Pandamonium aside- the proposed new laws

[Mable]

I have just spent some time going through the proposed legislation and have some thoughts on the matter. Just as in the old laws the state can, if it so chooses, go after participants in this hobby with a club and shut everyone down. They did not then and I doubt they will now. True, for the first time it is illegal to purshade sex in Canada. So what? While the legislation does not do an effective job protecting the prostitute, I see what it is trying to do: If a lady is in the business and all is well, then so be it, the the state is not interested. But if she is having trouble then she is free to go to the cops. (Yes I know she still has to go underground so of speak but that is another story.) Higher class girls with "good johns" are not going to be targeted, just like before. Christ, here in Ottawa you cannot walk a few blocks without encountering a massage parlour. Cops know the girls personally and know what is going on. They are left alone as long as there is no allegation of human trafficking. Do you not think that these places could not be shut down in a minute under the current law? Of course they could. The only "real change" seems to be regarding advertising: how does it affect reputable agencies and places like terb? Interesting immunity sections in the proposed Act. And, of course, the "john" is now wide open to extortion. But that again is another story.

Just some thoughts in trying to bring some sanity to the comments I have been reading. Cheers, Mable

 

[TeasePlease]

If we call it a bill, is it any less real? Less likely to pass? Lol.

MPs can and have been shut down under the old regime. The new laws just make it that much easier to shut them down.

I heard a clip from Harpers scrum with the Aussie PM yesterday. I found if very revealing of his thinking. He said the proposed (and presumably old) laws surrounding prostitution were appropriate because

The laws are not illegal because they make the activity dangerous. The activities are illegal because they are dangerous.

 

[d_jedi]

Misleading headlines are misleading.

Even though it was possible to charge guys under the old law, it practically wasn't possible.. the burden of proof of establishing that the place was a "common bawdy house" that you were found in seems much higher (I'm not a lawyer), than simply paying for sexual services (a term which is vague, and may encompass a lot more than just sex). The actual risk of prosecution seems higher.

It all depends on how police run with it. If they take their marching orders from Ottawa, and start clamping down (as we sort of saw, when police in several cities went and "visited" some ladies not too long ago..), it could be game over. Or, it could be more or less the status quo when we're dealing with freely consenting adults. There's a large unknown factor here, and I think it's best to be cautious until the dust settles, assuming this bill passes..

 

[DigitallyYours]

The laws are not illegal because they make the activity dangerous. The activities are illegal because they are dangerous.

The activities they have made illegal are the purchase of sex. So, buying sex is dangerous, but selling is not?

If the government thinks that engaging in being a prostitute is dangerous, they should criminalize it.

 

[DigitallyYours]

Even though it was possible to charge guys under the old law, it practically wasn't possible.. the burden of proof of establishing that the place was a "common bawdy house" that you were found in seems much higher (I'm not a lawyer), than simply paying for sexual services (a term which is vague, and may encompass a lot more than just sex). The actual risk of prosecution seems higher.

I think it's harder to prosecute the new law.

To prove the offence, you need to show that the John paid for the sex. This evidence could come from surveillance (unlikely) or from a witness (more likely). If they can get the SP to testify against you, you're probably going to lose. But I can't see it being the Crown policy to require SPs to testify. Aside from the fact that they are unlikely to want to get involved, it exposes them to all sorts of security and privacy issues. If all they have is a police officer saying he entered the room and found two people looking like they were having sex and there was a few hundred dollars in the girl's purse, is that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the John paid for sex? Maybe. Maybe not. Probable, but beyond a reasonable doubt? Certainly not a slam dunk.

Whereas under the old law, once they can show that it was a bawdy house (and that can be proven with undercover police testimony), all they need to charge and win a bawdy house charge is that you were found, literally to be on the premises (without lawful excuse). I think this is easier to prove. And they wouldn't need any non-police witnesses.

 

[TeasePlease]

Misleading headlines are misleading.

Even though it was possible to charge guys under the old law, it practically wasn't possible.. the burden of proof of establishing that the place was a "common bawdy house" that you were found in seems much higher (I'm not a lawyer), than simply paying for sexual services (a term which is vague, and may encompass a lot more than just sex). The actual risk of prosecution seems higher.

It all depends on how police run with it. If they take their marching orders from Ottawa, and start clamping down (as we sort of saw, when police in several cities went and "visited" some ladies not too long ago..), it could be game over. Or, it could be more or less the status quo when we're dealing with freely consenting adults. There's a large unknown factor here, and I think it's best to be cautious until the dust settles, assuming this bill passes..

As long as we're being nitpicky about terminology and semantics, it was always possible (and in fact, easy) to charge guys under the old laws. All you had to do was be "found in" an spa or incall. The prosecution of the charge depended entirely upon the place being found (no pun intended) to be a bawdy house. That was also not particularly difficult because LE generally didn't go raiding spas and incalls out of the blue. Busts usually occurred after a detective had undertaken the distasteful (ahem) work of undercover investigation prior to the bust. The common advice back then for Johns was to STFU and no plead out. Guys who were scared or dumb would fess up to knowing that certain activities were taking place, so it would make the Crown's job easier.

The activities they have made illegal are the purchase of sex. So, buying sex is dangerous, but selling is not?

If the government thinks that engaging in being a prostitute is dangerous, they should criminalize it.

Well, yes. They believe that the commercial trade in sex is dangerous.

Why must they criminalize the sale of it? To give all the fems and libs something to really scream about? Criminalizing the purchase of sex is entirely consistent with the "victim" ideology of the Cons and it is far easier (politically, and I suspect, legally) to sell.

 

[DigitallyYours]

Well, yes. They believe that the commercial trade in sex is dangerous.

Why must they criminalize the sale of it? To give all the fems and libs something to really scream about? Criminalizing the purchase of sex is entirely consistent with the "victim" ideology of the Cons and it is far easier (politically, and I suspect, legally) to sell.

I'm just saying that to make the PM's statement consistent, the government would have to criminalize the sale of sex.

If you parse his statement, he says "the activities are illegal". The only activities they have made illegal are the purchase of sex, some advertising, some public solicitation, none of which are inherently dangerous. He is clearly referring to being a prostitute and the selling of sex, which they haven't made illegal. His soundbite sounds neat because there is a play on words. Congrats to whoever wrote it for him. But really, the statement is nonsensical.

If they truly believe it is *that* dangerous, yes, they probably should criminalize it. Why? Deterrence. To protect people from themselves, of course.

 

[TeasePlease]

I'm just saying that to make the PM's statement consistent, the government would have to criminalize the sale of sex.

If you parse his statement, he says "the activities are illegal". The only activities they have made illegal are the purchase of sex, some advertising, some public solicitation, none of which are inherently dangerous. He is clearly referring to being a prostitute and the selling of sex, which they haven't made illegal. His soundbite sounds neat because there is a play on words. Congrats to whoever wrote it for him. But really, the statement is nonsensical.

If they truly believe it is *that* dangerous, yes, they probably should criminalize it. Why? Deterrence. To protect people from themselves, of course.

Let's be frank, the sentiment is nonsensical. It's a value judgment, not a safety issue. But that's besides the point. The statement struck me because it clearly elucidates their thinking on the issue.