Good one CockA, here's a few points.
First off, the "recently published study" was done a few years ago.
link to pdf:
http://wish-vancouver.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Bowen_Raven_Thesis_They_Walk_Among_Us_Final_Draft_May_12_2013.pdf
and note from page 28:
A “sociological imagination” is required in order to extrapolate from the personal supports and challenges that participants identify with respect to movement in and out of the sex industry to larger socio-structural conditions.
so considering this (disclaimer?) as well as the rather small sample size of the 22 people (admittedly handpicked by Bowen, page 27) you can draw your own conclusions.
So why now? Could this have anything to do with the new Prodigal Minister? Ce qui est l'essentiel?
Fast forward to the end of article:
Advocates, including Ms. Bowen, are calling for the government to enshrine violence against sex workers as a hate crime, noting that occupation is not a protected category. They’re also recommending more funding for transition programs.
“It starts with legislation, unfortunately, and the social values will shift later.”
So that's the gist of it? Besides the "more funding" i.e., more of
your money to be taken or redirected from other budgets, there is just so much wrong with that last statement, unchallenged of course by the mockingbirds. Think about it, to remove the stigma of something related to a personal choice, they want to write hate crime laws defining sex work as a special protected occupation as opposed to comprehensive decriminalization and treatment similar to any other "legit" health service? Generally speaking, free societies simply cannot legislate social values, how many more actual failures are needed for this to become understood by the so-called intelligentsia? The war on drugs or 18th Amendment in US are a few simple examples. Do people actually believe that the ignorant and sexless will suddenly welcome
wanton women (and men) into their world because of a law?
Also, note this article was also posted by the Globe & Mail and also the Star under different headlines:
"Kayla had a new job and life — until a cop exposed her sex worker past"
"Sex workers leaving the industry find ‘there’s no escape’ from stigma of past"
so I suppose any stigma associated the use of the W-word itself (as opposed to "sex worker") is less important than clickbait to Huffpost? Imagine a headline "Faggot stigma - the worst barrier to coming out of the closet". No difference given the common derogatory usage of both words. You just cant make this shit up anymore.
