Toronto Escorts

Critique of the Nordic Model

trtinajax

New member
Apr 7, 2008
356
0
0
Just read that under the "Nordic Model" the government plans to "criminalize" all situations where money, drugs, gifts, or other forms of compensation are exchanged for sexual services.

This in realty could be great news for men. Just think single men will no longer to be able to give their girlfriend an engagement ring because obviously is a gift in exchange for sexual services be that those sexual services will occur later that day, the next day, next week, next month or next year. Also positive for married men. No more Christmas gifts, birthday presents, anniversary gifts, Valentines day gifts, etc. because all of these really represent a gift to the spouse expecting sexual services in return. Even taking your wife/girlfriend to dinner, on a vacation or a Blue Jays game could get you arrested. Think positive - time to show the silent majority of women that they also lose under this legislation. Be careful if married, marriage goes south & she now has another legal club to bash you with.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,094
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Once Again: Why the Nordic Model is Bad


http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/2014/02/28/once-again-why-the-nordic-model-is-bad/

Laws supposedly meant to protect sex workers by penalizing only so-called pimps and clients, and not sex workers, will replicate the harms and illegalities of the laws just struck down and may not survive the courts. The other countries did not have our recent court ruling on what makes laws themselves right or wrong. That ruling makes the Nordic Model wrong. There are several things wrong with the Nordic Model. Here are a few of them. (1) Anti-pimping laws criminalize anyone who shares in a sex worker’s earnings, including her husband, other family members and friends. Police can harass or threaten people around her who they may wish to suspect as an associate.

(2) The laws even form a barrier to sex workers who wish to marry and or leave the business for other reasons. A husband becomes legally vulnerable, even if he shares the household expenses. Women who support their husbands in whole or in part in other occupations, and, yet, no one passes laws against living off the proceeds of their work. Why are sex workers singled out from women in other occupations? That singling out is not legal after the recent court decision.

(3) The Nordic approach also makes sex workers less safe. Pimps often provide services for and protection to sex workers. For example, they drive women to appointments, wait in the car, and know when to worry if the woman does not return. They copy down the license plates of cars into which street walkers climb, which provides some safeguard against the women simply disappearing.
(4) Laws against clients endanger sex workers on the street. These women are the most vulnerable of sex workers because they lack the safety of working indoors and non-violent men are far more likely to be afraid of and discouraged by the prospect of being arrested than are psychopaths. This is especially true of family men or those who have a respected position in their communities. A minister, a lawyer, a teacher, a psychologist or a doctor have a great deal to lose by being arrested and having the arrest publicized, so are reluctant to take the risk.

(5) There will not necessarily be fewer women selling sex, however, especially on the street level where driving forces like drug-use keep the numbers high. With a smaller pool of customers for whom to compete, these women may act with less caution; for example, they may be more willing to get into cars they might otherwise not get into. On the other hand, there will be as many physically abusive men and criminals in the client pool because a person who is willing to beat or to kill a sex worker is unlikely to be discouraged by the possibility of a minor charge of buying sex. The preferred clients have moved to the Internet, but the dangerous ones stayed on the streets.

(6) Those on the streets work in risky conditions because they go further into remote areas. Under the Nordic Model they have to do the negotiation very quickly. It doesn’t give them any time to assess risk. The quick negotiation will also result from a client’s unwillingness to linger a moment longer than necessary.

(7) It is currently common practice for sex workers to screen their clients in advance to seeing them. They know the client’s name and phone number. Under the Nordic Model, however, clients have more incentive to remain anonymous rather than risk arrest. Sex workers will have to accept calls from blocked numbers and won’t know who they are seeing. So much for the Nordic Model.

(8) There is no indication that the Nordic Model, as being considered for Canada at present, would adequately define what are not permissible acts between consenting adults in private for money or not, and so the law will fail for that alone.

(9) I could go on and on, but enough for now.
 

trtinajax

New member
Apr 7, 2008
356
0
0
A Must Read - Future 0f Prostitution Laws

In today's Toronto Sun columnist Anthony Furey has a column on the Future of Prostitution in Canada. Sorry I can't figure out how to provide a link to the column but maybe somebody could not. Very good article
 
Jan 24, 2012
2,332
0
0
I seem not to be able to find the article. SOOO have 2 windows open. Copy the site URL from the window that has the article & paste into your posting here. It will be a link to the article.
 

thumper18474

Well-known member
In a nutshell
Continue to go afer the human trafficking and forced prostitution side of it
But stop acting like you know whats best for use consenting adults
You (the government) should NOT be telling grown adults what to do.
Women being escorts of their own free will are not the down fall of society.
MP Joy Smith wrote a paper Titled..the tipping point..where she embraces the Nordic Model.
Go afer the buyers not the sellers
Also she feels "those who claim to be escorts by choice are using it as a means of survival and to support an addiction.
 

thumper18474

Well-known member
In a nutshell
Continue to go afer the human trafficking and forced prostitution side of it
But stop acting like you know whats best for use consenting adults
You (the government) should NOT be telling grown adults what to do.
Women being escorts of their own free will are not the down fall of society.
MP Joy Smith wrote a paper Titled..the tipping point..where she embraces the Nordic Model.
Go afer the buyers not the sellers
Also she feels "those who claim to be escorts by choice are using it as a means of survival and to support an addiction.
 

thumper18474

Well-known member
He also mentions novelist
Chester Brown.."..Paying for it"
Saying why punish a person who is polite ..respectful..pays his tab and treat them(ultimately us).just because some other douche on the other side of town is engaging in human trafficking and the other seedy sides of the biz.
In closing he says the max. The govt should do is try and dissuade peo0le from joining the biz on moral grounds. But ultimately its their choice.
To let moralizing turn into legislating just infringes on liberty.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Said Article:

"On Saturday Anthony Furey is speaking at the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa on the topic “Is Canada ready for new prostitution laws – or none at all?” Below is a version of his opening statement:

When I first became politically aware, I leaned quite left. Many can relate to this, no doubt. You see, I wanted good things for people. Good outcomes and results. Because I cared.

But it didn’t take long for me to figure out that people often disagree on what those good things are. And that there are some people out there who, in spite of this disagreement, still want to force their version of good things on others. Even if the others object.

I then realized that what I wanted for people wasn’t good results after all. But for everyone to have the freedom to pursue whatever their version of good results was. A key distinction often overlooked today.

There seemed to be two perspectives of government: those who viewed it as a mechanism to force people to live the way they thought they should live, and those who thought the point was to maximize liberties.

I realized I believed the latter. And if you believe that we created government to serve us and not the other way around, I hope you agree.

But what about people whose idea of exercising their liberty is something that we personally don’t like? Something that disgusts us. That we’d be horrified to learn if our friends were doing it. Does that still fall under the case for liberty?

Well there’s a simple litmus test that will solve this: If the action is done voluntarily and it’s not otherwise infringing on someone else’s liberty, then it must be allowed. Anything else is the state micromanaging personal choice.

This is where prostitution comes in. Not only does this argument lead one to oppose any form of law that limits the right of consenting individuals to otherwise lawfully engage in sex commerce, but implies that this is the natural position for advocates of small government to hold.

Last December the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s prostitution laws on the grounds that they endangered prostitutes. The feds have time to think this over and come up with revised laws.

Joy Smith, Member of Parliament for Kildonan - St. Paul, argues in her paper "The Tipping Point" that the correct response to the ruling is to move towards what’s called the Nordic model. Many people share this view. Based on Swedish legislation from 1999, this would shift all criminality from the seller to the buyer. It targets johns instead of prostitutes.

But if sex commerce is consensual, it makes no sense to target one side of the transaction over another. And besides, what business is it of the government?

Ah, my opponents will cry, but what about human trafficking? What about child prostitution? What about sex slavery? What about abuse?

Well, what about them? They’re illegal and will remain so. There is no consent going on in the above and they are all liberty violations.

It’s bad logic to argue that because prostitution could lead to such problems, it should be outlawed entirely. If the above infringements are still going on, then it’s clearly enforcement that needs to be looked at, not the law itself.

Drunk driving is not an argument to ban either driving or drinking. Public shootings are no argument to ban gun ownership. It simply casts the net too wide. It’s lazy from both the legislative and policing perspectives.

There are some however who would argue there’s something wrong with prostitution in and of itself. To return to Smith, she writes that any new laws “should recognize that the violence and exploitation inherent in prostitution directly violates an individual’s right to life, liberty and security of person.”

So there’s violence inherent in prostitution? Even when there actually is no violence? Even when there’s consent?

Smith adds that “those who claim to be in prostitution by choice are often using prostitution as a means of survival or to maintain an addiction.”

This is clearly the case for some. But I don’t want to live in a society where the government says even though someone claims to do something by choice, well, they’re really not. That’s nanny statism.

So the main challenge in legalizing prostitution is to not mistake it as a signal that we’ve dropped the ball on going after human trafficking, etc. If anything, after separating otherwise law-abiding prostitution from the real crimes, we should double down on stamping out these abuses.

In his book Paying For It , graphic novelist Chester Brown recollects his experiences of, well, paying for it. In it he grapples with all of the above quandaries and many more (it’s a fairly pornographic book, consider yourself warned). I don’t see why the likes of Brown – polite, respectful, paying his tab in full – should be treated like criminals just because another guy on the other side of town is engaging in human trafficking.

By all means, use moral arguments against prostitution to dissuade people from joining the profession. But it's still their choice. To let moralizing turn into legislating just infringes on liberty."
 

kkelso

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2003
2,472
28
48
Said Article:

"On Saturday Anthony Furey is speaking at the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa on the topic “Is Canada ready for new prostitution laws – or none at all?” Below is a version of his opening statement....
I well-written and reasonable point of view. Thanks for posting.

KK
 

drlove

Ph.D. in Pussyology
Oct 14, 2001
4,709
52
48
The doctor is in
Herein lies a key point in challenging the constitutionality of the Nordic model - Attempting to legislate morality infringes upon one's civil liberties.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts