Disturbing Globe & Mail letter to editor

[sensualsixty]

In The Globe & Mail of Saturday, December 22 there is a disturbing letter by Glendyne Gerrard of Defend Dignity, in which she advocates the "Nordic model" for prostitution legislation. For those who are not familiar with the Nordic model, the legislation makes the puchase of services illegal, and those selling the service are directed to get out of the business. Sadly this sounds like something that Stephen Harper might advocate.

No doubt change will come in our legislation. I guess we need to advocate for the New Zealand model, where protitiion is legalized, taxes are paid and proper health care is recommended.

This board makes it clear that there are many willing customers and many willing providers. As long as both parties are willing, why not follow the New Zealand model?

Over the years I have had the priviledge of many post-coital chats and in many there has been discussion of the lady's rationale for providing service. Of those I have met, few were driven by the money. One gem of a young lady said that she had wanted to be a courtesan since she was a youngster, and now she was fullfilling her dream.

sensualsixty

 

[Miss*Bijou]

.​

Prostitution is legalized in Amsterdam - not in New Zealand..

It is decriminalized in New Zealand.

So....we do want the New Zealand model but we want decriminalization - not legalization.

we know that prostitution in Canada is legal. It is the activities associated with prostitution that are illegal.

There are ongoing debates about legalization and decriminalization but before you form an educated opinion you need to understand the difference between the two concepts. “Legalization and de-criminalization are two separate regulatory frameworks with different outcomes and impacts on sex workers” (Scarlett Alliance).


Legalization
Legalization of prostitution means that you can legally call yourself a sex worker but that the use of criminal laws would regulate or control the sex worker or the sex work industry. Historically it is governed by the state and the laws are created by the state. Some governing laws include mandated physical exams for all sex workers, a sex worker registry, permits, and designated work areas. Generally these laws are not made by sex workers but are made for sex workers.

Some of the benefits of legalization could be that sex work would be made more legitimate, stigma would be reduced, governments would benefit by receiving taxes and licensing fees, and there is more control over the number of sex workers as there could be a registration system. Although sex work is legalized in Canada, last week’s article shows us that the laws surrounding it make it almost impossible to legally work in the sex industry.


Decriminalization
Decriminalizing prostitution in Canada would mean taking an eraser to the Criminal Code and removing sections 210-213. It would remove all current laws pertaining to prostitution.

Some of the benefits to decriminalization could include: putting control of the industry into the hands of sex workers, increasing safety for sex workers as they can work together in a common area, increasing safety for sex workers because they would feel safe to report violent crimes without fear of prosecution, normalizing the industry and reducing the stigmas around sex work (many people believe sex workers deserve the violence they experience because of their job choice), and potentially allowing sex workers to benefit from employment and labor laws.


http://aidscalgary.blogspot.ca/2010/08/legalization-vs-decriminalization-of.html?m=1

 

[the old maxx50]

First off Prostitution is legal in Canada .. And you all keep for getting that .

Now for them to make it illegal to use those serves would be an ambitiousness law which woulds easily be struck down in our courts under commonsense argument.. and the charter of rights ..

These people that keep advocating laws from other countries which are obviously contrary to Canadians democratic rights and liberties .. They have no respect for our democracy or others options ..

It just an other example of there problem blinding them to the truth

Honestly if some one has the right to offer a service . and chose to do so .. how can it be acceptable to call the user of the service criminal ..
This is just another way of scaring people and ruling by fear .. In a democratic society we can not stand for ideas that advocate this kind of abuse of minority class of citizen being those involved in the Sex business

 

[leoghaire]

thank you Miss Bijou:clap2:. I have been trying to figure out the difference between legalization and decriminalizing and every answer I have received before this had so much legalese as to be more confusing than clarifying. This explanation makes sense.
Decriminalization it is

 

[Dgodus]

Does decriminalization involve paying taxs? I've no issue with escorts not paying taxes right now (should they so choose. Personally I probably wouldn't myself if I was in their garters), but if someone is going to enjoy benefits such as workman's compensation and such then I believe someone should have to pay tax.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the norweigan model is actually made to discourage prostitution is it not? For me personally I wouldn't partake if we lived under such a system as I couldn't support someone (in this case the escort) who basically has me over a barrel criminally while legally exposing herself in no way.

Please don't misunderstand me in thinking I like no risk to myself and let someone else assume all the risk. I understand (and appreciate) what a provider exposes herself to, but clients are exposing themselves to health risks as well and with the stories of angry, thieving pimps, bait n switchs, take the money at the front door and run out the back there are problems for clients as well. Let's just say there is a good reason some providers screen clients and that some clients read up/research their escorts. Johns get stigmatized as well. Not trying to say the risks are the same. Just saying there are risks for everyone involved. Heh I'm trying to be careful here as this could be a touchy subject.

 

[Boneman]

.​

Prostitution is legalized in Amsterdam - not in New Zealand..

It is decriminalized in New Zealand.

So....we do want the New Zealand model but we want decriminalization - not legalization.

Sorry but what am I missing here. Why would you prefer decriminalization over legalization?

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Sorry but what am I missing here. Why would you prefer decriminalization over legalization?

Here's another explanation:

Legalization vs. Decriminalization

It’s essential to know one from the other so we can make demands in all solidarity when we speak to the media, to politicians and fellow citizens.

Legalization:

In countries where sex work has been legalized, the State regulates sex work. For example, sex workers may have to pay special taxes, work exclusively in brothels or certain designated zones, or get a permit (these restrictions can cost a lot for a person who only wants to work part time or when a worker isn’t getting a lot of work). It can also mean that sex workers are obliged to register and pass physical exams that can lead to the workers being quarantined. (Or worse, knowing about the compulsory exams could lead clients to believe that bareback sex is risk-free, which would lead to more clients asking for this dangerous practice and to more pressure on workers.)

Legalizing sex work means that certain forms of the work that used to be illegal become regulated in a specific way, which does not provide sex work with the same status as any other form of work.


Decriminalization:

Decriminalization means removing the sections that make our work criminal in the eyes of the law from the law itself: Section 210: keeping or being found in a common bawdy-house.
Section 211: taking or offering to take someone to a common bawdyhous (a chauffeur or a lift from a friend or partner)
Section 212: procuring someone into becoming a prostitute or living wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution.
Section 213: communicating or attempting to communicate with any person in a public place or in any place open to public view for the purpose of engaging in prostitution (solicitation).

This would mean we could no longer be arrested because of the work we do, or because of how we market what we have on offer. Basically, what that means, is that anyone doing any type of sex work would be considered in the same way as any other self-employed worker. She would have the same rights and responsibilities as any other self-employed worker from any other field! We would be protected by the same laws as those regulating and protecting other workers. It would mean sex work and other fields are equal and would help remove stigma from our work.

Many sex worker groups are asking for decriminalization, as it leaves more room for the diversity inherent to sex work; it also means each of us can manage our work the way we see fit.


http://www.chezstella.org/stella/?q=en/debate

(Libby Davies)

There is substantial difference between decriminalization and legalization.

Legalization implies a state run licensing system, which I do not support, whereas decriminalization removes those sections of the criminal code pertaining to adult consensual activity and focuses law enforcement on situations where there is exploitation, coercion, and violence, just as we would with any other activity.

The Canadian news paper Xtra, published one of the more straightforward articles about decriminalization that I’ve read, explaining that legalizing sex work means instituting regulations that treat prostitution as a vice that needs to be contained and controlled, as opposed to decriminalization which treats it like work. Using New Zealand and Australia as examples, the article goes on to explain that under decriminalization sex workers are allowed all the labour-related rights and freedoms as any other worker.

http://www.libbydavies.ca/blog/2009/5/21/record-it-s-decriminalization-not-legalization-sex-trade

Also:

http://prostitution.procon.org/view.subissues.php?issueID=000363

http://www.bayswan.org/defining.html




Hope that explains it better..?

 

[Tugela]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the norweigan model is actually made to discourage prostitution is it not? For me personally I wouldn't partake if we lived under such a system as I couldn't support someone (in this case the escort) who basically has me over a barrel criminally while legally exposing herself in no way.

She wouldn't have you over the barrel. They still have to prove that a paid act took place, her word alone would be insufficient. You would either need to be caught in a sting or leave a paper trail, which means that for indoor workers it is probably pretty safe as long as you only visit reviewed SPs.

The main target of the "Nordic Model" is street walkers, they would have a tough time proving anything for any one else.

 

[sevenofnine]

I think Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau said it best.

The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

 

[Bobo The Rabbit]

What we have right now is perfect.
Edmonton is a shinning example of how things should work.
Girls can work in legal MPs where we all know sex is being sold however the average passerby would not be sure exactly what goes on. Maybe it's just a rub and tug or something.
Escorts come and go freely to the city with there hardly ever being an issue.
Micros operate freely and the cops only encourage people to report them if they think there's at risk individuals.
Hookers work the streets and as long as guys pick them up at the end of blocks (not in the middle of a block) cops don't care. Though every couple years they will do a sting on this level of prostituion.

The only brothel owners to be shut down here have been douche bags by all accounts from us guys and the SPs.
MPs have beds, stripper poles and sex swings inside them and no one gives a shit.

Our system works. Stop fucking with it. If girls want to work safely then go work in a MP where you will have 1-3 other girls and often a receptionist, plus the male clients.
Occasionally a street level hooker will get assulted/killled, or a escort who works alone will get killed but there's many many more men getting killed where I work.

There will always be risk, do your best to work safely, whatever you do.

 

[susi]

What we have right now is perfect.
Edmonton is a shinning example of how things should work.
Girls can work in legal MPs where we all know sex is being sold however the average passerby would not be sure exactly what goes on. Maybe it's just a rub and tug or something.
Escorts come and go freely to the city with there hardly ever being an issue.
Micros operate freely and the cops only encourage people to report them if they think there's at risk individuals.
Hookers work the streets and as long as guys pick them up at the end of blocks (not in the middle of a block) cops don't care. Though every couple years they will do a sting on this level of prostituion.

The only brothel owners to be shut down here have been douche bags by all accounts from us guys and the SPs.
MPs have beds, stripper poles and sex swings inside them and no one gives a shit.

Our system works. Stop fucking with it. If girls want to work safely then go work in a MP where you will have 1-3 other girls and often a receptionist, plus the male clients.
Occasionally a street level hooker will get assulted/killled, or a escort who works alone will get killed but there's many many more men getting killed where I work.

There will always be risk, do your best to work safely, whatever you do.

ummm. no......occassionaly a street hooker gets killed...? how is that perfect or ok?

its illegal to engage in prostitution in an mp...have you read the laws? its called the bawdy house provisions. that's why they continue to raid and close parlours all over canada. what we have is not perfect except if you support workers being desperate to find work in doors and an ever narrowing numbers of jobs in the safer indoor environment...?

please don't say hooker. the workers on the street bear the brunt of these bad laws but do not deserve to be looked down upon. the term is offensive.

and edmonton is a gong show in terms of an example. how about their mandatory dna collection program? in which they ask workers if they wear panties or not....? and they do raid in edmonton and they do arrest workers on the street. never mind that the licensing process is extremely high barrier.

i eman really, they only arrest them if they are on the middle of the block? that's the edmonton police policy? i don't think so. at least not the edmonton police officers i have spoken with...

where do independent workers fit in in edmontons plan? nowhere. no workers were consulted during their recent revisions to licensing and so their model reflects that. they never even considered that workers could be independent.

in vancouver we have been working for almost 10 years and are members of the task force to address this. we're pushing for an open industry here and the supporters of the swedish model are not even at the table. at least here mainstream systems can see, largely as a result of the street level workers being murdered, that tight, expensive licensing and regulation do not work.

no offense, but safety at work is a human right, so that means for everyone. forcing all workers into mp's, mandatory blood tests, dna collection to help police solve our murders after we're dead and intervention in our safety through actions taken with no consultation with us, sex workers are all unacceptable.

i would go further and say that business owners, pooners, drivers, booking girls, managers, bouncers and anyone else working in the sex industry should also be consulted. as we have done here in vancouver.

we are planning an all stakeholders meeting in february and i hope some of you will come and share your ideas and concerns. there will also be a pooners only satellite session which i am helping to organize but of course will not be attending. confidentiality!!

anyway, its nice to see people are waking up to the huge battle we have in front of us and its nice to know that people are thinking about it.

sorry to go off on your post bobo, no offense intended to you personally. i guess i'm a bit raw nerved from working on all of this so much in the last couple of years. its been around 10 years of advocacy but in the last 2 or 3 years its been the city wide project, the missing women's commission and a series of sex worker projects that are trying to build a plan for post decrim. so we can prevent another disaster from unfolding because of uninformed actions and us having no voice.

if you search by-laws on here, you can see some of the things we've proposed through the years.

here's a link to opening the doors;

http://bccec.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/opening-the-doors-report-short-201111.doc

love susieXXXO

 

[DavidMR]

In The Globe & Mail of Saturday, December 22 there is a disturbing letter by Glendyne Gerrard of Defend Dignity, in which she advocates the "Nordic model" for prostitution legislation.

I have never heard of Glendyne Gerrard before but my immediate reaction was that it sounded like some kind of alias. Googling I found this:

http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/glendyne-gerrard/34/434/537

Current Director of Defend Dignity at Christian and Missionary Alliance
Past National Director of Women's Ministries at The Christian and Missionary Alliance in Canada
Education Director at Morden Alliance Church
Education Canadian Bible College



So, she's from the religious right which explains her motivation. She may want to bring back prohibition on alcohol while she's at it.

As for the "Nordic Model", it's also the desired goal of the remote left feminist extremists at Vancouver Rape Relief, ... you know, the people who didn't want a trans gendered woman as a counsellor.

http://dawn.thot.net/nixon_v_vrr.html

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Also, the police have effectively monitored telephone numbers of buyers, who respond to such advertisements, in order to identify and charge them.

the following article on the nordic model contains the rather scary statement above

http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=130078&AA_EX_Session=cd0862a1e24c50d770704df57ba8565a

let's face it, the nordic model requires the surrenduring up of some hard-won personal liberties in order to work

 

[yazoo]

I think that street work has to be controlled/suppressed.

Most laws are re-actively written because society wants a change to address a problem. In the minds of a large majority of the public, streetwork is demeaning, rarely voluntary and dangerous. It also is a public nuisance that is in their face as they drive or walk through their communities.

So the result is the formation of laws that address the entire CSW industry, not just streetworkers.

I am not allowed to just pitch up a tarp and sell strawberries by the side of the road (although some try), why should someone be permitted to sell sexual services in the same way? If there was a legal framework that would allow for all indoor professional sex-work, but just address the social aspects of people exploiting the disadvantaged, then I would support it.

The internet is great as it has provided the opportunity for sexwork to move indoors and out of the public eye. I think that the few remaining on the streets have many other problems that cause them to be there - mental health, addiction, and so on. I don't think that buying their services or supporting the existence of street prostitution does them any favours.

 

[Dgodus]

I'd like to hear what some independents have to say on the matter.

I'm for something that reduces human trafficking. But I can't take part in something where I can be charged criminally (regardless how modest the penalty) for calling or texting a provider and she can operate just fine legally. It seems from VCC's link they wish to target all prostitution.

I think, to put it better than it was said before, that it was meant there is risk in many jobs. Loss of life (or quality of life due to a significant accident) is never acceptable and shouldn't be viewed flippantly. Many men (and women) risks their lives and health daily; to build you buildings, ensure your utilities work, police our streets, and keep us safe. Many do so anonymously often times with only groups who are visible within that industry.

I simply don't like legislation which points me out to be an evil person whereas I'd like to believe (and hope is always the case whenever I meet someone) we are two (hehe or three) people there by a free will choice. If not being able to enjoy this business is the sacrifice needed to reduce sex slavery than I guess so be it. But I won't be made to feel like I'm a degenerate criminal.