Fixing What Harper Broke: A to-do list

CITIZEN_2015 · October 30, 2015

It's good that you warn us repeatedly that you don't know anything about this law or what laws would be best, so we can properly assess the validity of your criticisms.

The law was modeled after the same law in that evil land of fascism, Sweden, so we certainly know it must be awful, right?

The sex workers want to be able to set up brothels, or work out of their own homes, which sounds fine -- until it turns out their home is next door to you. Then it's not so fine. That's why the government won't legalize that.

You know very well and my post was crystal clear I never commented about the law itself or what should replace it. All I commented was that bill C-36 was prepared in rush (to meet SCC deadline) and sex workers were not consulted what was best for them and jeopardizes those citizens' safety as a result for conservative political gains among their core supporters. In other words the manner in which the bill was passed (not to mention the selected witnesses they called and political manipulation to pass it. Typical conservative government's way in 10 years).

The second paragraph is another fear mongering tactics used by conservatives. What is the likelihood of a few brothels or so to be next to your home in a city of several million habitats Sex workers will be working in groups for protection if decriminalized (nobody is talking about legalization by the way) and likely in a condo or a house similar to any other condo or house in a city like the massage parlous I hear are around the city of Montreal or mostly in hotels even. What you say in effect is the hell with the lives of these innocent vulnerable people as long as your house price is going up or there is no condo or house where sex workers work next to yours. Same we have now with strip bars. Do the prices for houses close to strip bars fall. Besides new laws can regulate them so that these so called brothels are not allowed in residential areas.

What matters most is the safety of these citizens not the price of your home and protecting them from Pickton's type.

Edited October 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

Smallc · October 30, 2015

Yes a very impressive post.

The truth is that you have yet to provide evidence of how Harper damaged BC in any appreciable way.

CITIZEN_2015 · October 30, 2015

The flaw is this logic is: official brothels will have to impose standards on the workers (no shooting up, constant std tests, et. al.) yet it is extremely unlikely that the most at risk women (meaning women trapped in a drug addiction cycle) will be able to comply with those standards. This will ensure they still end up on the street as they do now dealing with the clients that the brothel won't take. Getting these women off drugs should be the priority if the objective is to reduce harm.

Making it criminal would also make it dangerous. The criminal elements like pimps move in and violent Johns have nothing to lose because they are criminals already so when abusing workers or being violent they are breaking just another criminal law BUT more importantly the workers canNOT screen out bad and violent clients as clients would refuse to provide personal information or references fearing prosecution. In addition some good Johns cannot report the pimped or forced or underaged to the law enforcement.

I am now going to comment what I think best would replace this dangerous bill. Decriminalize it. Licence it and tax it and let these workers pay their contributions and protected by law and enjoy employment and heath insurances and form a union. Decriminalize brothels for those volunteer sex workers who are in it by choice. Raise worker's age to minimum 21 and make regular STD test mandatory for both workers and Johns. Make unprotected sex or violence by Johns as criminal and severely punishable as well as pimping. Those drug addicts and street workers are likely beyond help and in small minority (i read about 5 to 10% of all sex workers) but there are many who are not street walkers or drug addicts and need protection. Do not paint everyone with the same brush as drug addicts. This is how the conservative regime used to do.

Edited October 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

WestCoastRunner · October 30, 2015

The truth is that you have yet to provide evidence of how Harper damaged BC in any appreciable way.

I would only be doing your own research to prove this and I'm simply tired of that.

Smallc · October 30, 2015

I would only be doing your own research to prove this and I'm simply tired of that.

No see - it's not that simple. You claimed something. At this point, I'm going to have to assume that the claim was baseless, as you don't seem to be able to back it up with anything (keep in mind that I am supportive of Trudeau as PM, and voted Liberal - your stance and the stance of many has no basis in reality).

WestCoastRunner · October 30, 2015

No see - it's not that simple. You claimed something. At this point, I'm going to have to assume that the claim was baseless, as you don't seem to be able to back it up with anything (keep in mind that I am supportive of Trudeau as PM, and voted Liberal - your stance and the stance of many has no basis in reality).

I did support it, with my previous post. Do I really need to go into details about these issues? They are available for anyone who wishes to research it. I don't feel like doing research and posting facts for the lazy folks here.

Edited October 30, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

Smallc · October 30, 2015

The flaw is this logic is: official brothels will have to impose standards on the workers (no shooting up, constant std tests, et. al.) yet it is extremely unlikely that the most at risk women (meaning women trapped in a drug addiction cycle) will be able to comply with those standards.

So, if men (who are going to buy sex anyway) can go to a brothel that is clean, safe, and regulated, why would the vast majority of them ever go to at risk women in dark dirty side streets? They wouldn't. Overall, it would be a benefit. People have been buying sex since the beginning of time, and that will only continue, no matter the penalty. The way we've been trying this hasn't worked.

Smallc · October 30, 2015

I did support it, with my previous post. Do I really need to go into details about these issues? They are available for anyone who wishes to research it. I don't feel like do research for the lazy folks here.

Your previous post spoke to some very subjective subjects. I don't expect you to prove your position. I don't expect to agree with it given that.

TimG · October 30, 2015

I am now going to comment what I think best would replace this dangerous bill. Decriminalize it. Licence it and tax it and let these workers pay their contributions and protected by law and enjoy employment and heath insurances and form a union.

Escort agencies exist today and allow women (and men) without pathological mental health issues to make money on their terms. Brothels don't add much to what already exists except making more public. I also suspect the people working for escort agencies do not want the government involved micromanaging their lives and imposing additional costs.

Those drug addicts and street workers are likely beyond help and in small minority (i read about 5 to 10% of all sex workers) but there are many who are not street walkers or drug addicts and need protection.

Then don't pretend that such laws will do much to help at risk women. They will only help the class of sex worker who is already able to look after themselves via the escort model.

WestCoastRunner · October 30, 2015

Your previous post spoke to some very subjective subjects. I don't expect you to prove your position. I don't expect to agree with it given that.

They weren't subjective,, They are completely supported. Do a bit of reading on your own on these topics. These topics have been debated endlessly on this forum.

WestCoastRunner · October 30, 2015

Escort agencies exist today and allow women (and men) without pathological mental health issues to make money on their terms. Brothels don't add much to what already exists except making more public. I also suspect the people working for escort agencies do not want the government involved micromanaging their lives and imposing additional costs.

Then don't pretend that such laws will do much to help at risk women. They will only help the class of sex worker who is already able to look after themselves via the escort model.

Are you against legalizing prostitution?

Smallc · October 30, 2015

They weren't subjective,, They are completely supported. Do a bit of reading on your own on these topics. These topics have been debated endlessly on this forum.

I realize that the topics have been discussed - I come here more than you.

Smallc · October 30, 2015

Then don't pretend that such laws will do much to help at risk women. They will only help the class of sex worker who is already able to look after themselves via the escort model.

So why the illusion of illegality? Lets just formalized this arrangement. Yes, there will still be an underground economy - that will be true no matter what the subject. Still, the majority of problems can at least be diminished with legalization and regulation.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Smallc

WestCoastRunner · October 30, 2015

I realize that the topics have been discussed - I come here more than you.

Then why would I need to revisit these issues if you have been here more than me!

TimG · October 30, 2015

Are you against legalizing prostitution?

It already is legal. It was just illegal to run a brothel. I don't have any opposition to allowing brothels subject to appropriate bylaws from a libertarian perspective. The only argument I have is claims that allowing brothels are going to protect 'at risk' women are fanciful because those kinds of women will not be able to comply with the brothel regulations.

ToadBrother · October 30, 2015

Escort agencies exist today and allow women (and men) without pathological mental health issues to make money on their terms. Brothels don't add much to what already exists except making more public. I also suspect the people working for escort agencies do not want the government involved micromanaging their lives and imposing additional costs.

You think prostitutes want it to remain illegal because they are afraid of regulations?

Then don't pretend that such laws will do much to help at risk women. They will only help the class of sex worker who is already able to look after themselves via the escort model.

A framework of legal prostitution will at the very least make it no worse, and if we go to a more traditional system of prostitution like brothels (a feature of most English-speaking countries until the Victorian Era), there's at least some opportunity to reduce the number of women on the street.

Edited October 30, 2015 by ToadBrother

Smallc · October 30, 2015

Then why would I need to revisit these issues if you have been here more than me!

I'm saying that the evidence you provided isn't really evidence. You named off a number of things that you disagreed with (some of them that I disagreed with as well) thinking that such a list (far from comprehensive or exhaustive) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Harper did damage. Many here obviously disagree with that assertion, as they see those as positive steps, not negative ones.

My real point is this - there is far much hyperbole around the subject of Stephen Harper. He did good and bad things while in power. Depending on your point of view, there may have been more bad or more good. Talking about how damaging he was and how people have their country back - that isn't supported by the evidence.

I think Trudeau, being a Liberal and the ultimate pragmatist (actually, this election was a contest between 3 of the most pragmatic people we've had in politics in a long time), will disappoint a lot of you, as there is less daylight on many issues between the Conservatives and Liberals than there is between the Liberals and NDP.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Smallc

ToadBrother · October 30, 2015

So why the illusion of illegality? Lets just formalized this arrangement. Yes, there will still be an underground economy - that will be true no matter what the subject. Still, the majority of problems can at least be diminished with legalization and regulation.

There's underground gambling despite most jurisdictions in North America now having legalized gambling in some form or another. There will always be an underground economy for legal vices, so if that's an argument against legalization, then you might as well make casinos and alcohol illegal again.

Smallc · October 30, 2015

The only argument I have is claims that allowing brothels are going to protect 'at risk' women are fanciful because those kinds of women will not be able to comply with the brothel regulations.

And less men will go to them. That will mean that they will need to seek help. As Toadbrother says, it will make the problem no worse and possibly better.

TimG · October 30, 2015

You think prostitutes want it to remain illegal because they are afraid of regulations?

Prostitution is not illegal. Get your facts right. Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

On Guard for Thee · October 30, 2015

Hey, if we legalize pot, and then prostitution, (and I think The Stones music is still allowed even after Harper) then we will have a free hand at that great old triad of sex and drugs and rock n' roll. Good times ahead.

Smallc · October 30, 2015

There will always be an underground economy for legal vices, so if that's an argument against legalization, then you might as well make casinos and alcohol illegal again.

And there's always the added benefit of taxation. Right now, pimps are making all of the money and society is footing the bill. We have a whole untaped market. With legalized prostitution and marijuana and decriminalized hard drugs with mandatory fines and treatment, e'd be making all kinds of money that could a ) go to good use, or b ) be used to lower other taxes.

ToadBrother · October 30, 2015

My real point is this - there is far much hyperbole around the subject of Stephen Harper. He did good and bad things while in power. Depending on your point of view, there may have been more bad or more god. Talking about how damaging he was and how people have their country back - that isn't supported by the evidence.

I would agree with this. At the end of the day, there's nothing particularly remarkable about a new government coming and altering or undoing some initiatives of its predecessors. New governments also have to decide which court battles their predecessor was fighting it will continue to pursue and which it will drop.

WestCoastRunner · October 30, 2015

It already is legal. It was just illegal to run a brothel. I don't have any opposition to allowing brothels subject to appropriate bylaws from a libertarian perspective. The only argument I have is claims that allowing brothels are going to protect 'at risk' women are fanciful because those kinds of women will not be able to comply with the brothel regulations.

What are your suggestions for providing assistance to 'at risk' prostitutes,, who are providing services to mostly 'white middle class johns' looking for prostitutes on kiddie stroll.' in Vancouver.

ToadBrother · October 30, 2015

Prostitution is not illegal. Get your facts right.

If one half of a transaction is illegal, the entire transaction is effectively illegal. If it's illegal to buy it, it is effectively illegal to sell it, but the law just means you don't prosecute the vendor.