ONtarion Court Decision this Monday!

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

I disagree. Yes, the industry self-regulates rather efficiently on the agency/indy level, but there is still room for improvement, and it's still operating in a shady area, due to the 3 provisions. If you have an activity that has been judged legal, yet everything around it is illegal, then you endanger the people in it, and are hypocritical. That is what must be changed.

You can disagree. I am just telling you what I have discussed with others. There is more then just safety issues here. There is huge financial issues as well. After all these years, with the net, with co-operation between indies and agencies behind the scenes with LE, the safety factor issue has gone down. Not so much for SW. Now you change all that and you will see that Toronto will not be the hot spot to visit your SP's anymore. Sometimes having things partial legal is better for those in it. I am not going to get into a debate about it as everyone has their own opinion, but I know many owners and indies who are hoping this does not pass.

 

[sasemohan123]

You can disagree. I am just telling you what I have discussed with others. There is more then just safety issues here. There is huge financial issues as well. After all these years, with the net, with co-operation between indies and agencies behind the scenes with LE, the safety factor issue has gone down. Not so much for SW. Now you change all that and you will see that Toronto will not be the hot spot to visit your SP's anymore. Sometimes having things partial legal is better for those in. I an not going to get into a debate about as everyone has their own opinion, but I know many owners and indies who are hoping this does not pass.

Of course THEY do not want it to pass... It is just as simple as there is no more of the need for agencies, is there? I will speculate that girls will still "work for" agencies but they will demand more cut from the donation, if the law pass. In the end the supply may increase and more "open" thus will drive the price down, making it much harder for guys like me to stay away from SPs, LOL.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Of course THEY do not want it to pass... It is just as simple as there is no more of the need for agencies, is there? I will speculate that girls will still "work for" agencies but they will demand more cut from the donation, if the law pass. In the end the supply may increase and more "open" thus will drive the price down, making it much harder for guys like me to stay away from SPs, LOL.

No - Sorry, if anything it will drive prices up. With Gov't involvement - that is what always happens. Things can go crazy. Gov't licensing, taxing, by-law codes for running incalls. It will no longer be hotels bid through price-line where you get the room cheap. Who do you think is going to pay the difference?

And if girls start demanding more of cut, where you do think that cut will come from? Not the agency, it will be the client's pocket.

That is not even getting into how it will be impossible for some indies to continue to operate and let's not mention how many more will have to take this further underground for various reasons and how that will actually make it less safe for women to work.

Sorry guys, but unless you have been a worked on the other side in some form in this industry, you just can not fathom all the negatives that this flood gate could be opening.

I know there are many worried people right now. I feel for them.

 

[qwertyuio]

Well it's 11. Who else is hitting f5 at the globe and mail homepage?

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

The changes are actually good I think. I think this works a bit better for both sides.

I think they did good. If I understand 100% correctly.

 

[sasemohan123]

No - Sorry, if anything it will drive prices up. With Gov't involvement - that is what always happens. Things can go crazy. Gov't licensing, taxing, by-law codes for running incalls. It will no longer be hotels bid through price-line where you get the room cheap. Who do you think is going to pay the difference?

And if girls start demanding more of cut, where you do think that cut will come from? Not the agency, it will be the client's pocket.

That is not even getting into how it will be impossible for some indies to continue to operate and let's not mention how many more will have to take this further underground for various reasons and how that will actually make it less safe for women to work.

Sorry guys, but unless you have been a worked on the other side in some form in this industry, you just can not fathom all the negatives that this flood gate could be opening.

I know there are many worried people right now. I feel for them.

Fear-mongnering, i'd said. Base on my opinion:

-There would be less/no fear for hobbyists thus they will not need the agencies to safeguard hobbying, only for the "selection" purpose.
-There would be no fear from SP about LE, thus they will come out in the open more reducing the need for agencies to advertise, "protection",...there might be more SPs starting thus intensify competition, thus reducing prices.
-There would be no need for going "further underground" as you can see SCs, MPs ARE operating "above ground" for ages with all the scary measures you are talking about.
-There would not be reason to continue using "cheap hotel rooms" like you said, why? Besides, like Sassy-Angels has done and kept it as their only way: why not setting up condos as such location, i'm sure it is CHEAPER to own a condo than renting, even from price-line.

All are speculations, but i do not sympathise with agencies' owners in this "out-of-our-hands" law.

 

[dreamblade]

Decision released! OCA upholds Himel's ruling on 210 and 212(j), but overrules her judgment on 213(c)

Bawdy house and Avails law has been struck down. Communicating for Purposes of Prostitution is still illegal.

This is the best outcome, and a clear victory.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Decision released! OCA upholds Himel's ruling on 210 and 212(j), but overrules her judgment on 213(c)

Bawdy house and Avails law has been struck down. Communicating for Purposes of Prostitution is still illegal.

This is the best outcome, and a clear victory

But the govt can still appeal this, right??

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

Fear-mongnering, i'd said. Base on my opinion:

-There would be less/no fear for hobbyists thus they will not need the agencies to safeguard hobbying, only for the "selection" purpose.
-There would be no fear from SP about LE, thus they will come out in the open more reducing the need for agencies to advertise, "protection",...there might be more SPs starting thus intensify competition, thus reducing prices.
-There would be no need for going "further underground" as you can see SCs, MPs ARE operating "above ground" for ages with all the scary measures you are talking about.
-There would not be reason to continue using "cheap hotel rooms" like you said, why? Besides, like Sassy-Angels has done and kept it as their only way: why not setting up condos as such location, i'm sure it is CHEAPER to own a condo than renting, even from price-line.

All are speculations, but i do not sympathise with agencies' owners in this "out-of-our-hands" law.

I am sorry but you are client and therefore your knowledge base is limited on the actual administration side of this industry for all parties concerned.

However, the ruling has come down. I think it is good for all involved and will not have a real change effect to what is already going on with the top providers and agencies in the industry.

 

[TeasePlease]

I disagree. Yes, the industry self-regulates rather efficiently on the agency/indy level, but there is still room for improvement, and it's still operating in a shady area, due to the 3 provisions. If you have an activity that has been judged legal, yet everything around it is illegal, then you endanger the people in it, and are hypocritical. That is what must be changed.

It's not hypocrisy. It's the moral dilemma of criminalizing the act (consenting adults, etc). Criminalizing the peripheral acts was just easier.

The premise of your position is that the activity itself should be permissible. That may well be the consensus on this board. But, i'm not so sure it is as accepted by society as a whole.

 

[qwertyuio]

The first part of the decision is:

326] To remedy the constitutional problem posed by s. 210, we strike the word “prostitution” from the definition of “common bawdy-house” in s. 197(1) as it applies to s. 210.

S. 197 of the (old) criminal code reads:

“common bawdy-house” means a place that is

(a) kept or occupied, or

(b) resorted to by one or more persons

for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;

So if I'm reading this right, being found in a bawdy house is still illegal, but prostitution being practiced on the premises isn't sufficient proof that a premises is a bawdy house. They have to prove that it is "for the purposes of acts of indecency" which is a little too vague for my liking,

 

[TeasePlease]

The first part of the decision is:



S. 197 of the (old) criminal code reads:



So if I'm reading this right, being found in a bawdy house is still illegal, but prostitution being practiced on the premises isn't sufficient proof that a premises is a bawdy house. They have to prove that it is "for the purposes of acts of indecency" which is a little too vague for my liking,

No kidding.

 

[papasmerf]

The first part of the decision is:



S. 197 of the (old) criminal code reads:



So if I'm reading this right, being found in a bawdy house is still illegal, but prostitution being practiced on the premises isn't sufficient proof that a premises is a bawdy house. They have to prove that it is "for the purposes of acts of indecency" which is a little too vague for my liking,

laws are seldom if ever written without wiggle room

 

[sasemohan123]

I am sorry but you are client and therefore your knowledge base is limited on the actual administration side of this industry for all parties concerned.

However, the ruling has come down. I think it is good for all involved and will not have a real change effect to what is already going on with the top providers and agencies in the industry.

Do remember: pimping is still ILLEGAL.

 

[papasmerf]

Do remember: pimping is still ILLEGAL.

this too is a good thing

Would like to see the laws strengthened world wide against them and child prostitution.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

The first part of the decision is:



S. 197 of the (old) criminal code reads:



So if I'm reading this right, being found in a bawdy house is still illegal, but prostitution being practiced on the premises isn't sufficient proof that a premises is a bawdy house. They have to prove that it is "for the purposes of acts of indecency" which is a little too vague for my liking,

From my understanding, no. This will make is so that you as a client or working lady can not be charged with any brawdy house charges unless the brawdy house is deemed to be used for things like human trafficing. So watch the $80 incall Asian places, but going to Sassy's for example, will not be an issue.

That is my understanding, maybe a real lawyer can clarify.

Also, I believe there is one more possible appeal process that can be filed but I can be wrong about that as well.

Do remember: pimping is still ILLEGAL.

So administrative means pimping????? Good to know. Guess that means I am a pimp because I had some of the things that would be consider the "business/administrative" side of this industry with photos and website design. Thanks.

GTG now - have more "pimping" to do.

 

[blackrock13]

This will also have an effect on SCs as well, making it more friendly for bartenders and bouncers who work in SCs that get hassled. Not a total change, but a good redress.

 

[sasemohan123]

From my understanding, no. This will make is so that you as a client or working lady can not be charged with any brawdy house charges unless the brawdy house is deemed to be used for things like human trafficing. So watch the $80 incall Asian places, but going to Sassy's for example, will not be an issue.

That is my understanding, maybe a real lawyer can clarify.

Also, I believe there is one more possible appeal process that can be filed but I can be wrong about that as well.

In a nut shell, be found communicating for purpose is still illegal, pimping is still illegal, but going to and working in a brothel is no longer illegal. The decision today provides the federal gov to propose a new law, to appeal the decision to Canada Supreme Court within ONE YEAR.

 

[sasemohan123]

Any lawyer in the "house" can verify the impact of today ruling regarding any extras in SCs, MPs?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Communicating for the purposes of prostitution is still illegal.

What does that mean?? Does that just refer to streetwalkers??