Home Sweet Hooker [now]

[jeanius]

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-01-05/news_feature.php

Sex clubs are now legal, so why can't prostitutes work in the safety of their own abodes?
This past year ended with a big bang: the Supreme Court of Canada gave its seal of approval to sex clubs and orgies. It's exciting to see the law slowly opening up to allow people... [full story]

 

[WhaWhaWha]

The distinction is easy. Incalls provide an opportunity for confinement and control of an individual. Swing clubs not as much. I realize in these more enlightened times, with the advent of cel phones and a kinder gentler element taking part in the trade this opportunity is significantly reduced, but with thehuman trafficking still going on in the news, until more careful legislation or guidelines can be enacted to protect everyone... you cannot be too careful. Lots of ways to get action without breaking the law.

 

[yeet]

Incalls provide an opportunity for confinement and control of an individual.

Interesting thought. I wonder if risk of 'confinement' was part of the original legislative intent of Parliament when drafting the bawdy house prohibition.

The bawdy house provision is currently over-broad. Sexual service for cash in a 'place', habitually used as such, is arguably an impermissible blanket-prohibition. Courts in the not-so-distant future will likely be faced with some difficult decisions on whether to import the 'harm-based' test from Indecency into Prostitution. And if they do, an even more difficult task will be in seperating harmful and non-harmful Prostitution activities.

 

[WhaWhaWha]

We all know the original legislative intent of Parliament when drafting the bawdy house prohibition. Control of morality between consenting adults. Control of womens bodies. You've hit the nail on the head. But the "risk of confinement" issue is a one-two punch that hasn't yet run it's course and likely won't until proponents can satisfactorily answer the issue of preventing harm in prostitution.