New public consultation on prostitution laws

iptba

I thought I would draw attention to the following:

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR12000188

Shatter Announces Publication of Discussion Document on the Future Direction of Legislation on Prostitution

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence today published a discussion document on the future direction of legislation on prostitution. Publication of the discussion document follows the Minister’s announcement that he would be arranging a public consultation process as part of the current review of prostitution legislation. Announcing publication of the discussion document, Minister Shatter said:

"The criminal law in this area is being reviewed primarily because of the changed nature of prostitution in Ireland. Prostitution was once mainly a street-based phenomenon. That is no longer the case. The organisation of prostitution is now much more sophisticated, highly mobile and is easily facilitated by the use of mobile phones and the internet.

There is, of course, already a clear consensus on the great evils of child prostitution and trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. However, I am aware that there are differing and genuinely held views on the approach the criminal law should take to other aspects of prostitution. While there is a significant amount of criminal legislation in this area already, there is always scope for change and improvement. It is important to review the law periodically to ensure it is up to date and comprehensively responds to altered circumstances."

The Minister added that: "Prostitution is an issue which affects individuals, communities and society as a whole. It is important that I facilitate the expression of all views on this subject and that those views are examined in due course. Public debate should therefore, be open to the widest possible audience and I want to ensure that everyone who wishes to make a contribution to this important debate is given the opportunity to do so. It is for that reason I have decided on a consultation process before charting the way forward.

My Department will hold a conference in the autumn to discuss the document. The widest possible participation will be encouraged in order that we have an open and transparent discussion on all aspects of this very important issue.
This discussion document will now be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence. Interested groups and members of the public, I expect, will be invited to make submissions to the Committee which will hold such hearings as it deems appropriate. I am asking Mr. David Stanton T.D., Chairman of the Joint Committee, that it publish its report and recommendations by the 30th November 2012 and that the report be furnished to me together with any submissions received. I expect it is likely that the Committee’s report will also be lodged in the Oireachtas Library and that a debate on it will subsequently take place in both the Dáil and the Seanad. The report received by me from the Joint Oireachtas Committee will be fully considered in the framing of any necessary new legislative proposals to be submitted to Government in due course.

I look forward to the results of the consultation process."

The discussion document is attached below and will be made available on the Department’s website, www.justice.ie

This discussion document does not favour any particular approach but simply tries to assist reflection. The arguments contained in the document are not exhaustive and the questions posed are not intended to limit in any way the range of questions readers might want to consider.

22 June, 2012

ENDS

Notes to Editor

In Ireland, traditionally the law in relation to prostitution has had two objectives. Firstly, it is aimed at protecting society from the more intrusive aspects of such activity from a public order perspective. For that reason, under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 it is an offence to solicit in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution. The offence can be committed by the client, the prostitute or a third party - a pimp, for example.

The second objective of the law on prostitution is to protect prostitutes from exploitation. Accordingly, under the 1993 legislation, it is an offence to organise prostitution, coerce or compel a person to be a prostitute, knowingly live off the earnings of a prostitute, or keep or manage a brothel.

In this State, it is not an offence, in itself, to sell sex. In general, it is not an offence to purchase sex either. However, the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 made it an offence to knowingly solicit or importune a trafficked person, in any place, for the purpose of prostitution. That Act also provides that a person convicted of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation is liable to a penalty of up to life imprisonment.

Simply to assist public deliberation, Chapter 5 of the discussion document sets out four broad approaches to legislative policy on prostitution. In relation to each approach, it identifies possible arguments for and against and raises questions for consideration. None of this is designed to limit the range of the questions readers might want to consider.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB12000187

Discussion Document on Future Direction of Prostitution Legislation

I am pleased to publish this discussion document, which is being issued to assist a public consultation process on the future direction of legislation on prostitution.

The criminal law in this area is being reviewed primarily because of the changed nature of prostitution in Ireland. Prostitution in this country was once mainly a street-based phenomenon. That is no longer the case. The organisation of prostitution is now much more sophisticated, highly mobile and is easily facilitated by the use of mobile phones and the internet.
While there is a significant amount of criminal legislation in this area already, there is always scope for change and improvement. It is important to review the law periodically to ensure it is up to date and comprehensively responds to altered circumstances.

Discussion Document on Future Direction of Prostitution Legislation (Size - 329KB) http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Discussion%20Document%20on%20Future%20Direction%20of%20Prostitution%20Legislation.pdf/Files/Discussion%20Document%20on%20Future%20Direction%20of%20Prostitution%20Legislation.pdf

Piece on this on RTE website:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0622/new-consultation-on-prostitution-laws.html#article

---

Some groups associated with religious groups and some individuals and groups influenced by some feminist thought would like to have similar laws to those that exist in Sweden, where the prostitute isn't criminalised but the purchaser is.

This seems unfair to me. "Turn Off the Blue Light" http://www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/ is one group against the approach.

Unfortunately, I can see such a law happening. Just like with gender quotas, I'm not sure we will see many politicians will to challenge such an approach - it's not PC.

ETA: I recall reading some discussion that it was unclear how they would frame such a law e.g. if a man bought a woman a drink or gave her a present, and they had sex, could that be counted as prostitution.

BTW, I've never used a prostitute myself.

Piliger

We need a legalised and regulated sex industry. This determination to criminalise personal adult private behaviour is always doomed to failure and along the way it just destroys lives.

Panthro

Might be more suited in here.
Moved from TGC.

iptba

I'm not sure this is the best forum for the type of discussion I wanted. If people in the legal forum want to have a discussion, they can too.

I'm not happy with the Swedish model, which many people want, that if a man pays a prostitute, he is a criminal and she is not. Some feminists (but not all feminists) are pushing for this model. I think this can be looked at as a men's issue which is why I posted it in the Gentleman's Club.

It has echoes to me of how some feminists want difference sentences for male and female criminals, with female (but not male) criminals looked on as victims:
From a Seanad debate:
http://historical-debates.oireachtas...805200002.html

Senator Ivana Bacik:
This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of L[817]ords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report.

I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.

Senator David Norris: Why not?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to meet them to discuss the issues at another time.
The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice will also host a seminar on Thursday evening on the future of women’s imprisonment. This is an issue which we could very usefully debate in this House and could lead the way in calling for a critical review of women’s imprisonment, as Baroness Corston has done in Great Britain.

Right 2B a liar

Not that I have or intend to use such a service, I don't see the crime in two adults having consensual sex/sex act in exchange for money. It may be immoral but so too is pornography and sex toys yet a vibrant (excuse the pun) trade exist in this industry. Criminalising this means many people's lives are ruined from prosecutions arising from sting operations.

GarIT

If I want to work with my hands I can, if I want to work with my brain I can, if I want to work with my bits I cant, Its illegal. There is no difference between those to me. Of course it shouldn't be advertised openly or shown around children but I think it should be completely legal. I dont see any moral connection, its just another part of the human body but one wich some groups have made a fuss over than others but the opnion of most people should not take away from a basic right.

Delancey

I suspect the decisions have been made already and the ' discussion ' is just window dressing. Doutless Ruhama ( aka Legion of Mary ) will have a big influence far above their weight.

Piliger

Well it's up to the public to make their own voice heard and not stand back and be passive.

How do people make submissions to this review ?

Victor

Piliger wrote: »

We need a legalised and regulated sex industry. This determination to criminalise personal adult private behaviour is always doomed to failure and along the way it just destroys lives.

Read the quote in the first post. Simple prostitution isn't illegal; soliciting, pimping, brothel keeping are.

iptba wrote: »

It has echoes to me of how some feminists want difference sentences for male and female criminals, with female (but not male) criminals looked on as victims:

I'm not sure what this has to do with the thread, but the typical crimes of men and women are different.

Right 2B a liar wrote: »

Criminalising this means many people's lives are ruined from prosecutions arising from sting operations.

Is there any evidence of this?

Dandelion6

Interestingly in Norway there are now calls to reverse the law that criminalises clients because violence against sex workers has increased

http://www.thelocal.no/page/view/rip-up-prostitution-law-says-top-oslo-politician

While in Sweden two large sex trafficking rings have been discovered this year, showing that the law doesn't stop traffickers from operating there as Ruhama claim

http://www.thelocal.se/40828/20120514/
http://www.thelocal.se/41412/20120613/

GarIT

Victor wrote: »

Read the quote in the first post. Simple prostitution isn't illegal; soliciting, pimping, brothel keeping are.

It should all be decriminalised and regulated, I can't see anything wrong with it. What do these orginisations think of the prostitution itself without the trafficking?

Delancey

GarIT wrote: »

It should all be decriminalised and regulated, I can't see anything wrong with it. What do these orginisations think of the prostitution itself without the trafficking?

Ruhama seizes on the ' trafficking ' hysteria as its main anti-prostitution argument - take away the trafficking would show them to be anti sex for sale regardless of where the ' actors ' came from. Ruhama is a Catholic Church founded organisationn so that should provide a clue....

Dandelion6

Delancey wrote: »

Ruhama is a Catholic Church founded organisationn so that should provide a clue....

Founded by the same orders who ran the Magdalene Laundries. Their van goes around the streets offering the women cups of tea, but if they need condoms they're on their own...

iptba

Victor wrote: »

iptba wrote:

It has echoes to me of how some feminists want difference sentences for male and female criminals, with female (but not male) criminals looked on as victims:

I'm not sure what this has to do with the thread,

Well, in this world prostitutes are seen as victims, not as people committing a crime or enticing people to commit a crime. So in the transaction, under the Swedish model they want, the payer (a man, generally) will give money he had to work for to person offering the illegal service (a woman, generally), but she's the victim, he's the nasty person who should get criminalised. If you are going to criminalise the payer, the seller should also be punished. We don't have this policty towards drug dealing, for example.

Women are talked about as being trafficked - not treated as sometimes being economic migrants, who could earn more money here than in another country.

Victor wrote: »

but the typical crimes of men and women are different.

Why not looking for different sentencing based on the crime, rather than, as they were in that case, explicitly looking for different sentencing based on gender. It wasn't about having certain categories of crime treated less harshly, it was about different categories of offenders being treated differently based on whether they were male or female:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas...805200002.html
Quote:

Senator Ivana Bacik:
This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of L[817]ords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report.

I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.

Senator David Norris: Why not?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to meet them to discuss the issues at another time.
The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice will also host a seminar on Thursday evening on the future of women’s imprisonment. This is an issue which we could very usefully debate in this House and could lead the way in calling for a critical review of women’s imprisonment, as Baroness Corston has done in Great Britain.

iptba

Victor wrote: »

Read the quote in the first post. Simple prostitution isn't illegal; soliciting, pimping, brothel keeping are.

But the Swedish model is the one many groups are pushing for, where it will be illegal.

Piliger

Victor wrote: »

Read the quote in the first post. Simple prostitution isn't illegal; soliciting, pimping, brothel keeping are.

I didn't claim that they are.

I wrote: "This determination to criminalise personal adult private behaviour ... "

Delancey

Piliger wrote: »

I didn't claim that they are.

I wrote: "This determination to criminalise personal adult private behaviour ... "

... and criminalise it they will , this is a ' Nanny State ' we live in.

There are echoes of the race / immigration debate here insofar as many people are , I believe , afraid to add their views for fear of being labelled.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

If I want to work with my hands I can, if I want to work with my brain I can, if I want to work with my bits I cant, Its illegal.

There's a qualitative difference between the first two wants and the third insofar as nobody wants to be a prostitute.

Dandelion6

Deleted User wrote: »

nobody wants to be a prostitute.

That's probably true for the ones on the street and in the seedy controlled brothels, but there are women working independently indoors who have plenty of other options and choose prostitution (or "escorting" as it's euphemistically called).

GarIT

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a qualitative difference between the first two wants and the third insofar as nobody wants to be a prostitute.

What you just said is as incorrect as those abortion ads "theres ALWAYS a better answer", "nobody wants to have an abortion", what you said just stinks of ignorance.

I never intended for there to be any difference. Given the choice I would like to go down that road but I don't think there is much money to be made in it for men. I do also know of a girl who would choose to be a prostitute if it was organised properly.

I don't see the difference between your hands or feet and your genitals. There was hype put onto it by religions many years ago but I dont think there is any difference at all, its all the same body and its not unique to any one person.

I would find prostitution easier, more enjoyable and more profitable than say stacking shelves in a shop. There are people that would choose that career path and they should have a legal right to do so if they wish regardless of other peoples feelings on it. If I choose to be a prostitute I would not be harming anyone at all. Prostitution needs protection i.e. health and safety regulations and not to be made illegal.

What I would suggest would be a law which would make it illegal to buy sex from a prostitute that does not have a licence to be one, just like bying drink from someone without a licence. Then licenced prostitutes could be forced to have health checks etc.

Whats the difference between paying for sex and paying someone for a massage. There is none, both are services where money is exchanged and the customer receives physicial stimulation. The only problem is that sex has a religious stigma attatched to it because of the views of most religions on sex, marraige etc. I'm not religious and see no problem with charging for sex so why should I be forced to live by laws that have no purpose other than to inforce some peoples religious (including for non religious people the lasting result of generations of religious beliefs) or moral beliefs.

Dandelion6

Dandelion6 wrote: »

That's probably true for the ones on the street and in the seedy controlled brothels, but there are women working independently indoors who have plenty of other options and choose prostitution (or "escorting" as it's euphemistically called).

I meant it more in the sense of "nobody wants to be a toilet cleaner at McDonald's". It's not a desirable job in and of itself but the financial rewards are certainly significant enough to incentivise it for those who can see it in non-traditional sexual terms.

GarIT wrote: »

What you just said is as incorrect as those abortion ads "theres ALWAYS a better answer", "nobody wants to have an abortion", what you said just stinks of ignorance.

I think it is fair to say that nobody wants to have an abortion in the sense that it is, by definition, a corrective procedure. Nobody wants to make mistakes. Your point is somewhat facile in the sense that it presupposes that I am against legalising the practice of prostitution. I never expressed a view in either way. All I did was to point out that it is not a desirable career from a Rawlsian-esque persective. I apologise if my point wasn't expressed clearly enough but such are the risks attached to short answers.

GarIT

Deleted User wrote: »

I meant it more in the sense of "nobody wants to be a toilet cleaner at McDonald's". It's not a desirable job in and of itself but the financial rewards are certainly significant enough to incentivise it for those who can see it in non-traditional sexual terms.



I think it is fair to say that nobody wants to have an abortion in the sense that it is, by definition, a corrective procedure. Nobody wants to make mistakes. Your point is somewhat facile in the sense that it presupposes that I am against legalising the practice of prostitution. I never expressed a view in either way. All I did was to point out that it is not a desirable career from a Rawlsian-esque persective. I apologise if my point wasn't expressed clearly enough but such are the risks attached to short answers.

But you can't say nobody wants to do it, for some it is desireable, you haven't surveyed 4.5million people to say that nobody here would desire the job, there are sluts everywhere and im sure some of them would love to make money off it.

What your saying about abortion is putting a time on something that doesnt have a time on it. At the time before somebody is pregnant the statment is probably true, after conception the statement is not true, the statment does not have a time and would be presumed to be in the present so saying nobody would be incorrect, because you cant answer for everyone elses desires.

There are some people where their dream is to be in porn so it would follow that there are some that would like to be a prostitute.

The majority of my post was directed at the general theme not your post. If I said you I meant the reader, and if I said I, I meant the individual who's choice it is.

While there are problems that are associated with and may be caused by prostitution I feel it is wrong to ban an acceptable act for its causes when the causes can be dealt with seperately. Baning prostitution is like baning night clubs, night clubs (through alcohol and the environment) can create violence, explotation, abuse and the transmission of deseases just like prostitution but we can police these factors in other ways.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

The only problem is that sex has a religious stigma attatched to it because of the views of most religions on sex, marraige etc. I'm not religious and see no problem with charging for sex so why should I be forced to live by laws that have no purpose other than to inforce some peoples religious (including for non religious people the lasting result of generations of religious beliefs) or moral beliefs.

GarIT wrote: »

But you can't say nobody wants to do it, for some it is desireable, you haven't surveyed 4.5million people to say that nobody here would desire the job, there are sluts everywhere and im sure some of them would love to make money off it.

Ok you must be trolling given that the two statements above are mutually exclusive on a conceptual level.

To paraphrase:

"I think that social stigmas attached to sex are outmoded and the product of a defunct religious ethos to which many, including myself, do not ascribe; therefore why should I, or they, have to live by domestic laws enshrining those defunct mores?

...

Besides, those sluts just love the cock so you might as well let the whores have some proper regulation for their bitch asses"

GarIT

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok you must be trolling given that the two statements above are mutually exclusive on a conceptual level.

To paraphrase:

"I think that social stigmas attached to sex are outmoded and the product of a defunct religious ethos to which many, including myself, do not ascribe; therefore why should I, or they, have to live by domestic laws enshrining those defunct mores?

...

Besides, those sluts just love the cock so you might as well let the whores have some proper regulation for their bitch asses"

I meant a slut as in someone who has a lot of sex with just about anyone. I hadn't looked up the definition.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

I meant a slut as in someone who has a lot of sex with just about anyone. I hadn't looked up the definition.

Definition isn't the point as you must be aware.

christmas2012

''Simple prostitution isn't illegal; soliciting, pimping, brothel keeping are.''

The areas in which a woman becomes a victim is when she is part of a brothel keeping gang,or being solicited/pimped out..I think this should be obvious to all boardsies here reading and posting on the subject matter..

Dandelion6

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not a desirable job in and of itself

For some people it is. Granted they're almost certainly a minority but you said "nobody".

iptba

Dandelion6 wrote: »

For some people it is. Granted they're almost certainly a minority but you said "nobody".

There was a high profile case of an English woman a year or two (?) back who wrote a blog/book (?) about not minding it as a way of making money. She was on the higher end.
ETA: I think she was called Belle de Jour: http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.ie/ . Latest blog post: Why Scotland should not make sex work illegal:
http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.ie/2012_06_01_archive.html#7744544396521371435

Right 2B a liar

Is there any evidence of this?[/QUOTE]

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/men-caught-in-prostitution-sting-by-undercover-gardai-enter-guilty-pleas-2956079.html

Piliger

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a qualitative difference between the first two wants and the third insofar as nobody wants to be a prostitute.

I suggest that you are thoroughly factually wrong in that assertion but if you have any proof of it I would love to see it before I write in to this review process.

Piliger

GarIT wrote: »

But you can't say nobody wants to do it, for some it is desireable, you haven't surveyed 4.5million people to say that nobody here would desire the job,

Absolutely right. In countries where prostitution is legal it has been well documented that many women make a conscious decision to enter the profession, often for a short period of time.

there are sluts everywhere and im sure some of them would love to make money off it.

I don't accept this abusive characterisation of women who chose that profession.

There are some people where their dream is to be in porn

Not only some ... but very very many.

Piliger

Deleted User wrote: »

I meant it more in the sense of "nobody wants to be a toilet cleaner at McDonald's". It's not a desirable job in and of itself but the financial rewards are certainly significant enough to incentivise it for those who can see it in non-traditional sexual terms.

This can be applied to almost any work. Who wants to work if they had a choice not to. Many would chose a toilet cleaner job over a bus driver or a door to door salesman or a security man, or a social worker. It is all a meaningless statement in and of itself.

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

I suggest that you are thoroughly factually wrong in that assertion but if you have any proof of it I would love to see it before I write in to this review process.

Ok I'll address this in two ways:

First off I shall not generalise in future. As with GarIT it appears you have focused on the word nobody as if it were the alpha and omega of my point. However to then, in addressing my next point, suggest that almost nobody would work if they didn't have to is simply hypocritical.

Secondly, and with the foregoing borne in mind, I think it is fair to say that prostitution is not a desirable career per se and that it is a means to an end (as, admittedly are many if not all undesirable careers/jobs) as opposed to something most people would actively pursue over other options. I was attempting to look at it from the perspective of having a perfect veil of ignorance as to who I would be in life (inc. gender) and whether I would consider the job desirable. Obviously a perfect veil is impossible but judging as objectively as possible and taking into account obvious social and personal stigmas and accepted norms I am still forced to the conclusion that it is not objectively a desirable career in a general sense but that it may well be given certain circumstances.

Obviously there is a broader social element to the legal position on commercial sexual intercourse but I am only really, and have only really, been looking at the whole thing from the narrow perspective of objective desirability. The other questions of personal rights regarding the body and connected other rights including the right to life of the unborn which might arise within the discussion on legalised prostitution go far beyond the scope of what I have been thinking on and, practically speaking, are probably more apt for discussion.

Victor

Right 2B a liar wrote: »

Is there any evidence of this?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/men-caught-in-prostitution-sting-by-undercover-gardai-enter-guilty-pleas-2956079.html

That case related to soliciting, not actual prostitution.

Piliger

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok I'll address this in two ways:

Excellent post

Leaving aside the humour I think your comments illustrate something about those who are obsessed with criminalisation of sex for money. When I speak with them they are driven by two thing generally, the desire to control what women do in their lives, especially their sexuality, and the desire to impose their interpretation of what is good and bad in life on everyone else.

Would I like my daughter to enter the sex industry. No I would not. Would I ever pay for sex ? No I would not and never have and never will. Just as I would never eat broccoli, play rugby league, listen to country music or watch sex in the city.

But I want to live in a democracy where people are free to chose how they live as long as it doesn't impinge on my rights to do the same. So I don't want to make any of the above illegal.

Prostitution and sex for money is a private transaction between two adults. Does it appeal to me ? Do I think it's a nice thing in life ? No to both. But as long as both are empowered to chose and in control of their actions then it is their own choice and their own business.

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

Excellent post

Sarcasm? How droll.

I don't think my post illustrates anything about people who are obsessed with criminalisation of sex for money and if the implication of what you are saying is that I am among them I'd ask you to refrain from that assertion.

Right 2B a liar

Victor wrote: »

That case related to soliciting, not actual prostitution.

My point was in relation to people's lives being ruined through sting operations. If prostitution was legal there would be no such sting ops and people could exercise free choice whether to engage in such activities, where the social stigma attached would not affect the rest of their life.

Piliger

Deleted User wrote: »

Sarcasm? How droll.

How odd. I said it was excellent because it was.

I don't think my post illustrates anything about people who are obsessed with criminalisation of sex for money and if the implication of what you are saying is that I am among them I'd ask you to refrain from that assertion.

I didn't claim your posts made any such point. Perhaps a slower reread is in order ?

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

How odd. I said it was excellent because it was.



I didn't claim your posts made any such point. Perhaps a slower reread is in order ?

My apologies in that case.

Piliger

Deleted User wrote: »

My apologies in that case.

Well ... actually I did say that I see.
"I think your comments illustrate something about those who are obsessed with criminalisation of sex for money"

But my intention was not to say that it was something YOU meant to say or infer, only that your comments triggered the issue in MY mind ..... :P

Piliger

Has anyone become aware where submissions can be sent by the public ? or are the public excluded ?

Victor

Right 2B a liar wrote: »

Victor wrote: »

That case related to soliciting, not actual prostitution.

My point was in relation to people's lives being ruined through sting operations. If prostitution was legal there would be no such sting ops and people could exercise free choice whether to engage in such activities, where the social stigma attached would not affect the rest of their life.

Prostitution is legal, soliciting in public is not.

iptba

Victor wrote: »

Prostitution is legal, soliciting in public is not.

Except it looks like there is a good chance that prostitution will be made illegal, but it will follow the Swedish model where only the purchaser is criminalised. That's the model the nun-backed groups and many feminist groups want.

The_Thing

The NGO's and the feminists have absolutely no mandate from the majority of sex workers to speak on their behalf, but they want the public to believe otherwise. They have used the issues around trafficking to further their own agendas at the expense of the people they claim to represent and in fact have done all they can to silence them. When Ruhama visited Sweden they did not meet with any of the sex workers there because they didn't want to hear what they had to say.

So far the people at the heart of this debate - the sex workers - have not been given an oppurtunity to have their voices heard.

In the discussion document Alan Shatter makes it perfectly clear that while the issues of trafficking and child prostitution are important they are not directly related to the issue of voluntary commercial sex between consenting adults. In addition the discussion document acknowledges that although human trafficking and prostitution can sometimes overlap there is a clear distiction between the two.

Last night out of curiosity I read down through most of the Imigrant Council Of Ireland's report into trafficking and prostitution in Ireland and in it there is mention of sex shops and the sale therein of pornographic DVD's. To me this is just one more example of the real motives behind this campaign - namely to close down all areas of the sex industry in Ireland - I believe that if they are successful now they will be back again and again with more demands.

The consultation process is open to all members of the public and submissions are welcomed.

Victor

Piliger wrote: »

Has anyone become aware where submissions can be sent by the public ? or are the public excluded ?

It is a public consultation - only the public are allowed respond.

iptba

Victor wrote: »

Piliger wrote:

Has anyone become aware where submissions can be sent by the public ? or are the public excluded ?

It is a public consultation - only the public are allowed respond.

This is what I found:

My Department will hold a conference in the autumn to discuss the document. The
widest possible participation will be encouraged in order that we have an open and
transparent discussion on all aspects of this very important issue.
This discussion document will now be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on
Justice, Equality and Defence. Interested groups and members of the public, I expect,
will be invited to make submissions to the Committee which will hold such hearings
as it deems appropriate. I am asking Mr. David Stanton T.D., Chairman of the Joint
Committee, that it publish its report and recommendations by the 30th November
2012 and that the report be furnished to me together with any submissions received. I
expect it is likely that the Committee’s report will also be lodged in the Oireachtas
Library and that a debate on it will subsequently take place in both the Dáil and the
Seanad. The report received by me from the Joint Oireachtas Committee will be fully
considered in the framing of any necessary new legislative proposals to be submitted
to Government in due course.

I think it's a pity that people can't write in now and this would be collated as part of a public consultation.

Piliger

I'm confused ...

" The widest possible participation will be encouraged in order that we have an open and
transparent discussion on all aspects of this very important issue. "

But how do we contribute ?

GarIT

Piliger wrote: »

I don't accept this abusive characterisation of women who chose that profession.

Apoligies. Although I meant women who have many frequent partners, not sex workers.

Vadakin

iptba wrote: »

Except it looks like there is a good chance that prostitution will be made illegal, but it will follow the Swedish model where only the purchaser is criminalised. That's the model the nun-backed groups and many feminist groups want.

Yeah...nuns lost the right to claim the moral high ground on human behaviour a long time ago.

My position on this is the same as my position on drugs. Legalise it and tax the hell out of it. If you want to stop sex trafficking in this country you need to get rid of the demand for it. So either put something in our water supply that makes us not want to have sex or make the purchasing of sex legal. You regulate it, you tax it.

Unless the person's sexual appetites are in the extreme, they are more likely to go somewhere where they know that it's safe, where the women (or men) providing the service are completely clean and are there of their own free will and where the client knows there will be no legal issues. What's the alternative? A dingy flat with a poor Eastern European girl who isn't there of her own free will as part of an operation run by hardened criminals?

Those who choose to become sex workers would have a safe working environment and could work if and when they choose to. Frankly I'm surprised that some feminist groups are against it. A legalised and regulated sex industry would empower women when previously they had little to no power.

Is there a moral argument against it? Frankly, no. Our moral obligation is to ensure that men and women in the sex industry aren't being abused and that they have complete freedom in the choices they make. The longer prostitution or solicitation remains illegal, the longer criminals maintain a grip on people and abuse them. There may be a religious argument against it, but religion is a matter of personal belief. If we are to consider religious arguments we must ask ourselves what kind of society we want. Do we want a secular society or a religious one?

The_Thing

Link here for submission guidelines.

Up to now Ruhama have been unwilling to debate the issue publicly, preferring instead a medium in which only their side be presented to the public. In all their years since they were founded there has never been a single ex sex-worker on their board of directors. Even the Gardai dispute their facts and figures.

I can't get my head around the thinking that it should be illegal for an adult to buy sex from another consenting adult if they are willing to sell it to them.

Delancey

My guess is that the Ruhama agenda will predominate in this consultation and a valuable opportunity to reform our laws will be lost. As has been proved many times before this is a Nanny State and I see no reason why this will change.