Sex Worker Killed After Paroled Murderer Allowed to Satisfy 'Sexual Needs'

[BorneoBabe]

www.vice.com/en_ca/article/884xd3/sex-worker-killed-after-paroled-murderer-allowed-to-satisfy-sexual-needs

'Originally given a life sentence for killing his partner, Chantale Deschesnes, in 2004 by beating her with a hammer and stabbing her, Gallese gradually gained limited freedom for good behaviour'

'According to the parole board’s latest written decision, obtained by VICE and translated from French, Gallese brought up relationships with women during a discussion with his case workers. While Gallese’s intimate relationships were deemed inappropriate, the decision explicitly acknowledges his “sexual needs.”'

A murderer's right to sex is more important than protecting women from a violent monster.

Yes, me too @justcly.

@TheProdigalKittensReturn Yes, I know.

Canada should implement the Swedish model

Hold on a minute

The article says it is illegal to pay for sex in Canada.

So the authorises were facilitating this man in committing a criminal act?

This whole situation is appalling. The sexual 'needs' of a convicted murderer are more important than the law and the safety of women?

And her death to push for decrim? With the person saying that, not questioning at all why he was out of prison, how his risk level was so badly assessed. Tells you all you need to know.

Sounds very much like the authorities acknowledged he was still a risk but didn’t really give a shit because he was only a risk to women and they don’t matter. Ffs.

To everyone saying Canada should implement the Nordic/Swedish model. They already have. That’s why massage parlours are illegal.

I got the impression that they don't see prostitutes as 'real women', more like sex dolls. Fucking disgraceful.

Canada - run by men for men...

Although the massage parlour banned him, they didn't report him to any authorities, because they would have had to admit to breaking the law themselves. She thinks that if sex work were decriminalised then the information would have been passed on.
I'm pretty sure if they really wanted to, anonymous reporting channels are possible.
More like they view violent men as an occupational hazard that the police won't take seriously, and couldn't be bothered. Not sure decriminalisation will help that.

A murderer's right to sex is more important than protecting women from a violent monster.

Well of course. All hail the bepenised. Was her fault anyway for chosing to be a sex worker, sure she provoked him, etc etc. Also NOT ALL MEN ARE LIKE THAT, its rare!!!

Also, RIP. I do not mean to be offensive towards the woman who died. Simply, giving the answer most men will give to this

Why should workers have to report anonymously though and how would prosecution work? Why can't they have legal workplaces? Decriminalisation increases reporting rates. It also enables workers to have workplace rights. If a violent client is hammering on the door how can you phone the police if you know that you could be arrested for brothel keeping?

It also enables workers to have workplace rights. If a violent client is hammering on the door how can you phone the police if you know that you could be arrested for brothel keeping?

Surely nordic model works best, criminalizing the angry client hammering on the door whilst the women working are protected.

Bloody hell this is depressing.

Was he incapable of having a wank?

What the fuck was wrong with the parole board - very clear they do not see woman as actual human beings.

I'll be avoiding Canada like the plague, thanks.

Nordic model allows sex workers to report violent men.

Decriminalisation increases reporting rates. It also enables workers to have workplace rights
Do you think workers should comply with HSE standards then? What kind of workplace rights would you like them to have that they don't at the moment?

Sex workers have no workers rights at the minute. You can't have any workers rights in a criminalised workplace. How do you unionise if your workplace is illegal? How do you access min wage, holiday pay, sick pay? How do you take your boss to tribunal? You can't. Think about how your workplace would operate if your office was operating illegally. Do you think that your boss would treat you well if they knew you had no recourse to justice? Do you think you'd be able to negotiate with them?

@batshite you don't need the nordic model to criminalise someone for threatening behaviour. If the worker phoned the police on that client, then under the nordic model her workplace would be closed down and she could be prosecuted if she assisted in the management of the brothel

@QuentinWinters a friend of mine reported a stalker in nordic model ireland. the police phoned her landlord, threatened him with arrest (as letting premises for sex work is illegal under the nordic model) and had her evicted

Of course they did

This is when I miss Lass - if you decriminalised sex work it would breach so many health and safety laws that it would - in effect - be criminalised again. There is no way to have 'safe' sex work. It's not possible for it to be truly legal - you have to create massive loopholes where it is treated differently to every single other job and the same standards not applied.

The needs of men trump all else.

@QuentinWinters she’s Irish jezebel on Twitter you can ask her yourself. abusive men can just phone landlords and get sex workers evicted. The police in Norway ran a campaign called operation homeless which evicted sex workers. But of don’t criticise the precious Nordic model. Don’t report what is actually happening.

New Zealand workers have health and safety guidelines and the New Zealand health and safety authority publish guides for workers. I suppose you all think that for example condom access under criminalised and decrim is the same though. The police still use presence of condoms as evidence in brothel keeping and soliciting cases. Do you all really think that having no laws and no standards is better than having access to the same laws as everyone else? I suppose it’s fine if I just criminalise your workplaces too then. Won’t make any difference.

@ironicname I couldn’t care less about the men, it’s about worker’s having the right to:

Workplace standards
Working together for safety
Unionisation
Tribunal access
And much more

I'm disinclined to take seriously people whose usernames are preemptively telling everyone on this forum to f off before we've even had a chance to talk to them about anything. Just as an FYI.

I dont want to live in a society which condones mens use of prostitutes and sets up conditions where men can exploit vulnerable women legally.
Look at the superbrothels and what has happened in Germany since decriminalisation.
I also don't think sex work should ever be presented as a legitimate career option. I don't judge women who do it, I think as a society we need to protect vulnerable women and girls and that means preventing sex work where possible.
I also want to talk about the men who use prostitutes and how we discourage them.

The law isn’t about condoning anything it’s about evidence based policy making. Unless you think that sex workers are collateral damage in your crusade. Trying having a bit of empathy with sex workers and think about what would make them safer. Germany has legalisation not decriminalisation. The vast majority of sex work in Germany is still criminalised and so the power rests in the hands of those who can get licences. You can’t just work together for safety without a licence. You have to register with the authorities etc. This further marginalises the majority of workers.

Looking at the men is the wrong way round. You need to look at why women are deciding that sex work is a better option that benefits or other jobs. If rents were lower, mental health provision was better, university was free and there were proper grants, universal credit didn’t have a 5 week wait, childcare was free, sanctions were abolished. The numbers in sex work would plummet. The legal model doesn’t affect the size of the industry, womens precarity and poverty does.

Looking at the men is the wrong way round. You need to look at why women are deciding that sex work is a better option that benefits or other jobs

Supply and demand. If there is demand there will always be supply. All the things you mention will potentially reduce the numbers in prostitution, but that just means women who are still prepared to make that choice can command higher prices.

We can't reduce prostitution without reducing demand. Making it so that buying sex is legal will only increase demand.

The law is there to protect society. Some mens attitudes to women are very damaging to society in lots of ways, condoning buying of womens bodies to satisfy a want justifies those mens attitudes.