bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) The problem is that these sorts of laws drive the problem underground. Rather than fix the hole in the wall, the Conservatives' legislation merely hangs a picture over it. I get it; in fact, I suspect the sex-workers' advocates would agree. Like I said, I'd be interested to hear them. Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) I get it; in fact, I suspect the sex-workers' advocates would agree. Like I said, I'd be interested to hear them. The same arguments are being made for the legalization of prostitution. If they are going to be prostitutes it's better to have the business regulated so we know who they are, where they operate. It would be safer for them this way. Safer for the johns because they would be mandated to get std testing. I think the johns should be mandated to get std tested as well before they engage a prostitute. Edited June 13, 2012 by Anti-Am Quote
Moonbox Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 It doesn't eliminate anything genius. They will just be smuggled into the country illegally now. And then you will have undocumented strippers in Canada which will create more problems for law enforcement. But you seem to have it all figured out. You win for the dumbest post in the thread so far. Frankly, your logic sucks. Sure, some women will be smuggled into the country. That's a matter for the Coast Guard, Customs, Immigration etc to sort out. That doesn't mean, however, that it won't seriously curtail the operations of criminal exploiters. If they have to pay to smuggle women into the country, it'll cost them a ton of money to do it, put them at risk and make it very hard for them to pretend they're running legitimate and legal business. It'll make it much easier to prosecute the EMPLOYERS as a result. The argument that we shouldn't de-legitimize something simply because criminals will break the law and get around it is beyond stupid. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
CPCFTW Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 How is my logic arguing about making children the criminals? Please be specific... He's saying that strippers (the "victims") being here without work visas will be criminalized. Yes it will be illegal to come to Canada to strip. The women who still choose to accept being illegally smuggled into Canada so that they can illegally strip, are not victims. They made a decision to illegally break intto our country to take off their clothes for money. The victims here would be the women coming to legally strip and then being exploited for sex. Since there would no longer be a means to come to Canada legally to strip, there would be no more victims. Only women who chose a life of crime and got in too deep. A better analogy might be a cocaine dealer who came from Columbia to Canada to illegally sell cocaine because the profit margins are higher. They may be more likely to be a "victim" of violent crime in Canada with drugs being criminalized, but that isn't a reason to make cocaine legal and hand out work visas to columbian drug dealers. Logically, Columbian drug dealers do not seek out employment in illegal drug trade within Canada because they are much more likely to be caught than in Columbia. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 The same arguments are being made for the legalization of prostitution. If they are going to be prostitutes it's better to have the business regulated so we know who they are, where they operate. It would be safer for them this way. Safer for the johns because they would be mandated to get std testing. I think the johns should be mandated to get std tested as well before they engage a prostitute. It's actually not better to regulate the industry because then women interested in maintaining discretion will still be forced to work underground. It's better to just completely decriminalize it. Quote
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) You win for the dumbest post in the thread so far. Frankly, your logic sucks. Sure, some women will be smuggled into the country. That's a matter for the Coast Guard, Customs, Immigration etc to sort out. That doesn't mean, however, that it won't seriously curtail the operations of criminal exploiters. If they have to pay to smuggle women into the country, it'll cost them a ton of money to do it, put them at risk and make it very hard for them to pretend they're running legitimate and legal business. It'll make it much easier to prosecute the EMPLOYERS as a result. The argument that we shouldn't de-legitimize something simply because criminals will break the law and get around it is beyond stupid. You are making the assumption that strip clubs are escort services. In the criminal world strip clubs are commonly used to launder money. They aren't going to run a prostitution ring out of the place that they launder money. The heads of criminal organizations are businessmen and are not that stupid. Edited June 13, 2012 by Anti-Am Quote
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 It's actually not better to regulate the industry because then women interested in maintaining discretion will still be forced to work underground. It's better to just completely decriminalize it. I can agree with that. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 The argument that we shouldn't de-legitimize something simply because criminals will break the law and get around it is beyond stupid. The argument is to make laws that actually protect the victims, rather than laws that make it harder to protect victims. Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 It's actually not better to regulate the industry because then women interested in maintaining discretion will still be forced to work underground. It's better to just completely decriminalize it. Weak. Prostitutes and strippers who want to break the law to maintain "discretion" are no longer victims. If I was convicted of rape then lied on a job application asking if I was ever convicted of a felony, I'm not a victim for lying to maintain "discretion". There's a stigma attached to working in those industries. If the women are not comfortable with that stigma, then they should look elsewhere for employment, not break the law and "work underground". But of course, women are always the victim in your eyes. Quote
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Reality is not black and white CPCFTW. And not all strippers and prostitutes are women. Men are strippers and prostitutes too. They might have had an abusive childhood. An unfortunate turn of events may have led them to become a stripper or prostitute. And here you are blaming the victims for their unfortunate circumstances. It is obvious you do not understand and never will understand the reality of this world. Edited June 13, 2012 by Anti-Am Quote
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) CPCFTW, I don't usually respond to your posts because they're just awful. This one takes the cake though. What kind of disgusting human being condones rape, assault, and murder simply because these women commit a victimless crime by engaging in a business the state deems illegal? A crime, mind you, that wouldn't be illegal if those same women went to the bar every weekend instead and fucked random strangers after they buy her drinks all night long. Who a woman sleeps with and for what reason are none of your damn business. That you would condone violence against women because the state has declared that their reasons for having sex with these men is illegal is nothing if not completely reprehensible. Edited June 13, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Moonbox Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) You are making the assumption that strip clubs are escort services. In the criminal world strip clubs are commonly used to launder money. They aren't going to run a prostitution ring out of the place that they launder money. The heads of criminal organizations are businessmen and are not that stupid. How many more dumb things are you going to say? Strip clubs are just money laundering fronts? The fact that money needs to be laundered in the first place is indicative that there are illegal activities going on in the background. Criminal organizations generally don't restrict themselves to one type of activity. Often they're amalgamations of all sorts of different enterprises. Drugs and prostitution are two of the most common. Don't be daft. The argument is to make laws that actually protect the victims, rather than laws that make it harder to protect victims. Not allowing highly likely future victims to make themselves vulnerable in Canada IS protecting victims. The whole point of the law is to prevent them from landing in a bad situation. You clowns have taken the extraordinary position that not allowing them easy entry into the country somehow MAKES them into victims, which is ridiculous. If we're preventing women (currently not being exploited) from putting themselves in positions where they're very likely to be exploited, that's not victimizing them. If we're forcing criminal organizations to smuggle women into the country for the purpose of exploiting them, we're not making the situation worse than it already was. Edited June 13, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 How many more dumb things are you going to say? Strip clubs are just money laundering fronts? The fact that money needs to be laundered in the first place is indicative that there are illegal activities going on in the background. Criminal organizations generally don't restrict themselves to one type of activity. Often they're amalgamations of all sorts of different enterprises. Drugs and prostitution are two of the most common. Don't be daft. The most common money laundering front is a strip club, yes. You seem to really hate everything that is criminal. As if its bad because it is illegal. Law enforcement allow illicit activities to go on for a number of reasons. Biggest reason being they need eyes and ears on street level. Instead of throwing everyone in prison they use them for information, willingly & unwillingly. Most pedal drugs, yes. Not all are in prostitution. Prostitution is very risky these days. Smuggling stolen guns & goods, yes. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Weak. Prostitutes and strippers who want to break the law to maintain "discretion" are no longer victims. If I was convicted of rape then lied on a job application asking if I was ever convicted of a felony, I'm not a victim for lying to maintain "discretion". Christ. First you use the analogy of "strippers = cocaine dealers," and now you analogize them with rapists. As you say: "Weak." Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Moonbox Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) The most common money laundering front is a strip club, yes. The most common reasons for needing to launder money are prostitution and drugs. Instead of throwing everyone in prison they use them for information, willingly & unwillingly. Most pedal drugs, yes. Not all are in prostitution. Prostitution is very risky these days. Smuggling stolen guns & goods, yes. Except sexual exploitation is not really a petty crime at all. In a lot of cases it's more like slavery. It doesn't seem like you were really get at anything with this point, however. Now you're just nattering for the sake of it. Christ. First you use the analogy of "strippers = cocaine dealers," and now you analogize them with rapists. As you say: "Weak." I'll agree with that. It's unfortunate being on the same side of an argument as CPCFTW. He tends to dumb things down pretty hard. Edited June 13, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
CPCFTW Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 CPCFTW, I don't usually respond to your posts because they're just awful. This one takes the cake though. What kind of disgusting human being condones rape, assault, and murder simply because these women commit a victimless crime by engaging in a business the state deems illegal? A crime, mind you, that wouldn't be illegal if those same women went to the bar every weekend instead and fucked random strangers after they buy her drinks all night long. Who a woman sleeps with and for what reason are none of your damn business. That you would condone violence against women because the state has declared that their reasons for having sex with these men is illegal is nothing if not completely reprehensible. No you usually don't respond to me because you decided I was a "troll" for having a completely different opinion than you and expressing that opinion in a compelling, albeit frequently rude manner. I won't bother responding to your strawman arguments in this case anymore. We both know I never condoned violence against women, but you need to attack this "opinion" of mine to distract from your obvious hate-on for anything the cpc does. If anything, you are condoning violence against women by wanting to let criminals continue to be able to import women to be exploited. I didn't make that argument because my position can actually be defended without resorting to strawmans. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 I'll agree with that. It's unfortunate being on the same side of an argument as CPCFTW. He tends to dumb things down pretty hard. Oh man, I had poster "socialist" (remember him?) siding with me, and making my arguments very difficult, so I get it. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 I have yet to see anything that shows foreign strippers are forced into Canada using work visas provided by pimps. That is your point to prove. So lets see it. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) I have yet to see anything that shows foreign strippers are forced into Canada using work visas provided by pimps. That is your point to prove. So lets see it. What are you even talking about??? First of all, if you had an ounce of reason you'd know that nobody here can provide proof from our computers that it either is or isn't happening, nor would the effort of doing so be worthwhile to satisfy the brainless arguments of an irrational forum poster like yourself. We're arguing the pros and cons of the proposal, and as of yet I have really heard of any good cons. The argument that denying them work visas, thus forcing themselves to enter as illegal aliens, therefore putting them in even more danger, is ludicrous. Someone has to come up with something better than that. Edited June 13, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 Wow, guess you win then because after all you are the king. Quote
Moonbox Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 It's not hard to win an argument against you, especially with dumb responses like this. Add something reasonable to the discussion or stop posting. Posts like the above are good examples of trolling. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 It's not hard to win an argument against you, especially with dumb responses like this. Add something reasonable to the discussion or stop posting. Posts like the above are good examples of trolling. It makes sense to me and that is what matters (to me). Not everybody has to think like you, Jack. Quote
CPCFTW Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 I'll agree with that. It's unfortunate being on the same side of an argument as CPCFTW. He tends to dumb things down pretty hard. Poor you. We can't all make as compelling an argument as the genius known as Moonbox. Or perhaps your simple, infantile mind was unable to comprehend that the salient point of my analogy was breaking the law to obtain discretion, not the crime involved. The point is that you can't break the law for "discretion". But of course the genius known as Moonbox already knew that. Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 A government worker will have them come to their office. They talk about how things are going. The worker probes the situation to determine if they are okay. If signs of abuse are there they would proceed with protocol. You didn't actually think once people come here on a work visa that they are set free..did you? Now, I believe you have a question to answer. Source? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Signals.Cpl Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Because, as it has been pointed out already, this legislation targets the foreign workers rather than the traffickers. Just because we are not letting them come and be strippers in Canada does not mean we are making them out to be criminals. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.