More precisely what some people call abolitionism. I am an abolitionnist. I'm against State intervention in the matter of prostitution. That's what abolitionism is. That's what Josephine Butler though should be.
Petition against the Nordic model....
- Thread starter escapefromstress
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
More precisely what some people call abolitionism. I am an abolitionnist. I'm against State intervention in the matter of prostitution. That's what abolitionism is. That's what Josephine Butler though should be.
It's called "abolitionism'. It's a term that's been conflated with radical feminism, but is its own beast.
Sidney, it is a new stream of feminism. They have infiltrated some high political persons on the liberal side, and they have made some allies on the conservative side.
You would need some censorship laws to block these sites I guess.
Yes, exactly what the French bill intends to do. My understanding is that the law applies to the Internet providers. They are obliged to obey the law. Whether operated from Germany, Lithuania or Russia, it's the site that must be blocked. This is a community let's not forget. Every time the signal is interrupted you lose members.
so the consensus here is that this law is going to happen? so were pretty much fucked
No, the prostitution laws challenged by Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott was to make prostitution safer and not illegal, that was what the challenge and subsequent ruling was all about, prostitution will never, never, never be totally illegal in Canada, did I say never?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(Attorney_General)_v._Bedford
As far as street prostitution, it was my understanding people could not solicit in public. So you are not correct about prostitution, the soliciting part, being legal.
True, but I was saying in the context of legalized prostitution. If selling sex is deemed legal, banning public solicitation is unconstitutional. Zoning street prostitution would be a phony and useless law, because most vulnerable street prostitutes could not respect that law. Crack addicts won't commute 1h to go work the street in a specific spot. Zoning incall is another situation. If it's a registered business like a restaurant or strip club, sure it should be zoned. But they should not restrict people working from their own homes.
And they've been told that it won't work:
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/20...ontre-un-client-qui-passe-par-internet_943445
http://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/...proposition-de-loi-suffira-t-elle_467308.html
At any rate, there is something similar in Sweden, and the clients still have access and use review boards such as Secretary Academy (see page 18):
https://www.polisen.se/Global/www o...king_1998_/Trafficking_report_13_20130530.pdf
Even in the U.S. where prostitution is entirely illegal (both selling and purchasing services), review boards such as TER are still active.
In Canada, the case of Ernst Zündel has probably set a precedent in terms of what is guaranteed free speech that will need to be taken into account by any law the Cons come up with.
The owner of one of the review sites, TER or bigdoggie, I forget which one, was arrested and charged with promoting prostitution. He won his case since it was ruled a free speech issue and not promoting prostitution.
And they've been told that it won't work:
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/20...ontre-un-client-qui-passe-par-internet_943445
http://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/...proposition-de-loi-suffira-t-elle_467308.html
At any rate, there is something similar with the laws in Sweden, and the clients still have access and use review boards such as Secretary Academy (see page 18):
https://www.polisen.se/Global/www o...king_1998_/Trafficking_report_13_20130530.pdf
Even in the U.S. where prostitution is entirely illegal (both selling and purchasing services), review boards such as TER are still active.
In Canada, the case of Ernst Zündel has probably set a precedent in terms of what is guaranteed free speech that will need to be taken into account by any law the Cons come up with.
A Con government that is currently behind in the polls and will be booted out of office as early as next year(2015, next general election in Canada), I can't wait, "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau".
Patron, it's a matter of principle. Like pot, everyone who want to do it is already doing it, so what does it matter if it's legal or not? I'll just quote Bill Maher here (at around 1:14:00 near the end of the video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLt0Sm8zdLY
Anyway, I doubt this petition will have a significant impact on the new law.
At least McKay himself admits that "There is no simple answer to a question as complex as prostitution.'' and that they are trying to achieve ''the right balance''. The law will aim to protect people who are forced into prostitution. I'm all for that, but it all depends on what he means by ''forced'', because he does not say anything about protecting consensual activities.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-promises-new-prostitution-bill-before-summer-1.2601014
About the internet laws in France, I think it would not work here. If selling sex is legal, you cannot ban something just because it promotes prostitution. They would have to prove that it promotes human traficking. Most contact and screening are now done via internet. According to the Bedford decision, screening is a vital tool for the safety of workers and should not be prevented.
Worst case scenario, people on merb could fall back to giving explicit sexual details by PM only, same as for massage parlors now. Just discussing general look, attitude, punctuality, etc. of an escort has nothing to do with prostitution and could not be censored. We are merely paying for the pleasure of their company after all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLt0Sm8zdLY
Anyway, I doubt this petition will have a significant impact on the new law.
At least McKay himself admits that "There is no simple answer to a question as complex as prostitution.'' and that they are trying to achieve ''the right balance''. The law will aim to protect people who are forced into prostitution. I'm all for that, but it all depends on what he means by ''forced'', because he does not say anything about protecting consensual activities.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peter-mackay-promises-new-prostitution-bill-before-summer-1.2601014
About the internet laws in France, I think it would not work here. If selling sex is legal, you cannot ban something just because it promotes prostitution. They would have to prove that it promotes human traficking. Most contact and screening are now done via internet. According to the Bedford decision, screening is a vital tool for the safety of workers and should not be prevented.
Worst case scenario, people on merb could fall back to giving explicit sexual details by PM only, same as for massage parlors now. Just discussing general look, attitude, punctuality, etc. of an escort has nothing to do with prostitution and could not be censored. We are merely paying for the pleasure of their company after all.
whats the difference you ask? I do not want to get arrested for engaging in prostitution, deported, and barred from entering canada ever again. I really couldn't enjoy a session with a lady in fear of a sting, if this kind of stuff didn't matter then id just hobby here at home!
I was sarcastic when I said ''what does it matter'' in the post above. My point is that even if there is almost no risk, the simple fact that it is illegal is not right, (same as pot.) In fact, criminalization, even if only of the client, has negative effect mostly on the prostitutes, so workers have the most to gain or lose by the new law.
I had a conversation a few months ago with an older stripper at Cléo's who seems to be well cultured and who knows a lot about life. The conversation drifted, God knows how, to a talk about the legalization of prostitution. According to this dancer, legalization will be bad for business as many clients lose interest in anything that becomes legal and she made an anology with the legalization of pot in the Netherlands. She ended up convincing me of her point of view.
Reciprocally, more stringent rules on prostitution will help this industry to blossom. Some clients (and SPs) will certainly chicken out, though other clients like it when it is taboo and dangerous. SPs, on the other hand, will compensate for the lost clients by increasing their rates. Actually, I even suspect that they will increase their rates far beyond what is just necessary to compensate for the lost clients. Everything subject to prohibition is always more expensive.
Reciprocally, more stringent rules on prostitution will help this industry to blossom. Some clients (and SPs) will certainly chicken out, though other clients like it when it is taboo and dangerous. SPs, on the other hand, will compensate for the lost clients by increasing their rates. Actually, I even suspect that they will increase their rates far beyond what is just necessary to compensate for the lost clients. Everything subject to prohibition is always more expensive.
The problem with the current laws is that they were too vague, overbroad and disproportionate. I think it's necessary that they were struck down. Just too bad it had to happen while Harper is in charge. Here's what I would do if I was the conservative (because they would never do as in New-Zealand):
-Criminalize the purchase of sex from victims of traffic or coercion, with strict liability (not knowing is not an excuse)
-Make prostitution illegal in commercial and public venues (no commercial brothels and no sex in MP or strip clubs)
-Have a clear definition of a brothel that does not apply to private residence or hotels, so that private incalls would not be illegal.
-Websites such as advertisement for escorts and merb should be legal. For reason of free speech and because they create a transparency that I think is helpful to the police as well as to the clients and escorts.
-Third parties are not criminalized unless they are abusive. Agencies, drivers, etc are legal.
This will please no one completely, but it will essentially legalize the de-facto situation and make a show that they are really doing their best to push back the liberal forces Hell. The rapture is coming real soon anyway.
Whatever they do, unless they criminalize the selling, they have to provide safe ways in which prostitutes can do their job.
Still they will need a clear definition of what constitutes an act of prostitution.
-Criminalize the purchase of sex from victims of traffic or coercion, with strict liability (not knowing is not an excuse)
-Make prostitution illegal in commercial and public venues (no commercial brothels and no sex in MP or strip clubs)
-Have a clear definition of a brothel that does not apply to private residence or hotels, so that private incalls would not be illegal.
-Websites such as advertisement for escorts and merb should be legal. For reason of free speech and because they create a transparency that I think is helpful to the police as well as to the clients and escorts.
-Third parties are not criminalized unless they are abusive. Agencies, drivers, etc are legal.
This will please no one completely, but it will essentially legalize the de-facto situation and make a show that they are really doing their best to push back the liberal forces Hell. The rapture is coming real soon anyway.
Whatever they do, unless they criminalize the selling, they have to provide safe ways in which prostitutes can do their job.
Still they will need a clear definition of what constitutes an act of prostitution.
The problem with the current laws is that they were too vague, overbroad and disproportionate. I think it's necessary that they were struck down. Just too bad it had to happen while Harper is in charge. Here's what I would do if I was the conservative (because they would never do as in New-Zealand):
-Criminalize the purchase of sex from victims of traffic or coercion, with strict liability (not knowing is not an excuse)
-Make prostitution illegal in commercial and public venues (no commercial brothels and no sex in MP or strip clubs)
-Have a clear definition of a brothel that does not apply to private residence or hotels, so that private incalls would not be illegal.
-Websites such as advertisement for escorts and merb should be legal. For reason of free speech and because they create a transparency that I think is helpful to the police as well as to the clients and escorts.
-Third parties are not criminalized unless they are abusive. Agencies, drivers, etc are legal.
This will please no one completely, but it will essentially legalize the de-facto situation and make a show that they are really doing their best to push back the liberal forces Hell. The rapture is coming real soon anyway.
Whatever they do, unless they criminalize the selling, they have to provide safe ways in which prostitutes can do their job.
Still they will need a clear definition of what constitutes an act of prostitution.
Now tell me how would you know?
The law in most countries is based on intent. How in the world can apply intent in this situation?
I think you would open a large can of worms with a law like that.
This system is what they have in Finland and England. I don't like the idea of strict liability either, but I think that's the only model the gov can use to sprinkle some criminalization and save face. Anyway, as everywhere it is highly under-enforced in those countries. There's already laws against threats, violence, kidnapping so anything targetting prostitution is redundant anyway. Even if an escort claims to have been forced, it still needs to be proven in court, same as any crime. It is still much less likely that you would be found with a victim than just being found now at an incall. Even though that model sounds scary it is in fact easier to do it legally compared to now.
Coercion involves forcing someone to work under threats. The number of woman it applies to is very low and usually they are victims of trafficking. The best thing to do is just stay clear of people who obviously have not been long in the country. If a driver or agent is unpleasant that can be a case of harrassment, not coercion.
Of course, sex in many clubs and MP would still be going on illegally, same as now. The idea of banning commercial places is just to make sure it stays mostly invisible and you don't have 10-stories brothel everywhere. Once again I don't agree with that, but I'm sure they are going to restrict the expression as much as possible within the limits of the court decision.
DD, I think intent is very hard to prove. Like in Sweden, police confiscate condoms from street workers and clients and use them as evidence of intent. That seems phony to me, because it is not illegal to have condoms in your purse all day long. It's not like drug evidence during a drug deal. The only way to prove intent is to have a conversation or e-mails where sex service and fees are discussed explicitly or to catch them during the act.
I think it's hard to convict people, but easy for the police to arrest them and make life impossible for the street prostitutes. They don't care about stopping many criminals. They just want to do anything that's going to make people scared of doing it.
Coercion involves forcing someone to work under threats. The number of woman it applies to is very low and usually they are victims of trafficking. The best thing to do is just stay clear of people who obviously have not been long in the country. If a driver or agent is unpleasant that can be a case of harrassment, not coercion.
Of course, sex in many clubs and MP would still be going on illegally, same as now. The idea of banning commercial places is just to make sure it stays mostly invisible and you don't have 10-stories brothel everywhere. Once again I don't agree with that, but I'm sure they are going to restrict the expression as much as possible within the limits of the court decision.
DD, I think intent is very hard to prove. Like in Sweden, police confiscate condoms from street workers and clients and use them as evidence of intent. That seems phony to me, because it is not illegal to have condoms in your purse all day long. It's not like drug evidence during a drug deal. The only way to prove intent is to have a conversation or e-mails where sex service and fees are discussed explicitly or to catch them during the act.
I think it's hard to convict people, but easy for the police to arrest them and make life impossible for the street prostitutes. They don't care about stopping many criminals. They just want to do anything that's going to make people scared of doing it.
Another article on the failure of the Nordic model:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...aking-prostitutes-feel-less-safe-9294458.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...aking-prostitutes-feel-less-safe-9294458.html
Sinocnarf, the only way to enforce a law like that would have government regulation where a girl or an agency and their girls would register with the government and all parties would sign an affidavit saying they are participating through their own free will. Then the government would give all parties a card to hold. The client would be responsible for checking that she has a card in her possession. Other than that, how could you even enforce a law saying that the guy is responsible for checking her free will?
The only law I know of like that is purchasing stolen property, but stolen property is usually sold at an extreme discount, because the seller knows he or she is going to have a hard time selling it. There are some flags associated with the stolen property. There may be with trafficked SP's, but it may not be that obvious.
The only law I know of like that is purchasing stolen property, but stolen property is usually sold at an extreme discount, because the seller knows he or she is going to have a hard time selling it. There are some flags associated with the stolen property. There may be with trafficked SP's, but it may not be that obvious.
Another article on the failure of the Nordic model:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...aking-prostitutes-feel-less-safe-9294458.html
It's a good article to send to your politicians.
The government's biggest complaint may be sex trafficking, or women forced to be prostitutes.
How else would you be sure that the girl is not being trafficked other than some verification system? The registration system would have to be confidential. Do you have a better idea?
How else would you be sure that the girl is not being trafficked other than some verification system? The registration system would have to be confidential. Do you have a better idea?
DD, even having a prostitute swear that she is doing it of her own free will is no guarantee. She could be forced by a pimp to say that. Even if they did implement a registration system, most would continue to do it in the black market to protect their privacy. It would create even more problems.
The conservatives will not have a registration system. That would necessitate full legalization and imply that prostitution is a good job. Harper wants to send the message that prostitution is bad, but he will have to do it in a way that still makes it possible for consenting adults.
Whatever law they make, they know they can't stop it. They're just ''sending a message'' and when you're ''sending a message'' it's because you admit your laws are useless in practice.
The conservatives will not have a registration system. That would necessitate full legalization and imply that prostitution is a good job. Harper wants to send the message that prostitution is bad, but he will have to do it in a way that still makes it possible for consenting adults.
Whatever law they make, they know they can't stop it. They're just ''sending a message'' and when you're ''sending a message'' it's because you admit your laws are useless in practice.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 59
- Views
- 12K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 2K
