Swedish Anti-Prostitution Laws Deemed a "Success"

[Aardvark154]

the heart of the constitutional challenge is that the current laws put people who are not doing anything illegal (selling sex is not illegal in canada)

To my eyes § 213 indeed makes selling sex in public illegal

§ 213 . (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view

(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,

(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or

(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person

for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

If no laws are put in place, we will be the only develloped nation without any laws regarding prostitution.

I do not see it that way. Rather, I believe it is far more likely that the Supreme Court of Canada will strike down § 210, while upholding § 213.

So one reason that the government will not "live with the laws the court has remade" is that is isn't the courts job to make laws - it's the governments job.

See the paragraph above, striking language is not really "making laws" in fact this sort of thing is done in other Common Law Jurisdictions all the time.

As to what the Government may or may not do we shall have to disagree, however, you should certainly hope that I am correct.

 

[staggerspool]

As to your second point, I only have slightly more infromation than you do about what is currently going on with respect to policy, but it seems like the reasoning that justifies the Nordic Model is shared by many conservatives. Given that, I don't think it's highly unlikley that the conservatives would put similar laws on the books.

I'm absolutely certain that the conservatives share the reasoning, and also have the unconscious drive to put the lid on everyone else's pleasure. People who think outside the family values box frighten them. If people don't follow THOSE values, then they might question others - like, maybe if we are all having a good time, we won't have to buy all the crap that runs their economy, as a replacement for legit pleasure. Who needs to shop/work all day to sublimate their drives when they can just get on it and drive for real, like hire a beautiful willing woman to play the game we all actually want to play. That doesn't work for the conservatives in the big picture... so they are likely to want to shut it down.

But even they really want something more than their "value set" will give them, so you end up with a guy like Vic Toews, who is all about seeking out and cracking down on outside-the-box fun, while getting his sweet young action by marrying the babysitter. Wonder how old she was when they met? (I'm REALLY REALLY not with the child exploiters, but I'm not with "family values" as they conceive them either... Vic has found a way to have it and eat it, seems to me.)

But, as I outlined above, I don't think they are going to be able to do it, not right away anyway. They crave power now, even more than they want to control out-of-the-box fun. This will be a hotter potato than they like, and they would probably prefer to discretely drop it rather than juggle it with all the other issues that they have to deal with.

Hi Effie! You don't remember me, but I REALLY remember you...

 

[Aardvark154]

Effie, I agree that some Canadians on both sides of the political spectrum will be upset. Where I disagree with you is that there will be widespread public unhappiness if the only provisions of the Criminal Code regarding prostitution prohibit living off the avails of a prostitute in an exploitative manner and prohibiting solicitation in public.

There have been at least two extensive threads on this in the past, however, if you are proved correct this will certainly have proved to have been very much a pyrrhic victory.

 

[danmand]

According to this definition I think pretty much every employee is exploited (which I guess is what you would expect from a Marxist definition of exploitation).

Here is how the standford encylcopedia of philosophy defines exploitation: To exploit others is to take unfair advantage of them.

That is as good a definition as any, and would seem to cover employment law, the rise of unions and the reason, that it is hard to deny that streetwalkers are exploited by their customers.

I agree with you, I just want to add to that. The problem with that definition of exploitation is that we now have to define what "unfair" is. The line between the fair and unfair is blurry and continuously moving.

But we seem to have a reasonable handle on what is fair and unfair in employment law, lending practices etc. Why not in the case of prostitution?

 

[Aardvark154]

So you think that the conservatives will just try to ignore the decision and hope people don’t pay very much attention to it in order to avoid taking a stand and alienating people who vote for them who are not ‘socially conservative’?

I'm not Staggerspool, but as you can tell that is what I believe will happen.

 

[Aardvark154]

That is a good definition

Ladies and Gentlemen dig out those ridiculously cheap copies of the works of Marx and Lenin that the Soviets used to sell to political philosophy students.

 

[Rockslinger]

So you think that the conservatives will just try to ignore the decision and hope people don’t pay very much attention to it in order to avoid taking a stand and alienating people who vote for them who are not ‘socially conservative’?

The Harper Conservatives might choose to let the court decision stand just like they didn't re-open the abortion or the gay marriage debate even though most Conservatives are probably anti-abortion and pro-traditional marriage. The Harper Conservatives are more pragmatic than dogmatic.

 

[rhuarc29]

I do not see it that way. Rather, I believe it is far more likely that the Supreme Court of Canada will strike down § 210, while upholding § 213.

I'd say that's plausible. But even if that's what the Supreme Court rules, it's likely the Conservative government will introduce new legislation standing by the moral belief that buying sex for money is bad in any situation.

 

[danmand]

Well to start some people are of the opinion that prostitution is inherently exploitative

And many people are of the opposite opinion, namely that it never is. An analogy is employment law, where some think that employment always is exploitive, and others think it never is. That has not kept us as a society from passing laws about employment.

 

[danmand]

Danmand,

Sure there are people on the far left that think employment in the capitalist system is inherantly exploitative, but they are not really part of the process are they? In the case of prostitution there are people at all ends of the political spectrum, people involved in the legistative process, who think it is inherantly exploitative.

I think the analogy with employment law is pretty good. We have employment laws, not because we think all employees are exploited, but because we want to avoid exploitation.
In the case of prostitution, religious morality confuses many, but we still have laws to avoid exploitation. The traditional view has been that we only need to avoid exploitation from "living off the avails", but newer socialist and feminist thinking are claiming that the consumer of prostitution is the one exploiting the women. As has been posted here, the countries that have adopted this thesis are primarily going after consumers of streetwalkers, which I think shows that the case for exploitation is weak when it comes to "call girls" who are able to work out of a nice condo and can afford a slick website and glossy pictures.

 

[Rockslinger]

the countries that have adopted this thesis are primarily going after consumers of streetwalkers, which I think shows that the case for exploitation is weak when it comes to "call girls" who are able to work out of a nice condo and can afford a slick website and glossy pictures.

One of my former co-workers (makes $1million a year) has a mistress stashed away in a downtown condo. Wonder if she is "exploited"? Don't you hate it when OTHER people tell you you are exploited?

 

[Rockslinger]

it doesn't have anything to do with the laws (they could just as well target those with fancy websites), but more with the moral compases of the police.

Actually, when Bill Blair became police chief, he said that he didn't want his force to waste scarce resources arresting people engaged in consensual adult sex even if money changes hands. Yes, some police chiefs do take a pragmatic approach to law enforcement. On the other hand, arresting escort does make good newspaper headlines and political hay. Look at York Region police for example where they protect and serve the public by arresting MPA's (mind you that multiple murder at the MP a few years ago didn't help the sex industry's image but people are now getting murdered at the Eaton Centre and Yorkdale Mall too).

 

[danmand]

One of my former co-workers (makes $1million a year) has a mistress stashed away in a downtown condo. Wonder if she is "exploited"? Don't you hate it when OTHER people tell you you are exploited?

Then don't tell her that she is. By the way, what does that have to do with this discussion?

 

[Aardvark154]

I'm sorry I think I must not have been around for those other threads. I hope my interest in this thread isn't bothering anyone.

Good heavens, no, not me. I was merely saying that if you can find them there is an extensive back and forth regarding the legal action.

 

[Rockslinger]

Then don't tell her that she is. By the way, what does that have to do with this discussion?

Women living off the largess of men (or women)? Trading their womanly charms for a downtown condo. On the other hand, there are probably men who live off the largess of other men or women. I have a fairly broad definition of prostitution.

 

[Aardvark154]

I'm not sure that the enforcement stratagies say anything about the underlying thesis in any of these countries. Why would who the police target correlate with who was being exploited? If there is such a correlation, it doesn't have anything to do with the laws (they could just as well target those with fancy websites), but more with the moral compasses of the police.

Effie, it I believe has the most to do with public nuisance value. Residents don't like their property values being driven down and young women from the neighborhood being solicited because the neighborhood has turned into a troll zone. Likewise neighbors complain when a bordello has constant streams of traffic with clients taking up scarce parking in the neighborhood, noise issues and the like.

 

[danmand]

Women living off the largess of men (or women)? Trading their womanly charms for a downtown condo. On the other hand, there are probably men who live off the largess of other men or women. I have a fairly broad definition of prostitution.

Does it include marriage?

 

[IM469]

I'd say that's plausible. But even if that's what the Supreme Court rules, it's likely the Conservative government will introduce new legislation standing by the moral belief that buying sex for money is bad in any situation.

I doubt it - I think the reason is correct but they will hang on preventing to the prevention of exploiting women instead of moral reasons. The older generation will recognize that this is almost déjà vu with respect to gambling. Gambling was immoral, exploited the poor and the only ticket you could buy (outside the mafia numbers racket) was the Irish Sweepstakes. Why the change ? Government revenues from the lotteries and gambling houses. If they had a taste of potential windfall of money legalized prostitution could bring it - I think they'd go for it.

 

[rhuarc29]

I think the analogy with employment law is pretty good. We have employment laws, not because we think all employees are exploited, but because we want to avoid exploitation.
In the case of prostitution, religious morality confuses many, but we still have laws to avoid exploitation. The traditional view has been that we only need to avoid exploitation from "living off the avails", but newer socialist and feminist thinking are claiming that the consumer of prostitution is the one exploiting the women. As has been posted here, the countries that have adopted this thesis are primarily going after consumers of streetwalkers, which I think shows that the case for exploitation is weak when it comes to "call girls" who are able to work out of a nice condo and can afford a slick website and glossy pictures.

Ahh, I see what you're saying now. It seems to be a matter of safety. I think most would agree that streetwalkers are at greater risk than call girls who operate out of agencies and upscale condos. If the introduction of risk is seen as exploitative, the case could indeed be better made for streetwalkers.

The flaw in the argument of course is that you could just as easily (or more easily) blame the victim for the exploitation as blame the consumer. Both the consumer and the provider are willing parties, and if one of the two parties are not willing then it's a third party that is to blame and it's that same party that should be persecuted. In a case where a third party is not coercing the provider or does not exist entirely, there is no exploitation taking place. There's no unfairness to the equation.

Blaming the customer for putting the provider at risk is like blaming the government for employing police officers. Wouldn't that be ludicrous? It is a police officer's responsibility to accept any risk associated with their own employment. The same goes for other occupations that carry a risk. Why should it be different for prostitutes? It shouldn't. It's just another bullshit argument to persecute people based on a moral viewpoint.

There is no solid basis to their viewpoint, so they try to cloud the issue. Yes, without the customer, a provider would not be at risk. Likewise, if the provider had made different choices, she would also not be at risk. How can you blame one, but not the other?

Seems to me, when a police officer dies of a gunshot, we blame the gunman. Not the police officer. And not the agency that employs the police officer.

 

[rhuarc29]

I doubt it - I think the reason is correct but they will hang on preventing to the prevention of exploiting women instead of moral reasons. The older generation will recognize that this is almost déjà vu with respect to gambling. Gambling was immoral, exploited the poor and the only ticket you could buy (outside the mafia numbers racket) was the Irish Sweepstakes. Why the change ? Government revenues from the lotteries and gambling houses. If they had a taste of potential windfall of money legalized prostitution could bring it - I think they'd go for it.

Lol, it's good to know our government bases it's decisions on greed rather than moral principles. Prostitution should be legalized because there's no rational reason not to, not because of tax revenues. That's of secondary importance.