Police should act

March 27th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Abby Gillies at NZ Herald reports:

Prostitutes as young as 13 are earning up to $600 a night in South Auckland, says an MP who will be at a meeting called by community leaders to discuss an “outbreak” of underage street workers in the area.

Community and government representatives, including NZ First MP Asenati Lole-Taylor and party leader Winston Peters, will attend the open meeting hosted by Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board next Saturday.

The increasing number of underage prostitutes on the streets in Otara from Thursday to Saturday nights has shocked residents in the area.

Tina Herewini, a warden who patrols Otara’s town centre and parks, said there could be as many as 20 to 30 young girls lingering at the corner of Bairds Rd and Kew Lane.

Before one talks of further law changes, how about enforcing the current law.

Shouldn’t the Police be sending in a team to remove any under-age prostitutes and refer them to CYFS?

is only legal when the prostitute is aged 18 or older. I’m not sure the law is the problem here – it is enforcing it.

Tags:

111 Responses to “Police should act”

  1. Lucia Maria (2,648 comments) says:

    And they should be arresting every single man who buys their services.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. GPT1 (2,020 comments) says:

    Shouldn’t the MPs concerned be reporting this to police rather than sending out PRs?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    The police budgets are being cut. How high would this be on their priority list? If you reduce staff numbers you have to expect a reduction in service.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    I would rather see the Police catching criminals than enforcing morality codes.

    The Mutaween are a feature of Saudi Arabia we do not need replicated here.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. peterwn (3,332 comments) says:

    Mayor Robbie did just that in Queen Street years ago. There was a boy racer problem and he told the Council’s chief traffic officer to blitz Queen Street with their ticket books one Friday night. Problem solved. They all had to appear in court – no instant fines then.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. iMP (2,454 comments) says:

    The reason these kids have taken this on as an option is:

    a) the money they can make,
    b) because the Labour party ‘normalised’ this behaviour in law in the late 1990s.

    So, the only issue is their age?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    wait for similar social breakdown when they allow same sex marriage…hey if it feels good do it?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    Deja Vu – we were just talking about this on GD.

    :lol: LOL at the “social breakdown” comment. Because delinquent teens and street solicitation are entirely new things.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. duggledog (1,619 comments) says:

    LAJ you mean further social breakdown. The law should never have been changed in the first place. While we’re at it, let’s make cannabis legal so we can ‘bust the gangs’. That’ll work too!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    I agree, the Police should act…however just dont let the Rotorua ones anywhere near them

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    I think the only government agency that -should act- are IRD :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    I bet business is booming after all this free advertising and debate. The girls are sitting on a gold mine, in more ways than one !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tvb (4,553 comments) says:

    Any person having paid sec with a 13 year old would also be committing an offence. But in order to enforce that law the young prostitute would have to admit an offence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    As usual DPF doesn’t see the law change as the problem. Let me try and explain it. Previously prostitution was illegal. There was a social stigma about prostitution. People saw it as wrong.

    Now thanks to Tim Barnett, whose vision was a chain of brothels the length and breadth of New Zealand, prostitution is legal. The legislation was supposed to be about harm minimisation. But of course once you make something legal then people think it’s okay. So given the increase in legalised prostitution in such places as South Auckland where it is now a major problem, when previously before the law change it wasn’t. Isn’t it any wonder that the problem has now been extended to underage people, mostly girls but probably not exclusively girls, taking up the trade? Because the social stigma has gone. So 13-year-old girls think it’s okay. Even a screaming liberal like DPF should be able to understand this?

    The sky is falling. Our liberal legislation has done immense harm. This is an excellent example of this harm. 13-year-old girls having sex on the street with strangers for money. That is wrong.

    Perhaps we should re-examine our liberal laws about prostitution? Even liberal Sweden has started prosecuting the men seeking prostitutes for hire. Perhaps we should do that too?

    [DPF: You’re wrong – again. Prostitution was not illegal before the Prostitution Reform Act. Fail.

    Also you’re wrong to suggest there were no under age prostitutes before the PRA]

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Ed Snack (1,936 comments) says:

    I agree, we have more or less normalized such behaviour. Kids notice when the establishment are being hypocritical, it’s OK to fuck as and when you like, with who you like, however you like….ahh but YOU mustn’t do it ! But, BTW, here’s all you need to know about it just in case you do (starting at age, what, eight or nine now), nudge nudge wink wink.

    And I’m not talking about the prude police and wanting to legislate what consenting adults can or can’t do if they chose; but when as a society we make all behaviour in this area subject only to the personal test “if it feels good, do it”, then maybe we do change the attitudes that people in that society have to said behaviours.

    These young prostitutes probably feel that they are quite OK with the behaviour that they are adopting, it is after all just what every older adult they’re around thinks is OK, and they no doubt think that they are old enough to make those decisions for themselves. As a society we have quite deliberately (even if by default) decided not to teach any form of personal morality at all, why are we then surprised that young people grow up with none ?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Well said Ed. As far as I’m concerned NZ’s heading to hell in a hand cart quite rapidly.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Andrei (2,653 comments) says:

    I thought that vile homosexual Tim Barnett’s “Preostitution reform Act” was supposed to stop all this?

    Guess it didn’t work, like every progressive legislation it just has made things worse and more degenerate

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Just thought I’d point out (since no one else has) that there’s some question as to this report. Apparently Tina Herewini is the only one who’s notice that.

    Not that I doubt her report. Sadly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (10,097 comments) says:

    Remember when we banned possessing and smoking Marijuana, and now there is no Marijuana in New Zealand?

    Remember when we banned smacking children, and now no-one smacks a child in New Zealand?

    Aren’t new laws such an effective way of creating social stigma!

    Thanks Pollies for telling me what is socially acceptable!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    Oh will some body pleeeeeeeeeeeease think of the children !!!

    Mean while back in the real world:

    “Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.[2]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

    Ages of Consent in EUROPE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

    (you will note that many of the countries with an age of 14 are regularly held up as examples for us to follow)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    aw.. it must be true if Wiki said so…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. peterwn (3,332 comments) says:

    Kea – three points:
    1. It is a serious criminal matter, not just a morality matter. Even more so if the girl is under 16. The Prostitution Reform Act is extremely generous when it comes to morality, it set bounds which if breached would be repugnant to most people in society as well as compromising the health, safety and wellbeing of the girls in question.
    2. Respectable prostitutes do declare their income to IRD and clasim decuctions for normal business expenses. Even when prostitution was illegal, many paid tax and under IRD law, IRD were not permitted to disclose this to the police nor were police allowed to search IRD records.
    3. A prostitute is only sitting on a ‘gold mine’ when she can properly stick up for herself (apart from being attractive to clients). Many of the under 18’s would be suffering exploitation because of immigration status, yet to learn ‘street smarts’, desperation, etc. This is a serious criminal matter, not a morality matter. Police priorities should be focussed on under 16’s and under 18’s where there is exploitation. Argably it is far worse than burglary or vehicle theft.

    It is a criminal matter – not morality codes. If the girls in question were allowed to retain a reasonable chunk of their earnings it might be OK, but the odds are they are being exploited by their ‘pimps’, especially if non-residents working without work permits (which would not be granted for this – and education visas exclude part time sex work). The heat needs to go on the ‘pimps’ and the clients, the legislation is aimed squarely at them, not the girls. The clients should be insisting on photo ID. Unfortunately I cannot discern that there is ‘strict liability’ on the part of the client to check the prostitute’s age. IMO a ‘strict liability’ provision should be included with a $500 instant fine – it is unreasonable to impose strict liability on a client who could face 7 years jail. Strict liability can be imposed on the ‘pimp’ as he or she can readily ascertain the girl’s age – and should not be hiring her if there is any doubt about her age. If a ‘pimp’ is convicted then asset forfeiture would also be on the cards.

    Now if the girl was under 16, there are very serious consequences

    See the Prostitution Reform Act:
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0028/latest/DLM197815.html#DLM197875

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    RRM, I entirely agree. Laws are a clumsy and crude way to bring about desirable behaviour.

    Informal social norms are a far stronger, enduring and more effective method.

    You can not punnish someone into having a social conscience and caring about others.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    Proof positive of the desperate need for a Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

    A few public floggings & the churches will be overflowing.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dime (10,207 comments) says:

    any scumbag caught in the act with a 13 yr old hooker should do a stretch.

    unless shes wearing make up.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Why the fuck would anybody want to shag a 13 year old? Wheres the joy in that? 13 FFS…barely out of nappies..

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. gump (1,676 comments) says:

    It’s hilarious to watch erstwhile free market supporters arguing against free agency.

    Willing buyers + willing sellers = ??

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    “liarbors a joke (417) Says:

    March 27th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    aw.. it must be true if Wiki said so…”

    Ok, do your own check. Include the GLOBAL age of consent, not just the rich European countries as I did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Scott (1,259) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 12:53 pm

    Isn’t it any wonder that the problem has now been extended to underage people…

    What is your basis for comparison? What evidence do you have that this didn’t exist prior to the law change?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nick K (1,259 comments) says:

    As usual DPF doesn’t see the law change as the problem. Let me try and explain it. Previously prostitution was illegal. There was a social stigma about prostitution. People saw it as wrong.

    Now thanks to Tim Barnett, whose vision was a chain of brothels the length and breadth of New Zealand, prostitution is legal. The legislation was supposed to be about harm minimisation. But of course once you make something legal then people think it’s okay.

    Aahh, the old “it was illegal therefore no one did it” argument.

    So how do you explain the 400,000 other criminal offences committed in NZ each year? I mean, all those acts were illegal. Presumably, if those acts were all illegal, no one would have done them because they would have seen them as wrong.

    Right?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    What a sterling job that carpetbagging homosexual political activist – the erstwhile MP for Christchurch Central – Mr Tim Barnett has done. Is this how prostitution law reform was intended to improve the moral health of this nation ? Store owners in South Auckland (and various other parts), and patrons greeted with vomit, condoms, booze bottles, food wrappings, urine and all and sundry strewn across the footpaths in the mornings, South East Asian girls dragged over here to work out of tawdry residential brothels, who are fed and housed only – with most of the remuneration for the sexual services confiscated by the brothel owners, and now this situation where girls as young of 12 or 13 are plying their trade on street corners with the bulk of the money going to gangs and the Police are too “under-resourced” to spend every night and all night yarding out the lambs from the more experienced mutton.

    Even the Dutch are now coming to realize the real world consequences of thoughtless liberalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. duggledog (1,619 comments) says:

    Where is Colin Craig, I would have thought he could make enough hay out of this to be able to distribute the surplus fodder to drought-stricken cow cockies. He’d be able to be very vocal about it as he had nothing to do with the Reform act

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. cubit (190 comments) says:

    Peterwn (2037)

    Thank you for a constructive and informative response.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    There is no doubt about it, the country has gone to hell in a hand basket since we lost the moral guidance of Graham Capill and his Christian Heritage Party. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    He’s out of jail now Kea & probably available to lead the God freaks on another crusade against the forces of darkness.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    I would rather see the Police catching criminals than enforcing morality codes.

    Good career choice for your daughter at 13 Kea?

    If not why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. BlairM (2,340 comments) says:

    This is a policing issue. It’s possible that there should be stronger bylaws, and I am of a view that nobody should solicit money for sex on public property, but ultimately all this is already illegal.

    A few undercover raids with some proper punishment for the offenders would soon clear this problem up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    In the Netherlands – who for some reason have a proclivity to engage in this destructive social engineering:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8835071/flesh-for-sale/

    Twelve years on, and we can now see the results of this experiment. Rather than afford better protection for the women, it has simply increased the market. Rather than confine the brothels to a discrete (and avoidable) part of the city, the sex industry has spilt out all over Amsterdam — including on-street. Rather than be given rights in the ‘workplace’, the prostitutes have found the pimps are as brutal as ever. The government-funded union set up to protect them has been shunned by the vast majority of prostitutes, who remain too scared to complain.

    . . women have been imported by traffickers from Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia to meet the demand. In other words, the pimps remained but became legit — violence was still prevalent but part of the job, and trafficking increased. Support for the women to leave prostitution became almost nonexistent. The innate murkiness of the job has not been washed away by legal benediction.

    The Dutch government hoped to play the role of the honourable pimp, taking its share in the proceeds of prostitution through taxation. But only 5 per cent of the women registered for tax, because no one wants to be known as a whore — however legal it may be. Illegality has simply taken a new form, with an increase in trafficking, unlicensed brothels and pimping; with policing completely out of the picture, it was easier to break the laws that remained. To pimp out women from non-EU countries, desperate for a new life, remains illegal. But it’s never been easier.

    Legalisation has imposed brothels on areas all over Holland, whether they want them or not. Even if a city or town opposes establishing a brothel, it must allow at least one — not doing so is contrary to the basic federal right to work. To many Dutch, legality and decency have been irreconcilably divorced. It has been a social, legal and economic failure — and the madness, finally, is coming to an end.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    Good career choice for your daughter at 13 Kea?

    No I do not approve of it.

    However, it is no worse than the NZ government sponsoring kids of a similar age to have babies using tax payer money.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    Urban Redneck, the problem in the Netherlands is due to immigrant criminal gangs, who have exploited and abused the liberal laws. You will note that criminal gangs do this in countries with strict laws also.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    No I do not approve of it.

    Why not? you are arguing that age of consent should be lower, so why shouldn’t some one be able to offer your daughter money for sex?

    But I suspect that even for you, you know damned well that this is about morality and even your own morality.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Harriet (5,199 comments) says:

    No adult citizen should be expected to show ‘tolerance’ towards immoral behaviour, because if we do – children then will!

    When our ruling elites legislate into law immoral behaviour, the elites are then infact legislating AGAINST moral citizens!

    Legalising prostitution is nothing more than ‘practical atheism’ where prostitution is now valued by government, and some in society, as any other profession.

    Despite all the rhetoric about Christians forcing their morality on to other people, the truth is that secularists are now forcing their brand of morality on to us.

    Vote for the conservatives if you hate immoral policy! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Despite all the rhetoric about Christians forcing their morality on to other people, the truth is that secularists are now forcing their brand of morality on to us.

    Exactly right.

    They think that because liberal progressives are of “a broad church” that it somehow isn’t the same thing.

    It is exactly the same thing, they are legislating morality and forcing those that hold higher standards and ideals to bend the knee and worship at their altar.

    Anyone that thinks exploiting children for sex isn’t a moral issue has shit for brains.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Lucia Maria (2,648 comments) says:

    [DPF: You’re wrong – again. Prostitution was not illegal before the Prostitution Reform Act. Fail.

    Sure it was illegal. Why else would a Parliamentary Research paper on Prostitution Law Reform say the following:

    “Under the Crimes Act 1961, brothel-keeping, living on the earnings of prostitution, and procuring sexual intercourse were offences, each attracting a maximum penalty of up to five years imprisonment. [19]”

    And the Ministry of Justice say this?

    The Prostitution Reform Act was passed by Parliament in June 2003. Among other things, this Act decriminalises prostitution in New Zealand, and introduces provisions to protect the health and safety of sex workers and their clients. The Act prohibits the use in prostitution of persons under 18.”

    Unfortunately, the original 1961 Crimes Act is not available online, so the exact laws against prostitution cannot be ascertained except by deduction, but it looks like both Parliament and the Government assumed that prostitution in New Zealand was actually illegal in NZ prior to The Prostitution Reform Act of 2003.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Harriet (5,199 comments) says:

    “….However, it is no worse than the NZ government sponsoring kids of a similar age to have babies using tax payer money…”

    Oh bullshit Kea!

    Giving birth is giving life.

    Giving blow jobs is another matter altogether! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria

    The simple act of prostitution wasn’t illegal…..soliciting, pimping & brothel keeping were.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,365) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 2:09 pm

    No adult citizen should be expected to show ‘tolerance’ towards immoral behaviour…

    How is an adult selling sex immoral?

    Despite all the rhetoric about Christians forcing their morality on to other people, the truth is that secularists are now forcing their brand of morality on to us.

    If one adult chooses to sell sex and another adult chooses to purchase it, exactly what has been forced on you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    to those of you who don’t realise, Prostitution has NEVER been illegal in New Zealand (to my knowledge). Two associated things were. These were
    1. Soliciting. So, prior to the updated laws on prostitution, it was legal for a man to offer money to a woman for sex, but she wasn’t allowed to offer sex for money!!! The only thing the new laws implemented was that women were now allowed to offer sex for money. Go check if you don’t believe me.
    2. Running a brothel.

    All that has now been changed is that the hypocrisy has been removed. So, even though you might wish to legislate against prostitution, as with eating and drinking, you will never stop people having sex! When women mostly stayed at home, were they not being paid for sex? Of course, that was part and parcel of the deal. And how many of you who are currently blowing your trumpets on here have used the services of a prostitute at least once? Not that you would admit, of course! However, as a Sydney prostitute said once in a SMH article, if your friends, brothers, father, sons, uncles or grandfathers aren’t using the services of prostitutes, why are there so many prostitutes around? Interestingly, straight after the 22/2/2011 earthquake in Christchurch, the Christchurch prostitutes were asking where they could work, now that Manchester Street was closed. And they were busier than they had ever been servicing members of the USAR teams.

    And to those moralists, what is wrong with having sex for money? It is a transaction freely entered into by both parties, a free exchange of services, no different in kind from seeing a hair dresser, masseuse/masseur, doctor or nurse, physiotherapist or chiroprachter. If you don’t wish to participate, that is your choice. And I’m interested to know, how so many of you know the details of this matter, if you haven’t investigated it all first hand? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    List of youngest birth mothers

    Check out the number and ages in the very religious countries. It begins at five years old. Note the cluster around Ten Years Old giving birth in strongly christian countries. Especially the USA a deeply religious country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    Of course I agree that underage prostitution should be illegal. And if a female, including my daughter wishes to become a prostitute, who am I to say no? However, as I said, there must be a very large number of users of their services out there, and I know a number, so at least someone you know must be using their services. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Harriet (5,199 comments) says:

    “….If one adult choose to sell sex and another adult chooses to purchase it, exactly what has been forced on you?…”

    Article 6 of the 1980 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) says “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women”.

    The only women who CAN’T be ‘exploited by prostitution’ – are the already rich ones Weihana ! :cool:

    Prostitution is certainly harmful to women. Numerous writers and academics have noted the connection between prostitution and violence and exploitation of women. Well-known feminists, for example, such as Sheila Jeffreys and Christine Stark and Rebecca Whisnant have written eloquently of the dangers and exploitation of prostitution. As one feminist puts it, “Prostitution is a form of brutal cruelty on the part of men that constitutes a violation of women’s rights, wherever and however it takes place.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    It is exactly the same thing, they are legislating morality and forcing those that hold higher standards and ideals to bend the knee and worship at their altar.

    Shunda barunda, you have yet to demonstrate those “higher standards” unless you consider narrow minded hypocrisy a higher standard ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Lucia Maria (2,648 comments) says:

    Nasska,

    That’s not what the Parliamentary Research Paper on Prostitution said. For instance “procuring sexual intercourse” is pretty much the “simple act of prostitution”.

    GJKiwi,

    You might want to read my comment above. If prostitution was decriminalised, then it must have been illegal.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    How is an adult selling sex immoral?

    How is selling sex moral?

    If one adult choose to sell sex and another adult chooses to purchase it, exactly what has been forced on you?

    If one adult chooses to sell their life for ritualistic killing and another adult purchases it, is that ok too?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Doing something about this from within the South Auckland community would have been something for Louisa Wall and other MPs from the area to have been concentrating on, along with poverty and other issues but I guess her being able to marry a woman was of more personal importance to her.

    I don’t know of any evidence that police aren’t acting on this matter, nor that there are not concerned members of the community also involved in prevention. It’s also a bit of a jump saying that groups of girls congregating in some way are actually involved in prostitution. Perhaps we will learn more after the weekend’s meeting. I also note the ‘could be’ used by Tina Herewini.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    “Prostitution is a form of brutal cruelty on the part of men…

    BULLSHIT.

    It is women exploiting mens sexuality for money. That is like portraying drug dealers as “victims” of the users.

    What a load of feminist crap. What were we thinking allowing these crazy bitches to vote !

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda, you have yet to demonstrate those “higher standards” unless you consider narrow minded hypocrisy a higher standard ?

    I make no claim to being “Jesus”, but I do hold certain standards for the way I live and raise my kids.

    My daughter being a 13 year old hooker is not one of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda, your morals are not taken from the bible. If they were, there would be no problem with you selling your little girl into sexual slavery.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,367) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    As one feminist puts it, “Prostitution is a form of brutal cruelty on the part of men that constitutes a violation of women’s rights, wherever and however it takes place.”

    Asserting something does not make it so. I don’t care what some academics or feminists think. I want to hear a simple argument explaining the ethical basis for prohibiting activity between consenting adults.

    If prostitution is engaged in willingly by an adult they are not subject to brutality or cruelty they are subject only to their own free choice. There are plenty of women who do not subscribe to various religious teachings on sexuality and modesty and they are perfectly within their rights to demand that you not speak for them even if you ascribe some sort of authority to yourself as a “feminist” or “academic”.

    The very real existence of exploitation does not imply that every instance of prostitution (or even a majority of cases) constitutes exploitation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Harriet (5,199 comments) says:

    Kea#

    “….It is women exploiting mens sexuality for money….”

    Bullshit!

    Then bosses must also be exploiting mans’ and womans’ need to eat for money, by only paying the minimum wage – even more than the minimum wage ! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    Then bosses must also be exploiting mans’ and womans’ need to eat for money, by only paying the minimum wage – even more than the minimum wage !

    Probably. I think the word “exploit” has been given an ugly meaning, by the left. We “exploit” the air we breath. It is not a bad thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (2,536) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 2:32 pm

    How is selling sex moral?

    The ethical premise is that adults are free to engage in any activity of their own free will with other adults so long as it doesn’t impinge upon anyone else. Now it would be good of you not to dodge the question. You are free to disagree with my premise and replace it with something along the lines of “God said so…”.

    If one adult chooses to sell their life for ritualistic killing and another adult purchases it, is that ok too?

    It is not agreeable, but I fail to see how it impinges upon anyone else’s freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    The ethical premise is that adults are free to engage in any activity of their own free will with other adults so long as it doesn’t impinge upon anyone else. Now it would be good of you not to dodge the question. You are free to disagree with my premise and replace it with something along the lines of “God said so…”.

    Ok lets accept your position for arguments sake, next…….

    If one adult chooses to sell their life for ritualistic killing and another adult purchases it, is that ok too?

    It is not agreeable, but I fail to see how it impinges upon anyone else’s freedom.

    Oh dear.
    Now we see the epic failing of your position.

    By the way, why is it “not agreeable”? on what basis to you have the right to decide what two consenting adults can do with their bodies?

    Seems that it’s your turn to “dodge the question”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Harriet (5,199 comments) says:

    Weihana#

    The government might say that it is fine – and maybe rightfully so between ‘some’ people – but when others like myself speak out about the ‘dangers'[and there is dangers in eating to much too] we are condemmed for it and told to not say anything at all. Are you seriously suggesting that ‘all players’ are ethical in prostitution?

    Exploiting a ‘weakness’ in someone is immoral. $100+ for a half hour or so – is about the equivelent of Maccas advertising during children’s programmes, or paying some ‘needy’ women $20 for a ‘blowjob’.

    Yeah sure, we can never get rid of prostitution, and in a few cases it might be fine – but the government advertising to general society that it is ‘generally alright’ will create more victims than benefactors. Marriages break up because of it, bills arn’t paid because of it, ect ect.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    “$100+ for a half hour or so – is about the equivelent of Maccas advertising during children’s programmes”

    LOL :)

    So 13 year olds on the game is the same as advertising hamburgers !!!

    Fuck me :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Harriet (5,199 comments) says:

    “….The ethical premise is that adults are free to engage in any activity of their own free will with other adults so long as it doesn’t impinge upon anyone else….”

    You mean that all prostitutes and their clients have private health insurance?

    And all prostitutes perform ‘background girlfriend checks’?

    No one lives on an island!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (2,537) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    Oh dear.
    Now we see the epic failing of your position.

    No, you’ve simply asserted that without reason.

    By the way, why is it “not agreeable”? on what basis to you have the right to decide what two consenting adults can do with their bodies?

    I never said I had the right to decide. I said I don’t agree with it. Do you understand the distinction or should I spell it out for you?

    Seems that it’s your turn to “dodge the question”.

    I haven’t dodged the question. I’ve even answered yours whilst you have continued to not answer mine.

    Ok lets accept your position for arguments sake…

    But you cannot accept it because it is incompatible with the position you have already outlined: that an adult selling sex is immoral. It cannot be immoral under the paradigm I’ve outlined.

    The point is that you and Harriet (and others) are trying to suggest that something is being forced on you. I’m interested in seeing that backed up with reason rather than the two of you repeating it ad nauseum as if your continued repetition is somehow proof of the statement.

    Ultimately it is only immoral according to your own subjective standards (whether that be because God commands it or some other rationale). But this completely contradicts the notion that something is being forced upon you. It is you and Harriet who seek to impose your standards of sexual morality on other women and you seem unable to admit that is your position.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Harriet (1,370) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 3:02 pm

    Weihana#

    The government might say that it is fine – and maybe rightfully so between ‘some’ people – but when others like myself speak out about the ‘dangers’[and there is dangers in eating to much too] we are condemmed for it and told to not say anything at all. Are you seriously suggesting that ‘all players’ are ethical in prostitution?

    Of course I’m not suggesting that and I agree there are dangers, just as there are dangers with other adult activities such as drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana etc. But please don’t peddle feminist bullshit as if no woman (or man) has a free choice in the matter.

    …but the government advertising to general society that it is ‘generally alright’ will create more victims than benefactors

    I seem to have missed this advertising. I suspect it is imagined.

    You mean that all prostitutes and their clients have private health insurance?

    If this is the standard of immorality perhaps you might wish to picket your local McDonalds.

    And all prostitutes perform ‘background girlfriend checks’?

    How is that the business of the prostitute? Does the liquor store do background checks to see if their customer often goes home to get drunk and abusive?

    No one lives on an island!

    Agreed. But lets be clear about where responsibility lies. Lets not judge prostitutes according to rules that you choose not to apply to other human activities (e.g. health insurance, background checks etc.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. GJKiwi (175 comments) says:

    Harriet: there are many, many examples of women who actually choose to be prostitutes, just as you might choose to be a lawyer, doctor, driver or mechanic. Are those people being exploited who become lawyers, doctors, drivers or mechanics? Are housewives being exploited because they have to cook, clean AND have sex? Probably! What you’re saying is that SOME women are exploited, and I agree, but not only those who are involved in prostitution. The same can be said for men, as there are most certainly male prostitutes. What the question here is, not about prostitution, but about 13 year old girls who have decided or been coerced into having sex for money. One might suppose that modern 13 year old girls have made the decision to become sex workers because they will make more money from it than the money their parents might pay them for pocket money or than they might make from working at the corner store or a super-market and it might be nothing to do with coercion. One might suppose that they think of it as no worse than smoking cigarettes, which is quite possibly much worse for them in the long run and costs money, and perhaps they have decided that the need the money to pay for their (quite legal) cigarette habit. Well, illegal, because they are still underage for that as well, but you try telling some 13 years olds they aren’t allowed to do something. Of course its immoral, but so is polluting the atmosphere, the waterways, the oceans, as well as overfishing and chopping down rain forests, and which one will be worse for the environment in the long run? Probably not underage prostitution, I should think. You probably wouldn’t go for supplying sex services for your grandfather either, but it might be very good for him in his dotage, if he is still alive. He might be one of those using the services of various sex workers, but then I’m only guessing.

    Kea: correct, poor sex education leads to poor outcomes with regard to knowledge of sex and therefore contraception and protection against STDs. So, the real answer isn’t to arrest the girls or the pimps or the users, but to educate the girls that there are better ways of living, and to educate the parents and caregivers so that they take better care of their children. Despite that, there will always be those who will break the rules. It is ignorance and poverty that are the real culprits here and that is because of the policies of successive governments to do with education and investment in local businesses. However, having CCTV scans identifying the punters might work as well (or not as the case may be).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    Here is the legislation as it was when the sections were repealed;
    147 Brothel-keeping
    (1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who—(a)Keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the management of, any brothel; or
    (b)Being the tenant, lessee, or occupier of any premises, knowingly permits the premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel; or
    (c)Being the lessor or landlord of any premises, or the agent of the lessor or landlord, lets the premises or any part thereof with the knowledge that the premises are to be used as a brothel, or that some part thereof is to be so used, or is wilfully a party to the continued use of the premises or any part thereof as a brothel.
    (2)In this section, the term brothel means any house, room, set of rooms, or place of any kind whatever used for the purposes of prostitution, whether by one [person] or more.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    148 Living on earnings of prostitution
    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who knowingly—
    (a)Lives wholly or in part on the earnings of the prostitution of another person; or
    (b)Solicits, or receives any payment, reward, or valuable consideration for soliciting, for any prostitute

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    [149 Procuring for prostitution
    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, for gain or reward, procures or agrees or offers to procure any person for the purposes of prostitution with any other person.]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    [149A Being client in act of prostitution by person under 18 years of age
    (1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who is a client in an act of prostitution by a person under the age of 18 years.(2)It is a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged believed on reasonable grounds that the prostitute was of or over the age of 18 years.]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    No, you’ve simply asserted that without reason.

    And you just quoted my post completely out of context in order to dismiss my challenge.

    There is no point in discussing anything further with someone so fundamentally dishonest, but par for the course I guess.

    You also can make no valid argument (based on your tortured logic) of why two consenting adults should not be able to kill and eat each other with government endorsement of their actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. backster (2,194 comments) says:

    Do the kids commit any offence by indulging in prostitution ( apart from party to that committed by the client.) You can guarantee they have been well educated as to their ‘Rights’. What ‘current’ law are you suggesting the Police should be enforcing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. muggins (3,828 comments) says:

    Obviously these girls won’t be carrying their birth certificate. So a client isn’t going to know how old they are. But one would think that now that prostitution is legal [if the prostitute is 18 years or over] there would be enough prostitutes available without this sort of thing going on.
    I reckon the police should carry out frequent raids and arrest any underage prostitutes. Also warn any men found in the vicinity ,take their names and advise them they will be arrested if found in the vicinity again.
    No doubt some of these girls will find a fresh patch, but providing they keep getting fined regularly most of them might decide it isn’t worth it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    One might suppose that modern 13 year old girls have made the decision to become sex workers because they will make more money from it than the money their parents might pay them for pocket money or than they might make from working at the corner store or a super-market and it might be nothing to do with coercion.

    Way to go GJKiwi, you just became an apologist for the exploitation of children for sex.

    These progressives are so deficient in understanding the reasons morality exists in the first place, they seem to presume it is just some arbitrary crap that popped up in the past few years.

    The reasons people hold certain values (and certain values exist) is because of thousands of years of collective experience of the human species and the desire to avoid the pain and suffering that eventuates from certain activities, rooting children being one of them.

    You are just nihilists and vandals that try to put an intellectual spin on your profound stupidity and incredible ignorance of what being a human is all about.

    People get offended by stray dogs rooting in the streets yet defend the right of our young children to do the same with paying adults.

    Incredible.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kea (13,544 comments) says:

    “People get offended by stray dogs rooting in the streets ”

    Not if they have a life and normal views on sex, they don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Shunda barunda (2,986 comments) says:

    Not if they have a life and normal views on sex, they don’t.

    Or being a contrarian prick?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Longknives (4,949 comments) says:

    How those toothless old hags I see on Hopetoun Street earn any money whatsoever is beyond me…

    13?? Christ you’d be lucky to find anything under 53.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    The problem with the street, is the lack of capacity to regulate trade. In any business the business is responsible for checks before workers can be involved in this trade, but there is no business on the street.

    The sort of control required is for workers to have to have proof of age ID to engage in street trade. Basically workers having to be licensed to work on the street – and police having access to these records to vet those working the street.

    This also being a basic form of IRD check on undeclared income.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    Left to our socialist mate SPC we’d have another two hundred Public Service parasites setting up a Ministry of Streetwalkers Affairs. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    nasska, that there is untaxed income out there to finance the jobs of more public servants, and nothing is being done about it, is quite dispiriting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. nasska (12,088 comments) says:

    I’m afraid that I regard the creation of more public servants to be beyond “dispiriting”, tax or no tax.

    We’re entering “cutting your own throat incrementally with a blunt hacksaw” territory here. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (2,540) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    And you just quoted my post completely out of context in order to dismiss my challenge.

    The purpose of quoting is so you know what I am responding to. People can read your original post and in any case what I snipped was what I had posted which you responded to.

    There is no point in discussing anything further…

    Up to this point you haven’t really been participating anyway.

    You also can make no valid argument (based on your tortured logic) of why two consenting adults should not be able to kill and eat each other with government endorsement of their actions.

    I haven’t attempted to make such an argument. Comprehension fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Shunda barunda (2,540) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    People get offended by stray dogs rooting in the streets yet defend the right of our young children to do the same with paying adults.

    Another comprehension fail. You talk of stupidity while displaying a profound inability to pay attention to what is being said, rather than what you think is being said. GJKiwi was pointing out the possibility that these girls aren’t being coerced. That is a far cry from defending “the right of… children [to sell sex]”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who knowingly—

    Which means that persons are liable, not children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Steve (North Shore) (4,536 comments) says:

    My two cents worth.

    I skipped through the comments and the original post.
    There is no gender mentioned? (protitute as young as 13), most comments are on the legal side
    Now what would a 13 year old kid going through puberty do with $600 per day/night?

    The kids are being force fed drugs and booze by pimps, and who would the pimps be? Their fucking dropkick dysfunctional drug and booze addicted PARENTS!

    Tell me if I am wrong

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. kowtow (8,929 comments) says:

    There couldn’t be any problem there!

    Tim Barnett and all his supporters said all these problems would go away with his Prostitution Bill………..oh wait.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Steve, There’s no report of pimps, the girls approach the johns directly on the street.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    Why is this a story now? I thought Hunters corner had always been like this. I recall the ineptness of George Hawkins to deal with this problem on his own doorstep.

    It is easier said than done to enforce the issue.

    This country does not have the nads to fix the issue. Cut the benefit from bad parents and remove any children they may have — let those parents get a job picking fruit for all I care. And, permanently sterilise them while we’re at it.

    But, for some people the cure is worse than the disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    This country does not have the nads to fix the issue.

    Too many persons, not enough common sense.

    I guess a meeting of the locals is out of the question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Northland Wahine (673 comments) says:

    the parents of these girls should be charged with neglect. I don’t care that these girls may or may not choose to sell themselves. And I am sure they think they are old enough to do what they want. They are not. They are children and should be at home, safe and cared for. For a child to be selling herself on the streets suggests that she is not safe and cared for at home. Another reason to prosecute the parents.

    These girls will be the egg donators of the next tidal wave of fatherless children. The men buying their services, the next splurge of sperm donators.

    It’s just wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    DPF at 12.53-“[DPF: You’re wrong – again. Prostitution was not illegal before the Prostitution Reform Act. Fail.
    Also you’re wrong to suggest there were no under age prostitutes before the PRA]”

    Gee DPF you can’t see the wood for the trees. The law is a blunt instrument. Prostitution was for all intents and purposes illegal and prostitutes could be entrapped by the police,particularly working in massage parlours. The Prostitution reform bill for all intents and purposes made prostitution legal. This is how it was perceived by everybody.

    This from the Parliamentary website-“In June 2003, New Zealand became the first country to decriminalise sex work with the passage of the Prostitution Reform Act (PRA) 2003. [1] Sex work in New Zealand had not been illegal before the PRA. However, the Justice and Electoral Committee said that prior to the PRA a range of offences could be committed in association with acts of prostitution, and that for most forms of prostitution it was likely a law would be broken at some stage.”

    So don’t be so deceitful. You know what the bill did. It removed the fear of prosecution and the social stigma. Now we have heaps of underage people engaging in the practice. Which we didn’t have before. That’s why it is news!

    Epic fail you Mr Farrar.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    ‘Steve (North Shore) (3,532) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 7:22 pm
    My two cents worth.

    I skipped through the comments and the original post.
    There is no gender mentioned? (protitute as young as 13), most comments are on the legal side
    Now what would a 13 year old kid going through puberty do with $600 per day/night?

    The kids are being force fed drugs and booze by pimps, and who would the pimps be? Their fucking dropkick dysfunctional drug and booze addicted PARENTS!

    Tell me if I am wrong’

    We don’t know how much of, or if any of it is true.

    I’ve got serious doubts that police, community police, youth aid and community groups would be asleep on something like this, if it is described correctly. We’ll hear different versions in a few days and perhaps then understand why it is Winston riding the white charger in on a situation that, if true, should be broadly obvious in that community. I’m ‘sort of’ surprised by the ready misconceptions that overlook the horror that most PIs and Maori would hold on these allegations within that community. No doubt we will see.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    the parents of these girls should be charged with neglect.

    More fuel for the great kiwi protection racket.

    There’s no neglect when there’s no harm. You could argue that society suffers here, and I think you would be right.
    But is it wrong for a 13 year old to be a prostitute and ok for a 19 year old to be one?
    In other words, is age the issue, or is it the fact that prostitutes are doing business on the street in South Auckland?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Northland Wahine (673 comments) says:

    Ugly truth,

    A 13 year old selling herself on the streets of south Auckland, west or Paratai drive, is wrong. The 13 year old is being harmed. The 13 year old probably is use to being harmed by those who are suppose to care for her. Parental neglect regardless. Whether she was damaged on the street or before she hit the street.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    Or is it that prostitution is inherently a degrading and dehumanising activity? Is it that harm minimisation hasn’t worked? Is it that prostitution is a growing problem that is causing local councils no end of problems. Is it that we were wrong again to liberalise another activity? When will we learn?

    Perhaps liberalism is a dead end that is destroying our culture?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Northland Wahine,

    If a 13 year old is definitely harmed by prostitution, then how is it any different for a 19 year old?

    Scott,

    I think it’s degrading for the female. Maybe it takes a 13 year old to shock the locals into thinking about what it means.

    It’s not liberalism that is destroying out culture, it’s the politics of necessity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    Northland Wahine (460) Says:
    March 27th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
    Ugly truth,

    A 13 year old selling herself on the streets of south Auckland, west or Paratai drive, is wrong. The 13 year old is being harmed. The 13 year old probably is use to being harmed by those who are suppose to care for her. Parental neglect regardless. Whether she was damaged on the street or before she hit the street.’

    Of course. But it all needs to put to order, and by the attention these claims have already gathered it soon will be. If it’s true, or partly true, the information needed to be out. East Tamaki has a structured monitoring and assistance plan in place across a wide range of social concerns, if it has been breached to the extent of these claims the brown stuff will hit the fan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Northland Wahine (673 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, if a 19 year old starts working on the street she or he is suppose to be an adult. We could debate morally whether or not they are an adult, the law says they are. A 19 year old is suppose to be able to make better decision concerning their safety. They may have more street smarts. Who knows, the same 19 year old could have been working the street since they were 13.

    What chance of a decent life does a 13 year old prostitute have?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. SPC (5,664 comments) says:

    Scott, soliciting sex for money was illegal. Living off the earnings was illegal. Receiving money for sex was not illegal. This allowed men to offer money for sex and women to accept it. They were however supposed to only do this as a part-time activity and not live off the earnings.

    The street problem is that it is by nature unregulated. Formerly police could easily crack down on soliciting when minors were involved, now they can only prosecute clients who knowingly go with those under age. The best option is to require licensing for street work, no one under age would get a licence. Most street business activity (street vendors etc) requires prior consent, sex work should be no different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    And what is that sicko deviant Tim Barnet doing today ?

    And is he still “married ‘ to his wife or husband or whatever he called his deviant ‘partner’ ?

    i doubt it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    It’s quite simple, what these deviants have for a goal.

    The lower they can force the moral compass of society, the more “normal” their own
    deviant lifestyle seems in comparison. This sick sad sack has been quite successful in that
    regard.

    Q. E. D.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Northland Wahine,

    So you are saying that a 13 yo is definitely harmed by prostitution but a 19 yo isn’t because she is supposed to be an adult?
    It seems that your concept of harm is based on society’s dogma rather than actual harm.

    Most people believe the state when it tells them what the law is, but it has all the honour of a five dollar whore who calls herself a lady. If you want decency then act according to the truth instead of what some political muppet deems to be necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Northland Wahine (673 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, you appear to have reached a conclusion where none was stated.

    I said “suppose” to be an adult. A person of any age can be harmed working in the sex worker industry. That’s a given in my opinion.

    I work and live in south Auckland. Manurewa in fact. Our own sex worker industry is visible from the late afternoon. Many are clients. I see the harm it causes them and it saddens me greatly. The ones I see are legally adults.

    A few years back, I recognised an extended family member, a transsexual, barely 18 working, and dragged him in the car, brought him home and called one of his brothers to collect him. I faced a barrage of insults from his fellow workers. Within a fortnight, he had returned. Does he look happy? No. Is he an adult? Law says yes, but I see a poor lost kid, and probably always will do.

    So UglyTruth, please place your labels elsewhere. My opinions are based own experience, my own, not others.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    [DPF: You’re wrong – again. Prostitution was not illegal before the Prostitution Reform Act. Fail.

    Also you’re wrong to suggest there were no under age prostitutes before the PRA]

    That is perfectly correct DPF. Prostitution was not illegal before the PRA, and the fact that there was so many underage prostitutes was one of the reasons why the act was bought in the first place.

    The act was also meant to encourage organised brothels who would need to operate under strict health and hygiene criteria, and in doing so, hopefully decrease the number of ‘street walkers’.

    Prostitution has always increased in times of economic instability and unemployment. What we are seeing is just a symptom of that. Youth employment is hard to obtain – low skill families are struggling. For many young women and men they see prostitution as the only answer – sadly the lifestyle usually involves their association with other forms of illicit behaviour, of which they soon become involved.

    Prostitutes must be 18 years of age or older. It is illegal to have sex with a person under 16 years of age, regardless of whether they are charging for it or not. It is illegal to pay a person for sex between the ages of 16 and 18 years. The figure of 18 years is because at that point they are legally an adult and by law able to make that choice.

    Anyone who makes such a choice regardless of age is setting themselves up for all kinds of emotional and social negative consequences which they are stuck with for life.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nostalgia-NZ (5,317 comments) says:

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/16461355/cops-hit-back-at-prostitution-claims/

    Reality bites after all, somebody trying to make political mileage by putting the boot into the ET community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    So UglyTruth, please place your labels elsewhere. My opinions are based own experience, my own, not others.

    My labels were not directed at you. The point of my question was to establish that age isn’t the deciding factor when considering the issue of harm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Aside from the age of these particular prostitutes the crux of the matter is consent. Prostitution involves sex and free enterprise….which of those two things do the Religo-statist, “other people’s body’s” snatchers, have a problem with?

    Prostitution, free from any coercion, is perfectly moral….no ones rights are violated so its no business for the law or the State. If offends you for your own reasons then don’t engage in it.

    Traditional marriage,which the religo’s are so concerned with, was just prostitution bought with legal and societal bounds of “decency”. But at heart Men are still trading with Women for sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. exile (34 comments) says:

    Prostitution has been going on at Hunters Corner and other hotspots in South Auckland since before I became aware that there was such a thing as prostitution, so at least as far back as the 80s.

    What happened at Hunters Corner was that conservative, church based agencies did a series of ‘visual surveys’ of the ‘prostitutes’ working there. The problem is, kids of all ages congregate for many reasons in South Auckland. You had a situation where there were a few adult prostitutes, and some of questionable age were being accompanied by the usual hangers on, after smokes, coins and whatever they could get. Inflating an unfortunate situation for the potential financial gain of ‘rescue’ agencies (or in this case re-election) is the real scandal.

    The prostitution reform law in New Zealand has been an unprecedented success too.

    Are their more prostitutes now? No. The number of sex workers has remained steady, and in line with the population increase.

    Are their more clients? No. The number of clients has remained steady, as above.

    Are their more prostitutes on the streets? No. The number has fallen by 30-50% in most hotspots.

    Sodom and Gomorrah has failed to materialise.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote