MP Bids to Make Buying Sex Illegal in Canada

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

If the likes of Farley are to be believed, we're a bunch of homicidal maniacs, and the absolute dregs of society. Is there research into demonstrating what we know damn well - that the clients are simply ordinary people?

 

Yes, there is! Chris Atchison, who teaches Sociology at Simon Fraser U, has been doing a lot of research related to prostitutes and clients in Canada since about 1996. His most recent research project was for his Ph.D. from the U of Toronto. Entitled Johns Voice, the purpose of the project was to:

 

1. Develop an understanding of the manner in which power relationships between buyers and sellers of sex are determined and negotiated;
   
2. Establish whether there is an empirical basis for the calculation of risk that has been attributed to the attitudes and behaviours of sex buyers;
   
3. Understand and explain the connection between individual acts of violence and the specific commercial settings in which these acts occur;
   
4. Understand the need for, and effectiveness of, socio-legal interventions directed at consumers of sexual services;
   
5. Develop effecivie policy, education and intervention strategies that are informed by the experiences and insights of members of the sex buying community; and
   
6. Provide a space for the inclusion of the voices of sex buyers within current political, social and academic discussions pertaining to prostitution in Canada.
   

I have linked to the Executive Summary of Atchison's report. It's about 40 pages long and well worth reading. He believes that it he has studied the largest sample of sex buyers that has ever been created. His study involved a self-administered questionnaire followed by in-depth interviews with participants who had been sampled to ensure theoretical diversity.

 

Atchison's research blows the claims made by Perrin and Farley out of the water.

[scribbles 6031]

@Nikki, actually, I have asked how to become more involved and found the reception less than helpful.

 

I have a longstanding interest (yes, intellectually, not just the naughty bits) in this industry. I'm actually in the process of doing some independent research with the goal of writing about the industry (hence the blog in my sig). I would love for this research and whatever ability I have to usefully articulate my ideas to inform my involvement in activism and policy direction.

 

But, so far I've been directed to the POWER web site (which I can find myself). I don't really know where to start, and the understandable lack of trust that exists in this industry makes me a little hesitant to approach SPs or clients to develop the kind of contacts my self-directed "education" would benefit from.

 

You're right, the ladies are shouldering the bulk of the work. However, the clients sometimes just don't know where they fit in the picture.

[etasman2000 15994]

IMHO there are 2 barriers for public support by clients: as scribbles noted confusion on what role clients play in the grand scheme of things and fear of 'exposure'.

 

Social activism isn't something that comes naturally to most of us, some guideline and pointers would be helpful and appreciated. And yes I'm looking at members of POWER or SPOC and guys with experience to respond.

[Susie 1472]

nada prob nikki!! yes there will be opportunities in ottawa, toronto, montreal, halifax and vancouver....i think montreal...can't remember right now...opportunities for people to come out and have their say. i want to defer to POWER, SPOC, Maggies,et al about where when and how though.

 

in vancouver we will be starting our meetings soon i hope and i will definitley be sure to ensure i post any updates here as they come out. it needs to be complete by the end of december so we can compile the findings into a discussion document we want to use as the foundation of an "experts summit" or all stakeholders meeting to be held in vancouver next spring in june.

 

we are hoping to identify where human rights violations/stigma and complacency about sex workers rights are affecting our "health" ( funding is hard to get and health is generally a more open approach for success). we wanted to make sure it was a national project to ensure experiences in different regions were highlighted and respected.

 

we hope to come up with a unified strategy for all of us to use moving forward towards safety and stability for our community.

 

i have no idea what recommendations will emerge but am really looking forward to some direction from sex workers across canada.

 

consumers could form advocacy groups which worked under terms or reference that make them safe like confidentiality. identities of group members could be protected and statements or press relelases etc. could released by a spokesperson( perhaps someone not afraid of being outed) or could even be released by a 3rd party like POWER, SPOC or the BCCEC.

 

...the following statement comes from the sex consumer group "nipple nuzzlers for decrim"...?lol it could all be done in cyber space...?

 

i would be willing to do whatever it took to support the formation of such a group...

 

and consumers will be included in the project nikki and i are refering to. chris atchison is part of the planning committee and i expect he will be the one to facilitate the inclusion of your voices.

 

please feel free to contact me if anyone has questions or concerns and please let me know if consumers would like any support in forming a social justice/advocacy group.

 

love susieXXXO

[voyageur819 213]

I think trough sites like these, the Johns will educate themselves and learn about the struggles of the SP's. Also one important thing is that it's easier for SP's to network as johns are mostly isolated.

 

I know that I've only spoken to one other person about my experiences as a client.

 

So yeah, the ladies will have to do the bulk of the work for now but as they realize more gains in the pursuit of their civil rights, there are a legion of johns that are just waiting to proudly wear the tag and support the workers in their struggle for safety and legitimacy.

[scribbles 6031]

I'll pose the awkward question: does anyone truly think that decriminalizing the sex industry will erase the stigma that causes not only SPs, but their clients, to keep their identities secret?

[Capital Hunter 18263]

The current bill, as he understands it, focuses entirely on trafficking and does not attempt to rewrite S.213© to exclusively target the clients.

 

I can't confirm this until I see a copy of the proposed legislation, and we're working on getting it as we speak - if anyone could assist us in this matter, it would be extremely helpful.

...

 

Any updates on this..? A confirmation would be nice lol....

[drlove 37204]

Same here!

[Nikki Thomas 23145]

I'll pose the awkward question: does anyone truly think that decriminalizing the sex industry will erase the stigma that causes not only SPs, but their clients, to keep their identities secret?

 

Erase? Probably not. Reduce? Absolutely.

 

I don't think that the stigma necessarily affects everyone equally. It's less stigmatizing for me because I couple my work with activism and academia, so I'm not likely to lose many future opportunities because of what I currently do. But that's specific to my situation, and isn't often true for others. Conversely, an SP putting herself through law school has much greater privacy concerns than I, because revalation of her current career can be disastrous for her future career. Regardless, most SPs keep their identity secret not just to avoid stigma, but also to avoid stalkers - and decriminalization will certainly help reduce that risk.

 

Similarly, a client who is single/separated/divorced/widowed probably doesn't have the same pressing need to maintain their anonymity, whereas a married client is probably more concerned with compromising his marriage, and not so much the social stigma attached to visiting sex workers. Regardless, our security always trumps the client's desire for anonymity, so as long as he's not concerned with the information being shared with his wife, then he won't need to remain quite so anonymous. If decriminalization increases the legitimacy of our work (and I believe that it will) then it will eliminate the opportunistic criminal element that's sometimes associated with sex work, which in turn would make clients feel safer when divulging their personal information.

 

Meanwhile, the stigma isn't universal either... I think it's a lot more stigmatizing in cultures that are generally sex-negative to begin with, so it's more a cultural issue than anything else. I don't think Silvio Berlusconi feels the least bit stigmatized - in fact, many Italians seem to be in awe of the 75-year-old man who has a steady stream of hot sex workers visiting his mansion. Who wouldn't want to live like that? North Americans are a little more prudish than people in other parts of the world.

 

I would argue that non-monogamous sex itself carries a certain stigma, and pay-for-play is more an extension of that stigma than stigmatizing in itself. So, it follows that if decriminalization has the potential to partially normalize a certain form of non-monogamous sex, then the stigma surrounding all forms of non-normative sexualities is bound to decline as well.

 

So, the short answer to your question is "yes." :p

 

Any updates on this..? A confirmation would be nice lol....

 

I thought you were going to stay out of this from now on? :icon_confused:

 

In any event, the confirmation came on Monday, when the Harper Government tabled their big nine-bill Crime Omnibus. If Joy Smith had proposed the Nordic approach, you can be damned sure it would have been in there as well.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

Any updates on this..? A confirmation would be nice lol....

 

Yes, absolutely. Bill C10 had its first reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

 

The CBC published an article, "9 key elements of the crime bill," which is very helpful because it includes the background papers for each section of the legislation. The one about human trafficking is part of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and is entitled "Protecting Vulnerable Foreign Nationals against Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation Act. It says nothing about targeting johns. It addresses immigration issues, allowing immigration officers to refuse entry into Canada of people who may be subject to exploitation. This is the background paper.

 

The full text of Bill C10 is also available from the Parliament website.

 

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released "The Fear Factor," its analysis of Bill C10 last week.

 

Many of us suspected that Joy Smith's resolutions pertaining to to prostitution and targeting johns would be dropped from the omnibus bill because the Ontario Court of Appeal will be making its rulings later this fall and because whatever the OCA does, the matter is expected to be taken up by the Supreme Court of Canada, and because the Canadian public has, by and large, polled in favour of Justice Himel's decision. Nonetheless, while we can expect the government will not pose new legislation pertaining to prostitution very soon, there's no reason to think they will drop the idea, either. Constant vigilance continues to be the best advice for all of us!

[Phaedrus 209521]

I'll pose the awkward question: does anyone truly think that decriminalizing the sex industry will erase the stigma that causes not only SPs, but their clients, to keep their identities secret?

 

It won't be a magic overnight cure-all, but it'll help.

 

To make an inexact comparison... how many folks do you know who smoke weed? And how many folks do you think you know who smoke weed, but don't talk about it with anyone? I think there's an awful lot of "respectable" people who use an illegal narcotic on a regular basis, and would come out of the closet if it were legal.

 

To go back to the point of this thread... anyone who's deceiving a SO is still going to keep it all under wraps, but if it were more legal I think that people would own up to seeing SPs in the same way that they'll own up to visiting SCs on occasion now...

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I'm hopeful that what the Conservative MPs are telling SPOC and Nikki is true - namely, that Joy Smith's bill will turn out not to propose the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services.

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure I see that the contents of the omnibus crime bill can be taken as an independent clue about what Joy Smith's bill will contain.

 

Hasn't the government's omnibus crime bill been promoted all along as basically just cleaning up old business - a repackaging of the Conservative's nine crime bills from the previous parliament (C-54, S-10, C-4, C-16, C-39, C-23B, C-5, S-7, C-56) that never became law? In particular, in reference to the backgrounder paper cited by Samantha for part of the current omnibus bill - see C-56 from the last parliament, "An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act" http://parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=4794996&File=30#2.

 

As far as I understand it, Joy Smith's proposed private members' bill for the coming parliament, whatever it may turn out to contain, has never been directly connected to the omnibus government bill on crime. I stand to be corrected, I'm certainly no expert in this area, nor do I have any inside knowledge - that's just what I've taken away from my own reading of the news coverage of Joy Smith.

[scribbles 6031]

I'm not suggest decriminalization wouldn't help to ease the stigma. I think it would, to a small extent. Borrowing (or misappropriating) a part of Nikki's point, I believe the real stigma is a culturally imposed one, which only lightly has to do with the law. We're fairly sex positive in Canada by comparison to other countries, I think, but not so far from our Catholic heritage that purchasing sexual services doesn't make the public squeamish. We do it, but we don't want to admit we do it.

I think decriminalization will allow the dialogue out into the open, but I don't think the stigma will be eased that considerably. Unfortunately, if the appeal succeeds or if Joy Smith gets her way, that dialogue will be forced back into the closet.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

I think that as long as the federal government is doing its utmost to focus on the economy, Joy Smith will not get a lot of airplay. The government needs to look sober, serious, reflective, educated and able to respond to events as they unfold in a timely way. Joy Smith is not an asset in these circumstances, unfortunately. She's almost manic about prostitution and trafficking. She doesn't seem able to project the image that Harper wants, or even to understand it very well, unfortunately. I mean, she's not Flora McDonald! (Mind, Flora is a Tory and the Harper Cons are absolutely not Tories!)

 

As for stigma, I don't think that decriminalization will eliminate it, either. I think there will be a gradual relaxing of stigma over time, though. Maybe some well-known men will come out and let it be known that they enjoy what paid companions have to offer. Maybe some of us will open very high-end private clubs or exclusive brothels and ensure that they are no more troubling to the general public than a fine restaurant or salon. Certainly, some of us who are unable to speak publicly may feel enabled to do so. I can imagine doing such things myself, to be sure. If I could be certain that I wouldn't be arrested, I can think of a lot of things I could do.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I thought you were going to stay out of this from now on? :icon_confused:

.

 

I said I won't engage in a debate on this board anymore. But here I was only asking for update not debate. Yes I am still interested and more than most because in my case if this idiotic nordic system becomes law I will have to stop hobbying as I have said. I feel I owe a brief explanation as why I said what I said as far as not taking part in debates....

 

Views expressed are just views. Nothing is black and white about views. For example if I say heat is more detrimental to health than cold and another say the opposite we are just holding opposite views. There is no point to fight about it lol. In my previous posts (in another thread) I said that in my view the status quo prostitution law provides better protection for sex workers and would result in less assaults and deaths or danger to sex workers (and two studies quoted in this thread appear to confirm this view). My view is opposite to what the majority who posted are holding and I respect theirs. But someone posted that she is sad to read that someone who uses our services (me) does not care about our safety!!!!!!!!. A horrible thing to say. I just believe differently and I support status quo because I do care about the safety of sex workers otherwise decriminalization would serve me personally much better and will be less costly too lol!!. As well, I hate forced prostitution and human trafficking so again I believed decriminalization would increase both..... Now I may be wrong in my view but saying what she said (though she may not have meant it the way it sounded) just because my view was different to hers was very hurtful (as well as a couple of personal attacks and mis-quotes by others) and I decided not to engage in any debate on this board ever since.

 

 

 

Yes, absolutely. Bill C10 had its first reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

 

The CBC published an article, "9 key elements of the crime bill," which is very helpful because it includes the background papers for each section of the legislation. The one about human trafficking is part of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and is entitled "Protecting Vulnerable Foreign Nationals against Trafficking, Abuse and Exploitation Act. It says nothing about targeting johns. It addresses immigration issues, allowing immigration officers to refuse entry into Canada of people who may be subject to exploitation. This is the background paper.

 

The full text of Bill C10 is also available from the Parliament website.

 

!

Thank you for this pleasant update. I was sure that the cons really mean it and only using Joy Smith as a tool to implement their agenda. I am glad that likely I was wrong.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Okay, now I'm officially happy about this file.

 

Press Release from Joy Smith's Office, 3 Oct 2011:

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mp-joy-smith-proposes-criminal-code-amendments-to-enhance-canadas-trafficking-in-persons-offences-2011-10-03

 

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, Oct 03, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Today, Conservative Member of Parliament Joy Smith will introduce a Private Members' Bill to make two important amendments that will help combat modern day slavery in Canada and abroad.

 

The Private Members' Bill, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons), will amend the current trafficking in persons offence by providing an evidentiary aid to courts that enhances the definition of exploitation.

 

"Currently, the definition of exploitation in the human trafficking offence does not provide specific examples of exploitive conduct. As I spoke to prosecutors and law enforcement across Canada, I began to hear of the challenges this presented," said MP Joy Smith. "My amendment will add an evidentiary aid for the Court to provide clear examples of exploitation such as the use of threats, violence, coercion, and fraudulent means."

 

Secondly, the Bill will amend the Criminal Code to enable Canadian human traffickers to be convicted when the offence occurs outside of Canada.

 

"Human trafficking is an egregious crime that is often carried out across international borders," said MP Joy Smith. "While Canada has adopted stiff penalties for criminals who traffic victims into, through, and from Canada, it is important that we also prosecute Canadians who traffic or enslave vulnerable populations in other countries."

 

MP Smith's Private Members' Bill has already received strong support from Canadian human trafficking experts, survivors and non-governmental organizations:

 

Prof. Benjamin Perrin, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law, and author of Invisible Chains: Canada's Underground World of Human Trafficking (Penguin, 2011)

 

"Human traffickers have evaded prosecution for their heinous crimes, in part, because Canada's criminal laws are not explicit enough to clearly encompass the range of tactics employed by these serial exploiters. Member of Parliament Joy Smith is again responding to concerns by police and victims' groups in seeking to amend our human trafficking laws to hold traffickers accountable and protect victims. I call on all Parliamentarians to support this initiative."

 

Jamie McIntosh, Executive Director, International Justice Mission Canada

 

"The crime of human trafficking often transgresses international boundaries, with vulnerable men, women, and children subject to its devastating reach. Human traffickers, including those of Canadian nationality, will persist in their illicit trade if they believe their crimes will go unpunished. Extending authority to prosecute Canadians for human trafficking crimes committed abroad is an important step in the global fight against human trafficking. As a nation, we must commit to prosecuting Canadian nationals who commit these crimes, regardless of geographical location at the time of offence."

 

Timea Nagy, Program Director, Walk With Me

 

"As an internationally trafficked survivor, who has been working with Canadian law enforcement to help human trafficking victims, I am absolutely thrilled to see this legislation presented by Mrs. Smith. It is clear, that Mrs. Smith has consulted professionals, experts from the field, and listened. This Bill will help Canadian law enforcement and prosecutors to be able to do their job and send a message to traffickers around the world, that Canada does not tolerate this crime against human dignity."

 

K. Brian McConaghy, Founding Director, Ratanak International

 

"It is imperative that Canada continues to maintain and enhance a position of strength combating modern day slavery both domestic and international. It is a given that we must protect those weak among us who are at risk of being trafficked. It is no less important that we protect those in other countries from Canadian predators who would traffic in human lives. Such Canadians must be held fully accountable for their actions. This amendment, conforming to international legal norms, positions Canada to do just that and as such is to be commended."

 

Shae Invidiata, Founder, (free-them)

 

"In conjunction with The Act and The Purpose, The United Nations deems a case to be human trafficking if 'threatened of' or 'use of violence, force, coercions, fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent means' is used. Without any hesitation these methods constitute exploitation and, in supporting Mrs. Smith's Private Members Bill, should be amended into the Criminal Code of Canada."

 

Prior to presenting her Private Members' Bill today, MP Joy Smith will be recognized for her anti-human trafficking efforts. UN Women Canada National Committee will be honouring her at a special luncheon with the UN Women Canada 2011 Recognition of Achievements Award.

 

MP Joy Smith has placed fourth on the Order of Precedence for Private Members' Business. The Order of Precedence consists of the items of Private Members' Business that are scheduled for debate in the House and is chosen randomly at the beginning of each Parliament. In 2009, MP Joy Smith placed third on the Order of Precedence and brought forward Bill C-268. This legislation successfully passed into law creating Canada's first child trafficking offence with mandatory minimum sentences.

 

 

The text of the bill was published this morning 4 October:

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5151934&file=4

 

BILL C-310

 

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)

 

Mrs. Smith

 

SUMMARY

 

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add the offence of trafficking in persons to the offences committed outside Canada for which Canadian citizens or permanent residents may be prosecuted in Canada.

 

It also amends the Act to add factors that the Court may consider when determining what constitutes exploitation

 

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)

 

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

 

1. Section 7 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.1):

 

Offence in relation to trafficking in persons

 

(4.11) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an offence against section 279.01 or 279.011 shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person who commits the act or omission is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

 

2. Section 279.04 of the Act is replaced by the following:

 

279.04 (1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.

 

Factors

 

(2) In determining what constitutes exploitation under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused

 

(a) used or threatened to use violence;

 

(b) used or threatened to use force;

 

© used or threatened another form of coercion; or

 

(d) used fraudulent misrepresentation or other fraudulent means.

 

Organ or tissue removal

 

(3) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them, by means of deception or the use or threat of force or of any other form of coercion, to have an organ or tissue removed.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

A "source in the government", cited in the following news report, corroborates Nikki's interpretation of Smith's July update - regarding why the idea of criminalizing the purchase of sexual services was dropped from Smith's bill:

 

Mia Rabson reports for the Winnipeg Free Press, 13 Oct 2011:

 

(full article: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Private+bill+targets+human+trafficking+outside+Canada/5542505/story.html)

 

...

a law to make buying sex a crime will have to wait

.

 

Kildonan-St. Paul MP Joy Smith introduced her new bill earlier this month. It will come up for debate Oct. 25 ...

 

... what the bill won't do is enact a Nordic model of prostitution ...

 

Smith's national strategy on human trafficking included going after the buyers and last July she said she intended to use her next private member's bill to do so.

 

However last year an Ontario judge struck down Canada's prostitution laws and said they were unconstitutional. The government is appealing that decision.

 

A source in the government said the fear was if Smith's bill were put on the order paper it could upset the government's argument on appeal.

 

It is likely if a law to charge the buyers of sex ever appears it will come from cabinet rather than the backbench, so the changes can be better supported with programs and money.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

When I read the full article this morning in Edmonton Journal, I found it alarming. My impression was that the issue (of criminalizing buying sex) is very much still on the table and can be tabled at any time. My guess is that this government is going to wait until the ruling by OSC and then would instruct Joy Smith (or a cabinet minister) to introduce her full private bill soon after, especially if as expected the OSC makes the right ruling, against government's appeal. Not amuzed!!.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

No matter what the Ontario Court of Appeal rules in Bedford v Canada, the losing side at that level is sure to continue the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The legal appeals process won't be over for this case anytime soon.

 

It's never been a secret that authority for making law rests with the Parliament of Canada. The government is always free to introduce legislation of its choosing at any time. There's always a tomorrow to be considered, but the news here, today, is that the time is not now, with a rogue back-bencher proposing a bad law driven by abolitionist ideology.

 

We're back to the scenario, as it was before Joy Smith's aborted attempt at drafting prostitution legislation. Namely, that the government will be expected to wait until after the Bedford v Canada appeals process runs its complete course before deciding what, if any, legislation they're prepared to pursue.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

I think that nearly all of us are feeling considerable relief after the recent turn of events. The SCC decision about Insite makes a favourable decision about Bedford far, far more likely, in the end.

 

In addition, the inquiry into the missing women began this week here in Vancouver. While the thing is hideously flawed in most respects, the public in general is siding with the women and organizations that have decided not to appear at the inquiry because they wouldn't have the benefit of legal counsel to help them, or to cross-examine the many, many police witnesses.

 

Right now, in Vancouver at least, my sense if that there's enormous sympathy for ensuring that women should be able to work safely.

 

The evening news reports emphasized how street workers had made agreements with residents of the Downtown Eastside neighbourhoods where children were living that they wouldn't work on those streets, for the sake of the children and families there. The women would have been far safer if they had worked the residential streets; because they didn't, they were much easier prey for Picton and others. The whole tenor of the news reports was that SWs are hard-working women who care about families and who can be trusted to keep the promises they make.

 

It's early yet, but so far, responses on open-line radio programs are favourable with the fear-mongers receiving very little airplay.

[scribbles 6031]

Respectfully, is it that they are being portrayed as hard-working *workers*, or is the tone a little more pitying? I certainly haven't read a lot of Vancouver media, so I sincerely don't know, but the tone I have taken from most articles on this subject, including the ones referenced here, does not support the idea that people have psychologically legitimized the work they were doing. The tone seems more along the lines of "those poor disenfranchised drug addicts who were forced to do dangerous and degrading things to support their disease, who weren't even cared about by the police."

 

I like what you're suggesting far better.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Right now, in Vancouver at least, my sense if that there's enormous sympathy for ensuring that women should be able to work safely.

 

.

 

I read a similar article that confiirms your post. Basically there is a growing awareness within the public (not limited to BC) that status quo doesn't work as far as the safety of sex workers is concerned and the article was actually blaming the police and their hostile attitude towards sex workers for the murders that a low life bastard named Pickton committed. It said that working women were driven into dark corners from safer downtown locations to unsafe streets which made the job for this murderer much easier.

 

I have been doing some readings recently and am about to reach the conclusion that decriminalixation of prostitution though in my view will result in more prostitution however is the best way to guarantee the safety of sex workers as a whole.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

Hindsight is always 20/20. I do think there's a lot of legitimating sex work after the fact, given what we now know was going on in the late 1990s and early part of this decade. I don't think that many people in residential neighbourhoods would welcome street prostitution outside their doors today. Nonetheless, there does seem to be a growing understanding that SWs are actually working, which is different from supporting an addiction. To be sure, street sex work is portrayed as a desperate, last-chance, faint-hope kind of work, and there's very little analysis about why women find themselves without alternatives. I think that the public's mindset has become one of deploring the police's inattention to what was happening, such that the police are seen as the bad guys, not the sex workers.