nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

RTE report: Bill makes purchasing sexual services an offence

SeanW

Link: http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1127/663041-sexual-offences/

Found out about this late yesterday, no thread on it at the moment. Although the bill contains some positive aspects, such as to create/strengthen laws relating to the grooming of children for abuse and child pornography, it also has some serious negatives. Essentially, Ireland is to implement the Swedish model on sex work. I.E. the buyer is always a criminal.

I'm missing a key point here: how is it that in a supposidly healthy, tolerant, free society, those who wish to criminalise sexual activites between consenting adults, can not only be taken seriously, but have their neo-Victorian, quasi-religious agenda written into a countries law?

Find more posts tagged with

bill o'herlihy

Quick Links

Comments

nokia69

Grayson wrote: »

It's not feminism. Feminists are split on whether it empowers or degrades women (Personally i think it depends on the situation)

Religious people on the other hand...

its a type or branch of feminism, what do you think motivates the likes of Ivana Bacik, I don't think she is very religious

P. Breathnach

nokia69 wrote: »

its a type or branch of feminism...

So it's not feminism; it's some people who regard themselves as feminists.

There is a problem in that some women who are in the sex business are there because they are coerced. Society, through the law, should protect those women. I don't think the strategy in the bill is the solution.

Holsten

highgiant1985 wrote: »

has this bill actually been passed or is it being reviewed / debated first?

There is so much stuff in this bill it will take a while unless it's fast tracked by Government. My guess 1-2 years + 3 months it will be law, probably not in it's current form.

winter soldier

it said on the news it will be summer of next year when it becomes law.

Shep_Dog

Mena wrote: »

So if I wine and dine the missus I'm screwed (the other one)?

:-(

Depends on how good you are.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

YFlyer

winter soldier wrote: »

it said on the news it will be summer of next year when it becomes law.

I thought it was an offence already. Sure look at those men that had their photos on the front page of the Limerick Leader from the ban gardai sting.

winter soldier

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you would want to be listening to the news. they are not making up lies about all of this. they said it will be next summer and that's when it will be. all I am doing is wondering where will the middle aged men trapped in loveless marriages get their filthy sex from now? hmmm?

winter soldier

YFlyer wrote: »

I thought it was an offence already. Sure look at those men that had their photos on the front page of the Limerick Leader from the ban gardai sting.

that's looking for sex from street walkers. its escorts in apartments and hotel rooms that this law also applies to.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

winter soldier

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

to be perfectly honest fred I should imagine blokes will still do what they want to do. but the number of blokes will go down. cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it. it sounds like a soulless empty experience to me. stick with your right hand much cheaper!!

Holsten

winter soldier wrote: »

I think you would want to be listening to the news. they are not making up lies about all of this. they said it will be next summer and that's when it will be. all I am doing is wondering where will the middle aged men trapped in loveless marriages get their filthy sex from now? hmmm?

That's not how laws work. They cannot just give a date, the bill has to go through various stages, different debates, amendments, perhaps even towards the courts, even to Europe. It is impossible to say when it will become law.

winter soldier

Holsten wrote: »

That's not how laws work. They cannot just give a date, the bill has to go through various stages, different debates, amendments, perhaps even towards the courts, even to Europe. It is impossible to say when it will become law.

the bill it also deals with sex offenders and paedophiles. so I imagine it will be made law pretty damn quick. no dawdling over this one I am afraid to say.

nokia69

winter soldier wrote: »

why be with a woman who only wants to have sex with you is because you paid for it. you are better off with a girl who truly loves you. but if that's your idea of fun who am I to judge. it should be made legal, properly regulated and taxed.

because in the long run "free sex" will cost a lot more

Yuri Checkov

There is no such thing as a free ride.

winter soldier

nokia69 wrote: »

because in the long run "free sex" will cost a lot more

I may be an ass by asking this but in what way will it cost more? sex with someone you love is great. sex as a business transaction is in my opinion a horrible experience. but each to their own.

nokia69

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it's not feminism; it's some people who regard themselves as feminists.

no true Scotsman eh, or to keep the wimmin happy no true Scotswoman

Yuri Checkov

Ah the nuns have gotten to you with their rubbish propaganda. This bill will be opposed and stalled as much as possible. There is plenty of support from many areas of society.

The funny thing is that TROL and Ruhama are not able to produce any proof of girls being trafficked. They are just trotting out the old Maud Flanders/Helen Lovejoy lines of "won't someone please think of the children!"

The escorts themselves are the biggest opponents of this proposed legislation. If you bothered to read their own boards this much is clear.

For me I has my regular ladies and will keep seeing them.

winter soldier

Yuri Checkov wrote: »

Ah the nuns have gotten to you with their rubbish propaganda. This bill will be opposed and stalled as much as possible. There is plenty of support from many areas of society.

The funny thing is that TROL and Ruhama are not able to produce any proof of girls being trafficked. They are just trotting out the old Maud Flanders/Helen Lovejoy lines of "won't someone please think of the children!"

The escorts themselves are the biggest opponents of this proposed legislation. If you bothered to read their own boards this much is clear.

For me I has my regular ladies and will keep seeing them.

nobody has influenced my mind regarding this. I think it should be above board and legal I said that in a previous post. all I am saying is that in my own personal opinion I think it would be a hollow and empty experience, but each to their own.

Peter Anthony

If an election happens before next summer what happens this bill?

Hopefully it does because the justice minster Fitzgerald is utterly woefully out of her depth. Alan Shatter refused to push this bill as he knew the repercussions of putting people like this on the sex offenders list is crazy. Fitzgerald is a suburban housewife way out of her depth, who has completely ignored the industry workers because they arent voters.

The Swedish model is an abject failure. Conveniently we have ignored our German masters have this fully legalised and taxed.

hatrickpatrick

It addresses the gender anomaly with regard to incest.
Does it address the gender anomaly with regard to underage sex, or is it still somehow considered acceptable to discriminate against boys?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

looking_around

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I think the idea is that by criminalising the women, you are making a criminal out of a victim. This is based on human trafficking.

There is always going to be issues where statistics ate skewed for these organisations as victims of trafficking will be more likely to avail of their services compared to someone who is independent.

wouldn't it be easier to deal with trafficking if it was regulated? with like numbers/registration for those who actually choose to be a prostitute?
Proper places, frequent testing etc.

And then criminalise anyone who doesn't use registered services when buying sex?

Seems more logical to me.

This only punishes the "victims" who choose that line of work. Yes, some people actually choose it.

nokia69

looking_around wrote: »

wouldn't it be easier to deal with trafficking if it was regulated? with like numbers/registration for those who actually choose to be a prostitute?
Proper places, frequent testing etc.

trafficking is a myth

Yuri Checkov

A myth spread by the Catholic church and it's followers. TROL and Ruhama have been called out on this many times, so far they can't produce any evidence.

winter soldier

look lads my final say on the matter is this. I think it should be legalised. it should be above board and regulated. the girls should pay tax on their earnings. but if you are single and lonely an escort is just a quick fix to an ongoing problem. you got to talk to women and be prepared to be let down, knocked back, flat out refused and rejected but don't let it get to you. married men that go to escorts its their business but if your marriage is in trouble in any way its better to sort that out instead.

P. Breathnach

nokia69 wrote: »

trafficking is a myth

I doubt that is true.

I believe the numbers of women trafficked into Ireland are probably quite small but, whatever the number, those women are entitled to protection.

I suspect that there might be more local women forced into the business by the men in their lives, often to fund drug habits. Again. I suspect they are a relatively small proportion of the trade but they, too, should be protected.

tritium

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I doubt that is true.

I believe the numbers of women trafficked into Ireland are probably quite small but, whatever the number, those women are entitled to protection.

I suspect that there might be more local women forced into the business by the men in their lives, often to fund drug habits. Again. I suspect they are a relatively small proportion of the trade but they, too, should be protected.

Jesus not this men are the bad guys stuff again! Sure why not, its far more likely that Marys drug addict boyfriend is forcing her into prostitution than that she's decided to do this herself, l dunno, possibly to feed her own habit, or maybe for less sinister reasons.

Under the model you offer women are just poor little helpless victims of the patriarchy. Ironically the women affected by this legislation were effectively excluded from contributing to the debate by a block of idealogues- I never thought I'd see the day when elements from both the Church and Irelands left wing feminists were lined up shoulder to shoulder in defence of Victorian values

catallus

Cui bono?

It means it's bono's fault.

SeanW

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I doubt that is true.

I believe the numbers of women trafficked into Ireland are probably quite small but, whatever the number, those women are entitled to protection.

I suspect that there might be more local women forced into the business by the men in their lives, often to fund drug habits. Again. I suspect they are a relatively small proportion of the trade but they, too, should be protected.

Noone disputes that a sex-worker (or indeed anyone being "trafficked" or otherwise compelled in any kind of work) acting under duress requires the protection of any civilised society.

I remember about 6 months to a year ago, there was a case in court about a Pakistani man who had hired his cousin to work in his restaurant, who was underpaid and subsequently awarded something like €250,000. But the restaurant owner appealed because the cousin was an illegal, and won on that basis.

Yet I never heard any entity saying that people shouldn't eat in restaurants, or Pakistani restaurants in partiuclar because of the (very real) problem of people trafficking for non-sexual reasons - and with good reason there was no such call!

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it's not feminism; it's some people who regard themselves as feminists.

You are very close to "no true Scotsman" fallacy here. This is absolutely about pleasing feminists, judging by the wide variety of left-wing entities supporting the "men are scum" approach.