Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[canada-man]

more good news

Vancouver group ready to challenge new prostitution law in court


Pivot Legal Society says it will seek to constitutionally challenge the federal government’s new legislation on Canada’s sex trade.

Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled the “Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act” in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon.

The act criminalizes purchasing sex, communicating for the purpose of selling sex, living off the avails of prostitution and the advertising of sexual services. Sex-trade workers who look to sell services in the vicinity of children also face being arrested.

“An unbelievable step backwards, absolute tragic day for sex workers across Canada,” said Kerry Porth, Pivot chair and a former sex trade worker.

The issue of selling sexual services around children remains especially murky as it becomes hard to determine where kids can be reasonably be expected, Porth says. If a sex-trade worker had children, then they would not be able to operate out of their home, forcing them in to more secluded areas.

“Sex workers will experience violence, exploitation and will die,” Porth continued. “More sex workers will die in the three to five years it takes to bring this to the Supreme Court.”

Pivot joined the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the Gender and Sexual Health Initiative and Sex Workers United Against Violence to present research on Tuesday, which showed criminalizing the client but not sex-trade workers has a negligible effect on sex workers’ safety.

Dr. Kate Shannon, who helped conduct the research, echoed Porth’s comments.

“This on the heels of our evidence yesterday definitely seems like a slam to evidence as well as human rights,” she said.

By criminalizing clients, Shannon says sex-trade workers will go to greater lengths to conceal their clients and go away from high traffic areas.

The federal government defended its move in a press conference.

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/...y-to-challenge-new-prostitution-law-in-court/

 

[staggerspool]

"John Lowman, a criminology professor at Simon Fraser University and an expert on prostitution laws, said MacKay has failed to address the main thrusts of the Bedford decision on this and other issues, essentially inviting another round of court challenges. “This law is going to reproduce exactly the same problems constitutionally as the ones the Supreme Court struck down,” Lowman said.

But Janine Benedet, a University of British Columbia law professor and director of its Centre for Feminist Legal Studies, says MacKay has fundamentally changed the basis of any future legal battle. Whereas the old laws were largely designed to combat the public nuisance aspects of prostitution, his new one is framed in its preamble as being rooted in “grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence posed to those who engage in it.”

“They are changing the legislative focus,” Benedet said. “For the very first time we have a legislative statement that one of the objectives here is to actually reduce the demand for prostitution, and we’ve never seen that before.”

These two views of MacKay’s law couldn’t be less similar. Lowman argues the minister has simply refused to take seriously the court’s clearly expressed concern for the harm prostitutes face because of laws that force them to operate in shadowy, inherently more dangerous ways. Benedet suggests MacKay has given his law such lofty goals that any limitations it places on the way prostitution is carried out are constitutionally justified."

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-new-prostitution-laws-changing-the-terms-of-the-debate-or-missing-the-point-entirely/

The second opinion might betray the method in Mackay's madness. Scarey.

 

[freedom3]

"Pivot Legal Society says it will seek to constitutionally challenge the federal government’s new legislation on Canada’s sex trade."

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/1055689/vancouver-group-ready-to-challenge-new-prostitution-law-in-court/

I hope they don't. It is either the nordic model or full criminalization. McKay's law actually isn't that bad because the escorts can still advertise and this will provide agencies with some cover.

 

[staggerspool]

I hope they don't. It is either the nordic model or full criminalization. McKay's law actually isn't that bad because the escorts can still advertise and this will provide agencies with some cover.

Well, full criminalization is clearly not the choice of the majority of Canadians, so that is very politically dangerous for the government. It might not be a prime issue for a lot of people, but it demonstrates the social conservative bias that many people fear in this government. It ain't abortion, but it demonstrates what they clearly think about this sort of stuff. I think it could make a major difference in the coming election.

 

[drlove]

Well, full criminalization is clearly not the choice of the majority of Canadians, so that is very politically dangerous for the government. It might not be a prime issue for a lot of people, but it demonstrates the social conservative bias that many people fear in this government. It ain't abortion, but it demonstrates what they clearly think about this sort of stuff. I think it could make a major difference in the coming election.

Yes... the public at large could rail against the idea of social conservatism gone berserk, coupled with forced morality. We do after all, live in a secular society. The role of the church as an institution interacting with the state belongs in the Victorian area.

 

[anotherwebguy]

It's hard to believe it could all end. This is the perfect storm to wipe out the hobby as we all know and love it. The government has set it's sights squarely on hobbyists and ultimately the Terb community in every manner possible, from criminalizing advertising of services, to the purchase of those services.

With the stroke of the government's legislative pen, we here have all been transformed into instant criminals, both the providers and the purchases of the service.

No way I am risking 5 years in jail for some ass, and I doubt few here will either.

Oh well, I have been spending waaay too much money anyway.

As they say, "So long, it's been good to know you"

 

[wilbur]

I hope they don't. It is either the nordic model or full criminalization. McKay's law actually isn't that bad because the escorts can still advertise and this will provide agencies with some cover.

Looks like sex-workers will be allowed to hire help such as drivers, bodyguard, receptionists, but not from a commercial enterprise, and that would probably rule out escort agencies and massage parlours. I think that this will drive escort agencies out of business.... unless it becomes worthwhile for organized crime.

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.

[You profit from another person's sex business, and you go to jail]

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

(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.

[except if you get reasonable compensation from the sex-worker and you're no involved in encouraging the sex-worker]

5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
or (2) if that person

(e) received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services
for consideration.

[and the hired help is not involved with another business that sells sex for money]

 

[anotherwebguy]

Yes... the public at large could rail against the idea of social conservatism gone berserk, coupled with forced morality. We do after all, live in a secular society. The role of the church as an institution interacting with the state belongs in the Victorian area.

You forget that not only are social conservatives, but also feminists and apparently Justin Trudeau who states ""prostitution itself is a form of violence against women." all support this type of enforced morality.

 

[wilbur]

I hope they don't. It is either the nordic model or full criminalization. McKay's law actually isn't that bad because the escorts can still advertise and this will provide agencies with some cover.

Sex workers will be able to advertise, but only if they do so directly for themselves. Nobody is going to be allowed to do it for someone else. It's not clear whether TERB, kijiji or a newspaper is included in the general prohibition to 'advertise' for someone else. A sex-worker puts an ad in a paper. Is the paper advertising as well? If a sex worker puts up a website (legal), is the ISP that hosts the website also deemed to be advertising?

 

[anotherwebguy]

Just thinking, this legislation may also make it much more dangerous for hobbyists that dare to venture out...robberies, shake downs, scams, all will become more prevalent because who would dare report them? Would a hobbyist that is a victim of a crime (while engaged in the crime of buying sex) ever report that crime to the police? Also, there is a chance that the criminal underworld, who are traditionally adept at operating in below-board situations, will now find themselves the only organizations equipped to still provide services, which means more danger to the few hobbyists that may be left.

 

[baby_blue]

This bill does criminalized prostitution and will result in eliminating the sex trade industry totally. Nobody in their right mind would want to be the first person charged under the new bill. I know that if this law passes terb will be shut down and nobody will risk going to see a SP. The cops will be surrounding all the incall areas. The cops will be looking at all the SP advertisement, and going to setup a stake out in the neighborhood to nap a john. So The government is criminalizing an act and its categorizing prostitution as murder and rape. A person who commits an act of murder cannot go to the supreme court of canada and tells the judge that the cops are violating his rights to murder a person. So pretty much it is over.

 

[wilbur]

wilbur,

Just MHO but I think that under 286.5(2) they would be allowed to do so, but probably would need to be able to provide a proof that they were mandated by the SP herself.

286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.

286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for
(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or
(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services.

A bit further reading and it seems that requiring proof that an ad came directly from a SP would be besides the point. Whereas a sex-worker would not be charged with advertising sexual services, a judge can order the seizure of ANY material that promotes the sale of sex:

"164.1(5) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the material is.....the advertisement of sexual services available, it may order the custodian of the computer system to delete the material."

So sex-workers would be free to advertise on the internet, until removed by court order. The order does not apply to foreign jurisdictions, so I think that if TERB would have to move their operation and server to a foreign country, or else risk being in contempt of court for not obeying it's order.

Clearly, MacKay is seeking the abolition of the sex trade by snuffing it out. Having sex workers place themselves more at risk because they have to seek clients on the street (which will also be illegal for them) is not in accordance with the spirit of the SCC decision.

 

[wilbur]

This bill does criminalized prostitution and will result in eliminating the sex trade industry totally. Nobody in their right mind would want to be the first person charged under the new bill. I know that if this law passes terb will be shut down and nobody will risk going to see a SP. The cops will be surrounding all the incall areas. The cops will be looking at all the SP advertisement, and going to setup a stake out in the neighborhood to nap a john. So The government is criminalizing an act and its categorizing prostitution as murder and rape. A person who commits an act of murder cannot go to the supreme court of canada and tells the judge that the cops are violating his rights to murder a person. So pretty much it is over.

Actually, upon conviction, you could apply for an appeal based on the violation of your rights under the Charter. It think there would be a good case to argue that you are not treated equally under the law because whereas the selling of sex is legal, buying would be not. It also raises the issue of aiding and abetting the breaking of the law. A legal ad for the sale of sexual services is, in reality, counselling to commit an offense, which is against a section of the Criminal Code. The Bill explicitly allows the selling of sex, and exempts the sex worker from being charged with advertising of sexual services, but the product of this results in an offense against the Criminal Code: a contradiction. The law cannot be constitutional if it condones or abets the breaking of another law.

 

[wilbur]

Also, there is a chance that the criminal underworld, who are traditionally adept at operating in below-board situations, will now find themselves the only organizations equipped to still provide services, which means more danger to the few hobbyists that may be left.

I don't think that the criminal underworld would necessarily mean unreasonable physical risk to the hobbyist. However, if they do pick up on the sex trade, they will invariably promote the other nasty things mixed up with organized crime, such as the drug trade, rackets such as protection, exploitation of sex-workers who will be difficult to rescue because police would have to mount considerable investigations to penetrate crime syndicates. Right now, it's not worth the big time underworld's time and effort to be involved in the sex trade because it's is fairly open and there is not very much value-added services they can offer; there is little benefit for now. But forcing sex-workers underground means they would need facilitators, and facilitators see profit where supply gets limited and demand is not. The will, after all, demand a high mark-up for taking the risk of going to jail.

Prohibition of alcohol in the 1930's meant the proliferation of organized crime. Prohibition of sex for sale will do the same thing. Stupid MacKay.

 

[wilbur]

I might be mistaken but, because 286.5 applies, these ads would not be contrary to 286.4. Possible?

I fully agree with you about the intention of MacKay with this bill, and how it relates to the SCC decision.

Section 286.5 only provides for an exemption of sex-workers from prosecution as per 286.4 if they post ads. However, 168(8) does not explicitly allows ads from sex-workers.

In any case, it's unclear and we'll see how it evolves in committee, one way or another. But in keeping with the spirit of the Bill, MacKay wants to abolish prostitution without sending sex-workers to prison, because that would be a clear affront to the SCC. He's just willing to let them get beat up instead because they didn't have enough time to week out the bad clients.

 

[GPIDEAL]

This bill does criminalized prostitution and will result in eliminating the sex trade industry totally. Nobody in their right mind would want to be the first person charged under the new bill. I know that if this law passes terb will be shut down and nobody will risk going to see a SP. The cops will be surrounding all the incall areas. The cops will be looking at all the SP advertisement, and going to setup a stake out in the neighborhood to nap a john. So The government is criminalizing an act and its categorizing prostitution as murder and rape. A person who commits an act of murder cannot go to the supreme court of canada and tells the judge that the cops are violating his rights to murder a person. So pretty much it is over.

I agree. This proposed law is designed to criminalize purchasing and advertising, effectively choking the income source for SPs, effectively eliminating the industry all together.

 

[GPIDEAL]

wilbur,

Just MHO but I think that under 286.5(2) they would be allowed to do so, but probably would need to be able to provide a proof that they were mandated by the SP herself (or himself).

286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.

286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for
(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or
(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services.

Subsection 2 clearly provides immunity from prosecution against an escort who even lures a john with their provocative advertising. The indictable offence is by the purchaser or 3rd party advertiser or anyone who derives a benefit in association with the provision of an SPs sexual services.

As someone else said, the police won't be able to enforce this but the few examples they make will be enough of a deterrent.

We might as well live in fucking Iran or Afghanistan, or be ruled by the Taliban.

 

[lookingman69]

Same old shit different pile.

Can get pinched by the po po all the same if they do a sting, same as it always was.

Internet advertising goes on site that are not hosted in Canada, everyone uses burner phone and terms like paying for the time. Unless you get specific about what you are paying for it the same as before.

Did you really think they were going to legalize it LOL.. They just wrote the same old crap as before saying it in a different way trying to put the spin on it that they are saving all the poor SPs.

In the end, few guys get pinched and pay fines, few SP get hauled in off the street, someone take it to court and after 10 years gets it rules unconstitutional, so the cycle starts again with whatever the flavor of the day is. This is what will happen from now to eternity in Canada.

 

[GPIDEAL]

In terms of the advertising, it`s going to be near impossible to implement, as the seizure provisions in s. 164 can only be acted upon if the material is posted within the jurisdiction of the court issuing the warrant. As wilbur pointed out, if this the advertisement is done off-shore, the court has no jurisdiction.

This is already what`s happening in Sweden and France, and they`ve got no way to prevent it.

Does it actually say that for online advertising? POSTED IN THE JURISDICTION is not the same as HOSTED IN THE JURISDICTION, no?

 

[GPIDEAL]

Same old shit different pile.

Can get pinched by the po po all the same if they do a sting, same as it always was.

Internet advertising goes on site that are not hosted in Canada, everyone uses burner phone and terms like paying for the time. Unless you get specific about what you are paying for it the same as before.

Did you really think they were going to legalize it LOL.. They just wrote the same old crap as before saying it in a different way trying to put the spin on it that they are saving all the poor SPs.

In the end, few guys get pinched and pay fines, few SP get hauled in off the street, someone take it to court and after 10 years gets it rules unconstitutional, so the cycle starts again with whatever the flavor of the day is. This is what will happen from now to eternity in Canada.

Are you speaking from the American perspective where it's illegal period?

We don't have stings up here in Canada. But I like your suggestions about terms, although if a cop finds an envelope filled with cash on you, will it be ignored if it says "for Mama" on it?

SPs won't like throw-away phones assuming they are untraceable, etc.

It's a BIG change from before. Being an escort was not illegal but being a john is. The penalty is not just a fine. A lot of guys if not most can't afford to get pinched period!