Fixing What Harper Broke: A to-do list

[TimG]

You seem to have some sort of inside knowledge about those kinds of women, considering you're contradicting what those kinds of women said during the hearings.

I am aware of the numerous issues with homeless shelters that homeless refuse to use because they cannot/will not abide by the rules. I think it is fanciful to suggest that a brothel would not have the same problem. If people suggested otherwise in the hearings I suspect they had not thought through the inevitable consequences of government regulation. For example, a women high on drugs or alcohol cannot consent to sex under Canadian law which means brothels would need to have a zero tolerance for the use of drugs/booze before working lest they be liable for aiding and abetting rape. It is simply absurd to suggest that a woman whose life is already a mess because of drugs could clean up enough to work in a regulated brothel. Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

You're comparing brothels to homeless shelters. There's your first problem.

[TimG]

You're comparing brothels to homeless shelters. There's your first problem.

If you don't like the comparison to homeless shelters then explain how an "at risk" woman who can't hold a regular job is supposed to be able to handle the demands of a real workplace? There are many high functioning addicts which can hold down a job but these kinds of people usually don't end up turning tricks on the street.

You also ignored the problem with consent that will be a huge issue for any woman who is an addict working in a regulated brothel.

Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Now you're assuming that these women can't and don't hold "regular" jobs in a "real" workplace, whatever that means.

[TimG]

Now you're assuming that these women can't and don't hold "regular" jobs in a "real" workplace, whatever that means.

Are you seriously arguing that a large number of women who spend their time trolling for johns on street corner are willing and able to hold a regular job? I am pretty sure the ones that work for escort services would be fine but they are not in the "at risk" category which will be supposedly helped by legalizing brothels. Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

[drummindiver]

That would be just as subjective and baseless.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

I don't have a team to do research, but here's a short list of things the Liberals did that Harper fixed.

-decimated the military

-did nothing to help Rwanda during genocide. Chretien said others should look after it. (In 2010, the Canadian government apologized to the people of Rwanda for indifference to the genocide of 1994...)

-deep cuts to health care transfers

-deep cuts to social assistance transfers

-deep cuts to veteran affairs

-deep cuts to EI. Less than 40% of ppl who needed EI were deemed eligilble.

-gave Quebec distinct society standing. (this still has not been rectified.)

-failed to repeal GST or even lower it

-limited the number of Canadians stricken with Hepatitis C through government negligence who could collect compensation for their suffering.

-not only did they deny compensation to people affected with Hep C through government negligence, they spent $57 million fighting legitimate claims in court. Money that should have gone to people suffering due to government negligence.

- Trudeau, is hostile to the western provinces. On November 22, 2000, Chrétien gave a speech in New Brunswick which in which he implied that people from Alberta were not quite normal, saying: "I like to do politics with people from the East. Joe Clark and Stockwell Day are from Alberta. They are a different type" Clearly this does not promote unity. Harper is clearly not hostile to the west.

[Argus]

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.

Worked to what end? In which jurisdiction do hookers not get beaten up/raped or killed? In what jurisdiction is the life of a typical hooker one of lollipops and flowers? We licence strip clubs, and are the girls who work there giddy with joy and pride? Being a hooker is a shitty job and always will be, and the only women who will do it are those already deeply damaged and desperate. Instead of trying to make it easier to be a hooker we should be making it easier to not be a hooker.

I don't know of a place in the world which would be more caring about the welfare of the down and out than Sweden, and if our legislation is based on theirs then, while I'm no expert, I have to figure it's pretty much the best we can do.

[Argus]

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

Possibly because you seem to be operating on the idea that such 'damage' has been proven in all these cases, when in fact it has been proven in none.

Note that just because a policy is unsuccessful that does not mean it is 'damaging' BC.

[Smallc]

"Mandatory" treatment does not work and actually causes more harm than good.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-abuse-treatment-criminal-justice-populations/legally-mandated-treatment-effective

[ToadBrother]

Worked to what end? In which jurisdiction do hookers not get beaten up/raped or killed? In what jurisdiction is the life of a typical hooker one of lollipops and flowers? We licence strip clubs, and are the girls who work there giddy with joy and pride? Being a hooker is a shitty job and always will be, and the only women who will do it are those already deeply damaged and desperate. Instead of trying to make it easier to be a hooker we should be making it easier to not be a hooker.

I don't know of a place in the world which would be more caring about the welfare of the down and out than Sweden, and if our legislation is based on theirs then, while I'm no expert, I have to figure it's pretty much the best we can do.

The Swedish model does nothing to get prostitutes off the street, and it is the street that poses the greatest risk. Yes, the job will always be rotten, but you know what, no matter what laws you pass, the job will always be there, so rather than a make-believe legal apparatus that does nothing to help prostitutes, and in fact forces them to work in conditions of great risk, let's at least make the environment as safe as we can.

[ToadBrother]

I am aware of the numerous issues with homeless shelters that homeless refuse to use because they cannot/will not abide by the rules. I think it is fanciful to suggest that a brothel would not have the same problem. If people suggested otherwise in the hearings I suspect they had not thought through the inevitable consequences of government regulation. For example, a women high on drugs or alcohol cannot consent to sex under Canadian law which means brothels would need to have a zero tolerance for the use of drugs/booze before working lest they be liable for aiding and abetting rape. It is simply absurd to suggest that a woman whose life is already a mess because of drugs could clean up enough to work in a regulated brothel.

Can you point me to the law that says someone who is high or drunk can't consent to sex?

[Smallc]

Instead of trying to make it easier to be a hooker we should be making it easier to not be a hooker.

That's as foolish as the continued criminalization of marijuana. It isn't called the world's oldest profession for nothing. Pretending we can will it away is utter nonsense.

[Argus]

No. The 2014 law was the result of a moralistic government with a religious authoritarian attitude. The SCC didn't make Harper impose Victorian sexual values on the country.

Victorian sexual values in a law based on the one in Sweden?

[TimG]

Can you point me to the law that says someone who is high or drunk can't consent to sex?

http://www.consented.ca/consent/consent-and-canadian-law/

You actually have to be able to give consent. That means you have to be awake, conscious, and sober enough to make a clear decision.

Now "sober enough to make a clear decision" is petty vague but I am sure some enterprising lawyer would eventually figure out it could be used to charge Johns at brothels and then sue the brothel for vicarious liability unless the had very strict rules regarding alcohol/drug consumption. This would make life difficult for "workers" that go into withdrawal if they are not high. Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

Are you seriously arguing that a large number of women who spend their time trolling for johns on street corner are willing and able to hold a regular job?

Clearly you are disrespecting and stigmatizing these fine, upstanding, intelligent women. This is probably a microagression, maybe even a macroagression!

[Argus]

The Swedish model does nothing to get prostitutes off the street, and it is the street that poses the greatest risk. Yes, the job will always be rotten, but you know what, no matter what laws you pass, the job will always be there, so rather than a make-believe legal apparatus that does nothing to help prostitutes, and in fact forces them to work in conditions of great risk, let's at least make the environment as safe as we can.

It's a shitty job for a reason. Nothing we do is going to change that. The dangers come from the type of man who visits prostitutes, and we can't change that either, and the type of person who becomes a hooker, which is "damaged". Put all that together and you have a ripely dysfunctional cocktail that nobody, least of all the damn government, is going to be able to regulate to anyone's satisfaction.

You tell me where hookers are going to work, if not out of their own homes? They want to be where the business is, which is downtown and the party areas not out in the boonies in some legalized brothel. Commercial areas? Most commercial areas are adjacent to residential areas, and anyway, commercial enterprises pay a lot in taxes and don't want to be next door to a brothel either. Industrial areas? Usually located well away from everyone, which the hookers will hate. There will always be hookers on the street, period. Most of them will be alcoholics or drug addicts or emotionally/psychologically challenged, to say the least.

[Argus]

Now "sober enough to make a clear decision" is petty vague but I am sure some enterprising lawyer would eventually figure out it could be used to charge Johns at brothels and then sue the brothel for vicarious liability unless the had very strict rules regarding alcohol/drug consumption. This would make life difficult for "workers" that go into withdrawal if they are not high.

What about suing the brothel for letting their hookers molest drunken clients, who are clearly unable to give consent?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Are you seriously arguing that a large number of women who spend their time trolling for johns on street corner are willing and able to hold a regular job? I am pretty sure the ones that work for escort services would be fine but they are not in the "at risk" category which will be supposedly helped by legalizing brothels.

I think that my earlier response to your post painting all sex workers as drug addicts and street walkers fell on deaf ears. But to clarify one more time, a good majority of sex workers are not drug addicts or street walkers and they are citizens like you and me some single mothers, some students even trying to earn some to pay for education. Some even happily married. Most are on line these days and they don't troll street corners looking for Johns. Some already holding regular jobs and work in sex industry as pert time to supplement their income. Please get the facts right before making uninformed degrading comments like these.

Edited October 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[TimG]

I think that my earlier response to your post painting all sex workers as drug addicts and street walkers fell on deaf ears.

No. I think you don't read the posts you quote.

The relevant phrasing which you ignored:

I am pretty sure the ones that work for escort services would be fine but they are not in the "at risk" category which will be supposedly helped by legalizing brothels.

so spare me the lectures about irrelevant points which have nothing to do with my argument. Edited October 30, 2015 by TimG

[CITIZEN_2015]

Sir with all due respect and for your information escorts do work in what law defines as brothels. A brothel is a place where clients of sex worker(s) visit on a regular basis. A condo in a high class building or a house in nice neighborhood or a room in a 5 star hotel also qualifies as brothel or bawdy house.

Escorts would be able to work in a group and protect each other and to screen out bad clients (if C-36 is repealed otherwise clients would refuse to provide personal info or references) or report violent or abusive ones to law enforcement. Also Johns would be careful because workers would know their identity post C-36. Escorts would also benefit a lot too if C-36 repealed. The forced and underage also exists among escorts which can be rescued by clients post C-36 if they come across one. Escorts also have to see clients they don't wish or provide services they don't want because the business is driven underground. Right now ESCORTS ARE AT RISK INDEED because of C-36 contrary to your post, Here we are talking about sex workers not only about street walkers who constitute less of 10% of sex workers but your posts seem to concentrate on them undermining the harm that C-36 can cause to remaining 90% of sex workers..

Edited October 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[SpankyMcFarland]

A lot of effort went into that list. Well done.

I'd like to see:

1. An end to omnibus bills.

2. Parliamentary oversight of C-51.

Edited October 30, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Wilber]

It's interesting that an Angus Reid survey found that 67% of Canadian's surveyed didn't want the TFSA limit reduced. They might want sound people out a bit more on this before they go ahead.

[poochy]

I think that my earlier response to your post painting all sex workers as drug addicts and street walkers fell on deaf ears. But to clarify one more time, a good majority of sex workers are not drug addicts or street walkers and they are citizens like you and me some single mothers, some students even trying to earn some to pay for education. Some even happily married. Most are on line these days and they don't troll street corners looking for Johns. Some already holding regular jobs and work in sex industry as pert time to supplement their income. Please get the facts right before making uninformed degrading comments like these.

Please provide us with evidence and actual numbers which can educate us about how many prostitutes are for lack of a better word 'normal', as in, no different than most women who aren't prostitutes.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Please provide us with evidence and actual numbers which can educate us about how many prostitutes are for lack of a better word 'normal', as in, no different than most women who aren't prostitutes.

Please don't classify people as normal and abnormal based on the job they are doing or anything else. And what kind of evidence would you like me to provide you with and how would I know about numbers other than what I have read (plenty of material were available during and after SCC struck down the old laws). Estimates say there are about 50 to 100,000 sex workers in Canada (not including many more nude dancers who are actually classified as entertainers and not not sex workers). About 10% are street walkers and almost all are drug addicts, runaways or abused in childhood. The rest come from any other category of people and life that non-sex workers come from like students, single mothers, divorced, unemployed, underemployed.

I am not encouraging or advocating prostitution. Contrary I think we should have laws to regulate it as it is the oldest profession and will NEVER be eradicated as one stupid justice minister said lately. So lets make it safe for everyone especially vulnerable sex workers. Also I hate the idea if anyone saying that because some may be drug addicts or abused then they have no rights or should not be protected, Every citizen in this country has equal rights and it is the responsibility of a democratic government to protect them. I always support the weak and underdog in my life and I continue to advocate laws that would make sex workers safe.

Here is a recent article with many related statistics if you are interested:

http://o.canada.com/news/national/most-sex-workers-in-canada-dont-see-themselves-as-victims-national-study-finds

Edited October 31, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[webc5]

I want to jump in on this and the problem with our new prostitution laws is that is paints ALL sex workers with the same paint brush. exploited, drug addicted, abused etc. Like some have pointed out their are survival sex workers and they make up around 10% of the sex trade in Canada. The other 90% are "indoor" sex workers mostly working from condo's and hotels. Some of these women charge $300 per hour they are not victims. As for pimping it is illegal and it should be. As for Johns studies have showed that 10% of men have paid for sex before in their life. This could be your dad, son, boss, co-worker, neighbor, think about that. Anyways Bill C-36 is a terrible bill and is one of many reasons why Canadians made the right choice in government on October 19.