Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[corrie fan]

An investigation into human trafficking in Woodstock and Brantford has found that all 9 sex workers contacted by police were working independently and were not being controlled.

www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2016/04/05/woodstock-and-brantford-police-services-partner-on-human-trafficking-investigation

 

[r.desmond]

"Legal prostitution is associated with decreased disease incidence, decreased sexual violence against women, and increased health and safety for prostitutes."

http://bit.ly/1UKBW2u

Prostitution: The world’s oldest public policy issue
OEP, Oxford Economic Papers

- Bruce Elmslie, April 5th 2016

 

[drlove]

A Risky Business: A Constitutional Review Of Bill C-36

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/4804...+Business+A+Constitutional+Review+of+Bill+C36

In the landmark 2013 decision of Canada v Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that certain provisions of the Criminal Code, relating to the communication and engagement of prostitution, violated section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The impugned provisions made it an indictable offence to keep a "bawdy house" for purposes of prostitution, live wholly or in part off the avails of prostitution of another person, and/or communicate with another in a public place for that purpose. The Court specifically determined that the provisions violated security of the person by preventing sex workers from taking legal steps, such as hiring drivers, receptionists or bodyguards, or meeting in an open, public place to screen clients, to protect themselves against the risks involved in such activities.

In arriving at this conclusion, the Court noted that Parliament was not precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution was conducted, provided those laws did not infringe on the constitutional rights of sex workers. The Court in Bedford therefore granted Parliament an opportunity to revise the existing regime. Bill C-36, which received Royal Assent on November 6, 2014 and became law on December 6, 2014, was the Conservative Government's response to that invitation.

Also known as The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, Bill C-36 stated its objective as denouncing and prohibiting the purchase of sexual services and protecting the human dignity of all Canadians. The Bill amended the Criminal Code to, among other things, create an offence prohibiting the purchase of sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose, receiving a financial or other material benefit obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of sexual services, and communicating for purposes of selling sexual services in any public place where people under 18 may be present. In support of the proposed Bill, then Justice Minister Peter McKay claimed it was constitutionally sound and would protect vulnerable Canadians, and their communities, from an inherently dangerous activity.

Despite these claims, a growing concern emerged among constitutional scholars, lawyers and human rights advocates that far from reducing the risk of violence, the Bill instead continued to prevent sex workers from accessing legal means to enhance their safety. Contrary to section 7 and the decision in Bedford, many argued that Bill C-36 exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the risks faced by sex workers.

Bill C-36 targets the commercialization of prostitution and seeks to promote values of human dignity by "denouncing and prohibiting" this otherwise legal activity. However, while the objectives of the Bill evidenced the Conservative Government's intention to address the vulnerabilities and risks inherent to the sex trade, its effects may well have rendered it unconstitutional. This is because Charter principles mandate that laws must be knowable, unambiguous and proportionate to their objectives. Yet Bill C-36 did not define key terms essential to its application, the most notable being 'sexual services', which is open to broad interpretation and scope.

Moreover, by criminalizing the receipt of any benefit derived from the avails of prostitution, the Bill made it a crime for anyone to supply any service to a sex worker, simply because she is a sex worker. While there are exceptions to this offence, such as receiving the benefit as a result of legal or moral obligation, these exceptions are open to broad interpretation. Consequently, the Bill continues to deny sex workers the legal ability to take safety precautions that the court in Bedford held were essential to their security of the person.

Further, the Court in Bedford expressly held that face-to-face communication is an essential tool for enhancing the safety of sex workers. However, by prohibiting communications in a public place or any place children under 18 may reasonably be present, the Bill denied sex workers this tool. The amendments criminalized the activity of a group that the Supreme Court had already found to be especially vulnerable and marginalized. This concern was further exacerbated by the fact that while the Bill did not make prostitution illegal per se, it entirely prohibited the purchase of sexual services. Just as the right to an abortion is illusory if doctors are prohibited from performing them legally, it appears the Conservative Government attempted a back-door criminalization of prostitution by making it an offence to purchase sexual services. Rather than encouraging people to report incidents of violence, the amendments risked driving sex workers and their clients further underground for fear of criminal sanctions.

Sadly, it appears that these risks are materializing. Recent research conducted of women in the sex trade industry indicates that the Bill has increased fear of police, arrest and exposure among sex workers and their potential clients. By making it illegal to purchase sexual services, the Bill has led consumers of these services to seek out more isolated, and often more dangerous, locations and to avoid reporting violence, abuse or exploitation to the police. Far from protecting sex workers, the amendments have created a toxic environment of fear, shame and secrecy - all of which have had a profoundly adverse impact on sex workers themselves.

In Bedford, the Supreme Court determined that the impugned provisions went beyond merely regulating how sex workers were to operate by imposing dangerous conditions upon an already vulnerable group, thus preventing people engaged in a risky, but legal activity from mitigating those risks. In giving Parliament the opportunity to revise the laws respecting prostitution, the Court was seeking to ensure that laws were enacted which did not further aggravate these concerns. It appears, however, that Bill C-36 has nevertheless replicated many of the effects found in Bedford to be unconstitutional and contrary to the security of the person.

As the Court in Bedford aptly noted, Parliamentary deference cannot insulate legislation that creates seriously harmful effects for those to whom the law applies. Fortunately, these concerns have been echoed by the newly elected Liberal Government, who opposed the Bill when it was first proposed by the Conservatives in 2014. In fact, the Liberal federal justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, recently stated that she is committed to replacing this flawed legislation and to "reviewing the prostitution laws and making sure that we've adequately addressed the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court."

In the result, it appears that there is new hope for Parliament to reopen the conversation commenced by the Court in Bedford and to enact a Bill that ensures the safety and dignity of sex workers. Perhaps by giving sex workers a much needed voice at the table, the Liberal Government will be able to enact legislation capable of responding to the actual needs and circumstances of sex workers in a manner that both achieves legislative objectives and withstands future constitutional scrutiny.

 

[wilbur]

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/4804...+Business+A+Constitutional+Review+of+Bill+C36

In the landmark 2013 decision of Canada v Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that certain provisions of the Criminal Code, relating to the communication and engagement of prostitution, violated section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The impugned provisions made it an indictable offence to keep a "bawdy house" for purposes of prostitution, live wholly or in part off the avails of prostitution of another person, and/or communicate with another in a public place for that purpose. The Court specifically determined that the provisions violated security of the person by preventing sex workers from taking legal steps, such as hiring drivers, receptionists or bodyguards, or meeting in an open, public place to screen clients, to protect themselves against the risks involved in such activities.

The Supreme Court ruled that, given that selling sex was legal, the laws surrounding it made it impossible to conduct such activities safely, and that the laws surrounding this legal activity were a breach of the Charter of Rights. That was a great ruling.

However, C-36 actually made selling sex illegal, with the provision that those engaged in doing so would be exempt from prosecution. In that context, C-36 might not be unconstitutional after all, even though it causes great harm to those involved.

And one more thing: I had been voting PC/Conservative since Brian Mulroney. I voted different last time, and may the Conservatives rot in Hell!

 

[drlove]

The Supreme Court ruled that, given that selling sex was legal, the laws surrounding it made it impossible to conduct such activities safely, and that the laws surrounding this legal activity were a breach of the Charter of Rights. That was a great ruling.

However, C-36 actually made selling sex illegal, with the provision that those engaged in doing so would be exempt from prosecution. In that context, C-36 might not be unconstitutional after all, even though it causes great harm to those involved.

And one more thing: I had been voting PC/Conservative since Brian Mulroney. I voted different last time, and may the Conservatives rot in Hell!

I'm a bit confused here... I thought that it was only the purchase of sex which was criminalized, hence illegal. Selling sex, on the other hand is still legal as far as I know... (unless of course, the devil is in the details - e.g. check the fine print! lol) Maybe I'm wrong...

 

[drlove]

No, that's how everybody interprets the changes done to the Criminal Code. However, the text specifies that selling sexual services is also now illegal; it's just that the service provider is immune from prosecution if she (or he) is selling services provided by herself (or himself). The people from the Department of Justice, especially Donald Piragoff, were quite clear about this when C-36 went respectively before the HoC and Senate Justice Committees, back in 2014.

So, if prostitution is illegal, then how could there ever be a court challenge? (e.g. last I heard, the courts don't look kindly on illegal activities)

 

[wilbur]

So, if prostitution is illegal, then how could there ever be a court challenge? (e.g. last I heard, the courts don't look kindly on illegal activities)

That's the problem.

However, I think that a case could be made by invoking an abuse of process. It doesn't say that a prostitute cannot be arrested... only that they will not be prosecuted. So there's nothing stopping police from arresting a prostitute, taking her to the station, strip searching her and other humiliating procedures, spend the night in jail, only for the prosecutor to say the next day that he cannot prosecute. Meanwhile, that person has her info permanently stored in the police database.

The other defense would be that the law is too broad in its application. It says that it's illegal to exchange sex for a consideration. A consideration could be a meal, roses, a root canal, rent etc. What if a woman has an affair with the landlord and he then waives that month's rent? Or you go out on a dat, pay for dinner, then you wind up in the sack? Where do you draw the line? It's open to prosecutorial abuse.

 

[corrie fan]

The laws against same sex marriage and abortion were overturned by the courts so it is possible for the courts to make a presently illegal activity legal. An argument could be made that the law against prostitution violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The title of bill C-36 talks of protecting exploited persons. Not all sex workers are being exploited so it could be argued that the law is over broad for this reason.
Another point that has been made is that sexual services are not defined in the law. It is necessary for laws to be clear.

 

[drlove]

The laws against same sex marriage and abortion were overturned by the courts so it is possible for the courts to make a presently illegal activity legal. An argument could be made that the law against prostitution violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The title of bill C-36 talks of protecting exploited persons. Not all sex workers are being exploited so it could be argued that the law is over broad for this reason.
Another point that has been made is that sexual services are not defined in the law. It is necessary for laws to be clear.

That said, what do you feel is the likelyhood that either:

A) The Liberal government will actually repeal / amend C-36

B) A constitutional challenge will be launched, resulting in C-36 being overturned?

 

[corrie fan]

They probably will amend C-36 but they will be in no hurry to do it. I don't think there will be major changes. There likely will be a constitutional challenge at some point if the govt. does not make major changes to the law but it will be many years before anything is changed by this route.

 

[drlove]

They probably will amend C-36 but they will be in no hurry to do it. I don't think there will be major changes. There likely will be a constitutional challenge at some point if the govt. does not make major changes to the law but it will be many years before anything is changed by this route.

They should repeal the section about it being illegal to purchase sex.

 

[wilbur]

Another point that has been made is that sexual services are not defined in the law. It is necessary for laws to be clear.

I believe sexual services are actually defined. And it goes way beyond intercourse. The definition is indeed very broad, but that's what Harper's moralistic zealots intended it to be. I believe that it's any contact that provokes a sexual response. It includes 'touching' at a massage parlour, even if all that happens is a hard on.

The issue is that it's too broad is in its application: taking someone out for a date, paying for dinner and winding up in the sack could be considered as exchanging sex for a consideration. It's innocuous, very common but technically illegal, in the strict application of the law. If the application of a law is too broad, it is open to selective application and persecution by public officials, and then a breach of the Charter.

Just my opinion.

 

[drlove]

I wish the last line of the article were true... "Prostitution is completely legal in Canada," the judge told her... Guess he hasn't heard about C-36 yet. Go figure...

 

[Sapphire Sirens]

Inside the Life of a Professional Escort Photographer

By Allison Elkin

Staff Writer
April 6, 2016

http://www.vice.com/read/we-talked-...er-about-making-a-career-shooting-naked-women

Whether or not our government wants to admit the legitimacy of sex work as an industry, there are thousands of women in Canada who run escorting like any other business. In Montreal, one person who is an integral part of this industry is a woman who goes by DannyGirl. Over the past decade, she has taken photos for thousands of escorts in Montreal to be put up on agency websites and independent escorting sites in order to lure customers into spending an evening with the women on the screen.

Though DannyGirl dabbled in fashion photography briefly and has been shooting nude photos for nearly two decades, about ten years ago, she decided to focus her efforts on escorts. "Whenever I dump all my stuff out of my hard drives, it's like hundreds of thousands of photos of girls in their underwear—and most of them have their heads cut off, so I don't even know who they are."

VICE spoke to DannyGirl to ask her what it's like to do photoshoots with escorts multiple times a week for years and years, and to see how her perception has changed since she pulled back the proverbial Wizard of Oz velvet curtain on a complex, expansive industry.

VICE: How did you get into doing escort photography?
DannyGirl: I didn't even realize it was a thing at first. I went to an art school in Toronto, and I'd been shooting my friends wet and topless since I was 14. I also shot my friend at camp... we snuck out of the dining hall, and went to these big shower rooms, and I shot her on a disposable camera at Jewish summer camp. The funny thing is my camera got thrown in a bag to come home, and someone stole the bag, so I wonder if someone got arrested for having that roll of film.

I'd just always take pictures of my friends topless and hot. I failed out of photography in high school and didn't go to college for it. It wasn't until MySpace hit that the photos I took of my hot, tattooed friends, like, naked in my jacuzzi in Montreal, that strangers started hitting me up and asking me how much I charged for shoots. It became this natural evolution of shooting naked girls for money, and naked girls who want to pay to be shot all the time are escorts. For me it's always been this sustainable income of something I find really easy to do.

When exactly did your clientele stop being just your friends and became women who were working as escorts?
I think it probably started around 2006 when I got contacted by a small escort agency who wanted me to shoot a couple of girls. For me, I was doing it anyway, but I just wasn't involved in the sex industry culture yet to realize how big of an industry it was. I'm able to have an income full-time from doing this, and not a lot of photographers can say that. I feel very lucky to do exactly what I want to do, have it be fun, and have it be really laidback.

I was shooting sexy shots of regular girls, then the photos would come out online. I've had a presence on the internet for many years now, so it became very organic with how people found me. I was already taking photos of girls in their underwear oiled up, smoking, so it became a word of mouth thing. Some girls have been shooting with me for ten years. I haven't really had to advertise.

Do you consider Montreal to be a major city for escorting?
I find that sexuality generally here is so much more lax that it's not a big deal to be an escort here, so a lot of girls are. It's a big industry, but like anything in Montreal, all the prices are lower just because people who live here don't have the same amount of money as other cities. They could go to Calgary and charge twice as much.

What's some weird shit you've had happen to you on escort shoots?
God, every day... I don't ask a lot of questions beforehand, because I know what it is. I don't check who they are beforehand, so I don't know if they're a tall, blonde, porno-type girl or, like last week, these two very hippie, tea-drinking, vegan-y girls with super-short hair. [Those two women] were not traditional escorts, they do spiritual cleansing and naked yoga. That photoshoot was more about these very natural, beautiful body shots, and they wanted shots for when you hire two girls together with like clown noses, pillow fighting, and one girl has a wolf-tail buttplug. It's always hilarious and fun.

The only thing is boy-girl couples—I can't do it, I can't shoot that. I tried it once, and it got kind of fetishy. I felt like they hired me because they wanted to do it with their partner in front of somebody. As open as I am, there's something about male-female couples that weirds me out. When it's two girls, no matter how silly or crazy, it's never bothered me. A woman's body and how it shoots is just beautiful.

How do you feel about the current state of prostitution laws in Canada considering you interact with women who do this as a profession as part of your job?
I know a lot of the girls had to change their websites and how they were advertising themselves due to some new regulations in recent years. It started to become more john-based. What upsets me, and what I completely agree with all the girls on, is that it pushes it more underground. It's never not going to happen. It's much smarter to make it safer, tax it, because a lot of these women are businesswomen, this is their full-time job; they schedule it like a business, they run websites, answer phone calls and emails.

What happened with the laws and the government is that they wanted to throw a bunch of things into one box, like human trafficking, street-walking girls—which clearly the industry is much broader than that. There's this whole other group of girls in their 20s and 30s who made a conscious decision to do this, don't hate their life, don't hate their job, and don't want to be treated like criminals.

Does you being a woman play in at all to how you shoot escorts?
It helps that I'm a girl. There's a lot of creepy photographers out there, dudes who want to shoot you in your underwear at their house. So yeah, even though these girls are cool with going to see guys and taking off their clothes, they're still cautious, and I think partially I make them feel really comfortable because I'm a girl and they know I'm not going to be creepy and we can have an open dialogue. And, two, because I'm a girl, I'm going to see all the little things they don't about their bodies, and I'm going to fix them: a little puff of armpit fat, a little thigh thing when they pull up their stockings, some cellulite—stuff that maybe a man wouldn't notice. The girls are confident that I'm going to go through their body point by point and fix all the things I would be weird about.

How do you make your photos alluring enough to where it will get an escort new customers, but not to the point where a guy can just jerk off to the image without having to pay anything?
It's a fine art on both sides. These guys will try to email or text these girls to see what they can get for free—"tell me what you're going to do to me" kind of thing. It's all about tempting without giving too much. On a lot of the advertising sites you can't show vagina, and a lot of them you can't show nipples. If you're doing nude shots, things can be covered. It's pretty easy to not give it all away, because unless you're putting it on your own website, you just can't advertise with those kind of photos.

What was it like explaining to your family or to your kid what you do for a living?
I'm super-lucky and blessed. I'm an only child from a single-parent home; my mom is rad. I grew up with my super-strong, Wonder Woman mother and my Nana—just crazy strong women who wanted me to do whatever I wanted and were very business-minded. I don't think they were ever worried that I was going to be an escort. Whatever that line was, I think they always knew I would be on the right side of it. Both of my parents know what I do.

My son, since he was two years old, has grown up in a house seeing every girl in their underwear, walking around the house topless. My house is full of vintage porn and photos; my whole house is just tits and ass. Ask me again when he's 13, but for now, it's all just very normal. I think when everything is normalized, it becomes not a big deal. My kid is well-adjusted, I feel like I'm well-adjusted. That's the thing I've had to defend a little bit—not only am I a woman, but I'm also a mother. I'm super pro-women: I don't want some pimp-hand-beaten girls... There's a big thing here in Montreal now in Laval where young girls are being taken and pimped by guys.

Have you ever had to work with women who you were concerned about the situations they were in at all?
No, but kind of in an elitist way. For someone to afford me, they have to be working at a certain level. It tends to be a certain group of girls because they're the ones who can afford a photoshoot. There's a difference between how, back in the day, girls would advertise in the back of NOW Magazine to now girls who have their own websites. There's different echelons of price points. Right now, what I'm making an hour is what [the escorts I'm shooting] are making an hour. I work mostly with women in higher price brackets.

How has your perception changed over the course of your time shooting escorts?
The thing about working in the adult industry for so many years, is you become really desensitized to everything that has to do with sex and naked people. It becomes very human and normal. I often say, if you enjoy porn, strippers, and all the fantasy and lacy dreaminess that comes with all that, never work in the industry. It's like seeing behind the velvet curtain in The Wizard of Oz. You can never go back to that naivety and sense of sexy-time awe. You realize the normality of how it's all run, that it's just a business, and everything you've concocted in your head is all smoke and mirrors: Photoshop and great lighting. It has become so normal for me to say, "Tuck your labia back in, babe" or reach over and pull a G-string back over a bending girl's asshole. It's very difficult to go back to seeing these glossy images as some ultimate fantasy.

She is a very good friend of mine.
Her work is amazing, im so happy for her to be getting so much attention!

 

[canada-man]

c-36 has made trafficking worst?

 

[wilbur]

c-36 has made trafficking worst?

I don't know if it made trafficking worse. But it has increased the risk of violence against clients.

Since buying sex is now illegal, if you get assaulted and robbed in a prostitution scam, you are not likely to go to the police to complain, and admit to an intent to buy sex. Scam artists know this. And if you do call the police, the person posing as a prostitute could accuse you of assaulting them. Of course, 'victims' never lie, don't they?

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

It seems that Operation Northern Spotlight latest I believe October 2015 involving 40 police agencies across Canada only resulted in 47 arrests which were for trafficking in persons, forcible confinement, child pornography, and sexual assault with a weapon. They claim the "rescued" 20 people - "some as young as 14. Police Deputy Commissioner Scott Tod."

In the parallel U.S. Operation at the same time many more arrests and under U.S. arrests most were consenting adult with a very small percentage were underage or force related. A few years ago the FBI stopped breaking down underage related as the numbers were so small compared to the adult arrests using adult prostitutes. However in some cities such arrest data was available since its a State crime not Federal like in Canada. Best estimate is that overall less than 10% of arrests in the U.S. have anything to do with underage or force. So far in Canada it seems virtually all now related to underage, force and now the street hooker case in Sidney.

The Sydney case is of interest and the potential appeals challenge. This was street related which has increased harm to both sides and probably very high percentage related to drugs. Stella and other groups would be interesting to see if they help since they are more street related vs most of us perhaps here, who have no interest in a street worker.

In the U.S., years ago in San Francisco and Berkeley SWOP etc was almost successful stopping local enforcement of prostitution laws until neighborhood groups got involved because of the public nuisance alleged factors. If it was just about in private consenting adults it very likely would have succeeded.

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Two body rub parlours are licensed in Hamilton – King Sherman and Garden of Eden.
The city is in various stages of prosecuting two potential ones right now, including a number of charges against Venus on Parkdale Avenue North.

Venus and GOE were my favorites about 10 years ago! Did lots of reviews.

Fortunately, bylaw licensing issue not criminal.

And the good comment: "With Bill C-36, police are primarily interested in the safety of the women, not identifying the places to begin with."

I assume the Venus charges are still in the courts since February 2015 as reported here:
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5444608-body-rub-parlour-owner-staff-facing-charges-from-city/

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

To clarify the article, the term "sex worker" was coined in 1978 by sex worker activist Carol Leigh on the alt.sex.prostitution newsgroup. This is where GFE was first used (including my me) which had nothing to do with unhealhty and in the U.S. illegal acts but a real for the moment connection of two people.

This was in the pre-website days of packet readers and 300 baud modems on dial up phone lines.

 

[drlove]

Would LGBT community help to decriminalize sex work ?

That would be awesome!