New prostitution laws for Canada . . .

So buying sex will be illegal, but selling it is fine?

Post by "{>_<} Ð Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ°" <"{>_
______________________________________________
Tuesday, May 27, 2014 | http://www.cbc.ca
Canada may consider 'Nordic Model' of prostitution law
As the Minister of Justice prepares to unveil new legislation, the
expectation is that Canada will follow Sweden's lead. Supporters say
this Nordic Model works to combat and prevent prostitution. But
detractors say that business has just gone underground.
In December the Supreme Court struck down Canada's prostitution laws
and gave Ottawa one year to come up with new ones. Just about everyone
agrees the sex trade is open to unique and terrible abuses, and the
Harper administration is expected to unveil new legislation as soon as
next week.
Peter MacKay has looked at how other countries regulate prostitution,
and one model being considered is the approach used in some
Scandinavian countries.
This model has also caught the attention of Canadian municipalities.
Debi Perry is a Senior Manager in the Calgary Police Service and was
part of a delegation that visited Stockholm this year.
In addition to those concerns, some argue that these laws don't
actually improve the situation for sex workers.
Last year, Vancouver Police made the decision to stop targeting sex
workers for prostitition-related offenses and directed their attention
instead to the clients seeking services from a prostitute-- a similar
principle to the Nordic model.
Katrina Pacey, the Litigation Director at Pivot Legal Society in
Vancouver, says the result is fewer arrests of sex workers, but not
What we're seeing now is that, in fact, many of the harms that
were created by law enforcement in the first place are kind of being
recreated under this current model...So in fact what we're seeing many
of the harmful circumstances that caused Canada's existing laws to be
struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada..." - Katrina Pacey
What do you think of the Nordic Model?
Facebook. Call us toll-free at 1 877 287 7366. And as always if you
missed anything on The Current, grab a podcast.

M.I.Wakefield

2014-05-28 01:40:19 UTC

So buying sex will be illegal, but selling it is fine?

Sort of like it is now?

"{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_

2014-05-28 01:49:52 UTC

Post by M.I.Wakefield

And the females will no long be the target of police. . . . the BUYERS> of their services will be the targets.
So, fellas, if this is your common method of 'getting off', you might> want to invest in one of those inflatable dolls. They won't mind

your > type.
So buying sex will be illegal, but selling it is fine?

Sort of like it is now?

Experience talking again, Dobranski? Did you get charged for buying it?

M.I.Wakefield

2014-05-28 02:08:22 UTC

Post by M.I.Wakefield

Post by "{>_<} Ð Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ°" <"{>_
And the females will no long be the target of police. . . . the
BUYERS> of their services will be the targets.
So, fellas, if this is your common method of 'getting off', you
might> want to invest in one of those inflatable dolls. They won't
mind

your > type.
So buying sex will be illegal, but selling it is fine?

Sort of like it is now?

Experience talking again,

Nope.

Post by "{>_<} Ð Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ°" <"{>_
Dobranski?

Nope. Why do you keep smearing him?

It's not that he made you look stupid ... everyone does that.

"{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_

2014-05-28 01:41:46 UTC

So buying sex will be illegal, but selling it is fine?

Yeah, well . . . it's time the tables were turned. We'll see how the
male of the species likes it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Alan Baker

2014-05-28 01:47:15 UTC

So buying sex will be illegal, but selling it is fine?

Yeah, well . . . it's time the tables were turned. We'll see how the
male of the species likes it. Â¯\_(ã)_/Â¯

It what way will this "turn the tables" considering what the current laws are?

KalElFan

2014-05-28 14:18:42 UTC

Post by "{>_<} Ð Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ°" <"{>_
And the females will no long be the target of police. . . . the BUYERS
of their services will be the targets...

So buying sex will be illegal, but selling it is fine?

It's moronic, and just as unconstitutional though it'll probably
take years to establish that. In addition to the fallacy you've
pointed out, Illegal Johns will also by definition be Criminal
Johns, and Criminal Johns are more Dangerous Johns to the
sex workers that the Supreme Court ruling said were being
unconstitutionally prevented from safe working conditions.

The Conservatives will lose votes over this in the election
next year, assuming the premise is true that continuing
prohibition is effectively their "solution". There's a strong
libertarian-leaning constituency that ought to be Conservative-
leaning, but they won't be if Harper & Co. put on their Little
Despot hats and try to thwart or get around the Supreme
Court ruling. How about...

Freedom! But also have all appropriate regulations to protect
communities, e.g., have zoning laws against street prostitutes
in residential neighborhoods or near schools, protect sex
workers from abusive pimps or johns by having even tougher
laws and penalties for that, likewise underage prostitution
and sex trafficking. Also have health issues addressed through
licensing of sex workers and regular checks, and whatever
other reasonable regulation makes sense. Use tax revenue
and any licensing fees or other revenues to fund the various
regulatory steps, and perhaps contribute to public service or
other programs that help people with addictions as with other
legal vices like gambling or alcohol.

The Conservatives could come across as tough on this issue,
with an approach like the above. But beyond the above they
should completely stay out of it. It is not their business what
personal activities and transactions consenting adults engage
in.

"{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_

2014-05-30 21:46:38 UTC

Post by KalElFan
It's moronic, and just as unconstitutional though it'll probably
take years to establish that. In addition to the fallacy you've
pointed out, Illegal Johns will also by definition be Criminal
Johns, and Criminal Johns are more Dangerous Johns to the
sex workers that the Supreme Court ruling said were being
unconstitutionally prevented from safe working conditions.

'Bout time the tables were turned, eh, boy? Not a squeak out of the
males of the population when it was the females accumulating criminal
records for prostitution. Now that the shoe is on the other foot . . . .

KalElFan

2014-06-03 00:21:05 UTC

""{>__" aka Pan wrote in message news:O_6iv.273449$***@fx04.iad...

[re my agreement with Alan Baker's comment: "So buying sex will
be illegal, but selling it is fine?"]

Post by "{>_<} Ð Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ°" <"{>_
'Bout time the tables were turned, eh, boy? Not a squeak out
of the males of the population when it was the females
accumulating criminal records for prostitution. Now that the
shoe is on the other foot . . . .

That does nothing to even challenge, let alone refute, my point
that you were reponding to. As I've just said in the other post:

"The core failure (to abide by the ruling) will be if the Feds fail
to provide reasonable legal ways for buying sex. If it's legal
to sell it, it's moronic that it's 100% illegal to buy it. There can
absolutely be specific citcumstances under which it's illegal
to buy. Street prostitution in residential neighborhoods, or
buying from a pimp rather than a direct transaction with a
seller for example. But if all buyers under all circumstances
are criminals by definition, those 100% criminal buyers will
be even MORE dangerous to the sex workers who won the
Supreme Court ruling SPECIFICALLY on that issue."

Trying to effectively criminalize it in a different way would
inevitably, by definition, not address the Supreme Court Ruling.
It will just drive it underground, even more than it's already
been, and make it more dangerous, which was the exact point
and rationale of the court ruling. They should regulate and
be tough on the specific points of most concern.

Here's a piece on the poll the Feds are touting in advance
of whatever they do, with an excerpt debunking the
"Nordic" model (and there are others like this):

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/department-justice-survey-suggests-prostitution-laws-look-lot-150511365.html

"A January report from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal
Network suggested that under a Nordic model, violent
interaction is more common, clients are less likely to
speak to police about troubles that may occur, sex
workers remain the target of aggressive police tactics,
and male and trans sex workers are often treated
differently than female sex workers."

The poll is also interesting because allegedly 66% say
they favor selling sex NOT being illegal, yet 56% favor
buying sex being illegal. But here was a clue (from the
article) of one thing that may have been going on with
their answers:

"many of the 62 per cent who opposed living off
the avails said prostitutes should have the ability
to hire someone to protect them"

So we can see that these poll numbers aren't so black
and white. By definition, bodyguards of prostitutes are
directly making money from prostitutes, and the source
of the prostitute's money is from prostitition i.e. the
buyer of sex. It seems a clear and reasonable conclusion
that the respondents make a distinction between a sex
worker making a living for herself/himself, vs. one who's
being pimped or who's been trafficked for example.

In the same way as they did for bodyguards, I think the
inconsistent respondents would also explain themselves
on the buying/selling. Half the difference may be people
who'd say e.g. "Sure as long as it's private and direct
between buyer and seller then both are legal. But I was
thinking pimps or traffickers or escort services that take
a large share or even most of the sex worker's money. If
the buyer pays those leeches then it shouldn't be legal."

Maybe the other half are wives or girlfriends wanting their
guy jailed if he buys sex from a legal prostitute. :-) Which
is funny to contemplate in the sense of how easy it is to
get answers you want on these polls. All kinds of bias can
enter into it. But sorry it's not equal justice. It'd be like a
frickin' reverse of the Islamic extremist state or lawless
region jailing or otherwise abusing a wife for her adultery,
because the husbands/males prefer it that way and they
determine the laws there.

{~_~}Раиса

2014-06-03 01:45:31 UTC

Post by KalElFan

That does nothing to even challenge, let alone refute, my point

You just like to hear yourself talk, don't you? ((+_+))

KalElFan

2014-06-03 14:31:11 UTC

Post by {~_~}Ð Ð°Ð¸ÑÐ°
You just like to hear yourself talk, don't you?

No, I'm a writer who likes to write. That's arguably similar
to your quip though, so mea culpa... maybe. :-)

It'll be interesting to see what Harper & Co. do. Here's
the link Wakefield posted (on can.politics) in another
thread this morning. I've added a MacKay excerpt from
that article, on the "public consultation".

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/02/majority-of-canadians-dont-think-selling-sex-should-be-illegal-report-finds

"A very clear majority felt that purchasing of sexual
services should be illegal, should be a criminal offence,
and the other side of the coin that the selling of sexual
services should not be criminal," MacKay said Monday."

And here's a different article this morning with a further
quote from McKay. Note this HP article rightly describes
the "slight majority" of 56-44 saying purchasing sexual
services should be illegal, whereas the above Sun quote
has MacKay calling it a "very clear majority".

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/02/prostitution-laws-poll-canada_n_5431001.html

"A slight majority of those who responded to the Justice
Department's month-long consultation earlier this year
felt that purchasing sexual services should be a criminal
offence.

However, two-thirds of the more than 31,000 respondents
said selling sex should not be an offence.

MacKay had no trouble reconciling the seemingly
contradictory notions of buying sex being against the
law, but selling it being legal.

"They are squared in what I will describe as a
Canadian model, that will be included in comprehensive
legislation that will be put before the House of Commons
in coming days," he said before entering the House of
Commons for question period."

The article goes on to point out:

"Those who actually work in the sex trade were not
consulted in meaningful ways, said Vanessa D'Allesio,
a sex worker and member of the board of directors of
Maggie's — Toronto Sex Workers' Action Project.

The organization says decriminalization is the only
system that will protect sex workers, by ensuring
access to labour, legal and human rights.

The group questioned the legitimacy of the Justice
Department's online consultation, saying people could
have completed the form multiple times, skewing the
results."

Back to my comments...

While there's still slight room for hope, the way MacKay
is talking, and mischaracterizing the results to the point
Lying isn't too strong a word, suggests we're probably
getting the Lying Idiots Model.

Here are the links (the second one the PDF version of
the first) to the Justice consultation:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rr14_09/index.html

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/rr14_09/rr14_09.pdf

Note the first questions refer to "exceptions" that
respondents may have described, yet the final 56-44
(on question 1 for example) is just for the yay or nay.

So even these self-selected (and therefore statistically
junk) responses were more nuanced than 56-44 on the
56 side. Only the 56 side would have cited exceptions,
for example private transactions where a pimp or a
trafficker or escort service isn't getting a large share
or most of the money.

So it may be an even bigger, bass ackwards lie to have
characterized it as a "very clear majority".

There's also the absurdity that any poll, let alone a self-
selected one, can trump a Supreme Court ruling. It just
deosn't work that way, and the Harper government will
be shirking its responsibility if it factually ignores the
letter and spirit of the ruling. There's just no way that
100% criminal johns will do anything but make it even
more dangerous for sex workers.

It'll be a shame, because if they'd just bite the bullet
on the principle of legal buying and selling, they'd have
a much better chance of effectively confronting the
problem areas and concerns. Instead, if they go with
the Lying Idiots Model, the only hope will be the
various advocacy groups getting injunctions against
the Lying Idiots parts. If they can't it may go on for
another decade.

"{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_

2014-05-30 21:55:45 UTC

On 5/28/2014 7:18 AM, KalElFan AKA "JackPineSavage" AKA
"james g. keegan jr."

Post by KalElFan
The Conservatives could come across as tough on this issue,
with an approach like the above. But beyond the above they
should completely stay out of it. It is not their business what
personal activities and transactions consenting adults engage
in.

They CAN'T "stay out of it". They're the government (for a while
longer, anyway). And the Supreme Court has given them a year to come up
with something better than they've got now.
If they don't, then the current laws are gone . . . and prostitution
can be carried out anywhere, any time, by any one - with total impunity.

Dumb as you are, you might still want to consider how long any
government would last if that should happen.

KalElFan

2014-06-03 00:17:17 UTC

Previous paragraph's context restored first! ...

... also have all appropriate regulations to protect
communities, e.g., have zoning laws against street prostitutes
in residential neighborhoods or near schools, protect sex
workers from abusive pimps or johns by having even tougher
laws and penalties for that, likewise underage prostitution
and sex trafficking. Also have health issues addressed through
licensing of sex workers and regular checks, and whatever
other reasonable regulation makes sense. Use tax revenue
and any licensing fees or other revenues to fund the various
regulatory steps, and perhaps contribute to public service or
other programs that help people with addictions as with other
legal vices like gambling or alcohol.

So quite a fair number of suggestions there, including toughness.
But again, Pan clipped that. One can assume Pan did so to make
it seem like he/she was making a fair point rather than the silly
straw man one that followed...

The Conservatives could come across as tough on this issue,
with an approach like the above. But beyond the above they
should completely stay out of it. It is not their business what
personal activities and transactions consenting adults engage
in.

They CAN'T "stay out of it".

The "beyond the above" part, which was set out in that first
paragraph that you snipped and I restored, set out the many
things they could do and still be both tough and respectful
of the Court's ruling. They would NOT be staying out of it
and letting all hell break loose, they'd be clamping down
on the worst of it but still respecting the letter and spirit
of the Supreme Court decision. They'd be regulating it in
an appropriate way.

The core failure (to abide by the ruling) will be if the Feds fail
to provide reasonable legal ways for buying sex. If it's legal
to sell it, it's moronic that it's 100% illegal to buy it. There can
absolutely be specific citcumstances under which it's illegal
to buy. Street prostitution in residential neighborhoods, or
buying from a pimp rather than a direct transaction with a
seller for example. But if all buyers under all circumstances
are criminals by definition, those 100% criminal buyers will
be even MORE dangerous to the sex workers who won the
Supreme Court ruling SPECIFICALLY on that issue.

Now, without clipping and changing the context, have fun
trying to refute what I've actually written. Hint: you'll fail.
You have a chance to do better here, Pan! :-)

If the Feds take the attitude that you suggested in your
first post, with no legality on the buyer side just make
'em all criminals, the various organizations that worked
for the ruling ought to immediately file for injunctions
against that obviously moronic part of the law.

[snip rest of Pan's straw man]

Greg Carr

2014-05-28 06:15:13 UTC