A giant Teutonic brothel - Has liberalization gone too far?

[Valmy]

150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Right to your property is still highly regarded.

[Ideologue]

I don't regard it.  Especially Raz' property.

[CountDeMoney]

I'd be wary of exercising one's right to Raz's property.  That nigga's nuts, you don't know how that goof would respond.

[Camerus]

How did you come to this conclusion about the backgrounds of hookers?

I read an article about internet prostitution (and some serial killer of internet prostitutes) which suggested quite the opposite--women from very ordinary backgrounds who were attracted by the good money and independence.

Social service workers, commentary from ex-prostitutes, and personal observation of the kinds of girls walking the streets. 

Of course, there are any number of self-destructive behaviors we already criminalize that are "victimless."  There's the meth-head who "knows" better than the state that he needs another hit of meth, for example. 

But ultimately, I suppose you can create either narrative to some extent successfully, since there are examples of each:  prostitutes as victims or prostitutes as women empowering themselves with smart economic decisions.  Certainly both sides here have presented highly moralistic arguments for each.

In the end, my own problem with making prostitution illegal is just a pragmatic one, namely the fact it will never go away and the fear if it's illegal it will increase the power of criminal pimps and further degrade the life of the girls working in the industry.  I also wonder whether prostitution doesn't serve an important societal function for men in certain ways, especially within the confines of what has become a somewhat more matriarchal society.  Still, I do have the grave concerns about prostitution being exploitation of the vulnerable, and have not really been convinced in this thread to abandon them.

[Razgovory]

150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Right to your property is still highly regarded.

It really depends on what that property is.  The right to your meth lab is not highly regarded.  A great deal of property is heavily regulated.  There are lots of "infringements" on property rights in things like the fields of investing, finance, real estate etc.

[dps]

My own view is that the priority shouldn't necessarily be the freedom of men to purchase sex, but the ability of women to exit prostitution if they want and to reduce the coercion against them.

OK, the first part of this is a strawman--I don't think anyone here has seriously argued that men should be free to purchase sex from a prostitute, that it is (or should be) some sort of right.

And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them.  And as far as coercion is concerned, whether prostitution is legal or not, we have laws against slavery and forced labor.

[fhdz]

150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Right to your property is still highly regarded.

It really depends on what that property is.  The right to your meth lab is not highly regarded.

No, but your right to require the cops to have evidence before deciding your house is a meth lab is pretty highly regarded.

[garbon]

And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them.  And as far as coercion is concerned, whether prostitution is legal or not, we have laws against slavery and forced labor.

Well I could see that it could make it harder in the sense that you would then need to divine the level of coercion involved in the decision to prostitute oneself. Did she willing become/stay a prostitute or is the pimp forcing her? Is she lying when she says she was not forced?

Seems a bit trickier than when it is illegal and you just go after anyone involved with the activity.

[dps]

And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them.  And as far as coercion is concerned, whether prostitution is legal or not, we have laws against slavery and forced labor.

Well I could see that it could make it harder in the sense that you would then need to divine the level of coercion involved in the decision to prostitute oneself. Did she willing become/stay a prostitute or is the pimp forcing her? Is she lying when she says she was not forced?

Seems a bit trickier than when it is illegal and you just go after anyone involved with the activity.

Yeah, but if prostitution is illegal, that in itself is a huge disincentive for someone to come forward and say that they were forced into it, because they've just admitted to engaging in a criminal activity, and it's too easy for the authorities to take the attitude thay they're saying they were coerced to try to excuse their own culpability.  If it's legal, though, the prostitute isn't admitting to a crime just by saying that's what their doing for a living.

[Razgovory]

150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Right to your property is still highly regarded.

It really depends on what that property is.  The right to your meth lab is not highly regarded.

No, but your right to require the cops to have evidence before deciding your house is a meth lab is pretty highly regarded.

That's a different right.  The right against unreasonable search and seizure was not always as highly regarded as it is today in the US.  Thank God for the Warren Court.

[Sheilbh]

So you interpret the sentence to mean:

Trafficking in persons shall mean the [things done] by means of ... a position of vulnerability (for example)?

That's not proper English.

I think the commas are separating different means of getting control of a person. But that's the Palermo Declaration, it's UN definition.

In English law, from what I understand, the focus is on their situation at the end. So if their 'employment' was exploitative and someone knowingly moved them or facilitated the move into that employment then they're guilty of trafficking. What defines trafficking from smuggling, or kidnapping for that matter is generally the end result is exploitation of some sort, including sexual.

I have two basic problems with trafficking statistics: one, it seems like many of the organizations are advocacy groups rather than strict searchers after the truth.  Two, I suspect they rely heavily on self-reporting by women who have a great deal of incentive to claim they were coerced and virtually none to admit they are involved voluntarily.

I'd argue the bigger problem is that there's just not enough data on or attention paid to it. It's a crime that's only really been thought about for a few years. I think possibly because the West's experience is quite new. It was something that we only really thought of in relation to Gulf States and migrant workers. In the UK I think it only really came to public attention with the death of the Chinese cocklepickers. So until the last couple of years the UK used to prosecute people who'd been trafficked for illegal immigration and the traffickers.

But even now if the women claim to have been trafficked then that's not an insurmountable problem. That's why we have a legal system.

Most of the statistics I've used are from governments. The Eurostat figure, for example, was collected by the various local governments - most used the police as their sole source, others also included information from border control and immigration authorities, social workers and some charities. I suspect that the prostitution figures are probably the most accurate because they may be in touch with the outside more - charities or social workers working with prostitutes - while forced labourers wouldn't need that. If anything I think we're probably massively under-reporting the trade in men and boys, similarly there's generally very little academic research done in that area.

OK, the first part of this is a strawman--I don't think anyone here has seriously argued that men should be free to purchase sex from a prostitute, that it is (or should be) some sort of right.

Let me rephrase it then: the right to buy and sell sex. The argument that two adults should be free to make whatever choice they want in practice is an argument that men should be free to buy sex. And as I say I'm highly dubious on the actual freedom of the women involved.

And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them. 

First of all states try less because they think they've solved the problem of prostitution. That was the conclusion of the New Zealand government (where prostitution is legal) faced with the unexpected consequences.

Secondly I think the Swedish model is right on this, I think it's analogous to offering treatment to addicts but prosecuting dealers and suppliers. They prosecute pimps and give the clients the option of a fine or a court appearance. The women are offered social services some of which is specially tailored towards prostitutes who want to exit, including counselling, job training and education programs.

In addition because of that focus there's the example of 40 prostitutes (many from Romania) testifying against their pimps, their clients and their traffickers. I think that's hugely positive.

As I say the qualms about legalisation aren't just coming from a moral perspective but the actual experience. The Dutch, the Finns and I believe the Kiwis and the Danes are all reconsidering their prostitution laws precisely because the arguments for legalisation didn't really pan out. I believe Norway's already followed the Swedes. When they did their ombudsman report on its effectiveness they found that street prostitution had fallen by 50% (many of those women using the exit programs), there was a rise in internet prostitution, but no observable rise in indoor prostitution - massage parlours and so on. According to surveys the number of men who've used a prostitute has, roughly, halved and prostitution in Sweden has declined unlike other neighbouring countries and other countries that legalised it where prostitution is a growing business.

I think the moral argument is against legalisation, but I also think the effectiveness argument is too. Perhaps it's simply that what is often a trade in desperate people isn't necessarily going to be like any other market on liberalisation.

Well I could see that it could make it harder in the sense that you would then need to divine the level of coercion involved in the decision to prostitute oneself. Did she willing become/stay a prostitute or is the pimp forcing her? Is she lying when she says she was not forced?

Seems a bit trickier than when it is illegal and you just go after anyone involved with the activity.

But no-one wants that. That's what we had in the bad old days and it didn't work.

Yeah, but if prostitution is illegal, that in itself is a huge disincentive for someone to come forward and say that they were forced into it, because they've just admitted to engaging in a criminal activity, and it's too easy for the authorities to take the attitude thay they're saying they were coerced to try to excuse their own culpability.

I think the buying of sex and the exploitation of third parties should be a crime, not the selling of sex.

I really don't think coercion is the key here.

[garbon]

And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them.  And as far as coercion is concerned, whether prostitution is legal or not, we have laws against slavery and forced labor.

Well I could see that it could make it harder in the sense that you would then need to divine the level of coercion involved in the decision to prostitute oneself. Did she willing become/stay a prostitute or is the pimp forcing her? Is she lying when she says she was not forced?

Seems a bit trickier than when it is illegal and you just go after anyone involved with the activity.

Yeah, but if prostitution is illegal, that in itself is a huge disincentive for someone to come forward and say that they were forced into it, because they've just admitted to engaging in a criminal activity, and it's too easy for the authorities to take the attitude thay they're saying they were coerced to try to excuse their own culpability.  If it's legal, though, the prostitute isn't admitting to a crime just by saying that's what their doing for a living.

Fair enough.

[crazy canuck]

It is completely pedantic, because you are making a point you know does not apply to the discussion. There is no question about what the state needs to do, as I already stated. The discussion is about what the state ought to do.

Just because the Constitution allows the state to do something doesn't make it a good idea.

Once Berkut has intuitively gotten the legal test correct.  BB, the thing you missed is that Berkut is using an example where the state breaches a right through legislation.  In Canada that takes us to a s.1 analysis where the Court in Malmo Levine expressly said that questions of harm and balancing are directly addressed.  However in the Malmo Levine case the court didnt get to the s.1 analysis because they found no breach of s.7 rights.

Executive Summary - you avoided Berkut's argument by assuming away the breach of a right.

[grumbler]

Once Berkut has intuitively gotten the legal test correct.  BB, the thing you missed is that Berkut is using an example where the state breaches a right through legislation.  In Canada that takes us to a s.1 analysis where the Court in Malmo Levine expressly said that questions of harm and balancing are directly addressed.  However in the Malmo Levine case the court didnt get to the s.1 analysis because they found no breach of s.7 rights.

Executive Summary - you avoided Berkut's argument by assuming away the breach of a right.

And, just to make the distinction clear: in the US, rights are presumed to exist except where the various constitutions say otherwise.  As I understand from Beeb, in Canada rights are all enumerated; in the US, they explicitly are not.  The USSC has recognized the right to privacy, for instance, even though it is not enumerated in the US Constitution.

[crazy canuck]

I dont think BB meant to go that far.  It is true that our Charter has a number of enumerated rights but we also come from a long legal history of having unwritten rights.  As a result the rights enumerated in the Charter are not an exhaustive list of all rights protected by law (only those protected under the Charter) and the rights that are enumerated in the Charter are given a wide and liberal interpretation.

Property Rights are a good example.  Although we do not have an express enumerated property right in our Charter, property rights still exist and are given considerable weight whenever the Court interprets legislation which attempts to diminish those rights (although not within the context of a Charter analysis).  However, we do not go as far as American jurisdprudence for the reasons you have stated.

As I said to BB, for the purposes of the argument Berkut was making these distinctions dont really matter that much.