Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[DigitallyYours]

http://mobinajaffer.ca/blog/reflections-bill-c-36/

My Reflections on Bill C-36

Over the summer, I spent a lot of time speaking with sex workers in my home province of BC. This was in anticipation of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.

As a result, I heard many stories over the past months, and was moved by a number of them. I thank all the women and men who trusted their experiences with me. I mentioned the story of one such woman in my speech yesterday. Taryn Onody sent me a letter with her story. I encourage you to read more of it in my speech, but here is a short excerpt:

“I started ‎in the adult industry when I was 21 years of age. I grew up in the suburbs of Toronto. I’m a practicing Catholic. My parents are upper-middle class. My siblings are tax paying, working citizens. I come from a wonderful home, wonderful people, and a great upbringing. I was an over-achieving student with accelerated grades, and hold multiple post-secondary diplomas/degrees. I am the ‘girl next door’.

I started looking into sex work when I became bored with my corporate job, which ‎I had held for 5 years. I felt bored, trapped, and craving something more in my life’s experience.”
​

With this, she added:

“We are all someone’s daughter or son. We all deserve rights, freedom, and safety.”
​

She expressed concern for Bill C-36, which is why she wrote to me. C-36 is the government’s legislative response to the Bedford decision. Terri-Jean Bedford is a sex-worker, and she challenged the existing legislation criminalizing aspects of sex-work as unconstitutional because it violated her rights protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with her, and struck down the existing legislation as unconstitutional. This gave the government one year, until December 2014, to come up with new legislation before the old legislation is no longer in effect.

On Tuesday November 4[SUP]th[/SUP], the Senate passed Bill C-36. Throughout all the hearings in the House of Commons, Senate pre-study, and Senate Legal committee, there have been many different views on this bill. While the conversation around this bill has been very controversial, and I hope we will continue to have a healthy conversation about how best we can protect all of our citizens. This is an important conversation that needs to be continued. Please send me your thoughts by tweeting @SenJaffer.

 

[alphauniform]

The Brit press asks SP to write a column.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...criminalisation-amendment-modern-slavery-bill

 

[MPAsquared]

http://mobinajaffer.ca/blog/reflections-bill-c-36/

My Reflections on Bill C-36

Over the summer, I spent a lot of time speaking with sex workers in my home province of BC. This was in anticipation of Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.

As a result, I heard many stories over the past months, and was moved by a number of them. I thank all the women and men who trusted their experiences with me. I mentioned the story of one such woman in my speech yesterday. Taryn Onody sent me a letter with her story. I encourage you to read more of it in my speech, but here is a short excerpt:

“I started ‎in the adult industry when I was 21 years of age. I grew up in the suburbs of Toronto. I’m a practicing Catholic. My parents are upper-middle class. My siblings are tax paying, working citizens. I come from a wonderful home, wonderful people, and a great upbringing. I was an over-achieving student with accelerated grades, and hold multiple post-secondary diplomas/degrees. I am the ‘girl next door’.

I started looking into sex work when I became bored with my corporate job, which ‎I had held for 5 years. I felt bored, trapped, and craving something more in my life’s experience.”
​

With this, she added:

“We are all someone’s daughter or son. We all deserve rights, freedom, and safety.”
​

She expressed concern for Bill C-36, which is why she wrote to me. C-36 is the government’s legislative response to the Bedford decision. Terri-Jean Bedford is a sex-worker, and she challenged the existing legislation criminalizing aspects of sex-work as unconstitutional because it violated her rights protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with her, and struck down the existing legislation as unconstitutional. This gave the government one year, until December 2014, to come up with new legislation before the old legislation is no longer in effect.

On Tuesday November 4[SUP]th[/SUP], the Senate passed Bill C-36. Throughout all the hearings in the House of Commons, Senate pre-study, and Senate Legal committee, there have been many different views on this bill. While the conversation around this bill has been very controversial, and I hope we will continue to have a healthy conversation about how best we can protect all of our citizens. This is an important conversation that needs to be continued. Please send me your thoughts by tweeting @SenJaffer.

I'm so proud of this! That's my letter. Senator Jaffer is an amazing woman! She has inspired me so much. She challenged herself, despite her Muslim upbringing, to go to bat for sex workers!! I will remain in close contact with her for many years to come!! I can't say enough good things, I'm getting choked up just writing this.

 

[squeezer]

I'm so proud of this! That's my letter. Senator Jaffer is an amazing woman! She has inspired me so much. She challenged herself, despite her Muslim upbringing, to go to bat for sex workers!! I will remain in close contact with her for many years to come!! I can't say enough good things, I'm getting choked up just writing this.

Great job! It is senators like this that give me hope if the Liberal party were to win the next federal election. Under the current regime anything to do with sex is abhorrent to their belief system and ideology unless one is married.

 

[escapefromstress]

A recent summary of C-36 by the Pivot Legal Society; short and to the point:
http://www.pivotlegal.org/bill_c_36_a_backgrounder
Bill C-36: A backgrounder
Written by Kevin Hollett on November 06, 2014

Thanks so much for posting this.

Here's their document Reckless Endangerment Q&A ON BILL C-36: PROTECTION OF COMMUNITIES AND EXPLOITED PERSONS ACT UPDATE - AMENDMENTS TO BILL C-36 OCTOBER 2014

Co-written by Pivot Legal Society, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Stella, l'amie de Maimie, this updated document answers key questions about what changes Bill C-36 would make to the law if it were passed: What conduct related to sex work would be prohibited? In what circumstances? Who could be prosecuted?

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...ILLC36_info_english-Amendments.pdf?1415296321

 

[L.B]

Well...I just found out about this. I feel sick. Nowadays I was preoccupied with Gamergate (I dont exaclty support it but I lean towards it). They're getting hammered by these goddamn radfem social justice warriors who've taken over the mainstream and are now slandering all GG'ers as misogynists and associating all gamers with death and rape threats. They're gonna win and force their ideology into the gaming community.....yeah this is prob shit you dont care about but the point is ....in the midst of all that NOW THIS HAPPENS....right under my nose. These radical feminists (NOT ALL FEMINISTS! No problem with feminism) are scoring victory after victory and I just dont know what to. Cause these "male tear" drinkers wont stop at anything to make life as ugly as possible for people like me.

 

[MPAsquared]

Sex workers, advocates say new anti-prostitution law still unconstitutional

James Keller, The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, November 6, 2014 2:43PM EST
Last Updated Thursday, November 6, 2014 7:13PM EST

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/sex-wo...titution-law-still-unconstitutional-1.2090193

VANCOUVER -- The Conservative government's new anti-prostitution law will continue to endanger the lives of people who work in the sex trade and in some cases make things worse, sex workers and advocates said Thursday as the law received royal assent.

Ottawa revised the law to respond to a decision last year from the Supreme Court of Canada, which concluded the previous Criminal Code sections related to prostitution were unconstitutional because they made sex work more dangerous.
But several sex-worker rights groups across Canada used Thursday's royal assent to repeat their arguments that the law will continue to put women and men working in prostitution at risk.

"They have told us over and over again that this bill is intended to protect sex workers," Kerry Porth, chairwoman of Pivot Legal Society and a former sex worker herself, told a news conference in Vancouver.

"These new laws will push sex work further underground into the darkest corners of our city."

The government has said the new bill addresses the high court's concerns because it essentially allows sex workers to work freely -- including hiring protection and starting up brothels -- as long as they're doing it of their own free will.

Critics, however, say provisions that criminalize the purchasing of sex, prohibit communication in many public places, and restrict advertising will largely recreate the same problems identified by the court.

Porth said criminalizing the customers and public communication will lead to rushed transactions that will prevent sex workers from taking the time to screen clients.

And she said decriminalizing brothels and other forms of indoor prostitution is meaningless if sex workers aren't permitted to advertise.

"The ability to clearly communicate with clients is the most crucial safety measure that sex workers employ," said Porth.

"They will now be forced to rush or abandon these measures altogether."

Porth was joined by a half-dozen current sex workers, who wore masks and used pseudonyms.

One woman who identified herself as "Jordan Doe" said sex workers in Vancouver and elsewhere have already run into difficulties, even before the new anti-prostitution measures became law.

"Sex consumers are confused by what the rules are now and how they can safely access the services that we provide," she said.

"As a result of that, our incomes have severely been depreciated."

Some critics have suggested the updated law would be open to another charter challenge, though Porth said it could take years to gather evidence about the impact of the revised provisions and take it to court. Pivot does not have any immediate plans to launch a renewed court challenge, she said.

The Justice Department did not make the minister or anyone else available for an interview, but spokeswoman Carole Saindon defended the new law in an emailed statement.

Saindon stressed the law does not directly target sex workers and permits safety measures such as brothels and bodyguards.

"Canada is not alone in proposing criminal law reform that views prostitution as a form of sexual exploitation, a model that is receiving growing international support as a sound policy approach," Saindon wrote.

Saindon also pointed to funding to support sex workers leaving a "dangerous and harmful activity."

Dr. Kate Shannon, director of the Vancouver-based B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, said the Conservative government chose to ignore research that shows criminalizing any aspect of prostitution puts sex workers at risk.

"The (Supreme Court of Canada) decision was clear that the previous laws put sex workers at risk in multiple ways: by isolating sex workers, reducing their ability to negotiate transactions, reducing their access to indoor spaces," Shannon said in an interview.

"This not only ignores that, but it goes one step further in criminalizing the purchase of sex. There's a huge concern that we're going to see rates of violence and other risks go up rather than down."

Shannon said Canada should follow the example of Australia and New Zealand, which have decriminalized sex work. Those countries, she said, haven't seen an increase in sex work or violence.

"I think it's clearly ideologically driven," she said.

"A lot of evidence was not discussed (by the federal government) or thrown out."

Some false info in this one. Brothels are not legal under c36.

 

[ms9795]

Since royal assent was on Nov 6, do we have until Dec 6 (30 days) for it to officially be law? I just want a confirmation before I have one last month of fun lol.

 

[Siocnarf]

Some false info in this one. Brothels are not legal under c36.

They are legal if they are non-commercial brothels...

Since royal assent was on Nov 6, do we have until Dec 6 (30 days) for it to officially be law? .

Yes, it should be effective around december 6.

 

[MPAsquared]

They are legal if they are non-commercial brothels...


Yes, it should be effective around december 6.

Define a non-commercial brothel. Lol.

Because it was clearly expressed in senate hearings that if 2 women work co-operatively, the can't be charged for selling their sexual services, but could be charged for profiteering off eachothers sexual services.

 

[escapefromstress]

In an effort to help everyone stay updated on the Political/Legal issues affecting the Canadian Escort Industry, we're asking for your help in listing Media Items.

Articles are often posted on BC/QUE boards that are never mentioned on the TO boards and vice versa, and people are more apt to notice media items pertaining to their local market, while not realizing that someone on the other side of the country could benefit from the information.

Please post links to any Industry-related items such as:

• Articles regarding Backpages, Craigslist Therapeutics and other Escort Advertising venues.
• Media items regarding Escort Review Boards.
• Updates regarding changes other Industry Forums have made in response to the new laws.
• Statements from Police Services in major cities regarding how they plan to interpret and enforce the new laws.
• Items regarding Police stings, arrests and court cases.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Great job! It is senators like this that give me hope if the Liberal party were to win the next federal election. Under the current regime anything to do with sex is abhorrent to their belief system and ideology unless one is married.

Fuji used the word 'prudes' in the past. Great comment Squeezer!

 

[GPIDEAL]

Define a non-commercial brothel. Lol.

Because it was clearly expressed in senate hearings that if 2 women work co-operatively, the can't be charged for selling their sexual services, but could be charged for profiteering off eachothers sexual services.

The way the law is written, that's correct, even if the intent was to share the burden of overhead expenses.

 

[Siocnarf]

Define a non-commercial brothel. Lol.

It was meant as a joke to illustrate the duplicity and absurdity of this bill. Maybe prostitutes should simply advertise ''non-sexual penis-vagina intercourse''. This is a perfectly non-sexual service that I am performing in a non-sexual way.

 

[Siocnarf]

http://www.straight.com/news/766261/new-prostitution-law-leaves-sex-workers-invisible-and-anonymous-advocate-says
New prostitution law leaves sex workers “invisible and anonymous”, advocate says
by Carlito Pablo on Nov 6, 2014 at 3:32 pm

The woman identified only as Jessica cares a lot about her clients. Her eyes glowed behind the mask she wore when she talked about them.

Two are in their 80s. “One of them, I have been seeing him for five years,” Jessica told the Georgia Straight after a news conference regarding the passage of a new prostitution law. “I started seeing him once a month or one every two months. Now I see him every two weeks.

“He’s single,” she continued. “His wife died many years ago. He had a second marriage. It didn’t work out. He lives alone. I’m his only kind of source of companionship. I see him for an hour-and-a-half once every two weeks.”

Jessica has been providing sexual services for almost 15 years. She is now over 50 years old.

“Every time he comes to see me, he tells me that he loves me about five times,” Jessica said of the aforementioned client. “We do massage, you know, whatever an 85-year-old man can do. He’s mostly there for hugs, companionship, friendship, and he talks. Sometimes he stays, and talks for an extra half an hour.”

There are also much younger men, in their 20s.

“The 25-year-olds, some of them are interested in…the older woman…and some of them…they have no clue what to do with a woman, so they come because they need to figure it out,” Jessica said with a giggle.

Some are husbands who are caring for a sick wife. In some case, their wives are sick with cancer.

Couples also avail themselves of her services. “They come because they want to do something to fix their marriage, and they don’t want to break up,” she said.

In some cases involving couples, Jessica brings along a male worker for the job.

“So they come as a couple either to see me alone or to see me with another man, and we both massage. He massages the woman. I massage the man in the same room, so they’re having a joint experience. I have a few people like that,” Jessica related.

She’s got all sorts of clients, from businessmen to plumbers to waiters.

“I have two clients that are also sex workers that come because they need some, you know, compassionate touch,” Jessica said.

In all her time as a sex worker, Jessica said that she has never been hurt or harmed.

“I have never had any violence,” she said.

Clients all seek warmth. “They just need some affection,” Jessica said. “And of course for men, usually the affection will include a sexual release.”

The mask and her use of the name Jessica are symbolic.
Kerry Porth, chair of Pivot Legal Society, argues the new law pretends to protect sex workers but does the opposite.
Carlito Pablo

As Kerry Porth, chair of Pivot Legal Society, explained in a press conference, Canada’s new prostitution law has rendered sex workers “invisible and anonymous”.

Bill C-36, also known as the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, received royal assent today (November 6).

The new law criminalizes the purchase of sex, rendering as criminals the clients of Jessica and the other masked sex workers who appeared and spoke using first names only at the media event held at the Downtown Eastside office of Pivot.

Reading from a statement, Porth, a former sex worker, said: “They have told us over and over again that this bill is intended to protect sex workers but let me read you a quote from Conservative senator Donald Plett from this summer’s pre-hearings on the bill: ‘Of course, we don’t want to make life safe for prostitutes; we want to do away with prostitution. That’s the intent of the bill.’”

The new law also criminalizes the advertisement of sexual services. “Advertising is a critical form of communication for sex workers where they can set boundaries with potential clients...they will no longer be able to do so,” Porth said.

After the news conference, Jessica spoke to the Straight about Bill C-36.

“Isn’t that absurd?” Jessica asked. “I said to a friend of mine that automatically one million men in Canada will be considered criminals. And he said, ‘Oh no. It’s more like three million.’ I said, ‘Oh okay, maybe you know men better than I do.’”

 

[wilbur]

Define a non-commercial brothel. Lol.

Because it was clearly expressed in senate hearings that if 2 women work co-operatively, the can't be charged for selling their sexual services, but could be charged for profiteering off eachothers sexual services.

That' exactly what they do to sex-workers who work together in the same location: both can be charged with living off the avails of prostitution.

 

[Always]

Great job! It is senators like this that give me hope if the Liberal party were to win the next federal election. Under the current regime anything to do with sex is abhorrent to their belief system and ideology unless one is married.

"Unless one is married"?

The unintended consequence is that we will see a lot of 911 calls reporting the husbands. Police are bounded to arrest them because there is a pre-packaged victim in every case. Police will love to do that. So do prosecutors.

Remember more than 50% marriages ended up with divorce within 5 years. This is the best way to get the husbands punished.

=)

 

[Always]

That' exactly what they do to sex-workers who work together in the same location: both can be charged with living off the avails of prostitution.

This gives to the rise of criminal controlled apartment services in many countries. They rent apartment / room units on daily / half day basis. Extra fees to provide all the towels, condoms, etc. Normal people will not rent these places. Policemen do not dare to enter these buildings unless there is official orders to raid them. The operators are always tipped off so that only a very small # of johns are taken. Those arrested may even be the keepers themselves to ensure the safety of the clients.

This also implies someone within the Harper government has ties to the organized crimes since they are the biggest gainers under the new law.

 

[wilbur]

That' exactly what they do to sex-workers who work together in the same location: both can be charged with living off the avails of prostitution.

I meant to say, that this is what happens in Sweden, when 2 sex-workers share the same place. In the country so concerned with the welfare of sex-workers, they will either charge them with living off the avails between themselves, or get the landlord to kick them out so that police don't charge him as well with living off the avails, for simply taking in rent money.

 

[escapefromstress]

Feds’ new prostitution law raises safety issues


Sex workers rights advocates start letter-writing campaign asking Premier Kathleen Wynne to test law’s constitutionality in Ontario Court of Appeal before “bodies piling up and violent incidents occurring”

by Andrea Houston November 8, 2014

Despite widespread objections from social justice activists and sex workers who say the legislation will make their lives more dangerous than ever, the federal government’s controversial prostitution Bill C-36 received Royal Assent Thursday, November 6.

The new law replaces the handful of prostitution-related laws that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down in 2013.

Terri-Jean Bedford, one of three sex workers who challenged the constitutionality of the laws, argued that they put sex workers’ lives at risks by preventing them from working out of their homes and putting in place certain safety measures to screen clients, like hiring security guards. The court agreed ordering Parliament to come up with new legislation within a year.

But the Harper government’s response, the dubiously-named The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which now makes communication for the purposes of prostitution a criminal offense by criminalizing clients and restricting the advertising of sex services, actually makes sex work more precarious. Sex workers say the law will only drive the trade further underground putting them at more risk of violence.

Now Bedford is calling on Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne to intervene.

In an open letter published on her blog last month, Bedford asks Wynne to refer C-36 to the Ontario Court of Appeal to test its constitutionality when it officially becomes law in 30 days. (The Ontario Court of Appeal is the same court that originally struck down prostitution laws before it went to the Supremes.) Bedford is also asking Wynne to instruct provincial Crown Attorneys not to enforce the new law until the Ontario court has ruled on its constitutionality.

Wynne has been vocal on the topic of violence against women, publicly declaring her support last week for HeForShe, a global campaign against gender inequality started by the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

In her letter, Bedford makes a personal appeal to the premier, comparing the struggle of sex workers to samesex couples. “I know you realize the freedom that you are enjoying in your personal life was once at issue as well and were opposed by the same segments of society now behind C-36… And some people would make them illegal again if they thought they could get away with it.”

Lawyer Kyle Kirkup, who spoke to the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Bill C-36 in Ottawa, says there is precedent for the province asking the courts to review a piece of criminal law legislation. The most notable being a polygamy decision in 2011 in British Columbia.

“Unlike the federal government, Wynne seems more interested in listening to stakeholders,” he says. “So there is some promise there. The fact she has already been in contact with Terri-Jean Bedford gives me hope.”

More importantly, asking the Ontario Court of Appeal may save some lives, says sex work advocate Nikki Thomas, who is part of a letter-writing campaign asking the premier to act .

“We won’t have to sit back and wait for an evidentiary record, which in laymen’s terms means bodies piling up and violent incidents occurring with greater frequency to prove that this law violates our rights under the Charter,” she says.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, prostitution itself was legal in Canada, but almost all activities surrounding the trade were not — including communicating in a public place, running a brothel or bawdyhouse, and living off the avails of prostitution, such as hiring a bodyguard or a driver.

When Justice Minister Peter MacKay introduced the bill, he said the goal was to “abolish sex work” entirely by criminalizing clients who seek out sex, which relies on the logic that all men who purchase sex are aggressors and all women in sex work are exploited victims of male violence.

As Sandra Ka Hon Chu and Rebecca Glass write in Sex Work Law Reform In Canada, this framing “conflates sex work with trafficking, [and] pathologizes male clients.” They note that sex trafficking, sexual violence and child exploitation are already offences under Canada’s Criminal Code.

http://nowtoronto.com/news/feds-new-...safety-issues/