The point is that prostitution is merely a slightly more extreme example of normal class-relations under the capitalist system. Beyond it, I suppose, we come to selling your children, cannibalism and the like - all merry old 'freedom', hey?
-
Features
France: Just Another Regressive Left Shithole
- Thread starter JonA
- Start date
No, not at all. Those don't have to do with consenting adults making their own choices.
The notion of consenting adults is, under this system, pure bullshit, and everyone really knows it. Who ever consented to being brainwashed?
Republicans?
JonA
Senior Member
And if we let them gays marry, the next thing you know they'll want to marry their pets too.
And if we let them gays marry, the next thing you know they'll want to marry their pets too.
Only the English!
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,523
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
JonA
Senior Member
And if we let them gays marry, the next thing you know they'll want to marry their pets too.
Only the English!
Not sure why you are joking. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your 'prostitution is just the slippery-slope to the demise of civilization' nonsense.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Given that the French government's rationale for this law is based to a considerable extent on the assessment that a high percentage of prostitutes in France are slaves (I'm not sure what the estimate actually is), I haven't been able to find any good reason for the government to pass a law that allows the prostitutes to go - a high percentage would be going back to the slavers, if the estimates were correct.
It seems to me that if the percentages are so high, letting them go is weird.
A rational course of action would be to take them into some kind of protective custody until it can be ascertained whether they're slaves or not.
I'm not talking about making the action of providing sexual services a misdemeanor or a felony (which would suggest they deserve punishment for their behavior, though I'm not sure it would suggest that to all of the backers of this law), but rather, taking action akin to what could be done when it's probable (based on the available evidence) that, say, a minor is being abused by her parents but refuses to go to the police and says she's not being abused.
It seems to me that if the percentages are so high, letting them go is weird.
A rational course of action would be to take them into some kind of protective custody until it can be ascertained whether they're slaves or not.
I'm not talking about making the action of providing sexual services a misdemeanor or a felony (which would suggest they deserve punishment for their behavior, though I'm not sure it would suggest that to all of the backers of this law), but rather, taking action akin to what could be done when it's probable (based on the available evidence) that, say, a minor is being abused by her parents but refuses to go to the police and says she's not being abused.
Protective custody would be a high burden for the ones that aren't slaves.
What I think they need is an interview to attempt to determine if they are somebody's thrall.
I would also like to see something along the lines of if you receive money from multiple prostitutes that are not related to you, or receive money from a prostitute that doesn't live with you that that grants the prosecution a rebuttable presumption that you're a pimp. The laws need to be set up so the prostitute is not expected to testify--thus you can't coerce her into not talking.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
I wasn't talking about what I would suggest, but rather, what would be rational if the high estimates that the French government are true and the people making the law know that they are. I don't claim that they are (i. e., I was criticizing the French law, given the rationale behind it).
With regard to the burden, by "protective custody" I don't mean it in a form that would have to last for a long time or involve anything like solitary confinement (that's not at all what I have in mind), but just detention for long enough to ascertain whether someone is a slave.
It wouldn't be more of a burden than what is placed on prostitutes who are not slaves today in most of the US, where they instead get arrested. It might be equal to or less than that (depending on how it's done today) in terms of a temporary and brief loss of freedom, but it would be considerably less of a burden than that in that the free prostitutes would be in a place better than a jail cell, and perhaps more importantly, their behavior would not be considered a misdemeanor or anything that merits punishment, so being put in protective custody wouldn't give them a wrap sheet, priors, etc., no fines or trials, and so on. Additionally, they would not have to fear that if they declare as witnesses they would be incriminating themselves on anything.
An interview (but a forced one, else there is no point in the context of the assumption of such a high incidence of slavery) would do, provided that the person can be given guarantees of safety, like - if that's required - a written guarantee that if they are slaves and they declare against the slave owner (if there is one), they will be put in witness protection, be given new identities, etc., or something along the lines.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Are there resources to do that? Also can they put adults in custody without probable cause for committing a crime and a warrant?
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Sure. If lawmakers believe with justification that most of the people working as prostitutes are slaves, it's acceptable to dedicate those resources rather than just letting them go back to the slave owners. I don't know how expensive it would be for a country like France, but the money can be obtained by, say, a slight increase in a tax (we're not talking about millions but thousands of prostitutes), or a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons, etc. And given we're talking about slavery of thousands of people, sure, those are acceptable options. More money is spent on less important matters (if all of the nukes are needed for some reason and taxes are not an option for some other reason (which seems extremely improbable; why couldn't they do that?), then if it comes to that, they can reduce the budged for space exploration, or state-owned TV, or whatever, and/or use the fines imposed on the clients to finance the program. Increase the fines if needed).Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
They can put adults in custody without probable cause for committing a crime, since (for example) mentally ill patients dangerous to others are put in custody without being accused of any crimes, and I think also if they're dangerous to themselves, in some cases at least.Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Moreover, while I don't know what the current law says, probably it's already legal in cases not involved mentally ill people (and in any case, lawmakers can extend the cases). For example, let's say the police have overwhelming evidence (e.g., real time video and audio) that a person is being coerced into transferring all of her money to criminals who have kidnapped her son and threatened to kill him. Are the police not allowed to interfere and stop her by force and keep her in temporary custody for a couple of hours until they arrest the perpetrators, if they reckon that's the best chance for her and for her son to survive?
Another example would be a person carrying a very contagious and harmful virus: I'm not an expert on present laws, but I think it's probable that the person can be forcibly detained, to prevent an outbreak.
As for a warrant, the answer is affirmative in some cases (e.g., a clearly insane person poses an immediate danger to other people). In some countries at least (I think including France, but you should check that), while attempted suicide is not a crime, the police (or prison guards, etc.) are generally allowed to stop people who are clearly trying to kill themselves.
It would be a matter of passing a law and extending it to other cases, such as those of people likely to be slaves who deny that they're slaves (so, they're under extreme duress).
That sounds like something which could be solved far more easily by legalizing and regulating the industry than by hacking on some half-assed solution like that. Those checks could be done beforehand when applying for a work permit rather than holding innocent people in custody while having the exact same checks done.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Maybe so, but my question is about the rationale of those who support the law, on grounds including the assessment that most prostitutes are slaves. If that is the case, why would they not support taking prostitutes into custody? We're going by the assumption that over half of them are slaves. They need immediate assistance. If that means imposing a burden on those who aren't slaves, so be it. In fact, it can be done even better. How about the following?
Prostitutes are taken into custody unless they have a certificate of non-slavery, which they can obtained by passing a number of tests, providing some info, etc., and which is valid for, say, 90 days and renewable (90 days as a start, for example. It could be adjusted later).
That seems to be much better for the slaves than the current scheme, without imposing too heavy a burden on the non-slaves (it's a reasonable burden on the non-slaves given that we're talking about over half of the prostitutes being slaves), regardless of whether it's also a good idea to punish clients (though I don't see a good reason to fine clients who go to the non-slaves, but even granting there is a good reason too).
Who was ever asked beforehand?
- - - Updated - - -
Well, Americans obviously know more about the demise of civilization than we do, but I said no such thing - I said it was merely an extreme case of normal capitalist relationships.Only the English!
Not sure why you are joking. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your 'prostitution is just the slippery-slope to the demise of civilization' nonsense.