Hotel staff being trained to look for escorts and trafficking victims

[Samantha Jones]

Wish they would focus on the real victims and leave us the F alone

http://www.papermag.com/marriott-hotels-sex-trafficking-training-2627520121

 

[Riza]

Another good reason to keep your work North of the border.

 

[Lo-ki]

Complete waste of time if you ask me.......

 

[jgg]

Complete waste of time if you ask me.......

That's the problem, no one asks us. By us I mean this industry, life. Social justice warriors, Bible thumpers and religious right get all the air time. They have no cares for who gets hurt so long as the money comes in and their standards are imposed.

 

[80watts]

Probally one way for them to make sure Trump dosen't stay with them...

 

[clu]

That's the problem, no one asks us. By us I mean this industry, life. Social justice warriors, Bible thumpers and religious right get all the air time. They have no cares for who gets hurt so long as the money comes in and their standards are imposed.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume "SJW" are in the same camp. I know quite a few who believe in harm reduction across the board, which means legalisation in the case of sex work, since, like marijuana, legalisation means it no longer operates in the shadows and thus makes it harder for the destructive elements to thrive.

 

[jgg]

I wouldn't be so quick to assume "SJW" are in the same camp. I know quite a few who believe in harm reduction across the board, which means legalisation in the case of sex work, since, like marijuana, legalisation means it no longer operates in the shadows and thus makes it harder for the destructive elements to thrive.

I accept your point.

 

[CanineCowboy]

I checked into a reputable hotel with a sex worker in the fall. The front desk worker asked my companion if she was staying with me and, upon her confirmation, asked her to write her phone number down on my sign in.

The sex worker explained to me afterwards that it was for anti-trafficking and she was impressed that the staffer had asked. In her own experience, when she was younger, she had been trafficked out of a hotel where everyone - staff and clients - ignored all the signs.

So let's not be hard on all measures to stop trafficking.

 

[susi]

SJW who want "legislation" got it...it's Bill C-36....

SJW who are the real harm reduction backers want "decriminalization"....

sex work is not like marijuana, people are not a controlled substance.

when we had "legalization" before it did not bring sex work out of the shadows, it kept it under the radar still....

just saying this for the sake of clarity....

decrim does not mean no rules, there are labor laws, municipal by-laws,etc. which would continue to govern sex work.

love susie

 

[clu]

SJW who want "legislation" got it...it's Bill C-36....

SJW who are the real harm reduction backers want "decriminalization"....

sex work is not like marijuana, people are not a controlled substance.

when we had "legalization" before it did not bring sex work out of the shadows, it kept it under the radar still....

just saying this for the sake of clarity....

decrim does not mean no rules, there are labor laws, municipal by-laws,etc. which would continue to govern sex work.

love susie

I feel like there's been some misunderstanding here because I'm certain we're on the same side on this.

Maybe you're thinking of a different kind of person when you say SJW than when I do? I guarantee the people I'm talking about who would accept the SJW label do not support C-36.

People are not a controlled substance, sure. I'm not comparing sex workers with the substance. I was (vaguely) comparing sex workers with the people who sell the substance: with storefronts and health inspections, the thing they sell is safer and they themselves are safer because they're not doing this in back alleys where they can be jumped and robbed.

I believe sex work (buying and selling) should be legal, as do the self-proclaimed "SJW" people I know. Legal would mean business licences, etc. but if it was legal then brothels could cover the incorporation, etc. so the barrier to entry would not be high for those who didn't need to go solo. For licensing purposes, it'd be about as difficult as trying to be a housekeeper, be it going solo or joining Molly Maid. With the majority operating in that framework, one hopes it'd be easier to identify the exploited people, both exploited by legal employers and those exploited who continue to operate outside it.

To be clear, I'm not challenging you. Just my friends who have been in the sex industry seem to agree with my "SJW" friends on this, so I'm genuinely surprised this position seems to appear offensive to you, Susie. I'm honestly interested in the perspective of an expert such as yourself on what I've missed?

 

[susi]

sorry, i didn't want to make you think i was offended or disagreeing.

i get that you mean licensing and etc...but that is not legalization, it is decriminalization. the difference being, that legalization implies criminal code provisions will remain. where decrim relies on labor law, by-laws, business licensing, etc....

we had legalization before when "he who shall not be named" killed 49 women.... legalization lead us to a 7 year battle all the way to the supreme court...where we won, and now face a whole new shit show.

so, i know we are saying the same thing and sorry if i made you feel like i was offended. i just like to make sure people understand the difference and why the terms are important.

love susie

 

[clu]

sorry, i didn't want to make you think i was offended or disagreeing.

i get that you mean licensing and etc...but that is not legalization, it is decriminalization. the difference being, that legalization implies criminal code provisions will remain. where decrim relies on labor law, by-laws, business licensing, etc....

we had legalization before when "he who shall not be named" killed 49 women.... legalization lead us to a 7 year battle all the way to the supreme court...where we won, and now face a whole new shit show.

so, i know we are saying the same thing and sorry if i made you feel like i was offended. i just like to make sure people understand the difference and why the terms are important.

love susie

Ah, ok. I get what you're saying but those definitions seem off. e.g. Wikipedia:

Decriminalization or decriminalisation is the lessening of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply (for contrast, see: legalization).

and

Legalization (also spelled legalisation) is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.

In these terms we've never had legalisation.

Googling "decriminalisation vs. legalisation" most of the literature is on marijuana but the principle is the same: decriminalisation leaves the law on the books but partially neutered, while legalisation removes it. Once legalised, that's when you'd just be left with bylaws, tax issues, etc.

Whoever said C-36 was legalisation is lying. Like Treveller said in another thread, Section 282 actually leaves even the selling of sex on the books as a crime. 282.5 just grants immunity from prosecution for the sex workers who directly provide the service. So C-36 is pretty well explicitly a textbook example of decriminalisation for selling, not legalisation. ...and only half-decriminalising at that since you can't sanely have a business where buyers and infrastructure (place of operation, third-party advertising, etc.) are illegal.

 

[susi]

not sure who created those wikipedia definitions...? but in terms of common use of the terms and within the context of sex worker rights organizing decriminalization has always referred to the removal of all criminal code provisions related to prostitution where legalization refers to laws remaining within the criminal code...

so wiki definition or not, that is how those people working on these issues view the terms and use them.

also, i would suggest, that government is also informed by these terms in the way i have described....

if you want i can provide links to the supreme court decision, parliamentary sub committee or forsaken- missing women's report....they all refer to the definitions in the way i have described

i think the point is more what the common use use of the terms are as opposed to the wiki definition which can be edited by anyone anytime...really...a feminazi probably wrote that to confuse people about what sex workers are fighting for...i literally went on there right now and could have edited it...

love susie

 

[clu]

Hi Susie,

I agree that anyone could've edited Wikipedia, but those references aren't for sex work and they are the common and correct definitions of the words. Again, just as an example (not the only example but a recent popular one) these are how the words are used in the context of marijuana legalisation. Take for one example, https://www.thoughtco.com/decriminalization-versus-legalization-of-marijuana-3368393:

... there are important distinctions between decriminalization and legalization ... Decriminalization is a loosening of criminal penalties ... under decriminalization, law enforcement is instructed to look the other way ... Legalization, on the other hand, is the lifting or abolishment of laws ...

It's informative and alarming(!) that the meanings have been swapped in discussion of sex work in Canada. I'll have to bear that in mind in future discussions. It's bizarre that they would call C-36 or anything we've ever had "legalisation" because it most assuredly isn't.

Edit to add: short of it is of course I should and do believe you that this is how the words have been used in the government discussions about sex work, but they are at odds with the common/usual meanings of the words outside that context, and that's where my confusion is coming from.