Prostitution Proposal

[Big Guy]

Our federal government has now decided to deal with the "problem" of prostitution. It appears that it is now going to be illegal to "buy" sex (johns), promote the selling of sex (pimps) and not illegal to actually get money for the act - whatever "it" really is. It will also be illegal for prostitutes to operate in any areas where children may have access to.

Does this resolve the "problem"?

What is the problem?

Those wishing to and trying to hire a prostitute will be charged for an illegal act. Why?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/government-tables-new-prostitution-legislation-1.1852364

[BubberMiley]

Those wishing to and trying to hire a prostitute will be charged for an illegal act. Why?

To have a robust illegal economy, there must be laws that make things illegal.

[Shady]

The biggest problem is street solicitation. If that could be eliminated, I don't think most people would have a problem with it.

[TimG]

This law is quite ridiculous and I think it will only make the problem worse.

That said, the government is in a tight situation because no law could really solve the problems.

Regulating the industry does not really help because the women who need the help won't follow the regulations.

What it is not clear is if it is still legal for two parties to negotiate payment in private

(i.e. does this law make the escort business illegal?).

Edited June 5, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

From what I've heard and read so far, all the government has succeeded in doing is totally mudying the waters. If it gets passed as proposed, I would hate to be a cop or a judge having to wade through this thing to make a decision.

[Big Guy]

It is the oldest profession in the world. This bill will keep it the oldest profession in the world. The old white guys keep trying to figure out how to protect those hookers from themselves and others. Why not let the hookers decide what is best for them?

What do the prostitutes want as legislation?

[Bob Macadoo]

What do the prostitutes want as legislation?

Isn't that like asking jaywalkers what they want the traffic laws to be, afterall who would know better?

[Bryan]

Even as an affirmed "law and order" conservative, I have trouble with these laws. Yeah, you have to do what you can to get the street level stuff OFF the street, and to protect vulnerable people from being exploited. But why do I (or anyone else) care if two consenting adults decide to exchange money for whatever they want to do in private?

[WestCoastRunner]

Isn't that like asking jaywalkers what they want the traffic laws to be, afterall who would know better?

Well, not really. Jaywalking is illegal. It's not illegal to receive money for prostitution.

"Prostitutes themselves will not be charged “for any part they play” in the purchase, material benefit, procurement or advertising of sexual services, MacKay said.

[BubberMiley]

The biggest problem is street solicitation. If that could be eliminated, I don't think most people would have a problem with it.

Funny then that they would come up with a bill that seems to want to bring street solicitation back from the 1980s by making it illegal to advertise on Craigslist, etc.

[Big Guy]

wrong thread - oops!

Edited June 5, 2014 by Big Guy

[eyeball]

Even as an affirmed "law and order" conservative, I have trouble with these laws. Yeah, you have to do what you can to get the street level stuff OFF the street, and to protect vulnerable people from being exploited. But why do I (or anyone else) care if two consenting adults decide to exchange money for whatever they want to do in private?

For the same reason most law and order conservatives care when an adult sparks up a doobie, moral panic.

[Hydraboss]

So to parallel, if this were referring to buying a car:

1) It's legal for me to be a car salesman

2) It's illegal for me to work at a car dealership

3) It's illegal for me or a dealership to advertise that we sell cars

4) It's illegal for you to buy a car - you're not allowed to give me money for it

5) It's legal for me to sell you a car - I'm allowed to take money from you for it

So a prostitue can sell sex, it's just that no one is allowed to buy it. Really???

This one is going to go down in the books as one of the dumber ones Harper......

Edited June 5, 2014 by Hydraboss

[Argus]

The biggest problem is street solicitation. If that could be eliminated, I don't think most people would have a problem with it.

This law appears to be designed to increase street solicitation.

In fact, the cynic in me suspects they passed this law because they felt they needed to do something for their 'law and order' base, even though many people believe the law, as stated, will be found just as unconstitutional as the last one. This law will drive prostitutes into the streets, for it makes it illegal for them to 'advertise', including on the internet. That will specifically put them under threat, as per the Supreme Court's ruling. Because of that I agree with those who have suggested it is clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, by the time the SC rules it will be after the next election is over.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Argus

[monty16]

Suspect any Conservative attempt at improving things for women or making our country more socially responsible. This is a good example of the fraudulent actions of the Harper government. Not everybody hooks into this kind of dishonest approach no matter how hard Harper and his frothing at the mouth accomplices try to fool us.

[Gumby]

On the CBC radio yesterday, the basis of the discussion was that prostitution is primarily a predatory and exploitative act by men on women. I agree for the most part on this, in terms of child and forced prostitution, which make up a large part of the industry.

The aim of the bill seems to be to eliminate the human trafficking and pimping side of prostitution.

In practice, I believe it will accomplish very little, however admirable the aims.

Missing from the conversation was any specific mention of the Nevada or Holland models of legality, which have been successful as far as I remember. I would welcome any clarification on the historical success of a taxable/regulated model such as the Chicken Ranch or the Amsterdam Red Zone, and why or why not we adapt said models to our legislation.

[Argus]

On the CBC radio yesterday, the basis of the discussion was that prostitution is primarily a predatory and exploitative act by men on women. I agree for the most part on this, in terms of child and forced prostitution, which make up a large part of the industry.

First, I disagree that prostitution is primarily a 'predatory and exploitive' act by men. It's primarily women with not much going for them choosing to sell the only thing they've got. There's no question that in some cases it's a man persuading/forcing them, but I believe in the majority of cases, at least here in Canada, they make the ultimate decision themselves, same as women deciding to become strippers... or lawyers. All dirty businesses but quite profitable.

The aim of the bill seems to be to eliminate the human trafficking and pimping side of prostitution.

In practice, I believe it will accomplish very little, however admirable the aims.

I don't see how banning advertising really eliminates pimping or trafficking. It seems to me all it does is force them to go out and stand on corners.

Missing from the conversation was any specific mention of the Nevada or Holland models of legality, which have been successful as far as I remember. I would welcome any clarification on the historical success of a taxable/regulated model such as the Chicken Ranch or the Amsterdam Red Zone, and why or why not we adapt said models to our legislation.

I don't think that would suit the Conservatives' religious base, or many of their right wing base.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Argus

[August1991]

IOW, for all intents, Mackay is proposing the Swedish model - as I predicted he would do here: Link

This will be a vote-winner for the Tories, particularly in their weak female demographic. The Swedish law has about 80% support according to polls.

That said, the government is in a tight situation because no law could really solve the problems.

That is simply not true. The Swedish law has been very effective.

=====

Prostitution is one of those issues where a vocal minority has a strong opinion and a silent majority has a strong opinion too. It's emotional.

Edited June 5, 2014 by August1991

[Rue]

I am with Argus on this one and echo Shady's earlier comment and Tim's.

Seems to me we are never going to prevent prostitution and the best thing we can do is legalize it like they did in Holland so that we can contain it. Why not legalize it and tax it? This way you control the industry and keep the kids out of it and use the taxes to get kids off the streets and/or use it towards medical or drug rehab projects.

Me personally I do not believe the state should involve itself in prostitution unless it is with children, its not consensual, its spreading disease or its violent.

I think this law exposes prostitutes to danger. It will cause them now to go underground and be less detectable.

Its just a throw back to the way things were in the 1950's and we already know that failed.

So I have to agree with Argus.

In terms of whether the law is constitutional, its even less constitutional then the law it replaces. I think when this law is challenged and it winds its way up to the SCC, it will be tossed but to get their it may take up to 5 years unless someone can find a way to fast track it for review to the SCC.

[Smallc]

I don't understand what people have against prostitution. I'll echo the statements, it should be legal and taxed.

[WestCoastRunner]

That is simply not true. The Swedish law has been very effective.

=====

Prostitution is one of those issues where a vocal minority has a strong opinion and a silent majority has a strong opinion too. It's emotional.

Decriminalizing prostitution is the only approach that will protect women, said Dr. Kate Shannon, the study's senior author, who works for the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.

"The criminalization of the purchasing of sex in Canada really risks recreating the same harms that we've heard over the last two decades of missing and murdered women," she said.

There's been at least three murders of sex-workers in B.C. over the past year, she said, and 11 homicides remain unsolved over the past ten years.

Further, the country most closely resembling Canada's incoming law, Sweden, which pioneered the so-called "Nordic" model, has had a documented increase in violence against sex workers and no declining demand for the industry over 15 years, said Kerry Porth, who's also with Pivot.

"It hasn't worked in other countries and it won't work here," Porth said. "Sex workers will continue to die."

"It's primarily women with not much going for them choosing to sell the only thing they've got."

This statements needs to be further examined before it is thrown out there like a choice that women willingly make. It is of course, nothing of that nature. Women end up on the streets mainly because of the life they have fled from. To suggest otherwise does nothing to protect vulnerable women.

[cybercoma]

I don't understand what people have against prostitution. I'll echo the statements, it should be legal and taxed.

I agree that it should be legal and I would go a step further and say it shouldn't be taxed. What happens in people's bedrooms and the reasons they have for sleeping with someone else is none of the state's business. If someone wants to give another person money to sleep with that, that should be between those parties. Sex should not be treated as any other commodity. It should be treated as a private and confidential matter between individuals.

Why on earth would I say it shouldn't even be taxed? Because domestic prostitutes that want to keep their profession discrete will stay underground to avoid taxes that may expose them. If they're afraid of being charged with tax evasion, they'll be reluctant to go to the police for protection when problems arise. We don't need prostitutes being charged with tax evasion because they're trying to maintain some sort of anonymity and discretion in their sex lives. And we shouldn't have barriers to their protection. I would think of the money in prostitution as a gift. I know just about no one is going to agree with this, but that's my position. People's bedrooms are sacred and the reasons they have for engaging in sexual activities with others, whether it be because they find someone attractive, because the person has a lot of money and showers them with gifts, or because the person just straight up gives them money for it, should be completely free from the prying eyes of government bureaucrats and that includes tax collectors.

[cybercoma]

Further, the country most closely resembling Canada's incoming law, Sweden, which pioneered the so-called "Nordic" model, has had a documented increase in violence against sex workers and no declining demand for the industry over 15 years, said Kerry Porth, who's also with Pivot.

This is so important because this is the model the CPC is choosing to use and it has been shown to be completely ineffective against what the CPC's statement aims are: reducing violence against sex workers and lowering demand.

This is the problem time and again with Conservative legislation. They completely ignore evidence and legislate based on ideology. If they say their aim is to reduce VAW and lower demand, but the system they're going to implement is shown as ineffective, a reasonable government would go back to the drawing board and come up with something more effective. This government is neither reasonable, nor effective.

[August1991]

Further, the country most closely resembling Canada's incoming law, Sweden, which pioneered the so-called "Nordic" model, has had a documented increase in violence against sex workers and no declining demand for the industry over 15 years, said Kerry Porth, who's also with Pivot.

Porth would say that, wouldn't she?

The fact is that the Swedish law has eliminated street prostitution and largely reduced prostitution in general. There is a lot of evidence on the Internet about this. More pointedly, the law has widespread political support.

[Smallc]

Cyber, yes, it should be taxed.