Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[wilbur]

MacKay told the Senate that websites, including Facebook, would be subject to prosecution.

Yes. So it's a contradiction how a service provider is allowed to advertise for sexual services, while anybody owning the medium would face prosecution for publishing or carrying the ad on a website.

I believe that those accused of this section will never be prosecuted, at least for the big escort agencies with a few hundred thousand dollars of spare cash to spare for legal fees. That's because prosecutors will drop the charges for fear of the section being ruled unconstitutional by a court, and thrown out. That's why Young could never fight the prostitution laws under defense of criminal prosecution because the Crown would always drop charges before they went to court, in case they lost, thereby creating a procedent (in common law), or the law being tossed as being unconstitutional. This is characteristic of bad law, when prosecutors fear losing when challenged, not based on the evidence, but based on its very foundation.

 

[wilbur]

That will pretty much put NOW magazine out of business then

If having the ads means the difference between survival or going bust, it may be worthwhile for them to keep doing what they are doing, and fight charges when they are laid. Crowns may be unwilling to prosecute in case the law gets thrown out as unconstitutional. As Young mentioned before the Senate committee, he would have a field day in court with quite a few sections of the Bill. But it would take a brave person to face indictment and take the chance of being convicted.

The only issue he could not go forward with is to prove that the bill causes harm, because it takes time to accumulate the evidence.

 

[canada-man]

NOW was accused of living off the avails under the old laws. that was thrown out

 

[Cobra Enorme]

Mark Zuckerberg has released a statement about if hes scared to go to jail if people communicate about prostitution in canada on Facebook.

"zero fucks given"

 

[squeezer]

Mark Zuckerberg has released a statement about if hes scared to go to jail if people communicate about prostitution in canada on Facebook.

"zero fucks given"

Do you have a link to this and good for him!

 

[lenny2]

MacKay told the Senate that websites, including Facebook, would be subject to prosecution.

Will Canadian law/Bill C-36 be useful in prosecuting foreign based websites in the USA, Singapore, the North Pole & wherever TERB is located now? Or are such sites untouchable? If the latter, will it be business as usual with SP's able to advertize in any way they wish to?

How do USA & Nordic SP's get away with advertising without being shut down or the websites their ads are on being prosecuted?

That will pretty much put NOW magazine out of business then

I expect by the end of the year we'll see if they are still running such ads, up to the challenge or calling Mackay's bluff. Or maybe they'll move certain online sections offshore like TERB did. Is there any word from NOW themselves on their plans should Bill C-36 become law?

NOW was accused of living off the avails under the old laws. that was thrown out

Do you have any articles or info elaborating on this. That might help explain why Bill C-36 is adding new portions re ads.

 

[Siocnarf]

Mark Zuckerberg has released a statement about if hes scared to go to jail if people communicate about prostitution in canada on Facebook.

"zero fucks given"

Let's be clear: communication and advertisement are two completely different provisions. If two people communicate directly on facebook for prostitution, then the media is not guilty. However, if an SP posts some advertisement on facebook, then facebook would be guilty if they didn't ban the person or removed the ads.

NOW as always been supportive of sex work. I think they will continue as before.

 

[AK-47]

NOW was accused of living off the avails under the old laws. that was thrown out

Those were different laws back then. Surely you understand this

I expect by the end of the year we'll see if they are still running such ads, up to the challenge or calling Mackay's bluff. Or maybe they'll move certain online sections offshore like TERB did. Is there any word from NOW themselves on their plans should Bill C-36 become law?

Moving their magazine offshore would probably be the smartest thing to do, only problem with that is their head office is located on 189 Church Street in Toronto. They would have to move their entire office and staff offshore

 

[MPAsquared]

Sex workers in Canada: 17 interesting facts from a new report

http://www.straight.com/blogra/733571/sex-workers-canada-17-interesting-facts-new-report

by STEPHEN HUI on SEP 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Researchers have released what’s being called the first national report on the sex industry in Canada—and some of its findings may surprise you.

The working paper, whose lead author is Cecilia Benoit of the University of Victoria, will be discussed at an international symposium in Ottawa on September 22 and 23. It’s based on five studies undertaken in St. John’s, Montréal, Kitchener, Fort McMurray, Calgary, and Victoria.

“Based on our study, many of the people linked to Canada’s sex industry—workers and their intimate partners, managers and clients—have much in common with other Canadians. By and large, they are Canadian-born, Caucasian, in their 30s or 40s with a high school diploma and some form of post-secondary education or training,” the report states.

Here’s 17 interesting findings from the paper. All figures correspond to study participants only.

• The median income is $39,500 for sex workers, $42,000 for managers, and $60,000 for sex buyers.

• The average age of sex workers’ first sale was 26 years old, and the median age of sex buyers’ first purchase was 25 years old.

• 29 percent of sex workers first sold a sexual service before the age of 19.

• The average sex worker has 10 years of experience, and the average sex buyer has 16 years of experience.

• 89 percent of sex workers were born in Canada.

• 29 percent of sex workers spent some of their childhood in foster care or another form of government care.

• 67 percent of sex workers finished high school, and 15 percent have a bachelor’s degree or more.

• 77 percent of sex workers identify as women, 17 percent as men, and 6 percent as other genders.

• 66 percent of sex workers report a different gender presentation on the job than in their personal lives. (“Most reported they are more feminine in their work lives.”)

• 45 percent of sex workers identify as straight, 38 percent as bisexual or bi-curious, 6 percent as gay or lesbian, and 11 percent as other sexual orientations.

• Sex buyers purchase a sexual service a median of four times a year.

• 65 percent of sex buyers used in-call services in the past year, 55 percent visited massage parlours, 39 percent used out-call services, while only 17 percent bought sex on the street.

• 20 percent of sex workers rated their job as very or extremely stressful; in contrast, 43 percent of sex workers ranked their personal lives as very or extremely stressful.

• 97 percent of sex workers have been tested for HIV/AIDs, compared to 68 percent of sex buyers.

• 69 percent of sex workers reported using a condom every time they had sex with a client in the last month.

• 15 percent of sex workers had at least one sex-work-related injury, but only 1 percent of injured sex workers had submitted a sex-work-related claim to the Workers Compensation Board.

• 99 percent of sex buyers are in favour of legalizing prostitution.

Follow Stephen Hui on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

Fascinating.

 

[lenny2]

Those were different laws back then. Surely you understand this


Moving their magazine offshore would probably be the smartest thing to do, only problem with that is their head office is located on 189 Church Street in Toronto. They would have to move their entire office and staff offshore

Are the owners of TERB, MERB, PERB, etc & "their entire office & staff" now offshore?

I suppose NOW could incorporate escort ads under another business name & place those ads on a offshore website that is untouchable by Canadian law.

Or they could simply refuse any ads that offer "sexual services" for pay, of the sort such as, for example, "BBFS CIM FS $100". BTW the other day, as i mentioned earlier in this thread, i didn't see a single ad of this sort.

 

[AK-47]

Are the owners of TERB, MERB, PERB, etc & "their entire office & staff" now offshore?

No, but Terb doesnt have an actual physical newspaper thats distributed throughout Toronto either. Is NOW gonna fly in all their newspapers from the Cayman Islands every other week??

I suppose NOW could incorporate escort ads under another business name & place those ads on a offshore website that is untouchable by Canadian law

If they just stuck with online ads they would be fine.
But their physical newspaper would be subject to prosecution if it was printed locally in Toronto

Or they could simply refuse any ads that offer "sexual services" for pay, of the sort such as, for example, "BBFS CIM FS $100". BTW the other day, as i mentioned earlier in this thread, i didn't see a single ad of this sort

I'd imagine cops would still file charges and see if the judge/jury buys all that coded talk.

Hasnt worked out so well for drug dealers in the past. "Hey, the eagle has landed. Come and pick up the eagle"

 

[canada-man]

Tories prepare to fast-track prostitution bill through Parliament

One of Parliament’s most high-profile bills appears set to become law without major changes – as one senator says the committee considering Bill C-36, aimed at reining in the sex trade, is “highly unlikely” to call for changes.

The approval of the bill by the Conservative-dominated Senate committee would be a strong signal it will ultimately become law in its current form, despite being broadly criticized, in particular for provisions that could lead a sex worker to be criminally charged. Many lawyers have also warned the bill is likely unconstitutional and could end up being struck down.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee was urged to make certain changes as even supporters of the bill said it should not criminalize sex workers. However, the Conservative government has argued that the bill needs to be passed quickly and that it balances protecting sex workers with discouraging their trade. Asked last week whether the committee would call for any changes to the bill, Conservative Senator and committee member Linda Frum replied simply: “It’s highly unlikely.”

The committee has been conducting a “pre-study” of Bill C-36 this month, part of a bid to ensure it moves quickly through the Senate once formally passed by the House of Commons. The bill was tabled after the Supreme Court, in its Bedford decision, struck down existing prostitution laws, in part because they were found to violate the Charter rights of sex workers.

During her own appearance before the Senate committee earlier this month, Terri-Jean Bedford threatened senators that she would disclose a list of politicians who buy sex if the bill is passed in its current form. She later ran afoul of committee rules by speaking out of turn, was escorted out of the Senate meeting and ultimately apologized.

The new law largely criminalizes the buyers of sex – rather than the sellers – but will nonetheless have an impact on sex workers. It includes broad restrictions on advertising – sex workers are allowed to place ads but it will be illegal for companies to knowingly run them – a change expected to put a chill on both newspapers and websites.

The law also includes a provision making it illegal to discuss a transaction near a school, playground or daycare – a law that would apply to sex workers and clients alike. That was the provision most frequently criticized by witnesses during committee hearings. The government has already softened this provision through an amendment made by a House of Commons committee.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay, who is spearheading the bill for the Conservative government, told The Globe and Mail last week that he had not heard from the Senate about any changes. “I have not heard any indication of forthcoming amendments. I have been following it, and following the proceedings. Of course, they’re still sitting, they still have opportunities to examine the bill. We’ll await that decision,” he said.

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan has pledged to pass Bill C-36 by December, to meet the court’s deadline and ensure Canada doesn’t go without laws on prostitution. The government has repeatedly insisted the law is constitutional, but also said it is designed to limit and rein in the sex trade as much as possible.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...gh-profile-prostitution-bill/article20716890/

 

[wilbur]

This is something new that I've never heard of before. Until now, my understanding was that it was okay for advertising media to take these ads, since it was legal for sex workers to place these ads. It was just that 3rd parties couldn't place the ads in on behalf of sex workers, such as escort agencies, spas, etc. This sounds even more draconian.

That was clear to me from the beginning. The whole thing is draconian, and most of it unconstitutional.

It does seem, however, that various police forces in Canada have a lukewarm attitude towards the bill. Meaning that their policies for dealing with prostitution would not change very much: that of being complaint based, and concentrating mainly on exploitation, including underage and trafficked persons. This was the word from the head of the Montreal Police vice department today on Radio-Canada. They have a new policy (since 2013) with respect to focusing on exploitation and trafficking, and not much is expected to change with respect to the actual trade: it's not on their radar. The Saskatoon police chief also expressed his problems with the new law: the fear that it will push the industry underground into the hands of organized crime where cases of exploitation will be difficult to investigate. Paying lip service towards an unpopular law could put some Provinces in some sort of constitutional conflict with the Federal Government: Petey could have a conniption fit!

 

[freedom3]

This is something new that I've never heard of before. Until now, my understanding was that it was okay for advertising media to take these ads, since it was legal for sex workers to place these ads. It was just that 3rd parties couldn't place the ads in on behalf of sex workers, such as escort agencies, spas, etc. This sounds even more draconian.

I thought so too until I heard McKay say the opposite to the Senate.

 

[canada-man]

That was clear to me from the beginning. The whole thing is draconian, and most of it unconstitutional.

It does seem, however, that various police forces in Canada have a lukewarm attitude towards the bill. Meaning that their policies for dealing with prostitution would not change very much: that of being complaint based, and concentrating mainly on exploitation, including underage and trafficked persons. This was the word from the head of the Montreal Police vice department today on Radio-Canada. They have a new policy (since 2013) with respect to focusing on exploitation and trafficking, and not much is expected to change with respect to the actual trade: it's not on their radar. The Saskatoon police chief also expressed his problems with the new law: the fear that it will push the industry underground into the hands of organized crime where cases of exploitation will be difficult to investigate. Paying lip service towards an unpopular law could put some Provinces in some sort of constitutional conflict with the Federal Government: Petey could have a conniption fit!

what about the Toronto Police?

 

[canada-man]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6697726

12:00 noon
GOVERNMENT ORDERS

Government Bills (Commons)



C-36 — The Minister of Justice — Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act — Report stage (first time debated)

Length of speeches, pursuant to Standing Orders 43 and 76.1(7):
All Members — 10 minutes maximum and speeches are subject to a 5-minute question and comment period.
Committee Report — presented on Monday, September 15, 2014, Sessional Paper No. 8510-412-121.
Report stage motions — see "Report Stage of Bills" in today's Notice Paper.
Report stage concurrence motion — question to be put immediately after the report stage motions are disposed of, pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9).

 

[wilbur]

what about the Toronto Police?

Complete conjecture on my part, but I can't see a whole lot of change, since that would involve spending a lot money on enforcing laws that have to do with mostly victimless crime (unless you're a radical feminist). That would be at the expense of enforcing the laws that go after those being exploited, since I doubt municipalities would suddenly increase their police budgets and overburden the taxpayer. The police on the ground aren't stupid for the most part. It's not as if the police's vice department was born yesterday. Police departments seek cooperation and assistance from the players in the industry if they are really interested in going after those who exploit and harm sex-workers, and they are not going to achieve that if they chase their sources of income away and drive everybody undergroud.

 

[bobcat40]

With reports like this one, municipalities would have a tough time justifying the expenditure. In the current context, few would buy in the idea that more money has to be spent on enforcing these new laws, when prostitution wasn't a major problem to begin with, no matter what Peter MacKay says.

There's two sides to this type of situation. When there's declining crime, some police forces will "create crime" by enforcing lower priority crimes. This will boost their stats for the end of year report to justify increasing police budgets. I remember this effect when playing sim city as a kid. Having a large police budget often leads to overpolicing which might include prostitution busts.

 

[bobcat40]

With the current budget crises provinces and municipalities are facing, I don't see how those kinds of gimmicks are going to fly. Just last week, Quebec announced deep cuts to the SQ's (Quebec's OPP) budget.

It's a pretty simple question: what do people want? Maintaining (and maybe improving) healthcare, infrastructure (roads, etc.), education, or spend more money on an issue that is not on the radar of what most Canadians care about?

Your 100% right. But I think well all know that what is logical doesn't get always applied in government. You have these special interest groups like the police unions, faith based lobbyist, etc. which just push their agenda despite what is in the best interests of citizens. In fact, you can see that from the experience with bill C-36. I guarantee once the police are told crime is down and they need to cut thousands of officers, they will say garbage like prostitution is rampant and we need officers to protect the community.

 

[wilbur]

Your 100% right. But I think well all know that what is logical doesn't get always applied in government. You have these special interest groups like the police unions, faith based lobbyist, etc. which just push their agenda despite what is in the best interests of citizens. In fact, you can see that from the experience with bill C-36. I guarantee once the police are told crime is down and they need to cut thousands of officers, they will say garbage like prostitution is rampant and we need officers to protect the community.

But police chiefs still don't hold the purse strings: politicians do. And police departments (most of them anyway) are answerable to politicians. As with all government departments, they are told to make do with what they have when feeding budgets is problem.