RTE report: Bill makes purchasing sexual services an offence

Sleepy wrote: »

The only basis for an objection to legalisation is a moral one. And since prohibition doesn't work (and the industry will be there regardless) and since morality is an entirely subjective, and individual thing, that's not a very good basis for an argument imo.

That's not entirely correct though. Any society's laws are based on morality, whether it be public morality, or private morality. What you're identifying above is private morality. However the broader issue of sex work itself is an issue of public morality -

An individual's private conduct which is not a governmental or societal concern, and should be free from intrusion. In comparison, public morality refers to the conduct that affects other individuals or the larger society, and which should be governed by externally imposed laws. This schism in what was once an undivided realm of morality was created in 1957 upon the publication in UK of the 'Report Of The Committee On Homosexual Offenses And Prostitution' (called Wolfenden report after the committee's chairperson, Sir John Wolfenden). It advocated repeal of the statutes prohibiting consensual homosexual relations in private, because "it is not the duty of the law to concern itself with immorality as such." In effect, the report suggests that what might be wrong in public might be right in private, and may be indulged in without the fear of sanction. In the continuing follow-up debate, one camp argues the society can override the matters of private judgment where they threaten its survival, and homosexuality is such a threat. The other argues that while social-cohesiveness must be protected, moral pluralism does not constitute a threat and (in absence of empirical evidence to the contrary) the law has no business in interfering in matters of private morality.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/private-morality.html#ixzz3KpUpC9L5

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a little difficult to take seriously. Your average citizen cannot follow ever single international debate on every single topic - so if there was debate in Sweden, chances are only someone with the time and specific interest, like you, would likely take notice. When introduced in Ireland, the debate was only opened up to any public scrutiny quite late - unless, like you, one were to keep a close eye on all Dail business, the first time that the may have heard about it was with the panel that was set up on it about two years ago. If anything great care was made to keep it out of the public domain, just as debate on the 'opt-out' clause was for the cohabitation act and presently the 'debates' taking place on the abolition of custodial sentences for women.

Your response to this appears to be "hardly anyone else's fault but their own", which is the height of contempt for democracy.

I disagree with your assertion above that I have any contempt for democracy. Politicians are elected to represent public opinion, and the vast majority of the Irish public have no interest in sex work or the welfare of sex workers, so naturally they're not going to have any interest in public policy formation on the issue. It's no different to the fact that I have no interest in soccer, yet many people do and want to support their team. If I take a passing interest in soccer and I passively support a particular team, I hardly have any right to complain when they don't do as well as I'd hoped, because I didn't support them. That's no different to people who didn't bother to mount signifigant opposition to this legislation when it was suggested back in the 90's.

There is still no significant opposition to the proposed legislation today either, so you really can't claim that there is any significant objection to legislation which proposes to criminalise people who purchase the services of sex workers. I can claim though that most Irish people don't particularly care one way or the other about sex work or what happens to whom, because they're not directly affected by it's criminalisation.

No, I didn't take five minutes to respond to your condescending argument that the unwashed masses don't understand or are too stupid to follow such legislation and what a drag it was that you had to post here after all.

I never made any such claims that anyone was too stupid to follow any legislation. Uninformed and apathetic are hardly the same as suggesting that someone is stupid. I hadn't meant to come across as condescending though, and for what it's worth I've long admired yourself as one of the more intellectual heavyweights of Boards who I've always thought of as well informed and articulate. When I suggested that it wasn't worth it, I was also talking about the likelihood that you'd get posters who would scrape the bottom of the barrel and resort to ad hominems in an attempt to "win a discussion on the Internet".

Then don't bother. Honestly. If it's too dispiriting for you to post because we are all too stupid to understand your more enlightened opinions, then don't bother. After all, it couldn't be because you're wrong.

I'm always open to the idea that I may be wrong, and I'm perfectly willing to be corrected by more informed individuals, but what do you do when you meet someone who assumes for example that sex work is illegal in Ireland? You have to question is it worth correcting their error, or is it better just to let them remain ill informed as you're likely to give yourself an aneyurism getting into it with them?

How many of our social laws have done so? I don't mean legislation on taxation of ham, but stuff that governs our basic civil rights. Examples please?

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013
Mental Health (Anti-Discrimination) Bill 2013
Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013
Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Act 2011


Those are just some of our social laws that govern our basic civil rights. In fact I could nearly quote the whole of the Irish Statute book, but we'd be here all day at that rate.

newport2 wrote: »

You're right, there have been many debates on this issue in the last year or two. The problem has been that the sex workers themselves have been pretty much omitted from these debates. The likes of the TORL and Ruhama have only included reformed sex workers who regret their past to speak up. Whenever existing sex workers have spoken, their opinions have been dismissed by the very people claiming to be campaigning for them.

I'm pretty neutral on the subject and would like whatever is best for the people working in the sex industry. I'm not involved and don't use their services, so it'll have no effect on me. But I think it's pretty bad that their voices have been ignored in determining their future.

I'm not just talking about the last two years or so though, I'm talking about these discussions and debates about sex work that have been going on since long before I was even born, just that most people don't particularly notice as it's not an issue that affects them directly. The likes of Ruhuma though and many of these lobby groups and organisations on either side of the discussion though can fcuk right off as far as I'm concerned, because as you quite rightly point out - if you don't fit their specific profile, they have no interest in your opinion and even less interest in offering you any support. I'd say the same about SWA Ireland too btw.

Yamanoto wrote: »

You were called out repeatedly for equivocation, soap-boxing and discounting the opinions of others in a fairly haughty manner, a habit you appear determined to indulge once more. As for folks telling you your opinion was wrong, when the guff below is the starting point for your argument, it'd be mightily naive to expect such statements to go unchallenged.

Yamanoto wrote: »

'Tis One eyed Jack who's bemoaning his treatment on previous threads tbf.



Again...

Tell me again how if you're a sex worker who has left their past behind them, there won't always be someone that if you upset them, they'll pull a dick move in order to attempt to humiliate you into backing down and silence your opinion.

Careful you don't fall off that high horse Yamato in your attempt to win a discussion on the Internet.

newport2 wrote: »

What else would anyone advocate for except "their version"? If you're saying they have no right to advocate for their version, that's pretty much saying they have no right to advocate. That's like saying someone has a right to vote, but not for the candidate they want to.

Erhhh - how about advocating and supporting sexual workers to make their own determination of what they actually want - rather than telling them what they should or should not do??? Jeez ...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well thats nice. You jumped in on a post I wrote to someone else. And when I reply to you I am "banging on" but I am sure when you reply thats A-ok. You do like your "one rule for you one rule for everyone else" mentality dont you.

How many times have you quoted that posters piece About "sex workers are "banged in every hole" by "multiple partners a night" - I can only assume you are somehow turned on by this or something - it has appeared in nearly every fracking post since :rolleyes:

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No one - to my knowledge - is compelling you to write to me. If you want no more replies FROM me then simply send no more replies TO me. Simples eh?

Where's the fun in that

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Still no reply of note from you to this then.

So you don't want me to reply to you but then wish for me to reply to you - which is it? You appear somewhat inconsistent here.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If is merely your decree based on nothing that it is not "concern" for them and that it is "dressed up". I actually expect it is a mix of both - to varying degrees - in each person that speaks up.

As I keep saying - and you have not addressed once - the fact that clients will be affected by any changes in legislation or regulation - means they are very much relevant to the discussion. More than those of us who have no relation to the industry.

Are some of their interests and concerns self serving? Sure. But that does not negate their voice. They have a voice and - despite your decrees from a pedestal you have constructed solely for yourself - have every right to use it.

The principal concern here is not the 'clients' - urgent change is needed to support sex workers to achieve changes they are looking for and that are needed.

Clients can 'bang' on about their own rights and personal concerns - but that is a separate discussion to legislation for the benefit of sex workers.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Then you will be over joyed - no doubt - to find I at no point on this thread ever suggested it is not happening. Not even once. Not even a little.

Rather I said I merely suspect the prevalence of it is grossly and wilfully over stated by those who wish to use it as an argument against the legality or morality of prostitution.

But a suggestion that it is not happening is not one I think you have heard often - if at all - from anyone on this thread. Let alone from me specifically.

Not that it is relevant anyway. Because even if trafficking is happening that is not a point against prostitution. Just like when child slave sweat shops were used to produce the clothing from well known brands - no one stood up and made the ridiculous assertion that this calls the question or the morality and legality of clothing into question.

Almost no one makes this ridiculous line of "reasoning" in the context of any other industry really - so why some people consider it relevant to THIS one is beyond me.

Because absence of statistics was put forward to 'prove' it doesn't happen! I call BS on this. But yes it is relevant if it is happening (and more work needs to be done on this) because it is something that potentially affects all sex workers.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again you must be pleased therefore to find I never suggested they were in ANY way "the same". All I AM saying is that they have every right to express - vocalise - and advocate for those interests as anyone else. Despite you saying they do not.

And I continue to maintain that legalisation and adequately thought out and implemented regulation is the way to achieve this. Is your solution / suggestion any different to mine?

Well indeed yes it is - I support sex workers in their efforts to achieve equality under the law. I do not support others substituting this reality with their own version of what they may think sex workers may want or need.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not imitation per se. But a demonstration that throw away comments that can be lifted out of one post and slapped arbitrarily into another - were probably posturing "filler" comments in the first place that added nothing to the post they found themselves in. And I find throwing those comments back in a responding post - without even having to modify them much at all - demonstrates that fact quite well.

Did that post upset you perhaps? Anyway I hope that little tantrum helped...

[quote="[Deleted User];93294597] It is a useful methodologys to parse your posts before sending them and asking yourself - are there throw away comments in here that would make equal sense slapped into any post on any topic? If yes - they probably should not be included. [/quote]

How about asking if that could be included in the FAQ Section so we can all benefit from such wisdom

[quote="[Deleted User];93294597]Except I did not. You spoke of something being advocated. You claimed certain people have no right to be doing it. You are wrong be default because - certain extreme examples aside - we all have the right to advocate whatever the hell we like. You certainly can not stop them. [/quote]

Again plain and simple misquoting and out if context reply - I have now patiently explained this many times. I really can't hep you with this if you insist on continued ignorance.

[quote="[Deleted User];93294597]It does not matter WHAT you are saying they can not advocate. In general the moment you claim someone has not got the right to advocate something - you are already wrong regardless of what it is you are referring to.

If anyone has less relevance in the discourse (not that I think anyone does) it is not the "johns" or the sex workers. It is the people with nothing whatsoever to do with the trade at all. Those who have never provided it - or availed of it. At least your "Johns" are somewhat informed with their input - have witnessed, engaged in, and experienced it themselves.

Quite the contrary. ANYONE selling a product needs to be cognisant of what their clientele want or need. That is why business spend millions in our planets economies every year for "market research".[/quote]

Well I suggest you start a campaign advocating for legislation for the rights of 'your' clients of sexual workers and get that legislated for. Best of luck with that ...

gozunda wrote: »

Another poster perhaps? No I havn't ever implied that anyone "should be legally barred from buying or selling sex". Do you think they should be barred? Why is that?

Tell me about your childhood:D:D

There's too much waffle and bullshít in this thread. I actually don't know what your stance is on it.
Are you in favour of this bill or against it?
Do you think prostitution should be legal or illegal?

And in a sentence or 2 - why?
My apologies if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick.
I'm dipping in and out of this in work and I just haven't got the time to read nearly 300 posts to clarify.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Thanks for that!
I'll answer the other questions. No, I don't think they should be barred and as for why they shouldn't, that's should just be the default position when you can't think of any good reason why they should (which I can't).
The only reason I can see is the thinking that sex always somehow more than a purely physical act. We all know it can be deeply emotional at times but it seems like some of us just can't accept that sometimes it's just about laid and there is no love or emotional connection. You meet someone, go to bed with them and move on. If you can do that for free as often as you like, why can't you pay a fee to expedite the process?

I take it then, that seeing as you support sex workers right to work, you must also support their clients right to purchase their service?

I can get that whilst at the same time being in favour of legalising/regulating.

I think that what happens between two consenting adults is fine. If money changes hands, that's fine too. Would I do it? No. Not that I need an emotional connection but rather because I have an image of people who do visit sex workers and I think it's ick.

I realise that's irrational and a bit contradictory.

Sleepy wrote: »

The sex workers themselves are obviously the best source of input for any legislation on their industry, and all of the (ignored) advocacy from that group was against this bill.

Their clients have a clear agenda in wanting to not be criminalised for activity which, while currently something of a grey area in Irish law, is, as I understand it, technically legal so I can see their need for advocacy against such a bill.

The Gardaí would obviously have valuable input to any decision regarding protection of any societal group since they will be the ones tasked with providing that protection on the ground and since they've decades of experience of dealing with the industry and attempting to clean up the results of our current "sweep it under the carpet" approach to prostitution.

What I can't accept is that nuns or feminist groups have any valid input to a conversation on the subject. One group objects on the basis that the organisation which represents their imaginary friend (who was quite friendly with prostitutes if their own source material is to be believed) has told them that prostitution is evil(TM). The other is a subset of a group that hosts such diverse views on sex, porn and prostitution that they are in direct opposition with themselves on the issue and that subset who have been allowed input into this decision tend towards the "all men are evil, PIV (i.e. straight sex) is unnatural and that other women need to be protected from themselves"... :rolleyes:

As taxAHcruel points out, they have the same right to advocacy as anyone else but imo they shouldn't be given any more credence than the flat-earth society. They're co-opting the banner of Feminism, which in turn is co-opting the banner of Equality and are mistakenly, imho, being given the credence of speaking for a movement which enjoys a level of support which is many, many multiples of that of their own.

Sleepy it's untrue to suggest that the opinions of sex workers were ignored by the Justice Committee, they weren't. Anyone who wanted to could have made submissions to the Committee, and anyone who didn't, simply chose not to. There was also the option to petition their local representatives in Government, there were numerous options open to anyone who opposed the bill. There have been numerous campaigns run by numerous advocacy groups for sex workers. TOBL was set up in opposition to TORL, etc, but the thing was - none of these campaigns had any REAL support from what one poster earlier referred to among the general public as "the silent majority".

Well if the majority remain silent on an issue they're apparently opposed to, that allows for the vocal minority to claim THEY represent the opinion of "the silent majority". If people don't speak up, they can hardly complain that legislation is being foisted upon them when they never made their objections known in the first place!

With regard to the idea that this legislation is only being supported by feminists and religious lobby groups, as Grayson points out already - feminists are fairly divided on the issue, and as for any religious motivations - please correct me if I'm wrong, but Sweden is a secular country where there are an equal number of atheists to all the religions combined, and France is a secular country which has already followed the Swedish model, the Netherlands are abandoning what became known as "The Amsterdam Experiment" in favour of the Swedish model. In fact, as I linked to earlier, the EU as a whole has voted to adopt the Swedish model in all member states, including Germany where sex work is currently legal, yet Germany is currently governed by the Christian Democratic Party! If you look at Brazil and Thailand, both deeply religious countries, yet sex work is legal, Spain and Italy - religious countries where sex work is popular and nobody bats an eyelid.

Then we come to Ireland, and as more and more people abandon religion, so too is the sex work industry here suffering from it's own economic downturn (when we were a much more religious country, sex work was a booming underground industry!), and now that Irish society is becoming more enlightened from a religious point of view, more and more people are becoming naturally apathetic to the sex industry. It just doesn't have the same taboo any more which made it exciting and created the demand for it.

It's been mentioned time and again in this thread that if it were legalised and regulated here (definitely not going to happen now anyway!), that it would solve a number of issues. It's all well and good to call for legalisation and regulation to protect sex workers, but that would only protect more affluent sex workers who chose sex work as their profession. It would do nothing for people who engage in sex work to survive, and the Government would have no interest in putting support systems in place for these people when the money isn't even there to provide for essential services to the general public! Where is all this money going to come from to regulate the industry?

It's all well and good to suggest legalising and regulation, as if that'll solve all the problems in the industry overnight, but when you have local residents objecting to a methadone clinic in their area, what do you think are the chances they won't object to a brothel in their neighbourhood?

Before you mention the Australian model, just have a mosey over to the thread where one of the largest retail chains in the country is pulling a video game off the shelves because of it's sexual content! I never thought I'd see it happen in Australia who are world famous for their generally laid back attitude. Look at America which is pretty much run by religious right-wingers - sex work is illegal in most states, yet they are the biggest producers of pornography in the world, and are also notorious for their gun laws.

This is why comparisons with other countries with regard to whatever laws you like, really don't hold up to any real scrutiny.