Puritan Harper CONS to "fast track" prostitution bill

[Kenny-sauga]

I understand your concern, however, the new law only makes your problem worse, not better.

Under the new law your customers are going to insist that you know even less about them than you do now, and none will knowingly visit any location that has the more obvious security mechanisms you might wnat to put in place -- closed circuit video recording, logging people's ID, or even just a well known public location -- those are all things that will get customers arrested and therefore most customers will try to avoid places with those features. Sure you could hide that you have a video recording, but that only helps the police catch your killer -- what you wanted was a big obvious video camera in your lobby letting any potential trouble maker know that he was on tape and thus preventing the attack in the first place. Without any law customers should not fear you temporarily having that clothed recording; under the new law that recording gets them jail.

So really, things just get worse for you. I think the new law makes things worse for everyone.

Of course it would be better for you (and us) if the old law had been struck down and left that way -- but instead we got a much harsher, much stricter law than previously, and even though you won't be the one arrested, the changes that will force on the industry are unfortunately going to make things worse for your safety.

You are thinking that this is some sort of win/lose tradeoff with customers vs SP's, but it is really just lose/lose for us all.

This is the most balance analysis. This unfortunately is a lose/lose situation. Damn cons :ballchain:

 

[DigitallyYours]

I understand your concern, however, the new law only makes your problem worse, not better.

Under the new law your customers are going to insist that you know even less about them than you do now, and none will knowingly visit any location that has the more obvious security mechanisms you might wnat to put in place -- closed circuit video recording, logging people's ID, or even just a well known public location -- those are all things that will get customers arrested and therefore most customers will try to avoid places with those features. Sure you could hide that you have a video recording, but that only helps the police catch your killer -- what you wanted was a big obvious video camera in your lobby letting any potential trouble maker know that he was on tape and thus preventing the attack in the first place. Without any law customers should not fear you temporarily having that clothed recording; under the new law that recording gets them jail.

So really, things just get worse for you. I think the new law makes things worse for everyone.

Of course it would be better for you (and us) if the old law had been struck down and left that way -- but instead we got a much harsher, much stricter law than previously, and even though you won't be the one arrested, the changes that will force on the industry are unfortunately going to make things worse for your safety.

You are thinking that this is some sort of win/lose tradeoff with customers vs SP's, but it is really just lose/lose for us all.

I have to say, all of the points in the above are pretty spot on.

I will add that the law is supposed to make things safer for SPs by allowing them (1) to hire a bodyguard and (2) to work indoors without fear of criminal sanction. (1) will do nothing but drive up costs and scare away customers. The customer will be worried that he is outnumbered and will be robbed. It also represents another witness to the transaction that can come back to testify against him. (2) makes customers sitting ducks should LE decide to stake out the place. Sure, it might be tough to gather enough evidence to convict just by observing from the outside, but 100% of customers would make a 180 if they see any sort of police presence.

Actually, there is one way that C-36 might help make things safer. SPs can work in pairs.

 

[jcpro]

Sure it won't impact on business at all. Well maybe. I supose a lot depends on how much the pork actually enforces things.


The 1995 Swedish government commission (SOU 1995:15)[30] had estimated that there were 2500-3000 women in prostitution in Sweden, among whom 650 were on the streets. In contrast, in the 2008 NIKK report estimates show there are approximately 300 women in street prostitution, and 300 women and 50 men who used the internet (indoor prostitution)

Furthermore, the number of men reporting the experience of purchasing sex in the national Swedish population samples seems to have dropped from 12.7% to 7.6% from 1996[79] to 2008.[75] No respondents in the latest survey published in 2008 reported they increased, or that they started purchasing sex outside of Sweden, nor changed into purchasing sex in “non-physical” forms.


In 2008 Kajsa Wahlberg,[95] of the human trafficking unit at Sweden's national police board, conceded that accurate statistics are hard to obtain, but estimated that the number of prostitutes in Sweden dropped 40% from 2,500 in 1998 to 1,500 in 2003.[96] However by 2010 she had conceded that the policy had failed, and that issues around prostitution were increasing [97] as noted in the media which carried out surveys on the street.[98][99][100] In Stockholm, police sources reported increased activity on Malmskillnadsgatan in the city centre (which with Artillerigatan in the Östermalm district was a traditional site for street prostitution in Stockholm)

Opinion polls have shown high public support: polls conducted by the opinion and social research consultancy, SIFO, in 1999, and again two years later, showed a rise – from 76% to 81% – in the number of people who favoured this law. The percentage of respondents who wanted the law to be repealed was 15% in 1999 and 14% two years later. The rest "didn't know". [110] In the 2008 survey conducted by NIKK (see above), 71% of Swedes said they supported the ban on paying for sex, although only 20% of respondents believed that the number of people who pay for sex had been reduced. 79% of women and 60% of men favored the law. The young adult population (18-38), particularly women, were most in favor of the law.

Those darn right wing swedes.




What an awesome superhero origin story.

Bob is a mild mannered hobbiest until he recieved a radation dose from a radioactive pussy. Now whenever he gets horny his penis turns green and grows to twice it's original size. The increadble Dong

All these stats are completely useless. The Swedes just drove the whole business underground, making it impossible to quantify. Overtaxing/outlawing a commercial activity always produces same results. Conservatives should be familiar with this concept.

 

[Scarey]

I'm kind of looking down the road.That first client who gets busted and has his life ruined by this.He and his wife sitting in their living room doing a interview on CBC.Explaining how this event ruined their lives......the kids lives......the wife saying how she hates the government for destroying their financial future.How, yes, what he did was wrong but that it should have been an issue to worked out between a husband and wife....not having her husband away from his children.Not having their children's lives have to go through such hardship over one single mistake.This will hurt the Tories more then it will help them.No man likes being told what he can and can't do with his own cock in a consensual manner.

I'm looking down the road at the civil suits against the PC's.A gent gets convicted....does his time......it gets over turned in 8-10 years.You don't think he's going to be looking to make some of that money back that lost out on? For a crime that he technically never commited due to it's unconstitutional nature? That will be an albatross around the Tories neck for years.

I do find a strong sense of irony in a time when Gays, Lesbians and Transexuals are being embraced for being able to be who they truly are and afforded the respect for "coming out of the closet", that Hobbiests, for following those same primal urges are being pushed into that closet.

Interesting times ahead

 

[fuji]

Things like hiring security won't happen in most cases. To make private security cost effective you need a location with multiple girls to share paying the salary a security guard earns.

Problem with that is it necessarily creates a high profile, high traffic location with lots of customers: instant target for police John sweeps.

So escorts are going to be working out of small discrete locations with one or two girls and the cost of hiring private security is going to be too much for the average independent SP.

 

[drahcir]

Bobcat, you are so right.

 

[fmahovalich]

I'm with Jessica on this. Better for the girls!!

As for the Conservative bashers...go ahead and be small minded. The Liberals have offered nothing. The Conservatives have guided this country through MAJOR economic turmoil for years....and you guys are gonna swing your vote on small minded decisions about whether you can get your cock sucked! Small minds boys!

 

[lenny2]

If being a client is a crime, then all your clients will be criminals.

This is a pyrrhic victory, at best, for you, I think..

Being a SP's client under Bill C-36 is not a crime. Paying for "sexual services" is. Not paying for "company", companionship or social time.

 

[Siocnarf]

Actually there is, they can make it illegal for both buyers and sellers, but that won't work either (it doesn't in the US).

Not in reality. They already stated that prostitutes were victims that should not be criminalized. With this present bill they can at least pretend that they are doing it in good faith. They won't be able to save face if they just turn around and say they're evil criminals.

 

[Aardvark154]

I understand your concern, however, the new law only makes your problem worse, not better. . . . .
You are thinking that this is some sort of win/lose tradeoff with customers vs SP's, but it is really just lose/lose for us all.

I agree with everyone else very good analysis Fuji.

(in post #74)

 

[Aardvark154]

I'm not much good to anyone dead or in jail, am I?

Listen, every time I take a new client, I take a risk. EVERY FUCKING TIME. . . .

SAFETY is kinda a big deal for us....

The point Jessica is that the new law will put you in a position where you can have the safety you want or the clients you desire. Further the type clients who will not care if you are in effect making the case for the Crown to prosecute them are the type clients you probably really don't want to see in the first place.

 

[Siocnarf]

Things like hiring security won't happen in most cases. To make private security cost effective you need a location with multiple girls to share paying the salary a security guard earns.

Problem with that is it necessarily creates a high profile, high traffic location with lots of customers: instant target for police John sweeps.

Also, such a setup would certainly be considered a ''commercial enterprise'' and would be illegal. It can only really apply to a single SP with an informal arrangement with a friend. SP can hire people, but these people have no way to know in advance if they will be liable or not, so who would want to work for them? I think this law will make it easier for abusive pimps to avoid arest. They can easily pretend to be the legitimate bodyguard of one or two women.

 

[TeasePlease]

I believe you were originally responding to me, so let me answer.

You were more at risk than you had to be in several ways. One, even with sites like TERB, you can't be sure what kind of person you're going to meet on the other side of that door. You don't know if she's a health hazard, you don't know if she's violent, and you don't know for sure if she's under 18 and you're about to do serious time as a result. You don't know if her abusive pimp is next door ready to jump you. You don't know if the incall you frequent is about to get raided by the overzealous. Legalization and regulation greatly benefits you in all these categories.

As for the ladies, they don't know for sure what kind of person they're meeting either. They have little recourse in the event of stalkers or other violent persons. Without legal alternatives, johns are more likely to mistakenly procure the services of the unwilling or the underaged, thereby promoting the very thing this legislation is supposedly putting a halt to (ha!). They can't hire protection. They, by necessity, have to operate in the shadows, rather than in a well-regulated business operation.

While you and your cock may have never experienced the negative side of how things were, others have. Your unsympathetic views are what the opposition points to when they claim johns have no empathy for the exploited.

I do have empathy for them. I want SPs to be able to operate legally and safely, and I want johns (and janes?) to be able to pursue their desires without so unjustly being labelled a criminal. And I want the law to focus on going after the real criminals (pimps/traffickers) and helping the unwilling find more desirable employment.

All valid risks you have identified. I thought we were talking about C36 and the risk of legal prosecution. Regardless, of all the risks you specify, nothing has changed in the landscape pre or post C36. All those risks were present, and continue to exist under the new regime. But, C36 creates NEW/MORE risk given its focus on Johns. Is that really in doubt?

Was it the case that all participants in the industry were being jeopardized under the old regime? Did you hear your friendly local MP owner bemoan her oppression before C36 was floated?

I have said repeatedly that I'm all in favour of legalization and regulation (In fact, the latter is an inevitable outcome of the former). But, that's not what we're talking about under C36 and regulation certainly is NOT what the industry is supporting. It is not only an unpopular view here, it's scorned. I've tried.

As for my apparent lack of sympathy... Coming from someone who doesn't know me, it's meh. Coming from someone who does know me, that would be annoying.

Jessica, I'm a bit disappointed in your latest stance. You were once very outspoken against bill 36 but now seem to be embracing it, hopefully my assumption is totally off base. I agree with Fugi and other's this bill will not be making it more safe for sex workers, if anything much more dangerous.

That's not a fair comment. The reality is that some parts of the industry are ugly, and some parts need cleaning up. C36 doesn't do it. But it does raise some issues.

I'm looking down the road at the civil suits against the PC's.A gent gets convicted....does his time......it gets over turned in 8-10 years.You don't think he's going to be looking to make some of that money back that lost out on? For a crime that he technically never commited due to it's unconstitutional nature? That will be an albatross around the Tories neck for years.

I doubt it. The law is the law until it gets overturned. I can't recover the speeding fine I paid for going 80km in a 60km zone if the limit is raised to 100km a year later.....

 

[rhuarc29]

All valid risks you have identified. I thought we were talking about C36 and the risk of legal prosecution. Regardless, of all the risks you specify, nothing has changed in the landscape pre or post C36. All those risks were present, and continue to exist under the new regime. But, C36 creates NEW/MORE risk given its focus on Johns. Is that really in doubt?

I don't doubt it. Certainly there is more legal risk for clients. And I believe more risk of harm for SPs; not to mention a risk to their livelihoods.

I just think leaving things in the status quo was irresponsible. It's very unfortunate the government took an opportunity to move a step forward and instead took a couple back. The law as it stands will almost certainly be challenged again, and this time we may actually break new ground. Something that will be far better for all involved consensually, and a kick in the ass of the real criminals who thrive in the shadows and prey on others.

 

[lenny2]

The point Jessica is that the new law will put you in a position where you can have the safety you want or the clients you desire. Further the type clients who will not care if you are in effect making the case for the Crown to prosecute them are the type clients you probably really don't want to see in the first place.

Why can't a SP have both safety & the clients she desires under Bill C-36?

Demand for SP's will be down after Bill C-36 comes into effect, if it isn't already. Some SP's will therefore have to, in the short run, get by on less income, or supplement their income with other employment, or retire, or lower their safety protocols and or prices to get the number of clients they want. Some may hire security, thereby increasing their expenses, with a possible corresponding increase in price to compensate.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Why can't a SP have both safety & the clients she desires under Bill C-36?

Demand for SP's will be down after Bill C-36 comes into effect, if it isn't already. Some SP's will therefore have to, in the short run, get by on less income, or supplement their income with other employment, or retire, or lower their safety protocols and or prices to get the number of clients they want. Some may hire security, thereby increasing their expenses, with a possible corresponding increase in price to compensate.

That was my question? Apparently some are of the belief that clients will no longer give any information about themselves and the only ones who will are those who have nothing to lose so therefore they are the undiseable ones who will prey on escorts because hey, they have nothing to lose.

 

[squeezer]

I'm with Jessica on this. Better for the girls!!

As for the Conservative bashers...go ahead and be small minded. The Liberals have offered nothing. The Conservatives have guided this country through MAJOR economic turmoil for years....and you guys are gonna swing your vote on small minded decisions about whether you can get your cock sucked! Small minds boys!

If you're the first one caught up in a sweep, remember to shout out how you support The Reform Party of Canada and Peter Mackay is your hero! If you're lucky they will send you to John School where you can profess how wrong it was to pay for consensual sex.

It's obvious you vote based on ideology as opposed to common sense.

That's not a fair comment. The reality is that some parts of the industry are ugly, and some parts need cleaning up. C36 doesn't do it. But it does raise some issues.

I disagree , this bill does nothing to make things safer for the ladies. Yes, I agree violate pimps and traffickers should be stopped but we have laws for this as witnessed by current arrests. Bill 36 only throws everyone into one barrel for easy pickings. Jessica has been a tiger fighting this bill but now seems to be accepting it being fooled by the Reform Party claims of this bill actually being good for sex workers. This is going to push the industry underground because what professional will attend a well known incall location???? Maybe Fmahavolich who has bum buddies in the Reform Party but the rest of us will probably be on a wait and see stance.

 

[Ashley V]

I'm not much good to anyone dead or in jail, am I?

Listen, every time I take a new client, I take a risk. EVERY FUCKING TIME. I could end up raped, robbed, assaulted or dead.

NOT YOU.

EVERY TIME you book you can find out IN ADVANCE with a fair amount of certainty, if that lady is gonna rape you, kill you or rob you. EVERY FUCKING TIME.

NOT ME.


SAFETY is kinda a big deal for us.... is that clear enough for you yet? quit your blubbering and retire already.

This seems to be the polar opposite of the Happy Hooker movements message campaigned over the summer. I'm not trying to slam you here I'm really not, but you can understand how others in the sex worker movement got their back up when your message was seemingly none of that really applied to the "Happy Hooker".

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

This seems to be the polar opposite of the Happy Hooker movements message campaigned over the summer. I'm not trying to slam you here I'm really not, but you can understand how others in the sex worker movement got their back up when your message was seemingly none of that really applied to the "Happy Hooker".

Doesn't seem opposite at all if you read and read properly.

Where in that post that your quoted does she say she is in support of this bill, since the HHC was not in support of this bill?

And where does the equation that risk != happiness? Just curious.

She does take a risk every time. She screens to ensure her safety as best she can . She is happy being a hooker and wants that to continue. Safety being a big part of that. Where is the polar opposite here other then yes you want to do what you can to slam her.

Curious again as others are - Are you an escort? Are you one who got their back up?

Where do you stand on Bill C-36? What is your personal opinion and how will it personally affect you Ms. V?

 

[bobcat40]

Just curious. To those women that seemingly now see some kind of silver lining in bill C-36, did you follow the committee hearings on the issue? Pretty much all lawyers and researchers with any objective evidence have suggested the proposed regime will hurt sex worker safety.

Yet now you are telling us you like the law because it will promote your safety. I hope all are right, but my hunch is that their analysis is probably more sound than yours and if this law is actually enforced as written you will be no safer than you were before. To those who say they have their regulars and things will be fine - lets see how quick your clients will run when they see the law being enforced in the media.

This really shouldn't be an us vs you kind of thing. The law attacks the whole industry of which both seller and buyer will be adversely impacted. To think otherwise is foolish.