Printable View
PS Joe,
This is a great site to find out a bit about Oz sex work (in case you were interested that is...you may not be! LOL) It's a little bit dated, but most of it is still relevant. (Health stats and individual states' legislation may be incorrect). There are stories from "both sides" too...including every Oz hookers/gays/lesbians/drug users/odd-looking person's worst enemy, Rev. Fred Nile....so it gives a wide range of views.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/
I never thought so much about the difference between "legalized" and "decriminilized" before. Come to think of it, I'm not completely sure I understand the difference. Or I should say, the difference in terms of prostitution.
Putting it in a context I can understand: Pot is illegal everywhere in the US, but in certain states, it's been decriminilized. In the states where it's decriminilized (jeez that's hard to type over and over again...) the police tend to not look quite so hard for pot related activities. Dealers still get busted and go down, but people who are merely users (they have under an oz.) are only fined. There's nothing to go on their criminal record, because possession has been "decriminilized".
OK. So I get the difference in the context of dope, but what would be the differences between legal prosititution and decriminilized prostitution? Would legalized prostitution necessarily be regulated by the govt. and not some independent agency (that's what I think I'm hearing RN say, but I'm not sure)? Does the process of legalizing something (as opposed to merely decriminilizing it) simply mean creating many more laws about the matter than would be created if it were only being decriminilized?
If anyone would be so kind, I would appreciate a (short, fairly simple) explanation of the difference between legalization and decriminilzation.
Oh fuck. I just realized that I misspelled EVERY occurance of decriminalized in my last post. I am so sick of typing the goddamned word, that I don't even care to correct it. Just letting everyone know I can spell (sometimes...) :-)
Actually, just to be a dickhead, you misspelled every OCCURRENCE (not "occurance") of decriminalized, and no, you can't spell.
Fuck you, you...you...man with a head resembling my genitalia!
Nah, but seriously, yer completely right Dickhead. Without a spell checker, I'm doomed! I know I know. Cut and paste into Word, yadda yadda. Too much effort. I just don't give a fuck frankly, not in an anonymous forum anyway.
jwny72,
Firstly, I love the way you write. Secondly, I love the subtle hint (request for a short, fairly simple explanation) that I would perhaps take more than 30 pages to explain the differences! LOL Alas this is true, I am a wordy cow. Ok, I'll try. Here goes...
[i]Does the process of legalizing something (as opposed to merely decriminilizing it) simply mean creating many more laws about the matter than would be created if it were only being decriminilized?[/i]
Exactly. In effect, decriminalisation of prostitution is merely removing criminal sanctions, removing any police involvement and allowing the businesses to operate as any other business does. It also does not allow for local councils, etc to decide where and when it can operate (outside normal business zoning). Eg. They can't force a retail/service industry business to operate in an industrial area.
Legalisation is the creation of entirely new legislation and Government regulation. The "independent" boards that are formed to enforce the regulations are usually NOT representative of the industry...for example, my state wants to introduce a Prostitution Control Board consisting of doctors, police, council members and the Health Dept ...NOT ONE sex industry representative. (They have actually point blank refused to include one). Legalisation usually entails huge restrictions on the behaviour of sex workers and sex industry businesses. It comes from a "protect the public from the prostitutes" motivation.
Under decriminalisation, the businesses can operate exactly as they are now, but without the fear of prosecution. They will also be subject to safety inspection, tax audits, and the regular employee/employer rights and responsibilities. Of course if there was anything criminal going on...drugs or illegal immigrants or minors, etc...the police would respond in the same way as they would to any other business committing a criminal offence.
Sorry, short as I can manage! LOL :)
Oh, and don't worry about your spelling of decriminalisation. They are probably just as annoyed with mine. Plus, I also spell honour, colour, aeroplane and metre wrong. *grin* Damn foreigners! LOL
RN, thanks for the link, and for the explanations (which have been exceedingly pithy :) ) The crux of the issue comes down, I think, to the issue of what balances to strike -- very few legal businesses or industries operate completely free of regulation, and that regulation very often goes far beyond simple OSHA rules. There are regulations about labeling, advertising, specific allowable and not allowable procedures, environmental aspects, etc. We could look, for example, at how establishments serving alcohol are regulated in the states (don't know the rules in OZ) where their location can be restricted (can't be within X of churches, schools) their business hours (no serving after X) and so on.
So let me pose it differently -- what would be a acceptable scenario for prostitution that would allow for oversight, some degree of sensible rulemaking process, and still protect the interests of both sex workers and the general public (recognizing that we might well believe that doing the former in fact does that latter, but that's probably a minority opinion overall)? Oh, and while we're in fantasy land, how about making it politically acceptable while you're at it ;)
And I hope your hair has finally bowed to your authority. Mine never did, which is why I just shaved it all off years back. And as far as your worrying about your age -- everything has its context. You just had your 28th birthday, I just had my 21st anniversary (and we also lived together for 2 years prior.)
jwny72, I've got a good friend who can't spell his way out of a paper bag (he's actually far more likely to correctly spell longer, more complex words than shorter) and he's a well-published author. A few incorrectly-spelled words is a far lesser issue than a whole lot of perfectly correct words that don't say a damn thing.
first let me say congratulations to you and your wife for getting to 23 years!(i'd take my hat off to you, but i'm afraid my hair would give you nightmares).
ok...welcome to rubber nursey's perfect world...
first step, decriminalisation. all criminal sanctions are completely removed. then (sydney, australia's law) "prostitution is legal anywhere except within (?) metres of a school, childcare centre, (or children's park, etc), place of worship or private dwelling". this removes street/brothel prostitution from all residential areas, and effectively out of the public eye.
*this essentially means that girls are forced to work in commercial/industrial areas, or they are charged. (this excludes girls working from their own homes).
next, "safehouses". these are also in sydney. they are short-time hotels where street girls can hire a room for small amounts per booking. my safehouses would also have clinic services, outreach/support workers, condom supplies and needle exchanges on premises. these places serve another purpose other than the obvious...the council can position them in the exact area where they would prefer the girls work from (usually in the vicinity of the brothels).
*this halts spread of disease by provision of clean syringes and condoms as well as added health education and support. it stops girls having sex in public places, and by creating a "red light" district it stops men from soliciting outside the given area (and clients' behaviour has always been the biggest complaint from residents).
brothels. in south sydney council (god i love sydney!) there is actually a provision that makes it an offence to deny a brothel application on the grounds of "immorality". they still have to abide by the "distance from...." restrictions. brothels are subject to exactly the same scrutiny that every other business is regarding taxes, safety standards, employee benefits, etc. also, in my perfect world local councils would not be allowed to deny a sole operator a permit to operate a business from her own home on the grounds of "immorality" (as they do at present).
[i] note that in all these cases, the government has not officially "condoned" prostitution in any way...they have simply specified particular places where it may or may not occur. half of the furore from voters comes from the mention of the word legal. in the eyes of sydney residents, the government has basically said to sex workers "stay out of the public eye, stay away from the houses, stay away from the children, stay away from the churches""...and with that, the residents are happy.[/i]
next step, controls.
a) it should be an offence to offer or request a commercial sex service without a condom (as it is in wa).
b) it should remain an offence to coerce a person to work as a sex worker by force or threat of violence. (for the record, i don't see why this is only used for prostitution...look at the textile industry for example!)
c) obviously, there should be similar controls as the rest of the adult industry in regard to the participation of minors.
d) health laws already cover knowingly infecting someone with an std. the burden of proof should be on the sex worker to take "reasonable care" to ensure that he/she is disease free. (ie. regular testing according to the type of sex work you are doing and the rate of actual exposure). that said, there should be harsher penalties for sex workers who knowingly expose their clients to an std, than there are for the rest of the community. also, there should be harsh penalties for clients who knowingly infect a sex worker.
e) any man who accosts or attempts to solicit a woman outside of the "designated" red light area, or having sex in a public place, should be arrested. any street worker behaving in an offensive manner while soliciting on the street, or having sex in a public place, should be arrested. (note: i mean offensive, not "immoral"). there are already public nuisiance and indecency laws in place to control these two problems.
hmmm i think that's about it. seeing as this is my perfect world...
a) it should be unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of occupation (and sex work would be considered a legitimate occupation). that includes insurers!!
b) police should be required to take the [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123][CodeWord123][/url] or assault of a sex worker as seriously as they do for other men and women.
c) sex industry businesses should pay superannuation, sick leave, annual leave and workers compensation to their employees.
d) more money would be put into sex worker agencies for the health education and support of the sex industry, and the retraining of those workers who want to exit.
this seems to make sense to me at present...but i must admit i am a little tipsy (ok...i'm really quite drunk! lol) go for it. tell me what i missed out! :)
Allow me to oversimplify by presenting the Costa Rican model:
1) If an adult man and adult woman decide to have X amount of sex in Y fashion for Z hours, and agree that $?? will change hands, this is a contract and is perfectly legal.
2) End of story.
Well, RN, just a quick response (busy work day) right now -- seems to me that you make better sense drunk than most lawmakers do sober.
Is there any particular reason why WA hasn't adopted the Syndey model? (And I suppose the other question is why you're still in WA as opposed to Sydney LOL.)
Dickhead,
Do you know whether Costa Rica EVER had criminal sanctions placed on prostitution? I'd be interested to know.
That seems to be the problem...getting through the "criminal" mentality that comes from centuries of criminalisation. They won't just go from completely illegal to "Citizens, the blowjobs are on us!"
Joe,
I was afraid that when I read that sober it would seem ridiculous, but I surprised myself actually! LOL At least I know that once I am Prime Minister I'll be able to indulge in pre-election drinks and still hold my own with the opposition. *grin*
Anyway, I was only on the board drunk because I got stood up last night :( If only there was an Australian Women section for me to gripe on! LOL
There is a saying in the eastern states of Oz...WA stands for Wait Awhile. This is the second most conservative state in the country (just behind Tasmania). We are miles behind every other state in terms of progressive legislation, and there is a very unhealthy amount of religious input when it comes to drafting new laws. There is very little separation of church and state.
Why haven't I moved to Sydney? Because I love this state dammit!! And I would much prefer to fight for change so I can live happily here, rather than run away. :)
Actually, RN, your ability to make effective change will probably be better if you can hold your own with the opposition in [i]post[/i]-election drinks :) And the abortive date also explains the stress over the hair (a frizzy tizzy?) Sorry to hear you got stood up -- lack of consideration seems a universal thing, unfortunately.
I understand what you mean about staying because you love the place -- it's why I've stayed in my particular area for so long, as my wife loves it, and she chooses where we live. (Me, I'd pick a place with less snow.) WA is actually on my list of places for my next OZ visit, as I never made it over there last time.
But back on topic -- what kind of change is possible/practical in this arena in a place where religion and politics are ties so closely together? Having worked on political things in similar circumstances, the approach is usually one of managing to get some sort of local control first, and that's playing a long game. Prostitution wouldn't seem like an exactly popular issue for politicians to want to weigh in on in a helpful way, particularly in a conservative religious area -- or is there less stigma attached, given its status in Sydney?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RN
[i]Dickhead,
Do you know whether Costa Rica EVER had criminal sanctions placed on prostitution? I'd be interested to know. [/i][/QUOTE]
I don't know, but I'd be surprised. They just aren't big on rules over there. However, they are not the magically prosperous and progressive country some people think they are. They only outlawed child labor in 1998 and only very recently was it recognized to be a problem if a man hits his wife in the privacy of their own home.
BTW, Costa Rica does have rather strong laws against "facilitating prostitution." In other words, pimping is illegal. This is exactly correct in my dickheaded opinion.