Canada lower house passes Swedish Model

[Derec]

Other sources, including the study I linked to upthread, dispute this. Who runs this website anyway? Many anti-trafficking organizations take the position that all prostitution is trafficking which is obvious nonsense so I'd like to know more about the ideology behind this website.

...

It is an almost word for word reprint of an article published a year before in der Spiegel, the German news magazine. The English version is here.

Too bad they didn't link to the German original.
In any case, the second half of the article completely invalidates the title. A "huge success" doesn't look like this.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am surprised more Canadians are not noticing all of what this law does. It makes pimping legal.

We used to have 3 laws, one targeted at pimping (living off the avails of prostitution), one to reign in nuisance (soliciting for the purpose of prostitution (interpreted as in public)), and one against brothels (Common baudy house). Incalls where a lot of prostitution happens were illegal. Outcalls, where the girl comes to you, was legal. Living off the avails was to attack pimping, and now PIMPING IS LEGAL. That's pretty big news to me. I thought that when the court struck down the living off the avails law, the government would enact a new law, allowing for some protection for the girls, but still going after pimps, maybe making it so the girls have to be in control and hire their help, or form collectives, or whatever.

Also, by targeting Johns instead of pimps, I think you've cut off any chance that Johns would report suspicious activity, which could be a great source for locating human trafficking and abuse. "White Knighting" happens more than you'd think, and this may kill it as far as tips to police go. I also question the whole "it will bring abused hookers forward to police" theory. Even if you guarantee the sex workers won't get in trouble, you would have to do a LOT of advertising to get that word out. Most of them, especially the trafficked ones who probably don't even speak much english, already think prostitution is illegal and will continue to think that. The fear of police won't change for them.

Nor will it decrease demand. If you ask the average Canadian if prostitution is legal in Canada, they will say no. Very few of us know it is legal right now (if don't right) and yet we still have plenty of guys taking the chance and risking arrest (or so they think).

So what exactly is this law supposed to accomplish?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I do not think "sex addiction" is a thing in most cases. It seems that people get labeled "sex addicts" if their libido is much higher than average or if they do not conform to the normative monogamous paradigm (see Tiger Woods).

Agreed. While sex addiction exists I do agree that most "addicts" are simply people that want more sex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am surprised more Canadians are not noticing all of what this law does. It makes pimping legal.

We used to have 3 laws, one targeted at pimping (living off the avails of prostitution), one to reign in nuisance (soliciting for the purpose of prostitution (interpreted as in public)), and one against brothels (Common baudy house). Incalls where a lot of prostitution happens were illegal. Outcalls, where the girl comes to you, was legal. Living off the avails was to attack pimping, and now PIMPING IS LEGAL. That's pretty big news to me. I thought that when the court struck down the living off the avails law, the government would enact a new law, allowing for some protection for the girls, but still going after pimps, maybe making it so the girls have to be in control and hire their help, or form collectives, or whatever.

The problem is the anti-pimping laws go too far. Living off the earnings of a prostitute is a bad thing but the anti-pimping laws also criminalize perfectly reasonable business relationships.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The problem is the anti-pimping laws go too far. Living off the earnings of a prostitute is a bad thing but the anti-pimping laws also criminalize perfectly reasonable business relationships.

Yes, it was overbroad. My point is that here we have a conservative government claiming to be primarily concerned with the safety, health, and welfare of women drawn into the sex industry and abused therein, and so.... they make pimping legal. Why wouldn't they put in some law to try to address pimps once the old one was struck?

 

[Derec]

Living off the earnings of a prostitute is a bad thing

Why? If a sex worker is taking care of an ill parent or has a temporarily unemployed partner for example they would fit the language "living off the earnings of a prostitute". As would the family members of the Latin American hookers in Amsterdam (that Sabine was writing about) who were sending money to family back home.
Anti-pimping laws need to focus on coercion and abuse, not such ill-defined and broad language.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Living off the earnings of a prostitute is a bad thing

Why? If a sex worker is taking care of an ill parent or has a temporarily unemployed partner for example they would fit the language "living off the earnings of a prostitute". As would the family members of the Latin American hookers in Amsterdam (that Sabine was writing about) who were sending money to family back home.
Anti-pimping laws need to focus on coercion and abuse, not such ill-defined and broad language.

How about Thailand, Derec, where the cultural trend is the expectation that the daughter is to pay her parents debts, prompting her into prostitution to assume their debts? Is a cultural mentality immune from coercing and abusing?

 

[arkirk]

Why? If a sex worker is taking care of an ill parent or has a temporarily unemployed partner for example they would fit the language "living off the earnings of a prostitute". As would the family members of the Latin American hookers in Amsterdam (that Sabine was writing about) who were sending money to family back home.
Anti-pimping laws need to focus on coercion and abuse, not such ill-defined and broad language.

How about Thailand, Derec, where the cultural trend is the expectation that the daughter is to pay her parents debts, prompting her into prostitution to assume their debts? Is a cultural mentality immune from coercing and abusing?

The problem is targeting someone that will always be in the vicinity of others who are not targeted. Have you ever heard of collateral damage? Pimps, pros, and johns are always going to be in close quarters during the commission of the "crime." There is something bad about relegating human beings to this business. They all assume a condition somewhat lower in status than one not involved. It is a sign of insufficient opportunity for people that pushes people into the forbidden professions in the first place. We severely limit peoples' potential by defining them as "criminal," and innocent but profiting "victim". Such characterizations tend to lock people into these positions, defining their place in society. We are lucky they haven't decided to attack the problem with drones...."oh the humanity!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is the anti-pimping laws go too far. Living off the earnings of a prostitute is a bad thing but the anti-pimping laws also criminalize perfectly reasonable business relationships.

Yes, it was overbroad. My point is that here we have a conservative government claiming to be primarily concerned with the safety, health, and welfare of women drawn into the sex industry and abused therein, and so.... they make pimping legal. Why wouldn't they put in some law to try to address pimps once the old one was struck?

It sounds like the usual case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The prostitutes themselves objected to the anti-pimping laws. They interfere with legitimate business relationships and honestly they don't do that much about real pimps--they operate from the shadows anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Living off the earnings of a prostitute is a bad thing

Why? If a sex worker is taking care of an ill parent or has a temporarily unemployed partner for example they would fit the language "living off the earnings of a prostitute". As would the family members of the Latin American hookers in Amsterdam (that Sabine was writing about) who were sending money to family back home.
Anti-pimping laws need to focus on coercion and abuse, not such ill-defined and broad language.

I think this is best handled by only applying the laws to those making a living off more than one unrelated prostitute.

 

[arkirk]

Why? If a sex worker is taking care of an ill parent or has a temporarily unemployed partner for example they would fit the language "living off the earnings of a prostitute". As would the family members of the Latin American hookers in Amsterdam (that Sabine was writing about) who were sending money to family back home.
Anti-pimping laws need to focus on coercion and abuse, not such ill-defined and broad language.

I think this is best handled by only applying the laws to those making a living off more than one unrelated prostitute.

So pimping out one woman at a time is okay with you? I have an entirely different attitude toward this. So many of these women feel they are slaves to their pimps. Ever wonder why? Because they usually are. There are societal externals that press many women into this business and it usually is not because they seek to be fucked by strangers for money. It can be to support a habit, perhaps to keep from being beaten up, perhaps just to eat and perhaps feed a kid, or any number of very unsexy causes. But they all have something in common...threat of deprivation and lack of opportunity, and even sometimes low IQ.

People who are in a business because they are troubled and are doing it because they need the income really don't belong in that business. There are women who actually love being prostitutes and I know more than one of them. They should band together and do their business with people who want to patronize them. They should have retirement homes and pensions and other benefits working people can accrue. If we really believe in freedom, women who are only pros because they have no other viable choice need to be given viable choices. Our society is not proactive on so many problems and prostitution is one of them.

I don't think even this occupation can be socially eradicated, so why not make it an actual career with all the protections any other citizen enjoys. I am not saying regulate or overtax the business, but rather allow it to do business in a civilized way without opprobrium.

 

[SimpleDon]

It is an almost word for word reprint of an article published a year before in der Spiegel, the German news magazine. The English version is here.

Too bad they didn't link to the German original.
In any case, the second half of the article completely invalidates the title. A "huge success" doesn't look like this.

I can look up the German version of the article but there is no guarantee that it is the original one. It could have been written in English and translated into German, making the original version the English one. What does it matter? Do you question Der Spiegel's ability to translate from one language to another?

I agree that the complete article does mitigate the "huge success" claimed in the headline, pretty much reducing it to a "maybe some positive results ... or not."

I use to have a study on how much of an article that people read. The majority only read the headline and the lead paragraph to form an opinion based on the article. And it didn't even matter if the article supported their biases or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think this is best handled by only applying the laws to those making a living off more than one unrelated prostitute.

So pimping out one woman at a time is okay with you?

The reality is pimps pimp out many women. Limiting it to one would seriously harm their income and thus make it less desirable--and I'm not saying to legalize the criminal behavior needed to pimp a woman.

The problem is that making it categorically illegal to live off the earnings of a prostitute keeps a prostitute from supporting their family. It's not a one-sided situation where as tough as possible is the right answer.

I don't think even this occupation can be socially eradicated, so why not make it an actual career with all the protections any other citizen enjoys. I am not saying regulate or overtax the business, but rather allow it to do business in a civilized way without opprobrium.

I support legalization and regulation (health checks and the like.)

 

[Jayjay]

I am surprised more Canadians are not noticing all of what this law does. It makes pimping legal.

We used to have 3 laws, one targeted at pimping (living off the avails of prostitution), one to reign in nuisance (soliciting for the purpose of prostitution (interpreted as in public)), and one against brothels (Common baudy house). Incalls where a lot of prostitution happens were illegal. Outcalls, where the girl comes to you, was legal. Living off the avails was to attack pimping, and now PIMPING IS LEGAL. That's pretty big news to me. I thought that when the court struck down the living off the avails law, the government would enact a new law, allowing for some protection for the girls, but still going after pimps, maybe making it so the girls have to be in control and hire their help, or form collectives, or whatever.

If that's true, then obviously the Canadian legislators missed a spot. But my understanding was that pimping would still be illegal, as it is a crime to benefit financially from anyone else's selling of sex services than your own.

 

[Jayjay]

That's not going to happen. While perhaps not technically correct, prostitution has been described as world's oldest profession for a reason. It has thrived for thousands of years in different governmental systems, many of which were actively opposed to it.
Nor do I think it would be a good thing to eliminate prostitution. Sex industry is a legitimate industry, serving a legitimate human desire.

It's a completely voluntary transaction,

In that case the government has no business prohibiting it.

I meant voluntary for the customer. I don't believe that people who are buying sex services are doing it for legitimate need. Those who provide said services however are sometimes in a situation that they have no choice but to do it to bring food to the table (or worse).

Sure, not every prostitute is a victim, and quite likely not even a majority of them in countries like Canada or Sweden. But in my moral calculus the rights of the small minority of prostitutes who are trafficking victims, or otherwise being taken advantage of, trump the "rights" of the johns to be able to buy sexual services that they can very well live without.

unless the customer has had all his limbs amputated or something.

I do not quite get where you are going with that. Are you saying that if Mr. Oblong went (hopped?) to a hooker it'd be an involuntary transaction?

Mister Oblong here would have trouble satisfying his sexual urges by himself, and that's the only case where the argument that sex services fulfill a basic human need is at least somewhat credible. For every man with at least one functioning hand, not so much.

Or if you believe that some people are "sex addicts" who just can't live without it, but personally, I think that's a bullshit diagnosis and making analogy to drug addicts or even gambling addicts is an insult to the latter.

No, I do not think "sex addiction" is a thing in most cases. It seems that people get labeled "sex addicts" if their libido is much higher than average or if they do not conform to the normative monogamous paradigm (see Tiger Woods).
However, it is a question of basic individual liberty of two consenting adults. Both the liberty of the sex worked to provide sexual services if he or she so chooses and the liberty of the customers to purchase such services.
Furthermore, many men do not have access to sex otherwise. They may be widowed, disabled (including things like Autism spectrum), in a sexless marriage or single and not the type who can just pick up a woman at a bar due to lack of attractiveness, social skills or both. Why should they be treated like criminals just for seeking sexual fulfillment?

Porn would still be legal and fairly easily available.

 

[Jayjay]

What makes you think so? According to www.humantrafficking.org:

Other sources, including the study I linked to upthread, dispute this.

Not so much. I read that paper, and while it casts some doubt as to some specific numbers about reduced trafficking, it does not present any alternative numbers. Plus the Spiegel article lists data points that were not addressed by the article you linked, such as comparisons to Norway and Finland in terms of number of foreign prostitutes.

As for number of sex workers and customers, the point of the law is not to punish sex workers, so you'd hardly expect their total number to be much lower, and the fact that number of customers has not decreased much shows that those who really want to use said services are able to do so despite it being illegal.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am surprised more Canadians are not noticing all of what this law does. It makes pimping legal.

We used to have 3 laws, one targeted at pimping (living off the avails of prostitution), one to reign in nuisance (soliciting for the purpose of prostitution (interpreted as in public)), and one against brothels (Common baudy house). Incalls where a lot of prostitution happens were illegal. Outcalls, where the girl comes to you, was legal. Living off the avails was to attack pimping, and now PIMPING IS LEGAL. That's pretty big news to me. I thought that when the court struck down the living off the avails law, the government would enact a new law, allowing for some protection for the girls, but still going after pimps, maybe making it so the girls have to be in control and hire their help, or form collectives, or whatever.

If that's true, then obviously the Canadian legislators missed a spot. But my understanding was that pimping would still be illegal, as it is a crime to benefit financially from anyone else's selling of sex services than your own.

That was the old law that was struck by the judges. Pimping is legal under the new law, so long as you are living with her and not beating her up.

 

[Sabine Grant]

If that's true, then obviously the Canadian legislators missed a spot. But my understanding was that pimping would still be illegal, as it is a crime to benefit financially from anyone else's selling of sex services than your own.

That was the old law that was struck by the judges. Pimping is legal under the new law, so long as you are living with her and not beating her up.

I wonder how many prostitutes with a living in pimp, who would be subjected to any abuse of their person would actually feel safe enough to come forward and file a complaint for domestic violence.