Prostitution laws struck down by Ont. court

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Where's your source? Seems the actual studies disagree with your bold claims.

Read the whole thread, and look at my earlier posts. But I'll save you the effort:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6497799.stm

I'll even provide some newer info:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4616264.stm


I am really tired of having to repeat myself.

So here is a good summation of the arguments going both ways:

http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/643

I would side with those against as most real world examples do not reflect net benefits. Most arguments for it are based on ideals that do not reflect the realities of drug use, prostitution, pimping, etc..

[3 Justin 3]

And people thought I knew a lot about this subject. wow

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

Putting ads on craigslist does not violate this.

Neither does running an escort agency, unless you are providing a place for prostitute to gather and then meet their clients. Once again this can be easily side stepped. The agency merely arranges "the date". The sex is a contractual matter between the prostitute and the customer, which is totally legal. Tehre is a reason the yellow pages is filled with escort agencies.

You're hilarious.

1. Craigslist has nothing to do with it, although it's quite clear that you think it's presence has completely changed the manner in which all aspects of prostitution work.

2. A tenant, which includes the person renting an apartment or hotel room, who allows the premises to be used as location where someone pays for sex is in violation of 210(2). How you think that arranging it through an escort agency changes this is actually quite puzzling.

3. Using an escort agency, or craigslist, to direct someone to a premise where prostiution occurs is a violation of 211. Again, your failure to see this is astonishing.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by blankall

Read the whole thread, and look at my earlier posts. But I'll save you the effort:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6497799.stm

I'll even provide some newer info:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4616264.stm


I am really tired of having to repeat myself.
So here is a good summation of the arguments going both ways:

http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/643

I would side with those against as most real world examples do not reflect net benefits. Most arguments for it are based on ideals that do not reflect the realities of drug use, prostitution, pimping, etc..

Arguing against blankall with common sense in this thread is going nowhere - fast!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

Read the whole thread, and look at my earlier posts. But I'll save you the effort:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6497799.stm

I'll even provide some newer info:

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4616264.stm


I am really tired of having to repeat myself.

So here is a good summation of the arguments going both ways:

http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/643

I would side with those against as most real world examples do not reflect net benefits. Most arguments for it are based on ideals that do not reflect the realities of drug use, prostitution, pimping, etc..

All of your arguments, and those of the proffesor in your last link, amount to arguments for better standards and enforcement, not the continued criminalization of the sex trade. Nobody in this thread has argued that you just throw the doors open, the argument has always been that you impose a system that eliminates the ability for the criminal element to profit and improve standards for workers. Now the reality of that on a cost benefit level is probably debatable, but to argue that such a system isn't a better situation for the people involved in the sex trade currently is downright laughable.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

All of your arguments, and those of the proffesor in your last link, amount to arguments for better standards and enforcement, not the continued criminalization of the sex trade. Nobody in this thread has argued that you just throw the doors open, the argument has always been that you impose a system that eliminates the ability for the criminal element to profit and improve standards for workers. Now the reality of that on a cost benefit level is probably debatable, but to argue that such a system isn't a better situation for the people involved in the sex trade currently is downright laughable.

That's fine. But people are arguing for open systems like in Amsterdam. That would be a huge mistake.

I've stated several times that a change to the laws would be acceptable, but total decriminilization of pimps and brothels would be a massive mistake.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by amorak

Arguing against blankall with common sense in this thread is going nowhere - fast!

Common Sense: Totally ignoring real life examples and the realities of prositution and the sex trade and instead advocating positions based on ideals that have been shown not to translate into the real world.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

That's fine. But people are arguing for open systems like in Amsterdam. That would be a huge mistake.

Amsterdam isn't an open system, it's a poorly enforced and regulated system. Those are very different things. Your own links point out that the major issue isn't legal prostiution operations, it's the continuation of illegal activities. That's an argument about effective laws and enforcement, not about the broader concept of legalization.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Amsterdam isn't an open system, it's a poorly enforced and regulated system. Those are very different things. Your own links point out that the major issue isn't legal prostiution operations, it's the continuation of illegal activities. That's an argument about effective laws and enforcement, not about the broader concept of legalization.

The mistake Amsterdam made was legalizing pimps and brothels. Huge mistake. Wether or not they intended an open system, that was the result.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

The mistake Amsterdam made was legalizing pimps and brothels. Huge mistake. Wether or not they intended an open system, that was the result.

I don't think there's a problem with legalizing 'pimps' and brothels, the issue is with the restrictions and monitoring that are in place. If those 'pimps' are highly regulated they aren't any different than any other business owner/employer, the same goes for brothels. Where the issue arises is when those legalized pursuits are engaging in illegal activities, that puts a legitimate face on something that differs very little from the current state.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't think there's a problem with legalizing 'pimps' and brothels, the issue is with the restrictions and monitoring that are in place. If those 'pimps' are highly regulated they aren't any different than any other business owner/employer, the same goes for brothels. Where the issue arises is when those legalized pursuits are engaging in illegal activities, that puts a legitimate face on something that differs very little from the current state.

No different from any other business operator except for thier strong ties to international mafias and human trafficking rings.

Even if you managed to totally clean up prostitution in Canada, which would not be possible as it a business that lends itself to human exploitation, how would you control what goes on beyond our borders?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

No different from any other business operator except for thier strong ties to international mafias and human trafficking rings.

Even if you managed to totally clean up prostitution in Canada, which would not be possible as it a business that lends itself to human exploitation, how would you control what goes on beyond our borders?

How is what happens in other countries an issue here? Canada legalizing prostitution doesn't have anything to do with the way things are done anywhere else.

If you're talking about trafficking it becomes an immigration issue, which is again a matter of policy and enforcement.

Lots of businesses lend themselves to exploitation, heck I work in finance and it sure as hell does, that doesn't mean they can't be effectively regulated.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

How is what happens in other countries an issue here? Canada legalizing prostitution doesn't have anything to do with the way things are done anywhere else.

If you're talking about trafficking it becomes an immigration issue, which is again a matter of policy and enforcement.

Lots of businesses lend themselves to exploitation, heck I work in finance and it sure as hell does, that doesn't mean they can't be effectively regulated.

The old dig your head into the sand argument.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

The old dig your head into the sand argument.

Huh? Care to expand on that non-sensical comment?

If anyone has dug their head in the sand it's your continued refusal to address my post that demonstrated that your whole theory that nothing criminal occurs when an escort engages in sex for cash is nothing but pure nonsense. Unless it happens on craigslist of course, which apparently offers some sort of monopoly like get out of jail free card.

[Calgaryborn]

So from what I gather legalizing prostitution doesn't eliminate the iilegal and harmful aspects of the trade: Pimps still exist even if their hoes are conducting legal transactions. Men who abuse and hurt prostitutes will abuse legal prostitutes just as surely as illegal ones. The streets will still be full of the underage prostitutes and those suffering from mental and/or drug issues. Johns will still seek these particular prostitutes out for discount services or for the type of parties the others won't do.

Added to this, legalized prostitution will multiply the amount of human trafficing in Canada and draw in sex tourists from the States and from around the world.

The benefits would be that some of the legal prostitutes would feel more comfortable reporting the abuse they recieve from Johns. Also, the government would receive some revenue from those who chose to report it. We don't know how much the industry will cost the government to regulate and police. So the reported revenue might or might not cover the government's costs.

Perhaps I'm missing something but, I can see the negatives out weighing the positives.

I guess another question that should be asked is: Is it the governments business if an adult choses to rent their body out for money?

Another good question would be: Do healthy women who are not under the pressures of poverty or abusive relationships chose this particular occupation? Inside every prostitute do you find someone who has suffered a mental or physical event that lead them to view this occupation as desireable?

People on this board in the past have asserted that a homosexual is one by birth because no man would chose a homosexual life style willingly. Would a women or man chose to be a prostitute?

[Parallex]

Bump for Appeals Court Ruling...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2381372/

[Thor]

Nice one, surprised by it but good to see Canada yet again using logic and reason.

[CaptainCrunch]

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

Exactly. Control diseases easily with health checkups and tax it for craps sake...so they can lower my taxes.

Ha ha ha that will never happen. It will be pissed away in friends investments like all public money.

[undercoverbrother]

this is a very interesting topic, legal prostitution. off the cuff i would say i am fine with it, then i think about my daughter working in the legal industry......