2012 proposal re Prostitution review: Anything new ?

Piliger

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone knows if there has been any re re emergence of this proposal to follow the recent actions of some northern european countries toward criminalising visitors to prostitutes ?
I followed the proposal and submitted my own submission. I note that it was voted down, but wondered if it is being discussed at any level wrt to bringing it back ?

Btw, very pleased that Kenny himself voted it down.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

I'm sceptical of all moves to legislate for new offences based on a perception of morality.

Piliger

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sceptical of all moves to legislate for new offences based on a perception of morality.

Oh I agree completely. I was just wondering if it was simmering somewhere and likely to be reintroduced.
Also there was a committee set up and it took a lot of submissions. I wondered if those were accessible to the public.
In my view I would be happy if it sank without trace.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Dandelion6

The submissions are available here (warning, very big pdf file).

I don't think the proposal is going anywhere. There is serious resistance to it in the DOJE, dating back before Shatter's time. There seems to be questions whether it would be workable in Ireland given the difference between the legal systems here and in Sweden. Also in Northern Ireland the DOJ has publicly opposed it and has commissioned research into the sex industry there which will no doubt expose the the vast gulf between the propaganda and the reality. Pity our own elected officials didn't think there was any need for similar research here.

Piliger

Thanks for that link.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Piliger

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On what basis do you say that ? Has she made pronouncements to that effect ? such that the vote would be completely overturned ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Paul_Carr

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where did she make it clear? I know from studying a Seanad debate in 2008 that Frances Fitzgerald, then a Fine Gael senator, indicated that she supported the bill then before the Seanad to criminalize the purchase of sex from a trafficked person. She also stated her concern that the legalization of sex work in Holland had led to an increase in trafficking. To be sure, there are similarities here.

Treora

Dandelion6 wrote: »

The submissions are available here (warning, very big pdf file).

That is only 28 of the 800 submissions with a 24:4 bias against keeping legal sex work in Ireland. One of the many hold ups is with the AGs as keeping 'occupation' legal means that the state cannot restrict a person supporting oneself. The conflict is that criminalising the client means that the occupation is blocked.

Fitzgerald has had lots of photos taken with the 'rescue'/moral indignation industry so it would point to pushing the legislation. The fly in the ointment is two fold. France has held back and this will deligitmise the change, however Canada is proceeding. The other more sinister move is that if TISA/TTIP is signed before the legislation comes in then german sex worker organisations can sue the state for creating the law.

Another major hiccup is ANZAC's relatively lower sexworker harm ratios to Sweden (where sexworkers are demonised). Fitzgerald's gut wants to criminalise clients, however they are sometimes the disabled, this along with relative harm rations and AG/ECJ difficulties she might find a reason to prioritise other issues.

The big stumbling block that I see is the 772 submission that want protections for sex workers. The moral indignation of this issue has a parallel with 1980's British politican/DJ and Irish priests when morality is placed above harm. This also ties into the nudge campaign to demonise clients and stigmatise sex workers through language and massive media presence.

80%+ of Ireland wants to legalise sex work (journal poll) and if a independent external poll came out before the second stage of the bill then Fitzgerald would be forced to back track. The rescue industry has never issued the results of the polls (many) because the always loose. The GNIB-AHTU (Gardaí) have even published that the claim of even one case of child sex trafficking in Ireland is a straight up lie by the rescue industry. This is an industry/charty group that is due to get a severe funding clip after the dozens of aid charities that do good and lost every cent.

This is a case of about a dozen extreme moralisers trying to push this through, but marriage equality might have to be legislatively resolved first!

Dandelion6

Treora wrote: »

One of the many hold ups is with the AGs as keeping 'occupation' legal means that the state cannot restrict a person supporting oneself. The conflict is that criminalising the client means that the occupation is blocked.

Do you have actual information that this is holding the legislation up? I wouldn't have thought that would be an issue, the Irish courts recognise lots of valid restrictions to the right to a livelihood. I would have thought there would be bigger problems around equality and how evidence can be given (bearing in mind that sex workers are unlikely to be willing to testify against their clients).

80%+ of Ireland wants to legalise sex work (journal poll) and if a independent external poll came out before the second stage of the bill then Fitzgerald would be forced to back track. The rescue industry has never issued the results of the polls (many) because the always loose.

The Journal poll is meaningless, but I'm interested about the other polls. Again do you have information that these exist? It wouldn't surprise me but would be nice to know for sure.

upaho

This issue is back on the agenda today, why I don't know. The immigration Council of Ireland and the Turn Off The Red Light campaign are trying to get the ball rolling on their legislative proposals to criminalise the men who are paying for sex. What I entirely don't get is that the campaign accepts that women & children will be trafficked and forced into prostitution, abused by paying "customers", robbed of their earnings by pimps and criminals as fact before the proposed legislation will do anything about it.

I think it would be much more acceptable, to me anyway, to profile immigrants at the point of entry, and have Garda/HSE follow up and prevent vulnerable women & children falling into that hands of organised crime.

That aside, there is no such thing as a free lunch, it is paid for every time. Those occasions, in my experience where cash didn't change hands were much more expensive both financially & emotionally.

Johnboy1951

Is there something published that compares a situation where the industry is heavily regulated, and controlled, with heavy penalties for those who work outside the official industry and also for those who use those 'black market' facilities, Vs the present situation, or even the proposed situation with new legislation?

I presently have difficulty understanding why a fully regulated industry would not be better socially for all concerned, as well as financially for the state.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Bepolite

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Is there something published that compares a situation where the industry is heavily regulated, and controlled, with heavy penalties for those who work outside the official industry and also for those who use those 'black market' facilities, Vs the present situation, or even the proposed situation with new legislation?

I presently have difficulty understanding why a fully regulated industry would not be better socially for all concerned, as well as financially for the state.

In all honesty it's not as simple as people think, on both sides of the argument. Germany and Sweden don't have perfect systems many of the girls working in German brothels aren't German; draw your own conclusions.

Frankly a formalisation of the current system is all we really need. Independent woman/men having sex for money in the privacy of a private residence not causing a nuisance seem a no brainier to me. My opinion is that criminalising using a prostitute will simply mean that responsible punters won't report suspected trafficking.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

on_my_oe

My opinion as a woman, and as someone who has lived in countries where prostitution is legal, is that it should be legalised, but that hawking on the street should be discouraged alongside rules around the number of people able to work from a premise (2), hours of operation (?) and the distance away from schools and crèches (1km).

It is the oldest profession, and by making criminals of women, it discourages them from seeking help, whether it's because they've been trafficked or they've been assaulted by a nasty client. It doesn't promise that the Garda will look upon them as human beings. Also, as self employees businesses, they would contribute tax.

Piliger

on_my_oe wrote: »

My opinion as a woman, and as someone who has lived in countries where prostitution is legal, is that it should be legalised, but that hawking on the street should be discouraged alongside rules around the number of people able to work from a premise (2), hours of operation (?) and the distance away from schools and crèches (1km).

It is the oldest profession, and by making criminals of women, it discourages them from seeking help, whether it's because they've been trafficked or they've been assaulted by a nasty client. It doesn't promise that the Garda will look upon them as human beings. Also, as self employees businesses, they would contribute tax.

I agree. There is no reason whatsoever why the country cannot crack down like a hammer on under age people and trafficking completely separately from legitimate sex workers. I also don't think this issue should be restricted to women. Men are involved in the sex trade.

We need to get the State out of the business of people who engage in this kind of things from their own home as individuals, subject to reasonable limitations regarding the people living beside them.

I also believe that brothels should be legalised and regulated in out of town, or industrial estate, locations subject to number limits and other regulations as regards local people/businesses.

If we do those things, then we can regulate sex worker's health and reduce STD's across the population. And we can also then deal with street sex workers in a strict but humane way. I would have much less of a problem with criminalising clients in the case of street sex workers. Tax raised and the health benefits for society would easily cover the regulatory costs.

Bepolite

I'm not really for the German model as I once was. The problem with out of town type efforts is it concentrates and turns something that isn't necessarily an issue into one.

I suspect two things hold true in the vast majority of cases in Ireland:

a) Very few people have caught a serious* STDs off an 'escort' e.g. not a street prostitute.
b) If you've one as a neighbour it's unlikely you're aware of it.

*Hep, HIV etc.

You're much more likely to catch something and be a nuisance to your neighbours pulling someone in Coppers on a Friday night.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Johnboy1951

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know nothing of systems in other countries .... but I would say the following ......

the 'trade' must be licenced and those licences strictly enforced
Conditions of the licence must include health and well being of individuals, age of course, and a full personal history with the registration authority.

the trade can only be carried out in specified licenced premises.

Any 'trading' carried on outside those licenced premises to be policed with vehemence and the full penalty applied to those convicted.

Those who are charged with checking out personnel and property should be in pairs and regularly checked themselves so that any temptation to succumb to 'payment' is reduced.

The taxes collected from workers and also from premises owners for running a business there, should be allocated to administering the scheme.

I have not given sufficient thought to location of premises ..... but see no reason they could not be in business districts like any other business.

All other forms of this 'trade' can then be made illegal, and hefty penalties applied to law breakers.

I would then, after a short time in place, take the next step ...... all workers applying for a job in the trade must first be licenced to do so.
To gain such a licence the worker would be required to pass such criteria as might be laid down ... maybe a psych evaluation or such, as well as the expected physical examination.
Premises which employed an unlicenced worker would be subject to immediate closure and maybe seizure of assets.

All workers required to pass both psych and physical examinations on a regular basis.

Encourage whistle-blowing of law breakers.

In other words, provide an outlet for those requiring the services, and as secure a working environment for those who would like to provide the services.

Anyone availing of such services or providing them, outside of the licenced areas get hit very hard at the first offence, and no mercy at all thereafter.

Stamp out the street trade and the 'escort' services, as well as the home businesses.

Piliger

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Stamp out the street trade and the 'escort' services, as well as the home businesses.

What exactly is the justification of this ??

Johnboy1951

Piliger wrote: »

What exactly is the justification of this ??

They would be illegal and unlicenced as laid out in the post.

Piliger

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

They would be illegal and unlicenced as laid out in the post.

I asked what the justification was for making them illegal ?

Johnboy1951

Piliger wrote: »

I asked what the justification was for making them illegal ?

The same justification as given in the post for licencing the 'trade'.

You think it would be possible to manage the licencing (and all that would encompass) in such circumstances?
If so maybe you would explain how.

Piliger

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The same justification as given in the post for licencing the 'trade'.

You think it would be possible to manage the licencing (and all that would encompass) in such circumstances?
If so maybe you would explain how.

I have no idea what you are saying. I see no justification for outlawing escort services. I see no damage they do. I see no negative impact on society. I see no argument for outlawing them. Hence my query.

Johnboy1951

Piliger wrote: »

I have no idea what you are saying. I see no justification for outlawing escort services. I see no damage they do. I see no negative impact on society. I see no argument for outlawing them. Hence my query.

You asked for justification for this

Stamp out the street trade and the 'escort' services, as well as the home businesses.

It is the same justification as used for licencing and control of such trade ..... as I have already posted.

Without such checks there is real danger to participants .... I cannot help if you are unable or unwilling to see that.

Paul_Carr

Decriminalize adult sex work like they do in New Zealand. I have written about my proposal on my blog and have submitted it to the government.

My blog is at paulcarr dot wordpress dot com . Search for my post entitled "I propose that we decriminalize sex work in the Republic of Ireland. My 20 point plan"

I don't have enough posts at boards dot ie to provide the direct URL link.

Only rights will stop the wrongs. Sex workers are entitled to the same human, civil and workplace rights as all other workers.

First of all, we repeal the current Fianna Fáil laws that criminalize all aspects of adult sex work that surround but not including the purchase and sale of sex. This includes advertising both the services of an individual sex worker and brothels, loitering, solicitation, living off the avails of prostitution, keeping and managing a brothel, organizing prostitution and buying sex from a trafficked person. In relation to this last law, how is a client supposed to know whether the person he visits is trafficked or not? And if the client has his suspicions that the sex worker he is visiting has been trafficked, the fact that he has committed a crime under the current laws acts as a deterrent to him going to the police to report the situation.

From this clean slate of decriminalization, we next provide a new architecture of regulation similar to the New Zealand model. For example, we provide for what are termed in the New Zealand legislation "Small Owner Operated Brothels" or SOOBs. SOOBs allow up to 4 sex workers to work together without having to register with the police provided that they do not give any money to a middle man or middle woman or pimp, that is, they keep all their earnings. For managed brothels, by contrast, a manager will have to apply for a certificate from the High Court. A criminal background check is then run. If it is found that the applicant has previous criminal convictions such as assault, false imprisonment and so on, his/her application is refused. This approach is quintessentially a carrot and stick approach, incentivizing sex workers to work together for safety and strength in numbers whilst at the same time putting the brakes on any would-be "pimps" who may do harm to sex workers.

The rationale of my proposed law is the sex workers are just like you and me. They are human beings trying to get by and make ends meet, pay their bills, put their kids through school and college. They are deserving of their equal civil, human, health and safety rights just like any other human being who do any other job.

on_my_oe

The downside to the NZ system is that street walking is still present - which is intimidating to passerbys, especially at 3pm when kids are out. Plus the streetwalkers use road signs as stripper poles

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/pole-dancing-prostitutes_n_1680288.html

I would expand the distance of suburban brothels away from schools compared to NZ.

Otherwise the NZ would be better for Ireland

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Piliger

on_my_oe wrote: »

The downside to the NZ system is that street walking is still present - which is intimidating to passerbys, especially at 3pm when kids are out. Plus the streetwalkers use road signs as stripper poles

If it is so then of course that is not a reflection on the laws but the implementation. Good on NZ.

on_my_oe

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it's legal, but since NZ has gone down the road of legalising prostitution (allowing brothels within a strict set of rules), I think banning street walking would have been good.

Explaining to your kids on the school run why that lady doesn't seem to be wearing any underwear isn't a welcome addition to the mundane day to day. Banning street walking would've been a good trade.

Here's a good rundown of the NZ rules

http://www.nzpc.org.nz/index.php?page=Law

Paul_Carr

on_my_oe wrote: »

The downside to the NZ system is that street walking is still present - which is intimidating to passerbys, especially at 3pm when kids are out. Plus the streetwalkers use road signs as stripper poles

I would expand the distance of suburban brothels away from schools compared to NZ.

Otherwise the NZ would be better for Ireland

Dude, face facts. Street walking can not be legislated out of existence. Law enforcement cannot just eliminate it from the entire country or even from a region of the country. It'll be like a game of whack-a-mole ultimately being paid for by the taxpayer. It'll just pop up someplace else. We have to live with it. Some people will choose to do this kind of sex work.

New Zealand has a rights based approach to adult sex work. There is the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective that represents all the sex workers there, their union so-to-speak. It was founded in 1988 and, right from the get-go, it received government funding from the Ministry of Health.

Street sex work is allowed everywhere in New Zealand but that doesn't mean that street sex workers are now offending people's morals by operating too close to schools and churches and so on. Why not? Because the sex workers have a powerful union that can mediate in disputes at the local level. Tailored, informal and individualized agreements can be reached between local community representatives and street sex workers about where they can operate and what hours you can operate. In New Zealand, they don't have any national law that regulates street sex work and there aren't even local by-laws passed by local councils that regulate it either. It is all informal agreements and it works. It is a win-win for all concerned.

Now regarding the location of brothels in New Zealand, there are no rules that stipulate the minimum distance that brothels must be located from schools and churches and so on. The law that regulates adult sex work in New Zealand is the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act. Both SOOBs (Small Owner Operated Brothels) and larger brothels may not be located in residential zoned areas. But, that's about it insofar as location of brothels is concerned. A political initiative has been underway for some time by social conservatives in Auckland's city council to pass a by-law there to regulate more precisely where brothels can be located but so far they have failed to pass legislation. So, currently, in New Zealand, by-laws or national laws have not been passed anywhere that regulate where brothels can be located over and above what was laid out in the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act.

My own view is that any Irish legislation can improve on the New Zealand law by allowing SOOBs (Small Owner Operated Brothels of up to 4 sex workers with no manager and where each sex worker keeps all his/her earnings) to be located in residential areas too. Residential areas will tend to be better lit and have better security.

Paul_Carr

on_my_oe wrote: »

The downside to the NZ system is that street walking is still present - which is intimidating to passerbys, especially at 3pm when kids are out. Plus the streetwalkers use road signs as stripper poles

I would expand the distance of suburban brothels away from schools compared to NZ.

Otherwise the NZ would be better for Ireland

Dude, face facts. Street walking can not be legislated out of existence. Law enforcement cannot just eliminate it from the entire country or even from a region of the country. It'll be like a game of whack-a-mole ultimately being paid for by the taxpayer. It'll just pop up someplace else. We have to live with it. Some people will choose to do this kind of sex work.

New Zealand has a rights based approach to adult sex work. There is the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective that represents all the sex workers there, their union so-to-speak. It was founded in 1988 and, right from the get-go, it received government funding from the Ministry of Health.

Street sex work is allowed everywhere in New Zealand but that doesn't mean that street sex workers are now offending people's morals by operating too close to schools and churches and so on. Why not? Because the sex workers have a powerful union that can mediate in disputes at the local level. Tailored, informal and individualized agreements can be reached between local community representatives and street sex workers about where they can operate and what hours they can operate. In New Zealand, they don't have any national law that regulates street sex work and there aren't even local by-laws passed by local councils that regulate it either. It is all informal agreements and it works. It is a win-win for all concerned.

Now regarding the location of brothels in New Zealand, there are no rules that stipulate the minimum distance that brothels must be located from schools and churches and so on. The law that regulates adult sex work in New Zealand is the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act. Both SOOBs (Small Owner Operated Brothels) and larger brothels may not be located in residential zoned areas. But, that's about it insofar as location of brothels is concerned. A political initiative has been underway for some time by social conservatives in Auckland's city council to pass a by-law there to regulate more precisely where brothels can be located but so far they have failed to pass legislation. So, currently, in New Zealand, by-laws or national laws have not been passed anywhere that regulate where brothels can be located over and above what was laid out in the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act.

My own view is that any Irish legislation can improve on the New Zealand law by allowing SOOBs (Small Owner Operated Brothels of up to 4 sex workers with no manager and where each sex worker keeps all his/her earnings) to be located in residential areas too. Residential areas will tend to be better lit and have better security.

on_my_oe

Paul, can I ask, are you Irish? Have you seen the NZ system in operation?

Street walking is a problem in NZ, especially in lower class areas. Manukau (prior to being absorbed into the Auckland 'Supercity') were trying to ban street walking especially in Papatoetoe and a revised bill went before parliament; this was because fathers driving their kids to school were being approached at traffic lights, and mothers walking their kids home were having to navigate around 'ladies of the night' at 3pm. Street walking is also risky - it's difficult to make it safe. I don't think that street walking is necessary.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10785168

I support the legislation of prostitution along the lines of the NZ system, but I do think it should be subject to 1km from schools guideline. There have been issues around brothels opening beside schools, and again there are concerned citizens for bye laws to be brought in to limit the permissible locations.

By the way, I'm a woman - one who fully supports the choice of those who want to work in the sex trade

Piliger

on_my_oe wrote: »

Paul, can I ask, are you Irish? Have you seen the NZ system in operation?

You ask Paul but don't make any statement about your own location or experience.

Street walking is a problem in NZ, especially in lower class areas. Manukau (prior to being absorbed into the Auckland 'Supercity') were trying to ban street walking especially in Papatoetoe and a revised bill went before parliament; this was because fathers driving their kids to school were being approached at traffic lights, and mothers walking their kids home were having to navigate around 'ladies of the night' at 3pm. Street walking is also risky - it's difficult to make it safe. I don't think that street walking is necessary.

A strange argument. I agree that it should be reduced to the absolute minimum, but I have no idea what 'necessary' means. Also his argument is based substantially on the simple impracticability of removing it altogether. It has never worked 100% anywhere it would seem.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10785168

Perosnally I don't believe media interests have much credibility.

I support the legislation of prostitution along the lines of the NZ system, but I do think it should be subject to 1km from schools guideline. There have been issues around brothels opening beside schools, and again there are concerned citizens for bye laws to be brought in to limit the permissible locations.

I don't understand this obsession with schools and what you mean be 'beside'.
A small house with two, three or even five ladies working in it, probably in shifts, located one hundred metres from a primary school may well be on a street behind the school and how children would see anything or know anything is a mystery to me.
Even if it were located 50 yards from the school on the same street .. how on earth would it be a negative ? who would see anything ? know anything ? be affected by it ?

on_my_oe

Piliger wrote: »

You ask Paul but don't make any statement about your own location or experience.

Ok a Kiwi*, who volunteered for the the Prostitute Collective for a year

Piliger wrote: »

Y.
A strange argument. I agree that it should be reduced to the absolute minimum, but I have no idea what 'necessary' means. Also his argument is based substantially on the simple impracticability of removing it altogether. It has never worked 100% anywhere it would seem.
?

If prostitution is taking place safely in a small brothel, I don't see any need for streetwalking, eg not necessary whatsoever. Streetwalking is a form of advertising, a billboard or sign is advertising which should deliver clients to a brothel just as effectively.

Piliger wrote: »

I don't understand this obsession with schools and what you mean be 'beside'.
A small house with two, three or even five ladies working in it, probably in shifts, located one hundred metres from a primary school may well be on a street behind the school and how children would see anything or know anything is a mystery to me.
Even if it were located 50 yards from the school on the same street .. how on earth would it be a negative ? who would see anything ? know anything ? be affected by it ?

Kids of 5 or 8 aren't (hopefully) going to understand what a brothel is, but a teenager of 13 is. I do think it wouldn't be a hardship to limit the location of a brothel. We specify where crèches, light industrial sites are or factories?
Also with a number of employees, plus a number of clients, there would be a decent volume of vehicle traffic, disturbing to other residents.

Piliger

on_my_oe wrote: »

Ok a Kiwi*, who volunteered for the the Prostitute Collective for a year

Admirable. Nice to have you here.

If prostitution is taking place safely in a small brothel, I don't see any need for streetwalking, eg not necessary whatsoever. Streetwalking is a form of advertising, a billboard or sign is advertising which should deliver clients to a brothel just as effectively.

I agree.

Kids of 5 or 8 aren't (hopefully) going to understand what a brothel is, but a teenager of 13 is. I do think it wouldn't be a hardship to limit the location of a brothel. We specify where crèches, light industrial sites are or factories?

No. It wouldn't be a hardship. But how will a 13yo know ? Are you suggesting that a group of such ladies working from a suburban house would have outdoor advertising ? I don't see that as an issue. Advertising would be internet based and an actual address would only be known to customers.

Also with a number of employees, plus a number of clients, there would be a decent volume of vehicle traffic, disturbing to other residents.

I don't buy this necessarily. Someone mentioned limiting to collectives of maybe four ladies. Considering shifts, and considering the house would not have children milling around, it would appear sensible that the amount of traffic would be considerably less than the average middle class family.

on_my_oe

Piliger wrote: »

.
No. It wouldn't be a hardship. But how will a 13yo know ? Are you suggesting that a group of such ladies working from a suburban house would have outdoor advertising ? I don't see that as an issue. Advertising would be internet based and an actual address would only be known to customers.

In NZ many brothels, but not all, do advertise outside the property. Advertising online isn't selective enough to ensure teenagers won't become aware of local brothels. Schools in Epsom (a suburb of Auckland) are concerned that there a 5 or 6 brothels operating nearby.

I dont believe that children should be shielded from all the realities of adulthood, but I do worry that the sexualisation of children is making kids grow up too fast. A brothel beside a high school isn't a good idea, as it may encourage impressionable young men and women to perceive sex as cheap and without emotional involvement. When you are older and more emotionally capable, you are more able to recognise the difference between lust, an enjoyable diversion, or true love. There are guidelines around the siting of an off licence or bar, I don't feel it's any different to be restricting the locations of brothels.

I do think that legalising prostitution and consequently the establishment of brothels is important, as sex workers need to be safe. It's the oldest profession for a reason, and that the physical act - and in circumstances, the companionship, however fleeting - can bring happiness. A close friend was briefly an escort (the whole girlfriend experience), and she enjoyed it. She's a happy earth mother type now (with a PhD in psychology), and if her daughters decided to try it, she says she wouldn't dissuade them. I don't think it's fair that one willing party is criminalised and the other isn't. By removing the criminal element, it will hopefully help to prevent trafficking, and if Gid forbid, a client suspects his 'service provider' is a trafficking victim, he may be more willing to contact the Gardai.

Piliger wrote: »

.
I don't buy this necessarily. Someone mentioned limiting to collectives of maybe four ladies. Considering shifts, and considering the house would not have children milling around, it would appear sensible that the amount of traffic would be considerably less than the average middle class family.

Even with two companions operating, one receptionist / maid, two clients utilising and one waiting, you are looking at 6 cars; not many Irish properties are set up for that many cars, so that will require on street parking. Issues in NZ around suburban brothels included men knocking on the wrong doors at 9pm on a Friday night - why, oh why can't some folk read a map or an address? So if they do have signage it's a problem, but if they go incognito, it's a problem. A lite industrial site is better suited with plenty of parking, and less issues around noisy, inconsiderate clients arriving and departing at 3am.

Piliger wrote: »

.
Admirable. Nice to have you here.

Thank you

Paul_Carr

Piliger wrote: »

You ask Paul but don't make any statement about your own location or experience.

Good point. What relevance is it what my location is? If I had written anything factually incorrect, then on_my_oe is free to correct me. She has not thus far.

The 2003 Prostitution Reform Act is a good law that should be adapted in other countries. Attempts to pass by-laws to regulate where street sex workers could operate failed to pass Manukau city council and now Auckland super council. The Conservative Party of John Key has no interest in repealing the Act. In 2008, a review of the Act found that prostitution had not increased but that sex workers felt they had more rights.

In March, a sex worker in New Zealand won a sexual harassment case against her former brothel employer in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and won NZ$25,000. This was a world first.

on_my_oe

My query Paul was around whether or not you had seen the NZ system in operation, or whether you had just read about it on the internet.

Paul_Carr

on_my_oe wrote: »

My query Paul was around whether or not you had seen the NZ system in operation, or whether you had just read about it on the internet.

I read about it on the internet. I studied closely the text of the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act. I read about the history of New Zealand's laws on prostitution. I also made some queries to Catherine Healy, the National Coordinator of the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective. She was very helpful in her responses.

on_my_oe

Paul_Carr wrote: »

The 2003 Prostitution Reform Act is a good law that should be adapted in other countries. Attempts to pass by-laws to regulate where street sex workers could operate failed to pass Manukau city council and now Auckland super council. The Conservative Party of John Key has no interest in repealing the Act. In 2008, a review of the Act found that prostitution had not increased but that sex workers felt they had more rights.

South Auckland MP Ross Robertson introduced The Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill which is at committee stage; it was resubmitted after the amalgamation of the super city. Robertson is retiring after the election next month, and another MP will be submitting it again for the new term.
The problem with streetwalking is that the provision of service doesn't always take place in a more appropriate location. It wasn't unusual to come home from a good night out, only to disturb two people mid act, or to find used condoms on my driveway (glad they were being safe, less happy that I was expected to deal with their rubbish).

I do honestly think that prostitution needs to legalised, just with rules to create an environment of respect

Paul_Carr

on_my_oe wrote: »

South Auckland MP Ross Robertson introduced The Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill which is at committee stage; it was resubmitted after the amalgamation of the super city. Robertson is retiring after the election next month, and another MP will be submitting it again for the new term.
The problem with streetwalking is that the provision of service doesn't always take place in a more appropriate location. It wasn't unusual to come home from a good night out, only to disturb two people mid act, or to find used condoms on my driveway (glad they were being safe, less happy that I was expected to deal with their rubbish).

I do honestly think that prostitution needs to legalised, just with rules to create an environment of respect

Well, Auckland Council has been in existence since November 2010. According to the opinion polls, John Key's National Party looks set to win comfortably the national elections next month. I don't think there is much chance of this bill passing.

on_my_oe

The bill is not dead and buried - it will still come through for it's next reading. NZs elections are different to Ireland, in that there are two votes cast with one for your local MP and the other for your party. This has a benefit for marginal parties as voters who might be reluctant to 'waste' a vote on a smaller party at local level will be more likely vote at national ('list') level. The NZ Green Party are a marginal group that have benefitted from this approach. This also encourages more coalition governments in NZ, so I wouldn't count your chickens there before they're hatched.
Some councils already have bylaws in place to restrict the location of brothels; Franklin ward have a bylaw stating brothels shall not be located within 250 metres from the main public road entrance, or within sight of the main public road entrance of any educational facility for children, place of worship or community facility.
Meanwhile returning to Ireland, I repeat that I agree that prostitution needs legalisation, with careful, well thought out structures in place.

Paul_Carr

on_my_oe wrote: »

The bill is not dead and buried - it will still come through for it's next reading. NZs elections are different to Ireland, in that there are two votes cast with one for your local MP and the other for your party. This has a benefit for marginal parties as voters who might be reluctant to 'waste' a vote on a smaller party at local level will be more likely vote at national ('list') level. The NZ Green Party are a marginal group that have benefitted from this approach. This also encourages more coalition governments in NZ, so I wouldn't count your chickens there before they're hatched.

Oh, I wouldn't dream of it.

Some councils already have bylaws in place to restrict the location of brothels; Franklin ward have a bylaw stating brothels shall not be located within 250 metres from the main public road entrance, or within sight of the main public road entrance of any educational facility for children, place of worship or community facility.

Okay, fair enough. I think I was confusing street prostitution with brothels. Street prostitution is allowed everywhere in New Zealand. This has been upheld by New Zealand's High Court where local councils have had by-laws restricting the locations where street sex workers can work overturned.

As I understand it, SOOBs (Small Owner Operated Brothels) and Managed Brothels are subject to the same zoning restrictions in New Zealand. I think there is room for improvement there in any adaptation of New Zealand's law in other countries. SOOBs should be permitted in residential areas.

on_my_oe

Paul_Carr wrote: »

Oh, I wouldn't dream of it.



Okay, fair enough. I think I was confusing street prostitution with brothels. Street prostitution is allowed everywhere in New Zealand. This has been upheld by New Zealand's High Court where local councils have had by-laws restricting the locations where street sex workers can work overturned.

As I understand it, SOOBs (Small Owner Operated Brothels) and Managed Brothels are subject to the same zoning restrictions in New Zealand. I think there is room for improvement there in any adaptation of New Zealand's law in other countries. SOOBs should be permitted in residential areas.

That's where we will have to agree to disagree - I think as a commercial activity, they should be blocked from operating in a residential area, with additional restrictions around proximity to churches and educational facilities.

Why do you think it's a good idea for brothels to be in residential areas?

Piliger

on_my_oe wrote: »

In NZ many brothels, but not all, do advertise outside the property.

Well I would be against that. I see no need for it, and I don't see any liberty issue with banning it. It is an adult business and public advertising is not appropriate imho. This should be easy to regulate once the overall industry is legalised.

Advertising online isn't selective enough to ensure teenagers won't become aware of local brothels. Schools in Epsom (a suburb of Auckland) are concerned that there a 5 or 6 brothels operating nearby.

Again I would not support broad advertising in such a way that would communicate locations and I believe that this would again be easily regulated.

I dont believe that children should be shielded from all the realities of adulthood, but I do worry that the sexualisation of children is making kids grow up too fast.

I agree wholeheartedly. However I don't think that that is a good term. Modern media is sexualising children 1,000 times more than an awareness of sexual activity would.

A brothel beside a high school isn't a good idea, as it may encourage impressionable young men and women to perceive sex as cheap and without emotional involvement. When you are older and more emotionally capable, you are more able to recognise the difference between lust, an enjoyable diversion, or true love. There are guidelines around the siting of an off licence or bar, I don't feel it's any different to be restricting the locations of brothels.

I would not disagree. I would just be cautious about the concept of 'beside'.

I do think that legalising prostitution and consequently the establishment of brothels is important, as sex workers need to be safe. It's the oldest profession for a reason, and that the physical act - and in circumstances, the companionship, however fleeting - can bring happiness.

Personally I find it hard to empathise with it, but I don't believe in legislating only what I can empathise with. I hope that makes sense.

A close friend was briefly an escort (the whole girlfriend experience), and she enjoyed it. She's a happy earth mother type now (with a PhD in psychology), and if her daughters decided to try it, she says she wouldn't dissuade them. I don't think it's fair that one willing party is criminalised and the other isn't. By removing the criminal element, it will hopefully help to prevent trafficking, and if Gid forbid, a client suspects his 'service provider' is a trafficking victim, he may be more willing to contact the Gardai.

I agree fully.
There is a completely dishonest and deceitful attempt by several organisations that claim to be working for women's rights and against trafficking, to mix and confuse people by claiming that prostitution and trafficking are the same thing and that trafficking cannot be conquered without criminalising men.
I find this seriously offensive to my intelligence, to our society and to women and men in general.

Even with two companions operating, one receptionist / maid, two clients utilising and one waiting, you are looking at 6 cars;

Well three anyway.

..not many Irish properties are set up for that many cars, so that will require on street parking. Issues in NZ around suburban brothels included men knocking on the wrong doors at 9pm on a Friday night - why, oh why can't some folk read a map or an address? So if they do have signage it's a problem, but if they go incognito, it's a problem. A lite industrial site is better suited with plenty of parking, and less issues around noisy, inconsiderate clients arriving and departing at 3am.

I get your points. Worth thinking about alright.

What a discussion like this produces, imho, is the clear and obvious conclusion that if people get together with common sense, a regulatory framework could be easily designed that would facilitate all parties of society without the need to criminalise ordinary people.

Such a regulatory framework would protect women and men in the industry and improve their health and the health of the community.

Piliger

on_my_oe wrote: »

That's where we will have to agree to disagree - I think as a commercial activity, they should be blocked from operating in a residential area, with additional restrictions around proximity to churches and educational facilities.

Why do you think it's a good idea for brothels to be in residential areas?

I don't agree with you fully, though I am listening to your arguments.

One of my issues with this industry is that prohibition is counter productive. If we take the hand washing view and ban all such activity in residential areas, then we just drive it underground because not everyone has a car and can drive for miles. That provides an incentive to break the law and go outside regulation.

This is why I believe that it must be possible to find a way whereby small groups of one to five, maybe, ladies or gentlemen (or one to three) should be able to set up a quiet business in a residential location. Perhaps some kind of no-callers system whereby customers are met elsewhere and brought back.

Also I fear that once we draw a line around 'residential' areas in a small country like this, what is next ? Next we'll have the small non residential areas objecting and then the only locations suitable will become so publicly known and stigmatised that trouble will only follow.