"new law"

[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.

[Empirical]

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.

I find this lying about things a very disturbing trait among "antis". Not just "anti sex", but antis in general. Those opposed to abortion are quite capable of using entirely false statistics and false ideas—"post-abortion syndrome"—and how abortion leads to sterility (it doesn't) or breast cancer (it doesn't) and whatever. There are too many stories about nuns saying that condoms are pierced so they don't prevent conception to be disbelieved. And even "anti vaxxers"—those Americans in particular who are against vaccination against infectious diseases—are quite capable of inventing myths and stories about things that simply don't exist. A recent one was the use of the preservative thiomersal in some vaccines, claiming it caused autism. There wasn't any thiomersal in these vaccines.

Antis are certainly entitled their point of view: but why do they find it so necessary to lie? Are they totally deluded? Are their arguments so weak that they allow delusions? What is wrong with them?

And yet, I don't think I've ever seen anything "pro", whether pro-abortion or pro-choice, or pro vaccination, or pro sex work that contains downright lies.

[The Libertarian]

I find this lying about things a very disturbing trait among "antis". Not just "anti sex", but antis in general. Those opposed to abortion are quite capable of using entirely false statistics and false ideas—"post-abortion syndrome"—and how abortion leads to sterility (it doesn't) or breast cancer (it doesn't) and whatever. There are too many stories about nuns saying that condoms are pierced so they don't prevent conception to be disbelieved. And even "anti vaxxers"—those Americans in particular who are against vaccination against infectious diseases—are quite capable of inventing myths and stories about things that simply don't exist. A recent one was the use of the preservative thiomersal in some vaccines, claiming it caused autism. There wasn't any thiomersal in these vaccines.

Antis are certainly entitled their point of view: but why do they find it so necessary to lie? Are they totally deluded? Are their arguments so weak that they allow delusions? What is wrong with them?

And yet, I don't think I've ever seen anything "pro", whether pro-abortion or pro-choice, or pro vaccination, or pro sex work that contains downright lies.

We all know that part of the big push behind the sex worker hating laws is to open new revenue streams for some of the big Torler groups in times when NGOs have been exposed as existing largely for their CEO's arse pockets, Government funding decreasing and donations from ordinary folks subjected to insane austerity have dried up! But apart from a money grab the one issue that will divide the Religious Torler orgs of this world from Rad Fem orgs is abortion, (well lesbian rights as well!), one will try to force through the notion that abortion is always wrong even when a woman's life is in danger or if she has been raped, the other quite simply have a frothing at the mouth lust for abortion, which is completely inconsistent as they are putting forward the notion that while a woman has total and complete abortion rights, that same woman is to feeble minded or to much a victim of oppression/stockholm syndrome to consent to have sex with a consenting adult male for a direct consideration!
Actually to further add to the insanity some religious orgs would probably support the abortion of gay foetuses, if nan appropriate genetic test was available, which would ironically get rid of a lot of future frothing at the mouth rad fems!

[Davidontour]

I find this lying about things a very disturbing trait among "antis". Not just "anti sex", but antis in general. Those opposed to abortion are quite capable of using entirely false statistics and false ideas—"post-abortion syndrome"—and how abortion leads to sterility (it doesn't) or breast cancer (it doesn't) and whatever. There are too many stories about nuns saying that condoms are pierced so they don't prevent conception to be disbelieved. And even "anti vaxxers"—those Americans in particular who are against vaccination against infectious diseases—are quite capable of inventing myths and stories about things that simply don't exist. A recent one was the use of the preservative thiomersal in some vaccines, claiming it caused autism. There wasn't any thiomersal in these vaccines.

Antis are certainly entitled their point of view: but why do they find it so necessary to lie? Are they totally deluded? Are their arguments so weak that they allow delusions? What is wrong with them?

And yet, I don't think I've ever seen anything "pro", whether pro-abortion or pro-choice, or pro vaccination, or pro sex work that contains downright lies.

From the 'antis' viewpoint, the end justifies the means. If only one person has been coercively trafficked in the last decade, that makes it OK to pretend the problem is huge, as the resultant legislation may prevent there being a second victim. Add to that a moral zealotry and considerable lucrative funding and the incentive to embellish, inflate and simply lie becomes irresistible.

Another factor is the bizarre situation where a court of law requires concrete proof to convict a suspect, but the law itself requires no actual proof in order to be passed by government.

Take the current anti-sex work legislation in the North. There were no requirements to pass this law, other than convincing 50+ MLAs, most of whom had no knowledge of sex work, to go with their prejudice and vote for it. By effectively barring current sex workers from the hearings and pushing a one-sided agenda, this was pushed through in the name of human trafficking, despite the fact that there hadn't been a single victim of coercive trafficking for prostitution all year.

The result is quite simply bad law with little or no basis in fact, creating a culture of lies and creating a dangerous precedent for the future.

[Empirical]

From the 'antis' viewpoint, the end justifies the means. If only one person has been coercively trafficked in the last decade, that makes it OK to pretend the problem is huge, as the resultant legislation may prevent there being a second victim. Add to that a moral zealotry and considerable lucrative funding and the incentive to embellish, inflate and simply lie becomes irresistible.

Another factor is the bizarre situation where a court of law requires concrete proof to convict a suspect, but the law itself requires no actual proof in order to be passed by government.

Take the current anti-sex work legislation in the North. There were no requirements to pass this law, other than convincing 50+ MLAs, most of whom had no knowledge of sex work, to go with their prejudice and vote for it. By effectively barring current sex workers from the hearings and pushing a one-sided agenda, this was pushed through in the name of human trafficking, despite the fact that there hadn't been a single victim of coercive trafficking for prostitution all year.

The result is quite simply bad law with little or no basis in fact, creating a culture of lies and creating a dangerous precedent for the future.

I don't disagree; the law in N Ireland is a nonsense, there is no real evidence behind it; and proving an offence in a court will be next to impossible—if the PSNI use their limited resources to investigate. The PSNI recently said that with the austerity cutbacks they would have to prioritise their activities. Somehow, I doubt that escorting comes high on their list of priorities.

But what irks me is that so many "antis" are prepared to lie, to dissemble, to bend the truth; and yet so many of them so clearly have a religious cast to their views. Since when was lying a basis for religious faith? Surely the two, lies and belief, are incompatible?

[The Libertarian]

From the 'antis' viewpoint, the end justifies the means. If only one person has been coercively trafficked in the last decade, that makes it OK to pretend the problem is huge, as the resultant legislation may prevent there being a second victim. Add to that a moral zealotry and considerable lucrative funding and the incentive to embellish, inflate and simply lie becomes irresistible.

Another factor is the bizarre situation where a court of law requires concrete proof to convict a suspect, but the law itself requires no actual proof in order to be passed by government.

Take the current anti-sex work legislation in the North. There were no requirements to pass this law, other than convincing 50+ MLAs, most of whom had no knowledge of sex work, to go with their prejudice and vote for it. By effectively barring current sex workers from the hearings and pushing a one-sided agenda, this was pushed through in the name of human trafficking, despite the fact that there hadn't been a single victim of coercive trafficking for prostitution all year.

The result is quite simply bad law with little or no basis in fact, creating a culture of lies and creating a dangerous precedent for the future.

If no trafficked sex worker was found at all, the reason d'etre of certain Torler orgs would to an extent be gone re their interest in sex workers and a it lessens a revenue stream to them from government, so it's in their interest to always 'find'/invent a few!
Politicians are noted for being liars, however, they are probably in the haypenny place at this art compared to Irish NGOs in all aspects of Irish life!