Further to what you and Jessica have mentioned, I note that the only place outside the U.S. that apparently they visited was Sweden, no travel to Canada, nor to New Zealand or Australia.
Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
As doubtless you already know, they have "a cause," and they know they are "right" so what difference do real facts make.
If that is what they look for, I believe they are going to be worse than deeply embarrassed at some point if not already.
In the Netherlands and in Germany they routinely ask for passports in hotels.
On a semi-related note, Germany requires all its residents to report their current address to police (much like Canada does for those of us who drive).
Soho police raids show why sex workers live in fear of being 'rescued'
Breaking into our places of work and throwing us out on to the street is not saving sex workers from trafficking. It's a violation
Sex workers in London's Soho had their doors kicked in by riot police last week. The cops brought along journalists to photograph cowering women who were desperately trying to cover their faces. These images were then splashed across the press. Working flats have been closed, throwing women out on to the street. Some, who were migrant workers, were taken away by the police for compulsory "counselling", detention at Heathrow, and enforced removal from the UK, despite protesting that they were not trafficked victims: they are migrant sex workers – indeed, several of the women currently incarcerated at Heathrow are active within the English Collective of Prostitutes, a sex-worker rights organisation that, along with the Sex Worker Open University, is protesting against the raids.
If this was about protecting the vulnerable, why did police invite numerous press outlets along? If the cops truly believed they were kicking down the doors on victims of coercion, they surely would not bring photographers with them, because to do so would be obscene. That shouldn't detract from how grotesque it is to invite multiple press outlets along to violate the consent of cowering women whose doors you've just kicked in. This wouldn't be less bad just because the women weren't "really" trafficking victims; it would just be bad in a different way.
It's differently bad because it begs the question of why some sections of the feminist movement – in fact, the section that is generally the most audible – have signed off on tactics such as these, finding no policing method too punitive if it's presented as in the cause of "anti-trafficking", and have put a lot of energy into arguing for new legislation – the "Swedish", or "Nordic" model – that increases police power over sex workers. Feminists who argue for the Swedish model claim that it "decriminalises the women". This appears to be based on a convenient misapprehension about how laws work, whereby apparently they're a zero sum: if you add some criminalisation in one place, it must automatically decrease in another. Advocates of "decriminalising the women" tend to not put any work into actually repealing the laws that criminalise us, a good example being MSP Rhoda Grant's (failed) attempt last year to bring the Swedish model to Scotland, which made all the usual noises about decriminalising the women, yet contained no legislative provisions to actually do so. Her draft bill received widespread support from women's groups.
Under legislation that criminalises the clients of sex workers, these raids would still happen. Our workplaces are still criminalised in Sweden. We would still be criminalised if we work with a friend for safety. After the tragic murder of Suzy Lamplugh, in 1986, female estate agents started working in pairs. That isn't because selling houses is intrinsically a form of violence against women (as some people describe sex work), but because the conditions in which work takes place shape how safe that work is. The law circumscribes the conditions in which sex work can take place – unlike Suzy's colleagues, we're legally forbidden from working safely with friends. We have to work alone, or face arrest. The violence that these conditions make us vulnerable to is then used as evidence that sex work is intrinsically violent, and thus should be further criminalised – making us further vulnerable to this very violence.
The Norwegian police recently ran Operation Homeless, whereby they notified the landlords of suspected sex workers that their tenants needed to be evicted immediately, with the loss of their deposit, or the landlord would face prosecution. That's the legal model that is being argued for; to give the police who kick down our doors additional powers to harass, detain and deport us, while continuing to criminalise our work friendships, partners and workplaces.
Given the Met's "anti-trafficking" justification, it's telling to compare the experiences of women in Soho with those of sex workers in the global south, who are long familiar with "anti-trafficking" raids. Kay Thi Win, a sex worker in Burma, has said:
"We live in daily fear of being 'rescued'. The violence happens when feminist rescue organisations work with the police, who break into our workplaces and beat us, rape us and kidnap our children in order to save us. What we need is for the mainstream women's movement to not just silently support our struggle but to speak up and speak out against [those] who have turned the important movement against real trafficking into a violent war against sex workers."
We do.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/11/soho-police-raids-sex-workers-fear-trafficking
Breaking into our places of work and throwing us out on to the street is not saving sex workers from trafficking. It's a violation
Sex workers in London's Soho had their doors kicked in by riot police last week. The cops brought along journalists to photograph cowering women who were desperately trying to cover their faces. These images were then splashed across the press. Working flats have been closed, throwing women out on to the street. Some, who were migrant workers, were taken away by the police for compulsory "counselling", detention at Heathrow, and enforced removal from the UK, despite protesting that they were not trafficked victims: they are migrant sex workers – indeed, several of the women currently incarcerated at Heathrow are active within the English Collective of Prostitutes, a sex-worker rights organisation that, along with the Sex Worker Open University, is protesting against the raids.
If this was about protecting the vulnerable, why did police invite numerous press outlets along? If the cops truly believed they were kicking down the doors on victims of coercion, they surely would not bring photographers with them, because to do so would be obscene. That shouldn't detract from how grotesque it is to invite multiple press outlets along to violate the consent of cowering women whose doors you've just kicked in. This wouldn't be less bad just because the women weren't "really" trafficking victims; it would just be bad in a different way.
It's differently bad because it begs the question of why some sections of the feminist movement – in fact, the section that is generally the most audible – have signed off on tactics such as these, finding no policing method too punitive if it's presented as in the cause of "anti-trafficking", and have put a lot of energy into arguing for new legislation – the "Swedish", or "Nordic" model – that increases police power over sex workers. Feminists who argue for the Swedish model claim that it "decriminalises the women". This appears to be based on a convenient misapprehension about how laws work, whereby apparently they're a zero sum: if you add some criminalisation in one place, it must automatically decrease in another. Advocates of "decriminalising the women" tend to not put any work into actually repealing the laws that criminalise us, a good example being MSP Rhoda Grant's (failed) attempt last year to bring the Swedish model to Scotland, which made all the usual noises about decriminalising the women, yet contained no legislative provisions to actually do so. Her draft bill received widespread support from women's groups.
Under legislation that criminalises the clients of sex workers, these raids would still happen. Our workplaces are still criminalised in Sweden. We would still be criminalised if we work with a friend for safety. After the tragic murder of Suzy Lamplugh, in 1986, female estate agents started working in pairs. That isn't because selling houses is intrinsically a form of violence against women (as some people describe sex work), but because the conditions in which work takes place shape how safe that work is. The law circumscribes the conditions in which sex work can take place – unlike Suzy's colleagues, we're legally forbidden from working safely with friends. We have to work alone, or face arrest. The violence that these conditions make us vulnerable to is then used as evidence that sex work is intrinsically violent, and thus should be further criminalised – making us further vulnerable to this very violence.
The Norwegian police recently ran Operation Homeless, whereby they notified the landlords of suspected sex workers that their tenants needed to be evicted immediately, with the loss of their deposit, or the landlord would face prosecution. That's the legal model that is being argued for; to give the police who kick down our doors additional powers to harass, detain and deport us, while continuing to criminalise our work friendships, partners and workplaces.
Given the Met's "anti-trafficking" justification, it's telling to compare the experiences of women in Soho with those of sex workers in the global south, who are long familiar with "anti-trafficking" raids. Kay Thi Win, a sex worker in Burma, has said:
"We live in daily fear of being 'rescued'. The violence happens when feminist rescue organisations work with the police, who break into our workplaces and beat us, rape us and kidnap our children in order to save us. What we need is for the mainstream women's movement to not just silently support our struggle but to speak up and speak out against [those] who have turned the important movement against real trafficking into a violent war against sex workers."
We do.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/11/soho-police-raids-sex-workers-fear-trafficking
This is from a Swedish upscale escort page: http://annika-escort.com/?page=faq&lang=en#faq4
I liked this part. Is that how they do it in Sweden, they don't knock on your door but scratch on it??! :biggrin1:
Why did those idiots chose to take on this battle during a conservative majority. Idiots!!!Sounds like you were there
Internal consistency is not Harper's strong suit but I cannot see Harper passing up this opportunity to drive a wedge between himself and Trudeau jr. After all, it was his father who rightly proclaimed "the gov't has no place in the bedrooms of its people".
Justifying a more open prostitution policy is hard to defend politically, but Trudeau will be forced to defend it (given his lineage).
Then Harper can call Trudeau a pot smoking pimp.
It's been said before and worth repeating; this was a pyrrhic victory.
Also richer people drop out of the hobby as they cannot risk being convicted. These would be lawyers, doctors, teachers, etc etc. so you are left with people that have less to lose from conviction.
Or go on vacations to places where the law is different - of course if you are married. . . . . .
Prostitution blues 1
No, the sky isn’t falling —the feds will pass new laws to address the ‘harms’ of the sex trade
alan-shanoff BY ALAN SHANOFF ,TORONTO SUN
You’d think the sky was falling with all of the misconceptions circulating concerning the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down our prostitution laws.
No, the Supreme Court has not legalized prostitution.
The case before the court was never about the legalization of prostitution.
Prostitution was legal before the decision was released.
The Criminal Code created various offences concerning the use of brothels, living off the avails and communicating in public for the purpose of buying or selling sex.
It is these offences which have been invalidated by the Supreme Court ruling, effective in one year.
But prostitution itself was and remains legal.
No, sex trade workers will not be flocking to your neighbourhood any more than they already have.
Here’s a news flash: They are already in many neighbourhoods, but most of us don’t know it.
Prostitutes already see clients in the warmth of their homes, apartments, condominiums and hotel/motel rooms.
They have been doing so under our noses, albeit illegally.
That’s because the use of any home, apartment or even a hotel room on a frequent basis for the purposes of prostitution violates the brothel prohibition.
No, the Supreme Court decision won’t increase the number of sex trade workers as the fear of prosecution diminishes. Does anyone think sex trade workers decide to get into the business after a thorough study of the criminal law and the legal risks of prosecution?
There are already plenty of sex trade workers.
They may not be in your neighbourhood but they are openly advertising in various publications and online. Check out Craigslist, for example.
No, the Supreme Court decision won’t normalize prostitution.
Prostitution was already legal and has been a thriving enterprise for a considerable period of time, as evidenced by the substantial advertising expenses incurred by the industry.
No, the decision won’t increase the incidence of sex slaves and human trafficking.
Criminal laws concerning these offences remain valid.
If we want to reduce the incidence of sex slaves and human trafficking, we need to put more resources into investigating and prosecuting those offences.
But attempting to enforce a moral code by criminalizing prostitution, or the activities surrounding it, is a waste of resources.
If society is serious about helping sex trade workers the best thing we could probably do is lighten up our hysterical — see Reefer Madness — drug laws.
To the extent prostitutes trade sex for money to afford their drug habits, we need to fix our antiquated drug laws.
Ending the prohibition on drugs would bring prices down, thereby reducing the need to trade sex for money, or sex for drugs, as well as reduce the power of criminal gangs.
When are we going to realize there is no real distinction between being in a drunken, alcoholic stupor and smoking crack cocaine? Both are equally dumb but neither should be illegal.
If you think about it, the same arguments used to strike down the prostitution-related laws could be used to strike down drug laws.
Why should the vulnerable, those with drug addictions, people with disabilities, be forced to risk their safety by compelling them to deal with criminals to obtain the drugs they require?
Doesn’t that violate their right to security of the person just, as the prostitution-related laws exposed prostitutes to risks and violated their security of the person?
But let’s not worry too much.
No, our drug laws are not about to change and the Supreme Court hasn’t shut the door on the criminalization of prostitution, or any activities related to it.
They have acknowledged the federal government may pass new laws on “where and how prostitution may be conducted”, provided they comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Finally, the federal government has already announced it will pass new laws to address what they perceive as the “harms” that flow from prostitution.
So, no, the sky isn’t falling.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/28/prostitution-blues
No, the sky isn’t falling —the feds will pass new laws to address the ‘harms’ of the sex trade
alan-shanoff BY ALAN SHANOFF ,TORONTO SUN
You’d think the sky was falling with all of the misconceptions circulating concerning the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down our prostitution laws.
No, the Supreme Court has not legalized prostitution.
The case before the court was never about the legalization of prostitution.
Prostitution was legal before the decision was released.
The Criminal Code created various offences concerning the use of brothels, living off the avails and communicating in public for the purpose of buying or selling sex.
It is these offences which have been invalidated by the Supreme Court ruling, effective in one year.
But prostitution itself was and remains legal.
No, sex trade workers will not be flocking to your neighbourhood any more than they already have.
Here’s a news flash: They are already in many neighbourhoods, but most of us don’t know it.
Prostitutes already see clients in the warmth of their homes, apartments, condominiums and hotel/motel rooms.
They have been doing so under our noses, albeit illegally.
That’s because the use of any home, apartment or even a hotel room on a frequent basis for the purposes of prostitution violates the brothel prohibition.
No, the Supreme Court decision won’t increase the number of sex trade workers as the fear of prosecution diminishes. Does anyone think sex trade workers decide to get into the business after a thorough study of the criminal law and the legal risks of prosecution?
There are already plenty of sex trade workers.
They may not be in your neighbourhood but they are openly advertising in various publications and online. Check out Craigslist, for example.
No, the Supreme Court decision won’t normalize prostitution.
Prostitution was already legal and has been a thriving enterprise for a considerable period of time, as evidenced by the substantial advertising expenses incurred by the industry.
No, the decision won’t increase the incidence of sex slaves and human trafficking.
Criminal laws concerning these offences remain valid.
If we want to reduce the incidence of sex slaves and human trafficking, we need to put more resources into investigating and prosecuting those offences.
But attempting to enforce a moral code by criminalizing prostitution, or the activities surrounding it, is a waste of resources.
If society is serious about helping sex trade workers the best thing we could probably do is lighten up our hysterical — see Reefer Madness — drug laws.
To the extent prostitutes trade sex for money to afford their drug habits, we need to fix our antiquated drug laws.
Ending the prohibition on drugs would bring prices down, thereby reducing the need to trade sex for money, or sex for drugs, as well as reduce the power of criminal gangs.
When are we going to realize there is no real distinction between being in a drunken, alcoholic stupor and smoking crack cocaine? Both are equally dumb but neither should be illegal.
If you think about it, the same arguments used to strike down the prostitution-related laws could be used to strike down drug laws.
Why should the vulnerable, those with drug addictions, people with disabilities, be forced to risk their safety by compelling them to deal with criminals to obtain the drugs they require?
Doesn’t that violate their right to security of the person just, as the prostitution-related laws exposed prostitutes to risks and violated their security of the person?
But let’s not worry too much.
No, our drug laws are not about to change and the Supreme Court hasn’t shut the door on the criminalization of prostitution, or any activities related to it.
They have acknowledged the federal government may pass new laws on “where and how prostitution may be conducted”, provided they comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Finally, the federal government has already announced it will pass new laws to address what they perceive as the “harms” that flow from prostitution.
So, no, the sky isn’t falling.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/28/prostitution-blues
Goddamnit, can you believe the fact the Toronto Sun is leading the way on the prostitution issue, and not the Toronto Star??!! The Star is far Left, and they are the ones who should be decriminalizing this, but so far the feminists are totally against this. So much for "sexual tolerance". LOL
Toronto Star is taking a reasonable approach. And newspaper opinions don't matter much until The Harper government puts forward legislation or says something definitive about what they're going to do:
The Toronto Star op/ed said:
part 1 is on post 460 more on the enemies of SPs
part 2
part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h640uWnzepk
part 2
part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h640uWnzepk
Reduced demand>lower prices to move the surplus of unwanted product. If prices go up, look for increased demand or decreased supply. Neither is likely in a market that penalizes buyers, while leaving sellers to figure out how to maintain their income.There's even independents in Sweden:
http://annika-escort.com/?page=introduction&lang=en
http://www.madelinestockholmescort.com/
Interesting. I figured prices would go up instead of down
The Swedish model is being taken up in Northern Ireland, Belgium, Finland and Lithuania.
Great, just great :frusty:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/opinion/state-feminists-vs-343-bastards.html?hp&rref=opinion
Great, just great :frusty:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/30/opinion/state-feminists-vs-343-bastards.html?hp&rref=opinion
Uploaded on Mar 24, 2010
Looks into the media presentation of women's issues and its focus on women themselves, compared with an absence of news about men except where they are criminals. Also looks at legislation from governments around the world that explicitly discriminate against men.
• Misandry in news reporting and by charities during the Tsunami in 2004
• Housework and the law
• Is a woman's life worth more than a mans?
• What has society been primed to believe about men?
Ever notice these feminists are buttfucking ugly??!
No wonder they wanna keep men from having sex, they're probably not getting any of it themselves
No wonder they wanna keep men from having sex, they're probably not getting any of it themselves
It is a higher risk for the buyer. I, personally, would have to pay less to take such a risk.
Last edited:
But wouldn't also fewer women be working as SP's??
And supply shortage = higher prices. Basic economics 101
Why would you assume fewer women would be entering the trade? With the risk of prosecution mitigated and prices (wages) going up?
just at look at how rub and tugs work
