Weed is finally legal and readily available. Why not prostitution?

[Banquet_Bear]

@UDS1

If you tell me that I have an absolute right to do X, and I do X, and as a result suffer a detriment like having to pay damages, or having my professional accreditation impaired, I’m gonna say you advised me badly.

…I’m telling you that yes, you have an absolute right to say NO.

You have an absolute right to refuse to have sex with anyone.

You don’t have to give a reason.

I’m not sure what is confusing you here.

You will NOT get penalised for not consenting to having sex with someone. Refunding them is not a penalty.

You might get penalised if you happen to also breach the Human Rights act. But in order for that to happen, you have to breach the Human Rights act first.

But a “sex worker has the absolutely right to refuse services to anyone at any time, even if working in a brothel, for no reason."

Just like a non-sex worker also has the absolutely right to refuse to have sex with anyone, for no reason.

@UDS1

But, as I say, I’m sceptical that that is the position,

Under what circumstances do you think a sex worker would be compelled to have sex? What exactly is it that you are skeptical about here?

@UDS1

It seems outrageous that a sex worker might be penalised for offering services to men but not to women, or vice versa.

Its just sex. Do you also get outraged that gay men only want to have sex with gay men? Or that lesbians only want to have sex with lesbians? People have the right to refuse to have sex. And they don’t have to give a reason.

@UDS1

. But, until we track it down, we don’t know the scope, the limits, of that exception, and assuring people that sex workers have an absolute right to refuse service isn’t helpful.

Sex workers have the absolute right to refuse service. Claiming that it isn’t isn’t helpful. Claiming that it isn’t is not accurate.

@UDS1

And if, contrary to expectations, there is no exception, then isn’t lobbying for one a fairly urgent priority in the interests of sex workers?

Its been twenty freaking years.

Nope. This isn’t a fairly urgent priority. Not at all. I couldn’t think of anything less important.

The first calls for decriminalization came in 1993. After years of hard work and lobbying, the draft bill was introduced in March of 2000. Georgina Beyer, the worlds first trans gender MP AND former sex worker gave her famous speech in Parliament in 2003.

@Georgina Byer

I support the bill, because, as everybody knows, I have had experience in the sex industry—and I am the only member of this Parliament to have had it. If I had had a law like this to protect me and give me some teeth for redress when I was 16 and 17 years old—even on entering into the sex industry—then I might have been spared the 5 or so years I spent in that industry. Barriers would have been created against people who would coerce those under 18 to enter the sex industry in the first place. I support this bill for all the prostitutes I have ever known who have died before the age of 20 because of the inhumanity and hypocrisy of a society that would not ever give them the chance to redeem whatever circumstances made them arrive in that industry.

Beyer, Georgina: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure, Third Reading - New...

Shortly after that speech, after two years of debate, the bill finally passed.

So sex work has been decriminalized for over twenty years. It was debated in parliament over the course of two year. And prior to that, sex workers and their advocates had been fighting for and creating draft laws for eight years.

So thats ten years spent drafting and passing the laws, and 20 years since its implementation. 30 years.

There is no urgent need to lobby for something that somehow everyone else happened to miss, that hasn’t actually caused any drama, that only appears to be important to a random person on the straight dope dot com.

@UDS1

they have an absolute right to refuse service conceals the need for proper legal reinforcement.

Sex workers in New Zealand have the absolute right to refuse service. You can’t contract out of consent, no matter how much you think that they can.

[UDS1]

Banquet_Bear, you persistently misunderstand me. I’m not saying that a sex worker can be compelled to have sex with anyone. I think I’ve made that very, very clear.

I’m saying that it appears that a sex worker’s decision not to have sex with someone in the course of their business will, if the decision is made on one the prohibited grounds, infringe Human Rights Act s. 44. Even if true, this would not mean that the sex worker can be compelled to have sex with the person, so please do not raise that red herring again. But it would mean that the sex worker would be exposed to legal sanctions for violating the Human Rights Act.

This cannot be right, but I want to know why it’s not right. HR Act itself does not seem to me to provide the necessary exception to s. 44. Prostitution Reform Act s. 17, to which you have very helpfully pointed, does not cover the case. So I’m hoping that there’s some other provision that we are both overlooking that covers the case. If there is, I’d like to look at it, to see what the scope and limits of the exception ought to be.

If there isn’t, then I hope you’d agree with me that there ought to be; that sex workers and their allies should be pressing for this; and that until it is provided an account which says that “sex workers have an absolute right to refuse consent” but which fails to address the penalties they could suffer for doing so is incomplete.

[Mtgman]

@UDS1

This cannot be right, but I want to know why it’s not right. HR Act itself does not seem to me to provide the necessary exception to s. 44. Prostitution Reform Act s. 17, to which you have very helpfully pointed, does not cover the case. So I’m hoping that there’s some other provision that we are both overlooking that covers the case. If there is, I’d like to look at it, to see what the scope and limits of the exception ought to be.

It’s not right and the answer is very much simpler than you’re making it. Laws, like the US constitution, UN Declaration of Human Rights, et. al. are read in toto which means all parts are considered, not just narrow subsections in isolation as you have been discussing here. There isn’t anything in Subsection 17 which says “a sex worker can not be forced to provide service against their will” because there’s tons of other parts of the document which prohibit involuntary service, i.e. slavery. Just like Kosher bakeries don’t have to make sausage rolls. Just because it’s possible for a bakery to make a sausage roll doesn’t mean they must. Go to another bakery if you want a sausage roll is your remedy. Worst case scenario handle your sausage your damn self.

The rights of free association, bodily autonomy, and freedom from enslavement are the sections you’re looking for. They don’t address this use case specifically, but when taken in toto you’ll see compelling someone to have sex against their will just to fit the doctrine of fairness and equal access to services applies to sexwork just as it applies to the right to refuse to forcibly donate blood, or a kidney, sperm, etc.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Banquet_Bear]

@UDS1

Banquet_Bear, you persistently misunderstand me. I’m not saying that a sex worker can be compelled to have sex with anyone. I think I’ve made that very, very clear.

…there is no misunderstanding from me.

I made a very simple, truthful statement. A sex worker has the absolutely right to refuse services to anyone at any time, even if working in a brothel, for no reason. This is explicit in the Prostitution Reforms 2003. Its the same advice that is given by the Aotearoa New Zealand Sex Workers’ Collective. It is the same advice given in the pamphlet prepared by the NZ Police that I linked to up thread.

@What to do

Is Sexual Assault Just Part of the Job?

No. Sexual assault is illegal regardless of occupation. It is not ‘part of the job’ or ‘an occupational hazard’. Under the Prostitution Reform Act (2003), as well as criminal law, you have the right to refuse any form of sexual contact at any point, even if you have started a booking – you don’t need to give a reason why.

What-to-do-NZPC-OCT-2022-update.pdf

If you think that you’ve got it right, but the NZ Police Force have got it wrong then by all means, feel free to contact them, tell them your credentials and your history of working with sex worker and human rights legislation, and get them to change it. Then I’ll be more than happy to concede you are correct. Until then, I stand by what I said.

@UDS1

I’m saying that it appears that a sex worker’s decision not to have sex with someone in the course of their business will, if the decision is made on one the prohibited grounds, infringe Human Rights Act s. 44.

And what I’m saying is that taking a case to the Human Rights Tribunal is such an extraordinarily high bar to pass, that in 20 years they haven’t seen a single case. Because firstly you have to prove that there was a breach of the act. But if the sex worker gives no reason (which is the scenario I’ve posted over and over again) then what exactly would the case to the Tribunal be built on? Vibes?

@UDS1

Even if true, this would not mean that the sex worker can be compelled to have sex with the person, so please do not raise that red herring again.

The fact that you keep disputing what I said, when all I said was “A sex worker has the absolutely right to refuse services to anyone at any time, even if working in a brothel, for no reason”, makes this absolutely relevant, and absolutely not a red herring.

@UDS1

But it would mean that the sex worker would be exposed to legal sanctions for violating the Human Rights Act.

You only get exposed to legal sanction for violating the Human Rights Act if you actually violate the Human Rights Act.

@UDS1

This cannot be right, but I want to know why it’s not right.

Why can’t it be right? A sex worker doesn’t have to give a reason to refuse to work with anyone. I’m still not sure what you don’t understand here. As I said upthread, if a sex worker actually does violate the Act, in a way that causes distress and genuine harm, then sanctions would be appropriate.

@UDS1

Prostitution Reform Act s. 17, to which you have very helpfully pointed, does not cover the case.

Well it does. A sex worker can refuse to work with anyone, for no reason.

@UDS1

So I’m hoping that there’s some other provision that we are both overlooking that covers the case. If there is, I’d like to look at it, to see what the scope and limits of the exception ought to be.

I mean, we are doing just fine thanks? If it becomes a problem, I’ll let you know, and when it does, I’m sure that the case will be so unusual the appropriate statutes will be all over the news.

@UDS1

If there isn’t, then I hope you’d agree with me that there ought to be; that sex workers and their allies should be pressing for this; and that until it is provided an account which says that “sex workers have an absolute right to refuse consent” but which fails to address the penalties they could suffer for doing so is incomplete.

Once again, we are doing just fine thanks?

The law reforms here in New Zealand have turned an industry from one that treated sex worker like dirt, to one that gets the full protection of the law. The reforms got a full review in 2005. Its been examined by academics and lawyers and advocates and organizations and its held up to scrutiny.

So yeah, we are doing just fine thanks.

I don’t know where you live in the world, but if it isn’t a place that has decriminalised sex work, then here’s the real issue: you are at the very least 30 years behind where we are. I’ll say it once again. This is about listening to what sex works have to say. And what they aren’t doing is lobbying for changes to the Prostitution Law Reforms. What they are doing right now is standing in solidarity with strippers, who are currently fighting a campaign to improve their pay conditions. They are standing in solidarity with trans people worldwide who are fighting a global push for genocide. And they are standing in solidarity with sex workers worldwide, who risk being arrested live on Prime Time TV because outside of a bit of entertainment, nobody really cares about them.

So yeah, we are doing just fine, thanks.

If you want to help, then I’m sure there is a local advocacy group that need all the help and support you can give them.

[puzzlegal]

Well, i believe that decriminalization would help. Unfortunately, the US is headed in the opposite direction. Craigslist, a giant online classified ads entity, used to be one of the safer venues to advertise or find prostitution. It was a legitimate site that cooperated with the authorities when serious crimes were committed using it, and it made it easy for prostitutes and their customers to find each other without pimps or other middlemen.

But then Congress passed and aggressive law aimed at trafficking, and it became to legally risky for craigslist to stay in that business:

Craigslist Shuts Down Personals Section After Congress Passes Bill On...

We effectively criminalized the framework that made prostitution somewhat safer. I have no idea if it helped reduce trafficking. I know that a lot of the human rights groups opposed it, though.

[LSLGuy]

Every right or permission in every legal document in every jurisdiction on Earth has unstated limitations. When and where the right/permission granted in item X of document Y runs up against that in item J in document K.

Nobody should be surprised by this. I am baffled at @UDS1’s repetitive assertions that somehow that particular interaction of rights / permissions must already have an explicit resolution in NZ code law.

Hint: it doesn’t. Or more precisely, I am no expert, but I’ll bet a hefty chunk of change on even money that it doesn’t.

And the fact it doesn’t is a) completely predictable, and b) completely OK. It’s unclear to my why this particular hobby horse is galloping quite so hard, but ISTM it sure is.

[Kimstu]

@Mtgman

Just like Kosher bakeries don’t have to make sausage rolls. Just because it’s possible for a bakery to make a sausage roll doesn’t mean they must. Go to another bakery if you want a sausage roll is your remedy.

Of course, but that’s not really analogous to what’s being discussed here. A kosher bakery is not required to make a sausage roll or any other product involving nonkosher ingredients. But AFAIK a kosher bakery in the US can’t legally refuse to sell its (kosher) products specifically to customers of a particular race or religion, for example; and the same holds true for any other bakery. That discrimination would be infringing those customers’ protected rights.

A more analogous situation in sex work might be the case of a sex worker who provides, say, manual and oral sex but not other kinds of sex acts. Nobody can force them to perform a sex act that isn’t among their offered services: if you want PIV sex, for example, you go to another sex worker who is willing to provide it.

But the question is, if the sex worker refuses to serve a client purely on racial or religious grounds, even if that client is not asking them to provide any service that they don’t routinely provide to other clients, then is that client being illegally discriminated against?

Yes, we get that under no circumstances whatsoever is it possible to compel the sex worker to provide any service against their will, whatever their reasons for refusing to provide it in any particular case. And that’s a good thing. But is there any other recourse, for the client being discriminated against on racial or religious grounds?

(My guess would be no, but I’m interested to learn whether and/or why that’s true. From what Banquet_Bear has described, I’m guessing that it’s simply because in practical terms it would be essentially impossible to prove discriminatory intent. Unless the sex worker is documented yelling racial/religious slurs at the client and explicitly stating that that’s why they won’t serve them, maybe.)

[Mtgman]

@Kimstu

But the question is, if the sex worker refuses to serve a client purely on racial or religious grounds, even if that client is not asking them to provide any service that they don’t routinely provide to other clients, then is that client being illegally discriminated against?
…
But is there any other recourse, for the client being discriminated against on racial or religious grounds?

Under US Law? No recourse exists because the transaction is illegal. If your cocaine dealer shorts you, or cuts your product with powdered sugar the legal remedies are similarly lacking.

Under NZ law clearly there is a right the Sex Worker has to determine level of service offered on a case by case basis which trumps the client’s interest in receiving a service, even if it is offered to others.

Traditionally, although I don’t know NZ like Banquet Bear does and will let them speak on it, the rebuttal is the service is so custom as to be non-fungible. Sex with person A is fundamentally different from sex with person B and therefore there is no “routine, standard, menu-style service.” This is the next step up from the baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. Yes they make cakes, but when you request they turn their own artistic talents towards implementing your vision they can say “nope, I can sell you a blank cake, and you can find some other artist to decorate it or learn to bake and decorate yourself.” Nike refuses to produce sneakers with the word “sweatshop” stitched into the side and they are within their rights to do so as well.

FYI, refusal to serve clients of certain racial categories is very common in sexwork. Reasons, both stated and unstated, vary, and speculation is rife as to the true motives regarding such discrimination. Colloquially, sex workers who refuse to see African American clients are called “NBA” (No Blacks Allowed) and “No AA Under 35” is a common variation.

The question came up years ago in GD about if discrimination laws applied in Nevada Brothels and the reality is the Brothels, while in theory they offer sex services, what they really do, legally, is provide a meeting place where you may be able to meet a Sex Worker who is willing to individually contract with you at fairly standard rates, and the add-on services of providing a venue. The Brothel’s doors must be open to all regardless of their race, gender, age, (insert protected class here). The Sex Worker’s legs however, have different rules.

Enjoy,
Steven

[puzzlegal]

I am not a lawyer. But I’ve seen a lot of case law working as an actuary for a property& casualty company. And when you have potentially conflicting legal doctrines (for example, no one can be forced to consent to sex, and also, no one can be refused a service based on race) there is no well defined answer until a court actually rules on it. Both of those rights can be assumed to hold, until a court finds there is actually a conflict, and adjudicates.

Which, i think, is consistent with what @Banquet_Bear has been saying. There is an absolute right for a sex worker to refuse or withdraw consent unless and until a court rules otherwise.

And if it does come to a court (which, BB tells us hasn’t happened, yet) then i suspect that @Mtgman will prove to be correct. The courts are likely to rule that consent trumps potential claims of discrimination.