Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels, sweeps aside many of Canada’s anti-pros
- Thread starter herelookin (pt2)
- Start date
lol
"Cambodian men are quite ready to admit that they seek the favours of prostitutes, even though they may be married and have two or three girlfriends on the side. It has become very much a part of life. For many Cambodian men, giving his friend a treat means taking him to a brothel. Men who decline such favours are looked upon as unusual, even abnormal."
:biggrin1:
Not for SCs. Sex in public and communicating for the purposes of prostitution in public are both illegal.
I don't know if MPs have to worry, I'd defer to Emily's perspective as she'd be really on top of that. I know they'd still have licensing concerns.
The concern that I've heard voiced by a few is that licensing in the escorting industry could be really bad. I doubt I'd get a license for example; it could impact my future employment. This could create a black market even more dangerous than the one we have now. That's assuming, of course, that licensing occurs...
I fully disagree. We are in a plaza with 7 massage parlors. All of them except for us are full service. Not a thing about whats offered where will change. We are still a licensed Body Rub parlor and still have to abide by those bylaws. So federally if a spa wants to scream from the rooftops that they now offer fs, municipally they are still subject to the same infractions/tickets as they were yesterday.
Now, if someone sets up a brothel next door, no bawdy house charges can be laid (as of todays ruling). But all that means for us is now we have 8 fs places in our plaza instead. At the end of it all, the local gov needs to license and zone it all. This means alot of catchup work for local bylaw enforcement. Just like SC's & MP's are legal but licensed, lets hope incalls end up the same. In the right areas of town.
The best part of todays ruling is the safety for SW's. And legitimizing the ability to rightfully earn/claim/hire all the income/services required by a sex-trade worker or legitimate owner. As well as the freedom for an SP to work safely!!!
Well the same could be said for a girl holding a Body Rubbers license.....however, luckly that info isnt public record. A woman can be a licensed dancer or body rubber (and hopefully soon a licensed escort) and still carry on with their studies and other career goals.
Hi Emily,
Is that the same for an exotic dancer? I've heard the reason why girls would work in Brampton for example, was because they didn't need a licence (that may have changed in recent years, I dunno). One reason they didn't want a licence was because they thought it was public info, which was a privacy issue and potentially affect other career opportunities. The underlying reason was that maybe they didn't want to declare all their cash income, if they felt that licencing would put them in CRA's radar.
No sex in public? I guess Club Wicked will be shutting down. Also, it only takes a weekend of work for the strip clubs to set up booths
oagre,
I agree with you. The others here with dire predictions may be too pessimistic. The government will not want to handle this hot potato since it has been shelved by both Mulroney in the 1980's and Chretien in the 1990's. The easier route for the government to take is the same as with gay marriage and abortion. Let the courts hash it out. Therefore, no one in the government has to stick his neck out.
I agree with you. The others here with dire predictions may be too pessimistic. The government will not want to handle this hot potato since it has been shelved by both Mulroney in the 1980's and Chretien in the 1990's. The easier route for the government to take is the same as with gay marriage and abortion. Let the courts hash it out. Therefore, no one in the government has to stick his neck out.
Except strip clubs are not public places, smartypants. They are privately owned enterprises.
EDIT: I see havingfun beat me to it
Actually you should look up the sex club case. It did set a precedent on the matter of bawdyhouses being places where indecent acts—e.g. public sex—occurred, but as the judgment was not appealed, it was of limited effect.
I can't belie the places here are ignorant of such stuff.
I was thinking the same thing.....
Let's be honest, there are already many MPs that offer full service, however, they tend to be the lower on the ladder places. The kind of place you have to climb a solo set of stairs in a white hallway with a stark light bulb at the top of the stairs and a closed door on the right at the top with a door bell that probably doesn't work.
I would be surprised if the higher end MPs that currently offer up the usual menu - topless, nude, nude reverse complete with handjob and maybe DATY if you're a good boy (and that's about it) suddenly started offering blow jobs and FS. It would only be a price escalation anyway if they did.
Thanks for the intel.
I would speculate that up until today, you would have been careful about announcing that little ditty on TERB.
As places where any member of the public permitted under the llcensing laws may enter, I think you would find that SCs, like restaurants and theatres, were long ago held to be public places under the law.
Let us earnestly hope the proprietors of such hobby-sites are more thoughtful than the foolish posts here, which are just the sort of thing to convince the straightjohns and Cons that they'd better get some repression going fast.
I know that in Mississauga, a dancer doesnt need a license. I know many girls that are told things by owners of competeing areas/businesses that they will be found out or ruin their futures if they work in XYZ region or in ABC business. Thats nothing more than scare tactics to retain employees. Just like Agency owners tell girls if you work in an MP you will get busted. Its purely false & stops girls from even looking into it.
The only career path we have discovered it could be a hiccup is if a girl wants to be a cop. The example local bylaw enforcement gave us was a simple one....if I work at Blockbuster, I can look up anyone's Blockbuster account, but a person of the general public cant look up anyone's Blockbuster account. So a City worker within Licensing can look up who holds which license...but a general background search doesnt list a dancers or bodyrubbers license.
Anyone can look into this on their own & research. A quick call to any city's municipal bylaw/standards office allows any client or provider the opportunity to ask questions about privacy.
You are thinking as a client. There are plenty of fs SC's & MP's. Girls choose to work where the mileage fits their comfort levels. There has always been places where all levels of service are offered...clients & MPA's end up where ever it suits their needs. That wont change because of the federal gov deeming it unconstitutional to not allow SW's to work indoors.
LOL do a search, its common knowledge.
Using your genius argument then bawdy houses would also be illegal since they are public property.
And if you been paying attention, bawdy houses are no longer illegal under present ruling
I see today's Court ruling very differently than most here seem to.
First, the Court acknowledged in its ruling that "out-calls" are effectively legal, and are probably less impacted by today's decision than other forms of service.
Second, by striking down the bawdy-house provisions, the Court is demanding that municipal governments act to fill the licensing void being created: that means that, for example, each City Council will likely act quickly to limit the number of legal "brothels" to just one or two per municipality, and restrict where they may be located to industrial areas of the City, much as most City Councils across Ontario have done to regulate Strip Clubs (exceptions having been grandfathered in place for Strip Clubs, no such exceptions exist for brothels).
This will mean that FEWER options will exist for "brothels" than exist today for in-call locations, and that landlords will have increased powers to throw out any tenant suspected of running an unlicensed business out of residential accommodations (whether her home or otherwise). Regulations may also require various client records to be retained by the "brothel", with the potential of publishing john lists as required to shame visitors ("for their own safety", of course, in case any disease were ever discovered among the service providers).
Further, by bringing in-calls above board, legally speaking, and to ensure regulations are being met, municipalities will be free to apply similar regulations to any out-call agency or provider, again requiring licensing, records, and disease testing for anyone found to be advertising services.
Sure, criminal sanction would no longer be available, but if a city fines someone $10,000 per occurrence is there an effective difference?
First, the Court acknowledged in its ruling that "out-calls" are effectively legal, and are probably less impacted by today's decision than other forms of service.
Second, by striking down the bawdy-house provisions, the Court is demanding that municipal governments act to fill the licensing void being created: that means that, for example, each City Council will likely act quickly to limit the number of legal "brothels" to just one or two per municipality, and restrict where they may be located to industrial areas of the City, much as most City Councils across Ontario have done to regulate Strip Clubs (exceptions having been grandfathered in place for Strip Clubs, no such exceptions exist for brothels).
This will mean that FEWER options will exist for "brothels" than exist today for in-call locations, and that landlords will have increased powers to throw out any tenant suspected of running an unlicensed business out of residential accommodations (whether her home or otherwise). Regulations may also require various client records to be retained by the "brothel", with the potential of publishing john lists as required to shame visitors ("for their own safety", of course, in case any disease were ever discovered among the service providers).
Further, by bringing in-calls above board, legally speaking, and to ensure regulations are being met, municipalities will be free to apply similar regulations to any out-call agency or provider, again requiring licensing, records, and disease testing for anyone found to be advertising services.
Sure, criminal sanction would no longer be available, but if a city fines someone $10,000 per occurrence is there an effective difference?
