SlickWilly

Extremely Bad News From Ireland

52 posts in this topic

The Republic of Ireland's Consultation Committee On Prostitution Law has published its report -

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/justice/Report-on-hearings-and-submissions-on-the-Review-of-Legislation-on-Prostitution.pdf

As I predicted it recommends -

the introduction of the SWedish Model of client criminalisation

Giving the right to the police to disable or take over (for entrapment purposes) any phone number suspected of being used in prostiution

Making it a criminal offence to download an escort related site such as Punternet, whether it is a fully legal site outside the state or not and equating it exactly with downloading child pornography

Giving the authorities the right to inspect any premises being used for massage without warrant to make sure it is legit!

So now all Irish punters are, when this is enacted in Ireland, common criminals, those who look at Punternet are the same as child molesters and using your personal phone to solicit sexual services is in a sense a bigger crime than serious drug dealing as their phone numbers aren't taken off them!

Also, there's a subtle attack on downloading pornography in general, if you equate downloading an escort site, many of which are not pornographic at all with downloading child porn, how can there not be?

For some light relief look at the pictures of the commission members which bizarrely are in the report and try not to piss yourself laughing at Senator Ronan Mullan, the Irish Rhoda Grant!

Mind you there is nothing amusing about the substance of the report!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's the Swedish model with knobs on even trying to censor the Internet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ that's real Big Brother stuff isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ that's real Big Brother stuff isn't it?

Yeah, but it's a fantastic day for paedos watching child porn on the net as they are now being normalised at the level of us looking at Punternet.

Also for traffickers and psychotic punters who will now have free reign to abuse women further with the Biz being driven further out of sight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything about this is just messed up.

 

Giving the right to the police to disable or take over (for entrapment purposes) any phone number suspected of being used in prostiution

 

What about landlines, phone boxes and disposable sim cards?

 

Making it a criminal offence to download an escort related site such as Punternet, whether it is a fully legal site outside the state or not and equating it exactly with downloading child pornography

 

 

Big problem here is it could dilute the seriousness of child pornography.  As the comment above me said it could mean paedos could see it as less serious and feel less guilty about looking at it if it's being put in the same category as consenting adults paying for sex.

 

Giving the authorities the right to inspect any premises being used for massage without warrant to make sure it is legit!

 

 

This just means the establishments won't keep any condoms (because of course condoms can be used as evidence). And you don't need me to tell you that no condoms = unsafe sex = rise in STIs

 

Quote from Rachel Moran on twitter:

Proposals include banning websites and phone numbers used by sex workers to stay safe! High fives all round, ladies!

 

If sex workers are unable to warn other workers about the dangerous punters then it's a good day for the dangerous punters and a bad day for sex workers who end up accepting a booking from them. Someone remind me again who is this law supposed to be protecting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the recommendation re: prostitution websites being equated with child porn sites should be the first point of attack for the recommendations as a whole. It shows that the committee could not possibly be unbiased and objective if they seriously think it's reasonable to compare someone searching out a 25 year old escort to someone searching out images of child pornography...the fact that nobody within the committee stuck their hand up and went "You what!!!" when that recommendation was put down on paper the first time, should be attacked repeatedly to show that the committee was biased and making recommendations out of extreme religious and moral zeal that cannot be conducive to a fair and balanced proposal. I am, of course, assuming that child pornography is treated seriously in the ROI....maybe you just get a £50 fine and told not to do it again, in which case the proposal is not that unreasonable. However....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the recommendation re: prostitution websites being equated with child porn sites should be the first point of attack for the recommendations as a whole. It shows that the committee could not possibly be unbiased and objective if they seriously think it's reasonable to compare someone searching out a 25 year old escort to someone searching out images of child pornography...the fact that nobody within the committee stuck their hand up and went "You what!!!" when that recommendation was put down on paper the first time, should be attacked repeatedly to show that the committee was biased and making recommendations out of extreme religious and moral zeal that cannot be conducive to a fair and balanced proposal. I am, of course, assuming that child pornography is treated seriously in the ROI....maybe you just get a £50 fine and told not to do it again, in which case the proposal is not that unreasonable. However....

Downloading child porn in Ireland will gain you a possible prison sentence, named and shamed and definitely a heavy fine and your name on the Sex offender's register.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably both Punters and WGs will pop up to Belfast, go to Tesco (I assume that they have Tesco in Ulster?) and buy a pay-as-you-go SIM there? Although it will have to pay roaming charges, there can be no way, in the event that this report is turned into legislation, that the Gardai can take over a British (or Italian, or Romanian etc., ) mobile number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably both Punters and WGs will pop up to Belfast, go to Tesco (I assume that they have Tesco in Ulster?) and buy a pay-as-you-go SIM there? Although it will have to pay roaming charges, there can be no way, in the event that this report is turned into legislation, that the Gardai can take over a British (or Italian, or Romanian etc., ) mobile number?

 

 

I'm not sure if you are aware, but if you have a contract phone/registered mobile you can be traced even if you use a different sim which is unregistered. Every mobile has a IMEI number, its related to the hardware and cannot be changed for all intents and purposes.

 

When a mobile phone connects with a BTS it sends its SIM account and IMEI, so if your mobile is registered or on contract then it relates to a specific person pay as you go sim or not.

 

To avoid this realistically you need an unregistered phone and an unregistered SIM. However there are other ways of tracking you, if you wanted for example location based data from a mobile operator can pin point you to around 3-4m radius. If you switch your phone on at any time it's possible to track a persons route and location using that data alone, whether that authorities/police would do that is another matter, but the actual information is available for them to use. 

 

On a somewhat related note

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18102793

Edited by willsmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old mobiles can be bought for peanuts these days.

 

If a punter is willing to spend £150 on one punt I don't suppose buying an old £5 phone for every punt would break the bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably both Punters and WGs will pop up to Belfast, go to Tesco (I assume that they have Tesco in Ulster?) and buy a pay-as-you-go SIM there? Although it will have to pay roaming charges, there can be no way, in the event that this report is turned into legislation, that the Gardai can take over a British (or Italian, or Romanian etc., ) mobile number?

Thanks for the advice, I have passed it on! We do have Tescos in Ireland, North and South!

Re the internet proposals it is likely that the authorities will force ISPs to block access to escort sites such as Punternet and no doubt as a consequence porn sites rather than becoming an international laughing stock by equating downloaders to Paedos downloading child porn, but it is Ireland, so you never know!

Any advice on how to get around blocked addresses, purely of course for future reference in this regard ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This report is a recommendation- the Irish Parliament would have to ratify the proposals...but elements of that now seem to be getting closer.

 

Re Senator Mullen- the guy is an asswipe & a candidate for the most conservative anti-choice, xenophobic DICKHEAD in western Europe. If he was to stand for regular election, he'd never stand a chance in even the most rural constituency in Ireland, this prick swayed that committee like a Nazi on the jury at the Nuremberg trials. (Senator in IRL is akin to a HOL position, he was elected but via a closed circle base.)

 

In reality it does appear the Swedish model will be introduced in IRL, but concerning following proposal ...

that the accessing of web sites – whether located in the State or abroad – that advertise prostitution in the State should be treated in the same way as accessing sites that advertise or distribute child pornography.

 

....apart from the ridiculous idea of proposing a legal environment whereby visiting an Escort site would have worse repercussions than actually paying for sex, it's evident that it very likely wouldn't fly constitutionally in that nation. (Apart from being wildly unfair & daft equating a punter site to childporn, how the hell would it be policed in terms of twitter feeds, TOR shields etc...just plain ostrich head in sand stuff).

 

There are alternate voices on this subject in IRL: Norris rejects call to criminalise purchase of sex

 

Btw- for those of you who know the game in the green isle,  above proposal is very squarely aimed primarily at one specific target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

 

This report is a recommendation- the Irish Parliament would have to ratify the proposals...but elements of that now seem to be getting closer.

 

Re Senator Mullen- the guy is an asswipe & a candidate for the most conservative anti-choice, xenophobic DICKHEAD in western Europe. If he was to stand for regular election, he'd never stand a chance in even the most rural constituency in Ireland, this prick swayed that committee like a Nazi on the jury at the Nuremberg trials. (Senator in IRL is akin to a HOL position, he was elected but via a closed circle base.)

 

In reality it does appear the Swedish model will be introduced in IRL, but concerning following proposal ...

....apart from the ridiculous idea of proposing a legal environment whereby visiting an Escort site would have worse repercussions than actually paying for sex, it's evident that it very likely wouldn't fly constitutionally in that nation. (Apart from being wildly unfair & daft equating a punter site to childporn, how the hell would it be policed in terms of twitter feeds, TOR shields etc...just plain ostrich head in sand stuff).

 

There are alternate voices on this subject in IRL: Norris rejects call to criminalise purchase of sex

 

Btw- for those of you who know the game in the green isle,  above proposal is very squarely aimed primarily at one specific target.

Mullan is a pure and simple stomach churning redneck and the senate of which he is a member along with the batty chick is not directly elected and it is the house of lords equivalent, which will be up for abolition in a referendum in Autumn, maybe even before the insane anit sex for sale, anti WG and anti punter laws are voted on!

It is quite likely that any anti -prostitution laws could be unconstitutional in Irish law, it was found in the passed that the term 'Common Prostitute' was such in Irish law and effectively led to decriminalisation in the past!

Great news from Scotland, Rhoda's bill has failed! Be not complacent, this will be tried again especially with Harman back in 2015!

THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder how long before the moral crusade hits these shores?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder how long before the moral crusade hits these shores?

 

They already have. It was only on Friday that Rhoda Grant's proposed bill to criminalise the purchase of sex was defeated in Scotland..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure about this. Mullen has twice been elected to the Senate in the National University of Ireland panel which would tend to be dominated by woolly pinkie liberals.

 

Why not launch an attack on the ex-prostitute that is fronting much of this camapign rather than the easy 'anti-choice' (whatever the hell that means in practice - do you want the 'choice' to be a paedophile, for example?) straw man.

 

 

Re Senator Mullen- the guy is an asswipe & a candidate for the most conservative anti-choice, xenophobic DICKHEAD in western Europe. If he was to stand for regular election, he'd never stand a chance in even the most rural constituency in Ireland, this prick swayed that committee like a Nazi on the jury at the Nuremberg trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure about this. Mullen has twice been elected to the Senate in the National University of Ireland panel which would tend to be dominated by woolly pinkie liberals.

 

Why not launch an attack on the ex-prostitute that is fronting much of this camapign rather than the easy 'anti-choice' (whatever the hell that means in practice - do you want the 'choice' to be a paedophile, for example?) straw man.

Fair point, the TORL campaign is responsible for setting the case for criminalisation in IRL...& of course they mask a broader anti sex-worker crusade with (to a large extent) laudable anti-trafficking blanket. Problem being that they ultimately want a total prohibition and are happy to bend the facts to suit that agenda. About 18m back the Irish police raided scores of suspected brothels in one day, they spoke with over 200 workers and found one case of suspected coercion... trafficking does happen everywhere in western europe these days but using it as the primary trust for proposed criminalisation of so many facets of 'regular' punting in Ireland simply does not stack up.

 

Btw- are you familar with the mechanisms of the NUI panel? ( I am).... getting elected on 413 votes total (not difference with your opponent) does not exactly imbue Sen.Mullen with the strongest mandate...sure, you're correct he got elected but just saying be aware of context.

Somebody described him as a 'redneck'...while I agree with the direction of this sentiment, it's not imho wholly accurate- the chap is very well educated and on certain points articulate- but he's driven by an Opus Dei set of beliefs, go figure. (For discretionary reasons I don't want to give too much away but I'm prob more directly familiar with this individual than most anybody else reading this...)

 

The lexical splitting of 'choice' between a regular punter & a paedophile is FUCKING LUDICROUS .... there's a simple reason why no other developed nation on the planet attempts to conflate the two!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points - nobody complained about the parameters of the NUI panel when Mary Robinson and David Norris were/are getting elected (and neither of them managed to ever win an election outside of the Senate despite several attempts); instead both are hailed by the liberals simply because the chattering classes agree with them generally. Slating Mullen's 'mandate' because you disagree with him is silly. A mandate is absolut - he's either elected or he's not. Likewise to say 'he's driven by an Opus Dei set of beliefs' is again playing the man not the ball. We can always depict someone else's beliefs as dodgy. One could just as easily question your bona fides as an honest broker in this debate since you are posting on a site which promotes prostitution and punting. You are hardly Mr Floating Voter either are you in all fairness? Both of you equally seem to have an ideological investment in the outcome of the debate.

 

I never said the 'nation' (Irish) tried to conflate paedophilia and use of prostitution services. I simply cited paedophilia as one example (you can use drink-driving, armed robbery instead if you like) of why assertion of 'choice' per se is a dubious argument for any activity when it is challenged on the basis of potential ancillary societal damage.   

 

 

Fair point, the TORL campaign is responsible for setting the case for criminalisation in IRL...& of course they mask a broader anti sex-worker crusade with (to a large extent) laudable anti-trafficking blanket. Problem being that they ultimately want a total prohibition and are happy to bend the facts to suit that agenda. About 18m back the Irish police raided scores of suspected brothels in one day, they spoke with over 200 workers and found one case of suspected coercion... trafficking does happen everywhere in western europe these days but using it as the primary trust for proposed criminalisation of so many facets of 'regular' punting in Ireland simply does not stack up.

 

Btw- are you familar with the mechanisms of the NUI panel? ( I am).... getting elected on 413 votes total (not difference with your opponent) does not exactly imbue Sen.Mullen with the strongest mandate...sure, you're correct he got elected but just saying be aware of context.

Somebody described him as a 'redneck'...while I agree with the direction of this sentiment, it's not imho wholly accurate- the chap is very well educated and on certain points articulate- but he's driven by an Opus Dei set of beliefs, go figure. (For discretionary reasons I don't want to give too much away but I'm prob more directly familiar with this individual than most anybody else reading this...)

 

The lexical splitting of 'choice' between a regular punter & a paedophile is FUCKING LUDICROUS .... there's a simple reason why no other developed nation on the planet attempts to conflate the two!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points - nobody complained about the parameters of the NUI panel when Mary Robinson and David Norris were/are getting elected (and neither of them managed to ever win an election outside of the Senate despite several attempts); instead both are hailed by the liberals simply because the chattering classes agree with them generally. Slating Mullen's 'mandate' because you disagree with him is silly. A mandate is absolut - he's either elected or he's not. Likewise to say 'he's driven by an Opus Dei set of beliefs' is again playing the man not the ball. We can always depict someone else's beliefs as dodgy. One could just as easily question your bona fides as an honest broker in this debate since you are posting on a site which promotes prostitution and punting. You are hardly Mr Floating Voter either are you in all fairness? Both of you equally seem to have an ideological investment in the outcome of the debate.

 

I never said the 'nation' (Irish) tried to conflate paedophilia and use of prostitution services. I simply cited paedophilia as one example (you can use drink-driving, armed robbery instead if you like) of why assertion of 'choice' per se is a dubious argument for any activity when it is challenged on the basis of potential ancillary societal damage.   

Mucker- first up, You'll find that 99.998% of folks reading this aren't interested in you & I debating the finer points of the National Univ of Ireland's panel mechanism- pls feel free to shoot me a PM if you want to continue that aspect.

 

That said- if you read your above post in it's entirety, it's self contradictory- you're having a go at me having a go at Ronan Mullen because I don't like certain stances he takes....but in same breath you're implicitly attacking Robinson & Norris because they have a 'liberal' agenda- it's precisely the same thing but at another end of the ideological spectrum, hypocrisy much?!

 

Whatever about Mullen's mandate, We absolutely can & should depict someone else's beliefs as dodgy when they're just that, in same way that the people who called for Sharia law be imposed in certain parts of England should also be called out.

You're correct that I'm not "Mr Floating Voter"...but it begs the question what your game is being on a punting forum defending the likes of Opus Dei...somethings just aren't defensible in a sane & reasonable world.

 

While I take your academic opining re last sentence, the relevant point is that Committee in Ireland is precisely proposing "to conflate paedophilia and use of prostitution services". I'm well aware that IRL has a long history of both kicking social hot topics over the Irish sea & fudging matters of 'choice'- but if this BS is allowed stand it will be a sad day for democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mucker- first up, You'll find that 99.998% of folks reading this aren't interested in you & I debating the finer points of the National Univ of Ireland's panel mechanism- pls feel free to shoot me a PM if you want to continue that aspect.

 

That said- if you read your above post in it's entirety, it's self contradictory- you're having a go at me having a go at Ronan Mullen because I don't like certain stances he takes....but in same breath you're implicitly attacking Robinson & Norris because they have a 'liberal' agenda- it's precisely the same thing but at another end of the ideological spectrum, hypocrisy much?!

 

Whatever about Mullen's mandate, We absolutely can & should depict someone else's beliefs as dodgy when they're just that, in same way that the people who called for Sharia law be imposed in certain parts of England should also be called out.

You're correct that I'm not "Mr Floating Voter"...but it begs the question what your game is being on a punting forum defending the likes of Opus Dei...somethings just aren't defensible in a sane & reasonable world.

 

While I take your academic opining re last sentence, the relevant point is that Committee in Ireland is precisely proposing "to conflate paedophilia and use of prostitution services". I'm well aware that IRL has a long history of both kicking social hot topics over the Irish sea & fudging matters of 'choice'- but if this BS is allowed stand it will be a sad day for democracy.

The Harriet Harmon wannabee, senator Senator Batty Chick, like senator Mullan wouldn't have a prayer of being elected as an MP (TD) and has been rejected at a few general elections! Both are great advertisements for seanad abolition, which I will eagerly vote for in the upcoming referendum, apologies Senator Norris, you are a humanitarian giant among pygmies!

The point is the committee, which deliberately misconstrued the comments of the 2 active sex workers it condescended to speak to, had a predetermined outcome before it began to take submissions! It was made up of a few rednecks, mad rad fems and disgustingly cynical individuals! I reckon one or two of them are at an insane enough level to believe looking at Punternet is the same as downloading images from the NET of children being abused that alone would put them at the level of insanity which only those very paedos downloading such images would be at!

Mind you, if you are insane enough to believe (And None Said This) that a paid for consensual sexual encounter equals paid for rape, then you would equate the 2 two downloaders as being similar!

I think Minister Shatter is probably one of the more sane voices in the debate (his racey novel was recently sent to the censorship board, which was also wrong! and he strongly supports gay marriage) and he realises the need to keep it constitutional, which will be difficult! Parliaments have to be careful in forming and enacting anti-prostitution laws because they may inadvertantly make marriage illegal!

Our president, Michael D Higgins is a man of the world and a true socialist (unlike his fake socialist Labour ex colleagues) and a great humanitarian and he will have the option of referring the bill to the supreme court before signing, but he may not do this because if the supreme court gives it the constitutional nod, it's effectively locked from challenge, no case can be taken to it again WRT it, mind you then there's the court of human rights and the EU court of Justice.

If you want to equate a nonce to being the equivalent of a regular John/Joanna surfing a regular escort site, somebody, somewhere will have to take a case at some stage!

But the recommendations were just so insane! Even the one giving the authorities the right to visit without warrant any massage parlour to make sure it's kosher will lead to 'dodgy' parlours not keeping many condoms/lubricants on site as it will be used in evidence against them, with obvious implications for sex workers and clients!

There's talk of punters who are caught just being subjected to an on the spot fine as what can happen for public urination and hopefully no criminal record! Mind you that makes the government the biggest pimp of all! In such a dispositon (indeed even if punters did get records and were named and shamed) even in Ireland you could not then put somebody looking at Punternet on the sex offender's list which is what happens to child porn downloaders!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder how long before the moral crusade hits these shores?

When as will happen, The Fake Socialist Party aka the Labour Party are back in power post the next GE, the countdown clock to abolition will have begun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This just means the establishments won't keep any condoms (because of course condoms can be used as evidence). And you don't need me to tell you that no condoms = unsafe sex = rise in STIs

 

 

no your correct...we don't. The escorts of Ireland also dont need people coming onto a very public board and implying that they will now stop using condoms and be spreading sti's to avoid arrest. Jeezus. The guys I guess will have to just bring their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points: I did not explicitly or implicity attack Robinson or Norris. I simply stated that they had the same mandate as Mullen. So attacking his 'mandate' is silly. I mentioned the liberal agenda as I assumed that the reason their mandate was never impugned was to do with the accepability of their ideas rather than the electoral mechanism per se. In short I am questioning the motives in attacking his 'mandate' while leaving others in a similar boat uncommented upon. Why not slag off Senators Martin McAleese or Eamon Coghlan who were elected by nobody? Presumably because they have not disagreed with your view. But why is the mandate only an issue when people disagree with you? Surely it's a problem or it's not?

 

Secondly, I didn't defend Opus Dei. I know squat about it which is about as much as I want to know about it. My view is why not disgree profoundly on the substantive issue rather than saying 'do you know his views are informed by............?' - as if we are supposed to have a deep knowledge of/interest in Opus Dei?  I just had a very brief google-inspired look at Mullen's comments and his objections appear to be related to the possibility of human trafficking - ne'er a mention of Opus Dei. Why don't you simply argue the opposite that human trafficking is not an issue or is unimportant then and stop depicting people as 'bad' simply because you disagree. You mention that you have a go at Ronan Mullen because you 'don't like certain stances he takes' - I'm merely asking why not attack the stances as opposed to the man? I had to google Opus Dei to find out WTF it was before deciding life was too short to read on (I find it utterly bizarre that you think I am defending them!!!!) I don't see the relevance of that no more than I would see the relevance of hearing that you think the way you do because you were brought up in a certain environment/subscribe to certain belief systems. We are all products of our environments/aggregated experiences. It's hardly 'man bites dog' territory.

 

Why not just try to have a rational debate (with somebody else) on the substantive issues. Why does anything vaguely poltiical have to become a 'I'm more moral/sane/nice than him' contest? 

 

 

 

 

Mucker- first up, You'll find that 99.998% of folks reading this aren't interested in you & I debating the finer points of the National Univ of Ireland's panel mechanism- pls feel free to shoot me a PM if you want to continue that aspect.

 

That said- if you read your above post in it's entirety, it's self contradictory- you're having a go at me having a go at Ronan Mullen because I don't like certain stances he takes....but in same breath you're implicitly attacking Robinson & Norris because they have a 'liberal' agenda- it's precisely the same thing but at another end of the ideological spectrum, hypocrisy much?!

 

Whatever about Mullen's mandate, We absolutely can & should depict someone else's beliefs as dodgy when they're just that, in same way that the people who called for Sharia law be imposed in certain parts of England should also be called out.

You're correct that I'm not "Mr Floating Voter"...but it begs the question what your game is being on a punting forum defending the likes of Opus Dei...somethings just aren't defensible in a sane & reasonable world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why not just try to have a rational debate (with somebody else) on the substantive issues. Why does anything vaguely poltiical have to become a 'I'm more moral/sane/nice than him' contest? 

 

Fair enough- let's unpack them :

here's the Committee's proposals-

  • Introduction of 'Swedish Model' of client criminalization. (Prohibition doesn't work & there's much anecdotal evidence that while SWing has all but disappeared in Sweden that the more seedy elements have been driven much deeper underground.)
  • Giving police the right to disable or take over any phone number 'suspected of being used in prostitution.' (With probable cause & a warrant sure, but who wants Ireland to become a big brother state in same vein as China or US?)
  • Giving the authorities the right to inspect any premises being used for massage without warrant to make sure it is legit. (Sounds laudable until the first 'bust' of a strictly legit parlour <cause biddy next door called the cops>...then a court case ensues leaving the Irish taxpayer on the hook for a telephone figure payout...instead again, how about probable cause & a warrant....as per every other developed anglophone common-law jurisdiction.)
  • That the accessing of web sites – whether located in Ireland or abroad – that advertise prostitution in IRL should be treated in the same way as accessing sites that advertise or distribute child pornography. (This patent nonsense speaks for itself & is staggering in it's level of misdirected moralistic claptrap.)

The Committee seems to be well intentioned in trying to protect sex-workers & prevent trafficking, but as seen so many times previously in Ireland when it comes to legislation/governmental oversight & the outcomes- there are often so many unintended consequences ( ranging from the X case to the bank bailouts) that it would be wise for the Irish parliament to truly take stock of the potential ramifications.

 

Bring in programs to help sex-workers, take every additional reasonable measure to ensure the game is kept as safe as possible, pursue traffickers with a vengeance

... these are workable & sane* ideas....but they for most part simply will not be facilitated by the above Proposals, which perversely may have the reverse impact.

 

So Mucker, as opposed to oratorical navel gazing, how about you actually address those 'substantive issues'?

 

* sometimes it really is about sanity. You may know nothing about OD but they're not so heavily invested in it.

Edited by FredDeHead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have thought the Irish government had a lot more pressing issues to resolve before tackling this. Mind you, in a western democracy that recently introduced a blasphemy law, I wouldn't be so sure...

 

Religion and state legislation should never walk hand in hand.

 

JaB

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