Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

[squeezer]

It was more like wishful thinking on my part. If only!
This gang has to be exposed. I really hope someone somewhere publishes this list.

How about some of the Senators who are probably our last line of defense before this law interferes with adult consensual sex. Any appointed Tory senators who have wet their willy through a paid sexual service??

 

[squeezer]

All these fantastic articles seem to be falling on deaf ears when it comes to the Harperites!

What will it take to get it through these short sighted politicians that they are going down the wrong road??

 

[canada-man]

looks like a so called sex trade survivor outed as a liar'

Molly Mischief ‏@PixieTart May 1
@RachelRMoran Answering phones in brothels. Doesn't that make you a madam? Thought you said you were a prostitute?
Details Reply Retweet Favorite More


feck'n voters ‏@fecknvoters May 6
@RachelRMoran I knew that you wanted to criminalise all erotica, but I didn't know that you were a pimp.

 

[triton]

All these fantastic articles seem to be falling on deaf ears when it comes to the Harperites!

What will it take to get it through these short sighted politicians that they are going down the wrong road??

For the Ottawa escorts to threaten exposure of those hypocrite MP in the PC party if they don't vote against.

 

[Fallsguy]

For the Ottawa escorts to threaten exposure of those hypocrite MP in the PC party if they don't vote against.

Please stop referring to the federal Conservatives as the PCs. PC stands for Progressive Conservatives, the party whose last leader, Peter MacKay, sold out to the Canadian Alliance for promises of a future cabinet post. They're just the Conservatives. There's nothing "Progressive" about them.
The term "Tories" also referred to the old PC party. The Harper Conservatives aren't "Tories" either. Remember the term "Red Tory?" They were fiscal conservatives but social liberals, such as former Senator Hugh Segal, or Scott Brison, who is now a Liberal. You'll find none left in the modern Conservative Party.

 

[bobcat40]

Please stop referring to the federal Conservatives as the PCs. PC stands for Progressive Conservatives, the party whose last leader, Peter MacKay, sold out to the Canadian Alliance for promises of a future cabinet post. They're just the Conservatives. There's nothing "Progressive" about them.
The term "Tories" also referred to the old PC party. The Harper Conservatives aren't "Tories" either. Remember the term "Red Tory?" They were fiscal conservatives but social liberals, such as former Senator Hugh Segal, or Scott Brison, who is now a Liberal. You'll find none left in the modern Conservative Party.

Should we just refer to them as the Harper Dictatorship? Or maybe just the "Supreme Leader"?

 

[bobcat40]

I remember when the previous challenge by Bedford was won in the Ontario Superior court (and it took more than a year for a decision by OSC) still the existing laws all over Canada including Ontario was upheld so I am not sure. Are you sure?

The rulings usually take ~1 year. Understandably the initial court challenge took a little longer as this was new territory for the court. The last major decision regarding prostitution took place in the 1990s at the supreme court and obviously many things such as social attitudes have changed since then. We now also recognize the rights of the safety of prostitutes whereas before it was given little consideration. Furthermore, as it was a completely new court challenge, there were thousands of pages of evidence that needed to be presented.

In this new scenario, the "new laws" are actually just the old laws in disguise:
1. The bawdy house law is really the same as the "commercial enterprise law" with some very minor differences. It's almost impossible to function as a group of escorts in a fixed location without somehow triggering either the commercial enterprise or the advertising aspects.
2. The living off the avails law is pretty much still in place. They have added a whole section on exceptions - and then added an exception to these exceptions which bans "commercial enterprises". So if I hire a casual body guard that comes in his spare time that's ok. But all of a sudden if that body guard does this full time for a living and advertises his services, then he is running a commercial enterprise which profits from sexual services. Same thing would go for all those drivers which advertise on backpages. The incredibly thin and vague area which separates what is allowed vs. what's not is all dependent on when the service is defined as a commercial enterprise. In the law this isn't even defined. So it really is the same thing with little to no practical difference. If they really cared for these exploited individuals, the could have replaced this massive section to just say "anyone who engages in an exploitative business relationship with a prostitute and derives a material benefit from that business relationship is guilty...".
3. The public communication law is exactly the same. Even with the amendment, selling sex near a "playground, school, or community center" is illegal. This too is extremely vague as it doesn't say how far you'd have to be. I believe most well lit and safe streets are near one of those areas. Again, the whole point is to drive street prostitution away from safe places and get rid of the nuisance. Even though I don't agree with this section, it is the one which is most likely to survive a court challenge.
4. Criminalizing the clients is new and likely will be seen as too arbitrary to withstand a court challenge. It assumes that all Johns are violent abusers - so what if the John was a nice, polite client that just paid the women? The court will see that the law could and should have just been changed to charge abusive John's to meet its objective as there is no reason to have such an arbitrary law. Furthermore, if the goal of charging the Johns is to protect women, it actually doesn't accomplish this at all. This should be seen almost as common sense.
5. The advertising is the most easy to strike down as it is incredibly arbitrary and violates the freedom of expression.

This initial court challenge won't likely take as long as much of the reasoning in Bedford can just be applied here. Most of the judges work will be to analyze the practical effects of the law and distinguish that from the completely bogus objectives the law attempts to achieve. I don't expect there to be anywhere near as much evidence presented and lets be honest, the Judges have been following what has been going on in the news. They already kind of have an opinion on the matter even though they're not supposed to. There's a reason that most lawyers who have commented on the law have already proclaimed it to be unconstitutional. And those who argue in favour of bill C-36 for the most part have some kind of interest or obvious bias.

To answer your last question, the reason the law hadn't changed was that there was a stay on her ruling. Even with that, the police rarely laid charges for those offences in Ontario. That's because it would have just overloaded the court system. Even if the supreme court ruled the laws were constitutional, so much time would have elapsed since the initial charge that the accused would have the charged stayed after a section 11b defense. In short, these charges would just be tossed regardless of the outcome of the court case. The cops new this, the Attorney general knew this, so there's absolutely no point of actively enforcing. I know they still laid a couple charges here and there but those were mostly exceptional cases.

 

[squeezer]

If a lists exists, senators included it should be made public the minute the Senate rubber stamps this ridiculous law.

 

[TeasePlease]

What's Wrong with Jack Layton seeing SPs ?His party supports legalization of this business so at least they assume responsibility of their acts unlike these hypocrite conservatives.

Nothing. But by that logic, Olivia Chow should STFU about banning handguns and making firearms more restricted given that Jack seemed to enjoy blowing off a round or two hundred in photo ops with the Forces.

 

[TeasePlease]

looks like a so called sex trade survivor outed as a liar'

Molly Mischief ‏@PixieTart May 1
@RachelRMoran Answering phones in brothels. Doesn't that make you a madam? Thought you said you were a prostitute?
Details Reply Retweet Favorite More


feck'n voters ‏@fecknvoters May 6
@RachelRMoran I knew that you wanted to criminalise all erotica, but I didn't know that you were a pimp.

This is horseshit. Answering phones makes you a pimp? Those idiots might want to spend 5 minutes at an agency incall or a MP.

 

[D-Fens]

I know I'm like a broken record here, but I am still wondering why agencies don't seem all that worried..

 

[canada-man]

scum of the earth abolitionist using the MH17 disaster to promote their anti-sex fascist agenda

 

[DigitallyYours]

2. The living off the avails law is pretty much still in place. They have added a whole section on exceptions - and then added an exception to these exceptions which bans "commercial enterprises". So if I hire a casual body guard that comes in his spare time that's ok. But all of a sudden if that body guard does this full time for a living and advertises his services, then he is running a commercial enterprise which profits from sexual services. Same thing would go for all those drivers which advertise on backpages. The incredibly thin and vague area which separates what is allowed vs. what's not is all dependent on when the service is defined as a commercial enterprise. In the law this isn't even defined. So it really is the same thing with little to no practical difference. If they really cared for these exploited individuals, the could have replaced this massive section to just say "anyone who engages in an exploitative business relationship with a prostitute and derives a material benefit from that business relationship is guilty...".

I agree with you about the overall problems with the bill. However, the specific wording of this exception is "(e) received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration" So, it's not just any commercial enterprise, but one that offers sexual services for consideration. Because of that, I think a bodyguard company is ok, but an escort agency and massage parlor may not be ok.

3. The public communication law is exactly the same. Even with the amendment, selling sex near a "playground, school, or community center" is illegal. This too is extremely vague as it doesn't say how far you'd have to be. I believe most well lit and safe streets are near one of those areas. Again, the whole point is to drive street prostitution away from safe places and get rid of the nuisance. Even though I don't agree with this section, it is the one which is most likely to survive a court challenge.

I don't know if this is vague enough to be unconstitutional. The vagrancy law contains the wording "found loitering in or near a school ground, playground, public park or bathing area." so I think this, as you say, will survive a challenge. It's pretty narrow anyway, so I don't think it will really affect sex workers in any significant way, day to day. Because it's so narrow, it's also useless to the police as a method of separating the exploited from their exploiters. So basically, this provision is useless.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Please stop referring to the federal Conservatives as the PCs. PC stands for Progressive Conservatives, the party whose last leader, Peter MacKay, sold out to the Canadian Alliance for promises of a future cabinet post. They're just the Conservatives. There's nothing "Progressive" about them.
The term "Tories" also referred to the old PC party. The Harper Conservatives aren't "Tories" either. Remember the term "Red Tory?" They were fiscal conservatives but social liberals, such as former Senator Hugh Segal, or Scott Brison, who is now a Liberal. You'll find none left in the modern Conservative Party.

Correct!

 

[GPIDEAL]

This is horseshit. Answering phones makes you a pimp? Those idiots might want to spend 5 minutes at an agency incall or a MP.

Hopefully someone will call those idiots out on that.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Should we just refer to them as the Harper Dictatorship? Or maybe just the "Supreme Leader"?

Reformers also works. Evangelical Reformers.

 

[GPIDEAL]

A red light from the church

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/red-light-from-the-church/

Some Anglican clergy want the federal government to ditch its new prostitution law because it’s ‘immoral’

They’re not known for liberal attitudes toward sex, so it was no surprise when several religious groups appeared before the House of Commons justice committee last week to support the government’s new prostitution law. “We commend the government for the good work it has done in crafting Bill C-36, which courageously challenges the assumption that men are entitled to pay for sexual access to women’s bodies,” a policy analyst for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada told the committee. “Canada will be a better place as this law begins to shape society . . . where men are held accountable for their actions, and where all are safe from predators,” said the director of Defend Dignity, a Christian group aiming to abolish the sex trade in Canada.

But now, in a surprising submission, dozens of Anglican clergy are urging the government to withdraw the bill, saying it is immoral and endangers sex workers. Rev. Bruce Bryant-Scott, rector at St. Matthias parish in Victoria, sent an open letter signed by 33 of his Anglican colleagues to the justice committee. “While we can debate the pros and cons of sex work in our Canadian society, and bring our religious beliefs to bear upon both sides . . . this proposed legislation does nothing to advance the welfare of sex workers,” it reads.

Bryant-Scott is new to the campaign for sex workers’ rights and felt compelled to write the letter after a member from PEERS Victoria, a sex workers’ support group, approached him for help. “It is not moral and ethical to pass laws that would drive these people underground, even if we disapprove of what they are doing,” he says. Although the committee hearings ended on July 10, he’s hoping to get more clergy on board. The bill, crafted to replace the previous law struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in December, was amended on July 15 to make it illegal for prostitutes to solicit sex near schools, playgrounds and daycare centres.

The letter from the Anglicans included the signature of Rev. Mother Elizabeth Ann Eckert from the Sisterhood of St. John the Divine in Toronto. “I’m living the life of a celibate woman who’s taken vows to not have sex, so it’s funny to be commenting about it,” she says. “But I feel very much that these women and men who are involved in the sex trade need to have their voices heard around this, more so than those of us involved in religion.” She says the Bible provides ample support for sex workers’ rights.

However, not all Christians, or even all Anglicans, share this interpretation of scripture. Bryant-Scott says it’s a perspective held by a significant number of people within the Anglican Church of Canada, but it’s not an official stance.

Rev. David Opheim, who runs a drop-in centre for women and transgender sex workers at the All Saints Church-Community Centre in Toronto, says prostitution must be legalized in order to make the sex trade safer. “You don’t bring about change by over-regulating and over-legislating and not listening to people,” he says.

One of the main reasons for the differences of opinion among Christians is that they aren’t typically comfortable with unconventional types of sexual expression, Opheim says. “It’s one of the tragedies of the ways Christian theology has unfolded through the ages. We like to do it, but we don’t like to talk about it.

“There’s a large number of people who follow a particular Christian doctrine who feel they must impose all of their dogma on everybody else. From my perspective and the friends of mine who have signed this letter, we don’t come from that place.”

Sex workers welcome the unexpected Anglican support. “I was extremely heartened to read their letter, and very moved and very touched,” says Jean McDonald, executive director of Maggie’s: the Toronto Sex Workers Action Project, who testified against the bill at the committee on Tuesday.

McDonald says that to avoid unpleasant encounters, her group doesn’t typically communicate with religious groups. “Honestly, I don’t feel safe to do so, because their perception of sex workers is so negative. They won’t listen to me,” she says. “They think that any sex worker in the industry is a victim, that we just need to see the light and become a repentant whore. They’re not so keen on the unrepentant whores.”

"... against men who are entitled to pay for access to women's bodies".

Do we wave wads of cash to seduce unsuspecting women into granting us access to their bodies?

Who gives anyone the right to decide for those adults who voluntarilyy engage in this?

What about women who advertise or even send out notices that they want us to see them?

These religious groups have no goddamn idea what they are talking about.

 

[staggerspool]

This is horseshit. Answering phones makes you a pimp? Those idiots might want to spend 5 minutes at an agency incall or a MP.

I think the point is this: here is a "sex trade survivor," someone who supports the Conservative legislation, suggesting that she was involved with prostitution in a way that the Conservatives seem to consider pimping. Of course a phone girl is not a pimp, but the Conservatives would like everyone to think that. So this "sex trade survivor" is not actually who she says she is, in the understanding of the people she is supporting. She isn't a prostitute, she is a person who was making a living off of the prostitution of another person, and who is, in the eyes of the Conservatives, a pervert and a pimp. These tweets are pointing out the irony.

 

[staggerspool]

I know I'm like a broken record here, but I am still wondering why agencies don't seem all that worried..

Three possibilities:

1) They aren't playing their hand until it is clear what the law is.

2) They actually aren't worried.

3) Both of the above.

 

[staggerspool]

Bill C-36 ‘absolute gold’ for Tory Party base, says pollster Lyle

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/2014/...-for-tory-party-base-says-pollster-lyle/39138

But opponents of government’s anti-prostitution efforts accuse Tories of pushing unconstitutional law to score political points.

Valerie Scott, one of the plaintiffs named in last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Bedford v. Attorney General of Canada and legal coordinator for Sex Professionals of Canada, says that many sex workers feel “burned” by the fact that some of their clientele are affiliated with the Conservative Party and support Bill C-36, which passed the House committee stage last week.

“If I were to tell you about every MP, MPP, and city councillor that I either know or know of who is a client of sex workers, it would really shake things up a bit, and I’m not the only one,” Ms. Scott told The Hill Times in a phone interview. “We don’t see anything wrong with people seeing sex workers because that’s what we do, but given the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party pushing through legislation that will cause us catastrophic harm, some sex workers are saying, ‘Gee, maybe they need a taste of their own medicine.’”

National Post columnist John Ivison caused a stir in Ottawa last week when he tweeted that sex workers in Ottawa were compiling a list political clients who use their services, particularly Conservative MPs. As Mr. Ivison noted, MPs in Ottawa “have more opportunity than most” to dabble in the sex industry given their frequent absences from home while representing their constituents in Parliament.

According to his follow-up column in the National Post, members of Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist (POWER) had discussed the possibility of outing certain politicians as buyers of sex, but anger over Bill C-36 was trumped by discretion because “it would be career suicide for them, no one would want to use their services,” said to Emily Symons, chair of POWER.

Known cases of federal legislators getting caught or accused of getting caught in the act are few and far between. Long-serving Bloc MP Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, Que.) was charged with soliciting a prostitute in an RCMP sting in Ottawa’s Byward Market in the mid-nineties, but the charges were dismissed. In 1999, now-retired Conservative Senator and world-renowned heart surgeon Wilbert Keon was ordered to attend john school after pulling over to speak with what turned out to be an undercover policewoman, but no charges were laid. Mr. Keon continued to serve in the Senate until his retirement in 2010, in spite of the transgression. In the final days of the last federal election, allegations surfaced that then-NDP leader Jack Layton had been cautioned after being caught by police in a Toronto massage parlor during his time as city a councillor.

“I don’t really like the idea of outing anyone, but damn it’s tempting,” said Ms. Scott, who suggested that it was better for political figures to be implicated after Bill C-36 passes. “It would take out a sizeable chunk of the Conservative Party. They’d have to be charged for using sexual services [under Bill C-36]. Right now they wouldn’t, because it’s not law yet.”

One source told The Hill Times that the rumours of a running list of political clientele among Ottawa’s sex workers was “ridiculous.”

“No sex workers that I know in Ottawa, and I know many, have any idea where this came from,” said Sophia, an Ottawa-based sex worker, when asked by The Hill Times about the rumoured list. “You asked not so much about whether escorts were planning to out MPs, but if we had MPs as clients. My answer to that question would actually be that it’s none of anyone’s business.”

Witnesses who testified on Bill C-36 at the House Justice and Human Rights Committee earlier this month were divided on the legislation, which seeks to shift the criminality in Canada’s prostitution laws to the buyers of sex rather than the sellers. The bill is in response to last December’s Supreme Court decision in the Bedford case, which ruled that longstanding Criminal Code offences related to keeping a bawdy house, living off the avails of prostitution, and publicly communicating for the purpose of prostitution violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ Sec. 7 right to life, liberty, and the security of person by putting sex workers at increased risk of violence and victimization.

According to the government, Bill C-36 is a Canadian version of the so-called ‘Nordic Model’ used by some European countries to tackle prostitution by reducing the demand for paid sexual services.

However, the bill prohibits advertising the sale of sexual services and significantly restricts where sex workers are able to operate. Critics of the bill, including Sexual Professionals of Canada, say the bill still violates sex workers’ Charter rights by forcing them to meet their clients in out-of-sight areas, effectively putting them at risk of violence.

The committee heard from some 80 witnesses over the course of a week before voting on amendments last week. Many of the opponents of the bill said it would continue to put sex workers in harm’s way, while supporters of the bill said it would protect women and girls from exploitation and human trafficking. Last week, government MPs amended the bill to define areas that sex workers are prohibited from offering their services, namely schools, playgrounds, and daycares. The bill originally prohibited the sale of sex in any location where minors could “reasonably be expected to be present.”

Liberal justice critic Sean Casey (Charlottetown, P.E.I.) said that the amendments aren’t enough to save the legislation from being struck down on constitutional grounds.

“This bill can’t be saved by amendments. It’s not constitutionality sound and there was no tweaking that would have made it so,” said Mr. Casey, the lone Liberal member of the committee. “There are several grounds under which this will be attacked, and I think some will be successful.”

Mr. Casey cited numerous provisions in Bill C-36 that remain constitutionally vulnerable, including restrictions on communicating or advertising for the sale of sex. He accused the government of applying its “tough on crime” agenda to the Nordic model by continuing to criminalize the activities of sex workers.

“[Justice Minister] Peter MacKay on day one talked about ‘the pimps and the perverts.’ What more charged language could you come up with than that,” said Mr. Casey. “It’s all amped up to be consistent with the theme of being ‘tough on crime,’ as opposed to being guided by the evidence. That’s been consistent with their criminal justice agenda from day one. I don’t think there’s any question that while it’s bad policy, for them it’s good politics.”

The federal government had conducted polling on public attitudes towards prostitution in Canada before tabling Bill C-36 on June 4, but has withheld the findings of the Ipsos-Reid survey throughout the legislative process. The Toronto Star obtained the research last week and published findings that Canadians are deeply divided on the issue. According to the survey of 3,000 respondents, 49.8 per cent believe selling sex should be illegal, compared to 45.4 per cent who said the sale of sexual services should not be prohibited.

Greg Lyle, president of polling firm Innovative Research, said that the issue is “absolute gold” for the Conservative Party. With Canadians divided down the middle on prostitution, Mr. Lyle said, the Conservatives are able to re-energize their base and draw swing voters away from the Liberals and NDP, who have taken a more laissez-faire position on the Bedford ruling.

“Think about Liberals in the Ottawa Valley, good rock-rib Catholics. What are they going to think about the Liberal Party fighting for the rights of people to sell sex? Are they going to think that it’s a good thing? Probably not,” said Mr. Lyle, who has previously worked with Tory leaders including former Progressive Conservative leader Kim Campbell and former Ontario P.C. premier Mike Harris.

“It’s an interesting issue and it’s a much better issue in terms of the split for the Tories than many of the issues they’ve won in the past.”

Ms. Scott described the government’s approach as “legal moralism at its worst.”

“It’s to shore up money for the Conservative Party and score points for the upcoming federal election in 2015,” she said. “When you create crimes through legislating that have nothing to do with theft or violence, just making a crime out of consensual adult sex, that truly is legislative sex worker bashing, just to raise some money and some votes.”

The law may be gold for the Conservative base, but it certainly isn't gold for the government. While it is true that views on PROSTITUTION are pretty split, they are not so when the question is about the PROPOSED LAW ITSELF. According to the Angus Reid poll, the law is only supported by 35%, which is very little more than the conservative base, and is opposed by 47%. I don't see any swing voters drawn to the Conservatives by this, they are already the base. And some of that 35% are the ultra feminists, who aren't going to vote for the Conservatives under any circumstances. I think Greg Lyle is just making stuff up, interpreting his numbers in a way that makes him seem like a visionary, someone who can actually see what's going on. I'm pretty sure that this is going to loose more votes for the Conservatives (those who see this as proof that the Cons would love to push their religious morality on everyone and will do so when they get the chance) than it will win (those who would otherwise vote for Liberals or NDP, but feel so strongly about prostitution that it is their number one priority in placing their vote.http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ARG-C-36-Prostitution-June-2014.pdf