Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[freedom3]

Is it still ok to visit an sp?

Yes, the law will only change in mid-September, and, even then, I don't think things will change that much unless the police decide to change their policies.

 

[thadude]

Yes, the law will only change in mid-September, and, even then, I don't think things will change that much unless the police decide to change their policies.

Thanks for the info

 

[Fallsguy]

Not sure. I think that in mid September the Parliament would resume and debate the stupid bill and then it has to go to senate for their approval ... more likely late fall but the Cons in the so called parliament would push it so that it becomes law before December 21.

That's true. Our rubber stamp Parliament resumes sitting on Sept. 15th. Third and final reading will be sometime in late Sept., possibly early Oct., but almost certainly before Thanksgiving break, and then it goes to the rubber stamp Senate for the trained seals there to bark their approval. Realistically, we're probably looking at around Dec. 1st at the earliest. That's why the gov't is pushing so hard to get it pushed through because they feel they're running out of time.

 

[escapefromstress]

This was posted on perb a few days ago:07-29-2014, 09:06

susi

Senate Committee submissions on NOW!

Without a moment to breathe in between the stages of Bill C36, the Senate Committee is holding public hearings as part of its pre-study on September 9, 10 and 11th, and potentially into the following week depending on how many witnesses there are.

So, its time to get in your recommendations for people to speak before Senate AND your briefs! If you submitted a brief to the Justice Committee, you can submit a slightly amended version of the same brief.

Please send your recommendations for witnesses and briefs to the following people:

Chair, Bob Runciman bob.runciman@sen.parl.gc.ca

Deputy Chair, George Baker, george.baker@sen.parl.gc.ca

Opposition Critic, Mobina S.B. Jaffer, mjaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca

Committee Clerk, Shaila Anwar, http://lcjc@sen.parl.gc.ca

Here are some of the answers to your questions about the Senate Committee process, compiled from information from the Senate Committee itself:

Q&A on Senate Process for Bill C36
When do the Senate Committee hearings begin?

The Senate Committee hearings begin on September 9 and run through until at least the 11th. There is a chance the Senate Committee will extend the hearings past the 11th, depending on how many witnesses they will see.

How are the witnesses before the Senate Committee organized? Individually? in panels?

Most witnesses are organized in panels, although Senate Legal prefers to have smaller groups (usually no more than 4 per panel). That will all depend on who is invited.

Are people permitted to submit the briefs to the Senate that they submitted to the Justice Committee? Will the Senate Committee be receiving the same briefs that were submitted to the Justice Committee? Are there suggestions for format, length and content of the briefs for Senate Committee?

Anyone can submit a brief and people can use the same ones. Revisions are suggested to address the amendments that were made in the House. In terms of format or length, keep things concise (no more than 10 pages, but 5-7 pages is best. The brief should focus specifically on any key points for or against specific provisions in the bill, provide specific recommendations and/or possible suggestions for amendments. It is of course also a good idea to provide a personal experience or story, depending on who is submitting the brief. In those cases, a 1st person account makes the most sense, but again, keep it brief. And the brief should ideally be submitted electronically. The committee will take care of translation/distribution to the committee. One can submit the same or similar brief to Senate Committee if they wish.

Will the Senate Hearings be televised?

Yes! They can be viewed live via webcast for sure and potentially on CPAC. There is also a web-on-demand service so meetings can be viewed afterwards.

Will the Senate Committee hearings be recorded and transcribed and available for download on the website?

Yes! The unrevised transcripts are usually available within 24 hours and the revised (fully translated) transcripts are posted on line about 10 days later.

For presenters: will translation be provided should witnesses choose to present in French?

Yes! All parliamentary proceedings are simultaneously translated. Same set up as the House committee. Witnesses can feel free to speak in the official language of their choice.

Is there a gallery where the public can watch the Senate Committee hearings?

Yes! There is a gallery for the public to watch in person, but the room is smaller than what the House committee used. Seating is first come, first served with priority being given to witnesses and committee staff. There may be an "overflow" room with the proceedings on closed-circuit TV, but that is not yet confirmed. ith little headsets?

Will the Senate be holding other hearings besides the ones for their pre-study?

Yes! The Senate will go through the same process as the House of Commons, in addition to their pre-study and accompanying hearings. This means that the Senate may hear from more witnesses between the 2nd and 3rd reading of the Bill in Senate. Do not rely on these moments to make recommendations for witnesses or submit briefs.

Who will pay for travel and participation of witnesses?

Similar to the Justice Committee, the Senate Committee will cover a fixed amount of expenses for participants in the Senate Committee pre-study hearings.

For more information about the Senate Process please download the Advocacy Guide II: Appearing Before Committees and Submitting Briefs :http://goo.gl/lqZoe0​

 

[squeezer]

Cops urge johns to speak up

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/08/01/cops-urge-johns-to-speak-up

Could the johns buying their services really be "valuable allies" to those trafficked to sell sex?

That's the question posed by a report this week from human trafficking foes PACT-Ottawa after more than half of 104 local sex buyers they surveyed on backpage.com said they wouldn't have sex and would call police if they suspected coercion.

That jibes with research on more than 1,200 sex buyers by sociologist Chris Atchison, who calls them "probably the only people that are in the power position to actually report something if they did see it going on."

Of the less than one in 20 that had witnessed victimization, a third or two-thirds -- depending on whether the perpetrator was a "third party" or fellow client -- did something about it, most citing reporting to police.

Based on two decades studying the sex trade, Atchison thinks that the number of trafficked and coerced is small but that criminalizing johns who seek willing partners as new prostitution laws propose makes that less likely.

"You are a criminal -- any potential risk that they are going to be detected and arrested and outed, socially, is a risk that is too high for them," he said.

"We cut off a valuable resource for detecting and reporting abuses in the cases where they do occur."

Sextrade101 founder Natasha Falle, who says she survived being trafficked across Canada from her teens and now advocates for Bill C-36 , scoffs at the idea and calls instances where johns report trying to help -- like the notorious local case of teen girls pimping terrorized peers -- exceptional.

"Johns don't ask how old we are, unless they were looking for someone who was underage," she said.

"They never questioned our bruises, our broken bones.

"Johns being allies? I just don't see that. That's one case. I used to see between one and five guys a night and I was in it for 12 years. You do the math."

A detective with the human trafficking unit formed last October said reports generated by sites where escorts are advertised are common -- most based on young-looking photos alone but a few from johns saying a woman appeared to be underage or pimped -- and there have been several Crime Stoppers tips.

But Det.-Const. Chris Lavergne has yet to field a call from a client making those complaints, which can be anonymous.

"Is there a way to make Johns understand, you're not going to get in trouble for calling the police and giving us the information because at the end of the day this girl might be in trouble and you might save her," he said.

megan.gillis@sunmedia.ca

Twitter: @ottawasun_megan

Most of us up until this new law would definitely complain if we seen an underage or anyone seemingly coerced. Another reason why this law further endangers the exact people this ridiculous government claims to want to help.

 

[squeezer]

I found these old articles in regards to Stephen Harper's faith. He is an Evangelical Christian. The articles are old but they do say quite a bit how this party is forming it's policies in regards to Bill C36

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/16/stephen-harper-religion-christian-faith_n_1791867.html

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Harper-Evangelical-Mission/

 

[lovelatinas]

Cops urge johns to speak up

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/08/01/cops-urge-johns-to-speak-up

Could the johns buying their services really be "valuable allies" to those trafficked to sell sex?

That's the question posed by a report this week from human trafficking foes PACT-Ottawa after more than half of 104 local sex buyers they surveyed on backpage.com said they wouldn't have sex and would call police if they suspected coercion.

That jibes with research on more than 1,200 sex buyers by sociologist Chris Atchison, who calls them "probably the only people that are in the power position to actually report something if they did see it going on."

Of the less than one in 20 that had witnessed victimization, a third or two-thirds -- depending on whether the perpetrator was a "third party" or fellow client -- did something about it, most citing reporting to police.

Based on two decades studying the sex trade, Atchison thinks that the number of trafficked and coerced is small but that criminalizing johns who seek willing partners as new prostitution laws propose makes that less likely.

"You are a criminal -- any potential risk that they are going to be detected and arrested and outed, socially, is a risk that is too high for them," he said.

"We cut off a valuable resource for detecting and reporting abuses in the cases where they do occur."

Sextrade101 founder Natasha Falle, who says she survived being trafficked across Canada from her teens and now advocates for Bill C-36 , scoffs at the idea and calls instances where johns report trying to help -- like the notorious local case of teen girls pimping terrorized peers -- exceptional.

"Johns don't ask how old we are, unless they were looking for someone who was underage," she said.

"They never questioned our bruises, our broken bones.

"Johns being allies? I just don't see that. That's one case. I used to see between one and five guys a night and I was in it for 12 years. You do the math."

A detective with the human trafficking unit formed last October said reports generated by sites where escorts are advertised are common -- most based on young-looking photos alone but a few from johns saying a woman appeared to be underage or pimped -- and there have been several Crime Stoppers tips.

But Det.-Const. Chris Lavergne has yet to field a call from a client making those complaints, which can be anonymous.

"Is there a way to make Johns understand, you're not going to get in trouble for calling the police and giving us the information because at the end of the day this girl might be in trouble and you might save her," he said.

megan.gillis@sunmedia.ca

Twitter: @ottawasun_megan

Under the new law, good luck getting Johns to speak up. This bill and LE can go to hell.

 

[bobcat40]

Two men charged in attack on London escorts

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/08/07/two-charged-in-attack-on-escorts

Alleged attacks on three London escorts on the long weekend — police contend they were lured by a couple, assaulted, threatened and robbed — highlights the sharp divide over Canada proposed new prostitution law.

Opponents warn Bill C-36 would put sex trade workers at more risk for violence, but supporters say the London cases underline the benefits of criminalizing those who seek to buy sex.

“It’s safer for a woman to work in her own apartment, on her own time, where she knows what’s in her home — where the door is, where the phone is,” Naomi Sayers, a former sex worker and academic, said Thursday.

Founder of the Southwestern Ontario Sex Workers, a group opposed to the new federal legislation, Sayers warns the Conservative government’s law would compromise safety in the sex trade.

“If the bill passes, sex workers will continue to work,” she said. “But everything that lets them do it safely will be different and more difficult.”

London police allege a man and woman working together answered three different online escort ads, two on Sunday and one Monday, in each case asking for a meeting.

“When the escort attended, she was greeted by the couple, at which point she was robbed,” said Const. Ken Steeves.

“It’s very concerning because escorts, regardless of gender, go to places and meet with people who are not known to them. That in itself is a risk.”

The escorts reported to police, who arrested a man and woman Wednesday.

One woman had minor injuries.

“Safety is our No. 1 priority and we take all matters seriously, regardless of your lifestyle,” Steeves said.

Debate on Canada’s proposed prostitution law, tabled in June and drafted after the Supreme Court struck down the previous laws, is expected to resume when MPs return from their summer break in the fall.

New legislation must be on the books by December.

While Bill C-36 criminalizes the buying of sex, “Prostitution is inherently violent and this is an example of that,” said Megan Walker, executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre and an outspoken advocate of the proposed law.

“Bill C-36 decriminalizes women and holds johns (men seeking to buy sex) accountable, (so) an escort can safely go to the police and the police can investigate,” she said.

“It doesn’t end with women reporting to police. They can get a referral and we can provide a safety plan. And for those women who choose to leave prostitution, we can provide an exit strategy.”

But Sayers and other opponents say criminalizing johns leads to hurried and hidden transactions, which prevent sex workers from any kind of screening of clients.

“The goal shouldn’t be to abolish prostitution but to protect the sex workers,” Sayers said.

Thomas Lako, 22, and Amar Youssef, 20, both of London, face several robbery, armed robbery, assault with a weapon and uttering threats charges.

Youssef faces additional uttering threats and possessing a prohibited weapon charges.

Both appeared in court Thursday.

THE 101 ON BILL C-36

What happened:

• The Supreme Court last December decided parts of Canada’s prostitution laws are unconstitutional because they violate the rights of sex workers. Ottawa has until December to pass new legislation.

Proposed new law:

• Called Bill C-36, it would criminalize clients — not prostitutes. Often called the Nordic Model. Sex workers can’t be prosecuted for advertising, but websites and publications can be.
• Opponents: Say it would force sex workers into the shadows, because clients don’t want to be charged.
• Proponents: Say that approach gives sex workers a better chance to leave the trade.

With the new law, I would expect more of this to go on. When all the respectable clients quit the hobby for fear of criminal prosecution, who will be left as consumers? The only people left buying sex will be people with nothing to lose...

 

[krazyplayer]

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-sex-easier-and-safer-governments-should-stop
5 minute audio worth hearing.

A personal choice

The internet is making the buying and selling of sex easier and safer. Governments should stop trying to ban it

STREET-WALKERS; kerb-crawlers; phone booths plastered with pictures of breasts and buttocks: the sheer seediness of prostitution is just one reason governments have long sought to outlaw it, or corral it in licensed brothels or “tolerance zones”. NIMBYs make common cause with puritans, who think that women selling sex are sinners, and do-gooders, who think they are victims. The reality is more nuanced. Some prostitutes do indeed suffer from trafficking, exploitation or violence; their abusers ought to end up in jail for their crimes. But for many, both male and female, sex work is just that: work.

This newspaper has never found it plausible that all prostitutes are victims. That fiction is becoming harder to sustain as much of the buying and selling of sex moves online. Personal websites mean prostitutes can market themselves and build their brands. Review sites bring trustworthy customer feedback to the commercial-sex trade for the first time. The shift makes it look more and more like a normal service industry.

It can also be analysed like one. We have dissected data on prices, services and personal characteristics from one big international site that hosts 190,000 profiles of female prostitutes (see article). The results show that gentlemen really do prefer blondes, who charge 11% more than brunettes. The scrawny look beloved of fashion magazines is more marketable than flab—but less so than a healthy weight. Prostitutes themselves behave like freelancers in other labour markets. They arrange tours and take bookings online, like gigging musicians. They choose which services to offer, and whether to specialise. They temp, go part-time and fit their work around child care. There is even a graduate premium that is close to that in the wider economy.

The invisible hand-job
Moralisers will lament the shift online because it will cause the sex trade to grow strongly. Buyers and sellers will find it easier to meet and make deals. New suppliers will enter a trade that is becoming safer and less tawdry. New customers will find their way to prostitutes, since they can more easily find exactly the services they desire and confirm their quality. Pimps and madams should shudder, too. The internet will undermine their market-making power.

But everyone else should cheer. Sex arranged online and sold from an apartment or hotel room is less bothersome for third parties than are brothels or red-light districts. Above all, the web will do more to make prostitution safer than any law has ever done. Pimps are less likely to be abusive if prostitutes have an alternative route to market. Specialist sites will enable buyers and sellers to assess risks more accurately. Apps and sites are springing up that will let them confirm each other’s identities and swap verified results from sexual-health tests. Schemes such as Britain’s Ugly Mugs allow prostitutes to circulate online details of clients to avoid.

Governments should seize the moment to rethink their policies. Prohibition, whether partial or total, has been a predictable dud. It has singularly failed to stamp out the sex trade. Although prostitution is illegal everywhere in America except Nevada, old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). And prohibition has ugly results. Violence against prostitutes goes unpunished because victims who live on society’s margins are unlikely to seek justice, or to get it. The problem of sex tourism plagues countries, like the Netherlands and Germany, where the legal part of the industry is both tightly circumscribed and highly visible.

The failure of prohibition is pushing governments across the rich world to try a new tack: criminalising the purchase of sex instead of its sale. Sweden was first, in 1999, followed by Norway, Iceland and France; Canada is rewriting its laws along similar lines. The European Parliament wants the “Swedish model” to be adopted right across the EU. Campaigners in America are calling for the same approach.

Sex sells, and always will
This new consensus is misguided, as a matter of both principle and practice. Banning the purchase of sex is as illiberal as banning its sale. Criminalisation of clients perpetuates the idea of all prostitutes as victims forced into the trade. Some certainly are—by violent partners, people-traffickers or drug addiction. But there are already harsh laws against assault and trafficking. Addicts need treatment, not a jail sentence for their clients.

Sweden’s avowed aim is to wipe out prostitution by eliminating demand. But the sex trade will always exist—and the new approach has done nothing to cut the harms associated with it. Street prostitution declined after the law was introduced but soon increased again. Prostitutes’ understandable desire not to see clients arrested means they strike deals faster and do less risk assessment. Canada’s planned laws would make not only the purchase of sex illegal, but its advertisement, too. That will slow down the development of review sites and identity- and health-verification apps.

The prospect of being pressed to mend their ways makes prostitutes less willing to seek care from health or social services. Men who risk arrest will not tell the police about women they fear were coerced into prostitution. When Rhode Island unintentionally decriminalised indoor prostitution between 2003 and 2009 the state saw a steep decline in reported rapes and cases of gonorrhoea.

Prostitution is moving online whether governments like it or not. If they try to get in the way of the shift they will do harm. Indeed, the unrealistic goal of ending the sex trade distracts the authorities from the genuine horrors of modern-day slavery (which many activists conflate with illegal immigration for the aim of selling sex) and child prostitution (better described as money changing hands to facilitate the rape of a child). Governments should focus on deterring and punishing such crimes—and leave consenting adults who wish to buy and sell sex to do so safely and privately online.

 

[shakenbake]

Norway's closely watched prostitution ban works, study finds

http://news.yahoo.com/norways-close...ban-works-study-finds-134956066--finance.html

OSLO (Reuters) - Norway's ban on buying sex has reduced human trafficking and has not increased violence against women, as some had feared, a study commissioned by the government said.

Following the example of its neighbor Sweden, Norway criminalized buying sex in 2009, but critics said the law would push prostitution underground, making women more vulnerable and increasing the likelihood of violence against them.

Nations like Finland, France and England have adapted a partial ban, making it illegal to buy sex from a person who was trafficked or pimped. Foreign governments have been carefully watching the effectiveness of the more comprehensive Norwegian and Swedish approach, which punishes buying but not selling.

"This report does not find any evidence of more violence against prostitutes after the ban on buying sex entered into force," said the report, which was published on Monday.

"The enforcement of the law, in combination with the laws against trafficking and pimping, makes Norway a less attractive country for prostitution-based trafficking than what would have been the case if the law had not been adopted," it said.

However, the lower demand has resulted in lower prices, a problem for prostitutes who often come from poor countries and have few other options to earn a living, the report said.

The nearly 200-page report is based on six months of research, including interviews with male and female prostitutes, police and support organizations.

The Norwegian law applies to all its citizens anywhere, making it illegal for Norwegians to buy sex even in countries where the activity is accepted.

Penalties for breaking the law are set by local municipalities. In Oslo, Norway's largest city, convicted sex buyers face a 25,000 crown ($4,000) fine.

Norway's ruling parties have favored relaxing the law, but said any proposal to change it would be dependent on this study, which would form the backbone of the government's planned white paper, a precursor to any change in the legislation.

"This report shows that the law clearly has contributed to a reduction of demand and volume of prostitution in Norway, which is what it was intended to do," said Steinar Stroem, a professor at the University of Oslo and one of the study's authors.

Street prostitution in Oslo, the country's biggest city, is down between 35 to 60 percent from before the ban, while the indoor market has shrunk by 10 to 20 percent, the report said.

(Reporting by Joachim Dagenborg; Writing by Balazs Koranyi; Editing Crispian Balmer)

Of course, the study was reported by the government spin doctors. What did you think that they would say so as to not lose face?

 

[squeezer]

Calls to Raise Minimum Age of Prostitutes to 21 in Germany

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/calls-raise-minimum-age-prostitutes-21-germany-1460576

Politicians in Germany have called for the laws on prostitution to be tightened to protect women being forced into sexual slavery.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002, and 400,000 people are now registered as sex workers in the country.

Under the laws, prostitutes working in Germany have full access to health insurance, and declare their earnings as freelancers in their annual tax returns.

But the centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU) want the minimum legal age of sex workers to be raised from 18 to 21, as experts estimate that thousands have been trafficked into the country and forced to work in brothels against their will.

They also want those punishments introduced for men who use women forced into prostitution, and for compulsory health checks to be introduced for sex workers, to protect their health.

According to police, 50 to 90 per cent of the country's prostitutes have been forced into the work against their will, with many having been transported in from countries in eastern Europe to work in hundreds of brothels across the country.

With the legalization of prostitution, a series of enormous 'mega brothels' have sprung up in Germany, some able to accommodate hundreds of customers at a time, offering a flat rate for unlimited sex, and spreading over several floors.

The centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) rejected these suggestions on Friday as "counterproductive".

SPD deputy leader Carola Reimann said that the new rules may deter men coming forward with information on women who have been trafficked into the country, for fear of being prosecuted.

She also argued that if the proposals became law, women under 21 would be driven to work illegally without legal protection.

The Christian Social Union, the CDU's Bavarian sister party, attacked the SPD and the Green party for opposing attempts to more closely regulate prostitution.

"It was the [SPD and Greens'] prostitution law of 2002 that meant Germany became the brothel of Europe in the first place," CSU MP Max Straubinger told the Passauer Neue Presse on Friday.

The issue will be debated next week, at a meeting of the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs.

Experts are currently being consulted for the draught bill, which will come before the German parliament in the Autumn.

The religious right wing agenda will not stop trying to stop consensual sex under the trafficked blanket.

 

[drlove]

So that means they would allow SPs to work there because it's safer for them and they aren't doing anything illegal under Bill c-36 anyway but in the other hand Law enforcement are free to go there sometimes to arrest clients who come to visit licensed passage parlours whereas girls continue to work legally. Isn't this stupid ?

Conservative thinking at it's finest...

 

[MPAsquared]

So that means they would allow SPs to work there because it's safer for them and they aren't doing anything illegal under Bill c-36 anyway but in the other hand Law enforcement are free to go there sometimes to arrest clients who come to visit licensed passage parlours whereas girls continue to work legally. Isn't this stupid ?

Not here in Toronto. LE has always been free to visit/inspect. Arresting clients would have to come with evidence/investigation of illegal activity. (ie: underage, drugs, etc).

I'm curious how Holistic spas will fall into the new c36 regime. Its already a huge problem on a municipal level. As for body rub parlors, our licenses aren't going away. We are licensed to provide what we do. That said, I foresee a lot of changes in the finer details. (advertising, etc).

 

[wilbur]

So that means they would allow SPs to work there because it's safer for them and they aren't doing anything illegal under Bill c-36 anyway but in the other hand Law enforcement are free to go there sometimes to arrest clients who come to visit licensed passage parlours whereas girls continue to work legally. Isn't this stupid ?

The cops just can't arrest everybody leaving an establishment, especially if it operates legally. There is the presumption of innocence. I understand that bylaw enforcement officers can enter any premises in order to check for bylaw compliance, but I'm not so sure that cops can do that without a warrant.

If and when this Bill becomes law, body rubs will have to tone down their advertisements.

"Sexual services" has yet to be defined. Body Rubs could technically not cross the line. Police would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a sexual service was paid for, something that would be happening in a private room. They would have to forcibly collect evidence from the sex-worker, especially the cash; so if the sex-worker refuses to cooperate, are we getting into harassment and arrest on other charges?

Once this law is passed, nobody will want to pay in advance. So would an undercover ladycop actually go and give HJ's to catch someone, assuming that they would pay after? (ladycop goes home and husband asks: 'so, meet any interesting people today?'

And imagine the following scenario:

Client gets a body rub; at the end, MPA points to the little head and client nods yes. MPA gives a HJ. MPA asks for her tip. Client replies "sorry, it's against the law!". So what does the MPA do? complaint of theft to the police for a service that was legal to sell? What are the police going to do... charge the client for refusing to pay for a service that is illegal to buy? It's bizarre and ludicrous.

 

[MPAsquared]

Yes but previously LE enforcement didn't care about consensual sex between adults happening there , as you said they arrested only clients involved in underage or drugs., now with bill c-36 even sex purchase would become illegal.
Now how would it work after Bill c-36 passes ? allow licenced massage parlours to operate but arrest clients ? so you licence a massage parlour but then LE come to arrest someone for visiting a massage parlour that was licenced by the city ? how stupid is that .
So you license an establishment to entrap people ? It's like licensing a marijuana store and then arresting clients who go there.

I wouldn't say didn't care. Hard to police, expensive to investigate, costly to prove & prosecute. Bylaw don't havve the ability to charge for prostitution because no bylaw defines every sexual service. Cops can & could always charge for prostitution. They just don't because of what I listed above. However, I do know bylaw that find evidence of such relay those facts to police.

I recall a note from department of Justice that states that any lap dance involving body contact is considered a sexual service, so a naked body slide would be considered as sexual service.
So would they advertise therapeutic massage instead of erotic massage which would become illegal under bill c-36 ?

Until we have the final draft of the bill, "sexual services" still remains an undefined anomaly. Yes, the biggest changes I foresee come in advertising, communication, etc. The smaller daily details.

It's very grey & confusing for Strip Clubs & Massage spas to know where theyy fall into this at this time. More definition is needed. Of course we offer an erotic massage experience within massage spas. A license isn't an exemption. That said, the target of the bill is on trafficking. Anywhere that is going on will be targeted. As long as they can find it. Frustrating isn't it?

 

[squeezer]

I wouldn't say didn't care. Hard to police, expensive to investigate, costly to prove & prosecute. Bylaw don't havve the ability to charge for prostitution because no bylaw defines every sexual service. Cops can & could always charge for prostitution. They just don't because of what I listed above. However, I do know bylaw that find evidence of such relay those facts to police.



Until we have the final draft of the bill, "sexual services" still remains an undefined anomaly. Yes, the biggest changes I foresee come in advertising, communication, etc. The smaller daily details.

It's very grey & confusing for Strip Clubs & Massage spas to know where theyy fall into this at this time. More definition is needed. Of course we offer an erotic massage experience within massage spas. A license isn't an exemption. That said, the target of the bill is on trafficking. Anywhere that is going on will be targeted. As long as they can find it. Frustrating isn't it?

What it is aimed at is giving the authorities complete reign on who and when they can charge. It is specifically designed to reduce demand in an attempt to scare of the buyers.

 

[bobcat40]

The true goal is the legislation is probably no different than the old laws. To remove the nuisance of street prostitution in public. Politicians and the general public don't care what is going on behind closed doors. They claim to care but when it comes time fund multi million dollar programs to shut down a few incalls and massage parlours they usually think differently. It really isn't that effective anyway. For every one that is closed, I'm sure another will pop up. There are already thousands of massage parlours in Toronto. Good luck trying to shut all of them down...

The true damage will just be the fear the clients will have. This could temporarily hurt the industry quite a bit once the law is passed. Once clients have a feel that cops don't really care, I would think things would end up pretty much the same.

 

[canada-man]

Sex Crimes Unit
Special Victims Section
In accordance with The Toronto Police Service and Sex Crimes Unit's Mission, Goals and Objectives, the Special Victims Section will:

Thoroughly investigate allegations of criminal sexual offences which have occurred against any person identified to be a sex worker.

Recognize sex workers as "victims first".

Identify and investigate sex workers under the age of eighteen (18) years-old involved in juvenile prostitution.

Apprehend sex workers under the age of sixteen (16) years-old involved in juvenile prostitution and assist in their return to safe environment.

Identify, arrest and assist in the prosecution of pimps and all other parties, involved in the commission of criminal sexual offences against sex workers.

Assist in providing effective victim management and support services to all required persons.

Conduct regular outreach efforts with local community organizations and sex workers themselves.

Educate the public and police with respect to the unique dynamics of prostitution to promote greater understanding of its unique challenges.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/sexcrimes/svs.php

 

[krazyplayer]

I wouldn't say didn't care. Hard to police, expensive to investigate, costly to prove & prosecute. Bylaw don't havve the ability to charge for prostitution because no bylaw defines every sexual service. Cops can & could always charge for prostitution. They just don't because of what I listed above. However, I do know bylaw that find evidence of such relay those facts to police.



Until we have the final draft of the bill, "sexual services" still remains an undefined anomaly. Yes, the biggest changes I foresee come in advertising, communication, etc. The smaller daily details.

It's very grey & confusing for Strip Clubs & Massage spas to know where theyy fall into this at this time. More definition is needed. Of course we offer an erotic massage experience within massage spas. A license isn't an exemption. That said, the target of the bill is on trafficking. Anywhere that is going on will be targeted. As long as they can find it. Frustrating isn't it?

Prostitution is not a charge in the canadian criminal code, but all the massage parlours could be charged under the bawdy house provision right now. It's not really used in Toronto but it could be and attitudes in policing are changing for the worse.
When C36 is passed MPs could see criminal charges as any indoor venue providing a sexual service is unlikely to be able to operate legally. And some bylaws do define sexual services (saskatoon) while others ban touching outright (barrie).

 

[MPAsquared]

What it is aimed at is giving the authorities complete reign on who and when they can charge. It is specifically designed to reduce demand in an attempt to scare of the buyers.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but that's not the focus. Its not gonna be a free for all of cops busting every tom dick & harry, or every spa strip club & agency. As far as my discussions with TPS/bylaw, have gone anyway. Grain of salt, because we are far from knowing what will be final when.

Prostitution is not a charge in the canadian criminal code, but all the massage parlours could be charged under the bawdy house provision right now. It's not really used in Toronto but it could be and attitudes in policing are changing for the worse.
When C36 is passed MPs could see criminal charges as any indoor venue providing a sexual service is unlikely to be able to operate legally. And some bylaws do define sexual services (saskatoon) while others ban touching outright (barrie).

I was referring to the GTA.