Club Dynasty
Toronto Escorts

Sign The Decriminalization Petition

Annessa

Banned
Jul 30, 2003
972
0
0
Hello everyone,



As you might know or not know a select team of 5 MP's will be for the next 3 months going from province to province speaking with police, organizations (profit & non-profit) etc. on whether to LEGALIZE (BIG NO) prostitution. Many organizations throughout Canada fight/believe in/for decriminalization (SPOC included since 1983)

Signing this petition means you believe in decriminalization and not legalization. (The list may be given to the MP's on March 15) more details to come later. Thanks!



To sign the petition go here;

http://www.spoc.ca/endorse.html




Read about Legalization vs Decriminalization



LEGALIZATION​


Legalization treats prostitution as a vice that must be heavily contained and controlled.​


Under legalization systems, such as that in Nevada, USA:

· Sex pro’s cannot work independently—instead they are forced to work for brothels. Brothel owners are able to set all the terms of work. Pro’s may not move to any other brothel. This leaves pro’s very vulnerable to exploitation.
· Sex pro’s do not have the right to refuse to perform certain kinds of sex or to refuse clients they are not comfortable with. As well, brothel shifts are often 12 hours long.
· While brothels officially state that they insist on condom use, the pro’s in legal brothels tell a very different tale. Clients often have the power to insist on condom-free sex. If a pro does contract an STI from coercive unsafe sex, her license is revoked and a new pro is brought in.
· To obtain work at a brothel, pro’s must register at the police station, be photographed, fingerprinted and provide very personal information about themselves to the police.
· Typically the brothel holds 50% of the pro’s income. The government takes another 25%. For their work, sex pro’s are lucky to take home 25% of their earnings.


______________________________________​


DECRIMINALIZATION​


Decriminalization views prostitution as a legitimate and necessary business. Its implementation entails removing prostitution related offences from the Canadian Criminal Code, for adults involved in this profession.​


With decriminalized prostitution, such as that in New South Wales, Australia:

· Sex pro’s may operate freely, without the threat of criminal charges and / or the state seizing their assets.
· Sex pro’s can open their own operations. Individual sex pro’s do not require a license and can decide if they wish to work for a brothel.
· Sex workers and brothels are subject to similar restrictions as other businesses. If a brothel is a nuisance to its neighbors, it can be shut down. Street sex pro’s may not work within 200 meters of a place of worship, school or a hospital.
· Sex pro’s pay income taxes at the same rate as any other small business owner.
· Anyone abusing a sex pro is charged with the appropriate offence, whether it be assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement etc.
· It is rare for a sex pro to be assaulted and when it does occur, the police and courts take it very seriously, unlike the current situation in Canada.
· Currently, the procuring law makes it almost impossible for a sex worker to live a normal life, as we are legally unable to make purchases, give gifts, pay rent, or support anyone. Friends, family, spouses and roommates can be charged with “living on the avails of prostitution”. If a sex worker is raising a child, the child could be charged with living on the avails if she/he is over the age of 12!
· It is illegal for sex pro’s to live with or even be “habitually” in someone’s company. It is also illegal for sex pro’s to share finances with anyone else including her own family. Decriminalization ends this.
· No government or religion in history—including the most repressive—have ever been able to eradicate our noble profession. Ultimately, money and sex are more powerful than governments and / or religions.


It is beyond time for the Canadian federal government to decriminalize our profession.​








Annessa
xoxo
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,926
68,417
113
There was a Royal Commission report back in the early 70's which advocated the decriminalization of prostitution. It advocated allowing small incall places of 2 or 3 girls and no "boss" or madam. The report is still gathering dust in some filing cabinet in Ottawa - ahead of its time.

On points of information, the Supreme Court has declared that prositutes can share premises and expenses with friends and SO's, as long as the relationship is not exploitative and the person isn't pimping them. And the law about being "habitually in the company of a prostitute" hasn't been enforced for many a long year. If you read the Criminal Code, you'll find other Nineteenth Century stuff about raiding brothels and taking the girls into protective custody for the good of their morals. Those laws aren't used today either.
 

Horndog

New member
Aug 19, 2001
166
0
0
Legalization vs Decriminalization

Annessa, I will be the first to admit, that I don't know enough about the subject matter, however one thing is crystal clear. You have painted a very one sided picture. One thing to consider, with Legalization, "if a pro does cotract a STD her licence is revoked." I think most service providers are quite responsible, however I am sure they are some who still work knowing they have STD's. Legalization and licencing would ensure regular testing, and help prevent the spread of STD's.
 

laurelg@maggies

New member
Sep 14, 2003
204
0
0
toronto
www.maggiestoronto.org
Horndog said:
One thing to consider, with Legalization, "if a pro does cotract a STD her licence is revoked." I think most service providers are quite responsible, however I am sure they are some who still work knowing they have STD's. Legalization and licencing would ensure regular testing, and help prevent the spread of STD's.
Fair enough, but in that same very system, if a client wants bareback, her ******* could get away with making sure she provides that service. So, how long would she be clean for? Another thing to take into consideration is that some testing can be faulty, as some STI's take months to show up.

So, if a sex worker is to be forced to take STI tests weekly or bi-weekly, I think the same should be done with clients who see sex workers.
 

Horndog

New member
Aug 19, 2001
166
0
0
The Debate

Laurelg, I also strongly believe that pro's should have the right to refuse certain kinds of sex, or to refuse clients they are not comfortable with. I am not sure if this goes on, but perhaps pro's could be better protected with more laws and enforsement. I don't have all the answers. However, I do not agree with your comment about testing clients. If if a client have the money, time, and sex drive to see a pro three or four times week, most pro's see more client's every day. Also, just as I do in my business, we must cater to the client, and if clients had to go for monthly testing, you would lose about 90% of your customers.
 

laurelg@maggies

New member
Sep 14, 2003
204
0
0
toronto
www.maggiestoronto.org
Horndog said:
Laurelg, I also strongly believe that pro's should have the right to refuse certain kinds of sex, or to refuse clients they are not comfortable with. I am not sure if this goes on, but perhaps pro's could be better protected with more laws and enforsement. I don't have all the answers. However, I do not agree with your comment about testing clients. If if a client have the money, time, and sex drive to see a pro three or four times week, most pro's see more client's every day. Also, just as I do in my business, we must cater to the client, and if clients had to go for monthly testing, you would lose about 90% of your customers.
Unfortunately things like that go on. And I see what you are saying about preventing the spread of STI's, but for it to be truly successful either all parties need to be tested, or perhaps we should all be born with condoms on ;)
 

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
I respect everyone's position on this subject, however I could not sign the petition because I am in the middle :)

I think some aspects of Prostitution should still be criminal, ie Pimps, Living off of the avails, underage etc etc.

Other aspects should not be criminal, ie Bawdy House and communication rules. However I still believe they should be regulated by licensing.

Right now most businesses, including mine are subject to regulations and laws, big deal, why should prostitution be any different. I am not suppose to run my business from my residence, but I do meet a few clients there and no one cares. If I had clients going in and out at all hours and causing parking problems I would probably be visited by licensing and told to stop.

My point is no one wants to live beside a busy incall location, however if they are discrete and only see a few a day no one will notice or care. We would require licensing to shut down a busy incall location if it did not operate in the appropriate locations. To me this is just common sense.

There should be more severe punishment for pimps and clients who are into the underage market.

I think that no matter how you look at it, street prostitution is dangerous and should not be allowed, and I am thinking of the prostitutes here.

I also think the prostitutes should require periodic testing as a condition of licensing. Again, given the nature of the business it makes sense to me.

I am for an environment that makes it easy for a prostitute to ply their trade in a safe manner and not be taken advantage of anyone. Just because in other jurisdictions legalization has not worked or is detrimental to the prostitute does not mean it cannot work here. For example, right now outcalls are legal and a thriving business in Canada. What is illegal, incalls and street prostitution. So let's legalize incalls and license them like Massage Parlours. I could even see a licensed prostitute being allowed to see a few clients in their residence as long as they are not a nuisance (kinda sounds like liquor laws)
 

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
Annessa said:
Currently, the procuring law makes it almost impossible for a sex worker to live a normal life, as we are legally unable to make purchases, give gifts, pay rent, or support anyone. Friends, family, spouses and roommates can be charged with “living on the avails of prostitution”. If a sex worker is raising a child, the child could be charged with living on the avails if she/he is over the age of 12!
· It is illegal for sex pro’s to live with or even be “habitually” in someone’s company. It is also illegal for sex pro’s to share finances with anyone else including her own family. Decriminalization ends this.
I think you are reading the current laws too literally. I do not think anyone has ever been found guility of living off of the avails as you describe. Right now in places like Windsor they license agencies and do not charge them with living off of the avails.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,926
68,417
113
I think we need to be realistic about what should/ could be decriminalized. Street "communication" is unlikely to be decriminalized. It esssentially WAS 15 years ago when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the prior street prostitution laws unconstutuional. The result was a law enforcement nightmare as lower Jarvis became overrun with literally 100's of girls and pimps who were legally un-bustable. There were identical problems in all major Canadian cities. The Supreme Court quickly did an about-face under massive police, public and legislative pressure and re-criminalized street communication.

So decrimininalizing street trade just ain't gonna happen. Personally I think licencing of incall places is not a bad idea. There's no logical reason why the adult entertainment industry should NOT be regulated. Just because some European and US jurisdictions have made a hash of doing this is no reason to think that Canada wouldn't do a fairer, smarter job.
 

Hugh G. Rekshun

The 986,209,435th Beatle
Aug 21, 2001
489
4
18
T.O.
Annessa said:
...team of 5 MP's will be for the next 3 months going from province to province speaking with police, organizations (profit & non-profit) etc...
Saw the thing in The Star on this yesterday. It said a bunch of ladies were there to make presentations. The public speaking part of it alone would be scary for me, and to "out" themselves at the same time - wow, they've got balls (metaphorically only of course).

Annessa said:
With decriminalized prostitution, such as that in New South Wales, Australia:
· Sex workers and brothels are subject to similar restrictions as other businesses...
Australia has brothels? Is that a recent development, or something that they've always had? The bible thumpers can say we're all going to hell, but if it works there why not here? I don't think many of us hobbyists would object to it.
 

HappyHookers

New member
Feb 2, 2005
266
0
0
The SPOC from my understanding really speaks on behalf of street walking women. I can tell you that many online based women do not feel that SPOC speaks on behalf of them.

This is an issue that has been talked about many many times. Many of us would rather see the laws we have now inforced better, then to see the professional legalized or even decriminalizated.

It will not benefit those of us who are running a professional business.

HH
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Apr 3, 2002
657
0
0
Never the safest place
HappyHookers said:
Many of us would rather see the laws we have now enforced better, then to see the professional legalized or even decriminalizated.
It will not benefit those of us who are running a professional business.
Let me guess - you're involved in doing independent outcalls only, because that's all that would be allowed if the existing laws were fully enforced.

I believe most of us, the guys and the SPs, would welcome the ability to be able to conduct this business in other ways, more safely and legally, in addition to independent outcalls.

From the guys' perspective, the escort business in Canada has an easy scam element built into it, since guys are compelled to commit to spending their money before even seeing what the escort looks like. That scam element is pretty much eliminated with the legal brothels, as in Australia and New Zealand. And as pointed out many times, this does not stop any SPs from working independently or alternating between working in brothels and as an independent.

I can understand how some may fear losing business to competition, but you can't stop others from trying to improve the business.

The other side involved in the debate over the laws does not want things left as they are now, they want a total prohibition on paying for sex. At least one of the five members of the Subcommittee, Art Hanger, is an ex-cop who will recommend this regardless of what he hears while on the committee. Read how dangerous that's made life for SPs in Sweden.
http://www.petraostergren.com/english/studier.magister.asp
 

HappyHookers

New member
Feb 2, 2005
266
0
0
HaywoodJabloemy said:
Let me guess - you're involved in doing independent outcalls only, because that's all that would be allowed if the existing laws were fully enforced.
No I am not, I am incall lady mostly

HaywoodJabloemy said:
I believe most of us, the guys and the SPs, would welcome the ability to be able to conduct this business in other ways, more safely and legally, in addition to independent outcalls.
I would do, but decriminalization doesn't mean we will get it.

HaywoodJabloemy said:
From the guys' perspective, the escort business in Canada has an easy scam element built into it, since guys are compelled to commit to spending their money before even seeing what the escort looks like. That scam element is pretty much eliminated with the legal brothels, as in Australia and New Zealand. And as pointed out many times, this does not stop any SPs from working independently or alternating between working in brothels and as an independent.
Why do I have a website then? All that time and money for nothing. Come on, guys can see the lady before he puts out his cash, and legal brothels are not the only way. Find women with sites, when you show, if you don't like here, leave. No money spent, right?

HaywoodJabloemy said:
I can understand how some may fear losing business to competition, but you can't stop others from trying to improve the business.
No one is talking about competition here, we already deal with that everyday. How many escorts are out there right now, you think a couple hundred more are going to bother us.

HaywoodJabloemy said:
The other side involved in the debate over the laws does not want things left as they are now, they want a total prohibition on paying for sex. At least one of the five members of the Subcommittee, Art Hanger, is an ex-cop who will recommend this regardless of what he hears while on the committee. Read how dangerous that's made life for SPs in Sweden.
http://www.petraostergren.com/english/studier.magister.asp

I am aware of his feeling on this matter, having just recieved a letter yesterday from an inquiry to the committee. HJ, I can tell you I know more about what is going on then most. I had a big hand in getting the commitee back open, so having said all that, I can still tell you, many of do not believe that the SPOC speaks on behalf of us online working women. They speak mostly for SW. I think that if the laws, at least some of the laws that we already were inforced a bit first, then maybe we would be able to look at what needs to be changed. Right now no can say what will work when we don't follow what we have now. Does that mean I may have to go outcall for a while, fine. In the best interest of the industry I would do it no problem.

Besides, I don't want to down on anyone, but every if we got 25% of working women in each province to sign the petition, decriminalization is still years away. That is just the reality of it.

HH
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Apr 3, 2002
657
0
0
Never the safest place
What? I don't understand how you could say you want the current laws to be "inforced" more, when you must know you are are committing a criminal offence by keeping a common bawdy house if you do incalls. The spoc.ca website seems to be far more concerned about that than it is with street walkers.

And you "had a big hand in getting the committee back open"? Why would you have done that if you don't want the laws changed? Wouldn't you have preferred them to ignore the situation and do nothing?

And okay, I agree, no escort or agency has ever used misleading photos on their website. I apologize for implying that may ever have happened.

I've read that the committee will be making an initial report in June.
 
F

feminista

dreamer said:
I think you are reading the current laws too literally. I do not think anyone has ever been found guility of living off of the avails as you describe. Right now in places like Windsor they license agencies and do not charge them with living off of the avails.

Hey dreamer U R dreaming.

*Living off the avails* is the most pursued charge in the escort industry in Canada. There was the big conviction in Toronto in recent years. They charged the drivers and receptionists with "living off the avails" along with the head honcho and his wife. He pleaded guilty. Anyone who benefits financially from an act of prostitution can be charged. That includes the boyfriend or adult children of said hooker.

There was also a fairly publicized conviction of the woman who ran an escort (Dusk til Dawn) service in Barrie a few years back and many unpublicised convictions of individuals who live with escorts.

Police use their "discretion" to charge people when they become pissed off for one reason or another. You may not know about it but believe me it happens. And it happens with licenced agencies. I work in Barrie where the city benefits financially from licencing fees. I always wonder why they aren't charged with "living off the avails" (along with the yellow pages and newspapers) when a licenced biz is. They all are making prostitution related profit$.
 

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
feminista said:
Hey dreamer U R dreaming.

*Living off the avails* is the most pursued charge in the escort industry in Canada. There was the big conviction in Toronto in recent years. They charged the drivers and receptionists with "living off the avails" along with the head honcho and his wife. He pleaded guilty. Anyone who benefits financially from an act of prostitution can be charged. That includes the boyfriend or adult children of said hooker.
Next time you quote me try to stay within context:

-----------
Originally Posted by Annessa
Currently, the procuring law makes it almost impossible for a sex worker to live a normal life, as we are legally unable to make purchases, give gifts, pay rent, or support anyone. Friends, family, spouses and roommates can be charged with “living on the avails of prostitution”. If a sex worker is raising a child, the child could be charged with living on the avails if she/he is over the age of 12!
· It is illegal for sex pro’s to live with or even be “habitually” in someone’s company. It is also illegal for sex pro’s to share finances with anyone else including her own family. Decriminalization ends this.
-----------

And I stand by my post. In your example they charged the owners, drivers, receptionist etc etc.

Here is the section we are talking about :

(3) Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(j) and subsections (2) and (2.1).

This is the "Presumption" paragraph. Who would get caught by this: roommates, spouses, boyfriends, children etc who were not working and living with the prostitute. It does seem unfair. However I am not aware of anyone being charged with living off of the avails that fit this description unless they were her pimp.

In fact the case law for these type of charges require the relationship to be "parasitic". Many people who quote these sections take the wording too literally and do not actually look up or are aware of the case law.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,926
68,417
113
Ladies, you gotta get this stuff right, if you're to have any credibility with this board, let alone committees!

There's a Supreme Court of Canada case which says that the only people who can be charged with "avails" are people who are directly exploiting the girl and NOT boyfriends, adult children, roommates, etc. Just reading the Criminal Code and exchanging rumours with your lady friends doesn't cut it. I've been a lawyer for 23 years and this is my job. Please don't argue with me.
 
F

feminista

oagre said:
Ladies, you gotta get this stuff right, if you're to have any credibility with this board, let alone committees!

There's a Supreme Court of Canada case which says that the only people who can be charged with "avails" are people who are directly exploiting the girl and NOT boyfriends, adult children, roommates, etc. Just reading the Criminal Code and exchanging rumours with your lady friends doesn't cut it. I've been a lawyer for 23 years and this is my job. Please don't argue with me.
i personally know 2 men who have been charged with this offense. If they are not making an income at any point in which they are living with a woman who is in HO-biz they can be considered to be "exploiting" her.

I doubt you would be one to applaud the very fair discretionary power of the police. Even when no conviction arises from such a charge don't think for a second that those charges aren't occuring.

Perhaps you are speaking to the way the laws should be used as opposed to the way they actually are used.

i appreciate that dismissive *gossipy ladies* tone you employ. impressive.
 
F

feminista

still dreaming!!!

firstly, i don't disagree that the poster to which you were responding was exagerating.

secondly, i was addressing YOUR assertion >
Right now in places like Windsor they license agencies and do not charge them with living off of the avails.
In places where the municipality licences escorts and escort agencies they do charge the employees with *living off the avails* as in the example I cited (Barrie) in direct response to your assertion that they don't.


Next time you quote me try to stay within context:
I did. You didn't.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts