Canada Supreme Court Strikes Down All Current Restrictions on Prostitution
Last edited Fri Dec 20, 2013, 05:15 PM - Edit history (3)
Source: Reuters / National Post
@Reuters: Canada Supreme Court strikes down all current restrictions on prostitution, including a ban on brothels and street solicitation
Supreme Court declares Canada’s anti-prostitution laws unconstitutional in landmark ruling
Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News
Friday, Dec. 20, 2013
OTTAWA — Canada’s highest court has declared prostitution laws unconstitutional and has given Parliament a year to make them Charter-compliant should it wish to continue to impose limits on the sex trade.
It means being caught in a bawdy-house, living off the profits of another’s prostitution and soliciting sex in public will remain crimes until December 2014, but that legal brothels could be a reality in Canada by next Christmas should Parliament decide to do nothing.
In a landmark, unanimous ruling Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada found bawdy-house laws that make it a crime to be caught unlawfully in what is essentially a brothel are “grossly disproportionate” to the intent of the law, which is to prevent community nuisance.
Big cheers from lobby of #scc as prostitution laws declared unconstitutional #cdnpoli—
Tobi Cohen (@tobicohen) December 20, 2013
“Parliament has the power to regulate against nuisances, but not at the cost of the health, safety and lives of prostitutes,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLaughlin who referenced the case of convicted serial killer Robert Pickton who targeted prostitutes in British Columbia.
“A law that prevents street prostitutes from resorting to a safe haven such as Grandma’s House while a suspected serial killer prowls the streets is a law that has lost sight of its purpose.”
Read more: http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/20/supreme-court-strikes-down-canadas-anti-prostitution-laws
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RandySF
(58,739 posts)Regulated sex work behind closed doors and between consenting adults is fine by me, but street walking is a public nuisance.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)It is not nice to have folks giving/getting blowjobs in gangways and in cars with used condoms everywhere. But if there is a motel then it may not be so nice but it is not in the street.
I would think zoning would work very well, letting brothels in rural/industrial areas. Kinda like you don't want a nightclun next door to your house because of the noise.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Right now prostitutes can't work out of legal brothels which steers some toward street solicitation. I bet they would allow bans on street solicitation next year if there are alternate legal avenues for prostitution available (pun unintentional but duly noted).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That surprises me a lot.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...to tell parliament to just start from a clean slate and do everything from scratch because they screwed it up the first time around.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)
musiclawyer
(2,335 posts)In certain micro zones in various cities.
I would prefer all states simple followed the Nevada model but without hand billing
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Can't have anyone enjoying their body outside of procreation
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Which I find a bit more persuasive. Not that I have a better idea than legalization...
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Trafficking unquestionably proliferates under illegalized prostitution. Trafficking has more to do with pandering, which should be illegal in most instances and highly regulated in others. One of the reasons trafficking proliferates in the first place is because the prostitution trade is forced underground by laws that make it illegal.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)from exploitation, and bloody enforce those laws with iron fist.
24601
(3,959 posts)wants a less-senior worker?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And good job to the women who worked so hard for this
Squinch
(50,944 posts)Nicklas Jakobsson, PhD, Research Fellow at Norwegian Social Research (NOVA), and Andreas Kotsadam, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oslo, Norway, stated in their Feb. 2013 study titled "The Law and Economics of International Sex Slavery: Prostitution Laws and Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation,” published in the European Journal of Law and Economics:
"Using two recent sources of European cross country data we show that trafficking of persons for commercial sexual exploitation... is least prevalent in countries where prostitution is illegal, most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalized, and in between in those countries where prostitution is legal but procuring illegal."
....and....
Seo-Young Cho, Assistant Professor of Empirical Institutional Economics at Philipps-University of Marburg (Germany), Axel Dreher, Professor of International and Development Politics at Heidelberg University, Germany, and Eric Neumayer, Professor of Environment and Development at the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, wrote in their Mar. 2013 paper for World Development titled "Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking":
"The scale effect of legalized prostitution leads to an expansion of the prostitution market, increasing human trafficking, while the substitution effect reduces demand for trafficked women as legal prostitutes are favored over trafficked ones. Our empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows..."
But I doubt that will stop many from saying that objecting to legalized prostitution is just a lot of prude-y prudes being prudish.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)That's really what's happening here. Sex workers--who are already legally practicing in Canada--will now be able to have stable, secure places of work and hire security. I don't think your study is even relevant to this situation.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)"These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not
The women in the case had argued that the law prevented them from safely conducting their business as sex-trade workers, arguing that hiring bodyguards and drivers, and being able to work in private homes or talk with potential clients in public were important to their safety.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)This is what it is.
Yesterday a legal profession (of mostly women) had to operate under draconian laws that created unsafe work conditions and impacted their rights. As of now, those laws need to be reworked so that these legal workers do not have their rights infringed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Also, thank goodness public solicitation will be something that anyone can do anywhere in Canada, including near schools and daycare centers.
Presumably now that pimping and sex trafficking are a-okay, pimps can start recruiting at high school career fairs.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Fuck their nationalized health care, too! Monsters.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)There is no legal restriction--none--on solicitation. Private, public all good. Pimps are now considered entrepeneurs, not criminals.
But for the decision to get rid of the sex trafficking visa, the pimps and sex traffickers would be ready to enjoy stupendous profits, but they're still going to do just fine.
If pimps want to line up women for sale a block from a middle school, starting in December 2014 they'll be allowed to. If a dad wants to pick up his kids from school, heck they can offer him a blowjob while he walks his kids to the car.
It's Larry Flynt multiplied by Ron Paul. What could go wrong?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)To compensate for their oh so cute but crippling lack of reasoning skills and empty moral compass, we should dress them in Burkas and ensure that only 1 man per 1 woman has the ability to own, control and exploit their sexuality. You hear that. Lock up the ladies. The pimps are coming to town!
And I shed a tear for anyone who has a broken sarcos-mo-meter.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)
Not talking about where prostitution is legal, but where pimping is legal.
What you got?
To my knowledge, Canada is the first country to legalize pimping.
So, congrats to them on that. What's good for pimps is good for all of humanity, said no one.
Edited to add: Apologies to the Netherlands, which legalized pimping, and has seen the totally not predictable result being an increase in sex trafficking and exploitation.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Allowing women to come out of the shadows and take control of their own careers and safety--hiring bodyguards and drivers if they so wish--is definitely a positive step in terms of harm reduction and empowerment.
As far as pimps and madams are concerned, if they can add more value (in terms of safety and opportunity) to a sex workers job than they cost the workers, then their jobs can be self-justified. Legalization only makes the typically negative connotations (trafficking/exploitation) associated with pimps/madams harder to pursue, as the workers themselves can now have a legal route to protect themselves (criminals have a difficult time asking police for protection while performing a criminal job). If being a pimp does become legal after December 2014 (and it may not!), it will likely be subject to the same typical regulation at least that all employers in Canada are subject to (and the sex-workers will get the protections that all other workers get, if they are not self-employed). And that is not a bad thing.
But by all means, knee-jerk it up
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)they'll just call themselves security providers and logistical coordinators or agents, charge disproportionate fee, etc.
Only way to mitigate the harm from pimps is to imprison them.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Doh! And the workers have no where to turn to under those circumstances
Squinch
(50,944 posts)"Allowing women to come out of the shadows" increases trafficking, and decreases the overall safety of sex workers in countries where prostitution is legal.
With one breath, you are saying that women need to be given more control over their bodies, and with the next breath you are saying that pimps, who control women's bodies and sell them for money, are legitimate professionals.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its already legal in Canada. If the laws are not rewritten, they will eventually have the ability to hire bodyguards and have secure places of work.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)when prostitution is legalized.
And if the laws are not rewritten, pimps will now be free to sell women's body for their own profits. Not the women's profits. The pimp's profits. Just like selling any other commodity.
Implicit in those studies is this: illegal prostitution makes the prostitute vulnerable to sanctions by the government or law enforcement. Legal prostitution makes the prostitute vulnerable to enslavement by sex traffickers. Which would you rather be vulnerable to?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Let me know when you have a study that show that a legal worker who gets to hire protection is now suddenly in more danger.
Don't have one? Fine, then lets move on already.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)the ruling is that all aspects of prostitution will become legal.
Which, in the countries that have tried it, has turned out to be a disaster in terms of huge increases in human trafficking.
And you let me know when you can have a discussion without resorting to a gratuitously nasty tone.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)secure worksite was illegal.
Which, in the countries that have tried it, has turned out to be a disaster
Which countries that previously barred legal sex-workers from hiring bodyguards, and then repealed that law to a disaster?
Any?
Squinch
(50,944 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)who just don't trust people with too many personal freedoms, especially if sex is involved. It's amazing how many folks from both sides of the politcal spectrum can manage to agree with their ideological foes if they just all hate sex enough.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not,” McLaughlin wrote."
And
"has given Parliament a year to make them Charter-compliant should it wish to continue to impose limits on the sex trade."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Now that the capitalist class stands to lose money if the law is changed, we'll see how the Conservatives handle it.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Looks like pimping will remain illegal for another year. Meanwhile it all depends on what parliament does in that time to rework he prostitution laws in a manner that is constitutionally acceptable.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)off of prostitution, pimping and exploitation are inevitable.
Pimps will brand themselves as "security providers" and "logistics coordinators" and that will be that.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I don't understand your reaction.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)It was illegal before, will remain illegal for the next year, and will likely still be illegal after the law is reworked.
edit: Since it is still illegal to pimp (unlike what you wrote in your subject header) it makes sense to wait until you see what replacement legislation is proposed before flying off the deep end.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Organized crime and pimps have perfected that business model over the centuries. If you think they won't exploit this . . .
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Once it becomes legal it has the reverse effect
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But 12 years later, Amsterdam, the country's largest city, has become Europe's second-largest human trafficking hub.
And, surprisingly, Dutch-born women and children rank first among trafficking victims - ahead of Bulgarians and Nigerians who rank second and third.
...
The authorities, including the Office of the Dutch Rapporteur on Human Trafficking, attribute this exploitation of Dutch women to a new brand of pimp - so-called 'Lover Boys'.
'Lover Boys' are said by experts to be distinct from Dutch pimps, who would traditionally pick up poor, young girls arriving in Amsterdam from the provinces in search of work and lure them into prostitution.
This new brand of pimp emerged over the past 20 years or so when this niche market, once dominated by Dutch men, was taken over by second- and third-generation immigrants.
Police and social workers largely point the finger of blame at predominantly Muslim Dutch-Moroccans and mainly Christian Dutch-Antilleans.
Unlike international traffickers who work across borders, these pimps are believed to operate either alone or in small localised gangs. They use promises of love, romance and even marriage to win the trust of young girls who they then trick into working as prostitutes. Dutch police and social workers often refer to it as 'brainwashing'.
But because pimping is legal in the Netherlands, it is easy for 'Lover Boys' to operate below the radar
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Here are 3 concepts you might want to look into
Opinion
Study
Documentary
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)what a concept
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)I hate idiots taking shit out of context and exclaiming they have "Documented Proof"
Try this on for size
Many of the problems associated with “prostitution”
are actually concentrated in street prostitution and
much less evident in the indoor sector.
Research finds that many indoor workers made conscious
decisions to enter the trade; they do not see themselves
as oppressed victims and do not feel that their
work is degrading. Consequently, they express greater job
satisfaction than their street-level counterparts. And they
may differ little from nonprostitutes: A study by psychologist
Sarah Romans and colleagues comparing indoor
workers and an age-matched sample of nonprostitute
http://www.gwu.edu/~soc/docs/Weitzer/Prostitution_Facts.pdf
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)observe that you just posted a "feature article" by an ideolgue who downplays the problems posed by trafficking:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-weitzer/human-trafficking-myths_b_935366.html
who advocates non-enforcement of anti-sex trafficking laws (Weitzer believes that if someone sticks sex slaves in a brothel as opposed to the street, the government should not pay attention) while whining about someone posting an article by a documentarian who did extensive field work in the Netherlands.
If you want some facts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6497799.stm
Thailand, Japan, Israel, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey and the US were the most common destinations, the report said.
You get one guess as to why the Netherlands and Germany are on this list but the UK, France, and Scandinavian countries are not.
But, hey, legalization must have cut down on those numbers, right?
2010 993
2009 909
2008 826
2007 716
2006 579
2005 424
2004 405
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)they also talk about that too
Glad you showed your true colors
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)not understand that expressions of contempt aren't a substitute for rational argument?
I understand that the pimps' lobby is big on those tactics, but please try to rise above
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)If I remember right - she started the "World Wide Sex Trafficking" and "All Prostitution is Trafficking" just before she sold out most of her followers and took a position in the Bush Administration
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)"It means being caught in a bawdy-house, living off the profits of another’s prostitution and soliciting sex in public will remain crimes until December 2014, but that legal brothels could be a reality in Canada by next Christmas should Parliament decide to do nothing."
Parliament has a year to come up with prostitution laws that don't violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)from the prostitution of others without allowing pimps to insert themselves.
Pimps will call themselves drivers, security providers, booking agents, whatever the law says has to be allowed.
The oldest organized crime scheme is "selling protection." So yeah, that's a thing.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)People are sick of seeing the government regulate private consenting sexual transactions, so you shout PIMP PIMP PIMP a the top of our voice?
Color me unimpressed. A "pimp" in legal prostitution is just a middle man (or woman) you'd find in any business who connects clients with services. A pimp in the world of legal prostitution would basically be an insurance agent for paid sex, I fail to see what is so horrible about that (besides the word which has other negative connotations like beating, sexual slavery and trafficking, which obviously would not be legal in a world of legal prostitution). Let me repeat my point, the only thing about "pimping" that would carry over from illegal prostitution to legal prostitution would possibly be the word (even that seems doubtful). Legal prostitutes don't need pimps for "protection", that is what the police and paid security guards would be for.
Again, you'll probably just accuse me of supporting pimps when clearly I'm talking about completely changing the nature of enterprise through legalization.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)business that attracts well-adjusted, respectable customers and where the management would be just good old fashioned service-oriented entrepeneurs.
Prostitution is an economic transaction and institution, so spare me the Ron Paul talking points on gubmint regulation. You're advocating no regulation of prostitution, which means you're essentially favoring a system that invites the pimps to abuse women all over again, because hey gotta keep government out of the business of regulating that stuff, right.
Reality: pimps are scum. Men who buy sex are scum. Scum will not treat women well.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But making it legal surely gives that "fantasy" you cited and ability to be realized.
Men who buy sex are scum
I think we need to stop being so juvenile about sex already and using these blatant generalizations. Are men who buy porn scum? Men who buy massages? Men who simply go to strip clubs? What is the absolute bar a man crosses to automatically and forever be classified as scum, when pursuing the overriding driving biological urge coded down into their DNA?
I believe its more complicated than this. That's why I do not characterize women who sell sex as scum. I regard them as someone who is selling a service as a profession, who deserves equal protection and opportunity. I'm not trying to relate to a man who buys sex (no more than I would to one who buys porn or goes to clubs), but I am also not going to rule out understanding and dehumanize people. The only person I knew who admitted to using a prostitute was a draftee on a long tour, who said it was how they decompressed while being gone for months, in life threatening situations. Say what you will, but I didn't find that particularly scummy.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Oh, for chrissake.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Pigs, swine, etcetera.
You think men pay for sex because they want to treat women well?
Thanks for playing.
They are scum.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Sex has been a service and commodity for all of human history. All the moral pouting in the world won't change that.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)In prostitution, one buys the woman's body for the purpose of sex.
A subtle difference, but very significant.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Where prostitution is legal, there is a clear understanding that sex is the product being sold. If it was the woman's body as whole then logically the person would be free to do anything he could possibly want to the woman's body, this clearly is not the case (try punching a prostitute in Nevada Brothel, I promise you it will end horribly).
You go to the car wash, you give them money and then they wash your car.
You go to the prostitute, you give them money and he/she has sex with you.
If we're following your logic then for the duration of the car wash, you'd own the joint, or at least the sponges they use to clean your car. This is clearly not the case.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)sex. You may or may not have different types of sex. What you have bought is the body for a period of time. The fact that you are not allowed to ruin that product and make it unusable to future buyers in a Nevada brothel doesn't really change that.
The car wash analogy doesn't work because you don't wash your car inside someone's body. When you buy a car wash, you are essentially renting the equipment of the car wash. Just as you are renting the body in prostitution.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Alright, I got a massage last week (not what you are probably thinking, I have chronic back pain and a monthly massage is just about all that helps). I wouldn't say for a moment that I had rented her hands to make my back better. She was a skilled professional with a trade and a craft, she knew how to get the stress out of my troubled back. If I had rented her hands, frankly I wouldn't know the first thing to do with them.
Even if your logic held then I would be "renting" the massage therapists hands just like I'd be renting a prostitute's genitals. If your objection is to the renting of someones body, then you're doing the same thing to anyone who performs a service with their hands. You're a renting a construction worker's muscles when he builds your house, you're renting a plumbers labor when he fixes your pipes and you're renting a therapists mind when he psychoanalyzes you.
There only seems to be an objection to "renting" another human being when there is sex involved. This leads me to believe the objection is actually to the idea that sex can be sold, not some moral principle about the objectionable nature of renting someone.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)I am sure you have read the link that has been posted here on DU a number of times in which the buyers of prostitutes rate the prostitutes they have bought.
What you just wrote about your massage therapist is a world away from those. Your comments about the therapist recognize skill, humanity and professionalism.
The comments in which men review their prostitutes do not even appear to recognize the sentience of their purchases. These men are absolutely reviewing products that they have used, and they are disturbingly consistent in being obviously gleeful about the fact that they CAN de-humanize their purchases. That is part of the value of the transaction.
I understand that a case can be made from a distance that says it is a service like a massage. But the product review comments by the actual buyers show that that is not what is happening.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sorry you consider the idea that women should be treated like human beings to be "moral pouting"--it comes down to a fundamental difference in values I guess.
I question the human decency of anyone who could read those reviews from those swine men and see nothing wrong with it. Not in terms of 'sex is icky' but in 'hey, they have zero respect for women and that's cool because they have money" sense.
You see, they care NOTHING about the basic humanity of the women. NOTHING. They get upset because the women aren't pretending to enjoy themselves, and then they go ahead and use the women anyways.
You're cool with that, which means we're just on different sides when it comes to gender equality.
And spare me the "I care about women's freedoms." Bullshit. You care about rationalizing male entitltement.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Prostitutes have existed just about as long as human civilization has. I don't really see what is shameful about it (outside of the atrocious conditions caused by criminalization of the trade). I view prostitutes as professionals worthy of respect and as deserving the right to practice their trade in safety.
You always seem to be talking about women too. You know, men can be prostitutes as well. Hell, I've known some guys who have made money from having sex with other men.
Sadly that is the hetrocentric world view far to common to these kinds of debates.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I'll bet you really care if they're having a good time, enjoying themselves, etc.
Rape and murder and disease and famine are also reality. And they have existed as long as human civilization, as has male supremacism
Kurska
(5,739 posts)That is one of the huge tragedies of criminization. Many women who don't want to be involved in prostitution are held in sexual slavery, because we've turned the trade over to the black market and the black market doesn't care about individual right.
Now if it was regulated and legal, then any prostitute that doesn't want to be involved in prostitution can quit at any time. You really think a legal and licensed brothel is going to hold women against their will?
I very much want to improve the conditions of prostitutes and want to ensure that no one who doesn't want to be a prostitute is forced to. That is why I support legalization.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)while doing so, should that be legal?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Waterboarding is pretty extreme and I honestly doubt there is much of a market for it, but if everyone involved is a consenting adult and can stop it at anytime if they want it to end (without this bit right here the answer is a resounding heck no, that would be assault or even rape), then why not?
I don't think it is my place to tell people what to do with their bodies, see that is a big difference between me and a lot of people.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)have any way of knowing when they are dealing with consenting adults, and in areas where prostitution is more legally accessible, trafficking increases and the incidence of the selling of non-consenting adults increases.
I don't think it is my place to tell people what to do with their bodies either. People here love to use the intellectually lazy argument that objections to the legalization of prostitution are just a result of prudishness. That isn't the issue, and it is a position that willfully ignores what we know about the coincidence of legalization and exploitation.
If it were a matter of mutually desireable sexual expression, no one would care. It is a matter of the trafficking of human beings. There has been no system devised yet that allows people to commodify sexuality without exploitation of those who are commodified.
So the question is, do you think that anyone's sexual self-expression is so important that it needs to be satisfied at all costs, even if a byproduct of satisfying it is the enslavement of another person? I don't think it is.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Lets say there was a law in place that said that prostitutes could freely operate in specially designated brothels (that have strict health and safety standards, along with inspections) that are licensed to operate. Every prostitute would also be licensed and registered as a professional sex worker. In such a system, where on earth is there any room for trafficking? What brothel would risk their entire business to engage in highly illegal activity for minimal benefit? I argue that legalization and effective regulation would be the best solution to the very problem you're saying should prevent us from legalizing it.
Your argument is a red herring to me. You oppose legalization, because right now many prostitutes are forced to do it against their will? This sounds nearly identical to the argument some people make about drug legalization saying we shouldn't legalize drugs, because so many bad people profit from them. What that ignores is that if you legalized it you'd be forcing the criminal element out of the business.
I have no need for prostitutes. I am in a loving and caring relationship with another man. The reason I support legalization and regulation is that I believe it would be the cure for so many of the horrible things that are currently involved in prostitution.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)"Using two recent sources of European cross country data we show that [i]trafficking of persons for commercial sexual exploitation... is least prevalent in countries where prostitution is illegal, most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalized, and in between in those countries where prostitution is legal but procuring illegal."
....and....
Seo-Young Cho, Assistant Professor of Empirical Institutional Economics at Philipps-University of Marburg (Germany), Axel Dreher, Professor of International and Development Politics at Heidelberg University, Germany, and Eric Neumayer, Professor of Environment and Development at the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, wrote in their Mar. 2013 paper for World Development titled "Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking":
"The scale effect of legalized prostitution leads to an expansion of the prostitution market, increasing human trafficking, while the substitution effect reduces demand for trafficked women as legal prostitutes are favored over trafficked ones. Our empirical analysis for a cross-section of up to 150 countries shows that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect. On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows..."
So yes. I really do think that legalization will increase trafficking. And cross European studies, and studies of multiple countries supports that assertion.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Not because of an actual rise in number of people being trafficked?
Even the author of your article states that the information available is very imperfect. They even warn against using the data to justify keeping prostitution illegal, something you appear to have chosen to ignore.
From the SEO-YOUNG CHO article
"Naturally, this qualitative evidence is also somewhat tentative as there is no “smoking gun” proving that the scale effect dominates the substitution effect and that the legalization of prostitution definitely increases inward trafficking flows. The problem here lies in the
clandestine nature of both the prostitution and trafficking markets, making it difficult, perhaps impossible, to find hard evidence establishing this relationship. Our central finding, i.e., that countries with legalized prostitution experience a larger reported incidence of trafficking inflows, is therefore best regarded as being based on the most reliable existing data, but needs to be subjected to future scrutiny. More research in this area is definitely warranted, but it will require the collection of more reliable data to establish firmer conclusions. The likely negative consequences of legalized prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favor of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking (e.g., Outshoorn, 2005). However,
such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalization of prostitution might have on those employed
in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes—at least those legally employed—if prostitution is legalized. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky “freedom of choice” issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services. A full evaluation of the costs and benefits, as well as of the broader merits of prohibiting prostitution, is beyond the scope of the present article."
If you're basing your argument on this article, I would have thought you would have actually read it.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)incidence of trafficking inflows...based on the most reliable existing data." That is from the section you quoted. None of the rest of it refutes that finding.
The other article I cited, which studied cross-European data, found the same results.
And they said, as do all scholarly reviewed articles, that there were elements not included in their study that would be subjects for other studies.
Many other studies, likewise, have found increases in trafficking:
Richard Poulin, PhD, Professor of Sociology at the University of Ottawa, wrote in his article titled "The Legalization of Prostitution and Its Impact on Trafficking in Women and Children," posted Feb. 6, 2005 on Sisyphe.org:
"Although there was a belief that legalization would make possible control of the sex industry, the illegal industry is now 'out of control'. Police in Victoria [Australia] estimate that there are 400 illegal brothels as against 100 legal ones. Trafficking in women and children from other countries has increased significantly. The legalization of prostitution in some parts of Australia has thus resulted in a net growth of the industry. One of the results has been the trafficking in women and children to 'supply' legal and illegal brothels. The 'sex entrepreneurs' have difficulty recruiting women locally to supply an expanding industry, and women from trafficking are more vulnerable and more profitable."
Feb. 6, 2005 - Richard Poulin, PhD
Though not a study, here is an interesting article on Germany's results from legalization. I include an excerpt but the whole article is worth a read. http://www.examiner.com/article/german-s-legalized-prostitution-brought-more-exploitation-than-emancipation-to-women
German chief police reported yesterday sex trafficking is on the rise in the country. The chief officer also said that sex trafficking has increased 11 percent from last year and 70% over five year period. While many advocates for legalized prostitution argued that legalization should improve the rights of prostitutes and eliminate discrimination, the case in Germany shows otherwise. Rather, the sex industry in Germany became a magnet for sex traffickers from Eastern Europe and African countries. Further, it became a source of exploitation of German as well as other foreign women rather than their emancipation to support their right to sell their bodies.
We could go on and on.
And let's be clear here. We use the word "trafficking" as though we were dealing with cars. Each trafficked person is a human being whose life has been taken from him or her. They are enslaved and their bodies are used up against their will. It is a real cost in terms of human degradation and lives (and yes, I'm sure some people here will jump all over my use of the word degradation. No it isn't prude-y prudes being prudish. I'm referring to the degradation of their humanity that is involved in treating people as appliances.)
But finally, let me ask an unrelated question: is there no way to have a discussion on DU without someone bringing it down to the "nyah, nyah!" level of discourse that includes statements like, "If you're basing your argument on this article, I would have thought you would have actually read it." It would be nice to think there was a way to have a discussion here without that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to be tortured.
I don't turn into an adherent of Ayn Rand just because thetransaction involves human bodies rather than traditional goods and services.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I don't know why you're even bringing economics into it. I've known people rich and poor who rather enjoy the idea of being whipped, hit or even pissed on. I'm sure it would absolutely thrill them if they could do that for money.
You seem to have a critical lack of understanding that some people may actually enjoy things that you personally find disgusting or degrading. As if the only way to motivate someone else to do something like that would be money. Man, I know people doing it for free.
Maybe you should try broadening your horizon. It might remove this apparent desire of yours to be the moral police of other people's bodies and wallets.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Squinch
(50,944 posts)a good argument.
Slavery has also existed since the beginning of civilization. Women have been subjugated since the beginning of civilization. It doesn't make either of those things acceptable.
And, yes, we know that men can be prostitutes. None of this excludes male prostitutes. Nor does any of it exclude child prostitutes.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Read through some of the post of the people I've been debating with. Constant uses of female pronouns without the slightest acknowledgement that men do this too. People claim prostitution is sexist, how is male prostitution sexist? If that is the argument, should prostitution only be legal for men? That seems ridiculous to me, but no one seems the elephant in the room of male prostitution.
The history of prostitution is important, because many societies have had very different views on prostitution than the westerncentric mindset you constantly see in this debate. Some societies viewed prostitutes not unfavorably, where they enjoyed higher quality of life, Mesoamerica comes to mind.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)that men are also prostitutes, and all of these arguments can be made for both genders. And as I said, for child prostitutes, too.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Especially the contention that supporting legalized prostitution is misogyny.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)increases trafficking. ETA: That would put it into the arena of human rights along with all other issues of enslavement.
You'll need to have the argument about women's rights with those who are having it with you.
Response to Squinch (Reply #117)
Kurska This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I do want to see regulation and for some reason the countless times I've said that to you has left you unconvinced.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)What happened is the Supreme court basically told parliament to start from scratch on the laws dealing with prostitution and they have a year to do it.
No, pimping is not suddenly legal in Canada today.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)how to write a law with enough pimp-friendly loopholes that the Supreme Court will let it through.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Which they won't.
Try reading the article next time.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)What the court did was tilt the status quo in favor of the pimps.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)If you read the article and believe the status quo has changed, then you read the article poorly. Quit digging this hole already.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Why would you then turn around and argue that of course it's going to be changed.
As you said:
If the law doesn't change, Canada will be a Libertarian paradise for the sex industry. Isn't that what you want? Hard to argue that the government has no business regulating it, but then turn around and say of course the government has to regulate it.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The government reworked them
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)See, its not end of world! You'll get your prostitutes working back in the shadows with no protection before long!
I don't understand why they changed system so much then. Honestly, I think it may even be better now. I can finally get access starting in the next year to organic pot grown locally
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Not regulated was a typo meant to say not relegated to the shadows was rather tired when I wrote that, how bout not outright ban something that has been happening for thousands of years and will continue to happen for thousands of year. Regardless of how many sex-negative puritans stamp their feet and throw temper tantrums.
You on the other hand seem to be perfectly content with prostitution remaining in the shadows with all the abuse that entails. So for once, why don't you outline what YOU believe should happen with prostitution.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)resources to help women transition out of it, get law enforcement to treat these women as non-criminals, and reduce demand through both punitive and educational/outreach efforts, with special focus on raising/teaching boys to see girls/women as human beings whose needs and dreams matter.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)L
O
L
You really honestly think that you're going to stop men being willing to pay for sex through punishment and "outreach". That is more indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature than anything else. So you're going to tell men that buying sex is wrong and punish them for it. I got some bad news, we have been trying that for thousands of years and it hasn't changed a thing.
The only meaningful thing you proposed was decriminalization for sellers, sadly without legalization all decriminalization for sellers does is allow the pimps to reclaim their "property" after a bust and put them back on the street.
So essentially you offering no real solutions, just more of the same old "sex is bad" stuff that has failed us over and over again.
You could at least try and take the problem seriously. You remind me of the people who claim the solution to drug abuse is more enforcement.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Only fucking misogynistic pigs do. Because they learn from other woman-hating pigs that it's the way to do things.
It is not fundamental human nature. It is learned behavior--men can learn to be good men, they can learn to be pigs.
Sex is an instinct, paying for it is not. Because these scumbags consciously seek to exploit class, gender, and economic inequality so that they don't have to take the woman's well-being, feelings, pleasure, and health into consideration.
Sex is wonderful, it's awesome, all the great things said about it. But being a selfish prick isn't.
Misogyny is not, as you claim, biological. You'll have to find a different excuse.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I support the right of both men and women to sell sex.
Apparently your definition of misogyny is someone else supporting the right of women to do things with their bodies that you don't approve of. Personally, that is the most ridiculous definition of it I've ever heard, but hey people can believe what they want to.
Response to Kurska (Reply #92)
geek tragedy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Xithras
(16,191 posts)It's still used in Canada and some other areas where the use of "whore house" (which was originally a slur based on the "bawdy house" term) was less common. The French word "brothel" was adopted in the U.S. and other countries to differentiate them from the more insulting name.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)the pre occupation some have with others sex lifes and how they go about it is immense, basically consenting adults should be able to do what they want in the bedroom, if there is a contractual aggreement who cares.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)will find some way to re-criminalize this in even more draconian fashion. Its just the way they roll to pander to their base. Some of their recent tough-on-crime laws are already being constitutionally challenged as cruel and excessive punishment.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)
mmonk
(52,589 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides will be outraged at the thought of people having fun.
Squinch
(50,944 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)whether for cash or any other consideration then its no ones business. there are a million different sex acts out there and if someone is willing to pay and someone is willing to get paid then have at it.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,299 posts)
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)a long time coming.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)First thing the court notes is that it is NOT illegal to sell sex for money i.e. Prostitution is LEGAL in Canada.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
The Chief Justice —
[1] It is not a crime in Canada to sell sex for money. However, it is a crime to keep a bawdy-house, to live on the avails of prostitution or to communicate in public with respect to a proposed act of prostitution. It is argued that these restrictions on prostitution put the safety and lives of prostitutes at risk, and are therefore unconstitutional.
[2] These appeals and the cross-appeal are not about whether prostitution should be legal or not. They are about whether the laws Parliament has enacted on how prostitution may be carried out pass constitutional muster. I conclude that they do not. I would therefore make a suspended declaration of invalidity, returning the question of how to deal with prostitution to Parliament.
However, prostitution itself is not illegal. It is not against the law to exchange sex for money. Under the existing regime, Parliament has confined lawful prostitution to two categories: street prostitution and “out-calls” — where the prostitute goes out and meets the client at a designated location, such as the client’s home. This reflects a policy choice on Parliament’s part. Parliament is not precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes.
The Court held that its decision shall be suspended for one year:
On the one hand, immediate invalidity would leave prostitution totally unregulated while Parliament grapples with the complex and sensitive problem of how to deal with it. How prostitution is regulated is a matter of great public concern, and few countries leave it entirely unregulated. Whether immediate invalidity would pose a danger to the public or imperil the rule of law (the factors for suspension referred to in Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679) may be subject to debate. However, it is clear that moving abruptly from a situation where prostitution is regulated to a situation where it is entirely unregulated would be a matter of great concern to many Canadians.
[168] On the other hand, leaving the prohibitions against bawdy-houses, living on the avails of prostitution and public communication for purposes of prostitution in place in their present form leaves prostitutes at increased risk for the time of the suspension — risks which violate their constitutional right to security of the person.
[169] The choice between suspending the declaration of invalidity and allowing it to take immediate effect is not an easy one. Neither alternative is without difficulty. However, considering all the interests at stake, I conclude that the declaration of invalidity should be suspended for one year.
In simple terms the court disliked HOW prostitution was regulated NOT that it was illegal. Basically the Canadian Parliament can do one of several things:
1. Make ALL prostitution illegal. There is NOTHING in this decision making such an option unconstitutional. The problem was some aspects of prostitution was LEGAL but others ILLEGAL and the petitioners said that difference prohibited them from seeking ways to make their choice of occupation safer.
2. Keep prostitution legal, but any house of prostitution must be registered with the Police, subject to inspection by the police at any time. Any act of violence would be grounds to close down the house (One of the laws challenged was keeping a "Brawny house"
. Hold the owner of the house strictly liable for any injury incurred in the house by anyone.