Families opposing brothels are ‘agitators’.

Otago Daily Times 6 Nov 2010
A Cromwell woman warns the Queenstown Lakes District Council risks “being held hostage to small groups of agitators“, including conservative and Christian lobby groups, opposing brothels in central Queenstown and Wanaka. Of the 23 submissions received so far, 20 oppose the council’s draft brothel control bylaw, including one from Family First NZ president Bob McCoskrie. Family First’s submission supports the existing bylaw, which bans brothels within 100m of homes, schools, preschools, churches, community facilities or reserves. The modified bylaw was recommended because the current bylaw could breach the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, which legalised commercial sex. Many opposition submitters have echoed Mr McCoskrie’s assertion “there is a strong association between brothels and gang involvement, drug and alcohol abuse, used condoms littered about and general nuisance”. But submitter Bonnie Miller Perry, of Cromwell, said Family’s First’s statement was “untrue” in the wake of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 – a piece of legislation she said had been lauded internationally for its “enlightened approach” and was “still influencing other countries in their reforms”. http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/queenstown/135100/warning-council-over-brothel-bylaw

Lauded internationally? By who? Many European countries are going in the opposite direction to NZ. The submitter has obviously been unaware of the news items outside of Cromwell consistently highlighting kiwi communities’ opposition to residential brothels, street prostitution, the prevalence of underage street prostitutes, trafficking, and many other concerns around the flawed legislation.

Anyway, be an agitator and make a submission opposing brothels being legal in the centre of Queenstown and Wanaka shopping areas. All the details are here http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/issues/queenstown_wanaka_brothel_bylaw Submissions must be made by November 22.

UPDATE: Italy to ban street prostitution – Guardian UK 5 Nov 2010
Mara Carfagna, the equal opportunities minister, said a package of measures will include banning prostitution in public places. “The aim is to cut off the oxygen to criminal organisations that profit from the bodies of women who are often very young and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, foreign,” she said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/05/berlusconi-government-ban-prostitution

Share

9 comments for “Families opposing brothels are ‘agitators’.

  1. Harvey Rosieur
    5 November 2010 at 11:28 pm

    It is a sad indictment of our society that we even have to discuss issues like this. How can Bonnie Millar suggest that such darkness can any way be ‘enlightened’. I would feel sure that the majority of every community in the country would opt for no brothels if they were allowed to have their way

  2. James
    7 November 2010 at 7:30 pm

    Brothels are just places where prostitutes carry out their trade.They facilate a consentual interaction between adults and are perfectly valid and moral opporations in that context…people having sex in a building bothers you why? Prostitution involves sex and free enterprise…which part do you have a problem with?

    One suspects its the old “control Women” dogma of the sexually repressed old white male authoritarian at play….sad.

  3. Gordon
    8 November 2010 at 8:49 pm

    James how can you say it is a moral? Humans don’t get to say what is moral or not, it’s illogical. Only God gets that right and He quite clearly stats that sex outside of marrage is immoral. Whether consentual or not.

  4. 8 November 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Remember also that the law only passed because Helen Clark bullied her Muslim MP into abstaining.

    Thanks to that close vote, we’re now told that we can’t have any moral objection to prostitution, which is patently ridiculous.

  5. James
    9 November 2010 at 5:57 pm

    Morality doesn’t come from God or any other made up delusion…it comes from our objective nature as human beings.Life is the standard by which to judge actions moral or not.That which is in accord with mans life as man and the continuing of it is the moral ..that human action which imperils it is the immoral.Its the attempt to ban protitution by force thats immoral…not the prostitution itself..people have the right to make mistakes and poor choices with their lives….thats called freedom.

    Prostitution,while a vice and probably not conducive to one having the best of lives emotionaly and mentality is still a consentual human activity and no business of the law.At its base its people exchanging sex for money…when done in another context thats called marriage.

    You don’t have to like prostitution…but you do have to respect the right of those who want to partake to do so…if you want your own rights also respected.

  6. Michaela
    11 November 2010 at 2:36 am

    It is naive to say that prostitution has no negative effects because it’s consensual. Whether something is consensual or not doesn’t define whether it is good or not. Let’s examine a few of the consequences and then decide whether prostitution is in any way good – either for the prostitute or the ‘client’. Violence, sexually transmitted diseases, unfaithfulness to one’s spouse (oh yeah, that’s got to be good for the kids and everyone involved *rolls eyes*), drugs and alcohol which are frequently involved in this industry.

    There is a 2-year research study of Nevada legal and illegal prostitution and sex trafficking which shows human rights violations against women in the Nevada legal brothels. But who cares about them, right? They’re just a piece of meat to be bought, used and abused and who cares about how they end up. How incredibly devoid of compassion.

    As the saying goes, anyone who thinks prostitution is harmless hasn’t seen it up close.

    These ‘clients’ don’t care a bit about these women. Prostitution is a very self centered enterprise. The only thing these ‘clients’ care about is themselves.

    Oh, and we, the taxpayers, pay for the repercussions of all this.

    Rights….ha! What about responsibility. Man is not an island, you know.

  7. 12 November 2010 at 8:35 pm

    Really nice post,thank you

  8. 17 November 2010 at 8:12 pm

    Great work keep it coming

  9. James
    19 November 2010 at 11:02 pm

    Michaela: It is naive to say that prostitution has no negative effects because it’s consensual.

    I never said that…try some reading comprehension.I said its a consentual choice,a vice not a crime (an action with a non consenting victim) and therefore no business of the law or anyone else to forcibly prevent in that context.

    Whether something is consensual or not doesn’t define whether it is good or not.

    But it does define what is a crime and what isn’t…at least in an objective and just society.Plenty of actions we can preform are harmful to ourselves and not in our long term interests…but we still have the right to do them…its called freedom…something people have fought and died to preserve.

    Let’s examine a few of the consequences and then decide whether prostitution is in any way good – either for the prostitute or the ‘client’.
    Violence, sexually transmitted diseases, unfaithfulness to one’s spouse (oh yeah, that’s got to be good for the kids and everyone involved *rolls eyes*), drugs and alcohol which are frequently involved in this industry.

    Irelavant…see previous answer.Sure there are negative flow on effects…for some.Many protitutes enjoy what they do and the money they make.Do you have an issue with Dan Carter selling his body and making hundreds of thousands playing rughy? No…?Then you have a sexual hangup then?

    There is a 2-year research study of Nevada legal and illegal prostitution and sex trafficking which shows human rights violations against women in the Nevada legal brothels. But who cares about them, right? They’re just a piece of meat to be bought, used and abused and who cares about how they end up. How incredibly devoid of compassion.

    You seem to be struggling with the meanings of “consent”,”choice” and “freedom.Look them up and when you are educated come back.The use of force in your example cancels out your overall objection.

    As the saying goes, anyone who thinks prostitution is harmless hasn’t seen it up close.

    Who said that?But just because soomething maybe harmful doesn’t mean you have no right to do it…an action that violates individual rights is always harmful…but a harmful action need not violate anyones individual rights…understand?

    These ‘clients’ don’t care a bit about these women. Prostitution is a very self centered enterprise. The only thing these ‘clients’ care about is themselves.

    Prostitution is a business transaction…sex for money.Why should the client “care” outside of that arrangement? And the explotation gos both ways…indeed it mainly favours the Woman who exploits the sex drive of the man.As for self centered…all human action is preformed for self interest…the gaining of a value one did not previously have.From charitible works to sucide…everything we do is done for ourselves…its inescapeable.

    Oh, and we, the taxpayers, pay for the repercussions of all this.

    And we should not have to.Its a personal; choice and the responsibility lies with the person concerned….no one else.

    Rights….ha! What about responsibility. Man is not an island, you know.

    Rights and responsibilities are inseperable corollaries….and therefore your point is redundant.Man is an individual with his own life and rights…we deal with others for our own selfinterseted reasons….we gain values from free trade with our fellows…thats the reason we bother with others in the first place.

Comments are closed.