Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2014

bcklschaps

I noticed the lack of debate on the new Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2014 which will seek to criminalise the purchaser of sexual services while exonerating the seller of sexual servies.

Does this not seem a little crazy to anybody ? Take for example illegal drugs, as far as I am aware, buying or being in possession of illegal drugs is a minor misdeamour but selling them is a much more serious crime (at all levels from street pusher to crime boss)

Now I know it is a crime to run a brothel etc. etc. but the bottom line here is that if you are a sexual services sole trader so-to-spaek it is not a crime to sell sexual services.

If you look at the gender breakdown here (not scientific) but I would estimate 99% of the purchasers of sexual services are male and probably 80-90% of the sellers of sexual services are female. So it does strike me as hardly a gender neutral bill ? It is clear to see for some time how strong the feminist lobby is in Ireland and any government is wary of even being seen to offend "Mna na hEireann", but really is nobody going to speak up for the "Fir na hEireann" here ? surely if we are going to criminalize the purchasers of sexual services why not equally criminalize the sellers of sexual services.

My own humble opinion is that the purchasers of sexual services are equally as vulnerable as the sellers of sexual services, and if this bill is passed into law the purchasers will become even more vulnerable.

Think of the following two scenarios

1). Stag party guy. On his last crazy weekend of freedom, has a drunken fling with a prostitute. He gets busted, gets a criminal conviction, a criminal record, maybe even listed as a sex offender ..all of which will affect his employment prospects, all his future relationships, he may even be hounded out of his home by vigilantes after the local Garda Sergeant discloses his details to anybody who asks for it.

2). The lonely bachelor/widower/divorcee. For a bit of companionship this man, occassionally hires a prostitute. The prostitute knows its a crime for the purchaser but not for her, so she blackmails him for more loot.


Food for thought ?

Pat Mustard

First, I had a quick look at that bill, and unless I have the wrong bill, it appears to be about sexual consent and positions of trust etc. rather than about prostitution. If I have the wrong bill, then maybe you would post a link to it.

Secondly, if prostitution is to be dissuaded it makes sense to criminalise the purchaser in addition to the seller. However, would seem to miss the point to a large extent if the actions of the seller/prostitute will not be criminalised also.

I understand that many of these people are vulnerable and are threatened by pimps etc. but if that is the case, let them explain their positions to the court. Obviously, people should be not penalised for being forced into prostitution through no fault of their own, but by the same token, those who have a choice and choose to sell sex for money should be prosecuted just the same as the purchasers of such services.

There are those who say that nobody willingly becomes a prostitute, that they are vulnerable. I agree that they are likely to be vulnerable but being vulnerable isn't the same as having no choice or being forced.

Whatever position people might hold on prostitution and/or whether it should or should not be legalised, the law should be fair.

eviltwin

Why criminalise anyone? Just make it legal.

volchitsa

eviltwin wrote: »

Why criminalise anyone? Just make it legal.

Yes, this law is being piloted, or at least strongly supported, by Ruhama, isn't it? Ruhama who were set up and run by I forget which religious order - sisters of mercy? Whoever, it's not so much about helping trafficked women as it is about stigmatising prostitution, I think.

iptba

The Mustard wrote: »

First, I had a quick look at that bill, and unless I have the wrong bill, it appears to be about sexual consent and positions of trust etc. rather than about prostitution. If I have the wrong bill, then maybe you would post a link to it.

Secondly, if prostitution is to be dissuaded it makes sense to criminalise the purchaser in addition to the seller. However, would seem to miss the point to a large extent if the actions of the seller/prostitute will not be criminalised also.

I understand that many of these people are vulnerable and are threatened by pimps etc. but if that is the case, let them explain their positions to the court. Obviously, people should be not penalised for being forced into prostitution through no fault of their own, but by the same token, those who have a choice and choose to sell sex for money should be prosecuted just the same as the purchasers of such services.

There are those who say that nobody willingly becomes a prostitute, that they are vulnerable. I agree that they are likely to be vulnerable but being vulnerable isn't the same as having no choice or being forced.

Whatever position people might hold on prostitution and/or whether it should or should not be legalised, the law should be fair.

I agree. However, we're getting what has been called the Swedish model of dealing with prostitution: criminalise the purchaser by not the seller:

Criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services

Heads 10 & 11 of the Bill include amendments to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 which will create new offences of purchasing sexual services, in the context of prostitution. The first is a general offence of purchasing sexual services and the second is the more serious offence of purchasing a sexual service from a trafficked person. In both cases, the persons selling the sexual service will not be subject to an offence. Unlike the existing offences relating to prostitution such as soliciting, loitering or brothel keeping, this offence will specifically target the demand for prostitution.

See more at: http://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Releases/Minister_Fitzgerald_publishes_heads_of_new_Criminal_Law_Sexual_Offences_Bill_2014.html#sthash.RwPfnVgc.dpuf

Pat Mustard

iptba wrote: »

I agree. However, we're getting what has been called the Swedish model of dealing with prostitution: criminalise the purchaser by not the seller:

In that link Frances Fitzgerald tried to justify it by saying that this is what they are doing in the Nordic countries and in Northern Ireland, without giving a substantive explanation of why the seller should not also be prosecuted. I haven't yet read up on what the Law Reform Commission has said on the matter though.

iptba

It should be noted that some/many/most (?) sex workers themselves are against the Swedish Model of dealing with prostitution.

Sample references on a quick search:

Northern Ireland: 98% of sex workers oppose new law criminalising clients
Survey finds majority of sex industry workers not in favour of ‘Swedish model’ law targeting consumers rather than workers
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/17/northern-ireland-sex-workers-oppose-new-law

http://www.thejournal.ie/former-belle-de-jour-concerned-about-irish-sex-workers-legislation-777305-Feb2013/

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

In that link Frances Fitzgerald tried to justify it by saying that this is what they are doing in the Nordic countries and in Northern Ireland, without giving a substantive explanation of why the seller should not also be prosecuted.

I'm not clear what exactly you're saying though : would you be happy enough with this law if only both parties could be prosecuted? That is how your objection comes across to me anyway.

I think the reasoning behind the seller not being prosecuted is to avoid a situation where she or he is a victim of a violent offence and feel they cannot report it to the police for fear of prosecution themselves for the crime of prostitution. It's a lesser of two evils type reasoning.

I wouldn't like to see sex workers feel they are easy targets for rape or other violent crime because they can't go to the police without implicating themselves.

Shep_Dog

bcklschaps wrote: »

I noticed the lack of debate on the new Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2014 which will seek to criminalise the purchaser of sexual services while exonerating the seller of sexual servies....Think of the following two scenarios....
1). Stag party guy. On his last crazy weekend of freedom?

...walks down a certain kind of street ogling the women for a bit of craic or checks out some web sites...gets arrested and charged with attempting to purchase a sexual service. Or, a lobby group sets up a fake 'escort' or 'online dating/hookup' website and then sets the Gardai on any browsers.

The bill is quite broad in a number of areas. It outlaws 'sexual activity' in public but says that what that means will depend on the opinion of a 'reasonable person'. So it could be holding hands or kissing. It could be a guy rearranging his bits.

This kind of vagueness usually results in a law being found to be unconstitutional due to lack of legal certainty as to what is legal and what is not.

Yuri Checkov

As a regular user of escorts and escort websites I feel I must share my experiences.

I use escorts maybe twice a month and I have never hurt anyone by my actions. To me it is just a hobby, some people collect stamps, I likes to have sex with beautiful ladies. That is my business. I am not driving around the city centre slowly being a dick, everything is done off street and is fully above board. The lady wants to be in the line of work she is in, we are both happy with the business relationship. Heck many of them are professional people with proper 9-5 jobs (teachers, doctors, nurses etc) that do sex work for extra income/personal pleasure. They are not being coerced in any way.

But no, the catholic church and it's agents such as TROL and the nuns want to spoil my fun. But no, they won't. The law in it's current guise will be almost impossible to enforce and tbh it is not going to affect seasoned punters like me one bit. The holy joes can rejoice that they are striking a blow against trafficking but the reality will be that the status quo will continue. It is funny how TROL and Ruhama are unable to provide proof of trafficking when they are called out on it.

In short nothing is going to change and people will continue to buy sex.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not clear what exactly you're saying though : would you be happy enough with this law if only both parties could be prosecuted? That is how your objection comes across to me anyway.

I'm not saying that this will make me happy. I'm saying that it is unfair to criminalise the actions of the buyer but not the seller. I'm suggesting that if a seller has a valid excuse, that could be dealt with in court.

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

I'm not saying that this will make me happy. I'm saying that it is unfair to criminalise the actions of the buyer but not the seller. I'm suggesting that if a seller has a valid excuse, that could be dealt with in court.

But surely prostitution is either something that can/should be criminalized or it isn't?

The details of who is sanctioned is surely secondary to whether it should be criminalized at all - aren't they?

Yet you seem to be saying that so long as the criminalization is evenhanded, you would be OK with that. So does that mean that basically you are for criminalizing prostitution?

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

But surely prostitution is either something that can/should be criminalized or it isn't?

The details of who is sanctioned is surely secondary to whether it should be criminalized at all - aren't they?

Yet you seem to be saying that so long as the criminalization is evenhanded, you would be OK with that. So does that mean that basically you are for criminalizing prostitution?

Criminalising prostitution isn't something that interests me greatly. There are cogent arguments for decriminalisation, as you are no doubt aware. However, if there must be criminalization, then let's make it even handed. I'm all for fairness.

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

Criminalising prostitution isn't something that interests me greatly. There are cogent arguments for decriminalisation, as you are no doubt aware. However, if there must be criminalization, then let's make it even handed. I'm all for fairness and I'm against laws that I perceive to be unfair or unbalanced.

The problem I have with that is that by not first examining what prostitution is with a view to deciding whether or not it should be criminalized at all, you seem to me to care only about getting a chance to claim there is inequality in the law when it's not that clear that there is. There may be, but the roles of the prostitute and the client are not mirrors of each other, so for someone to say they don't have an opinion about the fundamental issue, but only about what they claim (without offering any evidence) to be an equality issue, looks dubious to me.

It looks, to be frank, like all that matters to you are laws that you perceive to be unbalanced.

Pat Mustard

You are attempting to extrapolate that my opinion on all matters is based on not having strong feelings on the criminalization of prostitution. That makes no sense.

If there is some flaw in my reasoning, you can feel free to point it out rather than by making vague assertions that buyer and seller are not mirrors of each other. If you think that a buyer should be prosecuted but not the seller then feel free to explain your position.

You attempt to say that I have no opinion on prostitution. I never said that. You're just making stuff up now.

You say my opinion is dubious. You say that I've never examined the underlying problem. You have absolutely no way of knowing that, one way or the other.

If you are trying to make a statement why don't you make your own point, instead of trying to knock down strawmen.

volchitsa

You may have examined it in your own mind, or elsewhere, I wouldn't know, but you have offered no evidence here of that, which is all I can go by.

As for your opinion, I asked you for it, and all you said was that it didn't bother you much, compared to what you perceived to be the inequality of the proposed approach. I find this habit some posters have of refusing to state their opinions frankly so as to be able then to accuse other posters of speculating about what their opinions might be is disingenuous.

FWIW, I'm against penalization for either party, though I can see that there might be arguments for having sanctions. I'm more puzzled by someone picking up just on the supposed inequality argument, it seems positively bizarre to me.

What are the arguments for having penal sanctions for prostitution which are not based on the idea of one or both parties being in some way victims?

Amirani

Candie wrote: »

I think the reasoning behind the seller not being prosecuted is to avoid a situation where she or he is a victim of a violent offence and feel they cannot report it to the police for fear of prosecution themselves for the crime of prostitution. It's a lesser of two evils type reasoning.

I wouldn't like to see sex workers feel they are easy targets for rape or other violent crime because they can't go to the police without implicating themselves.

I can see some of the sense in the Swedish model argument; you don't really want to be discouraging victims to report crimes.

However, if prostitution is to be a crime (I don't believe it should be, for either party) because legislators have deemed it to be morally reprehensible or whatever, then each party engaging in it should have criminal liability. If it's shown in court that one side was unduly coerced, that liability will naturally be diminished, as is the case now with prostitution and as is the case with other crimes.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

FWIW, I'm against penalization for either party, though I can see that there might be arguments for having sanctions. I'm more puzzled by someone picking up just on the supposed inequality argument, it seems positively bizarre to me.

On the one hand, I'm personally against prostitution. I think that it's a sordid business. On the other hand, if consenting adults want to engage in sordid business amongst themselves, that's not my personal business.

While I'm not in favour of criminalizing the actions of the buyer in the first place, prostitution being the sordid business that it is, I can understand why the government wants to crack down on it. However, the bill proposes to criminalize the actions of just one of the two parties to the transaction.

At the risk of being incorrect, it appears to me that possibly the main reason for the seller's activity not being criminalized is that a seller may be assaulted and may not report it for fear of criminal sanction. Well, I don't think that is good enough reason for a free pass for the seller, if it is conversely intended to criminalise the buyer.

There are other ways to protect vulnerable parties (and whistleblowers).

It makes almost as much sense to me as to decriminalise the sale of drugs but to prosecute people for the purchase of same.

The proposed law seems perverse to me.

volchitsa

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I can see some of the sense in the Swedish model argument; you don't really want to be discouraging victims to report crimes.

However, if prostitution is to be a crime (I don't believe it should be, for either party) because legislators have deemed it to be morally reprehensible or whatever, then each party engaging in it should have criminal liability. If it's shown in court that one side was unduly coerced, that liability will naturally be diminished, as is the case now with prostitution and as is the case with other crimes.

Your objection to the sanctions is just that they aren't equitable, even though the possible reasons haven't been explained. How do you know there is no valid explanation for it?

I don't think it's enough to say "morally reprehensible or whatever" - if prostitution is to be a crime, that has to be justified.

I find smoking to be morally reprehensible, but I don't think one should expect to go straight from saying that to discussing what sanction would be suitable for buyers or sellers. There is an intermediate step, in fact probably several steps, one of which is to attribute degrees of responsibility.

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

It makes almost as much sense to me as to decriminalise the sale of drugs but to prosecute people for the purchase of same.

How exactly is prostitution like selling illegal drugs? I could say your suggestion is almost like arresting women who have been raped or forced into marriage, and make that an argument for penalizing the men involved. I'm not saying I am making that claim, just that claiming there is a similarity with some other illegal act doesn't make it so.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

How exactly is prostitution like selling illegal drugs? I could say your suggestion is almost like arresting women who have been raped or forced into marriage, and make that an argument for penalizing the men involved. I'm not saying I am making that claim, just that claiming there is a similarity with some other illegal act doesn't make it so.

The sale of drugs and prostitution both involve a transaction between two parties, for money. That is probably the beginning and the end of the analogy.

I could not understand what you intended to mean in the rest of your post.

And what exactly is your agenda here? You don't attempt to make any point of your own, but rather attack other positions.

Amirani

volchitsa wrote: »

Your objection to the sanctions is just that they aren't equitable, even though the possible reasons haven't been explained. How do you know there is no valid explanation for it?

My objection to the sanctions are that I don't believe that prostitution should be criminalised, did you just ignore that quite blatant part of the same sentence you highlighted?

My objection to the Swedish model is that on the one hand it says that prostitution is illegal and a criminal offence, on the other hand it says that one of two consenting parties have complete immunity from that criminal offence. I don't think that's a particularly fair principle for any contract that involves willing consent. Obviously as said previously, coercion is already reasonable grounds for diminished responsibility.

I don't think it's enough to say "morally reprehensible or whatever" - if prostitution is to be a crime, that has to be justified.

It's justified in the same way as every other crime; through representative democracy.

I find smoking to be morally reprehensible, but I don't think one should expect to go straight from saying that to discussing what sanction would be suitable for buyers or sellers. There is an intermediate step, in fact probably several steps, one of which is to attribute degrees of responsibility.

I've given my opinion on how degrees of responsibility should be attributed. If it has been democratically decided that prostitution should be illegal, then it is my opinion that any party that consents to it freely, on either side, has equal responsibility. Determining freedom of consent is better done on an ad-hoc basis by a court than through blunt legislative means.

volchitsa

Diego Simeone wrote: »

My objection to the sanctions are that I don't believe that prostitution should be criminalised, did you just ignore that quite blatant part of the same sentence you highlighted?

My objection to the Swedish model is that on the one hand it says that prostitution is illegal and a criminal offence, on the other hand it says that one of two consenting parties have complete immunity from that criminal offence. I don't think that's a particularly fair principle for any contract that involves willing consent. Obviously as said previously, coercion is already reasonable grounds for diminished responsibility.

It's justified in the same way as every other crime; through representative democracy.

I've given my opinion on how degrees of responsibility should be attributed. If it has been democratically decided that prostitution should be illegal, then it is my opinion that any party that consents to it freely, on either side, has equal responsibility. Determining freedom of consent is better done on an ad-hoc basis by a court than through blunt legislative means.

I already asked on what grounds prostitution can justifiably be made illegal, in a secular society, if the default view is that both parties have consented? I haven't had an answer yet, but it is the basis of the whole thread, IMO.

I can't understand why one would discuss the details of the sanctions to be applied when the reason for making it illegal seem so nebulous. Is "democracy" really just the tyranny of the majority? That seems to be your approach here anyway.

As for my "agenda", I deeply resent the suggestion that I might have some unavowable hidden agenda - I would ask the same question of someone wanting to discuss sanctions for sodomy, or any other private, consenting, action that they might find displeasing.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

As for my "agenda", I deeply resent the suggestion that I might have some unavowable hidden agenda - I would ask the same question of someone wanting to discuss sanctions for sodomy, or any other private, consenting, action that they might find displeasing.

I'll withdraw that statement if I have wronged you in some way. All I've seen so far is you looking for reasons for argument rather than attempt to set out your own position.

volchitsa

But I did set out my position, right at the start. I can't see why prostitution should be illegal at all, I think that is the cause of many of the supposed problems such as the risk of trafficking - not the solution to them!

So when I see posters whose only complaint is not that it is a crazy thing to do, but just that the women must also be punished, it does annoy me. It seems to me that their only priority is that the women should not get away with whatever punishment is going - as I say, it's like someone saying, Oh well, if sodomy is going to be illegal, I'm OK with that as long as both partners go to jail!

I say no, it's bloody not OK!! People should be saying that this is crazy, not whining because women aren't shouldering their share of the punishment.

Amirani

volchitsa wrote: »

But I did set out my position, right at the start. I can't see why prostitution should be illegal at all, I think that is the cause of many of the supposed problems such as the risk of trafficking - not the solution to them!

So when I see posters whose only complaint is not that it is a crazy thing to do, but just that the women must also be punished, it does annoy me. It seems to me that their only priority is that the women should not get away with whatever punishment is going - as I say, it's like someone saying, Oh well, if sodomy is going to be illegal, I'm OK with that as long as both partners go to jail!

I say no, it's bloody not OK!! People should be saying that this is crazy, not whining because women aren't shouldering their share of the punishment.

This is a thread on the Criminal Law Bill 2014, not on prostitution directly, so it's quite natural that people would look to discuss the reasoning behind the bill and it's legal impact without elaborating their views on criminalisation itself.

I've started each post I've made in this thread stating that I don't agree with the criminalisation of prostitution. Why is it currently criminalised? Because legislators made it so. Why did they do that? I'm not sure, perhaps because they think (or were encouraged to think) it's morally wrong or that it will reduce the risk of human trafficking. Is it tyranny of the majority? Probably, but it is debatable. Do I agree with this? No. Does it matter? Not really.

The fact is that prostitution is illegal and looks likely to remain so. However, the criminality behind it is changing. I'm not sure why you feel this shouldn't be discussed on its own, as it is the only thing that looks like changing.

volchitsa

Diego Simeone wrote: »

The fact is that prostitution is illegal and looks likely to remain so. However, the criminality behind it is changing. I'm not sure why you feel this shouldn't be discussed on its own, as it is the only thing that looks like changing.

Not true, in the past prostitution wasn't illegal. Soliciting was, and pimping, but not prostitution.

This is a new development, based on prurience with a facade of political correctness. The fact that you believe it was always the case proves that you are being fooled into discussing the issue in the way Ruhama wants you to.

Don't fall into that trap - it's just a deflection technique, to disguise the attempt to make prostitution "disappear" by making it illegal. Like Brazil arresting all the street children before the World Cup - did that put an end to poverty?

Unlike Brazil with the street kids, the Irish government don't quite dare to punish the prostitutes themselves, because they know that dragging many of them up before the courts would show the country up, but that is the only reason why not.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

I say no, it's bloody not OK!! People should be saying that this is crazy, not whining because women aren't shouldering their share of the punishment.

Nobody is whining here. We are pointing out that the proposed law is unfair. If there was anybody else worth voting for in the next election, this is something for which the government could be properly sanctioned.

You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with your position must be wrong, that this should be obvious in some way, and perhaps we are being deliberately difficult. Why don't you argue your own point instead of complaining. People disagree. It happens.

Yuri Checkov

From reading the various escort forums the thinking is that this law will simply become a revenue generator for the government.

The thinking is that the Gardaí will just issue the punters with fixed penalty tickets. Most would rather pay up than fight their corner in court. The same thing happens in Sweden. Punters know that if they attempt to fight a fine their name and address will be in the paper with the associated issues that causes.

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

Nobody is whining here. We are pointing out that the proposed law is unfair. If there was anybody else worth voting for in the next election, this is something that where the government could be properly sanctioned.

You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with your position must be wrong, that this should be obvious in some way, and perhaps we are being deliberately difficult. Why don't you argue your own point instead of complaining. People disagree. It happens.

That is whining. It's not fair, make the prostitutes pay too, and that will be fair? that's whining.
I think I am arguing my point, it's that getting bogged down in the details of which sanctions are to be applied is to have lost the main argument.

The main argument of course being that prostitution was never illegal, and that it is a dangerous development to make it so.

And yes, I suspect Yuri Chekov is also right, there is also a non-religious element behind this bill who don't care about any moral aspect, they know that if there is any risk of a court case, the clients will prefer to just stump up the money rather than lose their social reputation, whereas the prostitutes of course would often end up in prison.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

I think I am arguing my point, it's that getting bogged down in the details of which sanctions are to be applied is to have lost the main argument.

The main argument of course being that prostitution was never illegal, and that it is a dangerous development to make it so.

Disagreement is whining now, is it?

You claim that that this is about who is to be blamed or which sactions are to be applied and you assert that this is somehow missing an underlying point about whether or not prostitution should be legalised criminalised.

Even if buyers are not criminalised at the moment, the sex for sale industry has been effectively criminalised. But you have not put one single point forward to say why things should change.

So go ahead and make whatever point that you wish to make on the subject.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Ruhama who were set up and run by I forget which religious order - sisters of mercy? Whoever, it's not so much about helping trafficked women as it is about stigmatising prostitution, I think.

The Sisters of Charity and the Good Shepherd sisters, according to Ruhama's website.

In fairness, those religious orders have a long tradition of helping women in the sex industry AND contributing actively to the stigmatisation of prostitution.

All the same, it's odd how an organisation born of the Catholic right can find itself being in such a trendy "right on" space. :eek:

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

No. You claim that that this is about who is to be blamed or which sactions are to be applied and you assert that this is somehow missing an underlying point about whether or not prostitution should be legalised.

And yet you have not put one single point forward to support the legalisation of prostitution.

So go ahead and make whatever point that you wish to make on the subject.

But prostitution is legal. It should be up to those who want to make it illegal to say why the law should change.

As to why it should remain legal, I have said already this : because it is already too much underground and that this puts women at risk in all sorts of ways. How is that not making my point? How many times do you want me to repeat it before you can consider that I have made a point?

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

The Sisters of Charity and the Good Shepherd sisters, according to Ruhama's website.

In fairness, those religious orders have a long tradition of helping women in the sex industry AND contributing actively to the stigmatisation of prostitution.

All the same, it's odd how an organisation born of the Catholic right can find itself being in such a trendy "right on" space. :eek:

Yes, starting with the fallen women in the Magdalene Laundries, I believe.

Not sure that helping is the word that comes to mind, tbh. Making a living from, would be better I think.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

But prostitution is legal. It should be up to those who want to make it illegal to say why the law should change.

As to why it should remain legal, I have said already this : because it is already too much underground and that this puts women at risk in all sorts of ways. How is that not making my point? How many times do you want me to repeat it before you can consider that I have made a point?

You are correct on that. I managed to lose the run of myself. I'll change my post so that you can explain your position.

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

You are correct on that. I'll change my post so that you can explain you can explain your position.

I'm not sure what you mean. That is my position, surely it's perfectly clear?

The current status of prostitutes is already too often if not illegal then ambiguous, and this is exactly what makes them so vulnerable - women working in a flat together for instance would be a protection, but that is considered a brothel, and banned. What is the point in listing the multiple ways in which prostitutes are in a grey area which deprives them of normal protection from the law. Making it illegal would almost certainly make that worse.

And complaining that this would be fair enough, just as long as the prostitutes risk a fine or prison as well as their clients is both unrealistic and mean-spirited, IMO.

iptba

Deleted User wrote: »

All the same, it's odd how an organisation born of the Catholic right can find itself being in such a trendy "right on" space. :eek:

It was an unusual coalition with feminists such as Ivana Bacik (who would hold a very different position to them on some other matters).

Like with some other things e.g. gender quotas, people such as politicians can be reluctant to argue against what is being argued for by a particular grouping. I suppose one might say it became politically correct to argue for the Swedish Model.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, starting with the fallen women in the Magdalene Laundries, I believe.

Not sure that helping is the word that comes to mind, tbh. Making a living from, would be better I think.

If you look closely at their history, you'll find that those religious orders helped people in the sex industry AND exploited them AND castigated them.

Right now, there's probably more mileage in being seen to be helpful, which in turn probably explains the strategy currently being adopted.

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

Disagreement is whining now, is it?

You claim that that this is about who is to be blamed or which sactions are to be applied and you assert that this is somehow missing an underlying point about whether or not prostitution should be legalised criminalised.

Even if buyers are not criminalised at the moment, the sex for sale industry has been effectively criminalised. But you have not put one single point forward to say why things should change.

So go ahead and make whatever point that you wish to make on the subject.

I was actually replying to a poster, one you have been giving lot a of thumbs up to, who stated that "the fact remains that prostitution is illegal" (sic) so it is disingenuous of you to pretend that my posts were only about criminalizing it. Funnily enough you gave a thumbs up to that error of fact too, didn't you?

If people on here are discussing the issue from premises that are invalid, their opinions on the subject are to be considered with that in mind. I would say that also goes for those who are so busy "liking" posts they think support their views that they don't even notice when they are factually wrong.

Wouldn't you?

And you want me to spend time explaining my position to posters who can't even get the basics of the current situation right? Yeah. Sure.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

And you want me to spend time explaining my position to posters who can't even get the basics of the current situation right? Yeah. Sure.

If it's not too much to ask. You might explain why an industry which has been effectively criminalised should become entirely decriminalised.

volchitsa

But I did. Why was it ever "criminalized" in the first place? That was in a context of general religion-based moral enforcement, which had all sorts of negative effects which we should all be aware of in Ireland. I can't believe I have to explain this.

Now that we (society) seem to agree that this sort of close "moral" control of other people's lives is not suitable for a democracy, prostitution should get the same treatment, ie it should be legal, unless there is solid evidence that it is harmful per se, to vulnerable people who need our protection. Obviously other aspects such as soliciting in public etc can be made illegal, those are public order matters.

So it's not up to me to say why it should be legal, it's up to anyone wanting it to be illegal to show why it needs to be. just as I don't have to prove that sodomy is not harmful to society. Or that divorce, while it may not be a good thing, cannot reasonably be denied to all.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

Like with some other things e.g. gender quotas, people such as politicians can be reluctant to argue against what is being argued for by a particular grouping. I suppose one might say it became politically correct to argue for the Swedish Model.

It's not at all good when politicians are silent about anything that proposes to create crimes and criminals. It makes for poor policy formulation.

Pat Mustard

@ volchitsa

No, I don't think that you explained this.

You seem to complain rather a lot about what others say without giving much to support your own views, which seem to be pretty much an aside. Rather hypocritical from somebody who was complaining about other people not giving their opinions earlier on.

If you are not here to explain why matters should change, then why are you here?

volchitsa

The Mustard wrote: »

@ volchitsa

No, I don't think that you explained this.

You seem to complain rather a lot about what others say without giving much to support your own views, which seem to be pretty much an aside. Rather hypocritical from somebody who was complaining about other people not giving their opinions earlier on.

If you are not here to explain why matters should change, then why are you here?

I asked, twice, what the non-religion-based objections to legalizing prostitution could possibly be? If that point wasn't worth you or anyone else even replying to it, what is the point in me developing that idea further? But I certainly put it out there, it's not my fault if no-one took me up on it.

As for me "complaining", you and Simeone whatever have posted several things that were wrong - in particular you have several times said I didn't make a particular point when in fact I had. I think I'm entitled to point that out.

Pat Mustard

Oh, you asked. You criticised. All very simple to do.

But you didn't come out and say why your point is better than anyone else's points.

You have failed to do that, despite request.

aare

Candie wrote: »

I think the reasoning behind the seller not being prosecuted is to avoid a situation where she or he is a victim of a violent offence and feel they cannot report it to the police for fear of prosecution themselves for the crime of prostitution. It's a lesser of two evils type reasoning.

I wouldn't like to see sex workers feel they are easy targets for rape or other violent crime because they can't go to the police without implicating themselves.

Criminalizing the purchaser makes it just as hard for sex worker to report crime. Sex work is about making money, not sex, not politics, not even fetishism, just about paying the boring old bills. Look at it this way, if you were mugged, would you go to the Guards if you knew you would also lose a month wages for doing so? Of course not. If the buyer is criminalized a sex worker runs a serious risk of losing her income until she relocates because the gardai target her customers.

Yuri Checkov wrote: »

The law in it's current guise will be almost impossible to enforce and tbh it is not going to affect seasoned punters like me one bit. The holy joes can rejoice that they are striking a blow against trafficking but the reality will be that the status quo will continue. It is funny how TROL and Ruhama are unable to provide proof of trafficking when they are called out on it.

In short nothing is going to change and people will continue to buy sex.

Nothing will change for clients like you but everything will change for sex workers, and the more vulnerable the sex worker the greater the negative impact as the whole sex industry has to move under any third party and organized crime control just to be assured of a reasonable living (with link to proposed bill, and relevant sections):
http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/what-proposed-new-legislation-in-ireland-really-means/

The Mustard wrote: »

It makes almost as much sense to me as to decriminalise the sale of drugs but to prosecute people for the purchase of same.

The proposed law seems perverse to me.

From my point of view as a sex work activist this is a negligible point, but form my point of view as a person it is a HUGE flaw in the legislation, as legally preposterous as something that is legal for free being criminalized in any way as soon as it is for sale.

volchitsa wrote: »

Not true, in the past prostitution wasn't illegal. Soliciting was, and pimping, but not prostitution.

Which is still the case as this bill is only at the proposal stage not passed into legislation.

Deleted User wrote: »

The Sisters of Charity and the Good Shepherd sisters, according to Ruhama's website.

In fairness, those religious orders have a long tradition of helping women in the sex industry AND contributing actively to the stigmatisation of prostitution.

Most of that help being in the form of providing work and accommodation in Magdalene laundries and forgetting to provide either wages or front door keys.

Of course, that was a long time ago, and things have changed, but not much for the better:
http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/myth-i-promote-sex-work/

The Mustard wrote: »

If it's not too much to ask. You might explain why an industry which has been effectively criminalised should become entirely decriminalised.

My pleasure, as given under oath:

http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/the-truth-about-the-nordic-model/

Now, I am really quite tired...

volchitsa

aare wrote: »

Criminalizing the purchaser makes it just as hard for sex worker to report crime. Sex work is about making money, not sex, not politics, not even fetishism, just about paying the boring old bills. Look at it this way, if you were mugged, would you go to the Guards if you knew you would also lose a month wages for doing so? Of course not. If the buyer is criminalized a sex worker runs a serious risk of losing her income until she relocates because the gardai target her customers.

Nothing will change for clients like you but everything will change for sex workers, and the more vulnerable the sex worker the greater the negative impact as the whole sex industry has to move under any third party and organized crime control just to be assured of a reasonable living (with link to proposed bill, and relevant sections):
http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/what-proposed-new-legislation-in-ireland-really-means/

From my point of view as a sex work activist this is a negligible point, but form my point of view as a person it is a HUGE flaw in the legislation, as legally preposterous as something that is legal for free being criminalized in any way as soon as it is for sale.

http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/myth-i-promote-sex-work/

My pleasure, as given under oath:

http://mymythbuster.wordpress.com/the-truth-about-the-nordic-model/

Thanks for going to the bother of setting that all out so clearly. I think that covers the main objections I would have to this legislation also.

As I say, I find it shocking that some posters can claim that the main problem with it is that it doesn't punish the women involved!

Fuxake

im in a fulfilling relationship so i dont need sex services but what business is it of mine if two consenting adults have sex and one gives the other a 100 yoyos? Heard George Hook challenge trendy liberal doctor Ciara Kelly on it on Friday and she couldn't give a coherent answer other than it offended her sense of morals.

So what we have here is a bizarre alliance between ultra feminists and arch conservatives, who are united by wanting to interfere in the bedrooms of Ireland! We live in a sexually liberated society where lots of folk will get off with each other every weekend and some will have sex and never see each other again. So how is this any different? There just seems to be some sense of horror that this (hooking) goes on. But surely it's hypocritical in the extreme. YOu can have a fundamentalist society (eg Islam) where all sex outside of marriage is a crime, or at least a quasi-crime punishable by ostracisation in society (eg Ireland of the magdalene laundries) or else you stop imposing your moralities in other people's bedrooms.

The issue of trafficking is a separate one and needs to be dealt with by resources for all police forces and interpol and extremely severe penalties for those convicted. But the inconvenient truth is that many of the women offering escort services are not trafficked and Ruhama and others have been unable to prove otherwise.

You then end up with feminists using the old line "well what if your daughter was a prostitute". Hook didn't fall for that ****- said he wouldnt like it but he'd have to accept her choice. It's indicative of the smug, middle class privilleged type of feminism and indeed of a wider commentariat to use that line as if every woman can be a doctor a lawyer or a nurse if only society got its act together. Well reality is that some women in prostition make a lot more money than the alternative low paid jobs available to them, and like it or not, some make more money tax free than nurses or teachers.

Of course, every self respecting father wants to give his daughter the love, self confidence and education that she has choices. sadly, lots of women have not had the benefit of such parents, and they make the choices available to them. Interestingly, Dail Eireann will have collective amnesia over the Phoenix park episode from some years back where Pat Cox described the garda who leeked the story (TD hiring a rent boy) as a merciless bastard!

volchitsa

Right, so it's a feminist plot against men. Obviously that was the subtext I suspected might be in some of the posts earlier, but now it's out in the open.

Well no, it's not a feminist plot. Some feminists believe that prostitution is by its nature, exploitative. Others don't, and think making it illegal can only drive it underground and increase sex workers' vulnerability.

But none of them want to ban it as a way of preventing men from getting sex. FFS!

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-sex-markets/

Feminist debates over sex commerce extend to a number of social practices, including pornography, prostitution, trafficking in persons, erotic dance and performance, and the use of sexual images of women to promote products and entertainment. Feminist theorists are divided on the question of whether markets in sexually explicit materials and sexual services are generally harmful to women. Accordingly, some feminist philosophers have explored and developed arguments for restricting sex markets, while others have investigated political movements that aim to advance the rights of sex workers.

Pat Mustard

volchitsa wrote: »

As I say, I find it shocking that some posters can claim that the main problem with it is that it doesn't punish the women involved!

You have to twist the point, misrepresent it a bit, in order to be 'shocked'.

Nobody said 'punish the women'. Nobody. What was suggested that IF the buyer must be made criminally liable, then so should the seller.

Very simple no?

Apparently not.

You insist on trying to draw people to discuss the demerits of criminalisation of prostitution, misrepresenting their viewpoints, having this misrepresentation pointed out to you, subsequently complaining how irritating you find it when people had not given their views, when they simply wished to discuss the legislation, which is the topic of the thread.

It's just one strawman argument after another.