Puritan Harper CONS to "fast track" prostitution bill

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

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.

You are misunderstanding. There is no support for Bill 36 itself. That does not negate the fact that Bill tried to appear to be protective of sex workers which is needed. The way the PC went about it was wrong but again, that doesn't meant that some of it in its intention was not needed. There is difference.

and I can bet for every client that walks away from the industry there are at least 2 that are staying with more coming in the future. In a way, this bill could help a hobbyist. You all just have to see it for the reality that it is. Why are you going to get busted bobcat? Are you going after street walkers, or human trafficked Asian agencies? There is a way to not get busted and still hobby. Women have figured out for years who to still offer services and not get busted. I don't want to presume that you are saying women are smarter then men???? LOL JK. There is a way around this law, just like before. Enforcement will be huge, verification and information sharing among workers and clients will be huge. research and due diligence will be huge. Something may change, but the industry will still be here now, tomrorow and in 50 years. At least until we developed sex robots for personal entertainment. LOL

 

[bobcat40]

You are misunderstanding. There is no support for Bill 36 itself. That does not negate the fact that Bill tried to appear to be protective of sex workers which is needed. The way the PC went about it was wrong but again, that doesn't meant that some of it in its intention was not needed. There is difference.

and I can bet for every client that walks away from the industry there are at least 2 that are staying with more coming in the future. In a way, this bill could help a hobbyist. You all just have to see it for the reality that it is. Why are you going to get busted bobcat? Are you going after street walkers, or human trafficked Asian agencies? There is a way to not get busted and still hobby. Women have figured out for years who to still offer services and not get busted. I don't want to presume that you are saying women are smarter then men???? LOL JK. There is a way around this law, just like before. Enforcement will be huge, verification and information sharing among workers and clients will be huge. research and due diligence will be huge. Something may change, but the industry will still be here now, tomrorow and in 50 years. At least until we developed sex robots for personal entertainment. LOL

You're right, the industry will always exist - but in a precarious situation. I would disagree with your assumption the industry would still grow. This could be true in the longer term if police don't appear to enforce the laws. But realistically at least in the short term, the industry would suffer. Most people will be in a wait and see mode. As for the women "figuring out" how to duck the law, they haven't done that. They were really just allowed to exist due to almost non existent enforcement. It really wasn't difficult for cops under the old laws to just look up some ads on bp/terb and start busting incalls as bawdy houses. They just chose not to do it.

You are also right that the bill appears to be protective . But that just isn't the case. I think even you know that the true purpose of the law is to remove the nuisance of prostitution from Canada under the guise of protecting the women. As I said before, there is a reason that most researchers and lawyers have stated this bill harms sex workers. So the distinction I'm trying to make is the difference between what the bill says it is trying to do, and what it actually accomplishes. The only sure way a women can be immune from prosecution is if they work alone in isolation. Hiring a receptionist and a security guard just isn't financially realistic for many sex workers and probably would put them at risk for running a commercial enterprise. Banding together as a group likely risks the perception they are also receiving a material benefit from each others work. There are reasons why lawyers find the law unconstitutional - mainly because it is almost impossible for a sex worker to work safely and delineate them from legal prosecution.

I won't even get into the fact that no one in their right mind would even want to go to a well established, well staffed incall location in being a sitting duck for police. Alan Young brought this up to the senate committee and it really makes a lot of sense.

 

[Ashley V]

You're right, the industry will always exist - but in a precarious situation. I would disagree with your assumption the industry would still grow. This could be true in the longer term if police don't appear to enforce the laws. But realistically at least in the short term, the industry would suffer. Most people will be in a wait and see mode. As for the women "figuring out" how to duck the law, they haven't done that. They were really just allowed to exist due to almost non existent enforcement. It really wasn't difficult for cops under the old laws to just look up some ads on bp/terb and start busting incalls as bawdy houses. They just chose not to do it.

You are also right that the bill appears to be protective . But that just isn't the case. I think even you know that the true purpose of the law is to remove the nuisance of prostitution from Canada under the guise of protecting the women. As I said before, there is a reason that most researchers and lawyers have stated this bill harms sex workers. So the distinction I'm trying to make is the difference between what the bill says it is trying to do, and what it actually accomplishes. The only sure way a women can be immune from prosecution is if they work alone in isolation. Hiring a receptionist and a security guard just isn't financially realistic for many sex workers and probably would put them at risk for running a commercial enterprise. Banding together as a group likely risks the perception they are also receiving a material benefit from each others work. There are reasons why lawyers find the law unconstitutional - mainly because it is almost impossible for a sex worker to work safely and delineate them from legal prosecution.

I won't even get into the fact that no one in their right mind would even want to go to a well established, well staffed incall location in being a sitting duck for police. Alan Young brought this up to the senate committee and it really makes a lot of sense.

I'm curious. Do you think police departments will choose to target non nuisance Johns in the future anymore than they did pre C-36?

 

[bobcat40]

I'm curious. Do you think police departments will choose to target non nuisance Johns in the future anymore than they did pre C-36?

I assume by non nuisance Johns you are referring to non-exploitive purchases. In that case it is doubtful there will be much change to general enforcement on a large scale. This is because, there was no police funding announced as part of the bill. Without money there can't be that much change.

The main impact I think is just going to be the change in mentality. Some for ideological police officers may be swayed by the political rhetoric and start going after Johns by themselves. The conservatives going on tv demonizing all Johns as violent abusive criminals probably isn't helping the situation.

 

[Siocnarf]

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.

That is more applicable for street work. For escorts, the way I see it, clients will be less likely to divulge personal info. Therefore they will go preferably to SP's who don't ask for those info. Those with more stringent screening process will be left with less clients and will have to lower their screening standards when they want to attract new clients.

 

[wilbur]

I'm curious. Do you think police departments will choose to target non nuisance Johns in the future anymore than they did pre C-36?

It depends on the police department. Some are out on a moralistic crusade and others are really out there to promote public safety; it also depends on local community and political pressure. Police in the larger cities tend to be more pragmatic where the sex industry is widespread, and harsher with the law in the smaller cities where new upstarts are easy to spot.

Toronto Police Service seems a lot more pragmatic than York Regional Police, for example.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

I won't even get into the fact that no one in their right mind would even want to go to a well established, well staffed incall location in being a sitting duck for police. Alan Young brought this up to the senate committee and it really makes a lot of sense.

I completely disagree and yes with Allan as well. There is this thing called evidence that police need to arrest a client. Walking in and out of well established, well staffed incall location is not enough evidence to arrest someone for purchasing sex. It simply isn't. In regards to arresting the person with the incall, that might be different based on the proximity to children section of the bill. However this does not even cover the fact that police could have done more before the bill in amount of arrests at a well established, well staffed incall location and yet they still didn't enforce the old law of a bawdy house.

That is more applicable for street work. For escorts, the way I see it, clients will be less likely to divulge personal info. Therefore they will go preferably to SP's who don't ask for those info. Those with more stringent screening process will be left with less clients and will have to lower their screening standards when they want to attract new clients.

I disagree again 100%. Clients need to be busted buying sex. Clients who go to well established escorts are less likely to be arrested as the escort is established and therefore not some undercover sting operation that police are going to have to set up to actually make arrests. Therefore, if the price of your security is to only see established escorts and established escorts require personal info, then you are going to give it. You know she is a safe provider and not some cop. She is not ratting you out to cops because then she has no money.


Things were illegal before and people found ways to work around and remain as safe as possible. That doesn't change, just the way you work around this illegal aspect changes. Advertisers on BP will feel it, guys will be more careful with how and who they hobby with. And to be honest, what more personal info would be required after the law. A hobby phone with the name john? References from other escorts? Ladies are not starting to ask for copies of your DL.

 

[TeasePlease]

Pragmatism or deliberate enforcement posture, I think this speculation is fanciful. The fact that the bill is enacted will be a big deterrent. If even a handful of johns are busted after it goes into effect, it will chill the industry. I don't think anyone is seriously expecting that TPS won't enforce this law at all (just a matter of degrees).

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Pragmatism or deliberate enforcement posture, I think this speculation is fanciful. The fact that the bill is enacted will be a big deterrent. If even a handful of johns are busted after it goes into effect, it will chill the industry. I don't think anyone is seriously expecting that TPS won't enforce this law at all (just a matter of degrees).

Maybe that is what I am apparently not seeing. By chill the industry, do you mean places like Mirage or B&S Asian agencies? Established and reputable escorts like MJL or BP fly by nighters looking to suck a guy for some quick cash and bad service? If that is the part that is going to chill in the industry, maybe that ain't so bad?

 

[fuji]

I said I've communicated with my clients... almost all of them. I've asked them what changes they would like to make to booking and meeting (if any) and I will work with those gents to keep them safe and their minds at ease.

In the short term you will be able to set up a reasonable situation with your existing clients, who you already trust, and who trust you.

It is acquiring new customers and establishing mutual trust with them where things are going to change. New SP's entering the business next year, trying to develop their own client base, and existing SP's trying to add new customers, are where the risks arise, and where the new law will make everyone less safe.

 

[fuji]

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

Because many of the things an SP should do in order to ensure her safety make it trivially easy for the Crown to convict: video everyone who enters, ensure that you have valid identifying/contact information, and do this at a well known public location, which had a number of girls sharing the cost is a security service.

These are the fundamentals of creating a safe environment for SP's, but every one of those things makes it easy for the police to make an arrest with a rock solid case, potentially even convicting clients who attended months earlier based on the recorded evidence.

So what kind of customer doesn't care whether the police arrest them? Likely people who already have criminal records and don't care about another charge. These are probably NOT the customers you want if you value your safety.

 

[D-Fens]

Escort agencies don't seem all that worried. All the major ones had a meeting earlier this summer with their lawyers to discuss response plans to C-36. So what are they upto?? Escort agencies are even hiring new girls still and are still busier then ever. What's going on?

As for cops sitting outside a well established well staffed incall, so...........what was stopping them from doing that before? Why didn't they just bust in and arrest everyone? Now all of a sudden Toronto Police have a hard on for Mackay and Harper just because the laws changed? Escort agencies have ALREADY been operating illegally this whole time. Running incalls has always been illegal, so has living off the avails, Cops could have busted them anytime they wanted to.

People are still acting like this shit was 100% legal under the old laws it wasn't.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Because many of the things an SP should do in order to ensure her safety make it trivially easy for the Crown to convict: video everyone who enters, ensure that you have valid identifying/contact information, and do this at a well known public location, which had a number of girls sharing the cost is a security service.

These are the fundamentals of creating a safe environment for SP's, but every one of those things makes it easy for the police to make an arrest with a rock solid case, potentially even convicting clients who attended months earlier based on the recorded evidence.

So what kind of customer doesn't care whether the police arrest them? Likely people who already have criminal records and don't care about another charge. These are probably NOT the customers you want if you value your safety.

Sorry Fuji but explain again how police are getting this info? They are going to incalls and asking for the video/contact info and escorts are simply handing this over? They are raiding SP's with warrents to arrest johns from months previously, where again, they will have difficult showing evidence of money in exchange for service because video of walking in and out and contact info is still not evidence of money changing hands for sex.

 

[TeasePlease]

Maybe that is what I am apparently not seeing. By chill the industry, do you mean places like Mirage or B&S Asian agencies? Established and reputable escorts like MJL or BP fly by nighters looking to suck a guy for some quick cash and bad service? If that is the part that is going to child in the industry, maybe that ain't so bad?

I agree that the latter ain't such a bad thing, but that's not the likely scenario. Most guys aren't going to make the distinction; most hobbyists aren't "hardcore" and won't be as educated about enforcement. They will react to the media.

Escort agencies don't seem all that worried. All the major ones had a meeting earlier this summer with their lawyers to discuss response plans to C-36. So what are they upto?? Escort agencies are even hiring new girls still and are still busier then ever. What's going on?

Just because they can't get their shit together doesn't mean the world is ok.

 

[LickingGravity]

In a practical sense how is our are new situation any different from the US? Move all the advertizing servers to reservations and carry on?

 

[JoeBizowski]

FUCK THE CONSERVATIVES (Once upon a time, I voted for them. I will not make that mistake again).

You gave Harper your vote?

 

[TeasePlease]

 

[d_jedi]

The old laws were practically very difficult to enforce, to the point that there may not have been a reasonable prospect of conviction if charges were laid.

Keeping a bawdy house? How do the cops prove it? By an "undercover" assignment where they have sex to prove that's what's going on there? Highly unlikely.

Found in a bawdy house? Most laws require a certain element of intent; it's hard to prove that a client KNEW that the particular location was being used as such.

And let's not forget that right now, under the current laws, outcalls are 100% legal, with no grey area whatsoever.

The risk of enforcement goes up under the new ones. Police can easily conduct US-style sting operations to entrap clients. And we're not exactly safe with established SPs, necessarily, either. Police have ways to entice/coerce people to do their bidding.. what happens when a SP becomes a police informant?

 

[bobcat40]

The old laws were practically very difficult to enforce, to the point that there may not have been a reasonable prospect of conviction if charges were laid.

Keeping a bawdy house? How do the cops prove it? By an "undercover" assignment where they have sex to prove that's what's going on there? Highly unlikely.

Found in a bawdy house? Most laws require a certain element of intent; it's hard to prove that a client KNEW that the particular location was being used as such.

And let's not forget that right now, under the current laws, outcalls are 100% legal, with no grey area whatsoever.

The risk of enforcement goes up under the new ones. Police can easily conduct US-style sting operations to entrap clients. And we're not exactly safe with established SPs, necessarily, either. Police have ways to entice/coerce people to do their bidding.. what happens when a SP becomes a police informant?

What you are saying isn't exactly true. Undercover cops don't need to have sex to prove what is going on. They only need to prove the place was used for prostitution beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any possible doubt imaginable. All they needed was to be offered a sexual service for money on more than one occasion to establish this.

The found in bawdy house charge is a reverse onus offense. It is up to you to provide you had a legitimate reason (i.e. you are just the cable repair man) to be there. Not the easiest charge to fight off if you were there as a "John".

With this being said, I do agree enforcement will likely be lax but no one should expect there will be absolutely no enforcement of the law.

 

[fuji]

Sorry Fuji but explain again how police are getting this info? They are going to incalls and asking for the video/contact info and escorts are simply handing this over? They are raiding SP's with warrents to arrest johns from months previously, where again, they will have difficult showing evidence of money in exchange for service because video of walking in and out and contact info is still not evidence of money changing hands for sex.

There are a lot of people with criminal records in the US who thought a jury or judge couldn't figure out what the money was for.