Legalising Brothels

[audiotech]

Like everything under capitalism the relationship is exploitative, whether illegal, or not, but with any illegal market, this exploitation is intensified. So, radical reforms are needed urgently in the area of prostition and I go along with the ideas of this work being made safer - safer than it is today.

 

[detective-boy]

SO that is you doing what you denied in another post earlier on today - that you do not create or judge what is crime!!

Understanding and applying the law as it stands and assessing whether or not there is likely to be any change in the current position, is NOT creating or judging what is a crime. If the evidence is there and the law appears to say it may be a crime it is the police's job to submit the facts to the CPS. They decide whether or not to put it before the Courts. The Courts decide whether to change or extend the case law.

 

[detective-boy]

Tricky, in practice, I guess.

Very. It's sort of done by discretionary enforcement at present (pimp type operations being targetted whilst discreet collective-type affairs attracting no complaints from neighbours, etc. being left to their own devices) but that is not really a satisfactory permanent answer.

 

[The Black Hand]

Understanding and applying the law as it stands and assessing whether or not there is likely to be any change in the current position, is NOT creating or judging what is a crime. If the evidence is there and the law appears to say it may be a crime it is the police's job to submit the facts to the CPS. They decide whether or not to put it before the Courts. The Courts decide whether to change or extend the case law.

As i said it is creating and judging what is crime. No amount of twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing can say otherwise.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Registering and licencing brothels might be effective harm reduction - it seems that way - but as other people have said before in this thread, it's all very hypocritical isn't it? People saying "oh well I would never do that or let my children do that but for other people, eh, let's do some harm reduction but not actually look at why they're in that position in the first place". It's like campaigning for safety guards on the sweatshop machines but being quite happy with the sweatshops. For other people.

 

[The Black Hand]

Registering and licencing brothels might be effective harm reduction - it seems that way - but as other people have said before in this thread, it's all very hypocritical isn't it? People saying "oh well I would never do that or let my children do that but for other people, eh, let's do some harm reduction but not actually look at why they're in that position in the first place". It's like campaigning for safety guards on the sweatshop machines but being quite happy with the sweatshops. For other people.

But utopia isn't going to happen tomorrow, well last time i looked it wasn't anyway

 

[FridgeMagnet]

But utopia isn't going to happen tomorrow, well last time i looked it wasn't anyway

It's not exactly unreasonable to expect people who claim to be concerned about the experience of people falling into low-wage, exploitative, dehumanising jobs that as well as they talk about making their conditions better while they're doing those jobs, they also look at how they can avoid being in that position in the first place.

 

[The Black Hand]

It's not exactly unreasonable to expect people who claim to be concerned about the experience of people falling into low-wage, exploitative, dehumanising jobs that as well as they talk about making their conditions better while they're doing those jobs, they also look at how they can avoid being in that position in the first place.

you have added your own 'hypocrisy' to rage against. The issue is ONLY should we improve safety standards this side of the revolution, and I think we should try to.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The issue is only that? What is it that means the economic position of sex workers shouldn't be looked at just like anyone else's? Everyone needs safety, but there are issues beyond that to look at.

 

[CyberRose]

Like everything under capitalism the relationship is exploitative, whether illegal, or not, but with any illegal market, this exploitation is intensified. So, radical reforms are needed urgently in the area of prostition and I go along with the ideas of this work being made safer - safer than it is today.

And if legalising brothels led to the increase in illegal brothels? The increase in child brothels? The increase in people trafficking to meet the increased demand?

And nobody seems to answer my question over who exactly runs these 'legal' brothels? People seem adamant that it will be current prostitutes that work in them, so why would anyone assume that the people running them would not be the same pimps that have built up their power and fortunes controlling these women? They just gonna go into retirement or summat?!

 

[audiotech]

And if legalising brothels led to the increase in illegal brothels? The increase in child brothels? The increase in people trafficking to meet the increased demand?

And nobody seems to answer my question over who exactly runs these 'legal' brothels? People seem adamant that it will be current prostitutes that work in them, so why would anyone assume that the people running them would not be the same pimps that have built up their power and fortunes controlling these women? They just gonna go into retirement or summat?!

I'm not calling for legalisation as such, but rather some form of regulation, with reference to safety for the women involved.

.

 

[Gmart]

How would they be safer? I've asked this question over and over again and nobody answers it other than to give simplistic and ill thought out replies like "they can call the police" "the brothel will be inspected". Well they can already call the police. Please tell me who you think will run legal brothels? Please tell me why women will be able to call the police when brothels are legal if they can't call them now when they are illegal?

Because the police have no duty to come running because it is an illegal act. Running a brothel is illegal, and so they have no duty to come running, because they would be obliged to close it down.

On the contrary, before I had my eyes opened to this subject by people who had actually conducted intensive research (women's rights organisations etc) I had the same opinion as you, that legalised brothels was the only way forward. However, their research showed that legalising brothels increases demand (and therefore illegal prostitution), increases people trafficking and does not improve the conditions/safety of prostitutes working in legal brothels, let alone the increased number of prostitutes working illegally.

Sure it would expand the market maybe even more than the existing black market moving into the white industry, but so what?? If the industry became just brothels, then the workers would have the same rights as any other worker and we would be able to start dealing with the spread of disease and adult education for the workers. Once the imminent danger has been reduced we can look at the possible solutions to poverty.

I'm sorry but who are all these prostitutes? The ones the WI found to interview?! You show me the "prostitute public survey of 1000 randomly chosen prostitutes"!

I'll do better than that here...

Do these prostitutes you mention have access to the results of the research conducted on the subject? Do the Filipinos or the Russians have access to data showing how many more of them will be trafficked to countries that legalise prostitution?

Why would trafficking increase if it were legal in registered brothels - quite the contrary; being in the white economy would make it impossible to employ women without the requisite National Insurance documents etc, thus leading to less trafficking. If the supply of people who wish to work in these industries is low then the amount offered will rise until more wish to come here and work.

Your solution will make things worse, and that has been proven in studies conducted. There is no reason, like drug addicts, why we can't offer them protection and assistance right now without resorting to legalising the trade, it just takes effort and will.

So that's your answer; more of the same but we need to try just that little bit harder! At what point do you start listening to the workers? When they are murdered on the street or before?

These workers deserve a little bit more than that. The current system evidently doesn't work because of all the things which have been accurately listed here. But when the workers are shouting for the law to change, we have a duty to listen, NOT to turn round and ignore their pleas as if we somehow know better. How arrogant can you get?

This is Labour thru and thru - treat people like animals who need to be controlled. Don't listen to them coz they might not say the right thing. How irritating it must have been to hear those girls on the programme go on about their right to do what they wish with their own bodies.

You suggest that the numbers would be high of people who do not wish to be in the industry, well fine, they will leave the industry if they wish. I support better adult education (who doesn't), yet the freedom they would have to leave a pimp situation would be better.

Maybe you dismiss them as wrong at least or maybe mentally ill at worst. Probably best to lock them all up in prison since they refuse to behave...

 

[Gmart]

The increase in child brothels?

And nobody seems to answer my question over who exactly runs these 'legal' brothels?

Child brothels is hardly the point, very rare I would say, but certainly illegal, and certainly not consenting adults.

And who cares if the pimps start running the businesses. They will have to respect the workers rights and pay minimum wage and pay tax, the same as any other business.

 

[CyberRose]

Because the police have no duty to come running because it is an illegal act. Running a brothel is illegal, and so they have no duty to come running, because they would be obliged to close it down.

Exactly! So why don't they call the police when you've just listed all the positive effects that calling the police would have? It's because they're scared stiff of their pimps. That fear would remain as the pimps would remain, only if brothels were legalised the police couldn't touch them

Sure it would expand the market maybe even more than the existing black market moving into the white industry, but so what?? If the industry became just brothels, then the workers would have the same rights as any other worker and we would be able to start dealing with the spread of disease and adult education for the workers. Once the imminent danger has been reduced we can look at the possible solutions to poverty.

But it won't be "just (legal) brothels" will it? There'll be a big increase in the amount of illegal brothels. 80% of London's prostitutes are foreign, and probably illegal immigrants - they could never work in "legal" brothels so right there we have a massive amount of prostitutes that could not be "saved" by your solution

I'll do better than that here...

Erm ok and how many prostitutes do they represent exactly?

Why would trafficking increase if it were legal in registered brothels - quite the contrary; being in the white economy would make it impossible to employ women without the requisite National Insurance documents etc, thus leading to less trafficking. If the supply of people who wish to work in these industries is low then the amount offered will rise until more wish to come here and work.

There are a number of reasons why foreign prostitutes are "better" than British ones, namely because they are easier to control and more desirable to the punters. Like I said above, 80% of London's prostitutes are foreign and will not be able to work in legalised brothels even if they were introduced

So that's your answer; more of the same but we need to try just that little bit harder! At what point do you start listening to the workers? When they are murdered on the street or before?

There needs to be more protection and more assistance, would you not agree?

These workers deserve a little bit more than that. The current system evidently doesn't work because of all the things which have been accurately listed here. But when the workers are shouting for the law to change, we have a duty to listen, NOT to turn round and ignore their pleas as if we somehow know better. How arrogant can you get?

I'm not the one wilfully ignoring evidence from those who know a damn sight more about the situation than you or me

This is Labour thru and thru - treat people like animals who need to be controlled. Don't listen to them coz they might not say the right thing. How irritating it must have been to hear those girls on the programme go on about their right to do what they wish with their own bodies.

Again, you're under the impression women in the sex trade actually enjoy it and chose to do it (on the back of a middle class WI documentary!). The majority of prostitutes have a drug addiction which is why they become prostitutes, some choice right?

You suggest that the numbers would be high of people who do not wish to be in the industry, well fine, they will leave the industry if they wish.

This is either extreme naivety or just plain dumb. But again, it suggests you think most women chose or enjoy being a prostitute. It's wrong, sexist and a complete insult to the vast majority of women find themselves in this sorry situation

I support better adult education (who doesn't), yet the freedom they would have to leave a pimp situation would be better.

How would their freedom to leave the pimp be any better? Surely it would be worse?

Maybe you dismiss them as wrong at least or maybe mentally ill at worst. Probably best to lock them all up in prison since they refuse to behave...

Yes, that's right. I think prostitutes do it because they are mentally ill. Well I suppose it's an improvement on you thinking they do it cos they love shagging so much

And who cares if the pimps start running the businesses. They will have to respect the workers rights and pay minimum wage and pay tax, the same as any other business.

Laugh out fucking loud! You're unbelievable you really are! Who cares if pimps run the business?! I can't believe you even said that! But what's more amazing is your belief that pimps will start abiding by your proposed new laws when they're not even capable of abiding by the much much much stricter laws we have today! Jesus wept!

 

[Gmart]

So why don't they call the police when you've just listed all the positive effects that calling the police would have? It's because they're scared stiff of their pimps. That fear would remain as the pimps would remain, only if brothels were legalised the police couldn't touch them

If any worker is being physically attacked by their boss, they have recourse to the police. They don't call them now for fear of being closed down and their pimps. This fear is maintained by the prohibition you support.

You assume there would be an increase in illegal brothels, but why would this be? Given a choice between a safe, clean, regulated environment guaranteed free of disease, and an illegal (if slightly cheaper) establishment with trafficked women in fear for their lives, Punters would pay the extra for the lack of hassle and to ensure that they don't infect their partners (if any).

In the report below only 4.3% report being forced into it. And though that is a legalised industry this just shows the effectiveness of legalisation.

A further quote from the report below:

Contrary to popular perception, only 16.7% reported working to support alcohol or drug usage, whereas 82.3% reported they needed the money to pay for household expenses.

And that's including alcohol!!

Erm ok and how many prostitutes do they represent exactly?

Erm indeed! How are you gonna explain this away? Hope that the numbers are not large enough to be convincing? How many would convince you? If you are not convinced by the New Zealand example (see below), one can only assume that you are not particularly interested in what works.

Is your priority women safety, or your view of how the world 'should' be morally?

You state that foreign pros are easier to control, presumably because their status would be as illegal workers. Yet legal brothels would enable punters to choose to avoid such establishments and they would go out of business. Why on earth would men want to run the greater risks with an illegal establishment?

I'm not the one willfully ignoring evidence from those who know a damn sight more about the situation than you or me

You seem reluctant to accept that the link I gave. Since you claim you are not willfully ignoring such evidence, perhaps you could tell me why you do not accept their conclusions? Or, if you prefer, read the report below chaired by a former assistance police commissioner and comment on that.

The majority of prostitutes have a drug addiction which is why they become prostitutes, some choice right?

Look lets cut this bullshit right now. We both know that some are forced into it, and some do it because it is easier money than the alternative. Assuming that they are all drug addicts is just not realistic (and the report below puts the figure at 17%). There are drug addicts in all walks of life. That is an argument for more addiction help, not an argument to get rid of their job for their own good.

How would their freedom to leave the pimp be any better? Surely it would be worse?

Why would going from a position where you cannot call the police because they would close you down, to a position where you can, worsen their freedom to leave an abusive relationship? You are just not being logical.

Laugh out fucking loud! You're unbelievable you really are! Who cares if pimps run the business?! I can't believe you even said that!

If they are brought into the white economy, they would have to pay tax. At the moment they are just shadowy figures who take advantage of the prohibition you support. Take that away and their prostitutes would slowly move from them towards legal establishments with bosses who respect their workers, (with the help of the police). See the report below.

There needs to be more protection and more assistance, would you not agree?

And how would we give them more protection? By enabling them to turn to the organisation everyone else turns to in such circumstances; the police.

My aim is to maximise the safety of the workers. Street walkers have the least safety and the majority of demand is there due to the lack of legalised, safe brothels. Organise them and the demand on the street will be reduced dramatically. And with legal brothels providing safe employment for the workers the supply of street walkers would also go down.

It might be morally repugnant for you and many others to accept, but if your priority is the safety of the worker, then legalisation along the lines of the New Zealand model is the only way forward.

This report is based on studies by the Christchurch School of Medicine and Victoria University’s Crime and Justice Research Centre, and the committee is chaired by a former assistance police commissioner.

 

[belboid]

Typical ultra leftist who can't find entertainment in anything.

you think prostitution is/should be 'entertainment'?? that it should be trivialised and made into a joke?

cunt.

 

[belboid]

And your evidence for this ridiculous claim is ...

everyone knows its true - it is why your missus left you, after all

 

[belboid]

They don't actually. Every force area with street prostitution gets pressurised into doing something about it by local residents. There is a national ACPO-led campaign relating to trafficked women being abused by brothel owners across the country. You're talking bollocks.

so, actually you are agreeing that the police ignore it until they are pressurised into doing something. Then they do a quick raid, and then ignore it again. You are the one talking bollocks pig boy.

 

[untethered]

So you are not interested in improving peoples' welfare now and today?

We could improve most prostitutes' welfare by bringing in a strictly-enforced law on the customers that would lead to a massive drop in trade.

Of course, there would necessarily be a period in which the workers would be encouraged and helped if necessary to find alternative work.

Not only is your position a counsel of despair, but I doubt you have the motivation or the courage to challenge the sex industry at its most fundamental level, which is to say that sex work is wrong and the state should and will do whatever it can to reduce the amount of sex work.

 

[Gmart]

you think prostitution is/should be 'entertainment'?? that it should be trivialised and made into a joke?

cunt.

This report is based on studies by the Christchurch School of Medicine and Victoria University’s Crime and Justice Research Centre, and the committee is chaired by a former assistance police commissioner.

I suggest Belboid that you read the study above and comment on that rather than attacking others here.

It makes for a more constructive discussion and has the advantage of not being a fallacy.

 

[Gmart]

We could improve most prostitutes' welfare by bringing in a strictly-enforced law on the customers that would lead to a massive drop in trade.

More authoritarianism seems to be your only suggestion. I suggest YOU read the report above as well...

 

[Gmart]

sex work is wrong and the state should and will do whatever it can to reduce the amount of sex work.

This is only YOUR point of view, and the government has to place moralising for its population. It is there to maximise the safety of its population.

 

[belboid]

And nobody seems to answer my question over who exactly runs these 'legal' brothels? People seem adamant that it will be current prostitutes that work in them, so why would anyone assume that the people running them would not be the same pimps that have built up their power and fortunes controlling these women? They just gonna go into retirement or summat?!

actually this point WAS covered, albeit briefly, in a few posts earlier in the thread. The ones which talked of support for the New Zealand strategy,which supports Small Owner Operated (SOO) brothels. Places where there are, by definition, no pimps, and where there are no trafficked women.

These have been running for a few years now, and, as yet at least, there is NO evidence of an increase in trafficking, child prostitution or prostitution generally.

You keep quoting the report from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women as if it was the only womens group who had ever written anything on the area - fact is they are far from the only group to do such research, and plenty of others have found that there would be distinct benefits from a (correctly done) legalisation. The CATW obviously offer serious and important evidence, but dont pretend they are telling the be all and end all, or that there research equals simple 'proof' - it does nothing of the kind.

 

[belboid]

I suggest Belboid that you read the study above and comment on that rather than attacking others here.

It makes for a more constructive discussion and has the advantage of not being a fallacy.

I've read it already actually, oh patronising one. And it makes no difference whatsoever to the fact that Attica is a fucking idiot joker. What connection dopes your post have to mine? Naff all as far as I can see.

 

[untethered]

More authoritarianism seems to be your only suggestion. I suggest YOU read the report above as well...

I've read the summary.

I still don't see why I should be attracted to a scheme that makes it easier for women to persist in work which causes them massive psychological damage and subjects them to considerable physical and medical risks, even if those risks are marginally lesser than they would be otherwise.

Now either you think that prostitution "isn't really that bad" or you think that while prostitution is that bad, people should have the freedom to participate if they want.

I'd dispute both of those.

 

[Louloubelle]

The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women don't want prostitution to be legalised, as do many other women's rights organisations. The article above from the Guardian is a pretty good argument why. The CATW have produced a number of articles on the subject of legalising prostitution, one of which contains 10 reasons why it would be a bad idea:



That article, and some of the others, can be found here: http://action.web.ca/home/catw/readingroom.shtml?x=81465

I agree completely that prostitution should not be legalized. Decriminalization is completely different to legalization and I see no logic behind lumping the 2 entirely different systems together.

All of the problems that are listed in your link are hugely relevant to legalisation but not to decriminalisation at all and the credibility of the The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women seems to be to be compromised by this very serious misunderstanding

 

[untethered]

This is only YOUR point of view, and the government has to place moralising for its population. It is there to maximise the safety of its population.

Isn't the safety of the population best maximised by making it difficult for people to do a job that involves having sex with dozens of people a day? That is in no sense a safe activity.

 

[CyberRose]

If any worker is being physically attacked by their boss, they have recourse to the police. They don't call them now for fear of being closed down and their pimps. This fear is maintained by the prohibition you support.

But as I understand from others in this thread, prostitution in this country is decriminalised, meaning they can call the police, free from the fear of prosecution themselves...yet they don't

You assume there would be an increase in illegal brothels, but why would this be? Given a choice between a safe, clean, regulated environment guaranteed free of disease, and an illegal (if slightly cheaper) establishment with trafficked women in fear for their lives, Punters would pay the extra for the lack of hassle and to ensure that they don't infect their partners (if any).

While I would find it difficult to answer the question of punters' preferences, the fact that 80% of London's prostitutes are foreign women suggests there is a market for them, or there are not enough British prostitutes to meet demand. That suggests that only 20% of current London prostitutes would benefit from your proposal and if, as the evidence suggests, people trafficking would increase, then will that 20% outweigh the extra foreign prostitutes trafficked into this country?

In the report below only 4.3% report being forced into it. And though that is a legalised industry this just shows the effectiveness of legalisation.

A further quote from the report below:

And that's including alcohol!!

That report is based on New Zealand and therefore does not help understand the situation in the UK. In the UK, the majority of prostitutes are so because they have a drug addiction.

Erm indeed! How are you gonna explain this away? Hope that the numbers are not large enough to be convincing? How many would convince you? If you are not convinced by the New Zealand example (see below), one can only assume that you are not particularly interested in what works.

Actually I was wondering if they are prostitutes (ie that makes up their membership) or whether they just represent them? I'm also not sure whether they do support legalised brothels from reading their stuff? They appear to oppose their introduction (altho that could be a certain type of legalised brothel?). Anyway, their website is all over the place, they provide little substantial research (and none of their own) and it seems like you just did a quick Google search for a contradictory organisation and that's the best that came up...

Is your priority women safety, or your view of how the world 'should' be morally?

Ah I was wondering when this little accusation was gonna be aimed at me! This has nothing to do with morals, it has everything to do with protecting the rights of oppressed women, so nice try but next time try harder...

You state that foreign pros are easier to control, presumably because their status would be as illegal workers. Yet legal brothels would enable punters to choose to avoid such establishments and they would go out of business. Why on earth would men want to run the greater risks with an illegal establishment?

I'm glad you are as unable to answer than question as I am

The fact is, the demand for foreign women is much much higher than for British women, as evidence by the 80% London prostitutes fact. If demand = 100% then following legalisation you would have to assume that 80% would still be working illegally and in conditions that match. I think legalisation would open up prostitution to a whole new clientèle - I know people who have been to Amsterdam and had sex with prostitutes who would never ever have dreamt of doing it were it illegal. It would be viewed not much different than going to a lap dancing club for a stag night or birthday. So imho, demand would increase and the "industry" would need to find the workers to accommodate that demand, and if they can't satisfy it with British workers, they will look abroad. That, imo, will lead to an increase in people trafficking

You seem reluctant to accept that the link I gave. Since you claim you are not willfully ignoring such evidence, perhaps you could tell me why you do not accept their conclusions? Or, if you prefer, read the report below chaired by a former assistance police commissioner and comment on that.

But the link you provided didn't actually provide any evidence did it? It gave their opinion. As for the report in New Zealand/I], I'm not sure of its relevance to the UK when there are stated facts that I know do not apply to the UK (such as the drugs % and people trafficking comment)

Look lets cut this bullshit right now. We both know that some are forced into it, and some do it because it is easier money than the alternative. Assuming that they are all drug addicts is just not realistic (and the report below puts the figure at 17%). There are drug addicts in all walks of life. That is an argument for more addiction help, not an argument to get rid of their job for their own good.

I support decriminalising prostitutes, but I do not support the legalisation of buying sex, big difference. I also support much more help for prostitutes, and addiction treatment would form part of that help. But the 17% addiction figure does not relate to the UK, it is New Zealand's figure. According to Fiona MacTaggart MP, the figure in the UK is 95%. So, in future, please don't accuse me of bullshit without checking the facts for yourself...

Why would going from a position where you cannot call the police because they would close you down, to a position where you can, worsen their freedom to leave an abusive relationship? You are just not being logical.

Considering the fact they don't want to be there in the first place, despite your protestations they enjoy it and choose to do it, they won't get arrested if they call the police themselves as I am of the impression from other posters here that prostitution is not an offence for the woman. The point is, they can call the police and have the pimp arrested for being a pimp, if pimping were legalised, which is what you're supporting, then there is less scope for the police to make arrests. The fact is, the women are terrified of calling the police on their pimps, and would remain terrified when pimping isn't even illegal any more.

If they are brought into the white economy, they would have to pay tax. At the moment they are just shadowy figures who take advantage of the prohibition you support. Take that away and their prostitutes would slowly move from them towards legal establishments with bosses who respect their workers, (with the help of the police). See the report below.

No. Many many foreign women would not be able to more to legal brothels. And your assumption is that prostitutes would be free to leave their pimps - well they're free now aren't they? Yet they don't. You cannot answer why that is because that will be admitting that legalisation will change nothing in the lives of prostitutes

And how would we give them more protection? By enabling them to turn to the organisation everyone else turns to in such circumstances; the police.

Among other things yes. They should be given sheltered, protected accommodation where they can wean themselves off drugs and receive eduction to make something of their lives

My aim is to maximise the safety of the workers. Street walkers have the least safety and the majority of demand is there due to the lack of legalised, safe brothels. Organise them and the demand on the street will be reduced dramatically. And with legal brothels providing safe employment for the workers the supply of street walkers would also go down.

You think legalising will decrease demand!?

It might be morally repugnant for you and many others to accept, but if your priority is the safety of the worker, then legalisation along the lines of the New Zealand model is the only way forward.

Here we go again with the "moral" smears. The New Zealand obviously isn't the "only way forward" as Sweden has proved. The stats from New Zealand simply do not compare to the UK.

This report is based on studies by the Christchurch School of Medicine and Victoria University’s Crime and Justice Research Centre, and the committee is chaired by a former assistance police commissioner.

17% of addicts compared to 95% in the UK suggests many more people in the UK have little or no choice about becoming a prostitute than in New Zealand. That report also states there is "no link" between prostitution and people trafficking. Now I don't even think you could say that were true in the UK (I doubt that even in New Zealand). If there is no issue of people trafficking for prostitution in New Zealand that takes away even more credibility for using that report to assess the situation in the UK as there clearly IS a very very strong link between prostitution and people trafficking here, and if the New Zealand model is not tested against that then I fail to see how you can claim it is the "only way forward"...

 

[CyberRose]

I agree completely that prostitution should not be legalized. Decriminalization is completely different to legalization and I see no logic behind lumping the 2 entirely different systems together.

All of the problems that are listed in your link are hugely relevant to legalisation but not to decriminalisation at all and the credibility of the The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women seems to be to be compromised by this very serious misunderstanding

That's true, I don't support the criminalisation of prostitutes, what does that achieve? Nothing. But as you say, legalising is a different kettle of fish, but the CATW knows this as well:

In countries where women are criminalized for prostitution activities, it is crucial to advocate for the decriminalization of the women in prostitution. No woman should be punished for her own exploitation. But States should never decriminalize pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or other sex establishments.

They do support decriminalisation but only for the actual women, they seem to be under the impression that some people define decriminalisation as akin to what me and you would define legalisation, so that's the reason they use "legalisation/decriminalisation" so not really much to criticise them really and it doesn't compromise their credibility as they explain the terms they use and why

 

[Gmart]

Isn't the safety of the population best maximised by making it difficult for people to do a job that involves having sex with dozens of people a day? That is in no sense a safe activity.

I don't see how handing an entire industry over to the black economy makes it safer. Indeed the resultant inability to screen for diseases and the resultant lack of power given to the workers means quite the opposite.

I'd dispute both of those.

I find your good and bad division simplistic, and avoiding of the true issue which is safety through empowerment.

I would suggest that you are letting your own disgust blind you to the dangers your solution maintains.