Jail Time Coming for Clients in Canada ??

treveller

Member
Sep 22, 2008
631
10
18
uncleg, you make some good points and I hope you would agree that if you yourself are not out there publicly supporting the profession, then you don't have any right or call to question why many SPs don't publicly support it, to use your own words.

The bottom line is, we need to respect and accept any individual's need for discretion or anonymity and find better ways of supporting those who are able to speak out.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,653
828
113
uncleg, you make some good points and I hope you would agree that if you yourself are not out there publicly supporting the profession, then you don't have any right or call to question why many SPs don't publicly support it, to use your own words.

The bottom line is, we need to respect and accept any individual's need for discretion or anonymity and find better ways of supporting those who are able to speak out.
trev, I do publicly support the profession whenever I can. As you you may have noted, my picture has appeared on this site, one of the few non-sp's that has made a public appearance here. What you refer to as the bottom line, is true and should be respected, but short of coming out of the shadows there really is no better way of supporting the profession.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,137
44
48
Montréal
There is no angry, just the point that the majority of people that are involved in this business on both sides of the transaction, prefer to keep their involvement private. As long as that is the situation, the negative portrayal of this industry will prevail. It is easy to knock the industry when you can point to the downtown eastside SW's and the likes of Pickton as examples of those involved in the trade. Get a few more people out there like some of the SP's and clients that are on this Board and you'd have a chance to change the perception.

Yes, that's what I was bringing up. I was responding to comments that were made that seemed to imply it was up to sex workers to do this and I thought the expectation was a bit unfair. I was trying to bring up the idea that maybe it wasn't just up to us but that you guys also had a stake in this. :) The truth is that there are some sex worker who advocate publicly but not any clients speaking up on your behalf. Even on the internet, lots of sex workers but no clients participating in the discussions.

I just think it can only make abolitionists' efforts easier when there's no one to counter them and they can continue to demonize men as committing violence against women by paying for the right to rape them (they really do talk that way!!) and never have these claims challenged. That's what I was getting at.
 

treveller

Member
Sep 22, 2008
631
10
18
uncleg, I wasn't aware you were out of the closet. I know of one other fellow, Patrick, on the Naked Truth web site who is out of the closet. Would you be willing to attend a public event with Susie?

I expect we all agree it would be a strong statement to have a client stand up at a public event but the prohibitionists will attack and dismiss him as a self serving abuser. I attended a REED event as an advocate without saying I was also a client and I was asked if I was a pimp by one of the organizers.

The "John's Voice" study from SFU is a valuable resource.

It is the service providers who have the real power to undermine the prohibitionist rhetoric. Fair or not, I expect it is the sex workers rather than the clients who need to respond in some way if we are going to deal with prohibition.

How about some ideas on what sex workers and clients can do without compromising their various individual needs for anonymity.

Susan Davis and Annie Temple have been out and active for years.
uncleg has posted his photo here.
I have attended a prohibitionist meeting as a supporter opposing prohibition.

I will start a thread listing info for possible actions, "Advocacy Ideas and Info".
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,653
828
113
uncleg, I wasn't aware you were out of the closet. I know of one other fellow, Patrick, on the Naked Truth web site who is out of the closet. Would you be willing to attend a public event with Susie?

I expect we all agree it would be a strong statement to have a client stand up at a public event but the prohibitionists will attack and dismiss him as a self serving abuser. I attended a REED event as an advocate without saying I was also a client and I was asked if I was a pimp by one of the organizers.

The "John's Voice" study from SFU is a valuable resource.

It is the service providers who have the real power to undermine the prohibitionist rhetoric. Fair or not, I expect it is the sex workers rather than the clients who need to respond in some way if we are going to deal with prohibition.

How about some ideas on what sex workers and clients can do without compromising their various individual needs for anonymity.

Susan Davis and Annie Temple have been out and active for years.
uncleg has posted his photo here.
I have attended a prohibitionist meeting as a supporter opposing prohibition.

I will start a thread listing info for possible actions, "Advocacy Ideas and Info".

Your choice of words leaves something to be desired, trev. I have never been in any closet that I needed to come out of. I have had attending public functions with susi on my calendar, but got derailed by other obligations. I did arrange for her and tg Nikki to meet, she does the advocacy thing in Toronto. If the timing is right, I have no problem being open about supporting the cause.

You pointed out a major problem with all this, your failure to identify yourself as a client, and automatically it was assumed you were a pimp, somebody profiting from the trade. So, do really think your support under those circumstances helped ? For or against is irrelevant if you insist on anonymity. If you want public support for the trade, the public has to see the face of the trade, otherwise you're wasting time.

The women in the industry don't have to do a damn thing when it comes to dealing with prohibition, because this will just be another bit of nonsense they have to work around. It will still be legal to be a prostitute, it'll just be illegal to pay for sex. Will it have some effect on the business, of course it will, fewer guys will take the risk of getting caught, so business will be down. On the other hand it can help the established ladies, we know they are not the law, so new girls coming in will have a tougher time to crack the market. So for the guys choices will dwindle, which seems a pretty good reason to support the ladies. I could go on with other ramifications, but I'm sure you can see the trend.
 
Aug 15, 2006
622
4
18

I just want to point out that the article discusses a plan for a law that would not be criminalizing the act itself but rather would be criminalizing the purchasing of the act.

So my question is this: what are you doing to dispel these kinds of harmful and false ideas about your role, your reasons and your views on all of this. Why do you seem to suggest that sex workers need to speak up (even though they are doing this already) and counter all this so that your side doesn't get criminalized? You have as much of a stake in this and just as much riding on a more realistic and healthier picture of prostitution as we do, don't you?

So I'm just questioning why you seem to assume this to be our responsibility to do it for you while we're doing it for ourselves? Don't you think you might need to participate and do your part in showing you aren't all gross, abusive rapists or any other false perceptions people have about clients?

Just curious to hear your thoughts or if you'd considered what I'm saying...
You are absolutely correct, and I agree 100%. I should have included that in my post. More pooners should stand up and be open about what they do (at least the one's who are single). Other than the fact that, so far I don't have a roll, as I am not an active pooner (although I will qualify this with the fact that a few years ago I went to hotel rooms about 3 times with girls from the old High Track on Seymour, but was too nervous/intoxicated to go through with it).

I joined this board at first out of curiosity and wanting to learn more, but also so I could read the Strip Club section. At this point, I would say the only reason I have not started using the services of some Independent SP's is financial. Paying off my debt that I stupidly racked up is my top priority.
 

treveller

Member
Sep 22, 2008
631
10
18
Bigger Problem Than You May Think

uncleg, no offence intended with the comment about you being out of the closet and congratulations on never having been in it.

I think you may be underestimating the effect that a new nordic style law would have.

The legal challenges in Ontario and BC would be seriously undermined or become meaningless and all those years of work would be lost. It would be years before a new legal challenge could start through the courts.

Susan Davis’s progress with the City of Vancouver would be lost. Presently prostitution is a legitimate occupation and this allows government at various levels and businesses to work with “escorts” to provide some structure and services in the industry. If clients are criminalized then so effectively will be anyone who has a part in the transaction. Any normalization of prostitution will come to a grinding halt and likely be reversed.

Also, don’t underestimate the likelihood that this MP will get her bill passed. It went through in Sweden with one vote against despite the learned criticism referred to in the video above. The Conservatives need to pay off their right wing supporters and there is nothing to stop them from doing it at the cost of sex workers. The legislation doesn’t have to be consistent with the Charter or any previous court decision to serve their ends. It will be in place for years regardless of how harmful or unlawful it is and that will buy them the votes they want at the next election.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,137
44
48
Montréal
uncleg, I wasn't aware you were out of the closet.

The "John's Voice" study from SFU is a valuable resource.

It is the service providers who have the real power to undermine the prohibitionist rhetoric. Fair or not, I expect it is the sex workers rather than the clients who need to respond in some way if we are going to deal with prohibition.

I disagree that it's up to one side more than the other. Because both stereotypes are used to push the abolitionists rhetoric and manipulate public opinions on people involved on both sides prostitution. That’s what the prohibitionists count on to convince the public that they have the best and most reasonable solution and approach..

They completely invalidate sex workers who contradict their beliefs. You’ve watched the video., haven’t you? It isn’t just the Swedish abolitionists who use those excuses, the radical feminists here too make the same statements; the “we’re so victimized we don’t see it, we’re in denial and defending our abusers” (suffering from false consciousness) is a clever way to invalidate whatever we might say.

I can jump up and down and claim clients are paying for a service, not my body, not a part of my body that’s being bought or a part of my soul – as they dramatically like to imply. I can claim that I don’t feel degraded because I’m careful about avoiding clients who don’t treat me or the act/experience this way but my word, especially since I’m a confused victim, doesn’t hold an incredible amount of weight in their eyes and they are certainly not shy about implying others shouldn’t give much weight to it either.

They’ll continue to use the examples, statistics and quotes they’ve collected along the years as part of their research. We all know their “research” is biased, isn’t representative of escorts or even any indoor workers and that they chose the absolute most marginalized population of street workers and that they of course choose the most offensive examples of clients they’ve interviewed.

But it’s not about what we know, it’s about what the average person believes. The average person is already likely to imagine prostitution the way these people want them to view it. They’re likely not to make any distinction between indoor and outdoor or survival types of sex work. They’re likely to accept the way clients are portrayed because that’s probably a bias they have already and the “facts” trumpeted by the abolitionist fanatics will just “confirm” what they thought they already knew, so this makes them unlikely to question much of this.

As long as people buy that clients of sex workers are everything abusive, disgusting, degrading and violent and don’t realize that in reality clients of sex workers are the average guy of any age and ethnicity and doesn’t necessarily think he’s buying “someone” but that he truly sees it as a service from a consenting adult. As long as that’s not really clear, this misconception will be used to support the claims that we are just confused victims, that prostitution is absolutely degrading and that it is impossible to believe anyone would actually consent.

I think both of those are used in conjunction with and to support one another and that you can’t smash one alone, they both have to go or both have to stay. As long as men can be portrayed that way, abolitionists will be able to use this exact belief to invalidate what sex workers are saying. And while we can help, there’s only so much we can do because the rest is going to have to be done by men who are demonized in this rhetoric.

IMO.
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,137
44
48
Montréal
uncleg, no offence intended with the comment about you being out of the closet and congratulations on never having been in it.

I think you may be underestimating the effect that a new nordic style law would have.

The legal challenges in Ontario and BC would be seriously undermined or become meaningless and all those years of work would be lost. It would be years before a new legal challenge could start through the courts.

Susan Davis’s progress with the City of Vancouver would be lost. Presently prostitution is a legitimate occupation and this allows government at various levels and businesses to work with “escorts” to provide some structure and services in the industry. If clients are criminalized then so effectively will be anyone who has a part in the transaction. Any normalization of prostitution will come to a grinding halt and likely be reversed.

Also, don’t underestimate the likelihood that this MP will get her bill passed. It went through in Sweden with one vote against despite the learned criticism referred to in the video above. The Conservatives need to pay off their right wing supporters and there is nothing to stop them from doing it at the cost of sex workers. The legislation doesn’t have to be consistent with the Charter or any previous court decision to serve their ends. It will be in place for years regardless of how harmful or unlawful it is and that will buy them the votes they want at the next election.

I absolutely agree. It is a very real threat and totally likely. This is the case in many other countries, this model is being pushed all over the world as a success despite no evidence supporting this. These abolitionists have used (instigated) the current panic about "sex trafficking" and they're actually quiet about their agenda but they're conflating consenting prostitution of adults with "sex trafficking". They aren't openly saying it but they are actually doing this.

There is A LOT going on that most people aren't aware.

The prohibitionists are essentially a coalition between s feminist movement (radical feminism) and the religious movement getting together on the only thing they agree on, even if it's for different reasons, which is the abolition of prostitution (including strip clubs) and all forms of pornography. They're disturbingly getting pretty good and creative at finding ways to present things without making their motives known. They're incredibly creative at presenting things to people so that the solution they are pushing for seem totally reasonable and logical.

When you start digging into what's really going on, realize how it's going on all over, who the players are and how they operate, it's frightening and kind of amazing all at once. It's really fucked up and can't be ignored because they're way ahead in the game at this point and will continue to be until more people realize what's being done and by whom. Seriously, these people don't care how they get what they want and they don't let the truth or facts get in the way. Actually, they're quite fond of manipulating or fabricating facts and spreading misinformation and lies to shock people and get emotional response that are then very easy to manipulate and convince....

One thing is for sure, IF the laws are struck..this isn't the end of it, especially not if this government is still in power. It will either be full criminalization or criminalization of purchase. There is absolutely no way no how a Conservative government will accept full decriminalization, should the courts uphold last years judgement to strike those laws. Forget it, that's simply not going to happen.

Again - thank all your friend who voted for the Conservatives. lol
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,653
828
113
uncleg, no offence intended with the comment about you being out of the closet and congratulations on never having been in it.

I think you may be underestimating the effect that a new nordic style law would have.

The legal challenges in Ontario and BC would be seriously undermined or become meaningless and all those years of work would be lost. It would be years before a new legal challenge could start through the courts.

Susan Davis’s progress with the City of Vancouver would be lost. Presently prostitution is a legitimate occupation and this allows government at various levels and businesses to work with “escorts” to provide some structure and services in the industry. If clients are criminalized then so effectively will be anyone who has a part in the transaction. Any normalization of prostitution will come to a grinding halt and likely be reversed.

Also, don’t underestimate the likelihood that this MP will get her bill passed. It went through in Sweden with one vote against despite the learned criticism referred to in the video above. The Conservatives need to pay off their right wing supporters and there is nothing to stop them from doing it at the cost of sex workers. The legislation doesn’t have to be consistent with the Charter or any previous court decision to serve their ends. It will be in place for years regardless of how harmful or unlawful it is and that will buy them the votes they want at the next election.
No offence, but if you are going to hand somebody a straight line, well.........................................

I don't underestimate what this could mean, but think about it. Do you really think that any legislation that says a service is legal, but it's illegal to use it would stand a court challenge. Plus, do you really think Harper is dumb enough to risk that ? Trudeau, took the gov't out of the bedrooms of the nation, I don't think Harper is prepared to risk taking it back in. It might be popular in some circles, but I doubt that the majority of Canadians would actually support it.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,914
1
0
I absolutely agree. It is a very real threat and totally likely. This is the case in many other countries, this model is being pushed all over the world as a success despite no evidence supporting this. These abolitionists have used (instigated) the current panic about "sex trafficking" and they're actually quiet about their agenda but they're conflating consenting prostitution of adults with "sex trafficking". They aren't openly saying it but they are actually doing this.

Actually, they don't give a damn about trafficking, prostitution is their real agenda. Most of those activists are focussed on sex, but stuff like maids etc being shipped in at minimum wage or less to do their household dirty work is perfectly acceptable, even though it is much closer to human trafficking than prostitution is.
 

Webster

Member
Oct 4, 2004
316
0
16
According to a survey by Angus Reid Public Opinion, 53 per cent of Canadians support making it legal to run a bawdy house and solicit, while 24 per cent of people believe prostitution should be made a criminal act.

In B.C., 57 per cent believed the government should not block the sale of sex, while only 18 per cent supported a complete ban.
A majority of Canadians don't matter. What matters are a majority of MPs, and you don't need anything approaching a majority vote for that.
 

the old maxx50

New member
Dec 22, 2010
779
0
0
They may pass the law but it still can be challenged on constitutional ground and the bill of right and freedom ...

Having some thing legal one day and illegal the next does not work that well in Canada .. we are not living in the 1920's any more .. and courts just don't back laws because the government made them .

What is it with these politicians and others people that they have to stick their nose in my sex life .. Why is how other people fuck so important to them ..

Why are we allowing people that obviously are fuck up mentally in sexual areas of their own lives tell us what we can and can not do as two consenting adults making there own chose .
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,137
44
48
Montréal
Actually, they don't give a damn about trafficking, prostitution is their real agenda. Most of those activists are focussed on sex, but stuff like maids etc being shipped in at minimum wage or less to do their household dirty work is perfectly acceptable, even though it is much closer to human trafficking than prostitution is.
Yes, that's exactly it. They just got lucky, realized that trafficking is a perfect issue that can easily garner support (emotional response) from the masses. They are just conveniently and quietly including prostitution into it and it goes largely unchallenged.

The whole "End demand" way to "combat" trafficking is something to keep an eye out for. That applies to both trafficking and prostitution.


uncleg - you're wrong to dismiss this because this model is getting a lot of support, not just in Canada. You're over-confidence is just an indication that you aren't aware.. I had not realized any of this was going on either until a few months ago. But the more I read, the more I realize how serious it is.

I'll add some links tomorrow and you can look into it yourselves. :)




I kind of landed on this blog by coincidence so I figured I'd post part of it here since we were discussing it!



Considering how stigmatized sex workers are, and how harshly the culture at large treats prostitutes, I've found that the stigma against the clients of sex workers is far worse- being outed as a client can often ruin someone's career.

It's disturbing that a questionable "study" like "Challenging Man's Demand for Prostitution in Scotland " is being used to persuade the UK government to criminalize clients. The surveyors refused to let their survey questions be seen, and they come to drastic conclusions like that 10% of clients would rape a woman if they didn't think they'd be caught. (As my clients have been, on the whole, incredibly lovely, and because I've studied psychology and scientific studies, I find this one suspicious).

Anyway, one of the questions I get asked a lot is how I think clients can help working girls. In the light of criticism around the often-recommended Swedish Model, the consistent shutting down of propositions in the Bay Area to decriminalize sex work, and the increasingly alarming laws being considered about the criminalization of clients in the UK, I figured now was probably a good time to offer up some suggestions on how to help people in prostitution by being a decent client.

The number one thing, and the most difficult for most people, is:

-Speak out. Every time I get asked what sort of men my clients are, there's an assumption, perpetuated by the media, that clients are physically undesirable perverts who, if they weren't seeing sex workers, would be off raping women. I have not had a client yet who I believe would be a sexual predator if it wasn't for seeing me, even including that one guy. I imagine he mistreats sex workers because they're not really "women" in his mind. Not that I think that's ok, and maybe because he's a dick he would, in fact, do it otherwise... but somehow I doubt it.

Speaking out, anonymously or not, is a way of standing up to be counted, and saying, "hey, guess what, this is the face of punters". I know my clients are generally fantastic men and women (yes, women are clients too) that I enjoy spending time with. At worst, some of them are a bit boring. If every man who bought or considered buying sex work said so, the government would really have to take notice, and the anti-prostitution feminists would be speechless (granted, only for a second). Write a letter to your MP or your mayor. Write into the paper. Write a blog!

Source: Carnal Nation
 

Pillowtalk

Banned
Feb 11, 2010
1,037
3
0
Yeah, makes you wonder what these people want to do with the female clients.
 

treveller

Member
Sep 22, 2008
631
10
18
Miss B., you said "I disagree that it's up to one side more than the other."

I didn't intend to suggest that "it's up to one side more than the other". I intended to say that individual SPs have more opportunity and incentive than individual clients. I may be off base with that. At the same time I agree with you that the responsibility is shared equally.

I will read what you say about clients again when I have more time. I suspect clients and SPs need to fight the prohibitionists in different ways. Back to you on Monday.
 

Pantherdash

Panther
Apr 2, 2007
2,553
220
63
Downtown Vancouver
:doh::eyebrows::pound::pound:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mountie+docked+five+days+after+prostitute+swiped+wallet+BlackBerry/5074618/story.html

Mountie docked five days pay after prostitute swiped his wallet and BlackBerry


By Gary Dimmock, Postmedia News July 8, 2011


Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Mountie+...t+BlackBerry/5074618/story.html#ixzz1Rdx3fTSJ

In late 2009, senior RCMP officers launched an investigation to recover a constable's identification card and force-issued BlackBerry that had been stolen by a prostitute while she performed oral sex on the officer in his car.

According to RCMP files obtained by the Ottawa Citizen, Const. Shyamal Ramlu, who works in Langley, B.C., left a colleague's retirement party at 11:08 p.m. on Dec. 12, 2009 after calling Operation Red Nose because he was too drunk to drive.

But once home, Ramlu did not stay long. He got in his car and started driving around the streets of Surrey, looking for a prostitute. On the other side of midnight, he found one. She was waving at him, according to Ramlu's account, so he pulled over, and after a brief chat, she climbed in the passenger's side and performed oral sex.

It was during the act that the prostitute noticed Ramlu's BlackBerry and wallet on the console between the front seats. The street prostitute regularly stole wallets from her johns and this time was no different, she later told investigators, according to RCMP files.

Ramlu, who did not respond to a request for comment, let the prostitute out of the vehicle and returned home. When he realized his wallet and BlackBerry were missing, he called the Mounties to report them stolen. He said he suspected the prostitute.

His own report prompted senior Mounties to launch an investigation, during which they found his wallet and RCMP identification card in a drug house on Jan. 28, 2010. The RCMP BlackBerry was never recovered.

The constable's personal credit cards also had been fraudulently used between Dec. 13, 2009 and Jan. 28, 2010.

After Ramlu reported the theft to his fellow RCMP officers, he told his wife what had happened and she stood by his side.

Ramlu also told investigating Mounties that he never paid the prostitute for her services.

Ramlu was never charged for communicating for the purpose of prostitution, nor was he charged with drunk driving.

Senior Mounties acknowledged the fact that he immediately, at his own behest, gave a full account of what happened and admitted everything.

Ramlu also co-operated with the ensuing investigation, which led to the identification and arrest of the prostitute, as well as the execution of a search warrant at the drug house.

In late March 2011, the RCMP held a disciplinary hearing in Ottawa to decide Ramlu's fate.

"The board finds that a reasonable person, having the knowledge of the relevant circumstances, including the realities of policing in general and those of the RCMP in particular, would conclude that allowing a prostitute who was actively soliciting to enter your personal vehicle, participating in a sexual activity, and improperly securing RCMP property, are all disgraceful and sufficiently related to the employment situation to warrant disciplinary measures against the member," the disciplinary board ruled.

"There is a clear relationship between the conduct and the interests of the force insofar as the disgraceful conduct brings discredit upon the force. The board finds, along with Constable Ramlu's admission, that the allegation has been established," the board ruled in late March 2011.

"Constable Ramlu acknowledged his mistake and that he has taken responsibility for his actions," the ruling said.

The RCMP penalized the officer by docking him five days pay.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Mountie+...t+BlackBerry/5074618/story.html#ixzz1RdxKA322
 

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,137
44
48
Montréal


A response to the article about the criminalization of men/clients/demand in the Vancouver Sun today:



Liberal-and radical-feminist views on prostitution differ

By John Lowman, Vancouver Sun July 15, 2011



Re: Backbench MP aims to abolish sex trade, Column, July 6

If Daphne Bramham wants to take pot shots at critics of the Nordic model of prostitution prohibition, she might at least quote them correctly.

In an opinion piece published in The Vancouver Sun Oct. 10, 2010, I described the Nordic model, which criminalizes the purchase of sex but not its sale, as "radical-feminist" not "liberal-feminist."

Does this broad distinction matter? Yes, it does. It loosely describes the two main feminist positions on prostitution law reform now being voiced in Canada and worldwide.

The radical-feminist position holds that prostitution constitutes male violence against women; no woman would choose to prostitute if she really had choices; for women to gain equality, prostitution must be abolished; criminalizing male demand for sex purchase facilitates that goal.

The liberal-feminist perspective holds that consenting adult prostitution is a form of work; women cannot gain equality until they have free choice, including the choice to prostitute.

As the terms "radical" and "liberal" are commonly used internationally to describe different feminisms, it is not clear why Bramham considers them to be "derisive."

John Lowman, Professor, SFU School of Criminology

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technol...ution+differ/5107019/story.html#ixzz1SCLJqCgJ



What does mixing the sex trafficking hysteria, radical feminism and the usual religious authorities influence look like? The take-down of Craigslist erotic services was one example. Now we have another that goes even farther - apparently these people think prostitution and sex trafficking just stops if they can't advertise on the net or in papers.

It would seem like the thought that they might simply just be pushing people on to the street and making them harder to find - not to mention in riskier situations - hasn't even crossed their mind. Isn't that strange? Very intelligent people apparently convinced that all it takes is something as simple as removing ways to advertise:




Argentine president decrees ban on media sex ads

By: MICHAEL WARREN | Associated Press | 07/14/11 3:23 PM

Argentina's government is banning prostitution ads in newspapers and other mass media as of Friday, saying it is combatting violence against women.

The ban decreed by President Cristina Fernandez drew strong praise from women's groups and the U.S. ambassador, who has made reducing sex trafficking a key goal of her tenure in Argentina.

But some of the president's opponents fear it may be used to punish opposition media this election year by removing an independent source of revenue for an industry that in many cases depends on official advertising, a flow of revenue that press freedom groups say has been unequally directed toward the government's supporters.

The decree bans any written messages or images that "promote the exploitation of women," including those that "abuse, defame, discriminate, dishonor, humiliate or threaten the dignity of women." Also outlawed are overtly pornographic messages and images of women, children and girls, which the president said serve to legitimize unequal treatment and violence against women.

U.S. Ambassador Vilma Martinez wrote an open letter to Fernandez praising her fight against trafficking in women and girls. "Many countries will appreciate seeing the effects that this decree will bring in the fight against this crime," Martinez said.

For the rest of this article, click here.


But as is very clear in this example, once everyone's good and scared about the sex trafficking panic, distinctions are no longer made at all between consenting adults in prostitution and sex trafficking of adults and minors.

Unless forced to make one, the anti-prostitution advocates here will happily include prostitution under the term and laws of sex trafficking. This article makes that absolutely clear to anyone who had any doubts:
 

Man Mountain

Too Old To Die Young
Oct 29, 2006
3,852
29
0
Vancouver
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Backbench+Smith+aims+abolish+trade/5055
416/story.html


Backbench MP Joy Smith aims to abolish sex trade

Joy Smith has already had one private bill become law. She is aiming to
do it again with a bill to make criminals out of those who pay for sex

By Daphne Bramham, Vancouver Sun July 5, 2011 Comments (1)

Joy Smith is that rare, backbench member of Parliament whose private
bill was not only debated, but became law.

Rarer still is the fact that Smith, a Conservative from Winnipeg, is on
track to do it again.

Because of her efforts and her first bill, Canada has mandatory minimum
sentences for human traffickers whose victims are children.

Her new bill, which will be on the order paper for the fall session,
proposes to rewrite Canada`s prostitution laws. It would make criminals
out of people who buy sex, but prostitutes would not be criminalized.
"It [the bill] will target the market, plain and simple," she said in a
telephone interview from Winnipeg. "We need laws that make people
responsible for buying and selling children."

However, Smith quickly noted that the bill is not directed only at those
who buy and sell children for sex, but will target all buyers and pimps.

(Currently, prostitution is legal but it is illegal to communicate for
the purposes of buying or selling sex, running a brothel or live off the
avails of prostitution.)

If it weren`t for the fact that a lottery determines which of the
hundreds of private members` are debated, one might conclude Smith`s
bill is the government`s stalking horse - a draft of the law it will
introduce if the Ontario Court of Appeal agrees that three key sections
of the prostitution laws are unconstitutional.

But it`s fair to say that the Conservative government got lucky when
Smith pulled number four in the lottery because reforming the
prostitution laws is difficult, as a parliamentary committee found out
in 2005.

Among the few things its members agreed on is that the status quo isn`t
working.

Since then, the decriminalization/legalization lobby has strengthened,
hardening its position that prostitution is both a career choice and a
legitimate business.

Among the lobbyists are: Vancouver East MP Libby Davies; the dominatrix
and two sex-trade workers who went to court in Ontario; and the Downtown
Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Pivot Legal
Society, which have a similar case set to be heard in B.C. Supreme
Court.

They argue that decriminalization/legalization is a form of harm
reduction that won`t lead to an expansion of the country`s sex industry
even though that contradicts the experience of countries and states
where more brothels, more prostitution and more human trafficking have
resulted following legalization.

"Libby Davies considers it [prostitution] an industry. I consider it a
crime," said Smith, noting that Davies also voted against the child
trafficking bill even though the majority of New Democrats, including
leader Jack Layton, voted for it.

Smith sees her bill as a first step toward abolishing the sex trade and
an incentive to work with the provinces to establish a version of the
so-called "Nordic model." The Nordic model involves a public education
program aimed at making it socially unacceptable to buy any sexual
services and provision of a wide range of social services including
housing, education, detox and income support to address the reality that
poverty and desperation often drives women and children into the sex
trade.

Smith said Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson
and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews support her bill. But she`s going
to be doing the heavy lifting in the House of Commons, not the ministers
and not the government.

Smith`s and Harper`s government will likely to be accused of bowing to
pressure from religious groups, groups such as the Canadian Federation
of University Women and organizations such as Resist Exploitation
Embrace Dignity, which Simon Fraser University criminologist and
legalizer John Lowman has derisively called "liberal feminists."

A coalition of seven women`s groups argued before the Ontario Court of
Appeal argued that criminalization of prostitution is justified on the
grounds of civil liberties and human rights.

The coalition - which includes the Native Women`s Association of Canada
and the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres - argued that
under international human rights laws, Canada is obliged to assist and
protect prostituted persons. Further, it said the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees liberty and security of person to everyone, but what
it does not do is "guarantee men a right to the prostitution of women or
a right to profit from the prostitution of others."

It went on to say, "The danger to women`s security is a function not of
the laws constraining prostitution, but of the actions of men who demand
the sale of women`s bodies ... It would be illogical and contrary to the
principles of fundamental justice to decriminalize men`s prostitution of
women in order to protect women from those same men."

Smith`s bill is still being written with the help of both government and
private-sector lawyers. But she`s adamant that it will stand any
constitutional challenge: "We are taking meticulous care," she said.

Still, Smith will need all of that, a broad spectrum of support and
maybe even more in order to get this bill enacted into law.

dbramham@vancouversun.com
I guess we just need to find a way to make Backbench MP Joy Smith aware of the angus reid poll results that alinburnaby posted here:

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...Prostitution&p=1176118&viewfull=1#post1176118
 

bcneil

I am from BC
Aug 24, 2007
2,097
0
0
Vancouver Escorts