Which political party is most likely to decriminalize prostitution?
- Thread starter krazyplayer
- Start date
Some on the left say that prostitution is just another victimization of women and anti-feminist. Some on the right claim it's against family values.
Members of which political parties are accused of using the services of sex trade workers more than others, and which political parties are throwing the mud?
You'll find that Conservatives tend to be the most open to the idea of decriminalization, but family values retains the disincentive brought by the current law.
You'll find that Conservatives tend to be the most open to the idea of decriminalization, but family values retains the disincentive brought by the current law.
I'd say the Conservatives.. IF they ever managed to marginalize the bible-thumping, religious right social conservative wing of their party and embrace fiscal conservatism or libertarianism. But I don't have high hopes of that happening anytime soon (not while Harper and the Reform/Canadian Alliance wing that took over the PC party are in power..)
Pragmatically.. I think it'd be the Liberals.. only because they're willing to let the courts make the laws for them
Pragmatically.. I think it'd be the Liberals.. only because they're willing to let the courts make the laws for them
i think Harper will do it he needs money, can you imagine if they tax them, they will have more money to control it,
liberals is a big NO NO think Cretien and the GST or NDP think good old Bob Ray the worst premier in historyand he is getting payd as a liberal............what a country
liberals is a big NO NO think Cretien and the GST or NDP think good old Bob Ray the worst premier in historyand he is getting payd as a liberal............what a country
Just imagine if politicians got involved. It would need a registry, taxes, a bureaucracy of its own, licensing, limiting and any number of rules. Probably ID cards, too. I hate the political approach. So long as the business is decriminalized, it's OK by me. There's currently a lot of pragmatism going on, which spells real democracy.
As for which Party will do this, apply the only sensible rule: In an elected democracy, a Politician or Political Party has two rules: get into power, and stay in power. Anything good, or bad for society as a whole, which follows this, is purely a by-product of these rules. If it gets votes, they'll do it. If it loses votes, it's gone... They'll lie, bend the truth, buy votes, slander the opposition, muzzle the press - not just the current lot, either. It's inherent in the process. Ideology is playing to a support group to start with, and then - screw them!
PS. Vote for terpene!!!
As for which Party will do this, apply the only sensible rule: In an elected democracy, a Politician or Political Party has two rules: get into power, and stay in power. Anything good, or bad for society as a whole, which follows this, is purely a by-product of these rules. If it gets votes, they'll do it. If it loses votes, it's gone... They'll lie, bend the truth, buy votes, slander the opposition, muzzle the press - not just the current lot, either. It's inherent in the process. Ideology is playing to a support group to start with, and then - screw them!
PS. Vote for terpene!!!
I'd say that in general secular conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals are least opposed to the idea of prostitution as a legitimate form of business.
Those on the far right (religious conservatives) and far left (socialists) in ideology seem to be the most hostile to protitution. The United States would be an example of the former and Sweden of the latter.
Those on the far right (religious conservatives) and far left (socialists) in ideology seem to be the most hostile to protitution. The United States would be an example of the former and Sweden of the latter.
I dont disagree, but when you add it all up I believe more left-wingers are pro-legalization then there are right-wingers who are for it
Er, the party in power in Ontario is the Libs.
Left wingers are more likely have a live and let live attitude, but the neo-cons are more likely to be patrons of the industry
"The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"
Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
And he was absolutely correct.
BTW, if anyone thinks Harper will decriminalize prostitution, I have a bridge for sale for you. If anything, if he gets a majority, he will start implementing an American / Albertan style social morality program.
If the liberals were smart, this is where they would hit at Harper. Get him to get out in front of abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, health care.
Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
And he was absolutely correct.
BTW, if anyone thinks Harper will decriminalize prostitution, I have a bridge for sale for you. If anything, if he gets a majority, he will start implementing an American / Albertan style social morality program.
If the liberals were smart, this is where they would hit at Harper. Get him to get out in front of abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, health care.
Sweden:
http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.c...ifferent-approaches-to-same-problem/?hpt=Sbin
"From a Swedish legal point of view, any woman selling sex has been forced to do so, either by circumstance or coercion."
So from the Swedish point of view, all the SPs here are doing this against their will. No woman would ever willingly be an SP unless she was messed up in the head.
"Buying sex is looked down upon. There is even a slang term for those who buy sex.
"They're called a "cod," a fish," says Lise Tamm, a Swedish prosecutor of organized crime. "It's the same word as a loser, or [someone who] gets called by the police, or runs out of gas in his car. You're a loser if you buy sex in Sweden.
Yup, everyone on this board that pays for sex is a loser according to Swedes.
And people thought Sweden was a model for tolerance and liberal ideas.
When it comes to most contentious political issues, whether they be civil rights, gay rights, decriminalizing marijuana or prostitution, abortion, etc., typically the laws change through court challenges and rulings, since by their very nature, democratically elected politicians will want to avoid controversial issues, lest they lose votes, particularly from the most desired swing electorate, the middle-class suburban families.
So in short, I don't see any of the above political parties actually voting to decriminalize prostitution. Granted, I also don't see it likely that any of the political parties will likely criminalize it even further (otherwise it would have been done already), especially given that the likely outcome is another minority Conservative government, at least by the most recent poll numbers.
So in short, I don't see any of the above political parties actually voting to decriminalize prostitution. Granted, I also don't see it likely that any of the political parties will likely criminalize it even further (otherwise it would have been done already), especially given that the likely outcome is another minority Conservative government, at least by the most recent poll numbers.
Whatever they do the govt only has a few weeks left to get their shit together since judge gave an April deadline for them to challenge the new law. And given the fact they are now in election campaign mode I dont think prostitution is a priority for them
Prostitution is already legal in Canada, only communicating for the purposes is still illegal. Take a look at the advertisements in publications like the Toronto Sun, Now and Eye for example, the trade is thriving and tolerated, so is the tolerance of massage parlors in Toronto by law enforcement and the government and everybody knows what happens in there right?. No political party will dare to make the trade more "legal". Politicians can suck and blow at the same time anyway, and don't usually do anything which will cause them to lose votes so they won't want to tangle with the sex trade and raise the ire and attention of the puritans.
Prostitution, although not a crime itself is far from legal. All the massage parlours are illegal bawdy houses. Just being "found in" one is a criminal offense and people do get charged with this all the time. All in-calls are illegal on the same basis. Communicating is illegal - that is the mere public discussion of an act that is legal. It's hypocrisy. Living on the avails is illegal, so if an SP pays a driver or supports her adult kids or parents in any way they are all guilty of that offense. It's just stupid. Those SP's didn't just challenge these laws for nothing. If they want to do incalls or have securoty they should be allowed to.
____________________________________________________________
And the federal gov announced on the day the laws were struck that they were fighting this decision. They do have a dog in this fight it isn't just the province. It is being appealed in.
____________________________________________________________
And the federal gov announced on the day the laws were struck that they were fighting this decision. They do have a dog in this fight it isn't just the province. It is being appealed in.
