Legalizing Prostitution in Canada

[jjinvan]

Since I was asked to comment on this...

The Conservative members agree that the status quo with respect to the enforcement of laws is unacceptable

I agree, after all, taking away cars for cruising is clearly in violation of the proposed charter protections to property rights that the Cons are pushing for.

The Conservatives are also deeply concerned about evidence from other countries that links decriminalization to an increase in both adult and child prostitution, and to a stronger control over prostitution by organized crime.

Wouldn't anyone be concerned about something like that? Don't we all agree that child prostitution and control over prostitution by organized crime are bad things?

The Conservatives therefore call for legal and social reforms which would reduce all prostitution through criminal sanctions that clearly target abusers (johns and pimps), and improve the ability of those engaged in prostitution — the victims — to quit.

Ok, for the first part, if anyone is abusing prostitutes, shouldn't they be targeted by law enforcement? Shouldn't anyone who is abusing other human beings be prevented from doing so? They don't say that they are going after all Johns and/or pimps, just those who are abusing the girls.

For the second part, does anyone disagree that if a girl WANTS to stop being a prostitute and is being victimized, giving her the ability to quit is a good thing. Note that it doesn't say 'forcing' them to quit, it says 'giving them the ability to quit' which implies that they want to. I'm sure there are some girls who want to quit and could use some help with quitting (like help with tuition or drug rehab or whatever).

They propose a new approach to criminal justice in which the perpetrators of crime would fund, through heavy fines, the rehabilitation and support of the victims they create.

Doesn't that make fundamental sense? The thing is, if you aren't 'creating any victims' then it's all good. Should drug pushers money be used to set up rehab spots? Sure. Sounds like a good plan to me. Should car thieves assets be siezed and used to reduce insurance premiums? Again, sounds like a good plan to me.

As for the prostitutes themselves, the Conservatives recommend a system in which first-time offenders and those forced or coerced into the lifestyle are assisted out of it, and avoid a criminal record.

Can anyone find a problem with this? Haven't we all agreed on previous threads that anyone forced or coerced into being a prostitute should have help getting out of it and shouldn't be penalized with a criminal record?

However, those who freely seek to benefit from the “business” of prostitution would be held accountable for the victimization which results from prostitution as a whole.

Again, if they can find some victims, shouldn't those who are victimizing them be held accountable?

Heck, why not legalize it and put a 'sex tax' on it and then use that money to help the girls who actually are 'victims', ie: the drug addicts or girls who are beaten up by pimps or held against their will and raped, etc..

Same as booze tax should be used to fund things like victims of drunk drivers instead of being used for sponsorship funding in little brown envelopes.

To address the problem of the two-tiered sex trade, these members emphasize that law enforcement must deal equally and consistently with all forms of prostitution, whether it be found on the street, in escort services, massage parlours, bawdy houses, or other locations.

Again, shouldn't it be equal and consistant? Why should one group be discriminated against or targeted?

So, it's all in how you read it

Does it say ANYWHERE that they are in favour of bothering consenting adults who aren't victimizing or abusing anyone? Nope.

Does it say ANYWHERE anything about forcing or pressuring girls who are HAPPY being prostitutes to stop? Nope.

 

[jjinvan]

LOL...I am too young to have even seen Hogan's Hero's but I have heard about it.

It's still on, on DejaView and TVLand. It also just came out on DVD (up to season 5).

Always loved that show.

 

[OTBn]

yes! Just trust Art Hanger… just trust Steven Harper – cause you know Harper doesn’t hold to any of his ole Alliance positions. There’s a reason for the prominence of the phrase “Religious Right”…

The Conservative members agree that the status quo with respect to the enforcement of laws is unacceptable

I agree, after all, taking away cars for cruising is clearly in violation of the proposed charter protections to property rights that the Cons are pushing for.

Are you sure the timing of this report lines up with the new car seizing initiatives – LOL – that’s what you want to hang your hat on in regards the “enforcement of laws being unacceptable?” And you’re stating Conservative governments are against car seizures?

The Conservatives therefore call for legal and social reforms which would reduce all prostitution through criminal sanctions that clearly target abusers (johns and pimps), and improve the ability of those engaged in prostitution — the victims — to quit.

Ok, for the first part, if anyone is abusing prostitutes, shouldn't they be targeted by law enforcement? Shouldn't anyone who is abusing other human beings be prevented from doing so? They don't say that they are going after all Johns and/or pimps, just those who are abusing the girls.

For the second part, does anyone disagree that if a girl WANTS to stop being a prostitute and is being victimized, giving her the ability to quit is a good thing. Note that it doesn't say 'forcing' them to quit, it says 'giving them the ability to quit' which implies that they want to. I'm sure there are some girls who want to quit and could use some help with quitting (like help with tuition or drug rehab or whatever).

Yes, it is, as you say, “all in how you read it”. Ya see… that abusing johns reference has nothing to do with abusing in the cruelty/mistreatment sense – that abusing johns reference carries with it a broad sweeping association… within “The Conservative Approach”, it really means/implies that if you are a john, you are an abuser.

They propose a new approach to criminal justice in which the perpetrators of crime would fund, through heavy fines, the rehabilitation and support of the victims they create

Doesn't that make fundamental sense? The thing is, if you aren't 'creating any victims' then it's all good. Should drug pushers money be used to set up rehab spots? Sure. Sounds like a good plan to me. Should car thieves assets be siezed and used to reduce insurance premiums? Again, sounds like a good plan to me.

Again, it is, as you say, “all in how you read it”… or in your case how you selectively apply it. Within “The Conservative Approach”, the perpetrators of crime include johns, in general.

As for the prostitutes themselves, the Conservatives recommend a system in which first-time offenders and those forced or coerced into the lifestyle are assisted out of it, and avoid a criminal record.

Can anyone find a problem with this? Haven't we all agreed on previous threads that anyone forced or coerced into being a prostitute should have help getting out of it and shouldn't be penalized with a criminal record?

And what of those prostitutes not forced, not coerced… but first time offenders?

However, those who freely seek to benefit from the “business” of prostitution would be held accountable for the victimization which results from prostitution as a whole.

Again, if they can find some victims, shouldn't those who are victimizing them be held accountable?

Heck, why not legalize it and put a 'sex tax' on it and then use that money to help the girls who actually are 'victims', ie: the drug addicts or girls who are beaten up by pimps or held against their will and raped, etc..

Same as booze tax should be used to fund things like victims of drunk drivers instead of being used for sponsorship funding in little brown envelopes.

In your interpretation you prefer to negate, to ignore, the prostitutes who freely seek to benefit from the “business” of prostitution… that they would not be “held accountable”.

To address the problem of the two-tiered sex trade, these members emphasize that law enforcement must deal equally and consistently with all forms of prostitution, whether it be found on the street, in escort services, massage parlours, bawdy houses, or other locations.

Again, shouldn't it be equal and consistant? Why should one group be discriminated against or targeted?

Yeesh! They’re an equal opportunity discriminator. So… the street vigilance/focus of the past ramps up under “The Conservative Approach” to include an increased (an equal) emphasis being applied on independents, MP/AMP, escort services…..

So, it's all in how you read it

Yes, it really is. You have a trust in Art Hanger and Steven Harper – I do not.

 

[joe perry]

LOL...I am too young to have even seen Hogan's Hero's but I have heard about it.

Regarding your comments, despite the right-wing (Republicans) not being in power, the US is still significantly dominated by the Religious Right-Wing. To discount their power in the US is a mistake. You can bet your last dollar the US will strongly resist Canada legalizing prositition, no matter how much good sense it makes.

The US would be better off and could provide the world moral, social, technological, economic leadership by separating government from religion. I know that the US constitution states the separation of Church and State but in reality the US has become almost a Christian State due to the influence of the "Christian" religious right-wing.

It is nearly impossible for someone who is not Christian to be elected to a top government position in the US (rarely a Jew, Muslim or others). I was raised as Christian but no longer associate with organized religion due to its negative impact on humanity.

Almost all of the people I have spoken with are tired of religion; that is all religions. We have become tired of my God is better than your God. We have become tired of I will die in the name of God. We are tired of organized religions getting rich and powerful while we still have overwhelming poverty and injustice. Perhaps one day, we can "just get along" and, leave our fears that are associated with religion behind us.

Personally I believe that the government should not be involved in adults personal affairs. Private, non public, time spent between adults is personal. It is a private matter, period.

reminds me of my old friend roger and what he has to say

"America, America, please hear us when we call
You got hip-hop, be-bop, hustle and bustle
You got Atticus Finch
You got Jane Russell
You got freedom of speech
You got great beaches, wildernesses and malls
Don't let the might, the Christian right, fuck it all up
For you and the rest of the world"

 

[jjinvan]

And you’re stating Conservative governments are against car seizures?

Have you actually read anything on the whole 'property rights' amendment they want to put in the charter and what it means? Why don't you go do that and then see if you still think that car seizures would be possible if the Cons got one of the things they are most in favour of.

within “The Conservative Approach”, it really means/implies that if you are a john, you are an abuser.

Where exactly does it say that? Why not just say 'Johns'? Why use the word 'abuser' at all then?

Within “The Conservative Approach”, the perpetrators of crime include johns, in general.

And where does it say that?

And what of those prostitutes not forced, not coerced… but first time offenders?

Are you saying that those girls SHOULD be given criminal records, and/or shouldn't be given access to programs designed to make it easier for them (if they so choose) to persue alternate employment? Maybe SOME (not all, but some) of those first time offenders felt desperate and that they had no other choice, offering them a choice might be something they would appreciate and take advantage of.

Yeesh! They’re an equal opportunity discriminator. So… the street vigilance/focus of the past ramps up under “The Conservative Approach” to include an increased (an equal) emphasis being applied on independents, MP/AMP, escort services…..

And where exactly does it say 'increased' or 'ramped up' ? Do you disagree with the idea that the same standards should be applied to all forms? Are you in favour of selective prosecution?

Yes, it really is. You have a trust in Art Hanger and Steven Harper – I do not.

You place more trust in Paul Martin and his brown envelope wielding buddies?

Are you lefties still counting on the 'make people afraid of Harper' approach? Maybe it's because the liberals can't point to very many accomplishments or positive things that they've done in the past decade or so. It'll be very interesting to watch them try to campaign on an environmental platform given that greenhouse gas emissions in Canada increased MORE on a per day basis when they were in power than they have while the Cons have been in power... And guess who was the environment minister when they were at their sharpest rate of increase? And you trust THAT GUY?? geez...

 

[jjinvan]

Jinvan,

It is not IF they can find victims, the Parliament will find the victims by declaring all sex workers to be victims. Case closed. The way that it works is this: The evidence of social ills is adopted as a finding of Parliament in some new law. That finding supports a statement of purpose and a new social policy. The courts are then required to apply the new law so as to carry out the new social policy. The sex worker gets arrested. She is offered a choice, either a) spend six months in jail or b) enroll in some program to help her leave her life as a sex worker. She elects b). She then becomes a statistic of another sex worker who has been "helped". She will NOT be asked whether she was working of her own free will or was forced into it. The john will NOT be asked whether he was a model pooner or a vicious pimp. Evidence on a personal level is irrelevant after passage of the law. So, hell yes, I have problems with all of the above and we all should. Also, look at Recommendations 4 and 7 re education. No education offered to sex workers, cops, judges, etc to help the women who have chosen to enter sex work. Only education to exit. The Conservatives are openly hostile and will waste no time on freedom of choice.

Uh.. last time I looked we aren't living in a totalitarian dictatorship.

Also you contradict yourself. First you say that they will make all the SPs 'victims' by law, then you say they will arrest them all. Hmm.. how exactly do you arrest a legally defined victim of a crime?

Also, if you legally define the SP as the victim, then guess what? You can't charge anyone without a formal complaint being filed and signed by the victim. That's actually one of the HUGE problems with the way our legal system works when it comes to things like wife beaters. If the wife won't file a formal complaint the guy can't be charged. So unless the SP is underage, dead or declared incompetent (in which case the formal complaint can be filed on her behalf) defining the SP legally as the victim would have the effect of decriminalizing prostitution because you can't arrest the victim and you can't arrest the pooner without a complaint. So, unless the pooner is abusive, the SP isn't going to file a complaint. Now, don't get me wrong, I do NOT agree that they will do this, it was YOUR premise.

The reason they can arrest people under the current solicitation laws is because it is defined legally as a victimless crime, and charges are filed under direction of the crown.

Oh but I forgot, in your fear-mongering world victims are locked up and tortured until they agree to sign whatever paper is put in front of them, right? And if they don't, then they just 'disappear'. After all, Harper is really Pinochet in disguise, after lots of plastic surgery and faking his death right?

Again, you are arguing that what they will actually do is completely different from what they are saying, because you can't find an actual problem with what they are saying.

Of course, we all heard for several months from the fear mongers like yourself how Harper would ban abortion. Funny thing is, last time I saw the topic of abortion hasn't even come up once in the government and nothing at all is in the works to change its current legal status.

The Cons say that they will increase police funding to put more officers on the streets to make things safer from gang violence and you lefties run TV Ads saying "Harper is going to put People With Guns... In the streets!!! Everyone needs to be scared!!!"

So yes, it IS all in how you read it. They can be 'police officers dealing with violent gangs' or they can be "People With Guns!! In the Streets!!"

It can be an acorn falling from a tree and hitting you on the head, or it can be "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

Maybe they should find the guy who made Reefer Madness and hire him to make the liberal ad campaign for the next election.

You folks are all so busy making up reasons to be scared of Harper that you aren't paying attention to anything he is actually doing.

 

[HankQuinlan]

You folks are all so busy making up reasons to be scared of Harper that you aren't paying attention to anything he is actually doing.

I'm paying attention to what he IS: Fundamentalist Christian. Shares NONE of my world view. Shutting down valuable inititiatives such as safe injection sites because they can't "prove" it is helping, and emphasizing the legal enforcent of drug laws --- despite plenty of proof that it doesn't work ---is just one example.


As for what he has done: Campaigning to join George Bush in Iraq. I am so glad Chretien was still in power during that one. This was such an egregious error in judgement that I would never trust Harper on anything important ever.

 

[jjinvan]

I'm paying attention to what he IS: Fundamentalist Christian. Shares NONE of my world view. Shutting down valuable inititiatives such as safe injection sites because they can't "prove" it is helping, and emphasizing the legal enforcent of drug laws --- despite plenty of proof that it doesn't work ---is just one example.

You are aware that the official position of the CMA is that "Safe Injection Sites" are not a good idea, right? Must be their religious backgrounds over-riding their medical and scientific knowledge I guess?

Also, there are more studies showing that they hurt than there are showing that they help, so, yes it makes sense to shut them down if they cannot provide evidence that somehow they are different from those that have been tried in the past and proven to be more harmful than helpful.

Also, last time I looked the Cons have increased funding for re-hab programs for drug addicts. Isn't that a good way to approach the problem?

 

[HankQuinlan]

You are aware that the official position of the CMA is that "Safe Injection Sites" are not a good idea, right? Must be their religious backgrounds over-riding their medical and scientific knowledge I guess?

Also, there are more studies showing that they hurt than there are showing that they help, so, yes it makes sense to shut them down if they cannot provide evidence that somehow they are different from those that have been tried in the past and proven to be more harmful than helpful.

Also, last time I looked the Cons have increased funding for re-hab programs for drug addicts. Isn't that a good way to approach the problem?

And the drug laws have not been proven to be more harmful than helpful?

When I see that they are actually putting more money into rehab than into jailing junkies, I'll actually start to reconsider my opinions.

When they start legalizing pot and prostitution, I'll start seeing them as all cuddly.

And the CMA is full of shit on that one. A reference to some studies that aren't from some Fraser Institute right-wing-type place would be helpful.

 

[john23]

Don't legalize it, decriminalize it instead. Legalization paves the way for government regulation of such things as health checkups, permitted areas where prostitution can occur, etc. ...

I wouldn't necessarily agree. From what I've seen the employers of sex workers really need to smarten up. Regulation is pretty much the only way it will happen IMO.

EG you should not have to pay $35 bucks to go to work and then wind up standing up for 8 hours because they can't be bothered to provide chairs. One place, a very well known massage parlor, even turned off the heat in December according to one person I saw a while back.

The other area that needs to be explicit in any legislation is that a worker should not be denied benefits because they choose not to do sex work. That's very clear in the NZ legislation. (The text of the act . A FAQ)

 

[jjinvan]

And the CMA is full of shit on that one. A reference to some studies that aren't from some Fraser Institute right-wing-type place would be helpful.

Actually most of the studies were done in European countries that tried out 'Safe Injection Sites' in the past.

But, the argument given by those in favour of the site here is that "Canada is different, this site will be positive even though previous sites in Europe proved to be negative". The government's response at the time (liberal government) was "Ok, we'll give you a limited time to prove it". Now that limited time has run out and they haven't proved it, so the cons said they wouldn't renew the licence.

So, yes, they are shutting it down because there was no proof it was beneficial. But, if you don't know the context, don't make assumptions about what that means.

Suppose we still had a liberal government, would they just forget their initial deal and say "Oh, ok, you didn't hold up your end of the deal but we'll renew you anyway"? Probably.. that's why I call them 'useless leftie governments'

 

[jjinvan]

When I see that they are actually putting more money into rehab than into jailing junkies, I'll actually start to reconsider my opinions.

Well, they've put more money into rehab and haven't made any changes to posession laws or sentences or enforcement.

So, technically, they're doing better than the liberals were in the ratio of rehab to jail for junkies.

Of course, if a junkie beats someone up and robs them and goes to jail for that, you can't say that they put them in jail because they were a junkie... Same goes for stealing cars, breaking and entering, etc etc...

 

[jjinvan]

No contradictions at all. You've confused a legislative declaration of policy about victimized persons with a crime victim. The Parliament is not bound by logic or evidence. I raised this point because it is an aspect of law making that had been completely missed in this thread. And that is the declaring of a status as illegal. Once that happens, it goes way beyond "how you read it". It criminalizes the status and destroys that freedom. An example is the recent amp busts. People arrested, booked, and risking a criminal conviction for lawful behavior, BUT the lawful behavior was taking place in a location that carried a status as a bawdy house. Nothing else was illegal, but the status of a building. And the status was not determined in a public lawsuit in which the owner could participate. No, the police just impose the status with no prior warning. That is a loss of freedom, plain and simple. It is used by the government to victimize those people inside so as to drive them from a lawful occupation just because some administration doesn't like it. And HankQuinlan is right. It has nothing to do with noble goals articulated in the Report on prostitution, it is based only upon fundamentalist religion.

Again you contradict yourself. You say that there was no opportunity to argue the status in court, and then you say that they are risking criminal conviction. Guess what? If the main keystone of that criminal conviction rests with the status of the location, do you think their defence lawyers wouldn't argue it? Uh.. 'duh' ?

Also, the AMP busts had to do with the cluelessness of the police as to the difference between a micro with abducted slaves working in it and a public licenced AMP where all the girls are legally in the country and working willingly.

Once it was determined that they had busted the wrong places, everyone was sent home and if I recall what I read correctly, not one criminal charge was laid.

So, yep, the cops made a 'boo boo' with good intentions. It had NOTHING to do with religion.

 

[buddha2]

I succeeded in stirring the pot on this beyond my dreams. Here's another stir for "jjinvan" and all his wilfully blind fellow travelers:

Faith without reason is mere superstition

Let the fun begin!

 

[jjinvan]

Court appearances are set for March 8th.

I found about a dozen news stories that all said "No charges were laid by police and everyone was released"

I didn't find any references to charges being laid or any court appearances happening, would you care to provide them?

 

[jjinvan]

I succeeded in stirring the pot on this beyond my dreams. Here's another stir for "jjinvan" and all his wilfully blind fellow travelers:

Faith without reason is mere superstition

Let the fun begin!

??

I'm supposed to care about that statement in some way?

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

"...how you read it"? How delusional does someone have to be to read that report and rationalize it into thinking anything except the Conservatives want to crack down on the entire sex trade? They disagree with the recommendations of the other parties, and think we should be sent to prison.

And the raids were a "boo boo"?.. More like a contrived PR exercise carried out so John Les and Stockwell Day could claim they are leading the fight against the sex trade.

The police and the courts presently do not have to prove there was anything other than consenting adults involved in paying for sex when they target an incall or MP for a bawdy-house charge. The fact that the law is enforced in such a sparing and selective way simply invites police corruption, a fact the report ignored, even though it was a major factor that led to decriminalization in Australia.

It's annoying how willing some are to believe the fear mongering of ex-cop Art Hanger and the other moralist religious zealots saying that decriminalization must have some horrible effect. Hanger referred to false proclamations about Australia used by a ridiculous puritanical group during their unsuccessful advertising campaign against decriminalization in New Zealand. The New Zealand government's committee found the group's supposed statistics and studies did not exist, and were actually disproved by real studies, but you wouldn't know that here since no one looked into it.