Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[wilbur]

The true goal is the legislation is probably no different than the old laws. To remove the nuisance of street prostitution in public. Politicians and the general public don't care what is going on behind closed doors. They claim to care but when it comes time fund multi million dollar programs to shut down a few incalls and massage parlours they usually think differently. It really isn't that effective anyway. For every one that is closed, I'm sure another will pop up. There are already thousands of massage parlours in Toronto. Good luck trying to shut all of them down...

The true damage will just be the fear the clients will have. This could temporarily hurt the industry quite a bit once the law is passed. Once clients have a feel that cops don't really care, I would think things would end up pretty much the same.

The problem with giving the police too wide of a net is mission creep, and the revenue generating nature of law enforcement. They say that they just want to have the flexibility to target the worst cases of exploitation. However, if police never went too far in they zeal to prosecute, we probably wouldn't need the courts. It's going to be far more lucrative and easier to just nail clients, as is presently the case in Sweden, rather than undertaking expensive and extensive investigations against the underworld that will thrive under criminalisation.

Selective application of the law is not justice. It leads to discrimination under the law.

 

[bobcat40]

The problem with giving the police too wide of a net is mission creep, and the revenue generating nature of law enforcement. They say that they just want to have the flexibility to target the worst cases of exploitation. However, if police never went too far in they zeal to prosecute, we probably wouldn't need the courts. It's going to be far more lucrative and easier to just nail clients, as is presently the case in Sweden, rather than undertaking expensive and extensive investigations against the underworld that will thrive under criminalisation.

Selective application of the law is not justice. It leads to discrimination under the law.

Yes I agree that the consequences of providing the police with so much power could lead to disastrous consequences. By not defining what a sexual service is, they let the police make their own interpretation which they could interpret quite broadly. With that being said, just like in the states "nailing clients" primarily comes in the form of creating fake BP ads to lure clients into a sting operation. They will go after an incall here and there but it is just too much work. I don't think the police here could act similarly to how they do in Sweden where they aren't offered the same protections under the constitution. Judges in Canada would frown upon arbitrarily arresting any man who visits a prostitute as probable cause for purchasing sexual services. Such actions would be against the presumption of innocence and would be said to go against fundamental justice.

Another thing to note is that culturally I don't feel that the majority of Canadians are against consensual sex work. Considering that the public perception of police is already quite negative, I'm not sure dedicating significant resources towards a victimless crime is a smart thing to do to win people over.

 

[Fallsguy]

Have you watched the video that shows how swedish police just wait outside a sex worker apartment to arrest the client getting out of the appartment?They didn't need to get into the apartment which would need a search warrant. Why don't you think that would be possible in Canada ? It's very easy, just call the sex worker to get the address, then wait outside for potential clients.

I don't think this would survive a Charter challenge in Canada. Sweden is a democracy, but it has a different legal code. There is no presumption of innocence as in the Canadian system, which is based on Common Law.

 

[freedom3]

In the video they guy first played the presumption of innocence and pretended that he was just visiting a friend but that didn't work with cops.
Now if you cannot prove that she's really your friend ( he didn't know her real name), how can you justify visiting the apartment of a sex worker that you don't know personally ? For what purpose ?

They don't have the right to remain silent in Sweden and Norway.

 

[MPAsquared]

Have you watched the video that shows how swedish police just wait outside a sex worker apartment to arrest the client getting out of the appartment?They didn't need to get into the apartment which would need a search warrant. Why don't you think that would be possible in Canada ? It's very easy, just call the sex worker to get the address, then wait outside for potential clients.

It's a video on the net. Grain of salt. U don't know the history. Maybe it's a problem area or problem person. Maybe they've been staking out her spot for a while. Maybe a neighbor complained. Etc. You don't know what was the just cause or trigger or background work done.

So does it mean it would end up like marijuana laws in the states ? It's illegal under US federal law but not illegal under state law in Colorado and Washington state ?

I don't know what the final draft of the bill will look like. So I have no prediction. The US is different. Each state governs their own drug policies. Same with prostitution, look at Nevada.

Toronto is about to get a new mayor, a new police chief, and this new bill. A Lot of factors to weigh in on.

 

[oneshot8]

I don't think this would survive a Charter challenge in Canada. Sweden is a democracy, but it has a different legal code. There is no presumption of innocence as in the Canadian system, which is based on Common Law.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure in Canada such arbitrary use of police power would be frowned upon by the courts and probably found to be unconstitutional. Even in the States where they hate prostitution, they can't just arrest people like in Sweden.

 

[wilbur]

In the video they guy first played the presumption of innocence and pretended that he was just visiting a friend but that didn't work with cops.
Now if you cannot prove that she's really your friend ( he didn't know her real name), how can you justify visiting the apartment of a sex worker that you don't know personally ? For what purpose ?

Notwithstanding a Charter challenge, I think that the police could make the case that exiting the premises of a reputed sex-worker may be grounds for charges. Although there is an exemption for bona-fide family members and individuals hired to help in running a legal business where buying the service is illegal (it doesn't get any weirder than that!), in the Bill, a boyfriend is automatically deemed to be a pimp or trafficker. So if you give as an excuse that you're a boyfriend, the onus is then on you to prove that you're not a pimp; how do you prove a negative?

So if the cops ask you what you were doing leaving the premises of a reputed sex worker, you could always reply that you wish to remain silent, but that will probably be used against you in a court of law, since you will have had no valid excuse for being there other than to buy a sexual service.

So the cops initially accuse the man of being a pimp or trafficker, which guarantees jail time, but the prosecutor offers a plea bargain if he accepts a guilty plea for buying sex and pays his $500 fine and avoids an expensive court trial.

This Bill implies that a sex-worker is not allowed to have any friends; at least friends that come visit her. A female friend could just as well be a pimp or trafficker.

This Bill is so weird, legally and constitutionally speaking, that it wouldn't surprize me that the law will get tossed on the first court challenge.

 

[Fallsguy]

Notwithstanding a Charter challenge, I think that the police could make the case that exiting the premises of a reputed sex-worker may be grounds for charges. Although there is an exemption for bona-fide family members and individuals hired to help in running a legal business where buying the service is illegal (it doesn't get any weirder than that!), in the Bill, a boyfriend is automatically deemed to be a pimp or trafficker. So if you give as an excuse that you're a boyfriend, the onus is then on you to prove that you're not a pimp; how do you prove a negative?

So if the cops ask you what you were doing leaving the premises of a reputed sex worker, you could always reply that you wish to remain silent, but that will probably be used against you in a court of law, since you will have had no valid excuse for being there other than to buy a sexual service.

So the cops initially accuse the man of being a pimp or trafficker, which guarantees jail time, but the prosecutor offers a plea bargain if he accepts a guilty plea for buying sex and pays his $500 fine and avoids an expensive court trial.

This Bill implies that a sex-worker is not allowed to have any friends; at least friends that come visit her. A female friend could just as well be a pimp or trafficker.

This Bill is so weird, legally and constitutionally speaking, that it wouldn't surprize me that the law will get tossed on the first court challenge.

Of course it will. It will be challenged almost immediately. It almost seems as if the Cons purposely crafted this Bill for a losing Charter challenge. It plays well to their mouth breathing base, those damn courts and all that. We've never had a government before that was in open conflict with the judiciary like this one is. In a dictatorship its' easy, you just stack the court to do your bidding. Haper can't do that and it frustrates him.
Oh, by the way, I don't believe there is a right to remain silent under Canadian law, but you certainly have the right to call a lawyer before you say anything, but if you blab away to the officers that is usable in court. But the Swedish style scenario in the video would be a clear violation of a person's Charter rights.

 

[Titalian]

http://newsinportcolborne.com/2014/08/canadas-new-prostitution-law-come-sex-stay-jail-term/


COME FOR THE SEX, STAY FOR THE JAIL TERM

On August 15, 2014 by Dave Johnson
Bill Thomas

“I wonder why prostitution is illegal. Why should it be illegal to sell something that’s perfectly legal to give away?” . George Carlin .

Last year the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the old and archaic laws on prostitution and recently Justice Minister Peter MacKay replaced them with a new and even more archaic set of laws. Bill C-36 is designed to abolish prostitution in Canada, a prospect with as much chance of success as world peace, a clean planet and the Nobel Peace Prize for Vladimir Putin.
Canada’s new prostitution law would make it legal to sell sex and illegal to buy it. How it works is, if you’re a provider of sex you are now a legitimate, single-proprietorship, business retailer and if you’re a customer, you’re a criminal. (Peter: The correct economic theory is supply and demand. Not supply and reprimand.)
In Canada, the world’s oldest profession just became the country’s most confusing occupation. “Hi, c’mon in. See anything you like? Yeah, well stick ‘em up! You’re under arrest.”
Now if you think this is kind of stupid, you don’t know Canada. That’s how we do things here.
In Canada, in the 1950′s we developed the Avro Arrow. Twenty years ahead of it time, the Avro Arrow was a fast and furious military fighter jet without equal in the world. At enormous cost and with the finest of scientific minds we built an aircraft that could fly circles around Cold War enemies. So we cancelled the program, destroyed all the planes, burned any evidence of its existence and flew the sole surviving models into Lake Ontario. Why? Because we felt like it.
In Canada, in the 1990′s we had perhaps the greatest multinational communication consortiums in the world. Nortel employed 100,000 people with capital of $400 billion. The Canadian government watched this telecom company disintegrate into bankruptcy as the shareholders cleaned the carcass and then all the high tech component companies were auctioned off to foreign interest so they could then cripple the growth of other hi-tech companies back home. Why? It sounded like a good idea at the time.
In Canada we created a huge nonprofit, conservation organization with a half million enthusiastic members. The Ducks Unlimited people manage wetlands and bird habitants in order to promote a larger and healthier population of waterfowl. And then they shoot them. Why? Why not?
In Canada, we be loony.
So to a Canadian, the new prostitution law – hookers happy, johns in jail – makes perfect sense. The new sell and buy law is a lot like taking your car into Jiffy Lube to get your oil changed and after you pay for the job you find yourself calling a friend from jail, asking for bail money and a ride home. Applying this legal/illegal business model, McDonald’s would definitely not have been as successful as they are today by selling 260 billion burgers and then having their customers escorted out of the restaurant in handcuffs.
Three years away from its 150th birthday, Canada is still a relatively young country. Russia, by comparison is 5,000 years old and before Bush and Cheney turned the “Cradle of Civilization” into “Hell on Earth,” Iraq was way older than Christ. As a youngster on this plant we tend to do really stupid things and then lock ourselves in our room for long periods of time.[/B] Plus, we elect people to office who couldn’t organize sex in a bordello which brings us back to a prostitution law that makes you think our justice minister was swarmed and badly stung at five years of age during his ‘birds and bees’ talk.
The new Canadian law is not quite as bazaar as the law in the State of Montana which considers prostitution a “crime against the family.” Some family! Although there’s probably something sinister in that rule, the most egregious Montana law is the one that makes it illegal for a married woman to fish alone on Sunday. That’s the one that’s keeping me awake at night.
All this is just as confusing as a recent headline in Italian newspapers that read: “Prostitutes appeal to Pope.” To be clear, the prostitutes were petitioning the Pope for his help with serious issues in their sex trade industry. The Pope, I repeat, the Pope does not find prostitutes appealing. I mean, c’mon – the Popemobile doesn’t even have a backseat!
Justice Minister Peter MacKay can be forgiven for his confusion about how the sex trade business works. For one thing “the house of ill repute” no longer refers to a brothel. In Canada over time, “the house of ill repute” has become the nickname for the House of Commons. With no less than four Canadian senators either now charged or about to be charged with financial crimes, the “house of sober second thought” has become an exclusive club for power-drunk thieves. The fact that MacKay visits these places almost every day is no reflection on his character.
I believe it was Dave Broadfoot, our father of comedy who said: “The problem in Canada with political jokes is that so many of them get elected.” Amen.

For comments, ideas and copies of T he True Story of Wainfleet , go to www.williamthomas.ca

Thanks for that

 

[wilbur]

So this works exactly against the presumption of innocence. Leaving the premises of a sex workers makes you guilty until you prove that you didn't exchange money for sex.

I wouldn't go that far. But saying that you were there because you were her boyfriend could send you to prison as a pimp. Up front, it should not be illegal for anyone to just pay for and receive a body-rub. It's the paid extras that could take place that's going to be illegal for the buyer, and that would be behind closed doors; the cops could not enter the premises and catch you in the act, unless they got a search warrant.

If I was detained as I walked out of a MP, and accused of buying sex, I would say 'Well, constable, this establishment has a municipal business licence to deliver body-rubs, and that's what I received.' They would still need proof that you paid for sex, and they could only do that if you confessed, or the MPA runs out and denounces you. If the MPA is uncooperative, they could only get evidence if they got a search warrant against the MP and it's uncooperative 'victim'. Not too good for building trust between LE and sex-workers.

Leaving a SP's locale might be more difficult to explain. You can't say that you were her boyfriend because that would send you straight to jail. So what's left? You were selling vacuum cleaners? don't think so. Jehova's Witness? Maybe... but why did you stay so long?

If I was a SP, I would provide an advertised service like a body rub, or Transcendal Meditation sessions, or Reiki or something like that, because it would be more difficult to prove that you didn't attend the premises of a person who's sole occupation is providing sex.

The presumption of guilt was already in effect under the bawdy house section. Being inside a bawdy-house without a valid excuse (especially if you remained silent) made you automatically guilty.

 

[Siocnarf]

Hi all, I am a member on merb and I thought I would join the conversation here also.

The presumption of guilt was already in effect under the bawdy house section. Being inside a bawdy-house without a valid excuse (especially if you remained silent) made you automatically guilty.

This has nothing to do with presumption of guilt. It was a crime simply to be there. If you were found in a bawdy house, you were guilty of being found there. In Sweden they also have similar bawdy house law. If the police knows that a place is used for prostitution and you visit that place, I think they can arrest you just for that. The criminalization of purchase is just a small detail of their prostitution laws, which are very similar to our old laws overall.

Now, with C-36 only the act of paying for sex will be a crime. Any lawyer would laugh in the prosecutor’s face if they tried to charge you for walking out of an incall. ''Yes, my client was in that apartment. There’s no law against being in that place. Do you have proof that he did anything illegal?'' Even the proof that you paid an escort for her time does not prove you did anything sexual.

The bit about presumption of guilt for a pimp is for people who are ''usually'' found with someone without being in a regular relationship (whatever that means). Not a one-time or even occasional visitor.

Of course all this could be twisted any way they want, but the law is very shaky and sure to be contested. I’d be very surprised that a prosecutor would try to play games like that just to get a simple client. This is like a cracked gun that can blow up in their face the first time they use it. I don’t think they are going to enforce those laws much, except for really important cases.

In any case, I would not make up a story for the police. I think that lying to the police can be a crime probably worse than paying for sex.

 

[squeezer]

This is not a recent article but back from 2007. I believe this is important as we see in this article, this law may have been always in the works from within the Reform Party's round table.

This from 2007 but it illustrates the different mind set of the parties.

http://canadasprostitutionpolitics.blogspot.ca/

In early 2007, the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws released a report entitled “THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGE: A STUDY OF CANADA’S CRIMINAL PROSTITUTION LAWS”. The committee was comprised of 6 MPs, including 2 members of the Conservative Party, 2 members of the Liberal Party, 1 member of the Bloc Québécois and 1 member of the New Democratic Party. This study was the second attempt since 2003. The Subcommittee reviewed relevant literature and heard testimony from approximately 300 witnesses at public and private hearings and meetings across Canada from January 31 to May 30, 2005.

The committee had difficulty arriving at a consensus. Representatives from 3 or the 4 political parties felt that repealing all of Canada's prostitution laws were a reasonable option:


"Members from the Liberal, New Democratic, and Bloc Québécois Parties are of the view that sexual activities between consenting adults that do not harm others, whether or not payment is involved, should not be prohibited by the state." (ch.7.C)


The Conservative party members were the only members of the committee that were not in favor of repealing the laws:

"Unlike other parties, the Conservatives do not believe it is possible for the state to create isolated conditions in which the consensual provision of sex in exchange for money does not harm others. They believe that all prostitution has a social cost, and that any effort by the state to decriminalize prostitution would impoverish all Canadians — and Canadian women in particular — by signalling that the commodification and invasive exploitation of a woman’s body is acceptable." (ch.7. D)

Folks if you enjoy freedom to live your life on your own terms and enjoy the industry from a business woman's POV or a client's POV vote Justin in 2015.

 

[wilbur]

This has nothing to do with presumption of guilt. It was a crime simply to be there. If you were found in a bawdy house, you were guilty of being found there. In Sweden they also have similar bawdy house law. If the police knows that a place is used for prostitution and you visit that place, I think they can arrest you just for that. The criminalization of purchase is just a small detail of their prostitution laws, which are very similar to our old laws overall.

I think that there is a bit of semantics here.

The presumption of guilt doesn't mean that you have been convicted; only a court can convict you, and not the police. The point about being presumed guilty is that it's up to you to prove to the court that you are not guilty (that you had legitimate reasons for being there); remaining silent does not work. For most other laws, it's up to the prosecution to prove that you are guilty (they have to build a case against you), hence your right to remain silent.

 

[bobcat40]

I think that there is a bit of semantics here.

The presumption of guilt doesn't mean that you have been convicted; only a court can convict you, and not the police. The point about being presumed guilty is that it's up to you to prove to the court that you are not guilty (that you had legitimate reasons for being there); remaining silent does not work. For most other laws, it's up to the prosecution to prove that you are guilty (they have to build a case against you), hence your right to remain silent.

Yes, this is a situation of reverse onus which allowed police to just arrest everyone in a bawdy house. This was an ideal situation for police because it gave them a really easy black and white picture to arrest and eventually prosecute. All they needed to know was that a particular location was being used for paid sex on more than one occasion to establish it as a bawdy house. Afterwards, anybody on the property could be arrested and convicted. You also need to realize that the term "bawdy house" is actually rooted to the concept of a neighborhood nuisance. The powers the police would be exercising would be no different that if the cops busted a gambling ring and just arrested everyone involved. I believe the point of the previous law was to just immediately remove a community nuisance as opposed to just making it easy to catch the Johns. Hence why the number of such charges are quite low.

With the new laws, there is no such thing. The main crime of paying for sexual services is a much higher bar to prove. You can't just say, ever visitor entering a massage parlour or incall location paid for sex. What if they were a friend? What if they just actually wanted "companionship" and just talked to the girl? The courts would not accept such arbitrarily and low standards for probably cause. By that same logic, you could say that cops could arrest anyone who visits a drug dealer for possession of drugs as they assume that you must have met that dealer to purchase drugs. Police could then just arrest anyone who they felt associated with criminals. That would be very unconstitutional and an abuse of police power

 

[op12]

Never talk to the police. Link

Am I under arrest officer?
Am I free to go officer?
Am I under arrest officer?
Am I free to go officer?
Am I under arrest officer?
Am I free to go officer?
Am I under arrest officer?
Am I free to go officer?

 

[wilbur]

Just for the record, I want to make a few points: first of all, Sweden has almost nothing in common with Canada, legally, socially or politically. If you are looking to compare us with other jurisdictions, the most relevant are Britain and the other commonwealth countries. Secondly, no-one is under any obligation in Canada, or in any other British country, to identify himself to any peace officer, unless he is operating a motor vehicle. So if you are walking out of a body rub and the cops stop you for questioning- which they will do- the only answer you need to give is "Have a nice day, officer." Of course, as soon as you step behind the wheel of your car, it's a different story. (If you're paranoid, it's not a bad idea to go to the spa on the bus). Last of all, it is NOT a crime to lie to the police. Only in a court of law, while under oath, is it a crime to lie. And no, I'm not a lawyer. Just a citizen who mistrusts authority, and likes to know his legal rights.

That's why this Nordic Model of a law is ludicrous in Canada. It won't stand up to a Charter challenge; this is not Sweden.

If the police decided to charge you for any reason, then you do have to identify yourself; otherwise, it's off to to the station. So after you leave the SP, don't jaywalk or linger for no good reason.

If the police stop you, the first question I would ask is: 'Is there a problem, constable?' If there is, I would ask 'Am I being detained or under arrest?' Any 'no' for an answer and I would say 'I'll be on my way now. Have a nice day, constable'.

 

[freedom3]

Never talk to the police. Link

Am I under arrest officer?
Am I free to go officer?
Am I under arrest officer?
Am I free to go officer?
Am I under arrest officer?
Am I free to go officer?
Am I under arrest officer?
Am I free to go officer?

Don't be silly. The best thing to do with the police is to be friendly and act like you are buddies.

 

[Siocnarf]

I think that there is a bit of semantics here.

The presumption of guilt doesn't mean that you have been convicted...

In law, exact meanings are very important. There was no presumption of guilt about the bawdy house provision. If they have proof that a place is a bawdy house, and proof that you were found there, you can be charged and found guilty of being in a bawdy house. Being found in a bawdy house did not involve presumption of guilt for any other prostitution offense. It was a crime in and of itself.

Walking out of an incall can give the police reasonable doubt about your motives. They can certainly question you and try to wriggle a confession out of you. But the only crime they could charge a client with C-36 is paying/communicating for sex and there is nothing about presumption of guilt for that in my understanding of the present bill.

 

[krazyplayer]

All the proof that they need is your ad in an adult section of a paper or online - even reviews are evidence. Massage parlours are sitting ducks under the bawdy house provision, but the police usually left them alone unless there was a complaint.
They used to bust them up here with some regularity (the OPP was especially vigilant) http://calendar.county.simcoe.on.ca...dy Houses Shut Down update 17May07 update.pdf
And they bust you soon after arrival not on departure (like sweden).

And they have been cracking down on licencing under the guise of trafficking problems: http://www.theifp.ca/news/police-charge-halton-massage-parlours/

 

[drlove]

That's why this Nordic Model of a law is ludicrous in Canada. It won't stand up to a Charter challenge;

Agreed... The real problem lies in the fact that it will take between three to five years on average before the new laws are struck down by the SCC. In the meantime, watch your step...