Canada lower house passes Swedish Model

[Derec]

Because the customers are not the ones who are being trafficked or victimized by their pimps.

Not all prostitutes are being "trafficked or victimized". The equation of all prostitution with trafficking and designation of all prostitutes as "victims" has no basis in reality.
Also, that still doesn't explain why customers should be criminalized. Go after traffickers, go after people forcing women into prostitution. Don't go after consenting adults.

Sure in a perfect world every sexual encounter would be 100% consensual, there is no poverty or crime, but in reality, that's just not the case.

What does poverty have to do with it? Necessity to earn money to avoid poverty is motivation for people for taking all sorts of jobs, including but certainly not limited to sex work.
Do you think only independently wealthy women should become prostitutes?

In particular if prostitution is criminalized the prostitute faces far greater risk than the customer, while the pimps and the traffickers are the ones who benefit most.

When both buying and selling are criminalized both face a risk. Plenty of clients get arrested in stings where a female cop pretends she is a prostitute. Some police departments even publicize mugshots of the victims of their stings in order to shame them.
The goal should be to have neither side face undue and unnecessary risk, not to play one side against another because of ideological prejudice. Therefore, prostitution should be treated just like any other profession.

I stand corrected. But apparently, one of the anciliary activities is making a living with prostitution (according to wikipedia anyway). To me it sounds like making it harder to sell sex services by criminalizing buying thereof would still be less of a blocker than outright ban on having it as a livelihood.

If you don't care at all about the (mostly male) clients perhaps. But I think neither clients nor prostitutes should be persecuted like that.
And even that is not that clear. Experience of 20 years of the Swedish Model in Sweden itself has shown that prostitutes still want to attract clients and since they can't do it in the open (because their clients face risk of arrest and prosecution) it still forces them to ply their trade underground.

So what? Nobody has to use the services of prostitutes to survive or make a living.

My retort is "so what". Just because it something is not necessary for survival it doesn't mean it should be banned just because some people find it immoral. Alcohol is not necessary for survival, but that doesn't mean Prohibition was a good idea.

It's a minor inconvenience to the customers,

Being subject to arrest and prosecution is not a "minor inconvenience".

wheras leaving women (and some men, but let's face it, it's mostly women) vulnerable to criminal exploitation is potentially life-ruining.

Pushing prostitution underground is what is making prostitutes "vulnerable to criminal exploitation" in the first place.
I do agree with you that sex workers deserve good and safe working conditions. But the Swedish Model is not the solution. It's not improving safety of sex workers and it's targeting (mostly male) clients for no good reason (other than ideology).

 

[laughing dog]

I thought the idea was that by targeting customers, demand for sex workers would fall.

 

[Metaphor]

He said the prostitution bill represents a "paradigm shift" in Canada because it deals with sex workers as victims who need help, rather than criminals who deserve punishment.

Holy false dichotomy, Batman!

 

[Jokodo]

Senate being the only hope against passage.
Controversial prostitution bill passed

Because no woman would ever chose to do sex work of her own volition, right?

Unlike Sweden, where both left and right supports this illiberal approach, in Canada the liberal factions voted against.

France already moved in this ridiculous direction, now Canada also.

Do you have any idea why France moved in that direction? Here is a hint : 90% of prostitutes in France are of foreign import versus only 10% in the early 90's. What do you think is the source of such drastic increase of foreign born and foreign imported prostitutes? Let's see if you can connect the dots....Other hint to make it easier for you : countries of origin being Sub Sahara Africa, Sahel, Asia, Romania and ex eastern Block countries.

You're equivocating between immigration and trafficking. If it is true that 90% of prostitutes in France are immigrants (80% is the figure I've read elsewhere, but it doesn't make a difference for our purposes), it only shows that the number of French women willing to go into prostitution at current rates is lower than the demand. It does not show that all, or most, or even just a sizable minority, are forced into it. Immigrants from poorer countries being willing to work in a rich country at rates at which it is hard to find locals for the job is not something that is particular to sex work.

By all means, France should crack down on trafficking on modern-day slavery. But if France believes that it makes sense to prohibit an entire industry based on the fact that a subset of the workforce are being forced into it, a better way to start would arguibly be to ban Spanish grown fruits and vegetables (an industry where de facto slavery is actually known to be widespread).

 

[Jokodo]

I disagree. It makes just about as much sense as criminalizing drug use but treating drug dealers as "victims".

Drug use is not criminalized. Possession and sale is. And this is a false analogy because in sex trade the "dealer" would be the pimp, and the prostitute is the product being dealt.

This revised analogy only marginally works when you already assume that the prostitute is forced to do it, and even so it remains poor. Clients don't buy prostitutes, they pay them (or in some cases, their pimps) for a specific service. So a better analogy would be a street trader who wants to exit but is threatened by his higher-ups.

 

[Jokodo]

And the legislators did not make it a crime to buy those services, it was already a crime.

I do not think so. According to an article about the original court decision it seems the original law didn't criminalize buying or selling sex outright, just certain anciliary activities that made selling sex difficult.

I stand corrected. But apparently, one of the anciliary activities is making a living with prostitution (according to wikipedia anyway). To me it sounds like making it harder to sell sex services by criminalizing buying thereof would still be less of a blocker than outright ban on having it as a livelihood.

I think you're misreading. The previous law criminalised people living off the revenues of prostitution without being themselves prostitutes. It was intended to target pimps but was vague enough to jeopardise legitimate business partners of independent prostitutes such as bodyguards or landlords, which is why it got struck down in the first place.

 

[dystopian]

Those who want prostitution to be legalized are not in any worse position to push for further reform

Actually they are. Once a system like this is in place, there's very little incentive to take it further. "Why reform when we've already reformed?" "What's the point of legalizing it when we're already 'protecting' prostitutes?" "We need to wait for the results of this first"

Half measures rarely work as intended , and significantly slow down real lasting reform in the process. It isn't a 'step in the right direction' anymore when said 'step' comes in the form of one step forward and another step backward with government then needing a decade or more to assess whether their step forward/backward has had any positive effect, only to then have further reform get lost in bureacracy.

If you want to help prostitutes, you'd better do it right the first time around. Billing a law like this as 'helping' prostitutes is akin to saying that a country that used to stone homosexuals to death is now 'helping' homosexuals by changing the law so that instead of stoning them to death, they get to starve because the law now actively requires everyone, businesses included, to shun them. That's not a step in the right direction at all, even though they're not actively being stoned anymore. If you *really* want to help prostitutes, then legalize their profession, give them the care and support they need, and give the police enough resources to go after the traffickers and pimps. But doing that requires some actual effort and money.

 

[Jayjay]

Hair splitting, so let me rephrase. Should selling and "possession with intent to distribute" be legal but buying and possession for personal use be criminalized?

And this is a false analogy because in sex trade the "dealer" would be the pimp, and the prostitute is the product being dealt.

Wrong. The prostitute is not the product but a service provider (she performs a service, you are not buying her (she is not a slave) any more than you are buying your massage therapist or plumber) and thus equivalent to the dealer. The only difference between the drug and sex scenarios is that drugs are a product while sex is a service.

That makes all the difference because there is no equivalent of "possession" for a service. You cannot take the service, then keep it in your pocket until you get home, then have it without the provider being present. If you wanted to make an analogy closer you should drop the drug angle altogether and make the act of acquiring, holding and delivering drugs to the customer all the while avoiding to get caught as a service industry rather than try to compare drugs themselves to sex services.

So what does that do to the analogy? Not much. The one who has to make a buck to please someone else is the victim, it's not a simple buyer/seller issue. In drug dealing case that's usually the buyer (but not always). In prostitution it's usually the provider (but not always). Laws are made to protect the vulnerable parties, even if it might mean that sometimes the econmic opportunities for the non-vulnerable ones are somewhat restricted. For example if I want to obtain cocaine for my chemistry hobby, I have to go through enormous trouble of filing proper paperwork or risk doing it illegally... but that's a limitation that people generally accept in exchange for protecting potential cocaine addicts from dealers who want to make money off them.

 

[Jayjay]

It's a minor inconvenience to the customers,

Being subject to arrest and prosecution is not a "minor inconvenience".

I as referring to being without said services altogether. It's a completely voluntary transaction, unless the customer has had all his limbs amputated or something. 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.

 

[dismal]

Why not just legalize and regulate it?

Why not just make it legal and don't regulate it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why not just legalize and regulate it?

Why not just make it legal and don't regulate it?

Because there's a lot of abusive and criminal behaviour within the industry which needs to be dealt with. Legalizing it and then leaving it alone simply causes those aspects to grow and fester, making the entire industry less safe as a result. When there's a profession where it's very easy and profitable to break the rules, greater oversight of the industry is required as a result.

 

[dismal]

Why not just make it legal and don't regulate it?

Because there's a lot of abusive and criminal behaviour within the industry which needs to be dealt with. Legalizing it and then leaving it alone simply causes those aspects to grow and fester, making the entire industry less safe as a result. When there's a profession where it's very easy and profitable to break the rules, greater oversight of the industry is required as a result.

Regulate consensual activity not equal punish criminal behavior.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Because there's a lot of abusive and criminal behaviour within the industry which needs to be dealt with. Legalizing it and then leaving it alone simply causes those aspects to grow and fester, making the entire industry less safe as a result. When there's a profession where it's very easy and profitable to break the rules, greater oversight of the industry is required as a result.

Regulate consensual activity not equal punish criminal behavior.

I'm not aware of equating the two in any way, shape or form.

There are aspects of the prostitution industry which are consentual activities and there are aspects of the prostitution industry which are abusive criminal behaviour. What's needed is a way to separate the two so that the former can operate legitimately and the latter can be identified and prosecuted. The model that Canada's implementing doesn't do either. It still makes it a quasi-legal environment where there's no oversight and nobody wants the police involved. It's dangerous for both the workers and the customers.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What it does is open up a gigantic opportunity for blackmail.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I opened this thread with hopes of pictures of a Swedish model. Anyhow...

The Swedish model is better than criminalizing prostitution altogether, and as such I don't see how it would not be a step in the right direction at least.

I disagree. It's one-sided nature is worse than our rules.

Either way prostitution will still exist.
In China banning it didn't make it unpopular. In fact it's rampant

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is a big step backwards. Prostitution has been legal in Canada for as far back as I can remember.

 

[Jayjay]

What it does is open up a gigantic opportunity for blackmail.

Out of curiosity, in places like Sweden or France where it has been tried before, have there been any actual problems with such blackmail?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Illiberal streams in French politics.

Here is a hint : 90% of prostitutes in France are of foreign import versus only 10% in the early 90's. What do you think is the source of such drastic increase of foreign born and foreign imported prostitutes? Let's see if you can connect the dots....Other hint to make it easier for you : countries of origin being Sub Sahara Africa, Sahel, Asia, Romania and ex eastern Block countries.

How does that justify criminalizing the customers but not providers?

You have not connected the dots. So, I will do that for you. Those foreign born and foreign import prostitutes are the product of human trafficking. Why would you want to penalize them as victims of human trafficking? Of course, you would if you do not consider humans who are being trafficked as victims.

If it turned out that 90% of drug dealers were foreign born does that justify criminalizing drug buyers but not sellers?
Instead of criminalizing people that want to engage in sex between consenting adults maybe the government should go after human trafficking.

Why are you assuming that the French government does not go after human trafficking?

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/fr...human-rights/fight-against-human-trafficking/



Not criminalizing the victims is a recognition that this is not about the rosy scenario of "people who want to engage in sex in between consenting adults". Rather the repeated infernal vicious circle of "recruiters" exploiting the state of dire poverty of those foreign women/girls, promising them a better life in France. Among those recruiters, pseudo modeling agencies operating in ex Eastern Block nations. In Sub Sahara Africa, these women are recruited under the promise of a wealthy French family hiring them "au pair", granting housing, food and a salary. To include the possibility they may even be able to get an education. Of course, upon their arrival, they are "greeted" by pimps who will exploit them for sex trafficking.

Human trafficking is intense in the Western world. The way to fight it is to deprive those organized rings from their financial resources. Financial resources being the customers.

It was not that hard to connect those dots, Derec.

However, just because a sex worker is foreign born doesn't make her a victim of trafficking.

You strike me as someone who is totally unaware as to how human trafficking works. How French internal organized prostitution rings will operate and where and why. Of course I am a reasonable person who understands that you are certainly not expected to be INFORMED as I am regarding the intensity of human trafficking reflected among the high number of prostitutes of foreign origin on the French territory. I would not expect you to be able to access the data (or even be interested in doing your own home work on that specific) since it concerns a foreign nation you do not appear to be familiar with, considering your initial comment regarding France, I am replying to.

Neither does her being an illegal alien mean that. By that logic you would have to treat illegal aliens in other lines of work as "trafficking victims" as well. It is about time that sex work is treated as any other work and not subject to special stigma or punitive legislation.

Considering that the motivation in France was based on undermining human trafficking resulting in the sexual exploitation of a high number of foreign born and imported women/girls, I have no idea why you would want to legalize such human trafficking. Again, the 90% of those sex workers are not working under the rosy conditions of "consenting adults". Are you or not going to acknowledge that reality?

http://www.west-info.eu/french-prostitution-figures/report-287/

I know...it is in French. Maybe can you use your google translator so you may be given a reality check as to the actual status of those foreign import prostitutes in France?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Attacking johns won't stop the demand for paid sex. The human drive is way more powerful than these people seem to think. All attacking johns will do is drive prostitution further underground, making it harder, not easier to control and make safe.

If you think making it illegal to buy sex will somehow help sex slaves, I really dont follow your logic. That is neither the motivation nor the effect of this law.

If hooking was fully legalized, and sex workers and brothels were licensed, regulated and tested for stds, I will bet you a lot of guys would make use if that, and human trafficking and stds would decrease.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Senate being the only hope against passage.
Controversial prostitution bill passed

Because no woman would ever chose to do sex work of her own volition, right?

Unlike Sweden, where both left and right supports this illiberal approach, in Canada the liberal factions voted against.

France already moved in this ridiculous direction, now Canada also.

Do you have any idea why France moved in that direction? Here is a hint : 90% of prostitutes in France are of foreign import versus only 10% in the early 90's. What do you think is the source of such drastic increase of foreign born and foreign imported prostitutes? Let's see if you can connect the dots....Other hint to make it easier for you : countries of origin being Sub Sahara Africa, Sahel, Asia, Romania and ex eastern Block countries.

To a large degree it's happening because of the EU--people tend to move to areas where they can make more and the EU makes it much easier to move. 90% of them being imports says nothing about whether they are free agents as opposed to coerced.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. It makes just about as much sense as criminalizing drug use but treating drug dealers as "victims".

Drug use is not criminalized. Possession and sale is. And this is a false analogy because in sex trade the "dealer" would be the pimp, and the prostitute is the product being dealt.

Then crack down on the actual crime--pimping.