Prostitution Appeal to Be Heard Monday

[fuji]

What laws will be changed that will make it safer to work as an escort? With the laws changed, what will change in the way escorts do business that will make it safer?

The arguments presented in court make it pretty clear. Street walkers, for example, will be able to spend more time grilling prospective clients, asking questions, verifying information, without fear of a communications charge, before getting into the car.

Other escorts could turn to reputable, reliable security firms to secure their business, rather than hiding away in apartments, relying on pimps and unregulated drivers for some small measure of security.

 

[loggietech2]

KBear,

Probably buried earlier in the thread, but if the decision is upheld then many of the current laws around "incalls" would be repealed. So the "bawdy-house" (that basically criminalizes incalls for both clients and SPs), solicitation (communicating in a public place, a la streetwalkers), and some "living off the avails" provisions would no longer apply. Incalls (currently illegal, although not strongly enforced unless someone complains) would be ok and SPs could work indoors in areas they know well/have control over, streetwalkers could conduct their business without fear of being handled by LE (and take the time to assess potential clients for threats) and SPs could hire security, live with significant others/children without fear of having them charged/taken away by child services. Of course, if the Court of Appeal for Ontario upholds the decision, it could still go to the Supreme Court, and even then it is open to Parliament/provinces/cities to make new laws around the issue (e.g. criminalize other behaviours, regulation, bylaws etc).

By the way, love the photography, but seriously, so many of your "clients" and managers pull the bait and switch (i.e. the SP is real, but is not the actual person at the location/number) that its sometimes downright painful for those who partake of Asian providers.

 

[oldjones]

What the fuck are you going on about? They took a picture of her leaving court. Should have they have self censored, thinking we should try to snap a picture of her wearing something different?
Unless the article was ABOUT her clothing, then this is perhaps the stupidist post I've ever seen you make.

And a picture of the plaintiff in a court case is required for what part of public understanding of the issues? Tabloid stuff.

What's stupid is going on about it as if her fashion sense was any part of the issue.

 

[rld]

And a picture of the plaintiff in a court case is required for what part of public understanding of the issues? Tabloid stuff.

What's stupid is going on about it as if her fashion sense was any part of the issue.

Now let's not go loopy on the media...a picture of the plaintiff is completely normal in court coverage always has been. What it does is humanize the story...which is important.

It's a newspaper not an academic journal.

You are singing from the Palin playbook.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The arguments presented in court make it pretty clear. Street walkers, for example, will be able to spend more time grilling prospective clients, asking questions, verifying information, without fear of a communications charge, before getting into the car.

Other escorts could turn to reputable, reliable security firms to secure their business, rather than hiding away in apartments, relying on pimps and unregulated drivers for some small measure of security.

You know Fuji, the current laws drive some dancers (don't ask who or where readers) to take a chance to offer a menu within a SC, but that as we know can get them into trouble or fired. They do it there because they have protection. So clearly, there's an argument for security, a receptionist, what have you.

 

[oldjones]

Now let's not go loopy on the media...a picture of the plaintiff is completely normal in court coverage always has been. What it does is humanize the story...which is important.

It's a newspaper not an academic journal.

You are singing from the Palin playbook.

And "Humanize the story" is what tabloid editors do. The case concerns issues of criminal law and constitutional rights, not a beauty pageant nor a fashion show, nor a bodice-ripping weeper. What we humans need from the media is more explication of the issues and arguments presented, not pretty pictures. That's Enquirer stuff, no matter how commonly other media stoop to it.

Sorry, I don't bother with Palin—a fine example of a tabloid-invented 'personality' of no other importance. Yet.—so I can't interpret what a Palin Playbook might be.

 

[qwertyuio]

What concerns me about this case is that the entire challenge rests on the fact that prostitution in and of itself is legal. In the event that the decision is upheld the government could just make it illegal and the entire case is moot. If that were to happen I'd expect a massive LE crackdown on the industry. If the decision is upheld I hope everyone will continue to keep a low profile. The government would probably be less likely to take that action if there are no real problems that crop up with the decision.

Another thing, just because an incall would be legal doesn't mean it would be without hassle. An apartment/condo complex/homeowner's association could likely still evict you over it.

 

[KBear]

What I don't get is why the government and police don't REALLY crack down on the things they say are their real reasons. Human trafficking and forced prostitution.

I hear often that the cops drop by to chat with a girl, check ID for age, and ask her if she is ok. They tell her if there are any problems to call police. In incidents that I know of where the girls have called the police, the police have showed up fast and in force. The girls have told me they have been treated well by the police.

 

[rld]

I am not sure on what basis a subsequent Supreme Court challenge could invalidate a law making prostitution itself outright illegal but I have a gut feeling, that such a law would not hold up either.

Then again, I have read in enough SCC cases that if it is the intent of Parliament, then the law should stand absent some egregious infringement on human rights.

What I don't get is why the government and police don't REALLY crack down on the things they say are their real reasons. Human trafficking and forced prostitution.

I don't see any constitutional bar to a flat out ban on prostitution. It will boil down to a political question not a legal one.

A lot of incalls would run afoul of by-laws prohibiting businesses and probably already do.

 

[qwertyuio]

And that is why Judge Himel gave the governments time to get ready. Zoning by-laws related to land use could be implemented to deal with this. Much like massage parlours and strip joints are restricted to certain areas.

It's not just the laws though, my lease prohibits me from running any kind of business from my apartment.

 

[TeasePlease]

I don't see any constitutional bar to a flat out ban on prostitution. It will boil down to a political question not a legal one.

A lot of incalls would run afoul of by-laws prohibiting businesses and probably already do.

Incalls would likely run afoul of zoning by-laws, and possibly other provisions that apply to specific services offered.

 

[KBear]

.. Incalls .. would be ok … streetwalkers could conduct their business … SPs could hire security, live with significant others/children …

Thanks.

By the way, love the photography, but seriously, so many of your "clients" and managers pull the bait and switch (i.e. the SP is real, but is not the actual person at the location/number) that its sometimes downright painful for those who partake of Asian providers.

Sometimes the Asian girls are on rotation or let another girl fill in for her on days off, and that is a problem. I tell the girls that there is little point in doing pictures and trying to build up a good reputation, only let some other girl who is often older and not as service oriented spoil it all. There has been a bigger problem with Asian places steeling pictures I have taken off sites and using them to promote their B&S operation.

 

[oldjones]

Side benefit of being able to run a legal incall; being able to do 'cease and desist' stuff from, and about, a legal address, with real lawyers, and not just guys who break knee caps. Kneecap specialists usually aren't worth the trouble for some photos. But a legal incall running B&S could be prosecuted.

 

[KBear]

Side benefit of being able to run a legal incall; being able to do 'cease and desist' stuff from, and about, a legal address, with real lawyers, and not just guys who break knee caps. Kneecap specialists usually aren't worth the trouble for some photos. But a legal incall running B&S could be prosecuted.

The theft problem on TheRedZone at least, has been pretty much dealt with in a few ways. I have not looked much at other directory sites, but the sites are often pretty good about pulling stolen pictures. There are some other things being done, and could be done, but there is only so much time in the day.

Retaining a lawyer is a nice idea, but not at all practical.

 

[wigglee]

Considering that a basic BC provincial referendum costs in the vicinity of $2 million and can easily come in at $18 million. The HST referendum in September is expected to cost ~$30 million. With this from aprovince that should know how to run one, so I suspect your estimate of ~$100,000 is a tad low for a nation wide referendum. A provincial referendum with all the bells and whistle, like the Quebec referendum, costs in the vicinity of $70 million. Now take those cost across Canada and it becomes expensive and unmanageable; for what? It's apparent your just having an idiot moment, don't know what you're talking about, or just doing what you try and accuse others of doing. It's hard to tell with you sometimes though.

Look, if you don't want to post, just don't post. Don't expect others to help you with your compulsions.

Ramble on , man.........ever hear of the internet? We could be having referendums and elections at any time and for next to nothing if politicians actually believed that democracy meant "government by the people". The old "cost of referendums" excuse is now officially bogus.

 

[Aardvark154]

What manner of men (or women) goes to dungeons? I make no moral judgment, just curious.

Presumably someone who is interested in DS/BDSM. After all there is a section for it here on TERB.

 

[rld]

Ramble on , man.........ever hear of the internet? We could be having referendums and elections at any time and for next to nothing if politicians actually believed that democracy meant "government by the people". The old "cost of referendums" excuse is now officially bogus.

If other electronic voting systems are any example...next to nothing is an exaggeration.

But how about this, you get the constitution re-written to make us a direct democracy instead of a representative one.

And then don't whine when the vote goes against you...

 

[blackrock13]

Ramble on , man.........ever hear of the internet? We could be having referendums and elections at any time and for next to nothing if politicians actually believed that democracy meant "government by the people". The old "cost of referendums" excuse is now officially bogus.

It's not rambling as the estimate for the HST referendum is for this fall and they do have the internet available and chose not to use it. If you trust voting on the internet for something like this, you're dreaming. That system is ripe for fraud and still very expensive. They can't even run a political convention internet vote in this country without screw ups so it remains up to the olde fashion way of doing vote like this.

As far as the average knowledge on government issues. Wasn't it just a few weeks ago a street poll in TO asked people to identify their provincial leaders and only one old guy could. Most of the general public are really dumb when it comes to this type of thing.

From; http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/553762

The prime minister is not our head of state. We are not a representative republic. We do not elect our prime minister directly.

A new survey for the Dominion Institute taken in the aftermath of this month's political crisis in which the word "prorogue" was dusted off political science textbooks suggests a woeful ignorance of our system of government.

For example, results of the Ipsos Reid survey show 75 per cent of Canadians asked believe the prime minister, or the Governor General, is head of state. Bzzzz – wrong.

It's actually the Queen. Only 24 per cent answered correctly.

Marc Chalifoux, president of the Dominion Institute, said he decided to commission the survey after an opposition coalition threatened to topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government, and Harper responded by asking Governor General Michaëlle Jean to shut down Parliament until late January. Chalifoux wanted to gauge people's understanding of what had transpired.

"Canadians certainly were interested by what was going on in Ottawa, but lacked in many cases the basic knowledge to form informed opinions," Chalifoux said.

The four questions asked "aren't just trivia," he said. "These are part of the basic tool kit of knowledge that citizens need to function in a democracy."

A question 90 per cent did answer correctly was about the Governor General's power to refuse to call an election at the request of a prime minister who no longer has majority support. She has the power.

The Dec. 9-12 survey of 1,070 people found the lowest knowledge in Quebec – 70 per cent of Quebecers, for example, wrongly believed Canadians directly elect the prime minister. Only 35 per cent of Atlantic Canadians made that mistake. The survey is said to be accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

More results in the survey. The findings should shock you. Only 40% of the canadian passed the quizz.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=1255

Do you think the Canadian general public can make the best/proper discisions? Not me.

 

[Rockslinger]

Presumably someone who is interested in DS/BDSM. After all there is a section for it here on TERB.

You're kidding, right? There's a section right here on TERB. How come I have never ventured there? Just asking, not making a moral judgment.

 

[Rockslinger]

I don't see any constitutional bar to a flat out ban on prostitution.

This is scary. Does that mean our government can also make adultry illegal? What about making homos illegal again?