OTTAWA — The federal government is poised to introduce legislation in the coming weeks that will overhaul Canada’s prostitution laws — possibly targeting the pimps and johns as criminals while leaving the prostitutes themselves free from criminal prosecution.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay has been exploring various options since the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada’s prostitution laws last December, giving the government a year to come up with a new law.
Among the alternatives being examined is a Canadian version of the “Nordic model” — an approach first used in Sweden which then spread to Norway and Iceland — in which police target prostitutes’ customers, pimps and sex-trade traffickers.
Earlier this month, MacKay said his bill will be drafted to find the “right balance” to a “complex” issue.
Two things have become apparent: the government will not decriminalize or legalize prostitution, as some other countries such as New Zealand and the Netherlands have done; and the governing Tories appear to be contemplating the Nordic model.
“We’ve looked at a lot of different options and a lot of different models,” MacKay said. “The Nordic model is one. I can assure you of this: it will be a Canadian solution.”
“We know that there is tremendous violence and vulnerability associated with prostitution,” MacKay added. “Prostitutes are predominantly victims. They have very much, in some cases, run out of options before entering this particular pursuit.”
He said there will be “support mechanisms outside the legislation in order to help people to transition out of the sex trade.”
His choice of words — and the goals — are similar to a proposal Manitoba Conservative MP Joy Smith has been circulating.
She has written a report, The Tipping Point, that argues Canada must make the elimination of prostitution its goal through future legislation, and that a form of the Nordic model is the best solution.
“The most effective route to tackling prostitution and sex trafficking is to address the demand for commercial sex by targeting the buyers of sex,” she writes.
“As a nation, we must ensure pimps and predators remain strongly sanctioned and prostituted women and girls are not criminalized.”
Smith argues that in addition to punishing those who buy sex, any new regime must also include “exit” programs to give prostitutes the things they need to get out of the sex trade: food, shelter, drug rehabilitation, counselling and education.
Moreover, she is calling for a national education program to make Canadians realize that prostitution is a form of violence against women.
“Our country has to recognize that this is Canada’s oldest oppression — not profession,” she said in an interview with the Citizen.
“It’s nothing but violence against women. Plain and simple. No matter how you paint it. We have to target the johns, the traffickers, the people who buy sex and go after trying to make money off of innocent victims.”
Smith said more than 90 per cent of prostitutes are “lured” into the sex trade and become victims who are “held captive by beatings” and “have no place to go.”
“They develop these Stockholm Syndromes, where they get attached to their perpetrator. They get almost like they are brainwashed. There’s no way out. They get despondent. And it’s very dangerous for them.“
At its policy convention in Calgary last November, the Conservative party adopted a resolution stating it “shall develop a Canada-specific plan to target the purchasers of sex and human trafficking markets through criminalizing the purchase of sex as well as any third party attempting to profit from the purchase of sex.”
But others, including some prostitutes and academics, are warning against the Nordic model, saying it will merely force the sex trade underground and leave prostitutes in greater danger of being harmed.
Christine Bruckert, a former prostitute who is now a criminology professor at the University of Ottawa, said that if the government chooses Smith’s proposal, the sex trade will continue.
She said that in a system where just the customers are charged by police, those “clients” will be nervous about getting caught by police and will insist to prostitutes that they meet in dark places — not open streets.
“If the client will only accept her as a date if she jumps in the car quickly, that’s what she is going to do. She’s not going to take time to see if he is a risk.”
Bruckert said the law would eventually end up back at the Supreme Court and be ruled unconstitutional because it fails to protect prostitutes from danger.
“The sad thing is that until that time, the most marginal sex workers are going to be at greater risk and they’re going to get hurt, and they’re going to get killed.”
Bruckert said those advocating the Nordic model are adopting a paternalistic attitude.
“It’s about taking an ideological stand: Sex work is wrong, women are victims. It’s about people saying if you are a sex worker, and you say you want to be a sex worker, you must be either deluded or mentally ill or not even know that you’re making a bad choice.”
http://www.canada.com/federal+prostitution+coming+soon/9781043/story.html
so canada's right-wing seems to be embracing the 'nordic model'. be interesting to see what the liberals and NDP propose.
discipline posted:I remember a first nations woman on a radio interview saying there was no native word for prostitution before the white man came to canada
damn she must have been super old
discipline posted:http://johnstompers.com/2013/01/new-norwegian-research-rubs-success-of-nordic-model-in-everyones-face/http://johnstompers.com/2013/02/norwegian-prostitution-research-solid-like-iceberg/
what do you think of this article that replies to the first article.
discipline posted:it speaks of rape, self-defined vs. definition of, also points out the numbers of people threatened with a weapon but the prosenteret study says it didn't poll for attempted murder in 2007/2008 so there's that to consider. either way violence against women is down under the nordic model. it's up in places where johns and pimps are legal. I don't argue for the nordic model because I'm a prude or I have moral issues about sex, I argue for it because it is better for women in a very material way. good luck to canada!
Bougie fetishists and peep show tourists have nothing of intelligence to say about the Nordic model. They imply that every single bit of research is flawed but then don't say how.
we better not fuck this up
Buh? Are they just talking about a priorities thing where it's still technically illegal but they won't prosecute?
discipline posted:I remember a first nations woman on a radio interview saying there was no native word for prostitution before the white man came to canada
but...the oldest profession?
discipline posted:also points out the numbers of people threatened with a weapon
if she had gun this not happen
discipline posted:I remember a first nations woman on a radio interview saying there was no native word for prostitution before the white man came to canada
probably because 'native' isn't a language
littlegreenpills posted:the oldest profession is clearly hunter-gatherer
I had a serious conversation with somebody about why this is obviously and necessarily the case lol other thing is some seriously internalized patriarchy
babyfinland posted:im a nordic model
1/10th scale
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11212075
A sex worker has been awarded $25,000 compensation after being sexually harassed by a brothel operator.
The Human Rights Review Tribunal found the sex worker was made to feel scared and degraded by sexual and intimidating comments.
From October 2009 to June 2010 the woman, whose name is suppressed, was a sex worker at the Kensington Inn, a Wellington brothel managed by Aaron Montgomery, and owned by his partner, Tara Elizabeth Brockie.
The woman said while she was at work, Mr Montgomery made sexual comments about her body, and told her he liked to have sex with the other workers.
Mr Montgomery said weekends were his "play time", when he liked to get stoned and have sex with them in his "special room" at the Kensington.
On occasions he told her details about the sex, including that he liked "young, skinny girls".
He said he could do what he liked with the girls, and that "most girls will do anything for me anyway".
The decision said Mr Montgomery often yelled at the woman for talking to other sex workers about the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective (NZPC).
He was also unhappy about her sharing a rented house with other sex workers, as he didn't want them to socialise outside of work.
While driving her home on one occasion, he told her he would "take her out of her comfort zone", which she worried meant he would hurt her or send someone else to hurt her.
The woman said the comments made her feel scared and uncomfortable, and she began to have difficulty sleeping and eating. Her depression worsened and she felt degraded.
She felt Mr Montgomery was trying to "break her and control her".
In his evidence, Mr Montgomery denied making the sexual comments or raising his voice to her.
He said he never had sex with the girls, and that the plaintiff was a disgruntled employee looking for "payback".
Catherine Healy from the NZPC gave evidence that Mr Montgomery's comments to the women was not typical of brothel operators.
She said it was extremely difficult for sex workers to complain about harassment, as there was still a culture of secrecy and vulnerability, and workers were often concerned they would be "outed" if they complained.
The tribunal decision described Mr Montgomery as "condescending and patronising".
"His self-described role as "protector" of the sex workers at the Kensington has led him to be overbearing and exploitative, thinking that his sex, size and management role have given him a licence to do as he wishes and to behave as he likes."
The tribunal found his actions were a breach of the Human Rights Act, and awarded the plaintiff $25,000 for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings.
The defendants were also ordered to undergo training with the Human Rights Commission.
Speaking today Ms Healy said the "very good result'' would "set a milestone'' for the sex industry.
"I think it certainly sends a really strong message that people working in brothels, that sex workers, have rights and can exercise them, and certainly they can challenge sexual harassment and sexual exploitation in the context of sex work,'' she said. "And that's got to be really good news.''
She said the ruling makes it clear to sex workers that they don't have to "put up and shut up''.
"You can speak up and have your identity protected and the systems will support you and listen to complaints.''
The young woman who laid the complaint had shown "considerable courage'' in challenging her employer, Ms Healy said.
The plaintiff declined a request for comment.
this article makes an interesting allegation when it ties the nordic model to individualism (insomuch that i've never heard that argument before). also, dude has a point that the cons will never put into place the kind of social safety net necessary to help women leave prostitution but I think he's leaving out a crucial third position that is socialist and abolitionist
As Justice Minister Peter MacKay prepares to table new laws governing sex work, Canadians are hearing a lot about the Nordic model of prostitution policy. The Nordic model approach penalizes paying for sex while decriminalizing the sale of sex.
However, that's just one meaning of the Nordic model. The other also indicates Scandinavian socio-economic policy in general: "the combination of a free market economy with a welfare state." The Economist recently hailed this as the "next supermodel."
Distinguishing between these two meaningss of the term Nordic model is crucial to understanding sex work debates. Conservative politicians, some feminists and religious supporters are focusing on criminalization while ignoring these economic and social justice solutions.
What does this mean for sex work in Canada?
What are the opposing views of sex work?
Just as there are multiple meanings of the term "Nordic model," there are divergent views of sex work:
Decriminalization advocates (or sex worker rights advocates) hope to emancipate sex work from the strictures of law. Decriminalization and harm reduction advocates tell us "there is no representative sex worker."
Abolitionists aim to use the law to eliminate exploitation. Some abolitionists depict prostitution as slavery, arguing "men do not have the right to buy women, period." Both perspectives have a place in this conversation because each addresses different aspects of sex work:
Abolitionists emphasize the terribly high incidence of violence, suffering and loss of life in prostitution, especially among survival sex workers.
Decriminalization advocates emphasize the diversity of sex workers' experiences and their right to self-determination.
These opposing viewpoints correspond to contrasting policy approaches:
Individualist perspectives range from defining purchasers as the "root cause" of prostitution and punishing "johns" and "pimps" to citing the diverse experiences of sex work in arguments for decriminalization.
Collective approaches affirm sex workers' labour and human rights while recognizing survival sex work as a symptom of socio-economic inequality.
Given Conservatives' promotion of individual criminal justice, perhaps the crucial question is: Why aren't questions of economy and poverty more central to sex work policy debates?
More specifically, why are advocates for the Nordic model excluding its social welfare aspect?
The Conservatives began drafting Nordic-style legislation long before launching their public consultation on February 17; now they intend to table legislation imminently. Was the consultation a genuine inquiry into Canadians' views or an exercise to legitimate Conservatives' forthcoming legislation? Days after the consultation opened, the Chronicle Herald quoted MacKay: "Going after the perpetrators, we believe, is both legally and morally the direction we should take." MacKay says the consultation has been "instructive"; however, according to sex work advocates, the instructions accompanying the consultation were biased in favor of criminal justice approaches. A focus on criminal justice is consistent with intentions adopted at the 2013 Conservative Convention, which re-affirmed the illegality of slavery before endorsing "a Canada-specific plan to target the purchasers of sex and human trafficking markets through criminalizing the purchase of sex."
In response, sex workers argue that these laws are dangerous, especially for those practicing the most precarious forms of prostitution: people who sell sex to survive.
Conservative MP Joy Smith has promoted the Nordic model since 2007, when she recommended criminalizing sex purchasers in "Connecting the Dots: A Proposal for a National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking." The day the Bedford decision was announced, Smith issued a press release promoting the Nordic model:
The Nordic model of prostitution is effective due to its three approaches: explicitly criminalizing the purchase of sexual services, a national awareness campaign to educate the public that the purchase of sexual services is harmful to women and finally strong support programs for those who seek to exit prostitution.
On February 6, 2014, three organizations -- EVE, Sextrade101 and London Abused Women's Centre -- launched a postcard campaign to "criminalize buyers and pimps and decriminalize prostituted women." The press release for this campaign says the postcards, financed by "the generosity of a private donor," are addressed to Smith, "who will then deliver them to Justice Minister Peter MacKay." Six days before the Conservatives' prostitution consultation opened, Smith tweeted a picture showing off the first of the postcards she received.
The "Criminalize Johns and Pimps Not Women" postcard campaign represents the Nordic model in three demands, which echo Smith's definition:
We entreat the government to follow the lead of enlightened countries like Sweden and other nations by implementing the three-pronged approach of what is called the Nordic model of law and social policy around prostitution:
1. Decriminalize persons being sold
2. Penalize buyers, pimps and procurers
3. Mandate robust funding for services to women to exit the sex industry.
It's no surprise that the postcard advocates for decriminalizing sex workers and penalizing purchasers. It also makes sense that feminist and religious supporters want to fund exit programs because people who run exit programs are leaders in religious and feminist movements.
The real question is: Why do the postcards' demands stop at exit programs? Why do they ignore the Nordic model's broader commitment to social welfare? Why don't they argue for investing in systemic economic support?
Why are Nordic model supportors avoiding economic approaches?
The bigger economic picture reveals one reason why Canada has a problem with survival sex work: Sweden and Norway spent nearly 29 per cent and 24 per cent of GDP on welfare in 2012, respectively; Canada spent just under 18 per cent. Precise calculations are better left to economists, but for Canadians, this deficit amounts to trillions of dollars of absent support for people in precarious economic circumstances. The existence of survival sex work in Canada is a symptom of our failure to provide this support to people in poverty.
Six to eleven per cent of GDP is an expensive oversight, but what if that's the real cost of preventing human suffering and harm?
In contrast, punishing "the johns" is convenient to the neoconservative imagination. Emphasizing individual purchasers' demands is akin to "war on drugs" rhetoric. The role of dealers and addicts is now performed by pimps and prostitutes.
The war on sex work locates the cause of transactional sex in bad individuals, placing responsibility in men's self-restraint and women's risk-management. This individual emphasis obscures how survival sex work is a symptom of systemic poverty and economic coercion.
Nevertheless, Smith and her supporters exclude economic relief from Nordic model demands and downplay economic injustice in their rhetoric about prostitution. A neoconservative approach is unremarkable from a Conservative MP, but what about feminists and religious advocates?
The Women's Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution's campaign for the Nordic model -- "We Want More For Women" -- launched on International Women's Day 2013. Their announcement rails against prostitution for six paragraphs before finally mentioning "women’s substantive equality through community resources, guaranteed liveable income, opportunity for education, access to support, et cetera" -- but this economic caveat merely sets up an abolitionist punch line: "NOT through the decriminalization of the sale of their bodies for profit."
Feminist groups remain leaders in the struggle for women's economic equality, but when it comes to sex work, some of these groups appear to be putting Nordic-style criminalization before economic solutions.
Meanwhile, Smith's religious supporters hail her as a "Modern-Day Wilberforce" while Smith herself represents anti-trafficking initiatives to parliament as part of efforts "to abolish modern-day slavery in our nation."
The rhetoric of prostitution-as-slavery continues in Saskatoon Pastor Tyrone McKenzie's recent suggestion that "Everyone should have the right to sell themselves, but no one should have the right to purchase them." This despite slavery's abolition in Canada in 1833, and against the objections of sex workers who argue that sex work does not entail selling one's body or one's person, but rather, selling sex -- an action, a service, a profession: sex work as work. The slavery motif may compel moral crusaders, but it also obscures the economic and labor aspects of sex work.
The individual, the collective and the political economy of survival sex work
The Bedford decision mandated that new laws must "not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes," but the SCC never precluded parliament from considering alternatives to criminal justice. Meanwhile, legal scholars Jula Hughes, Vanessa MacDonnell and Karen Pearlston argue for thinking "beyond the criminal law when developing advocacy approaches."
Yet, Conservatives and abolitionists continue to downplay, if not ignore, economic options. Why do Nordic model advocates promote individual criminalization and rescue instead of collectively addressing poverty's role in creating survival sex work?
Prostitution and sex work are complicated practices, and we should respect their variety and complexity. Some people choose sex work as a calling; some peddle sex as a business; others sell sex to survive.
Some sex work happens at the nexus of desire and opportunity; some sex work occurs in a crucible of desperation and poverty. Different kinds of sex work have their own lived experience and their own political economy.
Freely chosen transactional sex requires protecting people's right to do as they please with their bodies and their lives. Survival sex may represent a small fraction of transactional sex, but it remains a pressing social problem demanding immediate attention. In this context, exit programs are a both an urgent necessity and a symptom of our failure to protect people to begin with. Exit programs are invaluable for people who need to escape desperate circumstances, but like a band-aid, they are applied only after injuries have already occurred.
Survival sex work is too often a matter of life and death. Women who have perished or disappeared from Vancouver's Downtown East Side, or from British Columbia's Highway of Tears, or from across Canada in less visible locations -- including aboriginal women, sex workers and other precariously positioned people -- deserved something better and sooner than rescue missions or exit programs. We all deserve safety in the first place. As a matter of rights, people who choose sex work must be free to do so safely, and people who abhor this choice must be free to do otherwise. As a matter of social justice, people in vulnerable positions require the protection of the collective, and fulfilling that responsibility is one of the state's primary duties.
Maybe this is why the Nordic welfare state is absent from Conservative and abolitionist rhetoric. Perhaps this trade-off, which ignores protection in order to promote punishment, is necessary to maintaining the carceral constituency of Conservative and abolitionists.
Whatever their motivations, by maintaining this oversight, Nordic model advocates advance an ongoing pattern of shifting responsibility for protecting Canadians onto individuals and private agencies. This neoliberal move is part of the problem.
Effective solutions for survival sex, and dangerous work in general, require significant social spending directed at eliminating poverty. Considering that millions of Canadians struggle economically -- some of whom turn to trading sex for money -- the neoconservative imperative to punish with one hand, while withholding social and economic support with the other, is tantamount to willful cruelty.
The Nordic model says, "We will sanction your legal source of income, but don't worry -- we have a program for you." Unless the Conservatives have a great deal more to offer sex workers than exit programs, the Nordic model seems politically, economically and ethically perverse. If we truly wish to go to the root of these issues, we must stop neglecting our inequitable economy. Instead of trying to eradicate sex work by punishing "johns" and rescuing "prostitutes," we need to redouble our commitment to economic equality and work harder to abolish poverty.
Conservatives and abolitionists are missing the big picture on sex work
futurewidow posted:I'm trying to figure out why they're doing this because i guarantee that it's not for the sake of women
