"new law"

[xsierrax]

Hello. Have read a few threads here regarding the new law. After spending a half an hour or so browsing online i am still a little unclear. Is this new law in place yet?And if or when it is in place is it illegal to visit an escort? Considering you pay for time and sexual services are in no way guarenteed?

Sorry if im creating repeat threads i can see threads regarding the new law but details seem flaky. Or the threads are simply angry discussions about the new law

[Davidontour]

This law is currently only in place in Northern Ireland. It doesn't apply to the South or to anywhere else in the UK and was recently rejected by both Westminster and the Scottish Assembly. Despite what you may have heard, the law isn't about coercive trafficking, rather a disapproval of sex work in general.

The law doesn't make it illegal to visit an escort, but it does criminalise the purchase of sex. How this can actually be proved remains unclear.

[nonpareil]

In place in NI since June 1st. No word of any prosecution yet.
Not law in the South yet but a bill containing it has been prepared .It has yet to pass through the Oireachtas/Dail and then to be signed into law This will be many months away, could even be next year so no change yet in Republic of Ireland.
All party support so law will come, payment for sexual services will be outlawed, including non cash payments such as professionals/tradesmen doing work for" favours
"Difficult to see how to bring a prosecution unless through self confession or an escort being squeezed to testify.
When it comes probably biggest effect it will have is to put the wind up and frighten off some clients and to perhaps cause some escorts to re- evaluate staying in lreland.
These may be the intended effects.
No change in law in South yet nor will there be for quite some time to come.
Since June 1st in North, but just more care and discretion needed there I suppose.

[td1]

@ Xsierrax: I had been thinking same myself, tks for throwing up the question.


It does make it more clear with the replies from Nonpareil & Davidontour.


But like everything in Ireland of late, the "haters" will have something else to agree on when this bill is eventually passed.

They should campaign to make it safer for workers, not the opposite.

[The Libertarian]

@ Xsierrax: I had been thinking same myself, tks for throwing up the question.


It does make it more clear with the replies from Nonpareil & Davidontour.


But like everything in Ireland of late, the "haters" will have something else to agree on when this bill is eventually passed.

They should campaign to make it safer for workers, not the opposite.

The main purpose behind the bill for its supporters are to make life hell on earth for sex workers, get funding for some of the prominent NGO who are proposing and penalize working class male punters, who are the only men who will ever be prosecuted under it.
It can only cause harm!
And it will eventually be overturned, even if it's 19 years down the road!

[Davidontour]

@ Xsierrax: I had been thinking same myself, tks for throwing up the question.


It does make it more clear with the replies from Nonpareil & Davidontour.


But like everything in Ireland of late, the "haters" will have something else to agree on when this bill is eventually passed.

They should campaign to make it safer for workers, not the opposite.

The 'haters' are a bizarre mix of religionists, opportunistic NGOs, naive do-gooders and a relatively small but noisy brand of feminism.

All are wrong -- the biblical Jesus had more time and sympathy for sex workers than he had for money lenders and pharisees, NGO funding will gradually dry up as the mythical hordes of the coercively trafficked continue to fail to appear, the do-gooders will have to face the reality that most sex workers want rights not rescue and swerfs will have to accept that silencing and denying women the choice to earn money as they choose is in fact the opposite of what feminism is about.

The aim of some is to 'stamp out prostitution', an aim just as realistic as alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs. Thus the likes of Sweden come up with novel ideas which are simply a variation on the failed century-old prohibition policies in the US.

Rather than pissing money up the wall chasing consenting adults and trying to 'rescue' people who want to be left alone, governments should be looking at New Zealand, where decriminalisation 12 years ago has proved highly successful.

[The Libertarian]

The 'haters' are a bizarre mix of religionists, opportunistic NGOs, naive do-gooders and a relatively small but noisy brand of feminism.

All are wrong -- the biblical Jesus had more time and sympathy for sex workers than he had for money lenders and pharisees, NGO funding will gradually dry up as the mythical hordes of the coercively trafficked continue to fail to appear, the do-gooders will have to face the reality that most sex workers want rights not rescue and swerfs will have to accept that silencing and denying women the choice to earn money as they choose is in fact the opposite of what feminism is about.

The aim of some is to 'stamp out prostitution', an aim just as realistic as alcohol prohibition and the war on drugs. Thus the likes of Sweden come up with novel ideas which are simply a variation on the failed century-old prohibition policies in the US.

Rather than pissing money up the wall chasing consenting adults and trying to 'rescue' people who want to be left alone, governments should be looking at New Zealand, where decriminalisation 12 years ago has proved highly successful.

Let us not forget to credit as a hater within the group - cynical asshole politicians (indeed some who have with their attitude on this issue e.g. realistically proposing to legally equate anyone, who downloads sites auch as EI with child molesters downloading scenes of children being raped and abused, have serious psychiatric issues!)!

[Davidontour]

Let us not forget to credit as a hater within the group - cynical asshole politicians (indeed some who have with their attitude on this issue e.g. realistically proposing to legally equate anyone, who downloads sites auch as EI with child molesters downloading scenes of children being raped and abused, have serious psychiatric issues!)!

In the North at least, the political force driving this was basically religious zealotry. Coercive sex trafficking barely exists in NI, something the likes of the DUP are well aware of, but are happy to lie to their electorate in pursuit of their puritanical sexual agenda. In Canada, at least they were prepared to admit this is about ''getting rid of prostitution'', or more realistically, making life much more difficult for sex workers in the hope that they'll leave and get a minimum wage job or better still, leave the country.

Aside from the NI bill's proponents, the most notable traits were ignorance and hypocrisy. How SF for instance can pretend to be a left-wing party supporting immigrants and workers rights, while siding with DUP zealotry to deny those rights and to limit personal choice, is one very special kind of hypocrisy even by their standards.

As generally happens on sexual matters, Britain has a much more grown up and realistic approach, while Irish legislators prefer to listen to the voices of prejudice, ignorance and Magdalene linked lobby groups.