LE going after Johns

MadonnaLove

Banned
Dec 1, 2012
1,974
12
0
GTA
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/06/human-trafficking-is-big-business

TORONTO - Missing person reports come into Toronto Police stations every day.

The vulnerable girls (and boys) coerced into sex work come from every race, creed and socio-economic background and some are as young as 12.

Human trafficking in our city is big business.

And worldwide, it’s a multibillion-dollar industry.

Last week, Toronto law enforcement officials launched a new human trafficking awareness initiative — a campaign to educate travellers (and people who work the travel industry) about the signs of human trafficking.

Watch for young girls who are malnourished or bruised in the company of older men; who have been sexualized through their clothes and makeup, despite their youth; who have expensive belongings or accessories but no visible means of support; who seem disoriented or afraid of their older companions and let them do the talking.

What should parents or other adults look for to help prevent kids from being groomed by predators and lured into the trade?

Det. David Correa has plenty to say on that subject.

Human trafficking has been around forever, but the days when it was assumed sex workers had entered the trade of his or her own free will are over.

Bottom line: Underage boys and girls are being exploited.

“The more we dig into the circumstances of the sex trade,” says Correa, “The more we see there’s usually a vulnerability of some kind involved.”

In Ontario, anyone under the age of 16 can be apprehended as a child in need of protection. Consent is not a factor.

“The reality is that these individuals have a higher rate of drug use, sexual assault, and suicide,” says Correa. “The goal is to be consistent with other provinces, where the power of apprehension goes all the way up to the age of 18.”

Here’s what else he had to say:

• Stability in the home

“Is there neglect? Is there abuse? Are there healthy relationships in the home? Are there parenting issues such as addiction or mental health? These are considerations,” says Correa. And in his opinion, he adds, the father figure can play a big role.

“Is the father neglectful or absent?”

Of course, there are always exceptions to all this.

“We’ve had cases from perfectly stable, supportive homes. Other things creep in. There’s no exact road map to involvement.”

• Social media

Many young people are heavily involved in social media and it’s a large part of almost every kid’s life. Some teens spend the whole day in their rooms with an iPad or computer — that’s hardly unusual. “But sometimes parents are not engaged with who their friends are on Facebook or Instagram,” says Correa.

“Some of the steps you can take are simple — say to your kids, ‘Yes, you can go on Facebook, but you have to ‘friend’ me, and yes, you can have an Instagram account, but it can’t be locked.’” The point is to prevent any secret little conversations.

A parent needs to know when someone unknown says on social media: “Hey! Great picture — you should be a model!”

• Behavioural changes

This is a tough one, concedes Correa, because teens can be moody or withdrawn on any given day and it could be just part of growing up.

“But be aware. And look for expensive clothes that can’t be paid for, or changes in language — looser use of sexual terms, for example.”

And please, adds the detective, “if you think your postal code will protect your kid, you’re kidding yourself. We have had cases with the children of doctors, lawyers, police officers and teachers. When you talk about human trafficking, people think of shipping containers on a boat coming from somewhere far away. No. I’ve never seen one case like that. Victims are the regular girl next door.”

• Sometimes the recruiter is another female

This one is huge. Some victims encounter another girl who has already gone through stages of exploitation — and she lures them in. The only way to save her own hide, and get to stop working 10 hours day, is to bring in someone new.

“It’s a survival tactic,” says Correa.

“That’s when the water gets murky for us,” he says. “In terms of doing right by one victim, are we revictimizing another? People should know: It’s not always the sharks. Sometimes it’s mermaids who come by to lure them in.”

• The demand component

So long as anyone is willing to pay for sex with children, trafficking will continue.

That’s the sad truth.

“And that’s a big challenge,” says Correa. “But there are new laws in place now regarding the purchasing component.” Current laws lean on those doing the buying, not the selling.

“We are getting ready to roll out training,” Correa says confidently.

Got that, Johns?
There will be a rise in enforcement in the months to come.
”

lbraun@postmedia.com
 
Pedophiles need help before they commit abuse

Only part of the problem - how many johns check ID cards ? How many SP want johns to know their personal identity ?

This is just part of the ugly effects of Harper's attempt to legislate morality. If prostitution was legalised and possibly licensed - it would be a severe kick in the head to human sex trafficking. Look at the before, during and after affects of prohibition in the US if you need further convincing.
 
This isn't LE going after patrons, it's LE rightfully going after exploitation of persons, minors and not. Huge difference. Being a patron isn't the same thing as being someone who is moving someone else illegally or coercing them to work in any industry, this one included. And it's not the same thing as being a pedophile or abuser.

I guess it's a great, fear-mongering quote that speaks to the public purposes of C36 (:puke:). These policies have nothing to do with coming after clients.

If prostitution was legalised and possibly licensed
Nice idea, but there are so many practical limitations to these, which include but are not limited to: zoning (scary/remote/isolated areas see: living and working in Nevada brothel 2 hours away from anyone else), 2-tier systems (licensed/not and the hierarchy that stems from that see: spas in the GTA), STI testing (how often/where/at what cost see: access to abortion depending on region), the availability of licensing information (does this show up on a police check for vulnerable persons? see: current issues with dancing and MPAs), etc etc etc.

Legalization is an awful idea, and licensing has very severe negative consequences. I'm about as above board as you can get - report my taxes honestly, regularly tested, work and advertise in healthy and sustainable ways - and even I hesitate to suggest legalization/licensing made sense. As a society, we suck at doing it in a reasonable way.

It hasn't historically worked. Neither does the Nordic concept. Decrim and the government out of the bedrooms of citizens is the only practical option (as well as more open taxation and enforcement). NZ model is the only realistic one to move towards right now.
 
RE: Legalization / Licensing

Nice idea, but there are so many practical limitations to these, which include but are not limited to: zoning (scary/remote/isolated areas see: living and working in Nevada brothel 2 hours away from anyone else), 2-tier systems (licensed/not and the hierarchy that stems from that see: spas in the GTA), STI testing (how often/where/at what cost see: access to abortion depending on region), the availability of licensing information (does this show up on a police check for vulnerable persons? see: current issues with dancing and MPAs), etc etc etc.

Legalization is an awful idea, and licensing has very severe negative consequences. I'm about as above board as you can get - report my taxes honestly, regularly tested, work and advertise in healthy and sustainable ways - and even I hesitate to suggest legalization/licensing made sense. As a society, we suck at doing it in a reasonable way.

It hasn't historically worked. Neither does the Nordic concept. Decrim and the government out of the bedrooms of citizens is the only practical option (as well as more open taxation and enforcement). NZ model is the only realistic one to move towards right now.

Odd position for one making a thriving business from the activity. Your answer isn't reflective of a slight concern over a lawful encroachment into your customer base ?

(Then Justice Minister) Peter MacKay promised that Bill C-36 would eradicate prostitution in Canada and protect the most vulnerable in the sex industry by “going after the perpetrators, the perverts, those who are consumers of this degrading practice.” It didn't work .. 'Duh'.

The prohibition example is perfect right down to similar arguments regarding zoning, regulation, moral corruption of family and incidental deaths due to alcohol consumption. The case against is even stronger for banning prostitution because it creates a pervasive environment for human trafficking, child exploitation and increased dangers to sex workers. This is 'no-brainer' logic supported by Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) and a five-year study began in 2011 which was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (ignored by conservative shitheads) and similar to a review of the NZ 2002 legalization in 2014 which acknowledged ' banning it may have negative consequences for the health and safety of sex workers'

Sex is a basic fundamental instinct in all human beings and to arbitrarily set up barriers for adult participation based on moral grounds is stupid, shortsighted and bound to fail as it turns a blind eye to victims hurt by these arbitrary moral restrictions.
 
The answer IM469, is reflective of the red tape and bureaucracy that would have to be negotiated if legalized, not as you say, over a concern for customers.

The fact that LE would be going after predators of underage people is commendable and although their target is those who seek out this sort of thing and those that provide it, it is inevitable that honest people, those not seeking underage people, get caught up in what is going on. It's not like there is a separation of where they ply their trade, the hotels and motels are the same ones used by other well known ladies. Shit happens and you don't want to be there when it does.
 
You don't need to look at the US for recent changes. Look at the recent changes to Canadian marijuana laws that took affect July 1st of this year. Money from the industry has gone from small gangs and organized crime to legally owned and operated growing facilities. Cancer and other such patients can now legally poses marijuana and a household can now legally be growing up to 4 plants. The money that has gone from "evil" hands to proper hands is still not able to be measured in this case.

The number 1 industry in the top 25 countries in the world is marijuana and number 2 in all these countries are all the other drugs combined. We need to decriminalize all types of "taboo" industries, taking money out of Serious and Organized Crime will render them weaker and make the rest of us stronger. One powerful aspect the marijuana industry had is one thing this Industry does not...people demonstrating for change.

WIR

As for the topic of this thread and how it relates to johns: Stay away from Street Workers, ads advertising for those being 18 and 19 years of age and those known to be affiliated with un-agencies or pimps if you will. These are the major focuses for LE so simply stay away from them to avoid potential problems.

I believe that the proposed changes to marijuana laws are slated to take effect on July 1st, 2018, and have not yet been passed. There is still debate on the issue, and also explains why dispensaries are still being raided.
 
I believe that the proposed changes to marijuana laws are slated to take effect on July 1st, 2018, and have not yet been passed. There is still debate on the issue, and also explains why dispensaries are still being raided.

Some dispensaries are being raided in the GTA, not all. There are some dispensaries run by compassionate clubs without any front store signage and advertising that are allowed to operate with LE being aware. Also in many cases possession not for the purposes of trafficking is tolerated by Toronto LE. I have seen people openly smoking pot in front of LE in Toronto, not at protest rallies but just walking down the street and LE on foot ignores them similar to how LE ignores Bill C 36. LE picks and chooses what laws they enforce based on political pressure and community activism.
 
'says Correa. “But there are new laws in place now regarding the purchasing component.” Current laws lean on those doing the buying, not the selling.'

There were always laws concerning the exploitation of minors, including kidnapping, rape and statutory rape, and being an accessory to those crimes. But this is conflationary. The above quote alludes to all purchasers of sex being pedophiles. So it justifies police raiding storefront MP's under the pretext that there 'must' be trafficked minors in there who need to be rescued because the narrative is that most sex transaction are exploitative and involve those who are most likely to be exploited: minors. Independent sex workers who advertise online are 'visited' (raided) with heavily armed SWAT teams just in case there is a nasty child exploiting pimp lurking in the backgound; of course, this is just a pretext for intimidating sex workers into being registered and cataloged into the CPIC database for future reference, including coercing for evidence in case they want to nail a buyer.

Lets be clear: powerful groups, like the religious right and the radical feminist left, want paid sex totally banned under penalty of law. The media and politicians are greatly influenced by them because they have such a loud voice, and there is little opposition because those goups conflate the sex trade with child exploitation and any opposition risks being demonized for encouraging 'child trafficking'.

That's why there is little chance the Liberals are going to change the law. Because the Opposition parties would be taking advantage of public misconception brought about by media hype and conflation in order to score political points.

Meanwhile, the current laws make sex providers less safe because it forces them underground in order to protect their clients (who would not show up otherwise), and into the hand of unscrupulous facilitators/exploiters. Not being able to legally advertise also sends them into the hands of facilitators (pimps). (It's ironic that those who want to be independent of a pimp and cannot advertise because it's against the law, have to resort to street walking, which puts them in harm's way, and also at risk of beig arrested). It's got nothing to do with protecting the vulnerable. At best, the protection of the vulnerable is but an afterthought to the moralistic goal of banning paid sex.
 
Human trafficking has been around forever, but the days when it was assumed sex workers had entered the trade of his or her own free will are over.

Yes, these days truth takes a backseat to ideology. Anyone who has ever participated in the industry for a period of time, knows the above is a falsehood.
 
You are incorrect about this:

IT IS LEGAL, technically, to advertise your own services. Sex workers receive an “immunity” from advertising laws. Though in-person negotiations are subject to the rules and advertising through media channels.

IT IS ILLEGAL to advertise the sale of others’ sexual services. It cracks down on back-of-magazine as well as online ads. It targets those who would run the ads (pimps, agencies, etc...).

See Q5 on this link: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/c36faq/

Q5. Can a person advertise the sale of their own sexual services?

A5. The new advertising offence criminalizes advertising the sale of sexual services. But the new laws also protect from criminal liability a person who advertises the sale of their own sexual services. This means that the offence applies to people who advertise the sale of others’ sexual services, including in print media, on websites or in locations that offer sexual services for sale, such as erotic massage parlours or strip clubs.

WIR

Technically, you are correct, but in law, they are legally prevented from doing so (not that there aren't ways around it). That's because a publisher who advertises the sale of other people's sexual services contravenes the new law. Why do you think TERB moved abroad?

That leaves sex workers the right to post bills on hydro poles (one step above streek walking).
 
Pedophiles need help before they commit abuse
Pedos need a bullet to the brain

If prostitution was legalised and possibly licensed - it would be a severe kick in the head to human sex trafficking. Look at the before, during and after affects of prohibition in the US if you need further convincing.
Yeah sure. The CMTO can not even stop their rampant full service fraud (incl fake names, licenses, fake receipts etc) so I am sure the hooker org will do so much better keeping girls honest
 
The answer IM469, is reflective of the red tape and bureaucracy that would have to be negotiated if legalized, not as you say, over a concern for customers.

The fact that LE would be going after predators of underage people is commendable and although their target is those who seek out this sort of thing and those that provide it, it is inevitable that honest people, those not seeking underage people, get caught up in what is going on. It's not like there is a separation of where they ply their trade, the hotels and motels are the same ones used by other well known ladies. Shit happens and you don't want to be there when it does.

I have no problem going after underage suppliers and those who actively seek them out but it obviously has to be a harder task when these services avoiding the law can hide among thousands of other normal adult sexual transaction forced to work underground because of a stupid law to regulate natural human behaviour.
 
I have no problem going after underage suppliers and those who actively seek them out but it obviously has to be a harder task when these services avoiding the law can hide among thousands of other normal adult sexual transaction forced to work underground because of a stupid law to regulate natural human behaviour.

When the sexual trade is decriminalized, legitimate sex workers and clients are much more likely to report underaged victims to the police. So it's a lot harder for the exploiters of minors to do their business.

When the whole lot is illegal, an ordinary customer normally dealing with adult providers will not risk reporting an underage victim because the police may charge him for buying sex (any sex) anyway, by his own admission.

Criminalizing sex sends the whole industry underground, where it is virtually impossible to control and police, unless huge resources are spent.
 
This isn't LE going after patrons, it's LE rightfully going after exploitation of persons, minors and not. Huge difference. Being a patron isn't the same thing as being someone who is moving someone else illegally or coercing them to work in any industry, this one included. And it's not the same thing as being a pedophile or abuser.

I guess it's a great, fear-mongering quote that speaks to the public purposes of C36 (:puke:). These policies have nothing to do with coming after clients.


Nice idea, but there are so many practical limitations to these, which include but are not limited to: zoning (scary/remote/isolated areas see: living and working in Nevada brothel 2 hours away from anyone else), 2-tier systems (licensed/not and the hierarchy that stems from that see: spas in the GTA), STI testing (how often/where/at what cost see: access to abortion depending on region), the availability of licensing information (does this show up on a police check for vulnerable persons? see: current issues with dancing and MPAs), etc etc etc.

Legalization is an awful idea, and licensing has very severe negative consequences. I'm about as above board as you can get - report my taxes honestly, regularly tested, work and advertise in healthy and sustainable ways - and even I hesitate to suggest legalization/licensing made sense. As a society, we suck at doing it in a reasonable way.

It hasn't historically worked. Neither does the Nordic concept. Decrim and the government out of the bedrooms of citizens is the only practical option (as well as more open taxation and enforcement). NZ model is the only realistic one to move towards right now.

Do you mean a legalized but highly regulated model?
 
When the sexual trade is decriminalized, legitimate sex workers and clients are much more likely to report underaged victims to the police. So it's a lot harder for the exploiters of minors to do their business.

When the whole lot is illegal, an ordinary customer normally dealing with adult providers will not risk reporting an underage victim because the police may charge him for buying sex (any sex) anyway, by his own admission.

Criminalizing sex sends the whole industry underground, where it is virtually impossible to control and police, unless huge resources are spent.

Well said.
 
Odd position for one making a thriving business from the activity. Your answer isn't reflective of a slight concern over a lawful encroachment into your customer base ?
My answer is reflective of being a current and former companion for 10 years ;)

Where I stand in this whole discussion is complicated.
As someone who's running a start-up I feel exactly the same for the women that hire me as I do about me as a companion AND I want legitimacy.
As someone who has made long-lasting, loving reliable industry relationships - I HATE C36. My friends are not criminals for wanting to spend compensated time with otherwise unavailable women.

Do you mean a legalized but highly regulated model?
No, I mean any kind of legislation that exists beyond what's currently covered under other laws. Underage, trafficking, coercion, etc are all covered elsewhere.



Here's the issue: when something is illegal it's easy to create dangerous situations (see: prohibition, drugs), and when something's legalized the rules are so influenced by those who aren't involved it can obscure the benefits of legalization (see: men and religion having input on abortion). If you were asking me privately my answer would be this but I'd add on that I'm even comparing consensual adult sexual behaviours to controversial topics is ridiculous.

What we definitely don't need is fear-mongering quotes. My favourite test for "is this statement racist/sexist/etc?" is to insert a comparable category into the statement and see how it sounds, which in this case is mutual consent between adults.
"Got that, homosexuals?" "Got that, fetishists?" > Adults, mutual consent. Leave it alone.
"Got that, pedophiles?" "Got that, sexual assaulter?" > Not adults, no consent. Prosecute.​
We have laws in place for the latter subset, and they apply whether it's paid or not.
"Got that, patrons?" > Adults, mutual consent. Leave it alone.
"Got that, johns looking for underaged, desperate, trafficked women?" > Not adults, no consent. Prosecute.​
It's not really that complicated.

i want to "prosecute" category out as much as all of you do.