What were the data sets used in your statistical analysis correlating Swedish sex crimes and immigration?
Did your business associates perform a similarly robust analysis to support the 25% estimate?
Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
What were the data sets used in your statistical analysis correlating Swedish sex crimes and immigration?
Did your business associates perform a similarly robust analysis to support the 25% estimate?
Okay, thats interesting. I didnt know they counted stats that way in Sweden.
Still though, from your same link:
You have to realize in addition to counting multiple cases Swedish law also started criminalizing alot more things post 2005
Eg it used to not be illegal to do something with a drunk or sleeping person
Sweden also has one of the highest conviction rates of any EU countries (which I think is why they count all incidences, its some tough on sex crime angle)
Actually even irrelevant of all types of rapes (for the record Sweden also counts many different types of assaults under rape law; in 2005 they expanded the bill to include a whole slew of new acts to criminalize) so in that aspect they are pretty similar to Canada
But again even on Statscan page, even violent assaults, weapon assaults, or children assaults all individually are higher than the Wiki page claims
Unless you are going to try and take some super narrow minded view that rape is not rape without penetration the fact remains Canada is not that safe & Sweden is not that terrifying (which was my original intent to refute the paranoia posts above before you tried to make a reasoned argument)
Actually the UNODC stats also look nothing like what is quoted in the Wiki article
Here is the actual table http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/CTS_Sexual_violence.xls
Of interest to me is the alleged source for these stats (since "rape" is not an actual crime in Canada since 1983) is the alleged source UNODC uses (since link appears dead & I can find no other tables even remotely similar)
Cansim Table 252-0051 : Incident-based crime statistics by detailed violations http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-wi...CII/&RegTkt=&C2Sub=&CNSM-Fi=CII/CII_1-eng.htm
You are looking at the good document but the wrong sheet in the document. Look at the CTS 2012 Rape sheet. It is the table that appears on the wiki page.
Clay Nikiforuk: What we should tell Peter MacKay about sex workers
Criminalization of sex work impedes the constitutional right of sex workers to life, liberty and security of the person, a fact the Supreme Court has already recognized with the Bedford case. Nevertheless, Justice Minister Peter McKay has announced that leaving the status quo of full decriminalization is not an option, and has opened an online public consultation on the legal status of sex work.
On its face, opening up this contentious area of government policy to public input might seem like a good idea. But as noted by sex worker Celine Bisette in a National Post oped earlier this week, it places the everyday security of sex workers in the hands of a broader population which, however well meaning, has little understanding of their realities. In this prejudged charade of a consultation, sex workers are being forced to watch their right to physical, social and sexual safety debated in front of them, all set to cries of “public nuisance” from a choir seemingly oblivious to how they (and the sex workers themselves) would benefit from the workplace rights which sex workers desire.
We must remember that violence, coercion, rape, stealing, blackmail, child pornography, child prostitution, kidnapping, murder and slavery are already illegal in Canada. However, it seems that when the horrors of violent pimps and human trafficking are evoked, it is forgotten that decriminalization of sex work does not mean that these unlawful acts of violence and exploitation would also be tolerated. One can support decriminalization while opposing violence — in fact, it is one of the best strategies to prevent and punish violence against sex workers.
With decriminalization, sex workers can work together indoors (which has repeatedly been shown to be the safest method), can pay taxes, can screen their customers thoroughly, can hire guards and drivers, and even unionize. Most importantly, they can report crimes committed against them to the police without fearing of being arrested themselves.
This is the safest, most reasonable course of action. But the greatest impediment to implementing it is the naive belief that the right set of regulations will eventually discourage sex workers and their clients from existing. Canadians must come to accept that sex work and sex workers will always exist, because the longer we fail to do so, the greater danger posed to the people engaged in this work
Research findings in developed countries which have attempted to regulate sex work have found that criminalization, whether by outlawing sex workers or their clients, intensifies the dangers which sex workers already face — and does not make sex work disappear.
Notably, under the abolitionist model in which clients are criminalized, the number of law-fearing customers drops off, leaving increasingly desperate sex workers with a thinning pool of law-evading clients. A 2012 study in Oslo found the incidence of violence directed towards sex workers, such as threatening with a weapon or strangulation, was greater in the three years after criminalization of clients than in the 50 years prior.
Likewise, criminalizing the sellers of sexual services, as is done in America, ensures that their access to protection, justice, support networks, appropriate health care and workers’ rights are all but non-existent. It is unacceptable that laws purportedly meant to empower sex workers instead endanger them, all while making the industry more attractive to organized crime.
Meanwhile, disease is a legitimate concern for everyone who has sex, whether paid for or not. Though sex workers are often the scapegoat when it comes to STIs, it is the customers who trick, bargain or coerce sex workers into unprotected sex who are largely responsible for the spread of infections. It would be interesting to copy New Zealand’s model, instituted in 2003, which makes it the legal obligation of customers to use barrier protection.
Erasing the reality of sex work is not a realistic or constructive goal. We should instead seek to empower sex workers to use all resources available to reduce the risks of their job, which would in turn help diminish many of the dangers and social problems which currently accompany sex work.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay claims that the online consultation process on the rewriting of prostitution laws will ensure the laws reflect Canadians’ values. Using tax dollars to drive a stigmatized industry further underground, where constitutional and human rights become illusory, is totally inconsistent with Canadian values. We have until March 17th to convince him.
National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...e-should-tell-peter-mackay-about-sex-workers/
Criminalization of sex work impedes the constitutional right of sex workers to life, liberty and security of the person, a fact the Supreme Court has already recognized with the Bedford case. Nevertheless, Justice Minister Peter McKay has announced that leaving the status quo of full decriminalization is not an option, and has opened an online public consultation on the legal status of sex work.
On its face, opening up this contentious area of government policy to public input might seem like a good idea. But as noted by sex worker Celine Bisette in a National Post oped earlier this week, it places the everyday security of sex workers in the hands of a broader population which, however well meaning, has little understanding of their realities. In this prejudged charade of a consultation, sex workers are being forced to watch their right to physical, social and sexual safety debated in front of them, all set to cries of “public nuisance” from a choir seemingly oblivious to how they (and the sex workers themselves) would benefit from the workplace rights which sex workers desire.
We must remember that violence, coercion, rape, stealing, blackmail, child pornography, child prostitution, kidnapping, murder and slavery are already illegal in Canada. However, it seems that when the horrors of violent pimps and human trafficking are evoked, it is forgotten that decriminalization of sex work does not mean that these unlawful acts of violence and exploitation would also be tolerated. One can support decriminalization while opposing violence — in fact, it is one of the best strategies to prevent and punish violence against sex workers.
With decriminalization, sex workers can work together indoors (which has repeatedly been shown to be the safest method), can pay taxes, can screen their customers thoroughly, can hire guards and drivers, and even unionize. Most importantly, they can report crimes committed against them to the police without fearing of being arrested themselves.
This is the safest, most reasonable course of action. But the greatest impediment to implementing it is the naive belief that the right set of regulations will eventually discourage sex workers and their clients from existing. Canadians must come to accept that sex work and sex workers will always exist, because the longer we fail to do so, the greater danger posed to the people engaged in this work
Research findings in developed countries which have attempted to regulate sex work have found that criminalization, whether by outlawing sex workers or their clients, intensifies the dangers which sex workers already face — and does not make sex work disappear.
Notably, under the abolitionist model in which clients are criminalized, the number of law-fearing customers drops off, leaving increasingly desperate sex workers with a thinning pool of law-evading clients. A 2012 study in Oslo found the incidence of violence directed towards sex workers, such as threatening with a weapon or strangulation, was greater in the three years after criminalization of clients than in the 50 years prior.
Likewise, criminalizing the sellers of sexual services, as is done in America, ensures that their access to protection, justice, support networks, appropriate health care and workers’ rights are all but non-existent. It is unacceptable that laws purportedly meant to empower sex workers instead endanger them, all while making the industry more attractive to organized crime.
Meanwhile, disease is a legitimate concern for everyone who has sex, whether paid for or not. Though sex workers are often the scapegoat when it comes to STIs, it is the customers who trick, bargain or coerce sex workers into unprotected sex who are largely responsible for the spread of infections. It would be interesting to copy New Zealand’s model, instituted in 2003, which makes it the legal obligation of customers to use barrier protection.
Erasing the reality of sex work is not a realistic or constructive goal. We should instead seek to empower sex workers to use all resources available to reduce the risks of their job, which would in turn help diminish many of the dangers and social problems which currently accompany sex work.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay claims that the online consultation process on the rewriting of prostitution laws will ensure the laws reflect Canadians’ values. Using tax dollars to drive a stigmatized industry further underground, where constitutional and human rights become illusory, is totally inconsistent with Canadian values. We have until March 17th to convince him.
National Post
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...e-should-tell-peter-mackay-about-sex-workers/
