Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Jolly_Penguin]

On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.

If prostitution is legal rather than illegal, if sex workers and their customers can come forward and report it without fear of being arrested, and if the police can focus on sex trafficking exclusively and use tools like Backpage to help them locate it, do you think the visibility of sex trafficking is higher or lower? Without addressing this vital question, I wouldn't conclude that higher reports of sex trafficking means a greater incidence of sex trafficking.

Also, note how it says "human trafficking" and not sex trafficking. That is a common conflation. Why do you figure legalized prostitution would cause an increase in general human trafficking, of which sex trafficking is only a small percentage? Could this be a mere correlation and not causation?

Studies you refer to are called into question also because of the unstandardized and convoluted creation of such reports and what is counted in these reports. Different places define trafficking differently in making their reports and different places investigate deeper and have better estimates that others so how can you compare it?

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002716214521562

Some agencies have cast doubt on the very idea of producing macrolevel estimates. The U.S. Government Accountability Office ([GAO] 2006, 2, 10) and the ILO (2005a, 13, 14) have identified numerous problems with the way macrolevel figures are produced. And independent analysts criticize the use of different definitions of “victims” in constructing worldwide estimates; the practice of extrapolating from a few documented victims to the entire victim population; and “estimates” that lump smuggled laborers into the trafficking category regardless of their consent and conditions of labor (Gozdziak and Collett 2005; Jahic and Finckenauer 2005; Zhang 2009, 2012).

One conclusion is inescapable: The claim that human trafficking victimizes a massive number of people is unsubstantiated; it simply cannot be substantiated at the macrointernational level. The glaring evidentiary problems are so severe that even rough estimates of the worldwide magnitude of this hidden enterprise are destined to be fatally flawed. The same argument applies to national-level estimates.

So these higher reports are not necessarily reliable, are usually of human trafficking as a whole and not sex trafficking, and reflect the visible cases rather than the actual cases, many of which are more likely to be swept underground when prostitution is illegal.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Imposing limits on the actions of citizens may be considered tyrannical, but to my mind fostering an environment where the exploitation of sex workers is enabled is tyranny as well, just of a different stripe.

So isn't it great that nobody here is calling for the fostering an environment where the exploitation of sex workers is enabled?

 

[LordKiran]

Imposing limits on the actions of citizens may be considered tyrannical, but to my mind fostering an environment where the exploitation of sex workers is enabled is tyranny as well, just of a different stripe.

So isn't it great that nobody here is calling for the fostering an environment where the exploitation of sex workers is enabled?

Whether or not you call for it is irrelevant to the actual consequences of your position.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Whether or not you call for it is irrelevant to the actual consequences of your position.

You have yet to show that legalized prostitution causes more sex trafficking rather than less, or rather than more visible sex trafficking making it easier to see and act against, etc.

We do know that it leaves voluntary prostitutes more at risk, which is why we got Canada's old laws struck down.

So I suppose one could say "... but to my mind fostering an environment where rape, violence and murder of sex workers is more common is tyranny as well, just of a different stripe".

How about a system where prostitution is licensed, being a prostitute is legal, buying from a prostitute is legal, but buying from an unlicensed prostitute is outlawed?

 

[LordKiran]

Whether or not you call for it is irrelevant to the actual consequences of your position.

You have yet to show that legalized prostitution causes more sex trafficking rather than less, or rather than more visible sex trafficking making it easier to see and act against, etc.

We do know that it leaves voluntary prostitutes more at risk, which is why we got Canada's old laws struck down.

So I suppose one could say "... but to my mind fostering an environment where rape, violence and murder of sex workers is more common is tyranny as well, just of a different stripe".

How about a system where prostitution is licensed, being a prostitute is legal, buying from a prostitute is legal, but buying from an unlicensed prostitute is outlawed?

The breadth of my concerns extends further than human trafficking.

Why assume that a government which already has difficulty regulating everyday business and protecting the rights, and wellbeing of everyday employees would somehow prove anymore successful here? That is an utterly absurd leap of faith to be making.

 

[Toni]

On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.

If prostitution is legal rather than illegal, if sex workers and their customers can come forward and report it without fear of being arrested, and if the police can focus on sex trafficking exclusively and use tools like Backpage to help them locate it, do you think the visibility of sex trafficking is higher or lower? Without addressing this vital question, I wouldn't conclude that higher reports of sex trafficking means a greater incidence of sex trafficking.

Also, note how it says "human trafficking" and not sex trafficking. That is a common conflation. Why do you figure legalized prostitution would cause an increase in general human trafficking, of which sex trafficking is only a small percentage? Could this be a mere correlation and not causation?

Studies you refer to are called into question also because of the unstandardized and convoluted creation of such reports and what is counted in these reports. Different places define trafficking differently in making their reports and different places investigate deeper and have better estimates that others so how can you compare it?

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002716214521562

Some agencies have cast doubt on the very idea of producing macrolevel estimates. The U.S. Government Accountability Office ([GAO] 2006, 2, 10) and the ILO (2005a, 13, 14) have identified numerous problems with the way macrolevel figures are produced. And independent analysts criticize the use of different definitions of “victims” in constructing worldwide estimates; the practice of extrapolating from a few documented victims to the entire victim population; and “estimates” that lump smuggled laborers into the trafficking category regardless of their consent and conditions of labor (Gozdziak and Collett 2005; Jahic and Finckenauer 2005; Zhang 2009, 2012).

One conclusion is inescapable: The claim that human trafficking victimizes a massive number of people is unsubstantiated; it simply cannot be substantiated at the macrointernational level. The glaring evidentiary problems are so severe that even rough estimates of the worldwide magnitude of this hidden enterprise are destined to be fatally flawed. The same argument applies to national-level estimates.

So these higher reports are not necessarily reliable, are usually of human trafficking as a whole and not sex trafficking, and reflect the visible cases rather than the actual cases, many of which are more likely to be swept underground when prostitution is illegal.

The vast majority of human trafficking is for sex trade, as I am sure you are aware. Your arguments are specious and ignore research done by many different organizations.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

[
Why assume that a government which already has difficulty regulating everyday business and protecting the rights, and wellbeing of everyday employees would somehow prove anymore successful here? That is an utterly absurd leap of faith to be making.

Making it illegal is already a form of regulation, just a more extreme form, with no protecting of the rights and wellbeing of the sex workers.

And perhaps it is because I live in Canada where we regulate more than you folks do in the USA, but I find regulations to be often effective.

 

[LordKiran]

[
Why assume that a government which already has difficulty regulating everyday business and protecting the rights, and wellbeing of everyday employees would somehow prove anymore successful here? That is an utterly absurd leap of faith to be making.

Making it illegal is already a form of regulation, just a more extreme form. And perhaps it is because I live in Canada where we regulate more than you folks do in the USA, but I find regulations to be often effective.

Yeah Canada's regulations are so good...Unrelated topic but how has Vancouver's housing market been lately? You'd think such a civilized country would have enough wits between its population to learn from past market bubbles but I guess not. Such good regulatory abilities. Truly I am in awe.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yeah Canada's regulations are so good...Unrelated topic but how has Vancouver's housing market been lately? You'd think such a civilized country would have enough wits between its population to learn from past market bubbles but I guess not. Such good regulatory abilities. Truly I am in awe.

Regulation will never be perfect. But would you prefer zero regulation? Would Vancouver's housing market be better off if there had been no regulation at all?

 

[LordKiran]

Yeah Canada's regulations are so good...Unrelated topic but how has Vancouver's housing market been lately? You'd think such a civilized country would have enough wits between its population to learn from past market bubbles but I guess not. Such good regulatory abilities. Truly I am in awe.

Regulation will never be perfect. But would you prefer zero regulation? Should I quote your stance against regulation of industry in other threads?

No, I'd prefer regulation do what its supposed to do, prevent and minimize predation of private parties by other private parties.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, I'd prefer regulation do what its supposed to do, prevent and minimize predation of private parties by other private parties.

Ok, so you're not against regulation. Its better to make an attempt at preventing and minimizing predation of private parties by other private parties by making work safe and transparent to the public than to make so such attempt right?

 

[LordKiran]

No, I'd prefer regulation do what its supposed to do, prevent and minimize predation of private parties by other private parties.

Ok, so you're not against regulation. Its better to make an attempt at preventing and minimizing predation of private parties by other private parties by making work safe and transparent to the public than to make so such attempt right?

No, its better to prohibit predation to begin with and punish those who contribute to it, I think solicitation could be decriminalized, with Johns walking away with a 200-300 dollar fine. Pimps belong in prison.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The vast majority of human trafficking is for sex trade, as I am sure you are aware. Your arguments are specious and ignore research done by many different organizations.

That actually depends on where you look (In first world countries that is true; in Africa and central Asia forced labour makes up the vast majority of it). And that is besides the point I was making. The point is that reports on "human trafficking" instead of sex trafficking, you've got a factor that can really mess up your statistics. You also didn't address my other points above. If you truly care about abused, assaulted, raped, murdered, and trafficked sex workers, then you should consider these points and take them seriously so you don't push for doing more harm than good.

It is not clear that legalized sex work causes more sex trafficking rather than less or rather than more visible sex trafficking that can be more easily addressed.

But we DO know that making sex work illegal exposes voluntary sex workers to more danger, severely undercutting their abilities to screen potential clients.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ok, so you're not against regulation. Its better to make an attempt at preventing and minimizing predation of private parties by other private parties by making work safe and transparent to the public than to make so such attempt right?

No

No? You don't want to make their work safe and transparent? Or do you mean yes but you can do that better by

its better to prohibit predation to begin with and punish those who contribute to it, I think solicitation could be decriminalized, with Johns walking away with a 200-300 dollar fine. Pimps belong in prison.

By criminalizing johns, don't we make work more dangerous for the sex workers?

To criminalize pimps, we need to define them. We ran into this issue when arguing to strike down Canada's old anti-prostitution laws and what should replace them.

Being a prostitute was never illegal in Canada, but aspects around it were, such as soliciting for the purpose of (ie, Backpage adds), keeping or being found in a common baudy house (brothels), and living off the avails of (which was meant to target pimps). These were struck down because they made sex work more dangerous. In the case of the living of the avails section, it didn't just block men who control and force women to have sex with other men, but also security, drivers and others willing prostitutes hired.

So how would you structure this? Would you include drivers? Security? Managers? People who solicit for them (put up their adds, answer phones for them, schedule for them, etc)? What aspects of "pimp" would you make jailable? If not putting them all in jail, would you fine them? And at what levels? See, now you are regulating.

 

[Toni]

The vast majority of human trafficking is for sex trade, as I am sure you are aware. Your arguments are specious and ignore research done by many different organizations.

That actually depends on where you look (In first world countries that is true; in Africa and central Asia forced labour makes up the vast majority of it). And that is besides the point I was making. The point is that reports on "human trafficking" instead of sex trafficking, you've got a factor that can really mess up your statistics. You also didn't address my other points above. If you truly care about abused, assaulted, raped, murdered, and trafficked sex workers, then you should consider these points and take them seriously so you don't push for doing more harm than good.

It is not clear that legalized sex work causes more sex trafficking rather than less or rather than more visible sex trafficking that can be more easily addressed.

But we DO know that making sex work illegal exposes voluntary sex workers to more danger, severely undercutting their abilities to screen potential clients.

Every link I posted was about developed nations in Europe or N. America.

ALL sex work exposes sex workers to serious health and safety risks that are unacceptable in other kinds of work. Why is this acceptable to you?

 

[LordKiran]

No? You don't want to make their work safe and transparent? Or do you mean yes but you can do that better by

its better to prohibit predation to begin with and punish those who contribute to it, I think solicitation could be decriminalized, with Johns walking away with a 200-300 dollar fine. Pimps belong in prison.

By criminalizing johns, don't we make work more dangerous for the sex workers?

To criminalize pimps, we need to define them. We ran into this issue when arguing to strike down Canada's old anti-prostitution laws and what should replace them.

Being a prostitute was never illegal in Canada, but aspects around it were, such as soliciting for the purpose of (ie, Backpage adds), keeping or being found in a common baudy house (brothels), and living off the avails of (which was meant to target pimps). These were struck down because they made sex work more dangerous. In the case of the living of the avails section, it didn't just block men who control and force women to have sex with other men, but also security, drivers and others willing prostitutes hired.

So how would you structure this? Would you include drivers? Security? Managers? People who solicit for them (put up their adds, answer phones for them, schedule for them, etc)? What aspects of "pimp" would you make jailable? If not putting them all in jail, would you fine them? And at what levels? See, now you are regulating.

Did you even read the post you're responding to? Because that post stated I think solicitation could and perhaps should be decriminalized but fined. Its this just notion I have that the punishment fits the crime. Not sure if you have that in Canada. I guess in Canadian law people are indiscriminately punished regardless of circumstance?

Johns can be fined. PSTs can be coerced into cooperation under threat of incarceration and rewarded with a fresh start if they do. Pimps, and the extended apparatus they employ for their illegal business to function can all serve varying degrees of prison time along with heavy fines assuming they had knowledge of the operation they were maintaining. To some degree this will be arbitrary and come down to opinion, but that's okay because we live under a system of governance wherein our voices are (Theoretically) heard and taken into account.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah Canada's regulations are so good...Unrelated topic but how has Vancouver's housing market been lately? You'd think such a civilized country would have enough wits between its population to learn from past market bubbles but I guess not. Such good regulatory abilities. Truly I am in awe.

Regulation will never be perfect. But would you prefer zero regulation? Should I quote your stance against regulation of industry in other threads?

No, I'd prefer regulation do what its supposed to do, prevent and minimize predation of private parties by other private parties.

Personally, i"'d prefer whatever legislation leads to the lowest instance of enslaved and dead women. And this legislation is not that.

 

[LordKiran]

No, I'd prefer regulation do what its supposed to do, prevent and minimize predation of private parties by other private parties.

Personally, i"'d prefer whatever legislation leads to the lowest instance of enslaved and dead women. And this legislation is not that.

Hey I'm not saying there can't be improvement to how we handle it, but I don't believe the answer is to just throw up our hands in defeat.

 

[laughing dog]

No, I'd prefer regulation do what its supposed to do, prevent and minimize predation of private parties by other private parties.

Personally, i"'d prefer whatever legislation leads to the lowest instance of enslaved and dead women. And this legislation is not that.

Why would anyone assume that a single piece of legislation would lead to the lowest incidence of enslaved or dead women?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree that it should be over-regulated. That term implies too much regulation. Regulation should be for health and to ensure voluntary status.

No, over-regulated implies an abundance of regulation. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's too much. I agree with you about what it's for, but it would take a lot of it to ensure that.

Disagree--what you are talking about is highly regulated, not over regulated. Over regulated inherently implies too much.