This article from the Toronto Sun was written by Andrea Mrozek of the Institute for Marriage and Family Canada.
Excerpt:
Following the path of Sweden by criminalizing Johns is one possible solution, with considerable support among women’s groups and anti-human trafficking activists across the globe.
The Swedish model prosecutes the buyer.
“A person who obtains casual sexual relations in exchange for payment shall be sentenced,” reads the law, “…to a fine or imprisonment for at most six months.”
The government there simultaneously helps women out of the industry, with shelter, counselling and job training — and a hand out is what prostitutes need. After all, 90% of prostitutes say that’s what they want.
A Swedish independent inquiry published in July 2010 says the results have been a success. Prostitution, organized crime and human trafficking have decreased.
This is in stark contrast to other countries, like neighbouring Finland, where purchasing sex is allowed. In Sweden, about 400 to 600 women are trafficked into the country annually. In Finland, 10,000 to 15,000 are.
I think this is a good, evidence-based, case against legalizing prostitution. Notice how she cites actual outcomes in other countries to show the impact of changes in law on society.The IMFC is basically a family and marriage policy think tank. They have conferences, they publish research papers, and they engage the culture. They are affiliated with Focus on the Family Canada. What I find exciting about the IMFC is that get their positions on social issues published in mainstream news publications. Can you imagine? And the reason why they can do that is because they are good at research. And good research influences policy makers and public opinion.
But sometimes people make statements that just express their feelings and opinions – not what is really true. And they don’t supply evidence for their views from neutral sources, either. I was arguing with a guy on Facebook recently about gun control. I offered two pieces of evidence to him: 1) the 1997 gun ban in the UK that doubled violent crime rates in four years, and 2) legalizing concealed-carry in certain US states drastically reduced violent crime rates. For the life of me, I could not get him to talk about whether firearm laws (liberal or conservative) affect crime rates. I think we need to take a lesson fro Andrea Mrozek and talk about policy issues using evidence. No one cares about feelings, opinions, sob-stories, whining, blaming, complaining and name-calling. Just. Use. Evidence.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“I was arguing with a guy on Facebook recently about gun control…For the life of me, I could not get him to talk about whether firearm laws (liberal or conservative) affect crime rates.”
*raises hand*
I agreed with you, remember? Here’s some relevant excerpts from our discussion:
You:
I tried to argue that laws work, and I gave evidence.
Me:
“In the UK, handguns were banned in 1997 and the violent crime rate DOUBLED in the following FOUR YEARS. ”
This is the definition of a non-working law, unless you think the purpose of the law was to increase the crime rate?
You:
Dude. If you pass a law to BAN hand guns, violent crime doubles. That’s more gun control = more crime.
If you pass a law to PERMIT hand gun carrying in public, violent crime decreases. That’s less gun control = less crime.
Me:
Umm, yeah…that’s my point.
Stricter gun control laws are *intended* to cut gun crime rates. But they don’t. So, they don’t work.
You:
And I am disagreeing and saying that bad laws (gun control laws) do increase crime, and good laws (concealed carry laws) do reduce crime.
Me:
Well, the concealed carry laws may work in a sense, but only as a deterrent. The people who are deterred from crime by concealed carry laws still desire to pursue their crimes, they just fear for their own lives more. Ideally, we should mak…e it such that they’re not even needed.
That’s what we should be striving for – a world in which gun crimes are so rare that the debate over what sort of laws we should enact isn’t even important. So, I’m in favor of concealed carry laws as a temporary solution, but not a permanent one.
————-
So, once again, I agree with you. I agree that stricter gun laws raise crime rates, and I agree that more lax gun laws lower crime rates.
So, once again, we’re not disagreeing at all.
LikeLike
It wasn’t you, you were fine. You were very sensible. It was that other jerk who kept bringing up machine guns, Fox News, and my mother’s shortcomings.
LikeLike
Well, if you don’t mind, I’m going to express my feelings on the issue more as a response to comments from the earlier post.
I oppose prostitution. That should say it all, really. But I’ll go on to say that I oppose those who patronize prostitutes and I’ve even spoken out against using women (girls) merely for sexual pleasure, even when I was a teen looking for the right girl with whom I could hopefully engage in some myself. I wanted someone with whom I could have a relationship with, and not just a quicky. I adjusted my beliefs at the time to suit my desires, just like way too many people do today. (Now I do the opposite to the best of my ability.) I do speak out against those who indulge their carnal desires rather than indulge His Will on the matter. Even from a secular POV, I find those who are always on the hunt to be as lower life forms for treating their “conquests” in that manner.
Thus, I support any laws that seek to reduce or eliminate prostitution and porn from out culture. We’d be better off for aspiring to higher behaviors. And yeah, paste the pictures of johns in the most pubic manner possible. Shame is a good weapon that few have the courage to wield. We need to bring back shame. It serves us far better than moral relativity.
I’m done now.
LikeLike
Yeah! Now THIS is the kind of discussion among men that I appreciate. Keep it up, dudes.
LikeLike