “reduce or end-demand” programs?

http://swannet.org/en/node/577

and:

What other groups in Sweden are denied their rights to work in cooperation with others or alone, in safety of their own premises?

Would it be possible to treat other groups of workers, or religious or ethnic minorities like this, without them crying out about discrimination or human right violations?

Petra Ostergren has written an article in English about Sexworkers Critique of Swedish Prostitution Policy. Here are some quotes from that article:

The more vulnerable sexworkers seem to be the ones most negatively affected by the law. Women working on the streets in some bigger cities claim that there is now a greater percentage of ‘perverted’ customers and that the ’’nice and kind’’ customers have disappeared. A ‘perverted’ customer is someone who demands more violent forms of sex, sex with feces and urine and who is more prone to humiliate, degrade and violate the sexworker. He also more often refuses to use condoms.

All of the reports address the problems emerging after the new law was introduced. The National Police Board writes that the sexworkers that are still in street prostitution have a tough time.

The respondents in the National Board of Health and Welfare’s study (of which none are sexworkers themselves) believe female sexworkers now experience more difficulties and are more exposed then before.

http://sensuellqkonsult.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/lies-about-sexwork-in-sweden/

If swedish sex workers, the National Police Board and the National Board of Health & Welfare all agree on one thing: street workers are still out there.   Illegalizing prostitution did not decrease their numbers, but simply moved them somewhere else and increased the danger they are exposed to.

If we are truly talking about framing the debate, I believe the frame for the debate is the right of women to control their bodies. Full stop.

Isn't your statement subsumed under mine, Martin?

Quote:

Some may remember we have gone down that road before... Thirty years ago, many were arguing against arresting wife batterers, claiming that this detracted from women's agency to remain with these men.

 

And the solution was to criminalize men marrying women, essentially abolishing marriage.

 

Actually, wait a sec. It was to criminalize BATTERING.

Caissa wrote:

If we are truly talking about framing the debate, I believe the frame for the debate is the right of women to control their bodies. Full stop.

No one is preventing women from having sex.

Commercial exchanges are a different matter.

If an industry as a whole is deemed to be harmful in various ways then the government can and does step in to regular or even ban a commercial activity.

In the case of prostitution a multitude of harms are evident to anyone who cares to explore the facts.  One of the reasons Norway changed it's mind so dramatically from 2004 to 2009 was due to an increase in trafficking that could not be effectively controlled in any other way.

The harms cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand as a matter of policing or other laws when it places an undue burden on society. So far it has been shown that policing has been ineffective where prostitution has been normalized. The cost of applying the law is too great for it to be effective. 

From 2004 to 2009 Norway saw such an increase in trafficking that they found the only effective means of controlling it was to outlaw the the buying of sex.

Amsterdam found that policing and licencing failed to keep organized crime and trafficking out.

Being part of a society, or even a family, requires trade-offs.  Individual choices are balanced against the common good and the rights of others. 

Women can control their bodies, they can have sex.  Commercialization brings it into the public sphere where citizens have a right to evaluate the harms and benefits to society as a whole as well as to individuals within it.

Has anyone ever told you how incredibly rude you can be, Remind?

It appears worse to me since the implementation of a no suspension rules. Someone less cynical than me might think it was coincidental.

Now can we actually debate these issues without all of this personal nonsense? Or should I suggest how ironic it is that someone wants to deny her sisters personal agency?

martin dufresne wrote:

Has anyone ever told you how incredibly rude you can be, Remind?

Actually, this could serve as a textbook example of a personal attack.

May I plead, for remind, the shock effect of being subjected to continuing sacasm on an allegedly progressive board, for trying to oppose conditions widely acknowledged to be akin to slavery for millions of women and children worldwide?

Ok, this has got to stop. TRAFFICKING and anything NON-CONSENSUAL should remain illegal. However, there are women who want to choose to be sex workers.
Why deny them that right? And yes, saying you will not arrest them, but will arrest their clients is denying them consensual agency. Why call something consensual slavery? Why maintain that women should not be allowed to consent to something that they want to do?

Snert wrote:

It's a shame that a similar approach won't satisfy abolitionists, who seem to feel a need to focus not only on the men assaulting or harming sex workers, but also on those who aren't.

The men are feeding an industry that results in harm to large numbers of women therefore whether or not they percieve themselves to have harmed a particular woman the demand results in more women being harmed.

The "harmless john" also doesn't know if the woman he is using is in the business due to previous abuse or if she is being coerced by another man. Also, the effects of PDSD and depersonalization are cumulative not due to a single incident.

Ghislaine wrote:

Ok, this has got to stop. TRAFFICKING and anything NON-CONSENSUAL should remain illegal. However, there are women who want to choose to be sex workers.

Why deny them that right? And yes, saying you will not arrest them, but will arrest their clients is denying them consensual agency.

Because other countries have tried policing and not been able to control trafficking and the involvement of organized crime and a multitude of other harms associated with the industry.

Society is not morally bound to spend untold amounts of money on policing and other costs associated with prostitution so that some women can choose it at the direct expense of other women.

Barring pretzel sellers on the streets of Montreal is also "denying them consensual agency" by your definition.

Nothing prevents women from having sex with men. Their personal agency remains intact.

It is valid for the state to evaluate businesses based on their impact on government costs and on harm to the community or to individuals.

I suppose Remind, if Martin and I stayed out of these debates in the Feminist Forum you would have your saw-off.

I won't even start on how #93 is a gross misre[presentation of anything that I have written.

Snert wrote:

Nonsense. If a man pays for sex and is respectful about it, the only thing being "harmed" is the moral fibre of society. He's not "feeding an industry", though he may be feeding [i]her.[/i]

Many women have stated that no matter how "respectful" a man is they have suffered emotional harm from having to pretend that they enjoy what the john is doing to them and that the experience was dehumanizing and the harm was collective not due to a single incident.

Lots of people drink and drive and get home in one piece without hurting anyone. It doesn't give them the right to drink and drive because statistically it increases the risk of accidents. 

Regardless of various forms of regulation prostitution has remained impossible to control effectively leading to negative outcomes for many women and for society in general.  The rights of those women who want to be prostitutes do not supercede the rights of other women nor the rights of citizens who would be forced to endure the fall-out.

Reducing demand through criminalizing johns has been successful in preventing the expansion of the industry which invariably leads to more women being harmed by it among other problems.  Increased demand has been shown to result in the growth of trafficking and organized crime regardless of policing.