Sex Professionals of Canada New Forum!

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
feminista said:
charges were dropped against the receptionists, drivers and his wife in exchange for his guilty plea.

I have the newspaper coverage but I don't have transcripts. Can you direct me to a web location where I could read the actual case?
I am not sure which case you are referring to, I thought it was the famous one where the guy who was bragging about spending millions on yellow page ads got caught hiring underage girls and I believe there was some drug charges as well.

The details that you just provided is one where the guy pleaded guilty, so it is kinda mute. There is a case where a guy was found guilty by the court but it was appealed. I am not sure what happened with the appeal, but the facts were similiar to what I described except it was proved that the owner knew prostituion was occuring. The appeal had something to do with Charter rights of presummed innocence.

What I am saying is that the City of Barrie establishes a legitimate escort business of introducing escorts. If the owner is careful and does not delve into the prostitution aspect of it but runs an escort business as described in the bylaws then in my mind they would have a definite argument of presummed innocence. The problem is the owners are not careful and they cross the line that catches them.
 

Alexis696969

Guest
Oct 19, 2005
2,200
1
0
hell
www.plentyoffish.com
feminista said:
the newmarket paper won't print the word "girl" or "hottie"

I want to say in the Barrie Paper (conservative)
Hot Prostitute with Sex to Sell!!!!
Call 710 Do Me!!!!
why not advertise on terb ?

if your so upset the newspapers wont priint your add

im sure they will welcome your neurotic mind lol ;)

all the other indes who advertise in barrie dont have as much trouble as you its a shame..or i wouldnt be able to read them i guess

ive never known a gal in barrie who would want to print the word prostitute lol sounds pretty catchy
 
Last edited:

Alexis696969

Guest
Oct 19, 2005
2,200
1
0
hell
www.plentyoffish.com
dreamer said:
If I was an agency owner in Barrie I would embrace the by-law and take advantage of it.

I would charge an introduction fee that matches what the agency wants to net. I would have the standard disclaimers for the introduction fee. I would have waivers signed by the escorts that the only service that the agency provides are drivers and the introduction.

The "escort" would then be introduced. Once that is done the "escort' part of the transaction is done, what happens after that is between the escort and the client and she would charge a fee that the agency never sees.

The idea is that you separate the "escort" transaction from the "prostitution" transaction. Both are legal transactions if done right.

So your suggesting that the escort is supposed to "charge" or lets say barter or even another term on a regular basis ?
Imagine hypothetically a girl traveling lets say a n hour away , company gets the intro , girl gets zipo , or some pocket change for her companionship ! now thats 2 hours travelling plus one hour there , .. cause client knows he can be in control of a fee instead of the company .Not all clients are fair LOL if put in this situation .Your putting her livilhood in the what the client thinks her companionship is worth ?No offense but this looks like more of nightmare then the new bylaw lol.and lets hope the client doesnt shake her hand or hug her good bye so that the "non touching " would apply ....Arent some people just naturally touchy nomatter who and where they go lol .....all the disagreements of fees could end up to be the companies liabilities would it not ?or would it be the sp ?.since no fee is set in stone ....Suggesting such a waiver and conditions would just open up Barrie to a growing independant state .The waiver doesnt protect them for jack so whats the difference if they go where they know its much more simplified .Barrie doesnt realize they are going to push gals out on the street .Why not just keep doing what the agencies do which is provide companionship with both in a win win situation instead of turning it into a game show .Companionship is not illegal ! embrace that .........or move to Toronto or another city where the laws are not trying to dictate your every breathe yet issue you a liscense.What are the laws in Orillia ? or other nearby cities ? as strict ? forget newmarket ! i used to live there its brutal
one more thing if the sp wasnt liscensed with that waiver still be valid ?


Or fight the law in court
 
Last edited:

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
Alexis696969 said:
.Barrie doesnt realize they are going to push gals out on the street
The by-law only hurts the agencies, not the independent prostitute. There is nothing stopping you from providing an outcall service; the bylaw does not apply to you unless you want to work for an escort agency providing escort services as defined by the by-law. Why would you work the streets when you can legally advertise and provide outcalls.

However the agencies are caught between a rock and a hard place. They cannot legally operate as providers of prostitution so they cannot advertise that way, you as an independant can though. So they are forced to register as escort agencies and follow the by-laws. The record keeping requirements and inspection are real business killers. I would not call an agency if I had to give out all of that personal information.

I can see someone fighting the by-law in regards to the record keeping and inspections, but the rest of the by-law seems clear. Agencies will still be forced to get licenses and walk the fine line between providing escorts or prostitutes.
 

Alexis696969

Guest
Oct 19, 2005
2,200
1
0
hell
www.plentyoffish.com
Thanks for link ( lots to read )eek

I remember back in the days December an advertising inde in Barrie was liscensed and other well known indes were advertised also (unliscensed) one would assume by not seeing the liscense number and apparantly one of the indes got fined for not having a liscense (fine seemed steep ) in an outcall at a hotel ...which happens to agency gals unliscensed more frequently on outcalls then indes.

Some clarification please :

Is it possible for an inde to be charged criminal or only a fine if not liscensed ? Does she need to pay the 3000 liscense just like the agency for a liscense ? and/or does being liscensed put you in the same bylaw as an agency ? If she has a driver is it considered an agency ?
What if she has a driver and both are not liscensed what are the legalities ?

I have never worked on the streets ...hell i rememeber when i first started sping i thought every guy was going to take me to the opera and have a sexy lady on his arm LOL so ive come a long way lol .I have now retired my journey in this field but I prefer the inde way in my past ..... but for some gals ive met in the past they had no phone due to credit probs so other sps lent them one or a pager plus no transportation or support so its hard for them to advertise outcalls thats why they need agencies for the support but now the new by-law doesnt allow them to feel as secure with an agency in barrie so yeah some end up on the street cause of circumstance .IMO agencies should not have as many restrictions as they do now ..so gals like this can be secure/safe
 

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
My position is that the Barrie by-law does not cover prostitution and that if they did try to fine you I believe you could easily win.

You can always be charged criminally regardless of the by-law, however if you only provide outcalls again you are not doing anything illegal.

If you ended up in court over a by-law infraction you have two good defenses, one, the bylaw specifically excludes prostitution by saying that no sexual contact can occur, and of course you were providing prostitution services not escort services, and two, there is nothing stopping Barrie or any other city to have a by-law governing prostitution, but they chose not to. Any municipality could pass a by-law regulating the legal aspects of prostitution like they regulate other businesses.

You cannot be charged criminally for not having a license, it is a by-law infraction. However the maximum fines are quite hefty, but no one ever pays the maximum on their first violation.

If you provide escort services, like dinner engagements etc etc then you have to be licensed and work for a licensed agency or will be subject to by-law infractions.

There is nothing stopping you from becoming an agency. If you also work as an escort you have to have both licenses. Your driver would also need to have a license to drive you. As an agency you will also have to have liability insurance of $1,000,000.

Personally I would work as an outcall prostitute and fight any by-law charges.

Drivers can be criminally charged with living off of the avails and also driving someone to a bawdy house. If they are licensed and work for a licensed agency then they do have a very good defense against such charges.
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Apr 3, 2002
657
0
0
Never the safest place
feminista said:
...Police have threatened escorts here with charging boyfriends or family members depending on said cops agenda. Cops on power trips with too much discretionary power...
Ah c'mon -- this is Canada. We don't have any abusive or corrupt cops. That just happens in other places, so it doesn't matter if we have a two-faced arrangement that enables abuse and corruption.
feminista said:
I think that hammer should be taken away thru decriminalization.

Pimping laws (living off the avails) should ONLY be used against those who coerce and exploit as it was intended. They need to make that law more specific.
Why not just ask Vic Toews, the new Minister of Justice, to change the law? I'm sure he'll get right on it.
 
TheNiteHwk said:
I am more then well aware of the differences of opinion that SPOC and Dave have ongoing. Seems also that there are some bad feelings between them as well.
The main issue is just like similar groups in the U.S. by their insistence on decrim of public nuisance street hookers, they hurt the cause of liberalizing bawdy and agency issues. They are doomed to failuire just like the SWOP failure in Berkeley California where their referendum was sounded defeated over the street hooker issue. With so many citizens so upset about street hookers making a mess of their neigborhoods including street hookers in decrim simply assures it will fail.

There should be similar groups working for reform of bawdy and agency issues, not trying to impose street hookers on citizens which will nver be accepted either in Canada or the U.S. In Europe the zones have failed and while now in the U.K you can have 3 gals in an incall, they are cracking down more on street hookers.

TheNiteHwk said:
Also I can see somewhat what another poster here says that Dave’s opinions etc are self-serving. I might reword that a bit though and say that sometimes his efforts are seemingly self-serving.
Not sure how my views are self surving. I get no income from sexwork, I don't go to incalls or street hookers stick to legal activities in strip clubs and massage places and outcall escorts. I have no risk with the agency situaton, so supporting them isn't self serving.

NikeHwk and I do seem to agree on the basic issues.
 

the shrink

Banned
Jan 16, 2006
49
0
0
Dave in Phoenix said:
Sex Professionals of Canada in my view is run by very immature people who have no interest in any mature discussion. They seem to think they need to mislead the public

well i just saw this thread now. it doesnt look like that new forum is doing to well. but dave in pheonix...the above statement is perplexing as i went to your forum and it is nothing more then you and a few other people railing on about a pimp from niagra that you want in jail. i also see that anyone who disagrees with your "views" has their posts edited or deleted. so i would have to ask you of your above statement...

are you the pot calling the kettle black? or is it the other way around?
 

HaywoodJabloemy

Dissident
Apr 3, 2002
657
0
0
Never the safest place
yeet said:
Living on the avails requires more than profiting from prostitution, it requires living on the avails of a prostitute in a `parasitic` manner.

...Depends how much $ the agency is making off of the prostitutes.
There is an escort agency operator on trial in Calgary.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=99541

I haven`t read anything regarding him being any more "parasitic" than any other agency. It sounds like the only reason he was singled out was LE received a complaint from a competing agency.
 

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
HaywoodJabloemy said:
There is an escort agency operator on trial in Calgary.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=99541

I haven`t read anything regarding him being any more "parasitic" than any other agency. It sounds like the only reason he was singled out was LE received a complaint from a competing agency.
Agencies always have trouble getting around the "living off of the avails" charges because their only purpose is to provide escorts and their only revenue is from escorts. Throw in the fact that they also promote the escorts and that some consider prostitutes are working in a harmful environment and you have the classic definition of parasite.
 

TheNiteHwk

New member
Aug 22, 2001
6,059
0
0
69
Downtown Toronto
www.profile.to
Hey all... I almost forgot this thread... anyways just a couple comments...

Now that Harper is in… IMO the industry will only suffer for sure. There is no chance in hell that Harper and his cronies are going to change any laws in our favor. And for sure not as long as advocates keep crying for streetwalkers’ rights. I personally am not against streetwalkers. I am only against what I see in the streets in GTA now. IMO and (it still stands) most street walkers are drug addicts and/or run by pimps. The drug addicts need rehab and the girls who are owned by pimps need help to escape that situation. (IMO) I am not the only one who sees these things in the same light. Most of the public sees streetwalkers as an eyesore and real pain in the neighborhood. It’s going to be one heck of a long haul to get people and government officials to agree with streetwalkers in the present form that they are. And rightly so, IMO. I think as a community it would better serve us (and help those in need) if we admit that there are these problems and that we as a community are willing to do whatever to clean up this situation. If we are not willing to admit this and not willing to help those who are stuck in the biz when they don’t want to be… we are lost for sure.

Further IMO not all agency owners (some who are female BTW) are parasites who mistreat their girls. I am sure for example that there are posters on here who will say that they much enjoy where they are working. So therefore I am not against agencies. I do not look at agency owners as pimps. They are business people who are in the escort biz. Now… having said… yes there are agency owners who are ‘scum bags’ and they mistreat girls and take way to much % of the earnings etc. (And some of those are female btw also.) A pimp to me is someone who forces girls to work against their own will and takes ALL their money. A pimp is someone who takes advantage of vulnerable girls and uses them to their own ends. And anybody who works for a street pimp of the definition I have given and says they do so of their own free will… I would be willing to bet that those girls need help. She may believe in her own mind that she is freely choosing to work for pimp so and so… but chances are she is just brainwashed into believing in street values that are nothing more then an extension of jail codes. These girls also need help IMO.

Having said… I think what we need more then anything else to get more public support is education of the same. We need to point out that only a very small % of sex workers are what the pubic perceives when they see streetwalkers and all the ilk that comes with them. We need to point out that many are upstanding members of the community contributing to our economy etc just like, if not even better then most others. In other words we need to dispel the whole outlook that the public has on sex workers. To that end I did give a very good talk at a southern Ont university (with the help of a very fine female member from TERB, thanks) last week. It went very well but could have been better IMO. I hope to get more such opportunities in the future and improve my message as I go along. I will never advocate for streetwalkers in their present form though. And I for sure will never ever never ever advocate pimps in the definition I have given above.
 

TheNiteHwk

New member
Aug 22, 2001
6,059
0
0
69
Downtown Toronto
www.profile.to
Cute In A Kilt said:
Now that's not fair either, to generalize like that... ....
Sorry Cute... but I believe from my experiences with the street that you were an exception to the rule. My observations when I was in the street myself and now as well; is that most are what I said. I'm sorry if that hurts. It's just to me a fact of life. Please note though if from my post(s) you get that I am saying that ALL streetwalkers are addicts or owned by pimps I am not. I stand by my observation though that yes most are.
 

Cyberite

Sex Toy King
Dec 17, 2003
110
0
16
51
Kingston, ON
www.cyberites.com
Dave in Phoenix said:
Not sure how my views are self surving. I get no income from sexwork, I don't go to incalls or street hookers stick to legal activities in strip clubs and massage places and outcall escorts. I have no risk with the agency situaton, so supporting them isn't self serving.

NikeHwk and I do seem to agree on the basic issues.
Dave Dave Dave....

Here we go again. Just so we get things clear (again) there is nothing legal about anyone that you pay money to in exchange for a "release". You, and many other people I am sure are confusing legal vs not enforceable.

Prostitution itself is not illegal, but communicating for the purposes of it is. This communication goes on in strip clubs, massage parlours and outcalls but it is not really enforceable. This gives the illusion of it being legal when it's not.

SPOC is a special interest group. They stand for the rights of ALL sex workers, including those "nuisance street walkers" you keep mentioning. If Toronto had a better harm reduction program they wouldn't be that much of a nuisance. In a perfect world, I'm sure all the sex workers would be doing outcalls or working in strip clubs or massage parlours, but they aren't. The ones on the street I would argue do it out of necessity due to the fact that they cannot live on our pitiful minimum wage and out of depression I'm sure some of them develop drug habits. But should we just forget about them and let them continue to be abused, assaulted, robbed, maimed and murdered? Should we just round them all up, lock them away and throw away the key?

How about looking at the underlying issues surrounding why they do what they do? They are human beings, regardless of how much of a nuisance you think they are. They deserve the same basic human rights and freedoms the rest of us do. Street hookers have always been around, and they always will be around.

NO human life is expendable. You might as well try and make it illegal to be poor.
 

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
Cyberite said:
Prostitution itself is not illegal, but communicating for the purposes of it is. This communication goes on in strip clubs, massage parlours and outcalls but it is not really enforceable. This gives the illusion of it being legal when it's not.
No illusions about outcalls being legal, existing cases support communication via phone, email and in privacy such as a hotel room as not communicating in a public place. There is one case where a SW refused to discuss the transaction until she got to the hotel room. She was charged and the judge dismissed it.
 

Cyberite

Sex Toy King
Dec 17, 2003
110
0
16
51
Kingston, ON
www.cyberites.com
dreamer said:
No illusions about outcalls being legal, existing cases support communication via phone, email and in privacy such as a hotel room as not communicating in a public place. There is one case where a SW refused to discuss the transaction until she got to the hotel room. She was charged and the judge dismissed it.
I would want to read about that case, but I suspect the judge dismissed it due to lack of good evidence. When LE checks things like phone calls, e-mails and other such "private" ways to communicate, a good lawyer can argue that the privacy act was violated and the investigation was done without cause.
 

dreamer

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,164
0
0
Maple
Cyberite said:
I would want to read about that case
I will try to find it for you. The case specifically mentions why it was dismissed; because the accused knew the law better than the undercover, ie she did not communicate in public.
 
Cyberite, I am amazed how ignorant you are of Canadian law.

It is very clear long settled issue and if you read the law, communicating is ONLY ILLEGAL if in a public PLACE!

I discuss this in great depth at http://www.sexwork.com/montreal/law.html

Under the Canadian Criminal Code:
(1) The act of prostitution is legal, i.e. you CANNOT be arrested for being a prostitute

(2) The practice of independent outcall prostitution is fully protected by Federal law. Third party involvement in solicitation of business or profiting from it is a crime But enforcement varies widely since the attitude is to support individual rights as long as it doesn`t hurt anyone else.

(3) Advertising in public print is protected as a right of free speech which has been upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court. Advertising on television has not yet been tested but the issue is whether its in line with community standards.

(4) An independent outcall escort has the right to discuss specific acts of sex for money in private. Hotel rooms, telephones and private homes. The Canadian Supreme court has ruled that a land based telephone is a private communication. When one places a phone call, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that is the test. The same is easily extended to cellular phone communication. One would have to have special equipment to intercept such communication.

When you consider the "public communication" aspect of the law it is really crafted to discourage street solicitation. The more aggressive uses of the law have seen it applied to hotel bars, your vehicle operating on a public street and other such places. Communication btw also includes acts in furtherance as evidence of intent...i.e. you pick a street walker up in your car is an act of furtherance.

1. Communicating /Solicitation- to avoid street prostitution by preventing soliciting or having sex in public.
In 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that soliciting had to be "pressing and persistent" to warrant conviction. In 1985, this was replaced by the communicating law, which continues to outlaw any kind of communication for the purposes of prostitution, making it an easier offence to prosecute. A car was ruled to be a public place if it is parked in any place open to public view. This law forces prostitutes to move into more secluded, poorly lit areas to do their work.

The communicating offence was designed to deal with the nuisance caused by street solicitation. In 1990, the SCC held that while the communicating section is an infringement on the freedom of expression, it is justifiable infringement because of the importance of eliminating street solicitation and the associated social nuisances.

"Public place" is defined as "any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation..... and any motor vehicle located in a place.... open to public view". Cyberspace is not a "place" open to public view, any more than a radio or tv is unless on a sidewalk on the street!

Car sex is illegal unless in a very secluded location as one case pointed out. A telephone is private so you can discuss it freely. It is also perfectly legal for a prostitute to advertise in magazines, newspapers and websites, as they are not considered public (you choose to buy it, read it in privately and read what you privately decide to read). For example in Vancouver, there are many ads are in the Westender, Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Providence for providers. In Montreal the Mirror has many explicit ads as do other French publications. Many Canadian providers have websites and there are good discussion/review lists such as https://terb.cc, https://merb.cc, or https://perb.cc. All all perfectly legal and without the concern of being a roadmap for vice cops to find legitimate providers, like in the U.S.

In Toronto one street prostitute was arrested for soliciting. The arresting officer had her on tape which was played for the judge. The tape showed the undercover officer asking her what she charged for a straight lay. She replied, If you would like to come to my motel room, I will tell you all the details, but if not, I won`t tell you anything because it is illegal to solicit in a public place." The judge looked at the officer and said, "well it sounds to me as though she read the law to you?". The case was immediately tossed out. Source: www.ermail.org discussion thread 2722.

Section 213 of the Criminal Code states that communicating (in public) for the purpose of prostitution is a summary conviction offence. Summary offences are considered "less serious", carrying a maximum six-month jail term (seldom imposed), a $2,000 fine, or both. The offender does not receive a formal criminal record, nor are fingerprints or photographs taken.

Because communicating is a minor offense, street prostitution is a major problem in many Canadian cities.

See extensive separate report on Canadian Street Prostitution at http://www.sexwork.com/montreal/street.html. While I highly support private prostitution as a choice for adults, I am totally against street prostitution, especially in residential areas. In my street report I discuss other options and my observations realizing I am an outsider, but monitor similar issues in other countries.

Lyla who hosts one of the best Canadian sexworker discussion sites lyla.com, in discussing street solicitation says:

"The law up here was actually *more lenient* when I first arrived in Canada. At that time, we had a "pressing and persistent" component to the law -- which meant that not only did a streetwalker have to pin a prospective customer, but she had to hold him down for a count of ten in order to qualify for a solicitation charge. ;-) "

But again it is not prostitution that is illegal, only the street solicitation. Prostitution itself is legal in all of Canada just how its done is restricted.
 
Toronto Escorts