I believe you are assuming the enforcement of the bill will actually happen as the Conservatives say. But honestly, the enforcement will be and always will be driven by nuisance complaints. If you are operating in a condo and people complain, they will find a way to get you to leave. Going after the John's isn't the best way to make that happen. Harassing you however, will accomplish this. Nothing is going to change, providers will still be targeted. Large John sweeps will be too resource intensive and ineffective to do.
Puritan Harper CONS to "fast track" prostitution bill
- Thread starter d_jedi
- Start date
It is my understanding that there is a lot of travel to other parts of Europe where the laws are different.
It just kind of puzzles me how some prostitutes actually think this law will make their lives easier. I've met a few girls who said they have nothing to worry about because they are the victims and the John's are the only ones who are fucked. This kind of thinking is just what the conservatives want. The Justice Minister has already stated that the intent is to make prostitution illegal and to irradiate prostitution. As a worker in the sex trade, if you know this is the direction the government is taking, I would assume the law should be perceived as a bad thing.
If you are in an industry where your service can't legally be bought, guess what? Things aren't aren't going to be great... If a similar law was enacted on any other publicly traded company, their stock would hit zero pretty fast. Girls also don't realize, if a John gets busted, guess who needs to testify in court to get a conviction? Do girls want to be subpoenaed to court to testify? Police know that girls will need to speak up to get the Johns. If they decide they want to crack down, they will find many ways to coerce the girl to confess without using the law. Finding drugs, family services, telling the landlord, etc. could all be used to gain cooperation. I think girls are actually the real losers of this bill. I and many others will just take extended vacations to Germany where I can do whatever I want.
If you are in an industry where your service can't legally be bought, guess what? Things aren't aren't going to be great... If a similar law was enacted on any other publicly traded company, their stock would hit zero pretty fast. Girls also don't realize, if a John gets busted, guess who needs to testify in court to get a conviction? Do girls want to be subpoenaed to court to testify? Police know that girls will need to speak up to get the Johns. If they decide they want to crack down, they will find many ways to coerce the girl to confess without using the law. Finding drugs, family services, telling the landlord, etc. could all be used to gain cooperation. I think girls are actually the real losers of this bill. I and many others will just take extended vacations to Germany where I can do whatever I want.
Actually watching webcams is also illegal. Doubt they will enforce though. Pretty soon porn will be illegal and staring at women will also be.
That's precisely the concern. Sexual service is not defined in the Bill (and MacKay has expressly refused to clarify the term). However, the backgrounder to the bill refers to MPs as an intended target of the legislation. Im sure we can all agree that MPs provide service of a sexual nature, and that some are indeed brothels in the biblical sense of the word. But, cities like Toronto have taken a pragmatic approach. MPs are allowed as a social policy matter in order to get sex off the streets. I have no visibility whether this leeway will continue to exist under the new legislation.
Aside from focusing on one point out of several, what you're really trying to say is that you agree with me
LOLThe bigger picture is that this industry encompasses a broad spectrum of participants and experiences. C-36 paints us all with the same brush, and that brush has been dipped in the well of the worst parts of this industry.
My understanding is that precedent in other law cases has already declared what sexual services is considered to be so there is no need to define it in the bill.
and I have to agree with others about the "my cock is happy" comment. Honestly, how do you think it would fly if ladies said now that their pussy will be on easy street laughing all the way to the bank since they can't get busted anymore? A little selfish to be thinking only about you.
Very selfish comment. Fuck the vulnerable. As long as your cock is happy, that's all that matters right?
Barf!
If that's the case, we're done like dinner. The courts have defined it very broadly. It doesn't require release. MPs count. I gotta stock up on Jergens.
Apparently no. Sexual services is defined enough that dances are not sexual services, massage is not, web cam is not, porn is not, etc. Blow jobs, intercourse etc is. This has been established already.
Did you read the rest of my sentence or did you just want to jump on the half-cocked train today?
btw, I was responding to a comment about everybody being at risk under the old regime. Were you? Are you now?
Are you so sure you should accuse me of putting my interests before the "vulnerable"? Let's whip it out and bring the ruler!
A sexual service is any activity provided for the sexual gratification of the client, including jerking yourself off while having a lapdance, even if she never makes physical contact with you.
Where is your basis for this definition? Is this your personal interpretation or some legal definition that you have found?
So if I go full turgid during my monthly ball waxing.... dammit.
Terb used to be an amusing distraction. Now it's like hanging out at the Olivia Chow election headquarters....hopeless.
Terb used to be an amusing distraction. Now it's like hanging out at the Olivia Chow election headquarters....hopeless.
But clients will be less likely to go to your nice, well-staffed incall. They will want to be the ones controlling the location to avoid police surveillance. Also, you ARE committing a crime; you just have an immunity from prosecution. Not from police harassment, surveillance, etc.
The old laws were ''OK'' because they were not enforced. It will be the same with new laws. It's almost ''legalized'' in a sense. Local LE and authorities set the terms and so long as we don't bother anyone we are left alone.
Technically, I was as vulnerable as every other sex worker to the same unconstitutional laws that were struck down for good reason.
Your last paragraph...are u implying I put my interests before the "vulnerable"? as in Peter MacKay's definition? If that's the case then I too am of no right mind to even know what I'm doing, being a victim & unable to consent & all. *rolling my eyes*
I've never met a non-consensual sex worker. I'm part of the consensual side.
Sorry TP, ur barking up the wrong table legs.
I get your point, but your choice of words was tacky.
