Once again, Dave, very clear explanations of the Canadian law, its application, and its nuances. I wonder if there is any Canadian who is as well-versed in Arizona's sex laws as you are in ours....
E.
E.
Sex Professionals of Canada New Forum!
- Thread starter Cyberite
- Start date
Thanks einar....
Az Law very simple, any sexual pleasure go to jail with mandatory six month sentances or more if repeat.
New Federal law defines sex trafficking as all prostitution whether consenting adults in private or not with 10 years in prison for folks like AussieAmbers husband who helped out by taking phone calls and setting appointments for her.
And lots new Fed funding to local police to enforce all the anti sex laws against consenting adults in private.
It is terrible and getting worse down here under the Bush administration. That is why I only enjoy Canada. Hopefully your Stephen Harper won't screw with Canada like Bush is with the U.S. !
Az Law very simple, any sexual pleasure go to jail with mandatory six month sentances or more if repeat.
New Federal law defines sex trafficking as all prostitution whether consenting adults in private or not with 10 years in prison for folks like AussieAmbers husband who helped out by taking phone calls and setting appointments for her.
And lots new Fed funding to local police to enforce all the anti sex laws against consenting adults in private.
It is terrible and getting worse down here under the Bush administration. That is why I only enjoy Canada. Hopefully your Stephen Harper won't screw with Canada like Bush is with the U.S. !
You can talk about section 213 all you want Dave. It goes hand in hand with section 212 which covers that it is illegal to PROCURE a prostitute. I am going to go over the sections 1 by one because some of these are absolutely ridiculous. Here is a copy of the statute for your viewing pleasure...
Section (a) pretty much says it all. If you procure or even ATTEMPT to procure, it is illegal, even outside of the country! Probably near impossible to enforce but hey... there it is.
Section (b) says you can't try to entice a non-prostitute to work at an incall. I wonder how they determine if you are a prostitute or not?
Section (c) says you can't conceal someone in a bawdy house. This one was meant to protect against human trafficking and pimping.
Section (d) says you can't recruit people to become prostitutes whether in or out of Canada. Same thing.. anti-pimp and trafficking
Section (e) is an extension of (d) which is basically saying you can't recruit someone from a non-bawdy house with intent to get them to work in one. Also anti-pimp and human trafficking
Section (f) goes along with (d) and (e) which is just basically saying you can't get them when they "get off the boat" to work in a bawdy house.
Section (g) makes it illegal to procure the services of a prostitute either having them come to you in Canada from another country or you in another country hiring them from Canada. Too bad for those travel companions.
Section (h) is another anti-pimp one, basically saying you cannot compel, help, coerce or assist someone to be a prostitute.
Section (i) is a weird one to put in here. It states that you can't use an intoxicating substance to overpower and sexually abuse someone. Shouldn't this be in the sexual assault section? Sounds like date rape to me.
Section (j) is the one that denies prostitutes to have partners and spouses. Living on the avails is such a broad and general term, that even living with a prostitute can put you in jail for up to 10 years. There is a clause (3) which states there is a "presumption" that if you live with a prostitute that you live on the avails of prostitution. This particular section strikes a nerve with most sex workers as it denies them the right to be happy with a partner in life.
As far as street workers go, you are right about the communicating law in public, but section 213 is only a small extension to section 212 which essentially oppresses sex workers. This is the main mandate of SPOC.
======================
212. (1) Every one who
(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,
(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prostitution,
(c) knowingly conceals a person in a common bawdy-house,
(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,
(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that person in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,
(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, directs or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,
(g) procures a person to enter or leave Canada, for the purpose of prostitution,
(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,
(i) applies or administers to a person or causes that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual intercourse with that person, or
(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Living on the avails of prostitution of person under eighteen
(2) Despite paragraph (1)(j), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.
Aggravated offence in relation to living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of eighteen years
(2.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(j) and subsection (2), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person under the age of eighteen years, and who
(a) for the purposes of profit, aids, abets, counsels or compels the person under that age to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally, and
(b) uses, threatens to use or attempts to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person under that age,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years but not less than five years.
Presumption
(3) Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(j) and subsections (2) and (2.1).
Offence — prostitution of person under eighteen
(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
(5) [Repealed, 1999, c. 5, s. 8]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 212; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 9; 1997, c. 16, s. 2; 1999, c. 5, s. 8; 2005, c. 32, s. 10.1.
Section (a) pretty much says it all. If you procure or even ATTEMPT to procure, it is illegal, even outside of the country! Probably near impossible to enforce but hey... there it is.
Section (b) says you can't try to entice a non-prostitute to work at an incall. I wonder how they determine if you are a prostitute or not?
Section (c) says you can't conceal someone in a bawdy house. This one was meant to protect against human trafficking and pimping.
Section (d) says you can't recruit people to become prostitutes whether in or out of Canada. Same thing.. anti-pimp and trafficking
Section (e) is an extension of (d) which is basically saying you can't recruit someone from a non-bawdy house with intent to get them to work in one. Also anti-pimp and human trafficking
Section (f) goes along with (d) and (e) which is just basically saying you can't get them when they "get off the boat" to work in a bawdy house.
Section (g) makes it illegal to procure the services of a prostitute either having them come to you in Canada from another country or you in another country hiring them from Canada. Too bad for those travel companions.
Section (h) is another anti-pimp one, basically saying you cannot compel, help, coerce or assist someone to be a prostitute.
Section (i) is a weird one to put in here. It states that you can't use an intoxicating substance to overpower and sexually abuse someone. Shouldn't this be in the sexual assault section? Sounds like date rape to me.
Section (j) is the one that denies prostitutes to have partners and spouses. Living on the avails is such a broad and general term, that even living with a prostitute can put you in jail for up to 10 years. There is a clause (3) which states there is a "presumption" that if you live with a prostitute that you live on the avails of prostitution. This particular section strikes a nerve with most sex workers as it denies them the right to be happy with a partner in life.
As far as street workers go, you are right about the communicating law in public, but section 213 is only a small extension to section 212 which essentially oppresses sex workers. This is the main mandate of SPOC.
======================
212. (1) Every one who
(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,
(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prostitution,
(c) knowingly conceals a person in a common bawdy-house,
(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,
(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that person in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,
(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, directs or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,
(g) procures a person to enter or leave Canada, for the purpose of prostitution,
(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,
(i) applies or administers to a person or causes that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual intercourse with that person, or
(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Living on the avails of prostitution of person under eighteen
(2) Despite paragraph (1)(j), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.
Aggravated offence in relation to living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of eighteen years
(2.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(j) and subsection (2), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person under the age of eighteen years, and who
(a) for the purposes of profit, aids, abets, counsels or compels the person under that age to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally, and
(b) uses, threatens to use or attempts to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person under that age,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years but not less than five years.
Presumption
(3) Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(j) and subsections (2) and (2.1).
Offence — prostitution of person under eighteen
(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
(5) [Repealed, 1999, c. 5, s. 8]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 212; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 9; 1997, c. 16, s. 2; 1999, c. 5, s. 8; 2005, c. 32, s. 10.1.
I am trying to figure out what your point is and I think you have misread that section. Procuring is not hiring a prostitute for yourself.Cyberite said:
section 212 is for pimps, section 213 is for communication and they do not go hand in hand
as for "Section (j) is the one that denies prostitutes to have partners and spouses" your interpretation is the standard erroneous one. The courts do not view it that way either and it is well established that they look for a parasitic relationship. Of course many will plead out to living off of the avails and many use those as examples of exactly what you are saying.
Ok well fair enough. I'm not a lawyer, and after talking to some of the SPOC people, I misinterpreted the word "procure". I stand corrected. Section 212 is mostly for pimps. I have a better perspective about what SPOC's position is though and why they find DIP so offensive.dreamer said:
The way he talks about the street worker, makes them sound less than human. Always talking about them as a "nuisance" and basically saying everything but a waste of life. People complain that in areas where there are street workers that there are condoms all over the place. I am pretty sure the condoms are tossed by the johns and not the girls. For those of you out there who see SP's, when have you ever left your condom there? It's the guys tossing them out the window when they are done.
And the living off the avails thing you are also pretty much correct on. SPOC only worries that some day the law may target them and choose to interpret the "avails" laws in a way that attack their personal lives. Sure it may never happen, but it might someday.
SPOC's main mandate is to have sex work recognized as a legitimate, non-licensed profession. They believe that sex work is a necessary service and should be treated as such and those who choose to work as a sex worker should be protected by the same rights, freedoms and respect as people in any other legitimate line of work. The first step to accomplish this of course is decriminalization.
The point I was originally trying to make is that the laws make the impoverished sex worker oppressed. A sex worker that cannot afford to advertise in the papers, or on the internet or anywhere else for that matter can only advertise with her body on the street. This unfortunately is a reality that too many of us ignore. Many of these street workers are abused, raped, robbed, maimed and killed yet the public at large doesn't take notice because they are seen as expendable and as public nuisances like DIP likes to keep referring to them as. How can they go to the police if the police don't take their work seriously? People choose street sex work for different reasons. Lack of funds to advertise, inability to survive on minimum wage, being homeless and dealing with addiction issues, a few of them just like the rush involved but those are few and far between. People need to realize that NONE OF US ARE EXPENDABLE.
With that being said, I support SPOC's decriminalization effort and will continue to do so.
No street hookers are not sub human. They should have all the help they need to get OFF THE STREETS which are dangerous and they ARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE!!!
There has been an uproar of citizens in Canada for years fed up with condoms in their front yards, regular women being solicitied in neighborhoods where they are known to be, many many examples of them being a clear public nuisance. It makes no difference if the condoms are tossed by the Johns or not, if the hookers weren't there there would not be the condoms.
The attempts by the sexworkers groups that insist on being a public nuisance do nothing than help NOT get laws changed regarding bawdy and agency living off the avils. Just like in the U.S. where we had opportunity for law changes and the street hooker groups totally wasted the opportunity in Berkley for example by insisiting on decrim of public nuisance street hookers which doomed the referendum which was soundly defeated.
There is huge public opposition for very legitimate reasons for street hookers soliciting. Private consenting adult off street prostitution has none of the negative nuisance issues.
My term public nusiance refers to what they do not who they are. They ARE not wanted and is why there has been pressure in Canada to make public solicitation a indictable offense not just summary judgement it is now, since it is ineffective getting the public nuisance street hooker off the streets and to safer incall or doing outcall.
Much of it is related to drug use etc. I support all the help possible to get off drugs and be able to be responsible enough to to outcall etc. But I also believe in personal responsibility. Those on drugs have to want to get off and be responsible productive citizens.
No, not all street hookers are druggies but maybe 80%+ are.
Again my main issue is trying to decrim what will never be pubically accepted - the public nuisance street solicitor hooker, hurts the chances for decrim related to bawdy and agency issues.
In the U,K. now mini brothels are allowed vs only 1 gal per flat. Canada is far more restrictive of course but enforcement varies. At the same time they are making penalties worse for pubic nuisance street hookers and the street John's. Public solicitating isn't tolerated for good reasons! Many European cities tried to set up zones for street hookers but they have all been total failures. Again is is what the hooker does that makes them a public nuisance not who they are. A BIG differernce vs your spin as a personal attack.
At least in Canada outcall is 100% legal as it is in most of the world except the U.S. where everything is illegal.
There has been an uproar of citizens in Canada for years fed up with condoms in their front yards, regular women being solicitied in neighborhoods where they are known to be, many many examples of them being a clear public nuisance. It makes no difference if the condoms are tossed by the Johns or not, if the hookers weren't there there would not be the condoms.
The attempts by the sexworkers groups that insist on being a public nuisance do nothing than help NOT get laws changed regarding bawdy and agency living off the avils. Just like in the U.S. where we had opportunity for law changes and the street hooker groups totally wasted the opportunity in Berkley for example by insisiting on decrim of public nuisance street hookers which doomed the referendum which was soundly defeated.
There is huge public opposition for very legitimate reasons for street hookers soliciting. Private consenting adult off street prostitution has none of the negative nuisance issues.
My term public nusiance refers to what they do not who they are. They ARE not wanted and is why there has been pressure in Canada to make public solicitation a indictable offense not just summary judgement it is now, since it is ineffective getting the public nuisance street hooker off the streets and to safer incall or doing outcall.
Much of it is related to drug use etc. I support all the help possible to get off drugs and be able to be responsible enough to to outcall etc. But I also believe in personal responsibility. Those on drugs have to want to get off and be responsible productive citizens.
No, not all street hookers are druggies but maybe 80%+ are.
Again my main issue is trying to decrim what will never be pubically accepted - the public nuisance street solicitor hooker, hurts the chances for decrim related to bawdy and agency issues.
In the U,K. now mini brothels are allowed vs only 1 gal per flat. Canada is far more restrictive of course but enforcement varies. At the same time they are making penalties worse for pubic nuisance street hookers and the street John's. Public solicitating isn't tolerated for good reasons! Many European cities tried to set up zones for street hookers but they have all been total failures. Again is is what the hooker does that makes them a public nuisance not who they are. A BIG differernce vs your spin as a personal attack.
At least in Canada outcall is 100% legal as it is in most of the world except the U.S. where everything is illegal.
The main mandate I totally agree with, when done in private respecting the public enough not to be a public nuisance on the streets.Cyberite said:
The argument about being abused and not going to the police if for the most part totally untrue just an excuse for their agenda for the street hooker. The RCMP has a website specifically to report, warn and investigate abuse of street hookers or any prostitute. The Ontario PD has a task force just for investigating crimes against street hookers.
The solution for the street hooker is to be safe...get off the streets! It seems quite simple. If they are spending all their money on drugs that is their responsbility not mine. I support helping them as much as possible to GET OFF DRUGS AND OFF THE STREETS. They want respect but do not respect the public by insisting on public solicitation on the streets, in the face of the public vs in private like 90% of all sexwork is which respects the public to keep sex soliciitng private and not in a public PLACE.
How do you think they feel when they are constantly reminded of that thought day in and day out when they are just trying to survive? And then people wonder why they turn to drugs and living with abusive parasites. They need to be treated like human beings before anything positive can be done.Dave in Phoenix said:
The hookers wouldn't be there if there were not any customers. Perhaps make the penalties stiffer for the Johns so they don't go looking for street hookers anymore? Supply and Demand creates business. It's the law of Economics, even in the black market. You can't blame it all on the hookers. The people who pay them are just as much to blame.Dave in Phoenix said:
There was a time when women in general were considered nuisances. They were forced to stay at home, cook, clean, remain uneducated and be baby factories. Their first attempts at gaining equal status failed, but they kept fighting and fighting and they won. There was also a time when the Black Community were considered less than human by their white masters. Yet they too prevailed and broke the bonds of slavery and can now succeed in places that were only dreams to them 100 years ago. Just because people don't like it doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for. If you want to stop public nuisances, lets get them all.... hookers, panhandlers, corner bible thumpers, jehovah witnesses, bad drivers, door-to-door salespeople, people who are drunk in public, like where do we draw the line?Dave in Phoenix said:
It's oppressive. I give two middle fingers to the public who don't like it, because I guarantee you none of them ever had to make that choice.Dave in Phoenix said:
So your solution is to make it even MORE oppressive? Put these people who have basically nothing in prison to ENSURE they have nothing? It doesn't solve the problem, and I don't think we will see a solution in our lifetime.Dave in Phoenix said:
The drug use is a side effect. If you were constantly told you were not wanted, and a public nuisance, that you will never succeed, while you are starving and trying to survive, do you think that would create any kind of a depression issue that you may want to escape from every so often? If these women were respected, I would imagine the drug use would lower considerably among them.Dave in Phoenix said:
Because you know them all, right?Dave in Phoenix said:
People once said, they will never make airplanes non-smoking.... and then they said they will never make restaurants non-smoking... and then they said they will never make bars non-smoking.... things happen after time. This will happen too... it just takes time and dedication to the cause. I am not inconvenienced by a lady asking me if I want a date as I pass by.Dave in Phoenix said:
I was directed to a case from a SPOC member that stated that an outcall can be considered a bawdy house if the sex worker goes there more than once. I'll see if I can get her to forward me the article.Dave in Phoenix said:
The SPOC message forum was temporarily taken down while the members of SPOC reassess what direction they want to take it in. There were some issues that had caused concern, and in the interim, the board was locked. It will be back soon once all the concerns have been dealt with in a private meeting.
I am not a SPOC member, nor do I speak for them, but I do host their website and wanted to let you all know what was going on.
I am not a SPOC member, nor do I speak for them, but I do host their website and wanted to let you all know what was going on.
They found that even an SP board that looks out for the welfare of escorts might have to get tough with one of their own and that's difficult for them. She brought in a lot of outside issues they weren't prepared to handle, putting people she hadn't met on the public undesireable client list. An agency owner laughably argued he was a sex worker and should have full access to the private area, who needs that grief?
We don’t nor have we ever ‘claimed’ to be the voice of all SPs.
SPOC is made up of former and current sex workers, and we are working towards a goal with in regards to the decriminalization of sex work.
Our board has been temporarily locked, due to many reasons as KWI has kindly pointed out. Of course a new board is going to have drama and trolls and so on, and we anticipated this happening, however we felt that our time and our resources as a grass roots organization, would be better spent with bigger and better things then essentially babysitting.
We have decided to re-think how we want our board to be, and therefore have closed it for now.
I am not quite sure how KWI talks about our capacity as activist, by pointing out that we could not “handle” what was occurring on our forum.
It was not that we could not handle it, but that we simply did not want to do so. It was not something we saw as productive. Our time is better spend elsewhere, other then moderating and dealing with what was essentially online drama.
But that’s just my opinion.
Amy
SPOC is made up of former and current sex workers, and we are working towards a goal with in regards to the decriminalization of sex work.
Our board has been temporarily locked, due to many reasons as KWI has kindly pointed out. Of course a new board is going to have drama and trolls and so on, and we anticipated this happening, however we felt that our time and our resources as a grass roots organization, would be better spent with bigger and better things then essentially babysitting.
We have decided to re-think how we want our board to be, and therefore have closed it for now.
I am not quite sure how KWI talks about our capacity as activist, by pointing out that we could not “handle” what was occurring on our forum.
It was not that we could not handle it, but that we simply did not want to do so. It was not something we saw as productive. Our time is better spend elsewhere, other then moderating and dealing with what was essentially online drama.
But that’s just my opinion.
Amy
wow..
Ok.. I feel a little more educated.. or confused.. I am not sure..
I support SPOC for it's efforts and contribution. Each of us and any organization cannot be a voice for all.. that is why there are many organizations working towards different goals... Take a search throught the thousands of sex work organizations out there..if one does not suit your politics find another.
I work with www.sex-work.org and we made a concious decison to leave decriminalization to the specialists.. having a section of our links site dedicated to groups around the world.. as well as a little canadian law primer.. but I often wonder if we should even touch this.. eek.. it hurts my head..
I have lived in a few neighborhoods with street workers and I was thankful for them. The women knew me and I always felt they watched my back.
I lived in an area which had an issue with needles outside of my front door... what did I do? I put out a container for disposal & planted some wonderful smelly flowers.. within 2 weeks I never saw another condom or needle again on my street..
Canada is all about 'not in my back yard' - but street work is a service that has been offered throughout history. It costs 5-10K to get an incall up and going. If a woman needs shelter/food/$ and does not have the means it should be her right to govern her body!
ok.. this has been a big posting day on Terb.. thanks everyone for your dialog..
Ok.. I feel a little more educated.. or confused.. I am not sure..
I support SPOC for it's efforts and contribution. Each of us and any organization cannot be a voice for all.. that is why there are many organizations working towards different goals... Take a search throught the thousands of sex work organizations out there..if one does not suit your politics find another.
I work with www.sex-work.org and we made a concious decison to leave decriminalization to the specialists.. having a section of our links site dedicated to groups around the world.. as well as a little canadian law primer.. but I often wonder if we should even touch this.. eek.. it hurts my head..
I have lived in a few neighborhoods with street workers and I was thankful for them. The women knew me and I always felt they watched my back.
I lived in an area which had an issue with needles outside of my front door... what did I do? I put out a container for disposal & planted some wonderful smelly flowers.. within 2 weeks I never saw another condom or needle again on my street..
Canada is all about 'not in my back yard' - but street work is a service that has been offered throughout history. It costs 5-10K to get an incall up and going. If a woman needs shelter/food/$ and does not have the means it should be her right to govern her body!
ok.. this has been a big posting day on Terb.. thanks everyone for your dialog..
