"Cadiz" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bcnst2$l7sv2$1@no-spam>...
> "Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:_9iHa.5527$Jq3.937726@no-spam
>
> >
> > Of course, in regards to NZ, the one with multiple personalities has done
> little if any research,
> > and speaks from the position of ignorance by distance.
> >
> > Calum
> >
> >
>
> The CEDAW Committee do not agree with you. The Swedes did not tell you in
> either of your two famous emails that their law was increasing trafficking
> which is why you fought very shy of posting that material to the internet.
>
> I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
> emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
> not rise to the challenge.
>
> Gregory
That deal still holds Calum! The USA looks upon brothels as direct
funders of drug traffickers because that is where a huge chunk of the
that change ends up.
The cycle of exploitation affects the children of prostitutes who are
much more likely to take drugs as well.
The pimp and drug trafficker are in the exact same business of harming
people and ruining young lives to the extent they share the same pile
of dirty money each in their turn.
Are you going to post the 'evidence' you kept relying upon but didn't
quite get around to showing?
Find me one clandestine Swedish brothel on the eb and I will find some
NZ brothels and we will see which country has the most pimps.
Your pimp infested jurisdiction obviously has many more brothels than
Norway, Finland and Sweden combined.
The pimps and their supporters went out drinking to celebrate their
win after that legislation was passed.
In article <7734dcd6.0307031634.7a68321a@no-spam>,
lisieux@no-spam (lisieux) wrote:
> > I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
> > emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
> > not rise to the challenge.
> >
> > Gregory
Thanks Callum for relieving us of this twit.
So long lisieux, gregory and all the organisations you've made up.
Gregory allegedly said:
> Pimps were openly running brothels in New Zealand which is more than can
> be said for Sweden.
Pimping isn't against the law in New Zealand.....so it's just a name you're
giving to this particular type of employer.
You probably intend it to be laden with much negative meaning....but it
doesn't translate.....because under NZ law, the operator of a brothel can
no longer brutalise and intimidate his employees.
Besides....there are enough female-run brothels in NZ that no working girl
has to put up with bad behaviour by a brothel operator.
These people advertise daily in the newspapers for girls. The girls have
some power becasue they are a rare commodity - compared to people who work
at McDonalds, for example.
> Organized crime tends to be off-shore and in your case
> probably Australia. The Chinese would also be highly organized in NZ.
...and the police pay close attention. The "domestic" gangs are happy to
tell the police when the Chinese get too "organised".
> Oceania has a thriving trafficking and slave trade. I wouldn't attempt to
> put hard numbers on the NZ share. But crime syndicates from NSW has
> branched out into Europe, Korea, Japan and even Russia.
Whatever.....those places aren't New Zealand.
--
Steve
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
"Steve" <steve@no-spam> wrote in message
news:8SrNa.2957$9f7.313614@no-spam
> Gregory allegedly said:
>
> > Pimps were openly running brothels in New Zealand which is more than can
> > be said for Sweden.
>
> Pimping isn't against the law in New Zealand.....so it's just a name
you're
> giving to this particular type of employer.
The dictionary definition remains unchanged and most people give it the same
name, the legislation did not amend the dictionary or UN definition as far
as I am aware.
If New Zealand were to also make child pornography legal, the dictionary
definition would similarly remain and child pornography would still be
frowned upon in the UK and Sweden etcetera in much the same way as pimping
is frowned upon.
In the USA pimping is related to an increae in drug trafficking beause the
same individuals are frequently involved in bot activities and because the
women being prostituted are very frequently a cash cow for drug syndicates.
The British Home Secretary recently gave a speech at an event sponsored by
Coalition for the Removal of Pimping and his position was that pimps were
very dangerous criminals.
The 'Denying the Pimp' conference was on Friday 27th June 2003, 10.30am to
4.00pm, Thackray Medical Museum, Leeds and the Keynote Speaker was The Rt
Hon David Blunkett MP the Home Secretary.
>
> You probably intend it to be laden with much negative meaning....but it
> doesn't translate.....because under NZ law, the operator of a brothel can
> no longer brutalise and intimidate his employees.
He was never allowed to do that and so the legal principle of prohibition
has not actually changed one iota and there is no immediate reason to
suspect that the prosecution rate will improve after recent tinkering with
the coercion aspects. tHe law againt pimping was recently used to prosecute
a sex predator in New Zealand. That law has now been repealed.
Gregory
Steve <steve@no-spam> wrote in message news:<8SrNa.2957$9f7.313614@no-spam>...
> Gregory allegedly said:
>
> > Pimps were openly running brothels in New Zealand which is more than can
> > be said for Sweden.
>
> Pimping isn't against the law in New Zealand.....so it's just a name you're
> giving to this particular type of employer.
Pimp
From Wikipedia.
A male manager of a brothel is called a pimp; a female brothel manager
is known as a madam.
Street prostitutes may or may not have a pimp. The relationship
between pimp and prostitute is often abusive.
Pimps often target vulnerable women and young girls who have run away
from home, initially offering themselves as lovers or father-figures.
After introducing their victims to prostitution, they often use
beatings and drug addiction to maintain their victim's dependency.
Pimps are also commonly low-echelon drug dealers.
Pimping is a sex crime in many jusrisdictions. In 1949, the United
Nations adopted a convention stating that prostitution is incompatible
with human dignity, requiring all signing parties to punish pimps and
brothel owners and operators, and to abolish all special treatment or
registration of prostitutes. The convention was ratified by 89
countries with the notable exception of Germany, the Netherlands and
the United States.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimp
"ange" <ange@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ange-2E3B10.11323905072003@no-spam
> In article <7734dcd6.0307031634.7a68321a@no-spam>,
> lisieux@no-spam (lisieux) wrote:
>
> > > I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two
Swedish
> > > emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you
will
> > > not rise to the challenge.
> > >
> > > Gregory
>
>
> Thanks Callum for relieving us of this twit.
>
> So long lisieux, gregory and all the organisations you've made up.
"I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
not rise to the challenge."
Dear Ange,
Calum did not accept the offer and only posted the edited highlights, none
of which actually supported his confusing arguments However if he did want
to post the full emails than that might be a different issue.
However he declined to take that route. A 'deal' is a bit like the CEDAW
treaty, it is a contract requiring more than one actor to go with the idea.
I shall probably be working on the PRB campaign for the next two years.
I made the offer on 17/6/03 before the vote. Calum has to my knowledge still
not posted the emails and even if he did it was a pre-vote offer. He
obviously didn't feel his 'research' measured up.
He seemed to think the emails contained important evidence of something. I
knew he was bluffing. I always knew his alleged evidence simply didn't
measure up. No Swedish official ever sent him anything which supported his
arguments.
Kind regards
Gregory
In article <becba5$3em6s$1@no-spam>,
"Gregory" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote:
> "I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
> emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
> not rise to the challenge."
>
> Dear Ange,
>
> Calum did not accept the offer and only posted the edited highlights, none
> of which actually supported his confusing arguments However if he did want
> to post the full emails than that might be a different issue.
>
> However he declined to take that route. A 'deal' is a bit like the CEDAW
> treaty, it is a contract requiring more than one actor to go with the idea.
> I shall probably be working on the PRB campaign for the next two years.
>
> I made the offer on 17/6/03 before the vote. Calum has to my knowledge still
> not posted the emails and even if he did it was a pre-vote offer. He
> obviously didn't feel his 'research' measured up.
okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
the terms of a deal retrospectively. Calum has posted the full contents
of both emails and you are still here. You have no credibility or
integrity, therefore you cannot contribute meaningfully to debate. Go
away.
"ange" <ange@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ange-0BE4CA.09183508072003@no-spam
> In article <becba5$3em6s$1@no-spam>,
> "Gregory" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
> > emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
> > not rise to the challenge."
> >
> > Dear Ange,
> >
> > Calum did not accept the offer and only posted the edited highlights, none
> > of which actually supported his confusing arguments However if he did want
> > to post the full emails than that might be a different issue.
> >
> > However he declined to take that route. A 'deal' is a bit like the CEDAW
> > treaty, it is a contract requiring more than one actor to go with the idea.
> > I shall probably be working on the PRB campaign for the next two years.
> >
> > I made the offer on 17/6/03 before the vote. Calum has to my knowledge still
> > not posted the emails and even if he did it was a pre-vote offer. He
> > obviously didn't feel his 'research' measured up.
>
> okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
> the terms of a deal retrospectively. Calum has posted the full contents
> of both emails and you are still here. You have no credibility or
> integrity, therefore you cannot contribute meaningfully to debate. Go
> away.
As proven, the one with multiple personalities- Gregory/Greagoir/lisieux/Cadiz/ICATW is indeed a
liar. I did post the entire text of the e-mails. I even posted parts of a (47 page) report not
asked for.
OTOH, he has lied, misrepresented many things, misrepresented himself, proven he is a fraud,
committed so many "substantive errors of fact" in virtually every posting so that I lost count- and
it should be remembered that he has claimed that he rarely makes substantive errors of fact (and
there are at least two in his posting above)- and has now proven he is without honour and does not
intend to keep his word.
I never saw his offer- it was under one of his many personalities that I had killfiled.
He's a fuckwit. What I said earlier, using language that was used in the royal courts of Scotland
and England stands.
Calum
In article <xxmOa.3463$9f7.374135@no-spam>,
bennachie@no-spam says...
> As proven, the one with multiple personalities- Gregory/Greagoir/lisieux/Cadiz/ICATW is indeed a
> liar. I did post the entire text of the e-mails. I even posted parts of a (47 page) report not
> asked for.
What evidence is there that any of these personalities come from the same
person? I don't see any. Try and find something else to abuse someone
about.
"Mainlander" <*@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1974c626c97495b3989924@no-spam
> In article <xxmOa.3463$9f7.374135@no-spam>,
> bennachie@no-spam says...
>
> > As proven, the one with multiple personalities-
Gregory/Greagoir/lisieux/Cadiz/ICATW is indeed a
> > liar. I did post the entire text of the e-mails. I even posted parts
of a (47 page) report not
> > asked for.
>
> What evidence is there that any of these personalities come from the same
> person? I don't see any. Try and find something else to abuse someone
> about.
Greagoir (Irish) Gregory (English) Lisieux refer to Humanitas, and ICATW one
of our campaigns. However Calum did not as far as I have been able to
determine post the entire contents of the two Swedish emails. He only posted
edited parts of that material and seemingly declined to post both emails
with their context.
If his software has a forward button he can squirt them to the NG without
cutting and pasting. If he has indeed posted the entire emails with his
questions to the Swedes then he has my apologies. I have looked and searched
and I have not found such a post from Calum. He was asked for weeks to post
the material and he declined to oblige.
Gregory
"ange" <ange@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ange-0BE4CA.09183508072003@no-spam
> In article <becba5$3em6s$1@no-spam>,
> "Gregory" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two
Swedish
> > emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you
will
> > not rise to the challenge."
> >
> > Dear Ange,
> >
> > Calum did not accept the offer and only posted the edited highlights,
none
> > of which actually supported his confusing arguments However if he did
want
> > to post the full emails than that might be a different issue.
> >
> > However he declined to take that route. A 'deal' is a bit like the
CEDAW
> > treaty, it is a contract requiring more than one actor to go with the
idea.
> > I shall probably be working on the PRB campaign for the next two years.
> >
> > I made the offer on 17/6/03 before the vote. Calum has to my knowledge
still
> > not posted the emails and even if he did it was a pre-vote offer. He
> > obviously didn't feel his 'research' measured up.
>
> okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
> the terms of a deal retrospectively.
He was asked for *all* the context. If I had asked for the edited
highlights then you might have a point. calum has not as far as I can
ascertain posted the context and contents of his two emails he was boasting
about and he was asked for weeks to do so.
>Calum has posted the full contents
Okay then as a big personal favor to me go find me the text of his questions
to the swedes and their full replies by way of a response. When you can do
that I will accept that he posted them.
He was asked to cough up his evidence weeks ago. It is too late now for
comradely compliance. I'm entirely indifferent to whether he posts or
doesn't post the material.
Gregory
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message news:<tUcPa.4048$9f7.442718@no-spam>...
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307091537.7c27cbba@no-spam
> >
> > Dear Calum,
> >
> > I spent much more time researching NZ issues than you ever invested on
> > Finland or Sweden.
> >
> > I am fairly sure the arrests of males was a motivating factor in the
> > lobbying for the PRB.
> >
> > What we had for the most part was essentially a lifestyle agenda which
> > was married to an existing NZPC campaign.
> >
> > Gregory
>
> That first comment is soooo hilarious. If you had actually bothered to do any research, you would
> have found out that the "males" arrested were actually transgendered people. Not gay men.
>
> And the last one totally forgets that the majority of groups and people involved in lobbying were
> heterosexual.
>
> Seems like you still can't get anything right.
>
> Calum
Does the law of the land state that they are men or women? If they
get arrested for serial X or Y or Z do they go to male prisons or
female facilities?
There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that the PRB was
about helping pimps and promoting alternative lifestyles to the severe
disadvantage of prostituted women.
In nz.general lisieux <lisieux@no-spam> wrote:
> There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that the PRB was
> about helping pimps and promoting alternative lifestyles to the severe
> disadvantage of prostituted women.
There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that you are a WOMBAT.
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:aUlPa.4129$9f7.451024@no-spam
>
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307101204.773b72a5@no-spam
> > "Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<tUcPa.4048$9f7.442718@no-spam>...
> > > "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:7734dcd6.0307091537.7c27cbba@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > Dear Calum,
> > > >
> > > > I spent much more time researching NZ issues than you ever invested
on
> > > > Finland or Sweden.
> > > >
> > > > I am fairly sure the arrests of males was a motivating factor in the
> > > > lobbying for the PRB.
> > > >
> > > > What we had for the most part was essentially a lifestyle agenda
which
> > > > was married to an existing NZPC campaign.
> > > >
> > > > Gregory
> > >
> > > That first comment is soooo hilarious. If you had actually bothered
to do any research, you
> would
> > > have found out that the "males" arrested were actually transgendered
people. Not gay men.
> > >
> > > And the last one totally forgets that the majority of groups and
people involved in lobbying
> were
> > > heterosexual.
> > >
> > > Seems like you still can't get anything right.
> > >
> > > Calum
> >
> >
> > Does the law of the land state that they are men or women? If they
> > get arrested for serial X or Y or Z do they go to male prisons or
> > female facilities?
> >
> > There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that the PRB was
> > about helping pimps and promoting alternative lifestyles to the severe
> > disadvantage of prostituted women.
>
> The law is confusing at the best of times. Sometimes they are convicted
as "men" but go to female
> prisons, sometimes they go to male prisons, where they are kept separate
from the rest of the prison
> population because the prison classes them as women.
>
> If you knew as much as you claim about NZ, you would know that.
>
> Calum
>
>
When was the last time a transvestite was sent to a female prison in New
Zealand? My expertise on prisons is surely extensive but it never stretched
to New Zealand and I never claimed that it did.
The simple facts of the matter is that the police treat them as male and
more males are arrested for selling themselves or for public indecency than
females and that is the local police analysis.
Gregory
Geoff McCaughan <geoffm@no-spam> wrote in message news:<xDmPa.75942$JA5.1433244@no-spam>...
> In nz.general lisieux <lisieux@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
> > There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that the PRB was
> > about helping pimps and promoting alternative lifestyles to the severe
> > disadvantage of prostituted women.
>
> There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that you are a WOMBAT.
Now, now, let's not insult marsupials by association...
Craig
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:aUlPa.4129$9f7.451024@no-spam
>
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307101204.773b72a5@no-spam
> > "Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<tUcPa.4048$9f7.442718@no-spam>...
> > > "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:7734dcd6.0307091537.7c27cbba@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > Dear Calum,
> > > >
> > > > I spent much more time researching NZ issues than you ever invested
on
> > > > Finland or Sweden.
> > > >
> > > > I am fairly sure the arrests of males was a motivating factor in the
> > > > lobbying for the PRB.
> > > >
> > > > What we had for the most part was essentially a lifestyle agenda
which
> > > > was married to an existing NZPC campaign.
> > > >
> > > > Gregory
> > >
> > > That first comment is soooo hilarious. If you had actually bothered
to do any research, you
> would
> > > have found out that the "males" arrested were actually transgendered
people. Not gay men.
> > >
> > > And the last one totally forgets that the majority of groups and
people involved in lobbying
> were
> > > heterosexual.
> > >
> > > Seems like you still can't get anything right.
> > >
> > > Calum
> >
> >
> > Does the law of the land state that they are men or women? If they
> > get arrested for serial X or Y or Z do they go to male prisons or
> > female facilities?
> >
> > There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that the PRB was
> > about helping pimps and promoting alternative lifestyles to the severe
> > disadvantage of prostituted women.
>
> The law is confusing at the best of times. Sometimes they are convicted
as "men" but go to female
> prisons, sometimes they go to male prisons, where they are kept separate
from the rest of the prison
> population because the prison classes them as women.
>
> If you knew as much as you claim about NZ, you would know that.
>
> Calum
>
>
Gregory
Tell me the 'confusing' parts of the law, how many official genders are
there? If you answer us that you will have told us everything. How many new
laws is it going to take to make your perspectives fit reality?
Gregory
ange <ange@no-spam> wrote in message news:<ange-0BE4CA.09183508072003@no-spam>...
> In article <becba5$3em6s$1@no-spam>,
> "Gregory" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > "I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
> > emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
> > not rise to the challenge."
> >
> > Dear Ange,
> >
> > Calum did not accept the offer and only posted the edited highlights, none
> > of which actually supported his confusing arguments However if he did want
> > to post the full emails than that might be a different issue.
> >
> > However he declined to take that route. A 'deal' is a bit like the CEDAW
> > treaty, it is a contract requiring more than one actor to go with the idea.
> > I shall probably be working on the PRB campaign for the next two years.
> >
> > I made the offer on 17/6/03 before the vote. Calum has to my knowledge still
> > not posted the emails and even if he did it was a pre-vote offer. He
> > obviously didn't feel his 'research' measured up.
>
> okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
> the terms of a deal retrospectively. Calum has posted the full contents
> of both emails and you are still here. You have no credibility or
> integrity, therefore you cannot contribute meaningfully to debate. Go
> away.
Point to the posts with the full contents of both emails. As far as I
can see and I've looked fairly hard, he edited out his parts of the
exchange. Did he post the contents with understandable context as
requested?
The issue is that he has consistently resisted supporting his position
by posting his two emails so we can judge for ourselves.
Now *if* he has posted the context and response I will apologise to
the NG, however I certainly did not see Calum do such a post and I
have asked him many times. As it was a key part of his 'evidence' I
find that terribly surprising.
Gregory
"lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7734dcd6.0307111050.84f6a15@no-spam
> ange <ange@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<ange-0BE4CA.09183508072003@no-spam>...
> > In article <becba5$3em6s$1@no-spam>,
> > "Gregory" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > "I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
> > > emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
> > > not rise to the challenge."
> > >
> > > Dear Ange,
> > >
> > > Calum did not accept the offer and only posted the edited highlights, none
> > > of which actually supported his confusing arguments However if he did want
> > > to post the full emails than that might be a different issue.
> > >
> > > However he declined to take that route. A 'deal' is a bit like the CEDAW
> > > treaty, it is a contract requiring more than one actor to go with the idea.
> > > I shall probably be working on the PRB campaign for the next two years.
> > >
> > > I made the offer on 17/6/03 before the vote. Calum has to my knowledge still
> > > not posted the emails and even if he did it was a pre-vote offer. He
> > > obviously didn't feel his 'research' measured up.
> >
> > okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
> > the terms of a deal retrospectively. Calum has posted the full contents
> > of both emails and you are still here. You have no credibility or
> > integrity, therefore you cannot contribute meaningfully to debate. Go
> > away.
>
>
> Point to the posts with the full contents of both emails. As far as I
> can see and I've looked fairly hard, he edited out his parts of the
> exchange. Did he post the contents with understandable context as
> requested?
>
> The issue is that he has consistently resisted supporting his position
> by posting his two emails so we can judge for ourselves.
>
> Now *if* he has posted the context and response I will apologise to
> the NG, however I certainly did not see Calum do such a post and I
> have asked him many times. As it was a key part of his 'evidence' I
> find that terribly surprising.
>
> Gregory
I edited nothing. I posted what came back from Sweden. They didn't include the question I asked in
their reply. I had asked "How many people had been arrested, charged and convicted of offences
under the 1999 Act criminalising clients of sex workers, and how many people, if any, were being
trafficked to Sweden for the purposes of prostitution".
Again, you prove you are without knowledge, and are without honour.
You should also note that you posted your original request under one of your aliases that I had
killfiled a long time ago, and was unable to read it until it was reposted under one I could read.
You did not mention any preconditions at that time. you did not let others know that I could not
read that personality. As far as I am concerned, you purposely concocted your "offer" in such as
way so that I could not respond. This, again, points to the type of person you are.
Calum
>
> okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
> the terms of a deal retrospectively.
Well why not for example if several hundred years ago a state agreed
to uphold liberty and then retrospectively you change the meaning of
the term liberty, then the state has violated the original contract,
right?
This appears to be the position of some people on this site and the
position of several Gay activists in the US.
Matt
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3eJPa.4412$9f7.483274@no-spam>...
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307111050.84f6a15@no-spam
> > ange <ange@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<ange-0BE4CA.09183508072003@no-spam>...
> > > In article <becba5$3em6s$1@no-spam>,
> > > "Gregory" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
> > > > emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
> > > > not rise to the challenge."
> > > >
> > > > Dear Ange,
> > > >
> > > > Calum did not accept the offer and only posted the edited highlights, none
> > > > of which actually supported his confusing arguments However if he did want
> > > > to post the full emails than that might be a different issue.
> > > >
> > > > However he declined to take that route. A 'deal' is a bit like the CEDAW
> > > > treaty, it is a contract requiring more than one actor to go with the idea.
> > > > I shall probably be working on the PRB campaign for the next two years.
> > > >
> > > > I made the offer on 17/6/03 before the vote. Calum has to my knowledge still
> > > > not posted the emails and even if he did it was a pre-vote offer. He
> > > > obviously didn't feel his 'research' measured up.
> > >
> > > okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
> > > the terms of a deal retrospectively. Calum has posted the full contents
> > > of both emails and you are still here. You have no credibility or
> > > integrity, therefore you cannot contribute meaningfully to debate. Go
> > > away.
> >
> >
> > Point to the posts with the full contents of both emails. As far as I
> > can see and I've looked fairly hard, he edited out his parts of the
> > exchange. Did he post the contents with understandable context as
> > requested?
> >
> > The issue is that he has consistently resisted supporting his position
> > by posting his two emails so we can judge for ourselves.
> >
> > Now *if* he has posted the context and response I will apologise to
> > the NG, however I certainly did not see Calum do such a post and I
> > have asked him many times. As it was a key part of his 'evidence' I
> > find that terribly surprising.
> >
> > Gregory
>
> I edited nothing. I posted what came back from Sweden. They didn't include the question I asked in
> their reply. I had asked "How many people had been arrested, charged and convicted of offences
> under the 1999 Act criminalising clients of sex workers, and how many people, if any, were being
> trafficked to Sweden for the purposes of prostitution".
>
> Again, you prove you are without knowledge, and are without honour.
Subject - Sweden and the NZPC
12/7/03
NZPC/CL-C-NZ
Dear Calum,
Let us simply return to the real and unadulterated facts of the
matter. Neither of the two Swedish officials gave you the slightest
indication in either of their two emails that the Swedish legislation
had caused any increase in trafficking which is of course a trans
global crime directly related to *both* the legal and illegal sex
industries around the globe. I spoke to one of those correspondents.
Much of the criticism of the Swedish legislation in NZ was obviously
initially derived from a single trash TV station and from a variety of
essentially bogus tabloid newspaper reports which were then unwisely
carried into English language journalism by otherwise respectable
foreign media. The trafficking and internet myths (relative to the
Swedish law) have that provenance.
Who in their right mind would blame the internet on Sweden? Your own
method of relating the Swedish legislation to trafficking is very
difficult to accept and you never offered us a credible model of why
you were directly relating one with the other. The CEDAW Committee
made the same requests (for data) to both New Zealand and to Holland
which you were citing as evidence against Sweden on nz.soc.queer.
Minister Phil Goff MP did the same thing in Parliament.
On that latter point I fully expect the NZPC to support the retention
of all databases relative to brothels and pimping. The NZPC, the
Green Party of NZ and Tim Barnett MP made so much hay out of
obfuscating that CEDAW request for data, that they will look very
foolish if they ignore an identical request by the CEDAW Committee
which was asked of New Zealand.
The Finns as I confidently predicted are now publicly in the process
of adopting the position that the Swedish legislation offers the very
best mechanism and remedy to frustrate trafficking and exploitation.
The Finnish authorities waited until enough time had elapsed to study
the effects of the Swedish legislation and their government have now
made up their minds.
The Finnish police have just seized the equivalent of 1.5 million
capsules of the 'date-rape' drug Rohypnol, with a street value four
million dollars making it the biggest haul recorded in the European
Union and Rohypnol is just as commonly linked to both the legal and
illegal sex trade around the world as it is to anything else. Recent
events in Australia suggest that the 'legal' sex trade is as deeply
involved in slavery as the illegal.
Let me offer you just a little expert advice, I really do direct what
has to be honestly seen as the most active anti-trafficking coalition
in the British Isles and we are certainly one of the most efficient in
Northern Europe. We have the hard and fast results to prove it. We
work with some agencies who are part of the problem and some who are
part of the solution.
The NZPC have as far as I am aware not actually achieved or promoted
one single anti-trafficking arrest or operation anywhere in Oceania.
The legal or quasi legal sex trade is just as responsible for
trafficking as the 'illegal' end of the vice and pornography industry.
I treated you courteously as a fellow-advocate and you subjected me in
return to a barrage of public abuse. How many times did you tell me to
'fuck off'?
(1) The NZPC as a state supported agency should fully abide by the
interpretative notes of the official records (travaux préparatoires)
which pertain to the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime and the ratified protocols attached to that same
treaty.
(2) That for the purposes of both CEDAW and the Trans Global Organized
Crime Treaty, that no policy distinction be made by the NZPC between
Heroin, Rohypnol or any drug which is likely to diminish the capacity
for legal consent.
I would include excess alcohol in that category and 'excess' should be
properly defined as amounts exceeding the recommended daily alcohol
intake for both males and females. People affected or intoxicated by
drugs have less capacity to consent being the important principle.
Kind regards
Greagoir O'Cearullain
Humanitas Fellowship
Gransha
4 Downfine Walk
Belfast
BT11 8NX
Northern Ireland
(UK) 02890 963164
"Flannagan" <nz@no-spam> wrote in message
news:4e3facfd.0307120113.7db432a9@no-spam
> >
> > okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
> > the terms of a deal retrospectively.
>
> Well why not for example if several hundred years ago a state agreed
> to uphold liberty and then retrospectively you change the meaning of
> the term liberty, then the state has violated the original contract,
> right?
>
> This appears to be the position of some people on this site and the
> position of several Gay activists in the US.
>
> Matt
Dear Matt,
I'd settle if somebody from the NZPC was able to define what a 'woman'
actually was for us. I hate jurisdictions which have trashed the dictionary.
Take the word 'pimp', if drug dealing and child pornography were made legal,
the dictionary definition would remain. So why use elaborate phrases to
describe pimps when there is a four lettered word dedicated to the job and
in common usage? Why call them 'corporate sexual service providers' or
whatever. Why can't they just be pimps?
Did they work out the syntax for what a Father was in New Zealand when he
was not being a man? I would have taken the two parents approach myself.
Gregory
In article <7734dcd6.0307120355.3c768038@no-spam>,
lisieux@no-spam (lisieux) wrote:
In article <becba5$3em6s$1@no-spam>,
"Gregory" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >
"I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two
Swedish emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn
sure you will not rise to the challenge."
honour your deal (or you will bring down the very foundations of the US
constitution)
ange
"lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7734dcd6.0307120355.3c768038@no-spam
<snip>
All bull shit and crap, fantasy and lies.
Hmm, let me see. I was told that trafficking for the purposes of prostitution was "virtually
unheard of" prior to the 1999 Act criminalising clients. I was told in one of those e-mails that
trafficking was now between 200 and 500 per year. In an official report by the Swedish rapporteur
for trafficking (Kasja Wahlberg), it specifically stated that busloads of women from the Murmansk
region in Russia were arriving every weekend for the purposes of prostitution. (Even one small bus
of 15 women for 40 weeks of the year exceeds the 500 stated in the e-mail). That same report
admitted the presence of clandestine prostitution in Sweden. In a speech by Ingela Klinetberg, that
has also been attached to one of the e-mails, it was admitted that even buying a drink for someone
with the intention of having casual sexual relations was enough to commit an offence against the
1999 Act.
And you are trying to deny that was actually said, and that official reports amke mention of
clandestine prostitution in Sweden. Again, you prove you know nothing about what you speak.
>
> Kind regards
Yeah. Right!
You have been caught lying- again. You have been caught making yet another "substantive error of
fact". You have proven beyond all doubt that you are a lying, honourless cretin, who speaks only
from the position of ignorance by distance.
Calum
lisieux@no-spam (lisieux) wrote in message news:<7734dcd6.0307120355.3c768038@no-spam>...
> Greagoir O'Cearullain
> Humanitas Fellowship
> Gransha
> 4 Downfine Walk
> Belfast
> BT11 8NX
> Northern Ireland
> (UK) 02890 963164
Why doesn't your organisation have a website even?
In nz.general Craig <sadistasm@no-spam> wrote:
> Geoff McCaughan <geoffm@no-spam> wrote in message news:<xDmPa.75942$JA5.1433244@no-spam>...
>> In nz.general lisieux <lisieux@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that the PRB was
>> > about helping pimps and promoting alternative lifestyles to the severe
>> > disadvantage of prostituted women.
>>
>> There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that you are a WOMBAT.
> Now, now, let's not insult marsupials by association...
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/W/WOMBAT.html
"Peter Ashby" <p.r.ashby@no-spam> wrote in message
news:p.r.ashby-1A36DF.10491416072003@no-spam
> In article <7734dcd6.0307151544.5228d28c@no-spam>,
> lisieux@no-spam (lisieux) wrote:
>
> >
> > "I personally find prostitution quite abhorrent," (Helen Clarke on the
> > BBC).
> >
> > For British consumption I suppose.
>
> I heard that statement and your quoting out of context removes the
> subsequent caveats which explain why she voted in favour.
She said it was abhorrent and that was a definite and precise perspective on
the activity. The new legislation did not offer any new protections which
can be distinguished as being obviously absent from the existing
legislation. The NZ authorities have not been able to define 'legal consent'
for the purposes of treaty compliances.
They are very keen not to discuss the issue. Calum Bennachie for his part
is seemingly unable to define what a 'woman' might be under current New
Zealand law. The NZPC did not promote the bill as model anti-trafficking
law, the legislation was not compatible with any UN or US State Department
endorsed templates.
Gregory
nz@no-spam (Flannagan) wrote in message news:<4e3facfd.0307131844.1fb1b88c@no-spam>...
> Gregory
>
> Unfortunately you are facing the fallicous argumentive strategies
> associated with certain forms of Post modernism. Clearly, and then
> arguing logically from premises to a conclusion with a valid inference
> some NZ lefties argue instead by simply using language to confuse the
> issue. Many terms have in addition to a straight denotive meaning a
> certain noncognitive connatations and emotional associations. Rorty
> for example advocates this kind of thing when he suggests that instead
> of arguing for a proposition one should simply redescribe it in a
> postive way using positive terms.
>
> By redescribing a position a certain way they think they can discredit
> it or confirm it by getting people to associate these non cognitive
> features of the term with the new denotion.
>
> In logic this kind of manevour is close to what is called the
> equivocation fallacy. It is a propaganda technique whereby one changes
> the meaning of a word mid argument so that people will mistakenly draw
> associations between the premises which are in fact not their if a
> clear consistent definition is offered.
>
> Alvin Plantinga once paradoyed this fallacy noting that by this
> reasoning one could prove that all democrats were crooked without a
> single argument. Simply redefine the word democrat as "one who steals
> money"
>
> Matt
Oh come on, Matt. Look at any dictionary or linguistics textbook and
you will note that etymological change happens over time. And it's not
just leftists who do it either, it is any political movement
struggling over the definition of meaning. And you're guilty of
generalisation about postmodernism.
As a Foucauldian, I find Foucault and Derrida far more substantive
than (shudder) Baudrillard, the vacuous git. Incidentally, there's an
excellent article on Rorty in the latest Prospect magazine. I assume
there's a copy or two in the Otago Uni Bookshop.
Craig
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:g7lQa.4702$9f7.540283@no-spam
>
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307130925.32a278b7@no-spam
> <snip>
> > Not one single official in Sweden ever gave you even the slightest
> > indication that the Swedish law had increased trafficking one iota.
> > That was just your own personal red herring. Trans global crime in
> > Sweden tends to exploit the territory (and entire region) for
> > consolidation and transit.
>
> So trafficking going from "virtually unheard of" before the 1999 law
criminalising clients to
> "between 200 and 500 per year" is not an increase? You are saying the
Swedish Rapporteur on
> trafficking is lying.
Dear Calum,
Please don't be absolutely absurd. Credible reports patently existed of
larger alleged trafficking allegations significantly _before_ the Swedish
law came into being and therefore a measured 'increase' was always
problematical. Why have a Rapporteur on Trafficking as part of a EU crisiis
initiative if the problem did not already exist?
The specific reference you refer to was speculative (at the time) and the
same reporting agency was of the convinced opinion that most trafficking
probably involved transit and consolidation rather than adverse or criminal
activities _on_ Swedish territory. Would Minister Phil Goff MP happily let
the CEDAW Committee include the reports of rampant sexual slavery in
Australia as being entirely the fault of the New Zealand authorities?
Therefore why blame Sweden for Finland or Germany?
The Finnish authorities have recently told us that for Finland much
_stricter_ versions of the Swedish law are now required. The impact of the
Schengen agreement and even the Internet had a more understandable role on
irregular migration to Sweden and advocates in Sweden were at a complete
loss as to why Phil Goff and the NZPC completely failed to remark upon the
effect of open borders might have had on Sweden.
For the first time, non-EU citizens could go to Sweden from other Schengen
nations without any border checks. That happened in the _same_ period of
this alleged increase in trafficking. The NZPC research was thought by many
to be essentially bogus. My own initial presumption was that the NZPC would
simply have asked the NSWP in South Africa for their propaganda on Sweden.
>
> You must really be a mathematical genius if that is the case. Oh, and you
forget, you tried to
> claim that the persons who sent me the e-mail did not exist. The suddenly
you say you "immediately"
> got in contact with them. Your mind is also playing tricks on you as
well.
>
> Calum
>
>
I contacted the Swedish authorities (in London and Sweden) the very moment I
saw you make specific reference to two of their officials and I eventually
spoke to one of your correspondents. I was never in any great doubt that the
Swedes had written to you and I was equally certain that nothing they had
told you in the same emails supported what you were claiming or for that
matter supported anything Phil Goff was telling the NZ House of Commons.
I never suspected (for even a moment) that any Swedish official actually
told you that alleged trafficking increases were linked to their
anti-exploitation law. How can domestic law impact trafficking to other
places? Sex tourism in Russia and Germany probably increased (to whatever
extent) but that is as far as that goes. Swedes wanting to exploit women
probably did have to travel.
None of which is diretly about Sweden's alleged problems. The most obvious
(and temporary) glitch would have been the impact of the Schengen agreement.
The UN Committtee on CEDAW are also being made aware that Phil Goff MP was
at great pains to keep that important information from the NZ Parliament.
They are also being told of the mythical UN Committee 'finding' on Sweden
which was reported to the New Zealand parliament. The CEDAW Committee had
asked the same request of NZ, Holland _and_ Sweden. Miister Phil Goff MP
made a very big deal out of a routine request for data collection, he turned
it into a finding of fact. The PRB legislation was a calculated insult to
both the CEDAW Committee and to the Swedish people.
Many of the entirely bogus allegations maliciously directed at Sweden were
clearly invented by the current NZ Government. This scandal will now be with
us for several years.
Kind regards
Gregory
(i)
There are 2,500 prostituted women in massage parlors, escort agencies,
private apartments and on the streets in Sweden. An estimated 650 women are
street-prostitutes. (Belinda Goldsmith, "Swedish sex buyers feel law's weak
slap," Reuters, 14 June 1998)
(ii)
Sweden is used as a transit country for trafficking Latin American women to
brothels in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. (Mansson, 1995).
("Trafficking of Women to the European Union: Characterisitics, Trends and
Policy Issues," European Conference on Trafficking in Women, (June 1996),
IOM, 7 May 1996)
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vl4Qa.4585$9f7.517154@no-spam>...
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307120355.3c768038@no-spam
> <snip>
>
> All bull shit and crap, fantasy and lies.
>
> Hmm, let me see. I was told that trafficking for the purposes of prostitution was "virtually
> unheard of" prior to the 1999 Act criminalising clients.
The EU established crisis Rapporteurs on Trafficking *before* the
legislation and they did so because of a trafficking crisis. There
were obviously more reports of very high levels of trafficking prior
to the legislation than after it.
You are simply incorrect. If the issue is whether there was rampant
trafficking reported before the law then the answer is certainly yes.
The reports *obviously* exist regardless of what you might have been
told.
I am sure you could find some in two minutes. If the issue is the
existence of reports of rampant traficking prior to the Swedish law
then you might simply concede the point.
I was told in one of those e-mails that
> trafficking was now between 200 and 500 per year. In an official report by the Swedish rapporteur
> for trafficking (Kasja Wahlberg), it specifically stated that busloads of women from the Murmansk
> region in Russia were arriving every weekend for the purposes of prostitution. (Even one small bus
> of 15 women for 40 weeks of the year exceeds the 500 stated in the e-mail).
That is all entirely speculative 200 - 500 stuff. The figures you are
using are 200 or 500 and it has to be one or the other or it is not a
real figure. The glitch in the system was obviously the Amsterdam
Treaty. Sweden's borders were thrown completely open and that did
cause temporary problems.
The women (allegedly) came over for a day or a week on and then left.
If you had stated that the Schengen Treaty had thrown open the borders
I might run with your theory. However blaming another piece of
legislation is utterly absurd. The 200 - 500 transit figure was
intended to be speculative.
The reporting agency responsible for the original speculation was of
the entirely concrete opinion that the prostitution did not (as a
rule) take place on Swedish soil and that Sweden is used for transit
and consolidation and that is much closer to the truth.
> That same report
> admitted the presence of clandestine prostitution in Sweden. In a speech by Ingela Klinetberg, that
> has also been attached to one of the e-mails, it was admitted that even buying a drink for someone
> with the intention of having casual sexual relations was enough to commit an offence against the
> 1999 Act.
Exchanging drugs for sex is certainly possible but hardly a beer.
Getting females drunk for sex might be a crime of 'date rape'. I
think I have to ask you for an explicit and unambiguous statement
proving your very bizarre point.
This is merely more NZPC fantasy which you might actually believe but
which is certainly not remotely true. The NZPC campaign was a product
of black propaganda and rampant distortion.
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3eJPa.4412$9f7.483274@no-spam>...
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307111050.84f6a15@no-spam
> > ange <ange@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<ange-0BE4CA.09183508072003@no-spam>...
> > > In article <becba5$3em6s$1@no-spam>,
> > > "Gregory" <gregory.humanitas@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "I will do a deal with you, post *all* of the contents of the two Swedish
> > > > emails and this is my last post to this NG. I am pretty darn sure you will
> > > > not rise to the challenge."
> > > >
> > > > Dear Ange,
> > > >
> > > > Calum did not accept the offer and only posted the edited highlights, none
> > > > of which actually supported his confusing arguments However if he did want
> > > > to post the full emails than that might be a different issue.
> > > >
> > > > However he declined to take that route. A 'deal' is a bit like the CEDAW
> > > > treaty, it is a contract requiring more than one actor to go with the idea.
> > > > I shall probably be working on the PRB campaign for the next two years.
> > > >
> > > > I made the offer on 17/6/03 before the vote. Calum has to my knowledge still
> > > > not posted the emails and even if he did it was a pre-vote offer. He
> > > > obviously didn't feel his 'research' measured up.
> > >
> > > okay, clearly you are not an honorable person, you think you can change
> > > the terms of a deal retrospectively. Calum has posted the full contents
> > > of both emails and you are still here. You have no credibility or
> > > integrity, therefore you cannot contribute meaningfully to debate. Go
> > > away.
> >
> >
> > Point to the posts with the full contents of both emails. As far as I
> > can see and I've looked fairly hard, he edited out his parts of the
> > exchange. Did he post the contents with understandable context as
> > requested?
> >
> > The issue is that he has consistently resisted supporting his position
> > by posting his two emails so we can judge for ourselves.
> >
> > Now *if* he has posted the context and response I will apologise to
> > the NG, however I certainly did not see Calum do such a post and I
> > have asked him many times. As it was a key part of his 'evidence' I
> > find that terribly surprising.
> >
> > Gregory
>
> I edited nothing. I posted what came back from Sweden. They didn't include the question I asked in
> their reply. I had asked "How many people had been arrested, charged and convicted of offences
> under the 1999 Act criminalising clients of sex workers, and how many people, if any, were being
> trafficked to Sweden for the purposes of prostitution".
Dear Calum,
Did any of the two Swedish officials *specifically* tell you that
their anti-exploitation law had increased trafficking? You see I
happen to know just a little bit about Sweden. For example when the
Amsterdam Treaty came into force planes were landing without any
checks at all. Imagine New Zealand without any immigration officials
checking anything!
Now if you had blamed that little glitch on something I would have to
concede at least the plausible theory of what you suggest. No but that
was not good enough for the NZPC, they simply _had_ to blame the
irregular or undocumented migration on an entirely different piece of
legislation *and* make sure that nobody mentioned the Amsterdam
Treaty. It was important to keep very quiet about that.
The NZPC campaign was about black propaganda and distortion on the
grand scale. Name me one brothel in Sweden selling human milk openly!
There is no comparison between NZ and Sweden. Your country has
brothels which openly cater for the most deplorable paraphilia and
those very same fetishes might spread disease. What sort of condom
does a man use for sucking milk? Your legislation has merged the sex
and dairy sectors.
Regards
Greagoir
Geoff McCaughan <geoffm@no-spam> wrote in message news:<xDmPa.75942$JA5.1433244@no-spam>...
> In nz.general lisieux <lisieux@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
> > There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that the PRB was
> > about helping pimps and promoting alternative lifestyles to the severe
> > disadvantage of prostituted women.
>
> There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that you are a WOMBAT.
Dear Geoff,
Real clever ad hominem rebuttal there, have you thought of joining the
NZ Green Party? The PRB was seen by many people as promoting the
interests of criminals and pimps and to get the legislation through
the gay alternative lifestyle lobby waded into help.
Calum Bennachie was not been able to define what a 'woman' was in New
Zealand for the purposes of breast feeding and prostitution. I made a
pint of asking him a few times and none of his answers were
paticularly well defined.
Some of the UN Committee are going to be in less doubt. Several of
them are already extremely annoyed. I feel I had predicted as much.
The scandal of the PRB is very far from over. We can certainly stick
it out for 4 years or more.
Kind regards
Gregory
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message news:<aUlPa.4129$9f7.451024@no-spam>...
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307101204.773b72a5@no-spam
> > "Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<tUcPa.4048$9f7.442718@no-spam>...
> > > "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:7734dcd6.0307091537.7c27cbba@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > Dear Calum,
> > > >
> > > > I spent much more time researching NZ issues than you ever invested on
> > > > Finland or Sweden.
> > > >
> > > > I am fairly sure the arrests of males was a motivating factor in the
> > > > lobbying for the PRB.
> > > >
> > > > What we had for the most part was essentially a lifestyle agenda which
> > > > was married to an existing NZPC campaign.
> > > >
> > > > Gregory
> > >
> > > That first comment is soooo hilarious. If you had actually bothered to do any research, you
> would
> > > have found out that the "males" arrested were actually transgendered people. Not gay men.
> > >
> > > And the last one totally forgets that the majority of groups and people involved in lobbying
> were
> > > heterosexual.
> > >
> > > Seems like you still can't get anything right.
> > >
> > > Calum
> >
> >
> > Does the law of the land state that they are men or women? If they
> > get arrested for serial X or Y or Z do they go to male prisons or
> > female facilities?
> >
> > There is a widely held perception in New Zealand that the PRB was
> > about helping pimps and promoting alternative lifestyles to the severe
> > disadvantage of prostituted women.
>
> The law is confusing at the best of times. Sometimes they are convicted as "men" but go to female
> prisons, sometimes they go to male prisons, where they are kept separate from the rest of the prison
> population because the prison classes them as women.
>
> If you knew as much as you claim about NZ, you would know that.
>
> Calum
Dear Calum,
Legal definition of a woman in New Zealand is what? You will have to
forgive me for insisting but the CEDAW Treaty is essentially about
women. Presumably that girl selling breast milk can be chalked up as a
female.
Tell me what the strict definition of a biological female human being
is in NZ. Forget your lifestyle agenda and alternatives, what does the
actual law say? The police suggest that most of their prostitution
arrests were actually men frightening the horses.
Gregory
"lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7734dcd6.0307192025.6c6ed8b0@no-spam
> What sort of condom
> does a man use for sucking milk? Your legislation has merged the sex
> and dairy sectors.
>
"lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7734dcd6.0307192135.5d22a777@no-spam
<snip>
> Dear Calum,
>
> Legal definition of a woman in New Zealand is what? You will have to
> forgive me for insisting but the CEDAW Treaty is essentially about
> women. Presumably that girl selling breast milk can be chalked up as a
> female.
>
> Tell me what the strict definition of a biological female human being
> is in NZ. Forget your lifestyle agenda and alternatives, what does the
> actual law say? The police suggest that most of their prostitution
> arrests were actually men frightening the horses.
>
> Gregory
As I said, if you knew as much about NZ as you claim, you would already have the answer. It appears
that yet again, you speak from the position of ignorance by distance.
There are different legal definitions for different Acts.
Calum
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote in message news:<ptsSa.86600$JA5.1783558@no-spam>...
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307192025.6c6ed8b0@no-spam
> > What sort of condom
> > does a man use for sucking milk? Your legislation has merged the sex
> > and dairy sectors.
> >
In fairness to the the NZPC and Tim Barnett MP, they now have
anti-trafficking advocates in Europe and the USA reading up on food
safety legislation.
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bVwSa.6145$9f7.728257@no-spam
>
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307192135.5d22a777@no-spam
> <snip>
> > Dear Calum,
> >
> > Legal definition of a woman in New Zealand is what? You will have to
> > forgive me for insisting but the CEDAW Treaty is essentially about
> > women. Presumably that girl selling breast milk can be chalked up as a
> > female.
> >
> > Tell me what the strict definition of a biological female human being
> > is in NZ. Forget your lifestyle agenda and alternatives, what does the
> > actual law say? The police suggest that most of their prostitution
> > arrests were actually men frightening the horses.
> >
> > Gregory
>
> As I said, if you knew as much about NZ as you claim, you would already
have the answer. It appears
> that yet again, you speak from the position of ignorance by distance.
>
> There are different legal definitions for different Acts.
>
> Calum
>
>
Dear Calum,
Forget the kinetic acts, we are talking about a biological state of being
and you are unable or unwiling to tell us what a woman is. Presume for a
moment that I am completely ignorant of both NZ and biology.
Kind regards
Gregory
"Calum Bennachie" <bennachie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:6wxSa.6153$9f7.729035@no-spam
>
> "lisieux" <lisieux@no-spam> fantasied in message
> news:7734dcd6.0307192122.32664a21@no-spam
> <snip
> > Dear Calum
> >
> > I was right about your Swedish emails. I was also right about your PRB
> > being just a little thin on health and safety, unless you want to tell
> > us which condom is advised for sucking breast milk.
> >
> > I was also horrified to discover how little your Green Party allies
> > knew about New South Wales. I was 100 percent on the money with
> > Finland whilst you were patting folks on the back for disagreeing with
> > me.
> >
> >
> > Gregory
>
> ROTFLMFAO
>
> You still have no idea. You still speak from the position of ignorance by
distance.
>
> And by the way, you should really tell the truth about Finland. The
chairperson of the committee
> who recommended the changes opposed them. The recommendations were only
carried by one vote- 4: 3.
> The report clearly states that "most of the foreign prostitutes in Finland
are not victims of
> trafficking".
What happened in Finland during the campaign?
- The head quarters of criminal police informed about the results of its
study on trafficking
and prostitution in Finland. It was found that about 95 percent of the
prostitutes operating in
Finland are trafficked here by Russian and Estonian criminal organisations.
It was also
found that the criminal organisations had divided the area of Finland
between themselves
for purposes of exploitation of prostitution. Prostitution in Finland is
mobile, the prostitutes
are trafficked here for some weeks at a time.
http://www.nordicbalticcampaign.org/upcoming_events/Eva-Biaudet.pdf