(no subject)

[cheekbones3]

So, 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?

Comments

[andrewducker]

Duh! indeed.

[hardcore-pixee.livejournal.com]

That is a silly idea. I don't really see anything wrong with prostitution as long as it's safe for all involved. I really doubt banning it will change human trafficking.
Before long there'll be nothing left to ban at this rate.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that anything that makes it more difficult to be a prostitute makes it more difficult for them to be helped, and more chance that they will get assaulted/killed/exploited etc. Bloody moral majority!

[zz]

the govt/law shouldn't be involved in anything involving informed consenting adults.

as you say, there are already laws to deal with slavery etc. if prostitution/brothels were legal, and even regulated, the quality of service would distinguish them from trafficking operations, reducing their profitability and making them easier to shut down. if trafficking victims were supported to some extent for months/a year, rather than treated like illegal immigrants, they might have better chances of getting away from their "owners".

speaking of sex and consent, i also really don't understand the drunk!=consent thing. apart from it being a main way people hook up these days, and possibly back to when alcohol was invented, someone else mentioned the inevitable "oh i was very drunk last night and now regret shagging that person" rape allegations, and that if both people were wasted, it'll *always* be the bloke that gets it in the neck.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

First two paragraphs - I completely agree (caveats about mental illness notwithstanding). Third paragraph - there is always a lot of trust involved, and when one or other person in the situation breaks that trust, it opens a world of pain (I paraphrase some wrestler or other probably).

[felishumanus.livejournal.com]

i am a bit concerned that the level of forced prostitution/ violence will increase if it goes ahead

[luckylove.livejournal.com]

Duh!

[http://users.livejournal.com/lynsey_/]

I think it would be better to legalise prostitution. At least then there could be designated places for it to happen. The people involved would probably be a lot safer.

[cheekbones3.livejournal.com]

Yep, undoubtedly.

[gary-the-bigbad.livejournal.com]

Seems the problem actually gets worse for prostitutes when they take away the tolerance zones, forcing them to move into less-safe areas. Naturally, the issue of their safety is then raised as an issue!

It can be looked on as a comparison to smoking, when no matter how much they try to make something harder to obtain, more expensive, more taboo, etc. It's something that'll never stop because there will always be the market for it, whatever the reasons.

[fizzyboot.livejournal.com]

The government don't actually care about safety of prostitutes (or anyone else for that matter). They care about there being a perception that they are doing something to fix a problem, regardless of whether their solution works. It's all about "eye catching initiatives", you see.