Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[MPAsquared]

Pimping is and will be illegal. In fact, a 'boyfriend' of the SP is considered a pimp unless proved otherwise...... another charter challenge in the future.

Yes but a "driver" or "bodyguard" is somehow ok. Pretty much gives pimps an outlet. In fact. They could even register their business as such.

 

[Siocnarf]

Pimping is and will be illegal. In fact, a 'boyfriend' of the SP is considered a pimp unless proved otherwise...... another charter challenge in the future.

Actually no. It says that the boyfriend automatically has a presumption of financial gain, unless proven otherwise.

However, material benefit is not criminal if ''in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person...''.

This exeption does not apply if the boyfriend ''used, threatened to use or attempted to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived''.

I noticed that this last bit does not state that the violence has to be related to the sex work activity.

Bottom line: if the SO of a sex worker beats her he is automatically a pimp, even if he is not aware of her business. However if he knowingly profits from her work without any abuse he is not breaking the law.

 

[wilbur]

Actually no. It says that the boyfriend automatically has a presumption of financial gain, unless proven otherwise.

However, material benefit is not criminal if ''in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person...''.

This exeption does not apply if the boyfriend ''used, threatened to use or attempted to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived''.

I noticed that this last bit does not state that the violence has to be related to the sex work activity.

Bottom line: if the SO of a sex worker beats her he is automatically a pimp, even if he is not aware of her business. However if he knowingly profits from her work without any abuse he is not breaking the law.

I stand by my point. First, the term 'Pimp' is not defined, nor included in the legislation. However, the following is a definition of pimping, as we know it:

"279.02 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 279.01(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years."

So Pimping is illegal, unless proved otherwise. You are correct that the boyfriend automatically has a presumption of financial gain (pimping), unless proven otherwise. That is my point.

The pimping is characterized by taking a cut of the proceeds. That includes 'boyfriends' who handle the money.

A bodyguard would not be pimping if he gets a reasonable fixed rate for his services. Getting a cut is pimping. But the onus is on him to prove it that he's innocent, and not for the prosecution to prove that he's guilty. That's going to be a charter challenge, since it flies in the face of our notion of ustice, that of being innocent until proven guilty.

"(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit

(a) in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;"

(The landlord)

(b) as a result of a legal or moral obligation of the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;

(Alimony, child support)

(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public; or

(The plumber)

(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.

(bodyguard, driver, receptionist etc etc. )

Bottom line: Pimping is illegal. That is, if he knowingly profits from her work and is not expempt under a) a landlord, b) a dependent person c) a worker compensated for legitimate work d) a bodyguard, receptionist, driver for a reasonable price.

 

[Siocnarf]

"279.02 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 279.01(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years."...
...
"(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit

(a) in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;"

(The landlord)

No no no. 279.02 and 279.01 is about TRAFFICKING, not about the sale of sex.

286.3 is the one about ''pimping'' (making money from the sale of someone's sexual service).

''legitimate living arrangement'' include people who live with the worker: husband, boyfriend, roomate, etc.
See the Ministry of Justice Technical paper:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html

in the context of a legitimate living arrangement, for example by a spouse, child or roommate of the person who provides the benefit;

The landlord himself is exempted under:
(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public;

Bottom line, the only time a third party is is not exempted from criminality is when:
-They use some form of violence threat, or control.
-They are involved in a commercial enterprise that offers sex service.
(admitedly the interpretation of these two could be stretched to include just about any situation)

 

[wilbur]

No no no. 279.02 and 279.01 is about TRAFFICKING, not about the sale of sex.

286.3 is the one about ''pimping'' (making money from the sale of someone's sexual service).

''legitimate living arrangement'' include people who live with the worker: husband, boyfriend, roomate, etc.
See the Ministry of Justice Technical paper:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html


The landlord himself is exempted under:
(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public;

Bottom line, the only time a third party is is not exempted from criminality is when:
-They use some form of violence threat, or control.
-They are involved in a commercial enterprise that offers sex service.
(admitedly the interpretation of these two could be stretched to include just about any situation)

Thank you for the reference.

You're right, wrong section but the wording is the same.

Section 286.1 is about making it illegal to buy sex

Section 286.2 (1) is about receiving a benefit from section 281 (the result of the transaction) being illegal

Section 286.2 (3) is about a person living with a sex-worker being automatically considered as receiving a financial or other material benefit from those services

Section 286.2 (4) is about those in the list of exemptions to receiving a benefit:

(a) a living arrangement is the SP paying for a place to live where another person benefits from staying there.
(b) a legal or moral obligation is supporting a dependent or buying a gift
(c) a payment for a service available to the public: giving money for services rendered or goods purchased; yes, includes the landlord
(d) a service such as bodyguard, driver or receptionist, on an informal basis.

Pimping is not defined in the Bill. The material benefit is new, but there is not that much difference between it and procuring because the maximum sentence for both is 14 years. So you can consider that getting a benefit from prostitution is a form of pimping.

The only legal way a person who is not a spouse can be involved with an SP is: "in consideration for a good or service that is offered informally, for example by a person who provides protective or administrative services provided that the benefit received is proportionate to the value of the good or service provided ". A person hanging around and living with the SP (could be a boyfriend) is considered materially benefiting, as per 286.2 (3), although the technical paper also talks about the exemption of a roommate under 286.2 (4) (a). How is it possible to distinguish between a person who lives with the SP and a roommate?

So it seems it will be illegal to be an SP's boyfriend. Charter challenge on the way!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,

(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or

(ii) in any other case,

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and
(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.

286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person received a financial or other material benefit from those services.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit

(a) in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;

(b) as a result of a legal or moral obligation of the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;

(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public; or

(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.

 

[Siocnarf]

A person hanging around and living with the SP (could be a boyfriend) is considered materially benefiting, as per 286.2 (3), although the technical paper also talks about the exemption of a roommate under 286.2 (4) (a). How is it possible to distinguish between a person who lives with the SP and a roommate?

This is very confusing. Being a roomate you automatically have a material benefit but it's not a crime because you have a legitimate living arrangement (do you need to have both names on the lease?). If you're a boyfriend and share an apartment, I assume you are also a roomate by definition. I have no idea what would be an ILLEGITIMATE living arrangement!

But if you are always with someone and don't live with her then you have no excuse. Wouldn't that include all her best friends she sees everyday? How many hours a day is ''habitually in the company of''?

Once again it seems innocent people are the ones without possible excuses, while real pimps can say they are a bodyguard or driver.

 

[MPAsquared]

This is very confusing. Being a roomate you automatically have a material benefit but it's not a crime because you have a legitimate living arrangement (do you need to have both names on the lease?). If you're a boyfriend and share an apartment, I assume you are also a roomate by definition. I have no idea what would be an ILLEGITIMATE living arrangement!

But if you are always with someone and don't live with her then you have no excuse. Wouldn't that include all her best friends she sees everyday? How many hours a day is ''habitually in the company of''?

Once again it seems innocent people are the ones without possible excuses, while real pimps can say they are a bodyguard or driver.

It pretty much legalizes pimping. The gov won't listen to sex workers, so what do they care. When I 1st read that I thought "ok so if I'm a pimp I sign a lease with my slave, register a "driver" business, & set up shop "

 

[krazyplayer]

C36 is harder on "pimping" than any law has been.
This clause: -They are involved in a commercial enterprise that offers sex service.
That means any driver, receptionist, escorts agency, strip club, spa, body guard etc. that makes a cent working with a sex worker (her business IS a "commercial enterprise that offers sex service") is guilty of an offense.
As Mackay says - they are cracking down on pimps and johns! They have created a very vague and broad definition to go after almost anyone who aids in the facilitation of sexual services, even indirectly.

 

[Siocnarf]

C36 is harder on "pimping" than any law has been.

No, because previous law made all pimping illegal, even the non-commercial ones. Now we have some exemptions. What does commercial enterprise actually mean? From the Dept of Justice Technical Paper:

Courts would likely take into account considerations such as the number of persons involved, the duration of the activities and the level of organization surrounding the activities. The only type of enterprise that this phrase could not capture is one involving individuals who sell their own sexual services, whether independently or cooperatively, from a particular location or from different locations. Bill C-36 would not allow for prosecution in these circumstances for reasons outlined in the section below. Otherwise, Bill C-36 would provide flexibility to the courts to find different types of enterprises, including informal ones, to be “commercial” in nature.

Bottom line: courts could decide it means anything they want. But also, they could decide that something is not. So the law is more permissive even if it is completely unpredictable. The result of this law in my opinion will be to hurt safe commercial businesses while making informal, non-organized abusive pimps harder to prosecute. A lose-lose for everyone. Law abiding people will not want to work as driver or bodyguard, leaving sex workers with mainly shady people to help them.

But this is all in theory. Local authorities will decide what is acceptable.

 

[MPAsquared]

So I found 2 articles I found very interesting. Neither are new, but surprisingly more valid now.

http://hrw.org/news/2014/06/18/canadas-prostitution-bill-step-wrong-direction



Canada's prostitution bill a step in the wrong direction
JUNE 18, 2014

Joseph Amon

On June 4, Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled an anti-prostitution bill that he claimed was not anti-prostitute. According to the minister, the target of the**Protection of Communities and Exploited Person Act, Bill C-36, was “the perpetrators, the perverts, [and] the pimps.” But don’t be fooled, if this bill becomes law, sex workers will face arrest, violence and violations of their human rights.

The law would criminalize communicating for the purposes of selling sexual services in public, or buying, advertising or benefitting from the sale of sexual services. These provisions won’t protect sex workers; they will do the opposite, and they violate their right to security of person and freedom of expression. Criminalizing communication will disproportionately target Aboriginal, poor, and transgender women working on the streets for arrest. It will also severely limit sex workers’ abilities to take life-saving measures such as screening clients. Last year in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court recognized this concern, saying that “communication is an essential tool that can decrease risk.”

Criminalizing clients will also harm sex workers, forcing them to work in more dangerous and isolated locations. In 2012, the**Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, which Human Rights Watch has criticized for procedural shortcomings, rightly said that fear of police harassment or arrest** “denies the sex worker the time to innately sense whether a client is a ‘bad trick’,” and that moving to a darker, isolated area “puts her in a more dangerous environment.”

Criminalizing clients will also make it impossible to open safe refuges for sex workers to take clients to, such as Grandma’s House, opened in Vancouver by the Aboriginal sex worker Jamie-Lee Hamilton. Again the Supreme Court was clear: “For some prostitutes, particularly those who are destitute, safe houses such as Grandma’s House may be critical.”

The Conservative government purports to draw inspiration from the “Nordic model” which seeks to criminalize clients but not sex workers. Yet the model is not as successful as the government contends. International health and human rights agencies and experts have all concluded that criminalizing sex work and related activities threaten sex workers’ health and rights. In December 2012, UNAIDS, WHO and the UN Population Fund**called for governments**to work toward decriminalizing sex work and removing unjust laws and regulations against sex workers.

Last year Human Rights Watch adopted a similar policy for adult, consensual sex, favouring decriminalizing sex work. We came to this decision after decades of research on abuses against sex workers in more than a dozen countries, and working closely with sex worker organizations and their representatives.

We found that where sex work was criminalized, sex workers are reluctant to report violence and abuse. After looking at evidence from around the world, we concluded that criminalizing other aspects of sex work can also lead to harm.

To be sure, decriminalizing sex work would not eliminate all of the risks of violence and exploitation for sex workers. However, decriminalization allows sex workers to organize to prevent and address human rights abuses, including trafficking, and to obtain justice. In New Zealand, where sex work was decriminalized in 2003, authorities have not detected a single case of trafficking in the sex trade despite multiple investigations. Research has found that sex workers’ ability to refuse clients and to report abuse to police had greatly increased under decriminalization.

Far from assisting “exploited persons” or “protecting communities,” this bill is a step backward for human rights, and especially women’s rights, in Canada.

 

[MPAsquared]

And the 2nd article:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/25/305314/confirmed-canada-2011-polls-fraudulent/

Confirmed: Canada 2011 polls fraudulent


Sat May 25, 2013 9:18AM GMT
**

The Canadian Federal Court has confirmed that the country’s 2011 federal election, which led to the victory of Stephen Harper's government, was fraudulent.


The court emphasized in a Thursday ruling that it has found in no uncertain terms that widespread election fraud took place during the vote.

The ruling also stated that “there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person with access to the [Conservative Party's] CIMS database.”

Accordingly, the Council of Canadians has called on the Conservative Party to investigate the issue. It says anything less at this point would be a cover-up on behalf of the Conservatives.

The Council of Canadians says that the non-cooperation, obstructionism, and attempts to disrupt the Federal Court case by the CIMS makes it look like Prime Minister Harper has something to conceal.

Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians said “This Federal Court decision is a major indictment of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

“Either senior leaders of the Conservative Party were directly involved in election fraud or they were astoundingly negligent in securing access to their voter database. Illegal or incompetent--just like in the Senate scandal.”

 

[Evangeline Grace]

And the 2nd article:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/25/305314/confirmed-canada-2011-polls-fraudulent/

Confirmed: Canada 2011 polls fraudulent


Sat May 25, 2013 9:18AM GMT
**

The Canadian Federal Court has confirmed that the country’s 2011 federal election, which led to the victory of Stephen Harper's government, was fraudulent.

”

Thanks for sharing this MPAsquared; I have shared this story on the other boards. This is absurd how this government fraudulently wins a majority government, dismisses what our courts tell him, takes away are due democratic process as Canadian Citizens, contravenes our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and just does whatever the Hell he wants!! We need to stand strong and unite together and say "NO, we will not tolerate this!!"

 

[Siocnarf]

Accordingly, the Council of Canadians has called on the Conservative Party to investigate the issue.

They are trusting the Conservatives to investigate and report on their own fraud???

 

[squeezer]

Thanks for sharing this MPAsquared; I have shared this story on the other boards. This is absurd how this government fraudulently wins a majority government, dismisses what our courts tell him, takes away are due democratic process as Canadian Citizens, contravenes our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and just does whatever the Hell he wants!! We need to stand strong and unite together and say "NO, we will not tolerate this!!"

We need to share this with everyone within the industry and more importantly outside of the industry. Former Conservatives have always stood for less government interference but this group of Reformers are a new breed of right wing and they want to be involved in every facet of our lives all in the name of crime and punishment.

 

[MPAsquared]

Thanks for sharing this MPAsquared; I have shared this story on the other boards. This is absurd how this government fraudulently wins a majority government, dismisses what our courts tell him, takes away are due democratic process as Canadian Citizens, contravenes our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and just does whatever the Hell he wants!! We need to stand strong and unite together and say "NO, we will not tolerate this!!"

Share it all over! Social media! Send it to the press!!! This needs to be headline news!

They are trusting the Conservatives to investigate and report on their own fraud???

The Conservative irony eh.

Well made statements, Down with this conservative regime who in 4 years turned the best country in the world into an undemocratic state.

And to those few who say we are voting with our dicks, not so. The new prostitution laws no matter what they will be they don't affect me personally as I quit the hobby long time ago for personal reasons. I want these Con politicians removed and put in the garbage bag of the history because they destroyed the most valuable asset any country can have and that is democracy. Down with this conservative regime of Harper and MacKay.

Precisely. C36 is merely an example of several bills that are being pushed by the Cons. C36 caused me to pay attention to other processes to see the comparisons. Its disgusting!

We need to share this with everyone within the industry and more importantly outside of the industry. Former Conservatives have always stood for less government interference but this group of Reformers are a new breed of right wing and they want to be involved in every facet of our lives all in the name of crime and punishment.

Yes!!!!!!! Please please share this everywhere possible!

 

[MPAsquared]

A peek at justice issues from the opposition side of the House

Monday, 13 October 2014 08:00 | Written By Richard Cleroux

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/2014101...-issues-from-the-opposition-side-of-the-house

Opposition justice critic Françoise Boivin is one tough lady who makes life a living hell for the Conservative government every day of the week in the House of Commons.

Boivin, who became the NDP MP for the Gatineau riding across the Ottawa River from Parliament in 2011, doesn’t hesitate to tell Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Peter MacKay over and over what they’re doing wrong on justice issues.

That’s her job. There are enough boys in short pants around Harper telling him how great he is.

Harper froze federal legal aid funding in this country a decade ago, she says, despite repeated cries from the Canadian Bar Association and demands from the Commons. It makes her angry. “It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what needs to be done,” she says.

There also aren’t enough judges. Take Quebec as an example. The Harper government said in the last budget there would be 11 more Superior Court judges but it only appointed seven. What happened to the other four?

There aren’t enough judges in Alberta, either. Nor are there enough federal prosecutors in most provinces.

Boivin says Parliament has had a difficult time trying to find out how much the federal government has spent on fighting legal cases. “All we get as answers are platitudes,” she says.

“If the government sat down and negotiated instead of going to court with $1,000-an-hour lawyers, we would be a lot better off.”

Public Works and Government Services Canada lets cases go to court rather than negotiating with the costs ending up on the Justice Department’s bill, she says.

It hasn’t escaped her that Harper has lost five major cases that ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

It infuriates Boivin that the Conservative government hasn’t been applying constitutional tests to legislation before it goes to Parliament. That leads to costly court challenges after the bill has become law, she notes.

And the Conservatives have a way to avoid testing legislation ahead of time. “Instead of ministers presenting legislation, they give it to one of their backbenchers to introduce in Parliament,” she says. “The backbencher will bullshit me that he’s consulted a constitutionalist.”

Boivin points to legislation related to child kidnapping. The legislation would force judges to hand down a four-year minimum mandatory jail sentence for child kidnapping.

Boivin says she did some research on child kidnapping and discovered that at present, judges are handing down eight-year sentences for the offence “and more often than not, it’s 16 or 20 years if there is violence or a killing.”

“So now we have a bill before us that says we must have a four-year minimum sentence for child kidnapping,” she says. “Are the Conservatives trying to lower the sentence for child kidnapping?”

Boivin doesn’t like the Conservatives’ bill C-26 related to the sex offender registry either. The Conservatives, she says, are “selling it as if it will mean an end to all sex offenders on our streets.”

“It’s not because we have Joe Blow’s name on a sex registry that there will be fewer sex offenders on the streets,” she says.

“That won’t solve the problem. But if you tell me we should work harder at getting sex offenders off the streets, then you’ll have me on board.”

Boivin says she speaks officially for the New Democratic Party of Canada on justice matters, but that doesn’t mean she decides every issue.

She has to talk to lawyers, police, victims’ rights associations, and her NDP caucus before she can make a public statement. The caucus has to decide whether it will propose amendments, try to send a bill to committee or vote against it outright.

In committee, she tries to convince MPs from other parties to see her side of the issue even if she knows the government will reject her views.

Sometimes, she has to take chances. For instance, the Conservatives are promising to spend $20 million to help sex trade workers as part of their new prostitution law. But then it turns out, she says, that it’s planning to spend the money over five years across the 10 provinces and three territories. That’s not a lot for each province.

In fact, the money isn’t even in the prostitution bill. Harper will decide who gets it. Boivin says it could end up that Harper passes the money out to his favourite religious groups rather than women’s organizations or sex-trade worker associations.

It all adds up to challenging work for a justice critic. “But you still have to try,” says Boivin of the need to keep pressing her case.

Richard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail address is richardcleroux@rogers.com.

I adore this woman! Her & Elizabeth May are so vocal! They "get it". Maybe that's who sex workers should be joining forces with!

Referendum? I see potential!

 

[Evangeline Grace]

Reading the comments above I am glad to see the unity and support and how you get it!! That is the point.... to network not only to have the petition signed, but to find relevant news stories, others who are working against the Conservative government, etc.... it's when you take the multitude of issues that are upsetting Canadians, or educate them on shady things they didn't know about our government, that we will perhaps see some headway in turning over Bill C-36... maybe not now, but eventually.

Keep up members of Terb.... and please sign the petition!! I believe I have it set up correctly that Elizabeth May also receives a copy of the letter every time someone signs the petition.

https://www.change.org/p/stephen-harper-do-not-endanger-the-lives-of-sex-workers

 

[Fallsguy]

Escorts cashing in on Sask. boom cause concern

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Escorts+cashing+Sask+boom+cause+concern/10282338/story.html

BY BARB PACHOLIK, LEADER-POST OCTOBER 11, 2014

REGINA — There’s the “upscale & stunning blonde from Montreal visiting” Estevan.

Or the “new arrived Asain (sic) baby” who’s in Yorkton for four days.

And “captivating, sweet Kinky Krissy ... new to Swift Current.”

Also, “sexy Stacy,” currently available in Regina.

They are a small sampling of the escorts on offer in sexually-explicit, online ads circulating in Saskatchewan, where the economic boom has attracted interest from “adult service” providers.

And that, in turn, has caught the attention of police on the hunt for human traffickers.

For the second time this year, Regina officers recently joined with 25 police agencies in a national investigation to assist those working in the sex trade against their will.

Called Operation Northern Spotlight, the officers in each city used ads on the Web to book “dates” with escorts over two nights last week — then met to talk.

“Almost all the girls we meet, they say they’re independent,” said Sgt. Rob Huber, who is in charge of the vice section at the Regina Police Service. “But when we see that the hotel room is booked by some guy down east ... and sometimes there’s three rooms booked, and there will be three different girls, I would say they’re controlling a couple girls at a time.”

Although local officers joined the national initiative, it was an extension of the work they do routinely.

While the lower-priced, street-level sex trade has held its own, the high-priced adult services have exploded in Saskatchewan. Some escorts take bookings a month or so before dropping into the city, settling into a hotel, then moving on after a couple days or weeks.

“We kept seeing Web sites and increased girls, and we thought, let’s just see who’s doing this and who’s travelling. So we started making contact with these girls.”

According to Huber, most of the women — the majority of the escorts police see are female — are polite, despite discovering that next date is a police officer seeking information and offering assistance.

Usually that help means leaving behind a business card and letting them know the door is open — “if they want to get out or if they have bad dates or having trouble with whoever, they can give us a call,” explained Huber.

The national operation helps police learn more about how the escorts move around. Those who have surfaced in Regina often come from points east of Manitoba, usually Toronto, Montreal and Quebec.

Of the nine women Regina officers met with last week as part of Spotlight, only one was local. In January, for the first phase of the operation, they met with 21 women.

Despite denials by the women, Huber suspects most are turned out by someone who reaps the bulk of the lucrative profits. “But until that girl basically tells us, we don’t have a victim.”

And without a victim, there are no grounds for human trafficking or pimping charges.

While Spotlight led to no sex trade-related charges in Regina, nationally police charged nine people last week with 33 offences, including forcible confinement, trafficking in persons, living off the avails, and making and distributing child pornography. Police also ensured the safety of 18 people working in the sex trade as minors or against their will, including a 12-year-old.

The escorts Regina police have encountered over the past two years have ranged in age from 19 to 65 (she apparently looked half her age).

Regina police connected with 138 different escorts last year. This year, the number has grown to 165. “If that was only our mandate to do, it would probably be double that. There are lots that come through here,” said Huber.

Browsing through the ads, Huber said police know the province’s large cities aren’t the only draw.

“Weyburn and Estevan are seeing the same problem we are. They’re down there, Moose Jaw, Carlyle.”

The women tell police: “There’s money out here. And the boom is on. The guys here are paying more for sex than down east — and less competition,” said Huber.

He’s not aware of any human trafficking charges having been laid in Saskatchewan.

Still, “we’re hoping some day, some girl will open up to us and tell us the story, and we’ll go from there.”

bpacholik@leaderpost.com

So, after all that police work all they can come up with is women travelling from eastern Canada, selling their sexual services to very willing clients, and making tons of money at it. Surely these women must be "rescued." They haven't found any trafficked women yet, but they'll keep looking. When the escorts tell them they're there of their own free will and making good money, than surely the poor things are brainwashed and trafficked. What kind of idiocy is this? Who is it exactly the police are trying to serve?

 

[JohnHenry]

^^^ does this mean that the Regina police don't understand that copycraigs might be booking the rooms.

 

[james198]

I find this thread overwhelming. Someone please give me the coles notes version.
What can I do as a client?
What can't I do?
What can happen to me?
When do I seriously have to make a choice to continue my hobby or discontinue?