Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott

[dreamblade]

i started this thread and i will not be addressed in this tone of voice. feminism are against SPs and don't support the rights of sex workers.

I will call you on idiocy when I see you being an idiot. I will say it to your face if I see you at any of the industry parties as well.

So how do you explain Nikki Thomas, Rebecca Richardson, Noir, Genevieve Lajoie, Nina Hartley, Stoya, Sasha Grey, Tristan Taormino, Candida Royalle (...) all who have gone on record identifying themselves as feminists?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I will call you on idiocy when I see you being an idiot. I will say it to your face if I see you at any of the industry parties as well.

So how do you explain Nikki Thomas, Rebecca Richardson, Noir, Genevieve Lajoie, Nina Hartley, Stoya, Sasha Grey, Tristan Taormino, Candida Royalle (...) all who have gone on record identifying themselves as feminists?

You're taking this kinda personal, eh dreamblade

 

[canada-man]

 

[dreamblade]

You're taking this kinda personal, eh dreamblade

Because it is personal to me. I've spent the last 4 years as an SW ally.

@Canada-Man: You don't answer my questions, but accuse me of white-knighting. Is that because it's easier than to admit you're wrong?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I wonder if the US will have some influence in Harper's decision making

 

[freedom3]

I keep chuckling about Valerie Scott saying at the press conference that she would be opening a brothel. She really thinks that Harper's legacy is going to be the first brothel in Canada opening under his watch.

 

[canada-man]

The number of charges for prostitution-related offences in Toronto courts has dropped by 90 per cent over a five-year period, as the constitutional challenge against Canada’s prostitution laws wound its way to the country’s highest court.

An analysis of statistics published by the Ministry of the Attorney General shows Toronto courts received 1,088 charges related to prostitution in 2006.
In 2011, the number of charges was a tenth of that, just 110.

Toronto police spokesperson Victor Kwong said no one was available to comment during the New Year’s holiday.
In December, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down laws that made it illegal to communicate for the purpose of prostitution, run a brothel or live off the avails of prostitution. Prostitution is not illegal under Canada’s Criminal Code.
The court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that the laws infringed on the constitutional rights of sex workers, imposing risky conditions on a legal activity.
Alan Young, the lawyer who argued the case, said there are several possible explanations for the drop in charges.
Prostitution-related offences have been low priority for enforcement, usually only brought on by complaints, said Young.
“It was always odd doing the case, because the government kept asserting that when the laws were invalidated, there would be some sort of chaos that would ensue,” said Young. “And my position was, we’re charging so little, the community wouldn’t notice much difference.”
Young also pointed to the 2010 ruling in Ontario’s Superior Court that struck down prostitution laws, though it was suspended as the government appealed.
In a 2012 decision, Ontario’s Appeal Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to quash the ban on brothels, but upheld the law on soliciting for the purposes of selling sex.
It ruled the law dealing with living on the avails should be amended so it would still apply “in circumstances of exploitation.”
“It puts the police in a very awkward position because even though technically they’re allowed to charge, it seems somewhat anomalous to proceed with a prosecution for an offence that’s in limbo,” said Young.
“If you’re in that kind of limbo, there’s a disincentive to lay the charge in the first place because you’re just kind of clogging up the system.”
The number of charges was already on the decline. From 2001 to 2006, charges dropped 21 per cent, from 1,382 to 1,088.

Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General referred the Star to Statistics Canada’s data on incidents of prostitution-related offences in Toronto, which reflect a similar drop.
According to Statistics Canada, there were 988 incidents of prostitution-related offences in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area in 2001, 825 in 2006 and just 86 in 2011. Statistics Canada’s definition includes living off the avails, procuring, bawdy house, underage offences and “other.”

Chanelle Gallant, spokesperson for Maggie’s: The Toronto Sex Workers Action Project, said a drop in charges isn’t reflected in what she hears from sex workers on the street.
“I’m quite shocked about that,” said Gallant, whose organization supports Toronto sex workers and has fought for decriminalization for 26 years.

Street-based sex workers still experience widespread profiling and harassment from police, said Gallant.
“I’m wondering if another explanation for it could be a reduction in the number of charges but not a reduction in the amount of contact with law enforcement,” said Gallant. “We’re still seeing that there’s a harmful impact of law enforcement on street workers.”

That interaction, advocates argue, stops sex workers from taking preventative safety measures such as working in a group, hiring a driver, or working in a “bawdy house.” And a sex worker who is abused, robbed or otherwise harmed rarely reports it to police.

“For the most marginalized sex workers, law enforcement is a source of danger and not a source of protection, and never has been,” said Gallant. “Anybody who is a predator knows that they have quite a bit of licence with a sex worker, because sex workers can’t access protection.”
The federal government has a year to redraft the laws on prostitution if it chooses to do so.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ated_charges_in_toronto_drop_90_per_cent.html

 

[canada-man]

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/4298055-lawyer-praises-changed-prostitution-laws/


Lawyer praises changed prostitution laws
By Vik Kirsch
GUELPH — The highest court's recent quashing of Canada's prostitution laws was both right and good, local defence attorney Ranney Hintsa says.

"I think it's a marvellous decision," Hintsa said Thursday, concluding the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling has made clear "the government doesn't have any business dictating the morality of people."

The lawyer praised the court for a ruling that's reasoned, supporting both society's needs and those of sex workers seeking safe environments in which to work.

"It's a well thought out decision that in the end balanced community interests with the safety of the particular group."

What the government is now left with is considering whether to regulate activities and that's what it'll be considering over the next year, Hintsa said. She viewed the options open to Parliament at this point as recriminalizing these aspects of prostitution or regulating them.

In a unanimous ruling two weeks ago, the court gave the federal Parliament a year to introduce new legislation, after deciding the country's laws were unconstitutional for barring sex workers from keeping a brothel, living off the avails of prostitution and street soliciting. The court concluded these breach the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General spokesperson Brendan Crawley stated in an email Thursday: "Ontario recognizes that the regulation of prostitution is an important public policy question. Where appropriate, the ministry will consult with our federal counterparts on any new measures aimed at protecting our communities and ensuring that those who control, coerce or abuse prostitutes are held accountable for their actions.

"We are carefully reviewing the decision and will not be making any further comment at this time."

Elora-based defence attorney Mark Hebner said the prostitution laws that have been struck down were both ineffective and focused unfairly on one segment of the workforce, sex trade workers.

He saw the key issue should be security for them.

"The safety of sex workers has to be emphasized," Hebner said.

He expected Parliament will ultimately consider regulating the profession. "It'll be an interesting debate," Hebner said.

The bottom line is prostitution, one of the world's oldest professions, will never go away, the lawyer said.

"Let's make it safe," he urged.

With the one-year time frame now in place for Parliament to ponder, Hintsa anticipated no prostitution charges coming before local courts over the next 12 months.

They've been rare in any case locally, she said.

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/4298055-lawyer-praises-changed-prostitution-laws/

 

[freedom3]

"I think it's a marvellous decision...nal code is dictating the morality of people.

 

[canada-man]

Why Harper won't override Supreme Court prostitution ruling
Only a lack of political will stands in the way of the Conservatives maintaining the anti-prostitution status quo via the notwithstanding clause.

As leader of the opposition Stephen Harper was initially reluctant to rule out using the so-called notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to keep same-sex marriage off the books.
Throughout the 2004 federal campaign he declined to say whether he as prime minister would ask Parliament to override the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marriage equality.
When he relented in 2005 Harper did not so much renounce the option as argue — in the face of a mountain of contrary legal evidence — that he could restrict access to marriage to heterosexual couples without using the notwithstanding clause to shelter his law from the courts.

Once he became PM the stars did not align in such a way as to test his contention.
In a free vote in the minority House of Commons, parliamentary support for same-sex marriage was reaffirmed and the issue became moot.
Fast forward to 2014 and the prostitution debate that has just landed in the lap of Parliament courtesy of the Supreme Court.
Last month it unanimously struck down the country’s anti-prostitution laws after finding that their impact on the life and safety on vulnerable women was disproportionate to the public policy objective of controlling the sex trade.
Parliament has a year to come up with a more Charter-friendly regime or accept a legislative vacuum.
To say that the government is unhappy with this development is an understatement.
In its immediate aftermath, Social Development Minister Jason Kenney all but cast the ruling as an unwelcome act of judicial activism. “I think that in our system of government there is an understandable primacy of Parliament as the democratic deliberative process and that my own view is that the judiciary should be restrained at the exercise of judicial power in overturning a democratic consensus . . . ” he opined.

But the influential minister stopped short of pointing out the obvious: i.e. that his government has at its disposal all the restraining tools that it needs.

With the Conservatives in control of both houses of Parliament, only a lack of political will stands in the way of maintaining the anti-prostitution status quo via the notwithstanding clause.
There was a time not a decade ago when the ruling party would have seen the prostitution ruling as an opportunity to pull the clause out of its long-standing state of federal disuse.
It was put in the Constitution for the express purpose of allowing legislators to have the last word on the courts on most Charter issues and more than a few experts believe that the refusal of past federal governments to even consider it as a legitimate option has contributed to the emasculation of Parliament.

But in spite of its natural ideological instincts and a public opinion potentially receptive to overriding the charter on prostitution, two words sum up why Harper’s government will still be disinclined to do so: abortion and Quebec.
Little could reinforce suspicions that a future Conservative government could limit or repeal abortion rights than the sight of Harper becoming the first ever prime minister to use the notwithstanding clause to override a fundamental right as established by the Supreme Court. (As an aside, the same reasoning at least partly accounts for the Conservatives taking a pass on previous opportunities to use the clause.)

And then there is the Parti Québécois’ controversial secularism charter.
Wearing his hat of multiculturalism minister, it was Kenney who suggested last fall that if the charter ever became law Ottawa would explore whether it should take the lead in challenging it in the Supreme Court. Some of the ethnic and cultural communities he has assiduously courted on behalf of his party would expect no less.
But if the courts were to strike down the Quebec secularism charter on the watch of a majority PQ government, it would by all indications have no qualms about using the notwithstanding clause to keep it in place. And at that juncture, Harper, Kenney and others — should they override the prostitution ruling — would find themselves casting stones at Quebec on behalf of the province’s religious minorities from a glasshouse of their own making.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...erride_supreme_court_prostitution_ruling.html

 

[Aardvark154]

And tell me what . . . does any of this have to do with the SCC decision?

+ 1.


.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I will call you on idiocy when I see you being an idiot. I will say it to your face if I see you at any of the industry parties as well.

So how do you explain Nikki Thomas, Rebecca Richardson, Noir, Genevieve Lajoie, Nina Hartley, Stoya, Sasha Grey, Tristan Taormino, Candida Royalle (...) all who have gone on record identifying themselves as feminists?

Unless society has changed since the last time I checked, feminists in general, who are not sex workers, are definitely against the idea of de-criminalization, and they form the vast majority of feminists I would think.

 

[GPIDEAL]

On that we agree. The trouble with abolitionist feminists is that they ignore the choices of those for whom sex is a positive thing. In that, they are as bad as the ultra-conservative/religious.

I agree. This is the first that I've heard of 'abolitionist feminists' - an apt term. Nevertheless, they are hypocrites like you said, who don't understand that sex workers who willingly choose that oldest of professions are empowered and not forced. Laws that keep them safe are justified in a civil and secular society. It is this dichotomy of feminists that I consider to be in the majority, no?

 

[afterhours]

I agree. This is the first that I've heard of 'abolitionist feminists' - an apt term. Nevertheless, they are hypocrites like you said, who don't understand that sex workers who willingly choose that oldest of professions are empowered and not forced. Laws that keep them safe are justified in a civil and secular society. It is this dichotomy of feminists that I consider to be in the majority, no?

I understand their argument to be that the rights of the minority of women who wants to be sex workers could and should be trumped if prostitution causes the society enough problems on a larger scale.

It's not an unreasonable argument per se if they could demonstrate these problems.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Was she drunk or high when she wrote this column.

It makes absolutely no sense to me

Why Harper won't override Supreme Court prostitution ruling
Only a lack of political will stands in the way of the Conservatives maintaining the anti-prostitution status quo via the notwithstanding clause.

As leader of the opposition Stephen Harper was initially reluctant to rule out using the so-called notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to keep same-sex marriage off the books.
Throughout the 2004 federal campaign he declined to say whether he as prime minister would ask Parliament to override the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marriage equality.
When he relented in 2005 Harper did not so much renounce the option as argue — in the face of a mountain of contrary legal evidence — that he could restrict access to marriage to heterosexual couples without using the notwithstanding clause to shelter his law from the courts.

Once he became PM the stars did not align in such a way as to test his contention.
In a free vote in the minority House of Commons, parliamentary support for same-sex marriage was reaffirmed and the issue became moot.
Fast forward to 2014 and the prostitution debate that has just landed in the lap of Parliament courtesy of the Supreme Court.
Last month it unanimously struck down the country’s anti-prostitution laws after finding that their impact on the life and safety on vulnerable women was disproportionate to the public policy objective of controlling the sex trade.
Parliament has a year to come up with a more Charter-friendly regime or accept a legislative vacuum.
To say that the government is unhappy with this development is an understatement.
In its immediate aftermath, Social Development Minister Jason Kenney all but cast the ruling as an unwelcome act of judicial activism. “I think that in our system of government there is an understandable primacy of Parliament as the democratic deliberative process and that my own view is that the judiciary should be restrained at the exercise of judicial power in overturning a democratic consensus . . . ” he opined.

But the influential minister stopped short of pointing out the obvious: i.e. that his government has at its disposal all the restraining tools that it needs.

With the Conservatives in control of both houses of Parliament, only a lack of political will stands in the way of maintaining the anti-prostitution status quo via the notwithstanding clause.
There was a time not a decade ago when the ruling party would have seen the prostitution ruling as an opportunity to pull the clause out of its long-standing state of federal disuse.
It was put in the Constitution for the express purpose of allowing legislators to have the last word on the courts on most Charter issues and more than a few experts believe that the refusal of past federal governments to even consider it as a legitimate option has contributed to the emasculation of Parliament.

But in spite of its natural ideological instincts and a public opinion potentially receptive to overriding the charter on prostitution, two words sum up why Harper’s government will still be disinclined to do so: abortion and Quebec.
Little could reinforce suspicions that a future Conservative government could limit or repeal abortion rights than the sight of Harper becoming the first ever prime minister to use the notwithstanding clause to override a fundamental right as established by the Supreme Court. (As an aside, the same reasoning at least partly accounts for the Conservatives taking a pass on previous opportunities to use the clause.)

And then there is the Parti Québécois’ controversial secularism charter.
Wearing his hat of multiculturalism minister, it was Kenney who suggested last fall that if the charter ever became law Ottawa would explore whether it should take the lead in challenging it in the Supreme Court. Some of the ethnic and cultural communities he has assiduously courted on behalf of his party would expect no less.
But if the courts were to strike down the Quebec secularism charter on the watch of a majority PQ government, it would by all indications have no qualms about using the notwithstanding clause to keep it in place. And at that juncture, Harper, Kenney and others — should they override the prostitution ruling — would find themselves casting stones at Quebec on behalf of the province’s religious minorities from a glasshouse of their own making.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...erride_supreme_court_prostitution_ruling.html

 

[canada-man]

Breaking news terbites! breaking news




Feds must introduce legislation to 'address the effects of prostitution': MacKay

The federal government is “going to have to produce legislation” to “address the effects of prostitution” after the Supreme Court declared three key prostitution laws unconstitutional, Justice Minister Peter MacKay says.
In a decision handed down just before Christmas, the court found that the laws that prohibit keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public for purposes of prostitution are overly broad and infringe on prostitutes' Charter rights by depriving them of security of the person.
Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, writing on behalf of the court, said the three provisions in question make it difficult for prostitutes to take safety precautions in their work, such as hiring a bodyguard or other staff, or working in groups.


The court’s decision was set aside for one year so Parliament can decide how to respond: either change the current laws or set the issue aside.
MacKay’s comments suggest the federal government will proactively respond to the court’s decision because, as he told CTV’s Power Play on Tuesday, prostitution “is a very corrosive part of what’s happening in society, and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Bedford case will require legislation to fill the gap.”
“We’re going to have to produce legislation that will protect vulnerable women, that will address the concerns raised by the Supreme Court but will put in place laws that are designed very much to address the effects of prostitution, the exploitation that goes on and the vulnerability that many in society have as a result of johns and in fact pimps that prey on vulnerable women,” MacKay said.
MacKay did not give a timeline for when the government might unveil the legislation.
Hours after the Supreme Court decision came down, sex worker and activist Terri-Jean Bedford said the federal government must consider three factors as it mulls amendments to Canada’s prostitution laws.
"First of all, they have to take consenting adults into consideration. What we can and cannot do in the privacy of our home with another consenting adult for money or not," Bedford told CTV’s Question Period last month.
"Then they have to outline what a sex act is. And then draft laws that are fair and right, and that don't put people in harm's way, maim or kill them."
'Against the law' for judges to reduce victim fine surcharge

MacKay also spoke out against judges who are resisting the federal government’s mandatory victim fine surcharge, which goes to a fund to support victims of crime with counselling, lost wages or other expenses related to their “participation in the justice system.”

Ontario Court Justice Colin Westman has been an outspoken critic of the surcharge, and is among a group of judges that have used their discretion to either reduce the fine in some circumstances or allow for an extended repayment period.

The law requires that judges impose a 30 per cent surcharge on a fine, or a flat fee of between $100 and $200, upon conviction.
Westman told CTV Kitchener last month that although he believes victims need assistance, judges should not have to impose the fine on impoverished or mentally ill criminals.
“It’s unrealistic,” Westman told CTV last month. “So if it’s not unrealistic, aren’t you bringing disrespect on this court by imposing things that either aren’t going to be enforced or can’t be enforced?”

MacKay told Power Play that some estimates put the annual cost of crime at $100 billion, 80 per cent of which he said is borne by victims.
“It’s our intention to put victims at the centre of our justice system, where they should be,” MacKay said. “Respect for them, inclusion and greater participation, and a louder and more clarion voice, and that means compensation in some cases and restitution, which a victim fine surcharge is all about.”
MacKay said several provinces and territories offer offenders options, such as completing community service, in order to pay their debt. But he accused judges of failing to inquire about an offender’s ability to pay the fine before reducing it.

“They can give prolonged periods of time to make that restitution, to make that payment of $100 to $200, depending on the offence,” MacKay said. “But to flout the law, to give 50 years to pay off a $100 fine, or to make the nominal amount of $1 as compensation to victims, is quite frankly insulting and it is against the law to do so.”


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds...f-prostitution-mackay-1.1627878#ixzz2plNBx1QJ

 

[afterhours]

let's embrace the new era

 

[canada-man]

Senate would be ideal place to discuss Canada's prostitution laws: ex-police chief


OTTAWA - When Ottawa police officers began focusing their arrest efforts on johns instead of prostitutes two years ago, they were trying out an approach that would wind up at the centre of a vigorous national debate.

They found weapons such as a gun and a Taser, bondage materials and date-rape drugs on some of the 205 men arrested in the sweeps since 2012. At the time, police were searching for suspects in the murders of at least two prostitutes.

"We were trying to (tell) them, look, we don't want you in the dark alleys either, so hopefully they would have some opportunity to be in a safer environment ... but at the same time we weren't going to give up on johns," said former Ottawa police chief Vern White, now a Conservative senator.

The approach mirrors the so-called Nordic model — Swedish and Norwegian strategies that criminalize the purchase of sex, rather than the sale, and uses social programs to encourage sex workers to leave the business.

Diverse groups and individuals, including Conservative MP Joy Smith, have called on the federal government to adopt that model in the wake of the Supreme Court decision last month that struck down Canada's prostitution laws.

Other groups, particularly those that represent sex-trade workers, oppose the criminalization of any party involved in the exchange of sexual services, arguing it keeps the practice in the unsafe shadows.

New Zealand is sometimes held up as an alternative model. Prostitution there has been largely decriminalized, although restrictions on minors working in brothels remain in place.

White said he's pleased that the country is finally talking about how to approach prostitution. He said the Nordic model has merit, but might need to be altered — to ensure the prostitution of minors remains illegal, for instance.

"I think it does force us to have a serious discussion around, is there a 'Nordic model-plus' that's out there, are there other options available to us?" said White.

"I do think it's a healthy discussion for us to have and I do think we'll have to come up with something in the next few months to help us deal with this."

White said the Senate would be an ideal venue for a comprehensive study of Canada's prostitution laws.

"I do agree that with the amount of research that's done with those committees, as we saw with (the) human rights (committee) on cyberbullying, I think there would be a real opportunity to do some work," he said.

"It would have to be done a little more quickly than usual, you'd have to really crank it out this spring, so I certainly think the Senate would welcome that opportunity if the minister (of justice) engaged with us to do that."

Fred Chabot, vice-chair of the board of Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work, Educate, Resist (POWER), said her organization is hoping any parliamentary study or consultation involves actual sex-trade workers.

She said the group and the women it represents are opposed to the Nordic model because they feel it actually makes life more dangerous for prostitutes.

"If you criminalize one part in the exchange of money for sexual services, what happens is that once again you have an industry that is pushed into the margins, pushed into dark areas, in places where there is less chance of police supervision — alleyways, parking lots," Chabot said.

"If clients are criminalized, sex workers — especially street-based sex workers, which are at higher risk of violence — will jump in the car right away."



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Up...aws+expolice/9364612/story.html#ixzz2pqkKHedx

 

[canada-man]

Norway has been reading Canadian news


http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/01/09/prostitution-law-battlelines-drawn/


A review into Norway’s laws banning the purchase of sex won’t be finished until June, yet debate has raged over the issue this week with many sides already taking a political standpoint. The Conservative (Høyre), Liberal (Venstre) and Progress (Fremskrittspartiet, FrP) parties all announced platforms to scrap the prostitution ban and their youth representatives want to speed up the process, while the Christian Democrats (Kristelig Folkeparti, KrF) have vowed they’ll fight to keep the ban in place.


The controversial law passed in 2009 does not ban the sale of sex, but prohibits people from buying it. The parties that opposed the law now hold the majority in parliament, newspaper Aftenposten reported. The Greens (De Grønne) also want the law overturned. The parties who previously held government, Labour (Arbeiderpartiet, Ap), Centre (Senterpartiet, Sp) and Socialist Left (Sosialistisk Venstreparti, SV) sided with the KrF to keep the law in place.

FrP politician Jan Arild Ellingsen, who sits on the justice committee, said the balance of power in the parliament means it’s simply a matter of time before the prostitution law is repealed. The review by independent consultants Vista Analyse will be presented to parliament as a white paper mid-year, but Ellingsen said his party’s position is already set.
“I think it will take a lot for us to change our point of view,” he said. “I can’t see any reason to. I’m very doubtful it will emerge that the law has large, positive consequences.” The Liberal party said last month rescinding the sex law was a key issue for the party, and it will pressure the government to make changes.

Others have taken a more moderate line. Justice Minister Anders Anundsen, Ellingsen’s FrP colleague, would only comment that the evaluation group is working on the issue and will submit their results before summer. The justice committee’s deputy, Conservative Anders B Werp, said he’s also opposed to the prostitution ban, but stressed that both the government and his party internally would evaluate the paper’s results before reaching a final decision.

Fight to keep the ban
The head of the justice committee, the Ap’s Hadia Tajik said her party “is very clear that we will uphold the prostituiton law.” The Christian Democrats said they’ll fight hard to keep the ban. “It is one of the most important issues for us,” said the KrF’s Kjell Ingolf Ropstad, who is second deputy chair of the justice committee. “A repeal will send a signal to young men that it’s okay to buy sex, and it’s okay even though we know that the majority of prostitutes want to get out of it.”
“The idea of a law student who sells sex to finance studies is a misconception,” he continued. “Prostitutes are mainly people of foreign origin who really don’t want to prostitute themselves. I’m trusting that the Conservatives and Erna Solberg, as Norway’s second female prime minister, will see it is a particularly bad gender equality policy to reverse this law.”

Hidden market
Many youth party leaders want to speed up the scrapping of the ban. Young Conservatives leader Paul Joakim Sandøy told newspaper Vårt Land that the law has done more harm than good, making it unsafe for prostitutes. Atle Simonsen from the Progress Party’s youth chapter said the law as it is today isn’t working. “It has only led to a hidden market.”
Young Liberal leader said it’s people’s choice whether they want to sell sex, while at the same time the community needs to support those trying to get out of the industry. He said the current law just makes life harder for prostitutes. “It has also made the threshold for reporting criminal acts higher,” he argued. “In addition it sharpens the negative attitudes against those who sell sex as a profession.”

More important issues
Meanwhile, Norwegian prostitution support organization Pro Sentret said politicians and the media are wasting too much time debating the prostitution law. “We should be debating instead about giving people who move to Norway for prostitution opportunities to be and work here,” said spokeswoman Bjørg Norli.
She said the debate has been more about how visible prostitution is, rather than conditions for prostitutes. “People’s discomfort over seeing prostitution has become more important than taking into account the difficult situation which these people actually have,” Norli argued. “Our discomfort trumps there right to respect and help.”
A recent survey by Sentio showed most people want the current ban on buying sex upheld, reported Aftenposten.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Interesting piece today by Andrew Coyne on how criminalization is not necessarily seen by Canadians as the way to address potential harms in areas such as prostitution:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ocietys-moral-degradation-quite-the-opposite/

It will be interesting to see how the government responds. It's certainly noteworthy that there hasn't been a huge public outcry about the Supreme Court ruling.