It's Official Canada has adopted Nordic Model Prostitution Law

[gugu]

From the Starr article

"57.2 per cent of women said buying sexual services should be illegal, while only 44.9 per cent of men said buying sex should be illegal.
More women (55.1 per cent) than men (44.2 per cent) supported making the selling of sexual services illegal."

Hard to comment on a survey when you don't see all the results. However, the groups are obviously the same on both side. Those wanting to criminalize sex workers are the same wanting to criminalize clients.

The 2009 and 2011 Angus Reid asked the question differently. 8% said they would criminalize ONLY the clients and 1% only the sex workers.

Ipsos (I) vs government consultation (GS):

would criminalize demand: 51,4% (I) - 56 (GC)
would criminalize selling: 49,8% - 34% (GC)

This is a HUGE difference, showing at least the invalidity of the government online consultation results.

 

[michael99]

The 2009 and 2011 Angus Reid asked the question differently. 8% said they would criminalize ONLY the clients and 1% only the sex workers.

Ipsos (I) vs government consultation (GS):

would criminalize demand: 51,4% (I) - 56 (GC)
would criminalize selling: 49,8% - 34% (GC)

This is a HUGE difference, showing at least the invalidity of the government online consultation results.

How is 51.4% vs 56% a HUGE difference?
Statistically they could even be the same depending on the sample size.

Just based on the numbers posted, without digging more into the way the polls were conducted, seems to me that the Ipsos numbers actually validate the numbers of the GS.
And the GS wasn't even a valid poll if I recall correctly - it wasn't based on a ramdom sample of a certain size.

And then you mentioned that the question asked was different, so the results are not even comparibal.

 

[nounours_]

How is 51.4% vs 56% a HUGE difference?
Statistically they could even be the same depending on the sample size.

Just based on the numbers posted, without digging more into the way the polls were conducted, seems to me that the Ipsos numbers actually validate the numbers of the GS.
And the GS wasn't even a valid poll if I recall correctly - it wasn't based on a ramdom sample of a certain size.

And then you mentioned that the question asked was different, so the results are not even comparibal.

"The [Ipsos-Reid] poll had a margin of error of 1.8 percentage points." The difference IS significant between the two polls, but the Ipsos-Reid poll does NOT support the conclusion that a majority of Canadians would criminalize demand.

 

[gugu]

The huge difference is about criminalizing the selling.
A small majority of Canadians favor criminalizing the selling according to Ipsos (49,8% against 44,1% who oppose).The bill proposes to outlaw the buying of course, but it also proposes to decriminalize the sex workers. The GC had results supporting this avenue. They were made public. The scientific survey did not. It was kept secret.

 

[Siocnarf]

This is the same as in Sweden. The government claim public support for their law, but all independent polls show that those who support criminalizing the buyer also want the seller criminalized. These are a higher % of women same as here.

The numbers could be much lower depending on how you formulate the question. People who respond don't think about this issue, so if they don't like prostitution they will say yes to prohibition without thinking about consequences. If you ask ''should consenting adult who exchange sex for money in private get a criminal record'', I'm sure most people would say no. I'm sure it would also vary a lot depending on whether you use the word ''prostitution'' in the questions.

 

[The Snark]

I agree with Siocnarf.

Within the context of the Bedford decision, these kinds of opinion polls should be irrelevant. The Supreme Court threw the matter back to Parliament with the expectation that the government would craft a law that would guarantee the safety and security of sex workers. The only people who have real insight into how to do this are sex workers themselves, or researchers who have extensive knowledge about the sex industry. What the public thinks about these questions is not important, since the ordinary Canadians (for the most part) know jack-shit about sex work - and John Q. Public is in no position to speak for Suzy Sex Worker.

If the government had actually been concerned with developing a law that responded to the mandate of the Bedford decision, they would have paid most attention to organizations like Stella, Maggie's, and Pivot Legal, who have first-hand knowledge of how to improve the working conditions of people in the business. Instead, they ignored or ridiculed these organizations, and gave disproportionate weight to evangelical groups and abolitionists.

Obviously, the Tories would rather play politics than make good laws (the Liberals and the NDP aren't much better), and this is the only context in which these kind of opinion polls matter.

 

[The Snark]

BTW, here's an excellent article dismantling the abolitionist case:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/01/19/think_again_prostitution

 

[Siocnarf]

An interesting report about Scotland. The police have a new official policiy to start doing ''welfare visit'' to independent sex workers, even encouraging neighbors to tip them off. In Scotland selling is also legal, but it is illegal to work in groups. They had a proposition for the nordic model, but it was rejected and public support was very low.
http://www.nswp.org/news-story/new-police-policy-indoor-sex-workers-revealed-home-visits-condemned-raids-disguise

 

[BookerL]

A question !!relocating your server in a commun wealth country ?a good choice?

Hi all
Because of bill C-36 certain agencies are already preparing themselves for the aftermath .
Moving there servers out of Canada or the Us !
But is it the safest plan to move for example in Noby Beach Queensland,Australia ?Its a example only!
Its a UK Common Wealth Country as Canada is ?
A QUESTION !!RELOCATING YOUR SERVER IN A COMMON WEALTH COUNTRY ?A GOOD CHOICE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Federal_Police
Types of investigations held by AFP
National[edit]

Federal Agents are based in each Australian state and Territory capital city, internationally and form the largest component of the AFP staff, Federal Agents chiefly perform criminal investigative duties.

Current areas of focus for the AFP:
Illicit drug trafficking
Organised people smuggling;
Human Trafficking, including sexual servitude and human exploitation;
Serious major fraud against the Government
High Tech Crime involving information technology and communications
Preventing, countering and investigating terrorism
Transnational and multi-jurisdictional crime
Money laundering
Organised crime
Queensland[edit]

Brothels are legal. They are licensed by the Prostitution Licensing Authority (PLA).[52] The PLA reports to the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC), which reports to parliament. There are two types of sex work that are legal in Queensland:
Private sex work: A single sex worker working alone. It is an offence for such a worker to solicit publicly. Advertising is permitted with restrictions on the wording.[53]
Sex work in a licensed brothel.
BEST of luck to all
BookerL

 

[daydreamer41]

Of course, there are plenty of smart people at the top, but a lot of those smart people would prefer to live in a world without prostitution. It is a lot easier for those smart people to do their propaganda against prostitution than it is for smart people like the author of this fine article to get her message across to the unthinking masses.

The problem with this whole debate is the subject is not black and white like both sides want to paint, in their argument of course.

There are well adjusted women who sell sex on their own free will. We know that because we all met many.

There are women who are addicted to drugs, pimped out or / and are forced to sell sex, or don't share in the profits of their sexual escapades. I have come across only a couple of women who I thought were drug addicts, and have never met a woman who I thought was forced into selling sex, although I may not have been aware of the situation. I bet that situation is rare. I have engaged in street prostitution, where pimping is quite prevalent.

That being said, what laws do you devise that allows those who want to willfully engage in selling sex, while protecting those who are doing it against their will?

The only law I can think of is that of minimal regulation and heavy enforcement of non-compliance. Meaning require all agencies which employ sex providers to register with the government. They would be open to unannounced interviews of the women they employ. Women would not have to register, but at the spot interviews, the agency could verify ages and intention to provide sexual services. Any agency or even individual pimps not registering would be subject to long jail terms in addition to the jail term for force prostitution if it exists. Otherwise, prostitution would be legal other than street prostitution in residential neighborhoods, where it would be a fine (not misdemeanor, etc.)

 

[hungry101]

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading it, but there us always a bit of sadness afterwords.

The general public will get its information from sensationalist shows like "Sex Slaves!, tonight at 8 PM" that show lots of action instead of analyzing real arguments, and that general public will buy the things that are advertised during the show without thinking much about whether they need the stuff that is advertised. And they will get information from following the advice of celebrities like Ashton Kurcher whose publicists decide to adopt a pet social project like eliminating the mythical sex trafficking so that his adoring female airhead fans will convince themselves he his smart, and correct in the views he expresses in 150 characters or less, on Twitter, as they buy marketing materials that he profits from.
s.

Oh come on Patron. You know all the SPs are really trafficked sex slaves don't you? Didn't you see that docudrama Taken? Where the girls were kidnapped and chained to beds and heroin was pumped into their veins until they were addicted. At this point the trafficked girls would willingly walk the streets so they could get a fix at the end of their shift.

BTW - John Q public readily swallowed this scenario hook, line, and sinker.

As a matter of fact anytime someone suggests I see a Liam Nesson film I think of this cheesy portrayal of the hobby and refuse.

 

[Siocnarf]

The only law I can think of is that of minimal regulation and heavy enforcement of non-compliance. Meaning require all agencies which employ sex providers to register with the government. They would be open to unannounced interviews of the women they employ. Women would not have to register, but at the spot interviews, the agency could verify ages and intention to provide sexual services. Any agency or even individual pimps not registering would be subject to long jail terms in addition to the jail term for force prostitution if it exists. Otherwise, prostitution would be legal other than street prostitution in residential neighborhoods, where it would be a fine (not misdemeanor, etc.)

Underage and traffic victims are a small minority. There are laws against that and it is unworkable to have all sorts of extra regulations to prevent it. The police has no place doing surprise controls in any kind of business. Heavy-handed control incites many people to work in the black market and you end-up with the same problems as prohibitions.

Government has to realize that the more you try to control prostitution, the more you mess it up. It's like herding cats.

We need social programs to help people who want to exit and better programs to help the poor and addicted. We have laws against abuse. We need to treat that the same as with domestic violence. We don’t need more laws, we need good police attitude toward prostitutes and clients so they can apply the laws we do have. Plus of course some local regulations for zoning and such. That’s it.

 

[BookerL]

"The state has no business in the nation's bedrooms."PIERRE ELLIOT TRUDEAU

Hi all
I am a true believer in this statement !http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/politics/pm/pierretrudeau.htm

The only law I can think of is that of minimal regulation and heavy enforcement of non-compliance. Meaning require all agencies which employ sex providers to register with the government. They would be open to unannounced interviews of the women they employ. Women would not have to register, but at the spot interviews, the agency could verify ages and intention to provide sexual services. Any agency or even individual pimps not registering would be subject to long jail terms in addition to the jail term for force prostitution if it exists. Otherwise, prostitution would be legal other than street prostitution in residential neighborhoods, where it would be a fine (not misdemeanor, etc.)

Even if it looks reasonable technically in practice the government can not be half in half out!
Imagine if clients would get STD's out of controlled licensed SP's ,more problems if they control the SP's why control the John's and know what is there revenue source to pay for the services its a huge Pandora's box with no end ?
The phenomenon of underground controlled products already exist in the tobacco industry !
Coercion ,human trafficking,and the use of minors must be controlled but it was before adding stupid laws will not help !
Agencies under the old law where already targeted for certain other reasons ,such as money laundering some owners that I new where busted and there assets frozen and then seized .
Same thing with drivers some where arrested and convicted ,errors they made but still !
Has for legal prostitution taxes would apply because its a service ,and income tax would also apply on the demoiselles ,
There is no easy way out at the moment !
Wait and see what the Harper boy's will try to impose on something they should stay away
Regards all
BookerL

 

[hungry101]

Now answer a question for me. Let's take a girl going to college or raising a child who decides to do sex work because she can earn far more doing sex work than she can at any other job. She is not forced into anything, and if she earns less per hour at another job, her life will become unmanageable. Why should the sad lives of the lowest class of sex workers, and the exploitive politicians, social workers, and angry anti-sex women's groups be able to constantly use the streetwalker as an example of why prostitution is bad. The media and the politicians act like middle and upper class prostitutes do not exist. They are the ones who face the most economic harm by C-86.

Reminds me of the last conversation I had with an escort I met in Seattle.

Hungry: "Did you hear about the new proposed law in Canada"

Escort: "No.

Hungry: "They are going to outlaw the buying of sex but make it legal to sell sex. What do you think about that? What do you think about the escorting"

Escort: "It [escorting] paid my way through college."

Hungry: "Did you ever think about just doing this a couple of times a month?"

Escort: "You mean just for fun?"

Hungry: "Well, you would get paid. Just not make as much. Wait, do you enjoy this?"

Escort: "Yes, [I get a rush off this]."

Hungry: "But what about trafficked girls?"

Escort: "Oh yes. This is a big problem."

Hungry: "Have you seen any [trafficked girls]."

Escort: "No."

Hungry: "Neither have I. I have never had the slightest indication that the escorts I have been with have been trafficked or coerced."

Escort: "And you could tell. I mean you can tell [when something is wrong.]"

Hungry: "I would think so. Have you ever been arrested?"

Escort: "No!"

Hungry: "Me neither. How did you get into this?"

Escort: "Friends of mine were doing it. They introduced me to [it.]"

Hungry: "Have any of your friends been arrested?"

Escort: "No. And I have been doing this [on and off for 7-8] years."

Funny, I have had several conversations just like this with the ladies. This woman was gainfully employed in a professional career but she still did this in her evenings. She does not have a boyfriend or husband and she likes the money and the sex. I would say that most of the woman I have met have a similar story. So who is it that the government is trying to protect? Why should this be anybody's business?

I wonder if society can't handle the fact that women enjoy sex and the rush of meeting new people and selling sexual pleasures? So, instead report after report is about trafficked women who are being forced to do this. Maybe it is easier to swallow than your wife or girlfriend that dumped you or your daughter and the neighbor girl is out whoring herself for money? Maybe stories of pimping and trafficking and horrible lecherous men forcing women to perform acts against their will is easier to swallow? The Laim Neeson scenario of pumping heroin into the veins of the prostitutes as they are chained to the bed as was portrayed in the cheesy, low budget Hollywood hit Taken is easier to accept then the fact that women can enjoy escorting.

 

[gugu]

There was a MAJOR BLOW this morning from the medical community.

From the medical journal The Lancet, a series on sex work and HIV. 7 articles, 5 comments, all vehemently against repression.

http://www.thelancet.com/series/HIV-and-sex-workers (free access with free registration to the Lancet.

 

[Joe.t]

AIDS conference told legalizing prostitution a simple way to curb HIV.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/aids-...ostitution-a-simple-way-to-curb-hiv-1.2714423

 

[BookerL]

News paper media cannot relocate there servers !!

 

[Siocnarf]

So, newspapers are going to lose money. They're going to be driven out of business for their own good.

There's nothing that stops sex workers from printing hundreds of ads on their own little printer an leaving them all over town (so long as it's not close to a school). They can legally stand on a street-corner handing out leaflets with their contact info. Just taking the leaflet would not constitute ''communicating to get sex''.

 

[BookerL]

An interesting legal perspective published today in the Globe and Mail about, once again, the pitfalls of C-36:

Certainly is !Great article !:thumb:
But it doesn't seem at present that the Harper boy's are conceding such amendments !Sadly
They do not even seem to have a backup plan if portion of the bill C-36 is struck down by the Courts and if they do they are quiet about it!
A debate to follow
Sincerely yours
BookerL

 

[gugu]

An interesting legal perspective published today in the Globe and Mail about, once again, the pitfalls of C-36:

The best piece I have read so far on C-36.

Buyers and advertisers of sexual services should face prosecution only if they have failed to ascertain the absence of conditions of exploitation. This should include a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that sex workers are 18 or over, are not trafficked or otherwise subject to violence or coercion, and have given meaningful consent to sexual contact that is not compromised by, for example, mental health disabilities, alcohol or drugs.

This is the innovative aspect of the article, at least in the Canadian debate. Finland and UK have a similar device in their legislations.

Sexual exploitation is an objectively ascertainable harm.

This pretty much sums up the argument in seven words.