Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
However, criminalizing johns alone would not prevent prostitutes from taking steps, such as screening those johns, to protect themselves. The potential nominal monetary loss to a prostitute of losing a skittish john who won’t wait for the prostitute to screen him cannot legitimately be a basis for claiming that the prohibition on the purchase of sexual services increases the safety risk to prostitutes.
In a situation where the law is enforced forcefully, ALL clients will be skittish and will not see SP that have screening process at all. Prostitutes are going to go where the clients are. The fear of arrest was dangerous with the old law and it will be the same under the new one. These are very weak arguments that are in denial of the evidence presented in Bedford.

Most importantly, he only presents one half of the benefits vs harm analysis: the law has to achieve it's stated goal. If the law does not reduce prostitution and/or if it shifts them from indoor to the streets then it has failed and is arbitrary.

Enforcement of the law can never be enough to make a dent in the business. The only way to make it not too dangerous is to enforce the law very selectively for serious situations. They can either protect workers or attack prostitution, but not both simultaneously, and the law is therefore doomed to fail it's goal either way.
 

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
I hope Perrin enjoys his time on the stand in the Duffy trial.
Then the professor isn't a dispassionate voice at all. He's a rabid Conservative supporter who clearly supports this bill. Given this government's record in Charter challenges, he shouldn't be so sure. Clearly his ideology trumps all.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
21,349
16,012
113
Then the professor isn't a dispassionate voice at all. He's a rabid Conservative supporter who clearly supports this bill. Given this government's record in Charter challenges, he shouldn't be so sure. Clearly his ideology trumps all.
"Benjamin Perrin is a law professor at the University of British Columbia, former special adviser for legal affairs and policy in the Prime Minister’s Office, and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute."

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is a right-leaning public policy think tank and Perrin was a former special adviser to the Prime Minister. His article oozes right wing ass kissing and nothing more.
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
So nobody answered my question yet: Would brothels become legal under Bill c-36 if they charge a daily flat rate for rent as they aren't making a financial profit ?
It fall into ''in the context of commercial enterprise providing sexual services''. Therefore it would be considered criminal even if no abuse is taking place. This ''commercial enterprise'' bit is a wildcard that allows them to arrest pretty much any third party.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
The bill said they aren't prosecuted if they don't advise or counsel the sex worker to sell sex. So if they are just providing room rental but no evidence that they advise the sex workers to sell sex , would they just be prosecuted for just being know as a place where sex workers work together and rent rooms there ?
Then, it would be no different than a motel with a security guard.
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
The bill said they aren't prosecuted if they don't advise or counsel the sex worker to sell sex. So if they are just providing room rental but no evidence that they advise the sex workers to sell sex , would they just be prosecuted for just being know as a place where sex workers work together and rent rooms there ? The bawdy house provision was struck down by scc
The exception does not apply if it's ''in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.'' This is not defined anywhere. An hotel or landlord renting apartments would probably be OK, because they just rent a space to anyone. However, someone who owns a place of business that is used explicitely for prostitution would likely fall into a ''commercial enterprise''.

Really impossible to know how a court would rule and I think that is the point. They do not make it absolutely illegal, so they can say they comply with Bedford. However, the law is so broad and confusing that no one will take the risk of opening such a business, so it is the same as if it was completely illegal.
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
My interpretation is that it could be argued to not be a commercial enterprise if all the third parties are unrelated. For instance if she rents a room from someone, then asks a friend to act as security for her. If it's the same person or agency providing all the support then it would more likely fall under commercial enterprise. But that's just my idea. I bet not even a lawyer could tell us exactly what the law means.

In reality the way to operate will be for incalls to keep a low profile or a legit MP front and work under police discretion. The point will not be to worry about what is legal, but what the police will tolerate. To me that's the definition of very bad lawmaking
 

loveblkgirls

New member
Oct 23, 2013
14
0
0
I hope the government does the right thing and not pass the bill. If the bill is passed, so many girls will be putting their lifes in danger
 

krazyplayer

Member
Jun 9, 2004
485
1
18
Sorry if this was posted already: http://rabble.ca/news/2014/10/bill-c-36-no-safety-or-security-sex-workers

Bill C-36: No safety or security for sex workers
BY CHERYL AUGER | OCTOBER 17, 2014


The Protection of Communities and Exploited persons act, Bill C-36, passed in the House of Commons last week. The vote was 156-124. The bill follows a Supreme Court decision in December, which ruled that several provisions in Canada's prostitution laws were unconstitutional.
Bill C-36 is based on a belief that sex workers are universally victimized, yet many of its provisions will contribute to sex workers' rights violations.
The idea that sex work is inherently exploitative is being used to justify criminal laws that deny or ignore sex workers' right to security of person.
Criminalizing clients just doesn't work
According to the Department of Justice's Technical Paper the Bill's "overall objective is to reduce the demand for prostitution with a view to discouraging entry into it, deterring participation in it and ultimately abolishing it to the greatest extent possible." The goal of abolishing sex work is very different and is incompatible with the goal of protecting sex workers' safety because many of the provisions that seek to eradicate sex work also put sex workers at greater risk.
The provision that criminalizes clients (section 286.1), for example, is intended to abolish sex work. While it is unlikely that a new law will eradicate the sex industry, it will make it more dangerous for sex workers. The criminalization of clients will push sex work further underground and will make it harder for sex workers to screen clients.
In Vancouver the Police Department has already shifted away from arresting street-based workers and instead targets clients. A recent report, "My Work Should Not Cost Me My Life: The Case Against Criminalizing the Purchase of Sex in Canada," demonstrates how this approach makes it harder for sex workers to take safety measures by displacing them to isolated and unfamiliar areas and encouraging them to work alone to avoid police detection.


The report shows how criminalizing clients makes screening harder because street based sex workers have less time to assess potential clients before they enter their cars.
And, even though criminalizing clients means police are still able to respond to violence against sex workers police do not have a good record of responding to sex workers who seek help. For example, the Vancouver Police Department's failure to seriously address the missing and murdered women in the Downtown East side is one of the most well-known examples of police negligence.
According to a report by an Ottawa-based sex worker organization, Challenges: Ottawa Area Sex Workers Speak Out many sex workers also face violence and harassment from police officers.
Policing clients creates an adversarial relationship between sex workers and the police and makes it harder for sex workers to access social services.
Sex workers as villians and victims
The Bill claims to view sex workers as victims, yet it also considers sex workers as threatening to communities. It's very difficult to think of another group that is considered both victims in need of state protection and as threats to the community to be contained by the state.
The new communicating provision section (213(1.1)), helps to illustrate the way the government has prioritized their vision of community safety at the expense of sex worker safety. The new communicating law makes it illegal to communicate to buy or sell a sexual service in public where "persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present." Since persons under the age of 18 could be in most public places this law effectively criminalizes street-based sex workers.
A criminal record creates numerous hardships. For example, a criminal record makes it more difficult for those who want to leave the sex industry because many companies and volunteer organizations require a criminal background check.
Sex workers with a criminal record may be excluded from a range of jobs from social work to health care.
Not only does section 213(1.1) mean that street-based sex workers will continue to be criminalized, it will also make it difficult for them to screen clients, negotiate the terms of their transactions, including safer sex practices, and will push street-based sex work into more isolated places where it is harder to get help if needed.
The most visible and marginalized sex workers will continue to be over-policed and under-protected by the laws in Bill C-36.
No third party for you!
The new "receiving a material benefit" (section 286.2) also puts sex workers' right to security of person in jeopardy. While the new "receiving a material benefit" law includes a number of exemptions for people in "legitimate living arrangements" with sex workers, the criminalization of most third parties means it will be impossible for sex workers to work in safety and security since most of the people who work with them, like security personnel or administrative assistants, could still be prosecuted.
A report intended to help sex workers better understand the new laws, "Reckless Endangerment: Q & A on Bill C-36: Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act," notes the receiving material benefit law "would effectively maintain all the previous barriers to hiring third parties who might enhance sex workers' security, barriers the Supreme Court already found unconstitutional."
The new "receiving a material benefit" law will apply to anyone who knowingly works in a place where sex work takes place. For example, The Department of Justice Technical Paper says that bouncers who work at strip clubs and "know that prostitution takes place there" would be caught by the receiving a material benefit law. Bouncers play a key role in ensuring safety and security at strip clubs and yet they could face prosecution under these new laws.
Criminal Laws, like C-36, fail to address social and economic issues, like inequality and poverty. Instead, Bill C-36 treats anyone involved in sex work as though they are a social problem and ignores sex workers' right to security of person.
Cheryl Auger's writing appears in Selling Sex: Experience, Advocacy, and Research on Sex Work in Canada (UBC Press) and Negotiating Sex Work: Unintended Consequences of Policy and Activism (University of Minnesota Press). She is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at the University of Toronto and a member of the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform.
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
...(i.e. criminalizing the purchase of sex while decriminalizing the sale),
You cannot decriminalize the sale because it has never been a crime.

..We all agree the people selling sex, of whom the majority are women, should not be criminalized.
No we don't. Half the population thinks both should be criminalized. Only radical feminists believe that.

...Economic necessity is one of the main reasons women end up in the sex industry.
As opposed to being a maid that women do for the exaltation of cleaning toilet bowls.

Supporters of full decriminalization believe the solution lies in regulation ...
Yet another writer who doesn't understand the difference between decriminalization and legalization.

Our views have been heard, modifications have been made to the bill,
Wow...
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,091
2,639
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
I hope the government does the right thing and not pass the bill. If the bill is passed, so many girls will be putting their lifes in danger
It's not the sex workers that are putting their lives in danger. This vile and despicable gov't is doing that for them.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
21,349
16,012
113
Of course the Reform Party latent Senate is going to bring in Bill C36 supporters, not a surprise at all. The entire process has been such a sham it's sickening.
 

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
She also presented at the Senate hearings in September. At the time she said she said she doubted Bill C36 would pass a Charter challenge.
 

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
The manner in which this conservative government conducted themselves and manipulated everything starting with their fraudulent election putting themselves in majority reminds me of the worst dictatorships in the world. Shame on this conservative regime. Shame on Harper. Shame on those who will vote for them again. Shame Shame shame.
The Cons won the last election through massive fraud, manipulation and voter suppression. Shame indeed! They have used this false majority to shove their right-wing agenda down our throats. What a vile and despicable regime this is! 362 days and counting. It can't come soon enough. I wish it was sooner.
 

Fallsguy

New member
Dec 3, 2010
270
0
0
Edmonton

Council blocks new body rub parlours despite warnings from administration


Administration says moratorium could drive sex trade underground

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...espite-warnings-from-administration-1.2808218

A new temporary moratorium on body rub parlours was approved by Edmonton city council without debate on Wednesday despite warnings from administration that the measure could drive the sex trade underground.

The moratorium is in effect until May 1.

Coun. Scott McKeen, who pitched the freeze on Oct. 9, said he wants prevent new body rubs parlours from being grandfathered in before members of a task force studying the issue can come up with recommendations.

He added the issue is further complicated by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in December to strike down they country's prostitution laws.

“It’s better to have [the task force] have that time to reflect and review the situation in Canada in regards to the new laws, and see what kind of rules and regulations we can come up with to better protect sex trade workers, and to also include and balance out the needs of the community,” McKeen said.

Administration warned council more escorts applied for licenses the last time the city placed a moratorium on such establishments. They found that more peoiple sought unlicensed escorts on the internet.

Mayor Don Iveson said he’s not worried.

“The short term unintended consequences I think will be minimal,” Iveson said.

The body rub parlour task force is expected to release recommendations in early 2015. Meanwhile the moratorium will stay in effect until May 1.
... And the Task Force will find that the Body Rub Parlours are fronts for human trafficking, exploitation, underage prostitution, women being forced into the trade, etc. etc.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
Yup, foregone conclusion.
I don't think so. They already license body rubs and escort agencies, recognizing in their bylaws the sexual nature of these establishments. However, their bylaws are probably going to run afoul of the new federal anti-prostitution laws. In a certain way, it would make sense to impose a moratorium in order to determine how they are going to deal with that, because the new law could throw a lot of presently law abiding people in the street. It's possible that the Alberta Attorney General could decide to proactively not enforce the law, or even ignore it all together. But they probably will have to do a bit of legal consulting first do they don't wind up tangled in a constitutional problem. The city administration disagrees with the moratorium, and probably the police, since they and the bylaw enforcement officers are likely to know that these bylaws prevent trafficking and underage, or at least, lets them target the underground market where that is more likely.

In the meantime, the trade is probably moving underground, but it's going to happen anyway once the law is applied.
 

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
Thursday they have Gunilla Ekberg as a witness!!!
http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteeb...tings=1&fromDate=2014-10-23&toDate=2014-10-23

For those who don't know her, she's one of the Uber-Crazy Swedish radical feminists:
http://www.lauraagustin.com/satanic-sex-on-sunday-gunilla-ekberg-sex-war-and-extremist-feminism
I was hoping that someone on the committee would expose her. She's quite a nasty person as evidence by the following segment of a Swedish documentary on radical feminism, female shelters, satanism and the anti-prosititution crusade there.

The interviewer challenges her to explain her role in the transportation of a girl to Norway against her will, and that's during the time when she was the government advisor on prostitution. The she gets nasty at her for her line of questioning. She appears in the second half of the video.


It's worth it watching the whole series. This illustrates when radical feminism took over Swedish politics at the turn of the millenium.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts