Those who said here that the legal action was misguided have been proved correct. Even Alan Young has said that in retrospect it was poorly conceived.
Puritan Harper CONS to "fast track" prostitution bill
- Thread starter d_jedi
- Start date
Sorry but if you really think this bill is going to kill the sex trade you are one ignorant person. NOTHING has ever been able to kill the act of selling sex for money. NOTHING, EVER in the history of our species. Canada is great in many ways, but we are not smart enough to get rid prostitution.
It is and has been illegal in many countries. Has been illegal in the US all this time. There are TONS of agencies and indies working the US with no issues.
Sorry but your blanket statements and opinion makes me laugh.
Swedes aren't losing sleep over it, they have 5 cities to quench their thirsts in: Copenhagen, Hamburg, Berlin, Prague and Amsterdam.
I'm worried for Peter MacKay. When this passed, he's going to be followed by the press next time he goes to cop a blow job. Maybe he can arrange an outcall at Mike Duffy's place.
I'm worried for Peter MacKay. When this passed, he's going to be followed by the press next time he goes to cop a blow job. Maybe he can arrange an outcall at Mike Duffy's place.
How about we meet back up here in a year or two and take a tally because there is no way it will cut down that much either.
I know this may come across as rude even thought that is not the intent but men will always think with their dick over their brain given enough time. TERB is known to only represent about 20-30% at max of a providers/agencies total business and more then 25% of TERB member have said they will not change a thing. Your numbers are way off the mark. To the point of ridiculous to be honest.
You are incredibly naive if you think that the new law makes you safer. It only makes you safer if you can find customers who don't mind being arrested.
Under the old law customers weren't too worried about you keeping records or surveillance or collecting some contact information for your security as the only way customers could be arrested before was if they were "found" in your in call. Proof they had been there yesterday wasn't evidence of a crime, only on the spot arrests. That limited the police to arresting very few people.
Now under the new law your customers will shun your location unless there's some sort of guarantee of secrecy, anonymity, etc, beyond what they used to expect. They will be far less likely to submit to background checks because it makes them arrestable, even months later. The new law makes it possible for police to seize your phone records and ledger and charge anyone who they can prove purchased your services.
You can certainly try and set up a safer incall and demand references and contact information, but you will see a sharp decline in the number of customers willing to do those things.
The new law is a disaster for everyone.
What you wanted was a system where you could check customer's ID, in case something happened. What you had was a system where they allowed reference checks and contact information. What you will get now is a demand from customers for total anonymity.
Ignorant and misinformed but right???? LOL Ok. that is funny.
So do enlighten us dumb ignorant folk please. What "border towns" are going to be safe for clients to go free of arrest? Or better yet, please explain how that would be safer then visiting a known reputable SP?
Better yet, let your fellow man tell you himself. As I said this only represents about about an average of 25% of a providers/agencies actual clientele base
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/poll.php?pollid=5280&do=showresults
The US has made prostitution illegal this whole time. Please show me where the decline is going to come from with the numbers you appear to give because nothing supports your claim other then your own personal fear reflecting your personal opinion. The facts really do say otherwise.
Recent report in Norway shows at best a tiny 15% decrease in the market since the law. And even that is questionable.
I don't think the bill will kill the sex trade, but it will certainly change the way it is practiced. It changes the incentives. That will show up in a price mechanism.
Methods of providing service that increase the chance of arrest for clients will have to cut their rates in order to attract customers, while transactions that minimize the chance of arrest will attract a premium price.
You can work or for yourself what that will mean for various business models. It may take a few waves of arrest to really change things but expect in the long run more meeting unknown strangers at uncertain locations and less exchange of contact information.
Methods of providing service that increase the chance of arrest for clients will have to cut their rates in order to attract customers, while transactions that minimize the chance of arrest will attract a premium price.
You can work or for yourself what that will mean for various business models. It may take a few waves of arrest to really change things but expect in the long run more meeting unknown strangers at uncertain locations and less exchange of contact information.
I find the government's actions to be quite surprising. The desire for physical companionship is one of the strongest human urges, perhaps second only to the need to react to hunger. People will go to great lengths to find companionship and people will also take great risks. From Cleopatra to Clinton, we see examples through history of powerful people (men and women) with much to lose pursuing physical companionship. From Elliot Spitzer to Barney Frank, we see examples of the same among government officials, among both straight and gay people. It is simply an undeniable expression of humanity.
Another very strong urge humans have is the urge to intoxicate. Whether it is shamans in far flung villages taking hallucinogens or diners enjoying wine at Canoe, people self medicate. Attempts to prohibit the expression of such urges has been a colossal waste of money and other resources ... witness Prohibition and the War on Drugs in the US.
Laws such as Prohibition or the upcoming C-36 simply create more criminals by defining normal human behavior as criminal.
Alcohol use has a huge cost on society - deaths from drunk driving, liver disease, incidence of date rape on university campuses, violence, workplace absenteeism, the list goes on an on and the impact and costs are staggering. The social cost is far higher than that of prostitution, but it has been accepted. Just as there is no reasonable way to prevent people from drinking, there is no reasonable way to prevent people from seeking companionship in exchange for pay.
Canada seemed to have had a very sensible and pragmatic take on sex services, but C-36 seems like a huge step backwards. Providers will be more at risk than before, and no rational person could think that it will eliminate the sex trade. It is called the worlds oldest profession for a reason.
Laws against trafficking or underage providers and patrons make a lot of sense. Just like laws against underage drinking or driving while intoxicated.
Perhaps even more surprising than the bill is the fact that it is coming from a "conservative" government. True conservative principles are about less government intrusion into the private lives of citizens and smaller government in general. Imposing ones "morals" on others is the type of conservatism that is more akin to the Taliban's approach to conservatism.
Another very strong urge humans have is the urge to intoxicate. Whether it is shamans in far flung villages taking hallucinogens or diners enjoying wine at Canoe, people self medicate. Attempts to prohibit the expression of such urges has been a colossal waste of money and other resources ... witness Prohibition and the War on Drugs in the US.
Laws such as Prohibition or the upcoming C-36 simply create more criminals by defining normal human behavior as criminal.
Alcohol use has a huge cost on society - deaths from drunk driving, liver disease, incidence of date rape on university campuses, violence, workplace absenteeism, the list goes on an on and the impact and costs are staggering. The social cost is far higher than that of prostitution, but it has been accepted. Just as there is no reasonable way to prevent people from drinking, there is no reasonable way to prevent people from seeking companionship in exchange for pay.
Canada seemed to have had a very sensible and pragmatic take on sex services, but C-36 seems like a huge step backwards. Providers will be more at risk than before, and no rational person could think that it will eliminate the sex trade. It is called the worlds oldest profession for a reason.
Laws against trafficking or underage providers and patrons make a lot of sense. Just like laws against underage drinking or driving while intoxicated.
Perhaps even more surprising than the bill is the fact that it is coming from a "conservative" government. True conservative principles are about less government intrusion into the private lives of citizens and smaller government in general. Imposing ones "morals" on others is the type of conservatism that is more akin to the Taliban's approach to conservatism.
Anyone who thinks men (who have something to lose) will just casually show up to break the law, risk imprisonment and public humiliation is out to lunch.
As someone who has invested a lot of time and money and effort in building up my career and continue to do so, why would I risk millions in future income to break the law? There's a lot of people who will make the same judgement call.
As someone who has invested a lot of time and money and effort in building up my career and continue to do so, why would I risk millions in future income to break the law? There's a lot of people who will make the same judgement call.
ALL over Twitter in #c36 #SexWork #CndPoli I have been contributing to Tweets referring to " HARPER Christian TALIBAN Government. YOU COULD NOT BE MORE CORRECT: Harper is a Christian version of TALIBAN moralism , Controling Women's Freedoms & SAVING them based on Christiandom ....... VERY LIKE Islamic Taliban & save women in the name of ALLA
ALSO.... Many of you speak like this is COLD WAR RUSSIA & dealing with The KGB. WRONG!!! Cops can't go around arresting all friends & aquaitence of s.p. Many friends of s.p. don't even know what they do.
ALSO.... Many of you speak like this is COLD WAR RUSSIA & dealing with The KGB. WRONG!!! Cops can't go around arresting all friends & aquaitence of s.p. Many friends of s.p. don't even know what they do.
Yup. The nature of my profession means a criminal record (or even an arrest record, as that would very likely mean I couldn't travel south of the border) would be a serious career limiting move, if I could find work at all.
It's just not worth the risk.
Maybe we'll find that nothing much changes from an enforcement perspective, but I'm sure not going to stick around to find out, at least initially.
It is a kind of conservatism, social conservatism, such as that practiced by the religious right. Social conservatives harken back to a time when a man was the King of his Castle, wife stayed home, etc. That of course is no longer what Canada is like, but the Conservatives are stuck in their time warp. As for being a Christian version of the Taliban, I remember when the Taliban overran Afghanistan, and a commentator saying it was as if a bunch of hillbillies from the Ozarks took over government in Washington. So, I guess that's the equivalent we have here. A bunch of fundamentalist hillbillies, playing to an older not very well educated base are in control of our Parliament.
If being a client is a crime, then all your clients will be criminals.
This is a pyrrhic victory, at best, for you, I think..
I believe you were originally responding to me, so let me answer.
You were more at risk than you had to be in several ways. One, even with sites like TERB, you can't be sure what kind of person you're going to meet on the other side of that door. You don't know if she's a health hazard, you don't know if she's violent, and you don't know for sure if she's under 18 and you're about to do serious time as a result. You don't know if her abusive pimp is next door ready to jump you. You don't know if the incall you frequent is about to get raided by the overzealous. Legalization and regulation greatly benefits you in all these categories.
As for the ladies, they don't know for sure what kind of person they're meeting either. They have little recourse in the event of stalkers or other violent persons. Without legal alternatives, johns are more likely to mistakenly procure the services of the unwilling or the underaged, thereby promoting the very thing this legislation is supposedly putting a halt to (ha!). They can't hire protection. They, by necessity, have to operate in the shadows, rather than in a well-regulated business operation.
While you and your cock may have never experienced the negative side of how things were, others have. Your unsympathetic views are what the opposition points to when they claim johns have no empathy for the exploited.
I do have empathy for them. I want SPs to be able to operate legally and safely, and I want johns (and janes?) to be able to pursue their desires without so unjustly being labelled a criminal. And I want the law to focus on going after the real criminals (pimps/traffickers) and helping the unwilling find more desirable employment.
I'd say this new law is a pyrrhic victory for the prohibitionists. The supply of sex work is inexhaustible, but they can't keep passing the same unconstitutional law over and over again. The Bedford decision seriously reduced their legal possibilities. When this one is thrown out there is nothing left they can try. Decriminalization is inevitable. It's just a big disappointment to have to wait for a few more years.
Understood, but many SPs have expressed concern that criminalization will only serve to expose sex workers to a lower strata of client, while inducing the 'safer' client (i.e professionals who have something to lose) out of the hobby for fear of arrest and conviction.
Actually there is, they can make it illegal for both buyers and sellers, but that won't work either (it doesn't in the US).
I understand your concern, however, the new law only makes your problem worse, not better.
Under the new law your customers are going to insist that you know even less about them than you do now, and none will knowingly visit any location that has the more obvious security mechanisms you might wnat to put in place -- closed circuit video recording, logging people's ID, or even just a well known public location -- those are all things that will get customers arrested and therefore most customers will try to avoid places with those features. Sure you could hide that you have a video recording, but that only helps the police catch your killer -- what you wanted was a big obvious video camera in your lobby letting any potential trouble maker know that he was on tape and thus preventing the attack in the first place. Without any law customers should not fear you temporarily having that clothed recording; under the new law that recording gets them jail.
So really, things just get worse for you. I think the new law makes things worse for everyone.
Of course it would be better for you (and us) if the old law had been struck down and left that way -- but instead we got a much harsher, much stricter law than previously, and even though you won't be the one arrested, the changes that will force on the industry are unfortunately going to make things worse for your safety.
You are thinking that this is some sort of win/lose tradeoff with customers vs SP's, but it is really just lose/lose for us all.
Jessica, I'm a bit disappointed in your latest stance. You were once very outspoken against bill 36 but now seem to be embracing it, hopefully my assumption is totally off base. I agree with Fugi and other's this bill will not be making it more safe for sex workers, if anything much more dangerous.
