Legalized Prostitution

[oscar2]

I am a working housewife who become obviously irritated with Leftists and communists. With malignant pleasure, a renter who happened to be Left  and probably was spying on me was able to seduce my husband which led to divorce. The communists theorize that prostitution is corollary to capitalism. Alas, why do they want to legalize prostitution? Prostitution is not about economics. I can have 3 legitimate jobs which can make me make both ends meet. The problem we have is that disgruntled commies or leftists blame prostitution on capitalism and not on moral grounds. My other ex was a frequent visitor in Kazakhztan of the Old Soviet Union in the 80's and every evening he hears a knock on the door from prostitutes. Of course, curious to have sex with a blonde communist caused him to sleep with some.

 

[Nemo888]

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am a working housewife who become obviously irritated with Leftists and communists. With malignant pleasure, a renter who happened to be Left  and probably was spying on me was able to seduce my husband which led to divorce. The communists theorize that prostitution is corollary to capitalism. Alas, why do they want to legalize prostitution? Prostitution is not about economics. I can have 3 legitimate jobs which can make me make both ends meet. The problem we have is that disgruntled commies or leftists blame prostitution on capitalism and not on moral grounds. My other ex was a frequent visitor in Kazakhztan of the Old Soviet Union in the 80's and every evening he hears a knock on the door from prostitutes. Of course, curious to have sex with a blonde communist caused him to sleep with some.

    Caution, :sarcasm: follows



Thank you for that thoughtful contribution to this debate.

 

[dapaterson]

Oscar2, you do know that the common theme in your failed relationships is you?

 

[The_Falcon]

busconductor, banned yet again.

 

[expwor]

Well as I understand it, and no I am not a lawyer or police officer, prostitution (straight out selling sex for money) was legal, it was the related prostitution activities (soliciting, bawdy houses etc that were illegal)
The SCC struck down the current laws but gave the Government one year to come up with a new law.  In that one year timeframe the existing laws stood, but for all practical purposes no police force would arrest because the charges likely would be thrown out.
The Government's  response generally is that selling sex is OK.  But buying it is bad and illegal.  And the buyers of sex are viewed as johns and pervs (Peter MacKay used those words btw)  Prostitutes however can sell sex legally, but they are viewed as victims.  But the government's concern for them isn't too great really.  Twenty million dollars to help prostitutes...on the scale of things not a lot of money.  But no additional money or resources allocated to police to enforce the new law.
This new law is more a political response to the SCC striking down the old laws than it is the Government having a calling to save prostitutes. There were laws on the books already that police could use for stings and raids, but it didn't happen.  I don't believe you'll see increased enforcement under the new law.  It isn't a law enforcement priority, the government didn't allocate more resources to enforce the new law and only a token amount to help prostitutes.
One bizarre thing, at least as I see it, selling sex is legal, buying it is illegal under this law...the Nordic Model, and the basis of this law.  What is next, trafficking drugs will be legal, but buying drugs illegal...just shaking my head at the thought processes going on in Ottawa at times, either make it legal, or illegal, not a little of both
Just my opinion

Tom

 

[ModlrMike]

What is next, trafficking drugs will be legal, but buying drugs illegal...

Therein lies the crux of the problem. I can think of no other legal sale that is confounded by an illegal purchase. Personally, I hope this provision is struck down. As well, the new law provides that selling sex is legal, but creates so many limitations on where and when as to de facto deny the participants an opportunity to legally advertise their wares.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Therein lies the crux of the problem. I can think of no other legal sale that is confounded by an illegal purchase. Personally, I hope this provision is struck down. As well, the new law provides that selling sex is legal, but creates so many limitations on where and when as to de facto deny the participants an opportunity to legally advertise their wares.

My reading of the bill is that the prostitutes can't legally advertise, which, I guess, means a big downsizing in the Toronto Sun's classified section.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My reading of the bill is that the prostitutes can't legally advertise, which, I guess, means a big downsizing in the Toronto Sun's classified section.

And that, a restriction on advertising a legal service, is just one of the (several) reasons that this silly bill will, eventually, fail ~ when the Supremes get their hands on it. But, until then, we must understand why we have this bill. It is a win-win-win for the Conservatives:

    1. Right now, 2014/2015, it placates the religious right which is unhappy with Prime Minister Harper over abortion, gay marriage, etc;

    2. It will act as a wedge issue almost forcing the Liberals and NDP to come as "supporting prostitution;" and

    3. When it, inevitably, is struck down and we end up with no laws governing prostitution, per se, the CPC will still win because they will say: "We tried! You saw us try; but they, the Laurentian elites thwarted us at every turn.

 

[The_Falcon]

Saw this in my FB feed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/27/lies-damned-lies-and-sex-work-statistics/

BY MAGGIE MCNEILL March 27
(Maggie McNeill is a retired call girl. She writes at her blog, The Honest Courtesan.)

Sex worker
A sex worker who goes by the name “Violet,” poses for a picture at a bus stop as a bystander waits for a bus in downtown San Francisco in 2008. (AP Photo/Darryl Bush)
Imagine a study of the alcohol industry which interviewed not a single brewer, wine expert, liquor store owner or drinker, but instead relied solely on the statements of ATF agents, dry-county politicians and members of Alcoholics Anonymous and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Or how about a report on restaurants which treated the opinions of failed hot dog stand operators as the basis for broad statements about every kind of food business from convenience stores to food trucks to McDonald’s to five-star restaurants?

You’d probably surmise that this sort of research would be biased and one-sided to the point of unreliable. And you’d be correct. But change the topic to sex work, and such methods are not only the norm, they’re accepted uncritically by the media and the majority of those who the resulting studies. In fact, many of those who represent themselves as sex work researchers don’t even try to get good data. They simply present their opinions as fact, occasionally bolstered by pseudo-studies designed to produce pre-determined results. Well-known and easily-contacted sex workers are rarely consulted . There’s no peer review. And when sex workers are consulted at all, they’re recruited from jails and substance abuse programs, resulting in a sample skewed heavily toward the desperate, the disadvantaged and the marginalized.

This sort of statistical malpractice has always been typical of prostitution research. But the incentive to produce it has dramatically increased in the past decade, thanks to a media-fueled moral panic over sex trafficking. Sex-work prohibitionists have long seen trafficking and sex slavery as a useful Trojan horse.  In its 2010 “national action plan,” for example, the activist group Demand Abolition writes,“Framing the Campaign’s key target as sexual slavery might garner more support and less resistance, while framing the Campaign as combating prostitution may be less likely to mobilize similar levels of support and to stimulate stronger opposition.”

But as sex worker rights organizations have repeatedly pointed out (as have organizations like UNAIDS, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International), those who are truly interested in decreasing exploitation in the sex industry would be better off supporting decriminalization of prostitution.  New South Wales, Australia, decriminalized sex work in 1995, and a subsequent government-sponsored 2012 study found ” . . . no evidence of recent trafficking of female sex workers . . . in marked contrast to the 1990s when contacted women from Thailand were common in Sydney . . . ”

New Zealand legalized prostitution in 2003. A study by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice five years later found “no incidence of trafficking,” and sex worker advocates say the law has made it easier for sex workers to report abuse, and for law enforcement to make arrests for crimes against sex workers.  Some anti-prostitution activists have tried to claim that Germany’s liberal form of legalization has encouraged sex trafficking. But they actually cite coercion among illegal sex workers (for example, those who are too young to legally work at a German brothel) and claim that their exploitation had somehow been caused by the legal framework from which those women had been excluded.

Despite plenty of evidence of the harm caused by criminalization, there’s still a tremendous amount of money in representing it as the “cure” for a situation it actually exacerbates. In an interview last May, Michael Horowitz, a fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute who led efforts to pass the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, told the Las Vegas Review Journal that the anti-trafficking movement has become more about securing grants for research than protecting victims. “Now it’s just one big federal entitlement program,” he said, “and everybody is more worried about where they’re going to get their next grant.”

Most of the scary articles about sex trafficking are larded with inflated figures and phony statistics that don’t survive any serious analysis. For example, you will often read that the average sex worker enters the trade at 13, a mathematical impossibility which appears to have originated as a misrepresentation of the average age of first noncommercial sexual contact (which could include kissing, petting, etc.) reported by underage girls in one 1982 study as though it were the age they first reported selling sex. The actual average age at which they began prostitution was 16.  And though the number was already dubious when applied to underage prostitutes, it became wholly ludicrous when applied to all sex workers.

Because prostitution is illegal in most of the world, the most reliable data on the proportion of sex workers that are underage will come from places where the industry is legal and it can be studied openly, like New Zealand. And there, estimates put the figure at about 3.5%.

Another common claim is that there are 100,000 to 300,000 children locked in sex slavery in the U.S. (For just a few examples, see here, here, here, here, and here. ) That number is a distortion of a figure from a 2001 study by Richard Estes and Neil Weiner of the University of Pennsylvania, which estimated that number of “children, adolescents and youth (up to 21) at risk of sexual exploitation.” (Emphasis added.)  “Sex trafficking” was the least prevalent form of “exploitation” in their definition. Other forms included stripping, consensual homosexual relations, and merely viewing porn.  Moreover, two of the so-called “risk factors” were access to a car and proximity to the Canadian or Mexican border.  In a 2011 interview, Estes himself estimated the number of legal minors actually abducted into “sex slavery” was ” very small . . . {w}e’re talking about a few hundred people.”

Yet the myth persists. The Dallas Morning News recently took the figure to new levels of preposterousness, claiming in an editorial last November that, “In Houston alone, about 300,000 sex trafficking cases are prosecuted each year.” As defense attorney Mark Bennett pointed out on his blog, the actual figure was two. Not 200,000. Just two.  The paper did print a correction, though the correction simply deleted the original 300,000 figure from the editorial. The paper still didn’t bother to mention the actual number, perhaps it didn’t support the alarmism in the rest of the editorial.

And the distortions go on.

A mistaken, offhand guess by a panelist at symposium that sex trafficking might be the third most profitable underground industry gets repurposed as proven fact. Later, it’s changed to the second most profitable black market, then the first.
A highly flawed, anecdote-ridden feature in the New York Times Magazine that heavily relied on activist sources is repeated as gospel.
A 2004 study of street sex workers who had been murdered found that the average age of the victims was 34. This has since been cited as the average life expectancy of all street workers, or of all sex workers. That would be analogous to saying that because the average soldier who is killed in battle is 21 years old,  the average man who joins the military dies at 21. (Newsweek made this mistake in its sensationalist 2011 article “The John Next Door,” and never bothered to correct it.)
One of the more comical incidents occurred in 2011, when an activist group called the Women’s Funding Network put out a study alleging that ads for underage sex trafficking on websites like Craigslist and Backpage.com had “risen exponentially in three diverse states.” The claim was picked up by media outlets across the country, including USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Miami Herald, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and the Detroit Free Press. The Village Voice, which owns Backpage.com, took a look at the methodology, a term that flatters what the study’s authors actually did. They merely asked a small sample group of people to guess the age of women pictured in ads for escort and erotic massage services. They then just assumed that the guesses were correct, and extrapolated the percentage of “underage” women in their sample  set of photos were indicative of online sex ads in general.

Not surprisingly, none authors of the “study” were credentialed academics. Still, it inspired not only a wave of media coverage, but outrage from state attorneys general and members of Congress, and promises for new laws. The activists knew exactly what they were doing. As the director of the group that conducted the study told the Voice, “We pitch {a study} the way we think you’re going to read it and pick up on it. If we give it to you with all the words and the stuff that is actually accurate — I mean, I’ve tried to do that with our PR firm, and they say, ‘They won’t read that much.’”

There have been two more highly-publicized examples of this phenomenon in just the past few weeks.  The first was a study funded by Cindy McCain and led by Dr. Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, an anti-prostitution crusader responsible for a controversial “diversion” program in Phoenix, Arizona. It claimed to have “proven” an increase of “sex trafficking” in northern New Jersey near the time of the Super Bowl, and was apparently conducted to counter the evidence that this annual story — that Super Bowls bring sex slaves” — is largely hype. The researchers claim to have subjected sex workers’ ads from Backpage.com to a “trafficking matrix.” The report doesn’t offer much explanation about how this “matrix” was designed and tested, but the text in the report indicates that among its dubious premises are the claims that tattoos are a sign of trafficking, and the dubious claim that the term kitty (a euphemism for female genitalia) is code for “underage.”  Despite the absence of methodological design data and the obvious lack of experimental controls, the authors nonetheless boldly assert that 83.7% of the ads “showed signs of trafficking.”

The other example is a study from the Urban Institute that was widely touted in the media last week (including here at The Washington Post). The researchers made bold statements about the “U.S. sex economy” based on interviews with law enforcement personnel, 73 men convicted as “pimps,” and only 36 incarcerated street workers. As the sex worker activist Melissa Gira Grant observed, the average sex worker activist follows more sex workers on Twitter than these researchers managed to find for a supposedly “landmark” study.

Furthermore, the report’s bias is clear from the skewed proportion of its interviewees: Street workers represent less than 15 percent of the trade, but were 100 percent of the sex workers interviewed for the study. Moreover, fewer than half of street workers have pimps, and about half of the pimps are actually the employees of the women they manage, not the other way around. Yet the researchers interviewed twice as many pimps as sex workers, thus inflating their perceived importance remarkably.

To the extent that it exists, coerced sex work is of course abominable, and it should be prosecuted. But the media needs to be far more skeptical of the claims of anti-sex worker activists, including those that advocate from government perches. Uncritically repeating exaggerated claims and fabricated data may seem innocuous — after all, what harm could there be in drawing more attention to the issue?  But when all sex work is illegal, consensual, of-age sex workers are far more reluctant to report coercion, abusive pimps, and underage prostitutes for fear of being arrested themselves. This makes actual sex trafficking more difficult to discover.

These moral panic proclamations and exaggerated or fabricated statistics are coming from activists who want stricter laws to criminalize prostitution, thus pushing it further underground. Spreading their message will only make actual sex slavery more difficult to detect.

The gist, as with any arguement, study or report, it's important to dig down into the actual details, rather than just repeating and believing what was said verbatim.  No doubt some of this flawed "research" found a home when the Feds were crafting their new law.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Saw this in my FB feed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/27/lies-damned-lies-and-sex-work-statistics/

The gist, as with any arguement, study or report, it's important to dig down into the actual details, rather than just repeating and believing what was said verbatim.  No doubt some of this flawed "research" found a home when the Feds were crafting their new law.

Article Link

It appears that you are right. A write-up from the Hon. Peter Mackay, Justice Minister, in yesterdays National Post. See highlights in yellow. Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.

Peter MacKay: A made-in-Canada solution to prostitution

Peter MacKay, National Post | June 14, 2014 6:45 AM ET

In response to the Bedford decision made by the Supreme Court of Canada last December, which struck down criminal laws pertaining to prostitution, our government has delivered Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. This is a comprehensive bill that would protect the victims of this inherently dangerous activity by cracking down on the pimps and johns who fuel the demand for prostitution. It would also put in place measures that protect our communities, our children and other vulnerable Canadians.

This bill proposes a made-in-Canada model that reflects the values of Canadians. In addition to the ruling of the Supreme Court, it was informed by discussions we had directly with Canadians, including a far-reaching online consultation, which ultimately gathered more than 31,000 responses. I also hosted an in-person consultation in Ottawa with a wide cross-section of interested stakeholders, including those working, or representing those working, in prostitution.

Research shows that those involved in this activity are often in vulnerable situations, and in many cases become the victims of violence and manipulation at the hands of those who exploit them. This is why we do not seek to criminalize them. Instead, we are investing $20-million into federal and provincial programs, as well as grassroots organizations, that assist prostitutes in exiting the sex trade. This funding will also support work that’s being done to address the dangers associated with prostitution and the underlying causes, including addiction, poverty, violence and organized crime.

Recognizing that prostitution has negative effects on communities, our families and our youth, our legislation proposes tougher penalties for johns and pimps who try to purchase services around our parks, schools and churches, and makes it clear that the selling of sexual services or communication for that purpose will be prohibited in public areas where a child can reasonably be expected to be present.

Some have called on the government to completely legalize or criminalize prostitution, arguing that it will make this a safe activity. I completely disagree: No model will ever make prostitution safe. This is, and will always be, an inherently dangerous activity.

Furthermore, studies show that jurisdictions that have legalized prostitution have actually seen higher rates of human trafficking and violence for sexual exploitation. This is unacceptable and contrary to what Canadians value: the protection of vulnerable people and our communities. This is why we are dedicated to an approach that makes a good-faith effort to tackle the harms of this dangerous activity through legislation, and deal with the root causes of prostitution through compassionate programs.

It is the role and responsibility of Parliament to consider legislation and make laws. Canadians expect nothing less from their elected representatives. We have delivered balanced, principled legislation that is not only informed by the views of Canadians, but also reflects modern societal realities and evolution in the law. Furthermore, Department of Justice officials always review legislative proposals to ensure they are compliant with Canada’s constitutional framework.

With the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, our government has brought forward a comprehensive response reflecting the values of Canadians, which will better protect vulnerable people and our communities.

National Post

Peter MacKay is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Article Link

 

[Nemo888]

If the Liberals legalized, licensed and taxed prostitution and weed they could present a very compelling economic plan with lots of new programs, a balanced budget and a decrease in the prison population. 

Why can't the libertarian arm of conservatism beat them to it? The base in Canada is much smaller and fringe than in the US. Maybe in 40 years if we destroy public education but now Canadians are still too savvy. It is a losing strategy as old white men are simply getting too old and once dead can no longer vote.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Libertarian <> Libertine.  I doubt we will solve our fiscal crises on the backs of prostitutes and growers.

When all the "old white men" are gone, a new culture and a new tax base will replace theirs.  There is no immutable law of nature which dictates that the replacement must be as prosperous or free.  Either the values which promote prosperity and freedom will be sustained, or not.  Reap what you sow.  There is no free lunch.  Don't destroy a thing unless you can first demonstrate that you understand it.  Etc.

 

[McG]

Libertarian <> Libertine.  I doubt we will solve our fiscal crises on the backs of prostitutes and growers.

... and it would seem that we do not have to legalize either to tax them.

Prostitution revenue taxable, Quebec Court rules as it hits up operator of male-escort agency with $1.2M bill
Paul Delean
National Post
06 Mar 2015

Revenue generated from prostitution is taxable, a Quebec Court judge has reconfirmed in a judgment upholding $1.2 million in Revenue Quebec assessments against Michel Catudal, the former operator of local male-escort agency Hot Boys Enr.

...

Judge Aznar said the Canadian and Quebec tax systems put the onus on the citizen to voluntarily declare all revenue from all sources. And revenue from illegal activity has been included for decades, he said, citing a 1928 decision pertaining to illegal alcohol.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/06/prostitution-revenue-taxable-quebec-court-rules-as-it-hits-up-operator-of-male-escort-agency-with-1-2m-bill/

 

[Tibbson]

I've had a number of investigations I've done over the years where once someone was convicted the tax man swooped in and assessed them based on their illegal drug sales, embezzled money or fraudulent payments.  Revenue Canada always makes sure they get theirs.  lol

 

[Privateer]

Followed, no doubt, by the civil forfeitures office.

 

[The_Falcon]

I remember watching a documentary on prostitution a few years ago, and one of the women on it worked out in Vancouver, she mentioned that she did in fact pay her taxes and mentioned the voluntary disclosure program. The CRA doesn't seem to care where the funds come from, just that they get their share.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Nothing new here. You may remember that, in the US, It was the IRS that put Al Capone behind bars, and it was for tax evasion.

On another note, some of you may have seen episodes of "Border Security", where the camera follows CBSA agents doing their work. Whenever the sniffer dogs get whiff of drugs in a vehicle or bag, you may have notice that they speak with the person entering Canada before searching and always with the same warning: "We don't care what you do with your life , but is there a reason why the dog picked a scent in your …"

Same thing apply for the Revenue services (Canada or Quebec): They do not ask for the source of your revenues, just that you declare them and pay your fair share. And funny enough, Revenue will also accept, for a prostitute, that the phone he/she uses for contact and the newspaper ads be set off against that revenue as business expenses.

That is also why your tax information is kept separate from your other government information. Revenue Canada has access to info on you from other departments but, except in very few specific instances (such as money laundering/terrorism investigations), your Revenue info is not available to other departments.