![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 20th, 2007 05:02 pmSo, they're proposing a complete ban on prostitution (or a ban on people paying for sex) as a method of restricting human trafficking. Forgive me for being stupid but isn't it the case that:
1) Many aspects of (and relating to) prostitution are already illegal, although tolerated in many areas. Does this mean complete zero tolerance of prostitution?
2) Human trafficking and slavery is already illegal.
3) Banning activities and sources of income that are already effectively covert and illegal won't be effective. Most people using non-consenting prostitutes will already know that they are financing criminals, so this criminalisation isn't going to stop them.
4) Even though paying for sex isn't illegal right now, it is generally taboo and not something most people publicise anyway.
5) Is there any benefit in criminalising a lot of consenting adults?
6) All the usual arguments about reduction in safety for prostitutes.
6) Duh!
Thoughts?
1) Many aspects of (and relating to) prostitution are already illegal, although tolerated in many areas. Does this mean complete zero tolerance of prostitution?
2) Human trafficking and slavery is already illegal.
3) Banning activities and sources of income that are already effectively covert and illegal won't be effective. Most people using non-consenting prostitutes will already know that they are financing criminals, so this criminalisation isn't going to stop them.
4) Even though paying for sex isn't illegal right now, it is generally taboo and not something most people publicise anyway.
5) Is there any benefit in criminalising a lot of consenting adults?
6) All the usual arguments about reduction in safety for prostitutes.
6) Duh!
Thoughts?
