Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
starman

Latest feminist nonsense!

12 posts in this topic

Just when you thought you had heard it all...:)

"The Johns shall pay damages to prostituted persons"

Politicians to the right and left agree how the payingforsex law should be redefined.

2008-11-03

The law against paying for sexual services was adopted to acknowledge that sexbuyers exploits and damages the prostituted.

To give those victims of sex discrimination the right to seek damages under civil rights law is in line with that acknowledgement,

writes 9 Swedish MPs* and American feminist/lawyer Catherine A.Mackinnon**

….

Giving lots of references to Melissa Farley's research, the article argues that a civil remedy for prostituted persons to claim damages from sex buyers, would empower those who need empowerment.

The amendment would define prostitution as a civil rights violation against women, and allow women who claimed harm from prostitution to sue the sexbuyers for damages in civil court . http://**.com/6fz3k5

*including lawyer and former Ombudsman of equality Claes Borgstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like an incentive for women luring men and then turning on them, no?

And a pimp's charter, to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just when you thought you had heard it all...:)

"The Johns shall pay damages to prostituted persons"

Politicians to the right and left agree how the payingforsex law should be redefined.

2008-11-03

The law against paying for sexual services was adopted to acknowledge that sexbuyers exploits and damages the prostituted.

To give those victims of sex discrimination the right to seek damages under civil rights law is in line with that acknowledgement,

writes 9 Swedish MPs* and American feminist/lawyer Catherine A.Mackinnon**

….

Giving lots of references to Melissa Farley's research, the article argues that a civil remedy for prostituted persons to claim damages from sex buyers, would empower those who need empowerment.

The amendment would define prostitution as a civil rights violation against women, and allow women who claimed harm from prostitution to sue the sexbuyers for damages in civil court . http://**.com/6fz3k5

*including lawyer and former Ombudsman of equality Claes Borgstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The magic of the law :)

Taken to its logical conclusion, any advertisement by a prostitute could be deemed as incitement to commit a criminal offence, as would solicitation by a prostitute, even if the prostitute is solicited by the punter the prostitute by agreeing to sell sexual services could still be guilty of assisting another to commit a criminal offence ........... etc. the whole thing is just too silly for words, they would be much better off by making all aspects of paid sex illegal, then at least the situation is clear, I really can't see why they don't do it. In theory those that are in favour of making the purchase of sexual services illegal yet keeping the sale of sexual services not illegal are, for some unknown reason, chickening out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taken to its logical conclusion, any advertisement by a prostitute could be deemed as incitement to commit a criminal offence, as would solicitation by a prostitute, even if the prostitute is solicited by the punter the prostitute by agreeing to sell sexual services could still be guilty of assisting another to commit a criminal offence ........... etc. the whole thing is just too silly for words, they would be much better off by making all aspects of paid sex illegal, then at least the situation is clear, I really can't see why they don't do it. In theory those that are in favour of making the purchase of sexual services illegal yet keeping the sale of sexual services not illegal are, for some unknown reason, chickening out.

This is the contradiction...

I think they do want to get rid of it and (contradictorily) keep it at the same time.

You are right if they were being 'sincere' it would be just easier to ban ALL aspects related to the profession

The hypocrisy of governments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The hypocrisy of governments

If only that were the case, at least that would be following their natural path in the time honoured fashion and would be well understood by all, sadly I think it is just plain crass stupidity (which of course could be argued is following their natural path .............), those that are seeking, in theory, to save the prostitute from him/herself (whether or not he/she wants to be saved, but that is another story for another day) are placing the prostitute in a very precarious and muddled position, on the one hand they say "nothing has changed, what you are doing is still not illegal, more power to your elbow" but on the other have created a potentially very serious legal position for the prostitute should he/she go ahead and do what is not illegal; yet perversely, IMHO, they make the situation for the punter very clear, shit-for-brains springs to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If only that were the case, at least that would be following their natural path in the time honoured fashion and would be well understood by all, sadly I think it is just plain crass stupidity (which of course could be argued is following their natural path .............), those that are seeking, in theory, to save the prostitute from him/herself (whether or not he/she wants to be saved, but that is another story for another day) are placing the prostitute in a very precarious and muddled position, on the one hand they say "nothing has changed, what you are doing is still not illegal, more power to your elbow" but on the other have created a potentially very serious legal position for the prostitute should he/she go ahead and do what is not illegal; yet perversely, IMHO, they make the situation for the punter very clear, shit-for-brains springs to mind.

Interesting...

I know this is your viewpoint...'Crass stupidity'

And another dimension to my opinion about 'hypocrisy' is that the governments are not interested in the position of the 'prostitute' and by extension in 'women' per se...

I think this society is in a connundrum cos if they 'sanction' prostitution etc then this can 'empower' women who would not be otherwise so.

Conversely, if they 'do not sanction' prostitution, then obviously women are stigmatised etc, and being kept back relative to if it was permissible in this society...

Hope this makes a little sense (this is only one aspect of the situation in my thinking at least. The other side of the coin would be why the Government do need and require 'prostitutes' and this could be explained by the contradictory

legislation, societal views etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting...

I know this is your viewpoint...'Crass stupidity'

And another dimension to my opinion about 'hypocrisy' is that the governments are not interested in the position of the 'prostitute' and by extension in 'women' per se...

I think this society is in a connundrum cos if they 'sanction' prostitution etc then this can 'empower' women who would not be otherwise so.

Conversely, if they 'do not sanction' prostitution, then obviously women are stigmatised etc, and being kept back relative to if it was permissible in this society...

Hope this makes a little sense (this is only one aspect of the situation in my thinking at least. The other side of the coin would be why the Government do need and require 'prostitutes' and this could be explained by the contradictory

legislation, societal views etc)

Gender neutral is the watchword. As a matter of interest I have been doing a bit of research into "incitement to commit an offence", basically it is, unless a specific statute exists (for example : Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: “It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence.”), a common law offence, it does not actually have to have any effect in persuading another to commit a criminal offence, it is the incitement itself that is the offence, so in theory an advert by a prostitute offering sexual services for gain would be an incitement to commit an offence and could not be defended by the prostitute saying "but I have had no customers"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MacKinnon and Dworkin, however, continued to discuss civil rights litigation as a possible approach to combatting pornography. MacKinnon opposed traditional arguments against pornography based on the idea of morality or sexual innocence, as well as the use of traditional criminal obscenity law to suppress pornography. Instead of condemning pornography for violating "community standards" of sexual decency or modesty, they characterized pornography as a form of sex discrimination, and sought to give women the right to seek damages under civil rights law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon

"The law of equality and the law of free speech are on a collision course in this country." -Catherine A. MacKinnon

interesting but very long article here

Catherine A. MacKinnon: The Rise of a Feminist Censor, 1983-1993

http://www.mediacoalition.org/reports/mackinnon.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gender neutral is the watchword. As a matter of interest I have been doing a bit of research into "incitement to commit an offence", basically it is, unless a specific statute exists (for example : Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: “It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence.”), a common law offence, it does not actually have to have any effect in persuading another to commit a criminal offence, it is the incitement itself that is the offence, so in theory an advert by a prostitute offering sexual services for gain would be an incitement to commit an offence and could not be defended by the prostitute saying "but I have had no customers"

Indeed you are right here and have preached eloquently here...

The law is a very strange phenomenon. It can be very hard to explain at times. I think if one thinks 'Twlight Zone' one would not even be close :)

With regard to my former post and my use of 'the term 'women'. Indeed you are correct the law is gender-neutral. However, I suspect, if you went across the globe, I am sure the majority of 'prostitute' are 'women'.

So in this country the legal framework is non gender-specific but that does not mean that the provision or non-provison of a statute cannot impact on women more than say men...

If you follow....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you follow....

I follow, my pointing out of the gender neutral was not so much a correction but more of a statement of an obvious fact, a fact that while being so obvious that it might be being missed by the great and the good, while "pink power" might be an object of fun it can draw upon some interesting people, including MPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gender neutral is the watchword. As a matter of interest I have been doing a bit of research into "incitement to commit an offence", basically it is, unless a specific statute exists (for example : Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: “It is an offence for a person to attempt to commit an offence under any other provision of this Act or to incite or attempt to incite another to commit such an offence.”), a common law offence, it does not actually have to have any effect in persuading another to commit a criminal offence, it is the incitement itself that is the offence, so in theory an advert by a prostitute offering sexual services for gain would be an incitement to commit an offence and could not be defended by the prostitute saying "but I have had no customers"

but prositution is= rape, and this would be like saying that it is an incitement to rape if a woman wear short skirt.

Women in prostitution are always forced, remember, even if they say they are not, and can not be held responsible for their actions.

Doesn't matter if they say they are not -

remember the False consciousness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0