U.S. politics. thread

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

A 2012 study by Pro Sentret, a help centre for prostitutes in Oslo, Norway, painted a dim view of the situation. The Dangerous Liaisons report found women in the country’s sex trade were still experiencing high levels of violence after the Norwegian sex-purchase law was introduced, and that discrimination against women in prostitution had increased under the legislation.

During the Calgary team’s visit to Sweden, Perry said a street lawyer described prostitution to her as a “wicked problem,” a social policy term for issues so complex they are virtually unsolvable.

“It’s one where there is no right answer, where there are lot of complexities to it, where a lot of people have different perspectives and different views,” Perry said.

“I think every country is experiencing that, and that phrase really does highlight, from a social-development perspective, how difficult this problem really is.”

 

‘Nordic model’ not a quick fix for Canada’s broken sex laws

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/politics/nordic+model+quick+canada+broken+laws/9802719/story.html

[karaddin]

13 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Ah, I see, thanks. Yeah, it does seem strange that just as it looked like we were on the cusp of legalization a few years ago, suddenly we hear a lot about how we must combat human trafficking by cracking down on prostitution. It seems like an excuse for the fake law and order types to keep cracking down on sex workers. And if you argue with them, you are now condoning human trafficking, you horrible person.

Yeah there are big lobbying groups that frame themselves as being anti trafficking but when you dig into what they're doing, its anti sex work and anti sex worker. I don't think its uncommon to find ties to far right groups even when the people in question have a background of feminism - you see the same thing with anti trans pushes (and there is a lot of overlap between anti trans feminists (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist - TERF - and Sex Work Exclusionary Radical Feminist - SWERF). They are so invested in their opposition to certain things that its driven them into the arms (and funding) of the far right.

And the tactic you've described is absolutely what they pull constantly on the subject of sex work and (again) you see the same tactic used with how they smear trans women, "you're for men seeing young girls naked in bathrooms!!!" etc. They use something that all reasonable people will at least claim to be against (the defence of convicted child rapist Cardinal Pell in Aus this week has me somewhat cynical about whether many actually care) and act like it is inextricably linked to the thing they're actually against to make it seem like no one reasonable could disagree with them.

Re: Nordic model and its failures to protect women - Sweden and Norway have both had police operations that are explicitly preying on sex workers to try force them to assist police by doing things like threatening them with reporting their work to their land lord to get them evicted. The failure of this model in the land that gives it a name has not in any way deterred people from pushing it elsewhere though and it was implemented in France a year or two ago and it hasn't gone well -

https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/nicola-mai-calogero-giametta-h-l-ne-le-bail/impact-of-swedish-model-in-france-chronicl

A point raised in there that I missed is that many of the most respectful clients are the most likely to be deterred by it being criminal, so you're impacting the quality of client they see as well.

FOSTA-SESTA has also come up previously in one of these threads and I probably need to dig up studies showing how harmful that has been to both sex workers and minority groups on the internet. I don't remember how much Harris was involved in personally pushing those laws, but voting for them is something to be held against all the Dem candidates that are already in Congress. First link I see on this issue confirming they all voted for it:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/xwb474/2020-presidential-candidates-sex-work-sesta-fosta

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I don't remember how much Harris was involved in personally pushing those laws, but voting for them is something to be held against all the Dem candidates that are already in Congress.

All she did was vote for it like everyone else and put out a statement in support.  Can't find anything more than that.  Which is my problem with this line of attack.  It's a ridiculous standard that would disqualify everybody if applied.

[Kalbear]

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think a more specific comparison would be it's for decriminalization of possession under an ounce - to use weed as an example - but still prosecuting the high-level dealers.

Not if you're going after the johns. If you're just going after pimps? Sure. But going after johns means that you're still harassing all the sex workers to get those people, and they're still defenseless. 

I get the logic behind it, and it somewhat helps sometimes, but it isn't decriminalization. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

All she did was vote for it like everyone else and put out a statement in support.  Can't find anything more than that.  Which is my problem with this line of attack.  It's a ridiculous standard that would disqualify everybody if applied.

I don't see why it's a ridiculous attack. It is something to be held against them. Is it disqualifying? For most people the answer is certainly no. 

Their record should be held up, one way or another, and when they fuck up they should be held responsible. That doesn't mean you can't vote for them. Again, plenty of things to dislike about Obama and Clinton and Clinton, but dislike does not mean ban. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not if you're going after the johns.

Eh, I don't think so.  Going after the johns is a way to get to the pimps, just like going after a low-level dealer is a way to get at their boss, or with organized crime, etc.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

but it isn't decriminalization. 

To be clear, I wasn't saying it is, just using your own language.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see why it's a ridiculous attack. It is something to be held against them. Is it disqualifying? For most people the answer is certainly no. 

It's ridiculous because all it does is attack the whole field.  If that's the case - great!  Good point.  But don't target a single candidate about it, that's not issue advocacy.

[karaddin]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not if you're going after the johns. If you're just going after pimps? Sure. But going after johns means that you're still harassing all the sex workers to get those people, and they're still defenseless. 

I get the logic behind it, and it somewhat helps sometimes, but it isn't decriminalization. 

Even going after pimps is problematic and this is in fact the line of attack that was used in either Sweden or Norway for the police to threaten sex workers with getting them evicted. Definitions of pimping are normally phrased in such a way that allowing a sex worker to rent a place that she's working out of will count the landlord as a pimp if he is aware of the practice, which means that landlords will evict a sex worker rather than risk consequences. And that's only one way it can be a problem, its not the only one.

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's ridiculous because all it does is attack the whole field.  If that's the case - great!  Good point.  But don't target a single candidate about it, that's not issue advocacy.

This is why I wanted to make it clear that I (along with everyone I've seen & would link to) am critical of all of them for supporting this and even more so for seeming to have no interest in looking at the consequences. Being one of the people that proposed the law and drove it through congress would warrant singling out, but simply voting on it is something that they're all guilty of. That really makes it more an opportunity for a new candidate to make a point of distinction on rather than something that can be used to distinguish between current candidates. Having all candidates supporting it will hurt enthusiasm amongst those that care deeply about the issue so its a negative for GOTV.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

This is why I wanted to make it clear that I (along with everyone I've seen & would link to) am critical of all of them for supporting this and even more so for seeming to have no interest in looking at the consequences.

Cool, that's been mostly my point the whole time.

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Being one of the people that proposed the law and drove it through congress would warrant singling out, but simply voting on it is something that they're all guilty of.

Are you saying Harris helped propose the bill?  Because I can find no evidence of that.  Yes, she was one of the cosponsors, but so were, like, 60 other Senators.  Including Booker, Gillibrand, Klobuchar and Brown.  Can't find Sanders or Warren on the list during a quick glance, but here it is.

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Cool, that's been mostly my point the whole time.

Are you saying Harris helped propose the bill?  Because I can find no evidence of that.  Yes, she was one of the cosponsors, but so were, like, 60 other Senators.  Including Booker, Gillibrand, Klobuchar and Brown.  Can't find Sanders or Warren on the list during a quick glance, but here it is.

No, I'm saying if she had then that would be a legitimate criticism of an individual candidate

[DMC]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

No, I'm saying if she had then that would be a legitimate criticism of an individual candidate

Ok.  I'm saying we have no evidence she did, so why talk about it?

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Ok.  I'm saying we have no evidence she did, so why talk about it?

Because I was distinguishing the theoretical criticism from the criticism I was making which was a group one, essentially clarifying my position in the same post I was saying everything else? I wouldn't have made a post just saying that until you asked me what I'd meant.

[illrede]

On 2/27/2019 at 12:55 PM, Fez said:

Gorsuch is extremely conservative, but at least seems honest about it. And on the rare times when his legal views lead to non-Republican outcomes, like the immigration case last year, he seems to stick with his principles.

Gorsuch and Sotomayor seem to be forming a predictable 6th Amendment axis. That's interesting.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Because I was distinguishing the theoretical criticism from the criticism I was making which was a group one, essentially clarifying my position in the same post I was saying everything else? I wouldn't have made a post just saying that until you asked me what I'd meant.

Fair enough, my complaint emanated from things like this:

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

FOSTA-SESTA has also come up previously in one of these threads and I probably need to dig up studies showing how harmful that has been to both sex workers and minority groups on the internet. I don't remember how much Harris was involved in personally pushing those laws, but voting for them is something to be held against all the Dem candidates that are already in Congress.

All I'm saying is there's no reason to single out and conflate Harris specifically with this overall issue, which has definitely been a part of this discussion on these threads going back a few weeks and I have a problem with.

[karaddin]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair enough, my complaint emanated from things like this:

All I'm saying is there's no reason to single out and conflate Harris specifically with this overall issue, which has definitely been a part of this discussion on these threads going back a few weeks and I have a problem with.

Ok I see where our wires got crossed. I mentioned her because that had already been a topic of discussion in the thread and I wanted to tie what I was saying back into that while at the same time making the point that it wasn't a criticism of specifically her - rather its all of them. Ie "I'm not just criticising Harris, I'm criticising all the Dem candidates on this point"

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Then Republicans keep states Dems want like Arizona and North Carolina and win big swing states of Iowa, Ohio, and Florida.  

But the Dems take Texas.

In this scenario the electoral college is something like 316 to 221.  To really hammer the point home, if I change nothing else but flip the three infamous 2016 midwest states back to Trump it's still 270 Dems to 267 GOP. 

I get the appeal - that's why Florida is so hot with all its sexy electoral votes - but if the Dems take Texas they definitely already won Arizona, NC, FL, and probably Iowa and Ohio too.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

I mean, is North Carolina all of the sudden the easier blue pickup than Ohio?  

Yes.  I agree that Texas is trending up while Ohio and Iowa are trending down, but that doesn't mean they aren't about at the same place for 2020.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Why are we not seeing Arizona and North Carolina as maybe better swing states than Ohio today? 

I do see Arizona and NC as better swing states than Ohio.  Not sure who you want to convince, but it ain't me.

4 minutes ago, Triskele said:

lame-ass, old school GOP Mike DeWine

Mike DeWine is pretty much the personification of lame-ass.

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

 

.....

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, karaddin said:

Yeah there are big lobbying groups that frame themselves as being anti trafficking but when you dig into what they're doing, its anti sex work and anti sex worker. I don't think its uncommon to find ties to far right groups even when the people in question have a background of feminism - you see the same thing with anti trans pushes (and there is a lot of overlap between anti trans feminists (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist - TERF - and Sex Work Exclusionary Radical Feminist - SWERF). They are so invested in their opposition to certain things that its driven them into the arms (and funding) of the far right.

And the tactic you've described is absolutely what they pull constantly on the subject of sex work and (again) you see the same tactic used with how they smear trans women, "you're for men seeing young girls naked in bathrooms!!!" etc. They use something that all reasonable people will at least claim to be against (the defence of convicted child rapist Cardinal Pell in Aus this week has me somewhat cynical about whether many actually care) and act like it is inextricably linked to the thing they're actually against to make it seem like no one reasonable could disagree with them.

Re: Nordic model and its failures to protect women - Sweden and Norway have both had police operations that are explicitly preying on sex workers to try force them to assist police by doing things like threatening them with reporting their work to their land lord to get them evicted. The failure of this model in the land that gives it a name has not in any way deterred people from pushing it elsewhere though and it was implemented in France a year or two ago and it hasn't gone well -

https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/nicola-mai-calogero-giametta-h-l-ne-le-bail/impact-of-swedish-model-in-france-chronicl

A point raised in there that I missed is that many of the most respectful clients are the most likely to be deterred by it being criminal, so you're impacting the quality of client they see as well.

FOSTA-SESTA has also come up previously in one of these threads and I probably need to dig up studies showing how harmful that has been to both sex workers and minority groups on the internet. I don't remember how much Harris was involved in personally pushing those laws, but voting for them is something to be held against all the Dem candidates that are already in Congress. First link I see on this issue confirming they all voted for it:

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/xwb474/2020-presidential-candidates-sex-work-sesta-fosta

You know I think it should be noted the only short of trafficking most of these people ever mention is that of women. Pressumeably straight. There's never really a word about the young boys sexually trafficked or abused in the proffesion. I realize the majority of sex-work is done by females but I don't know I think there's a layer of homophobia to which causes this particular part of the issue unaddressed. 

[ThinkerX]

To me, the whole 'sex worker' discussion here is a ethical quagmire - especially when contrasted against the posters views here of the Kavanagh fiasco a few months ago, which also involved sex.

I am also reminded of my days driving the 'service van' - many of the regular riders were women with sexual and drug abuse issues - which seemed to go hand in hand.  Many of those long ago riders, were, in my view, semi-functional at best in normal society as a result of all this.  This view was reinforced by substantial time spent on a Christian site, part of which was dedicated to those seeking redemption from time spent in the sex trade.  (that part of the site was barely even secondary to my interests at the time, but there was a 'bleed-over' effect that prompted me to take an occasional look at the public posts.  More recently, there is the neighbor gal who I'm reliably told 'has five men paying her bills' - and is regarded as utterly pathetic.     

 

Or...there are severe ethical issues even with those voluntarily in the sex business, and even for those, there is a real danger of drug addiction and physical abuse.  To not acknowledge this is idiocy.