Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[canada-man]

 

[legmann]

"If you view the matter through the prism of consent and personal liberty it becomes much clearer: Trading money for sex between consenting adults? Keep the government out of it. Trafficking? Involving children? No way. Bring down the full force of the law. It's a shame the government fails to draw this needed line."

One of the best statements on this issue I have read, and one said not often enough.

 

[legmann]

Tories' approach to prostitution irrational - Excellent read

Short of dusting off the country's old prostitution laws, printing them on fresh paper and saying "yes these are too legal, so there," it's tough to see how Justice Minister Peter MacKay could have made a worse mess of his new legislation on the sex trade.

At a stroke, the Harper government has won itself and the country an emotional, divisive debate over values and social policy, one that breaks down along classic social conservative/progressive lines, and one the Tories must know they will ultimately lose. Perhaps that's the point: another big bust-up with professors, lawyers, journalists and other pointy-headed, latte-sipping flibbertigibbets.

Let us set aside, first, the bosh trotted out by MacKay as he unveiled his Bill C-36: that its purpose is to protect children. To hear the justice minister speak you'd think Canadian schoolyards are rife with hookers, flaunting their wares like caricatures out of Starsky and Hutch back in the 1970s. I have ferried my three children back and forth to school, in three different Canadian cities, hundreds of times over the past 17 years. I have never once seen sex being sold nearby, nor have I heard that sex was being sold nearby. Has anyone?

The problem, clearly, is situations in which teenagers, runaways or the homeless, become prostitutes, at the mercy of abusive pimps and johns. Any effort to stop the sexual exploitation of children and teenagers is very welcome. If MacKay's proposed law imposed much harsher penalties on the exploiters and abusers of under-aged prostitutes, while at the same time legalizing and regulating consensual sex work among adults, he would have the basis of a law that might pass political and constitutional muster.

But that's precisely the point; this law doesn't do that. It ignores the explicit message in the Supreme Court's ruling last year, which is that prostitutes have a right to work in safe conditions. Some sex workers, as became very clear in the aftermath of the ruling, freely choose this trade. MacKay, it appears, feels compelled to rescue them from their sordid existences; his law sets aside $20 million to help prostitutes find other work. But what about adults, female or male, who choose this work, and want to continue doing it?

The Supreme Court's ruling found, in essence, that any law causing prostitutes to work furtively or in secret violates their right to health and safety. It was a profoundly progressive, enlightened decision, and it was unanimous.

C-36 de facto criminalizes sex work, by banning the purchase of sex or the advertising of sex services. But it also goes further, imposing penalties on prostitutes who solicit in places where children may be present. Broadly interpreted, that could be just about anywhere. Therefore the new legislation will have precisely the same practical effect as the old: to drive prostitution into the shadows, where women, primarily, will be vulnerable to johns and pimps.

The crux of the debate, philosophically, is simply this: If an adult, being of sound mind, wishes to purchase sex, and another adult, also of sound mind, wishes to sell it to him or her, in a private place, free of coercion, and not harming anyone else or breaking any other laws, then what business is it of the government to intervene? MacKay's bill, and the language used to sell it, is redolent with sanctimony and moral judgment. That should not be the government's purview.

Because C-36, in its effect, will be no different than the laws it is intended to replace, it is bound to wind up back at the Supreme Court - where it will quite likely be tossed, just as the old laws were tossed. So, why bring it forward?

The answer, likely, is that it creates a wedge, in an area where public opinion is mixed, between the Conservatives and opposition, in particular the Trudeau Liberals. The Grits really have no option but to oppose this. When they do, the Tories will portray them as a pack of drug-legalizing, prostitution-loving libertines, bent on transforming Canada's placid, tree-lined playgrounds into havens of iniquity, debauchery and vice. Game of Thrones meets Don Mills.

It is, in sum, the Conservative party's first big foray back toward the social conservatism of its Reform party roots, and away from the libertarian-leaning model that has worked for it for a decade. Further, it is evidence the Tories realize they need more than just their old mantra of thrift and tax cuts to motivate their base and hold off a Liberal resurgence. The hue and cry from civil libertarians may also cause social conservatives, so long ignored, to open their wallets.

Calculated for political gain it may be; that doesn't make it right. Until it is overturned, C-36 can only put prostitutes at greater risk. It is irrational, misguided and recidivist social policy, in a country that has got used to better.

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Tories approach prostitution irrational/9912754/story.html

Excellent piece.

 

[GPIDEAL]

One of the best statements on this issue I have read, and one said not often enough.

Yes, one of the best articles, and I quote this part as well.

But the text of the bill lumps all degrees of prostitution together – ranging from the otherwise safe and law-abiding sex worker field to those who are victims of human trafficking, child prostitution, etc.

This should come as no surprise. The bill’s preamble makes it clear that the government’s first aim is to end “the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution” and “the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity.” They’re clear that “it is important to protect human dignity.”

Well it’s not exactly dignified to apply this language to the percentage doing it by choice. It’s condescending.

It’s clear this bill is really about making moral judgments. Plain and simple. Rescuing the exploited is not the first priority.

 

[GPIDEAL]

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Tories approach prostitution irrational/9912754/story.html

Excellent piece.

It sure is another excellent piece.

Both of the the articles posted above are required reading for everyone that cares about the freedom of consenting adults to do what they want in the bedroom.

These articles provide excellent ideas for a letter writing campaign to your M.P.

 

[legmann]

^ Agreed. Both state the core of the issue and the best criticism against; the bill is really about making moral judgments, not addressing the ruling of the SCC.

Written letter to an MP citing the above points should almost be required for anyone on this board and in this hobby. (Oh no, there I go, passing judgements and issuing directives! )

 

[legmann]

Did you tell him that you're a John ? He would wonder what makes you feel so concerned about this bill if you aren't a John

As many have stated already: regard for protection of personal freedoms and liberties. I'm neither female nor gay. Does that mean I don't care about abortion or same-sex marriage? Idiot.

Attitudes like yours are more typical of a small-minded conservative than someone who actually cares about rights.

 

[legmann]

I know but this is how people outside of this forum react if you're a male and show interest in this topic. I opened a topic about this bill in another general forum that has nothing to do with this hobby and the typical reaction was people trying to tease me and say ' why are so concerned , do you use their services ?.

Not if you stick to what is important and central to the issue. Once you extend the implications of a bill like this being passed, you will get people's attention and support.

I got into a discussion about with a few people at the office - once I brought up the notion of an end to legal abortion or same-sex marriage, people began to see things a bit differently. (My 'audience' consisted of a few young, single, sexually-active females and the sole gay guy in the office. You need to know yours. Lol)

 

[lovelatinas]

Not if you stick to what is important and central to the issue. Once you extend the implications of a bill like this being passed, you will get people's attention and support.

I got into a discussion about with a few people at the office - once I brought up the notion of an end to legal abortion or same-sex marriage, people began to see things a bit differently. (My 'audience' consisted of a few young, single, sexually-active females and the sole gay guy in the office. You need to know yours. Lol)

I do the same thing at work. We have a few gay guys at work and now they get concerned when tell them the Conservatives hidden agenda on same sex marriage. This what this bill leads too, nothing but pushing morale down our throats.

 

[legmann]

This what this bill leads too, nothing but pushing morale down our throats.

Exactly. It is a bill attempting tacitly to legislate morality, and little else.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I know but this is how people outside of this forum react if you're a male and show interest in this topic. I opened a topic about this bill in another general forum that has nothing to do with this hobby and the typical reaction was people trying to tease me and say ' why are so concerned , do you use their services ?.

Tell them that PET said that the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, and they should mind their own fucking business too.

The issue is one of the rights of those who are consenting adults and who are not coerced and of sound mind.

Ask them what standards are they basing their criticism. Ask them then if gays should not have rights.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Not if you stick to what is important and central to the issue. Once you extend the implications of a bill like this being passed, you will get people's attention and support.

I got into a discussion about with a few people at the office - once I brought up the notion of an end to legal abortion or same-sex marriage, people began to see things a bit differently. (My 'audience' consisted of a few young, single, sexually-active females and the sole gay guy in the office. You need to know yours. Lol)

I can see Conservatives arguing for the rights of the unborn (parallel that they are 'victims' of 'violence') but I can't see how they can argue against same-sex marriage on the same basis (i.e., as the exploitation or violence on sex workers).

 

[lovelatinas]

I can see Conservatives arguing for the rights of the unborn (parallel that they are 'victims' of 'violence') but I can't see how they can argue against same-sex marriage on the same basis (i.e., as the exploitation or violence on sex workers).

Same sex marriage is against Harper's religion, he pushing his religious and morale beliefs. If he can oppress a few minorities to gain more votes from bible thumpers we will do it. He will do all he can to stay in power, with little regard to human rights. When was the last time anyone saw Mr. Harper at a pride parade?

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/can...-harper-march-gay-pride-parade-202940345.html

 

[GPIDEAL]

Same sex marriage is against Harper's religion, he pushing his religious and morale beliefs. If he can oppress a few minorities to gain more votes from bible thumpers we will do it. He will do all he can to stay in power, with little regard to human rights. When was the last time anyone saw Mr. Harper at a pride parade?

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/can...-harper-march-gay-pride-parade-202940345.html

I understand that amigo, but that is a different argument, not based on exploitation or violence of same-sex couples marrying, as he is using to argue for Bill C-36. There's no analogy, that's why I doubt he would change that particular equality right.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Peter Mackay could use the same words he used during his press conference against gays : Perverts , degrading activity ...

Scare-mongering. I doubt that very much.

What's done is done. What's in the past is done. However, there's way more stigma attached to prostitution/johns than being gay.

I bet my top dollar that we won't regress to criminalizing abortion or making same-sex marriage illegal.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Stephen Harper has waded into the controversy over Russia’s new anti-gay law.

Speaking in Miramichi, N.B., the prime minister says Canadians expect his government to defend human rights.

Harper says Canada is not a country where people are jailed or killed for their political positions or for engaging in certain consensual acts between adults.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...pic-athletes-going-to-russia/article13690657/

Bingo! Good find! What a fucking hypocrite Harper is!

 

[legmann]

I can see Conservatives arguing for the rights of the unborn (parallel that they are 'victims' of 'violence')

For those pro-choice, it was never about the rights of the fetus, but about the rights of a woman to have control over her own fertility, to be able to have a legal abortion in a licensed clinic by a qualified doctor - not to risk harm by attempting otherwise. Don't kid yourself - any arguments the Conservatives make will be in their own self-interest, and that is attempting to legislate what others do or cannot do, based on arbitrary beliefs and nothing else.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Incalls are already illegal, they could have done stuff like that already if they wanted to and why don't the states do that then? It's illegal over there and they have review boards, just like this one.

I am a bit late to this, but LE uses boards all the time in the U.S. to arrest escorts. Stacks of reviews from TER are often seen in police cars when doing roundups. When they arrested about 40 from a hotel last month one asked why she was targeted and they showed here a TER review. It would be almost impossible to use as evidence at a trial but are used to get plea deals and for probably cause. Futher, ads that have GFE or worse are illegal and LE gets the address of who posted it from BP or whoever and just comes to the house (sometimes with a SWAT team) to arrest since ads are prostitution and always have been in the U.S. Mandatory 15 days on 1st offense or up to 10 yrs in prison if have a driver, call taker, or work with another escort since then its a felony.

U.S. situation far worse than even if C-36 would pass.

 

[GPIDEAL]

For those pro-choice, it was never about the rights of the fetus, but about the rights of a woman to have control over her own fertility, to be able to have a legal abortion in a licensed clinic by a qualified doctor - not to risk harm by attempting otherwise. Don't kid yourself - any arguments the Conservatives make will be in their own self-interest, and that is attempting to legislate what others do or cannot do, based on their own arbitrary beliefs and nothing else.

Understood, but just saying they could extend the argument, although it would be political suicide since it would attack women.

 

[legmann]

U.S. situation far worse than even if C-36 would pass.

Yikes. No argument there.