Jump to content

Talk:Prostitution in Oceania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 4 November 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Legality of prostitution in Oceania → Prostitution in Oceania – Name change is only to follow same formatting as the other entries and pages. AquilaXIII (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - consistency is good. PepperBeast (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fiji

[edit]

It's often written that prostitution is illegal in Fiji. This is not the case, and the laws are roughly the same as the UK in that prostitution is legal but most related activities are not. (Brothels, pimping solicitation etc).

Before 2009 prostitution law was covered by the Penal code. In 2009 the laws were rationalised and the 2009 Crimes Degree issued. Generally this just clarified the earlier legislation, eg solicitation became a defined crime rather than being part of the 'Morality in Public' prohibitions. There was a new offence of buying sex in public (equivalent to the UK's kerb crawling laws.)

Street prostitution makes up the bulk of the industry in Fiji.

I think where the confusion lies is that the Fiji press reported that the new law gave significant new powers for the police to crack down on prostitution (which it didn't, merely defines the law better), and that it made both buying and selling sex illegal. This of course only applies to the street scene, not the industry overall, although because the street scene is the bulk of the industry you can see the logic behind the generalisation.

A couple of links:

I've added these notes in case the subject comes up again. --John B123 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]

What would people think about removing the table entirely? The problem with a lot of attempts to summarise sex work-related legislation is that it's often complex, so trying to simplify it to four tick boxes just means that it's actually wrong. What @John B123: pointed out about Fiji (which I personally know nothing about it) is a perfect example of this: describing what the legal status actually is requires some explanation in prose, and requesting a "yes/no" answer on legality when invariably some things are and some things aren't doesn't help anyone understand what the laws are. The lack of specific sourcing (as in to actual legislation) further makes clear that wherever this came from wasn't necessarily someone who understood the legal situation in each country. I think getting rid of the very-dubiously-correct table and shifting the focus to the prose would make this article a lot more useful to anyone who wanted to understand the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the table is to provide a quick summary, rather than wade through the prose to find the key points. However you are correct that sometimes a yes or no answer doesn't tell the full story. I don't see that there's anything to stop people putting a sentence or two in the box to explain when it's not a simple answer.
That said, I don't like tables in general. They are useful on desktops but don't work on mobiles. Looking at the table on my mobile, I can only see about 3 countries at a time and 3 columns (Country, Prostitution & Legal age), so have to scroll horizontally as well as vertically. As according to Template:Sidebar, 45% WP readers access from a mobile, perhaps we should be considering mobiles more when writing pages?
My personal preference would be to drop the table (because it doesn't work on mobiles) and instead have a 'quick reference' infobox in each section. This would appear on the right on desktops but full width and above the text on mobiles. For example the section for Fuji might look like this:

Fiji

 Fiji
  • Prostitution legal
  • Brothels illegal
  • Pimping illegal
  • Buying or selling sex in public illegal
Main article: Prostitution in Fiji

Prostitution in Fiji is legal, but most activities connected with it illegal: brothel keeping, pimping and buying or selling sex in public.[3] The Crimes Decree 2009[4] sets out the legislation regarding sex work and replaces the provisions of the earlier Penal Code.[1] Since the new legislation the has been increased enforcement, especially towards street workers and their clients.[3][1] Street workers make up the bulk of Fiji's prostitutes.

--John B123 (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Edit: I've just looked at the above mock-up on my mobile and, apart from some minor tweaks needed, it looks fine --John B123 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like this a lot better as a solution. It's also alterable depending on the jurisdiction, allowing for Fiji a distinction between the legality of indoor/street work (as applies in many places). Feel like including it in some sections? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: I'd prefer to wait for some more opinions before changing anything --John B123 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While we're looking at this - I also think it'd be a good idea to simply remove the "pimping" section entirely from these as well: there's no agreement over what "pimping" is or what making it "illegal" actually criminalises, and the latter is something that varies widely between jurisdictions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French Polynesia, New Caledonia & Wallis and Futuna

[edit]

These are French Overseas collectivities, and therefore have their own legislature and make their own laws. (As opposed to French Overseas territories, that are part of France). They are similar in status as say the Channel Islands are to the UK.

Whilst their law generally follows that of France, there are deviations from this. The April 2016 French law criminalising buyers of sex may or may not have been enacted in these islands.

New Caledonia changed from a territory to a collectivity in 1993, the other two in 2003. Prior to these dates french Law would have applied and solicitation would have been prohibited. In most areas they kept the French law when becoming a collectivity and have modified it as needed since. This possibly means the '18' in the table for 'soliciting' is wrong, unless they have passed legislation to that effect.

If they haven't adopted the 2016 French law, then "main article: Prostitution in France" is perhaps misleading?

Unfortunately I can't find any sources to clarify the situation--John B123 (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to nuke the table so we can get rid of all these completely unsourced/very poorly sourced cases. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Caledonia added the French Law of 3rd June 2016 into their Penal Code on 12th December 2016. [1] --John B123 (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll & Wake Island

[edit]

Apart from Midway Atoll and Palmyra Atoll, which have small US scienticic stations (<40 people), these islands are uninhabited. Is there any point in including them? --John B123 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed --John B123 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand

[edit]

There have been some very unconstructive edits in this section. If you think something is incorrect in this section then amend it, or discuss it on the talk page. Just deleting sections of of the content doesn't help anybody to understand what you consider to be wrong and could be viewed as an act of vandalism John B123 (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted about this on your talk page. I'm not sure why you're reverting me here - in the sections relating to Australian law, you correctly changed the article to reflect what the law actually says, yet in New Zealand you're repeatedly adding something that is wrong on the basis of an unreliable source and a source that doesn't remotely support the claim you're adding. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: I'd already posted this here before you posted on my talk page. From your post on there, it's just the legality of pimping you disagree with. If you are agreeing with the rest of the statements of legality in the infobox, then it's removal in toto is vandalism. Not stating what you think is wrong certainly doesn't help resolve it. John B123 (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add: a general overview of law is that something is legal unless legislated against. If you think pimping is illegal please provide some evidence of this. John B123 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further edit: Pimping was previously outlawed by section 148 (Living on earnings of prostitution) & 149 (Procuring for prostitution) of the Crime Act 1961. Both were repealed on 28 June 2003, by section 48(1)(a) of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 [2] [3] John B123 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, procuring for prostitution and living on earnings of prostitution are legal. Why not say that? Both of these concepts have quite different applications to the US popular culture definition of "pimping", which is not nor has ever been a concept in New Zealand law. Specifically, in the context of decriminalisation: it removed bans on legal brothels recruiting staff and removed the possibilities of people being charged for operating a legal brothel: describing this as "legalising pimping" is both inaccurate and an utter breach of WP:NPOV. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is to give a 'see at a glance' overview and therefore needs to be as succinct as possible. I'm not sure we should be editing WP to fit in with American (possibly racist & sexist) stereotypes, which could be interpreted as WP:NPOV. In simple terms, there was legislation to make pimping illegal. This legislation was repealed by the Prostitution Reform Act 2003. The PRA did not replace those previous provisions, it repealed this. I did lay down regulations for brothels to be run under. How these facts could be NPOV I've no idea.
Going back to my original point, why delete content that you don't disagree with, and why not leave helpful edit summaries so people know what you see as a problem rather than "incorrect"? John B123 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was not "legislation to make pimping illegal". The concept is not, nor has ever been, a thing in New Zealand law, and is not used terribly frequently socially either. There was laws again procuring for prostitution and living on the earnings of prostitution - so we should say that. There has been too much of a lazy tendency in covering laws on sex work to decide that "succinct" is a replacement for "accurate". The only reason to do that, instead of to describe the actual legal situation, is to - in your words - "fit in with American (possibly racist and sexist) stereotypes". I won't breach the three-revert rule, but if you won't fix it I'll take it out myself tomorrow. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And a cursory check of a different country reveals the same problems in Fiji. "Pimping" is an American concept which is not generally a creature of Commonwealth law, and as such the laws don't actually line up with that description. I've tagged the article for accuracy until it describes the actual law rather than making incorrect claims. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pimping is not an exclusivity American term, in fact it's first use was recorded in 1607 in England. You were the one who brought up about the American stereotype, which isn't my, or the general UK definition of pimp. Again, back to my original point, why delete content that's not disputed? You're not a school teacher with a right to say "not good enough, do it again", so why not do something constructive towards to article, instead of deleting everything that doesn't fit in with your personal view and making comments like "fuck, this is a sloppy article". John B123 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an area that has long been poorly-sourced and inaccurate, so if we're going to go to the trouble of working on it, we need to get it right. It absolutely was a sloppy article, and thanks in large part to your work (at least in most cases) in replacing the almost entirely unsourced and frequently patently wrong rubbish that was here with what the laws actually state, it is much better. Drawing attention to the handful of places where it still makes inaccurate claims instead of stating what the law actually is is doing something constructive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no problem with others pointing out errors, omissions or inaccuracies in the article, either in my edits or content by others. Simply deleting a section without explanation of where the problem lies I don't find constructive. For example, the infobox contained six items, deleting it with a comment "this is still wrong", gives no clue as to whether one item is wrong or all six are wrong. If it's just one, then which one? If it's just one why delete the other 5? (I know we've established where the problem lies now). Having to play detective to find out where the problem is doesn't help, especially when it comes down to a difference in the understanding of what a term means. John B123 (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc - What should be considered 'pimping'

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should living on the earnings of prostitutes or Procuring (prostitution) be considered pimping, or does it need to be as per the stereotype of an American pimps? John B123 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. This is conflating concepts that don't and never have existed in that form in the countries you're referring to them as. No one calls a manager of a legal brothel a "pimp" unless they're someone with a serious agenda, or advertising for workers at a legal brothel "pimping", and people can be charged under living off the earnings laws who are well outside of any American understanding of "pimp". The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I think this has probably been previously decided as pimp and pimping redirect to Procuring (prostitution). The opening of that article is "Procuring or pandering is the facilitation or provision of a prostitute or sex worker in the arrangement of a sex act with a customer. A procurer, colloquially called a pimp (if male) or a madam (if female), is an agent for prostitutes who collects part of their earnings.". The definition is broader than the stereotypical American pimp. Wiktionary also gives a broad definition of "pimp": A man who solicits customers for prostitution and acts as manager for a group of prostitutes; a panderer. Whilst there are no doubt some pimps of the type, the stereotype is born out of 70's blaxploitation films (for which Shaft received intense criticism), was further enhanced by the hip-hop culture. To suggest we define pimp as this stereotype is akin to defining prostitute by the Vivian Ward (Julia Roberts) character in the film Pretty Woman. John B123 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Living off the earnings laws don't equate to "an agent for prostitutes who collects part of their earnings", and nothing there backs up the claim that a legal brothel advertising for workers (what was legalised by removing the ban on procuring) is "pimping". The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree "living of the earnings" doesn't equate exactly to "pimp", but a law prohibiting living off the earnings also prohibits pimping as the earnings are a fundamental part of pimping. It's not the legislation introduced by the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (brothel regulation etc), but the legislation repealed by the Act (Section 149 (Procuring for prostitution) of the Crime Act 1961) that's the issue.
Putting all that aside, a lot of the difference of opinion here is over perception of the meaning of the word pimp. Assuming others may well have different ideas of the meaning of the word, perhaps it's use is best avoided to avoid any ambiguity? John B123 (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article accordingly John B123 (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this discussion correctly, the issues that resulted in the addition of the "disputed" tag to the article have now been resolved. Does anyone object to the tag's removal? - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Will the smaller ones

[edit]

Will the smaller countries be redirected here? Dwanyewest (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the countries in the region direct here if they haven't got their own article John B123 (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution_in_Oceania&oldid=1208375159"