Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[D-Fens]

Nobody should have even bothered watching the senate hearings. All they did was just aggravate and piss people on here off. This bill will pass and everyone in the senate is just going through the motions. It will get Royal accent in November and become law in December. All we can do now is just see how the law plays out in our area and see how LE will and to what extent they will go to enforce it. Will I Stop hobbying? Not Completely, I will lay low for a bit just to see how things are playing out. I don't hobby THAT much and I only deal with sps I know, so should I really be that worried? This advertising ban won't achieve anything since a lot of sites that advertise "sexual services" are already hosted outside of Canada. TERB has moved outside of Canada. So we know TERB aint going anywhere. It's not illegal to talk about illegal things on a forum and I'm sure if the crown try to use anything written on here as evidence they won't get anywhere with a judge. I've heard of some people on here saying they want their account cancelled when this law passes which I think is pretty extreme and paranoid. It's not illegal to post on the forum. It's also not a secret agencies have met with lawyers to discuss how they will protect themselves when C-36 becomes law so right now it's better to focus on damage control rather then cry and get our nerves worked up. This law is coming folks we gotta deal with it.

 

[Siocnarf]

Any chance the senators reject this bill ? they seem to be more critical even the conservative ones questioned Mackay how does it make sense to make it legal to sell but illegal to purchase.

It makes no sense to criminalize clients in a situation where seller and third parties have an immunity against prosecution. It's totally arbitrary and discriminatory. I have a feeling Liberals may suggest an amendment to also immunize clients in non-abusive situations with independent workers. But if they do it would probably be voted down by the Cons. They might accept some tweaking, but there's no way they're rejecting the bill.

 

[MPAsquared]

Nobody should have even bothered watching the senate hearings. All they did was just aggravate and piss people on here off. This bill will pass and everyone in the senate is just going through the motions. It will get Royal accent in November and become law in December. All we can do now is just see how the law plays out in our area and see how LE will and to what extent they will go to enforce it. Will I Stop hobbying? Not Completely, I will lay low for a bit just to see how things are playing out. I don't hobby THAT much and I only deal with sps I know, so should I really be that worried? This advertising ban won't achieve anything since a lot of sites that advertise "sexual services" are already hosted outside of Canada. TERB has moved outside of Canada. So we know TERB aint going anywhere. It's not illegal to talk about illegal things on a forum and I'm sure if the crown try to use anything written on here as evidence they won't get anywhere with a judge. I've heard of some people on here saying they want their account cancelled when this law passes which I think is pretty extreme and paranoid. It's not illegal to post on the forum. It's also not a secret agencies have met with lawyers to discuss how they will protect themselves when C-36 becomes law so right now it's better to focus on damage control rather then cry and get our nerves worked up. This law is coming folks we gotta deal with it.

That was a pre-study. The hearings haven't happened yet. It hasn't even passed 3rd reading at the House of Commons yet.

 

[squeezer]

That was a pre-study. The hearings haven't happened yet. It hasn't even passed 3rd reading at the House of Commons yet.

Trust me Daddy Mackay will have it passed by December and the Reform Party dominated senate will rubber stamp it.

You can watch the representative for body rub parlours here

http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-co...odes/35557225/

She was very good.

The last 3 witnesses, especially chris atchison were amazing. Well spoken and hit the right points time after time!

 

[Siocnarf]

The last 3 witnesses, especially chris atchison were amazing. Well spoken and hit the right points time after time!

It was funny to see that Cons. woman try to argue with Atchison about client data. It's appalling that she thinks we should have double standard when interviewing different groups. Women always tell the truth and the bad men always lie.

I'm curious to see Young next week.

After listening to so many warnings from scientific and legal experts, I wonder how they can even make a pretense that the law can be acceptable. I know they don't care and will pass it, but any court that goes back and examines the records of the committees can see the government did not pass that law in good faith.

 

[MPAsquared]

I have a feeling that some conservative senators would vote against it but don't know if enough of them to get the bill rejected , some conservative senators seemed to be openly skeptical about this half ban on purchase. One of them asked Mackay if a ban on purchase would put pressure on an exploited sex worker by her pimp to go out and look for more clients.
After all the senators are different from MPs and care less about having votes .

I noticed that too. Just a slightly quizzical, skeptical, tone to the proceedings/questions.

 

[wilbur]

The goal of the bill is to end prostitution by criminalizing the transaction, but exempting the sex-worker from criminal prosecution. So it wouldn't make any sense to also exempt the purchaser. It's like saying that the speed limit is 100, but everybody is exempt. Might just as well say that there is no speed limit at all. In the government's point of view, that's just not acceptable because of their core constituency and their moral principles.

The Senate was the only hope there was to take out the criminalization of the transaction. It's just not going to happen. So be it.

But it's going to be impossible to enforce, and I'm not so sure Provincial Attorneys General are going insist on Crowns enforcing it, given the high costs of prosecution versus the fines, as well as resources necessary to pay for enforcement and prosecution being diverted away from enforcement of other laws more beneficial to society.

 

[wilbur]

I noticed that too. Just a slightly quizzical, skeptical, tone to the proceedings/questions.

They are being polite, and give an appearance of objectivity. But it really means nothing. Even though they don't run for re-election, they toe the party line. Otherwise, they get kicked out of caucus.

It all looks very civilized. But their minds are already made up, or they only see the evidence they want to see. I know, I've appeared before a Senate committe once, on a completely different topic.

 

[lenny2]

Tories’ prostitution bill ‘likely’ to survive legal challenge, Peter MacKay says....


“The ban on purchasing sex and the ban on advertising will make it practically impossible to work indoors,” said Pacey, an intervener in December’s Bedford ruling....

She and Pivot’s chair Kerry Porth, a former prostitute, challenged the government’s claim that a similar approach in Sweden reduced prostitution on its streets. “The visible trade moved indoors,” said Pacey.

Is there a contradiction there?

Will the new law "make it practicly impossible to work indoors" or cause the trade to be "moved indoors" even more?

Isn't indoors work considered safer?

 

[lenny2]

Listening more carefully to the hearings and reading the law again, I realize that prostitutes can be arrested anywhere in public, not just next to schools.
Section 213, stopping cars in order to offer services applies anywhere. Subsection 1.1 criminalizes for ''communicating'' next to schools, but they can still be arrested for ''impeding traffic'' absolutely anywhere. Immunities about ''their own services'' only apply to section 286. So streetwalking will be completely illegal de facto?

Would it be "impeding traffic" at 4 AM when there are no other cars within a mile? Or in a quiet alley at any time of the day?

Do street walkers "stop cars" or the drivers in them who pull over to talk to them?

Does the "impeding traffic" phrase apply when the only customers approached, spoken to or accepted are walk ups w/o a car? Or clients in a car who call them to meet in a cafe when they see them available on the street?

"So streetwalking will be completely illegal de facto?" Apparently not.

BTW, according to anti Bill C-36 proponents street work will be driven to more isolated areas, which means very little traffic, hence areas less likely to be subject to a charge of "impeding traffic".

 

[canada-man]

There was a similar case in the 90's where the senate rejected an abortion bill introduced by Kim Campbell as a response to the SCC invalidating the abortion laws


Could conservative senators vote against a bill coming from their own party ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_senators_in_the_34th_Parliament_of_Canada


the PC stacked senate defeated the abortion bill

 

[Siocnarf]

Would it be "impeding traffic" at 4 AM when there are no other cars within a mile? Or in a quiet alley at any time of the day?

Yes it would. Just stopping a car anywhere, anytime will be an offense if it is done for prostitution. You don't actually have to impede traffic. It's left completely to the discretion of the police to enforce.

The text will read:
213. (1) Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, in a public place or in any place open to public view, for the purpose of offering, providing or obtaining sexual services for consideration,
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle, or
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place.

 

[squeezer]

so isn't this very similar to this situation nowadays ? You have some laws struck down by SCC, the federal government try to rewrite new laws , it passes the house of commons but get defeated by Senate ?

The difference now is they are under Gestapo Harper who keeps a tight reign on his Senators. It was obvious listening to the questions of the Reform Party Senators they all have made up their minds. The last exchange with Chris Atkinson was all one needed to see.

The only hope I could see is something coming out when Mike Duffy gets thrown to the wolves and hopefully he starts chirping like a bird or maybe a few Reform Party members get outed as a sample of what's to come.

 

[Siocnarf]

Is there a contradiction there?

Will the new law "make it practicly impossible to work indoors" or cause the trade to be "moved indoors" even more?

Isn't indoors work considered safer?

They observe a move indoor in Sweden, but nothing shows that it is due to the law. Street prostitution had been decreasing even before that and it is more likely due to new technologies. Also, don't forget that in Sweden they do not have a similar law on advertisement.

The new law makes it almost impossible to work indoor IF it is strictly enforced. In reality, working indoor will still be more safe and preferable to working outside. Criminalizing clients and advertisement effectively renders it difficult to communicate openly. In practice it does not prevent work, it just makes it more likely to create problems and conflicts. Therefore workers will be at a higher risk for health and safety.

 

[lenny2]

They observe a move indoor in Sweden, but nothing shows that it is due to the law. Street prostitution had been decreasing even before that and it is more likely due to new technologies. Also, don't forget that in Sweden they do not have a similar law on advertisement.

The new law makes it almost impossible to work indoor IF it is strictly enforced. In reality, working indoor will still be more safe and preferable to working outside. Criminalizing clients and advertisement effectively renders it difficult to communicate openly. In practice it does not prevent work, it just makes it more likely to create problems and conflicts. Therefore workers will be at a higher risk for health and safety.

What i noticed from a Nordic model advertising site is the statement that it was not offering sex services for a price, but company, companionship, escorting. I've seen the same with USA hobbyist commentaries. Of course many Canadian SP's have been already doing this for years. So what do the laws re advertising in these other countries have in their favour over Canada?

 

[lenny2]

Yes it would. Just stopping a car anywhere, anytime will be an offense if it is done for prostitution. You don't actually have to impede traffic. It's left completely to the discretion of the police to enforce.

The text will read:
213. (1) Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, in a public place or in any place open to public view, for the purpose of offering, providing or obtaining sexual services for consideration,
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle, or
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place.

LE can arrest you only because they don't like the look on your face or they're having a bad hair day. It's extremely unlikely though & i'd place a major wager on my chances of winning in court. I expect a jury would get a good laugh out of a case of "impeding traffic" at 4 AM on some deserted road in the middle of nowhere. That is, in the remote chance the prosecutor ever took on such a case & the arresting officer was out of bed in time to make it to court. Has there ever been such a case in Canada?

 

[Siocnarf]

I don't really know all the details of the advertisement law in the other countries. But I think the reason they are not explicit is not because of advertisement laws themselves. Buying sex services is illegal, so they have to phrase carefully to protect their potential clients. They have to say enough to attract potential customers, but not too much so the guy has some excuse to say he was not looking for sexual services.

In Canada, advertisement was often discreet, but the details could be worked out in private because buying was not illegal. Now even in private clients will be less willing to speak openly about what they want. Of course all these arguments imply that clients actually know the law, which I'm sure many don't.

 

[Siocnarf]

LE can arrest you only because they don't like the look on your face or they're having a bad hair day. It's extremely unlikely though & i'd place a major wager on my chances of winning in court.

It's not really about arresting people and going to court. The simple fact that the police can arrest you, or at least question you, will drive people to avoid visible area and it will be bad for their safety. Police can still use that law as an excuse to displace prostitutes to dangerous areas. They might use threat of arrest on a prostitute to get her to testify against you for offering to buy sex. We're talking about people who cannot afford a good lawyer and often have all sorts of other issues with the law.

 

[squeezer]

LE can arrest you only because they don't like the look on your face or they're having a bad hair day. It's extremely unlikely though & i'd place a major wager on my chances of winning in court. I expect a jury would get a good laugh out of a case of "impeding traffic" at 4 AM on some deserted road in the middle of nowhere. That is, in the remote chance the prosecutor ever took on such a case & the arresting officer was out of bed in time to make it to court. Has there ever been such a case in Canada?

The difference is now it will be a federal charge. This is very different than a simple ticket which of course the cons are downplaying this part. It will cost a lot of money, time and not to mention the stigma that comes along with it. As for the stigma this is exactly what they want as stated they are looking for a paradigm shift because they know most Canadians so far are not on board.

 

[Hailey♥4U]

every working girl and supporters too should get cards (like when people strike) made and for one day and night just for a couple of hours show up at all areas of Toronto and show what the city could look like if this law comes into fruition.