Sign The Decriminalization Petition

[Annessa]

Hello everyone,



As you might know or not know a select team of 5 MP's will be for the next 3 months going from province to province speaking with police, organizations (profit & non-profit) etc. on whether to LEGALIZE (BIG NO) prostitution. Many organizations throughout Canada fight/believe in/for decriminalization (SPOC included since 1983)

Signing this petition means you believe in decriminalization and not legalization. (The list may be given to the MP's on March 15) more details to come later. Thanks!



To sign the petition go here;

http://www.spoc.ca/endorse.html




Read about Legalization vs Decriminalization

LEGALIZATION​

Legalization treats prostitution as a vice that must be heavily contained and controlled.​

Under legalization systems, such as that in Nevada, USA:

· Sex pro’s cannot work independently—instead they are forced to work for brothels. Brothel owners are able to set all the terms of work. Pro’s may not move to any other brothel. This leaves pro’s very vulnerable to exploitation.
· Sex pro’s do not have the right to refuse to perform certain kinds of sex or to refuse clients they are not comfortable with. As well, brothel shifts are often 12 hours long.
· While brothels officially state that they insist on condom use, the pro’s in legal brothels tell a very different tale. Clients often have the power to insist on condom-free sex. If a pro does contract an STI from coercive unsafe sex, her license is revoked and a new pro is brought in.
· To obtain work at a brothel, pro’s must register at the police station, be photographed, fingerprinted and provide very personal information about themselves to the police.
· Typically the brothel holds 50% of the pro’s income. The government takes another 25%. For their work, sex pro’s are lucky to take home 25% of their earnings.

______________________________________​

DECRIMINALIZATION​

Decriminalization views prostitution as a legitimate and necessary business. Its implementation entails removing prostitution related offences from the Canadian Criminal Code, for adults involved in this profession.​

With decriminalized prostitution, such as that in New South Wales, Australia:

· Sex pro’s may operate freely, without the threat of criminal charges and / or the state seizing their assets.
· Sex pro’s can open their own operations. Individual sex pro’s do not require a license and can decide if they wish to work for a brothel.
· Sex workers and brothels are subject to similar restrictions as other businesses. If a brothel is a nuisance to its neighbors, it can be shut down. Street sex pro’s may not work within 200 meters of a place of worship, school or a hospital.
· Sex pro’s pay income taxes at the same rate as any other small business owner.
· Anyone abusing a sex pro is charged with the appropriate offence, whether it be assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement etc.
· It is rare for a sex pro to be assaulted and when it does occur, the police and courts take it very seriously, unlike the current situation in Canada.
· Currently, the procuring law makes it almost impossible for a sex worker to live a normal life, as we are legally unable to make purchases, give gifts, pay rent, or support anyone. Friends, family, spouses and roommates can be charged with “living on the avails of prostitution”. If a sex worker is raising a child, the child could be charged with living on the avails if she/he is over the age of 12!
· It is illegal for sex pro’s to live with or even be “habitually” in someone’s company. It is also illegal for sex pro’s to share finances with anyone else including her own family. Decriminalization ends this.
· No government or religion in history—including the most repressive—have ever been able to eradicate our noble profession. Ultimately, money and sex are more powerful than governments and / or religions.

It is beyond time for the Canadian federal government to decriminalize our profession.​

Annessa
xoxo

 

[Tugger]

Do I have to use my real name, or can I just sign it as Tugger?

 

[enidob]

Personally I'd luv to see it legalized. I'd luv to own my own brothel with several women working for me. I really don't see anything wrong with this. Is it any different than other forms of legit business that hires workers in order that their employer can turn a profit. I think it is the independants that give this business a bad name. It would be much wiser to have certain guidelines that have to be adhered to such as in Nevada and in that way a customer knows exactly what he is in store for.

 

[enidob]

If I can provide a safe clean working environment, why should I not be able to establish a brothel and have girls working for me. As for Nevada, the reason there are so many independants is that prostituion is illegal in Las Vegas city limits. It is in the surrounding counties that you will find the brothels. I dare say that if brothels were legal in Vegas itself u wouldn't have this big independant scene.

 

[Svend]

Thanks for the information, Annessa.
The differences between legalization and decriminalizing are unknown to most people.
I had no idea how far along this was coming.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Under decriminalization, no one is saying you can't operate a brothel and have girls working for you in a safe clean environment. But the system would also allow for independents should they choose to work that way.

Yes. This list has 45 brothels just in Sydney(NSW AUS), which I think is more than the entire state of Nevada. http://australianescorts.com/board/showthread.php?t=244

Not to nitpick, but I'm not sure the term 'decriminalization' refers to a system of regulations or lack of them. My understanding is that it describes the act of removing something from the criminal code. If the federal government amends the bawdy house laws in the criminal code, they will have 'decriminalized' brothels.

That does not necessarily mean that all of Canada would then be the same as Sydney. Decriminalization by the federal government would be the first step before the battle moves to the lower levels of government, who can then enact their own overly restrictive regulations, including licensing systems. Going by the articles I've read about some of the other parts of Australia and New Zealand, that seems to be what usually happens. And since most Canadian cities already license massage parlours, you would have to expect that here.

Queensland started allowing brothels 4 years ago, but their licensing is so restrictive that there's still less than 20 of them in the whole state. I can't find the article, but when the first licensed one opened in 2001, anyone who had been associated with the sex trade could not be granted a licence. So, auto mechanics and accountants could start a brothel, but escorts, agency or massage parlour owners could not.

And I wouldn't hold out much hope for cities allowing incalls. There's always an outcry of "Would you want a brothel next door to you?". Decriminalization is still an improvement though, since you would only be violating a city by-law, not committing a criminal offence.

BTW, NSW decriminalized brothels after a Royal Commission found the police there were corrupt and getting bribed by the brothels. It was not done to help sex workers, although that may have been the result.

 

[Annessa]

That's Not Right!

HaywoodJabloemy
Decriminalization by the federal government would be the first step before the battle moves to the lower levels of government,

Actually that would be the middle-end step in the battle. A topic like prostitution (esp. decriminalizing it) is something where you need to attack each law (or the most important laws) that have come into effect over the last 25 years. And they finally have begun to see this, that these 'laws' have done nothing to improve the safety in this business, if not made it worse.

Fighting the 'Living on the Avails' law, 'Communicating' law, 'Bawdy-House' law, etc. is where the focus needs to be. Taking the building down a few bricks at a time until eventually it will fall.

All these laws, the police, the government, etc. have done fuck all about prostitutes/prostitution because of 'their attitude' towards it, and this shit needs to stop for the violence to stop. (come down sufficiently)

The Toronto Sex Crimes Unit says they suspect over 10 Prostitutes are assaulted per night! but they will never know for sure because soooo many go unreported.


That's not right, it never was.







Annessa
xoxo

 

[HappyHookers]

I think the laws we have now should be inforced before we go trying to change them. Most of the laws are actually fine the way they are. As a parent, I don't want an incall or massage parlor in my area and I don't want streetwalkers hanging out all day and night either, As an escort I don't want the government telling if I can work, where I work, or when I work. I am not slave.

If that means following the letter of law the way it is now, then fine. I will.

That is my opinion on the matter.

HH

 

[JoyfulC]

Actually, prostitution is already legal in Canada...

What happens if someone goes to work for a "licensed brothel" and refuses to have sex with the customer? Can the brothel fire this prostitute? Would the government uphold the right of one person to force their employee to engage in sex against their will? Yeah, right! ;-)

Annessa wrote:

· Sex pro’s can open their own operations. Individual sex pro’s do not require a license and can decide if they wish to work for a brothel.

Isn't that the "facts on the ground" of how it is today in Canada? Any escort with a cell phone can hang out her shingle and operate without a license (except in a few Canadian cities). "Incalls" are openly advertised across Canada.

· Sex workers and brothels are subject to similar restrictions as other businesses. If a brothel is a nuisance to its neighbors, it can be shut down. Street sex pro’s may not work within 200 meters of a place of worship, school or a hospital.

That first part is, again, pretty much "the facts on the ground" for incall operations here in Canada.

But I will agree that there is still the legal risk for escorts who choose to offer first-time incall to their clients. Under the law as it is today, we should not be able to do that -- but enforcement looks the other way, unless there is a complaint.

· Sex pro’s pay income taxes at the same rate as any other small business owner.

You have every right to do this now. You can obtain a business license in Ontario and put "adult entertainment" down as the nature of your business. You can go to Revenue Canada and ask to be put on a schedule for paying taxes throughout the year, based on your projected revenues (and like everyone else, at the end of the year, you will file a return and reconcile what you paid against what you owe).

Sure, not all escorts do this -- but that's true of many small businesses.

· Anyone abusing a sex pro is charged with the appropriate offence, whether it be assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement etc.

Again, this is how it's supposed to be now.

· It is rare for a sex pro to be assaulted and when it does occur, the police and courts take it very seriously, unlike the current situation in Canada.

What makes you think so? I have seen situations where the authorities bent over backwards to be fair to sex workers -- sometimes perhaps more than they would have for anyone else.

· Currently, the procuring law makes it almost impossible for a sex worker to live a normal life, as we are legally unable to make purchases, give gifts, pay rent,

?? What makes you think that? That is not how I interpret the law at all.

or support anyone. Friends, family, spouses and roommates can be charged with “living on the avails of prostitution”. If a sex worker is raising a child, the child could be charged with living on the avails if she/he is over the age of 12!

But when have you ever heard of a child of a prostitute being charged with living off the avails? Or the legitimate husband/partner of a prostitute?

The law is the way that it is is to make it easier for authorities to go after those creeps who would prey upon the most vulnerable among us. As long as they aren't actively using the broadness of the law to attack the rest of us, why should we be concerned?

· It is illegal for sex pro’s to live with or even be “habitually” in someone’s company. It is also illegal for sex pro’s to share finances with anyone else including her own family. Decriminalization ends this.

Again, though, when have you heard about this law being used to break up a family or a legitimate couple?

· No government or religion in history—including the most repressive—have ever been able to eradicate our noble profession. Ultimately, money and sex are more powerful than governments and / or religions.
[/bold]

No, they've never been able to eradicate it -- but it's only been in recent years that women have been able to take control of themselves and their choices.

Canada's prostitution laws are currently, in my estimation, the very best in the world -- and I've looked at the laws of many other countries. Canada's laws do not seek to impose morality, nor to impede any adult from being or using the services of an adult prostitute. The few laws that are on the books exist purely to protect individuals from exploitation and to protect communities from problems that might be created by irresponsible prostitution operations. Isn't that a good thing?

Let's face it: the very existence of TERB and other sites like it are evidence that we enjoy considerable tolerance and justice here in Canada.

..c..

 

[HappyHookers]

I so missed you women, I knew you would be posting to this thread and I am so glad you did. Hope all is well for you sweetie.

HH

 

[laurelg@maggies]

What happens if someone goes to work for a "licensed brothel" and refuses to have sex with the customer? Can the brothel fire this prostitute?

Yes and....

Would the government uphold the right of one person to force their employee to engage in sex against their will? Yeah, right! ;-)

yes.

In a legalized system like Amsterdam and Victoria almost all of the sex workers who work in licensed brothels are migrant sex workers. In the case of Amsterdam, they are mainly from Eastern Europe, and in Victoria they are mainly from Pacific Asian countries. These sex workers who are contracted can't just get up and leave the brothel they work for if the owners are assholes, because they will be out of work, and deported. So, to keep their jobs, they are going to work those 12 to 16 hour days, and provide any sexual service their ******* demands of them.

The nationals generally choose to work illegally in exchange for more control over their bodies and business.

Isn't that the "facts on the ground" of how it is today in Canada? Any escort with a cell phone can hang out her shingle and operate without a license (except in a few Canadian cities). "Incalls" are openly advertised across Canada.

While outcalls are completely legal under current Canadian law (as long as the sex worker doesn't go to the place more then once--bawdy house--and as long as she has no driver, receptionist, or buddy system--procuring), incalls are completely illegal. Everyone involved with an incall can be charged, from the workers, management, receptionist and the clients.

That first part is, again, pretty much "the facts on the ground" for incall operations here in Canada.

But I will agree that there is still the legal risk for escorts who choose to offer first-time incall to their clients. Under the law as it is today, we should not be able to do that -- but enforcement looks the other way, unless there is a complaint.

There is a risk for long time clients as well, look at Cassandra Do who was murdered in 2003. The fact that incalls are illegal, sex workers are diligent as far as discretion goes. With the painful amounts of discretion comes a higher risk. And enforcement does not look the other way, they have been having a good old time busting a myriad of incalls and parlours over the last few years.

 

[laurelg@maggies]

con't....

You have every right to do this now. You can obtain a business license in Ontario and put "adult entertainment" down as the nature of your business. You can go to Revenue Canada and ask to be put on a schedule for paying taxes throughout the year, based on your projected revenues (and like everyone else, at the end of the year, you will file a return and reconcile what you paid against what you owe).

You're right; a sex worker can file for taxes, but as long as they are working outcalls, and alone. If they work incalls, or with other people, they can be charged under the bawdy house and procuring laws.

Again, this is how it's supposed to be now.
What makes you think so? I have seen situations where the authorities bent over backwards to be fair to sex workers -- sometimes perhaps more than they would have for anyone else.

Of course this is how it is supposed to be now. So, isn't it a little redundant to have *extra* laws in place to 'protect' sex workers? The whole point of those extra laws is to make the statement that sex work is a vice.

I have personally been in contact with outreach workers from NS Wales, and they have stated themselves that due to decriminalization, assaults, rapes and murders are almost nil. Also due to decrim, sex workers and the police have a better relationship, so when if there is any bad dates, sex workers feel safer to report them.

As an outreach worker I have been privy to many cases where sex workers have reported assaults et al to the police. In my experience for every positive outcome, there are a shitload of bad. This was mainly due to apathy from the police and the sex worker herself being charged.

But when have you ever heard of a child of a prostitute being charged with living off the avails? Or the legitimate husband/partner of a prostitute?

A child has not been charged in Canada under these laws (but there are cases in Sweden where they have similar laws in place), however, the fact that this *could* happen is absolutely horrible. The law is draconian and needs to be abolished. As far as partners/spouses go, this has happened frequently, and is almost as terrible as if it were to happen to a sex worker's child.

The law is the way that it is to make it easier for authorities to go after those creeps who would prey upon the most vulnerable among us. As long as they aren't actively using the broadness of the law to attack the rest of us, why should we be concerned?

Yes, protect us from the asshole pimps as well as agency owners, our drivers, our receptionists, our roommates and anyone else who directly or indirectly profits from our labour.

Again, though, when have you heard about this law being used to break up a family or a legitimate couple?

Ah well, the agency I used to work for comes to mind. I know Rachel Allen and her children sure miss Dave.

No, they've never been able to eradicate it -- but it's only been in recent years that women have been able to take control of themselves and their choices.

Canada's prostitution laws are currently, in my estimation, the very best in the world -- and I've looked at the laws of many other countries. Canada's laws do not seek to impose morality, nor to impede any adult from being or using the services of an adult prostitute. The few laws that are on the books exist purely to protect individuals from exploitation and to protect communities from problems that might be created by irresponsible prostitution operations. Isn't that a good thing?

I am sure that the 600 sex workers who are missing or who have been murdered in the last 20 years (since the communicating law was put in place, December 1985) would tend to disagree. Infact, it looks like the government is getting so uncomfortable that they are actually talking of decriminalization. Sure, we probably wont get it any time soon, but for a government to suggest such a taboo, something must be wrong with our laws.

 

[JoyfulC]

These sex workers who are contracted can't just get up and leave the brothel they work for if the owners are assholes, because they will be out of work, and deported. So, to keep their jobs, they are going to work those 12 to 16 hour days, and provide any sexual service their ******* demands of them.

That's an entirely different issue. Any time you have "migrant" workers, there are going to be different dynamics and that needs to be dealt with through immigration law.

The nationals generally choose to work illegally in exchange for more control over their bodies and business.

That's what I worry about: once "licensed brothels" are in place, they will pressure authorities to come down on escorts (which are not brothel workers) for offering incall.

While outcalls are completely legal under current Canadian law (as long as the sex worker doesn't go to the place more then once--bawdy house--

Whoa. When did you ever hear of an outcall escort being charged with going to a premise more than once?

and as long as she has no driver, receptionist, or buddy system--procuring), incalls are completely illegal. Everyone involved with an incall can be charged, from the workers, management, receptionist and the clients.

Technically, incalls are never legal. But they are tolerated unless there is a complaint from a neighbour.

Yes, everyone can be charged -- but many more times more often than not, that's not the case.

Sometimes the law needs to be broad to give it the teeth to deal quickly and efficiently with problems. As long as it is not being used against considerate operations, why should that bother us?

There is a risk for long time clients as well, look at Cassandra Do who was murdered in 2003. The fact that incalls are illegal, sex workers are diligent as far as discretion goes. With the painful amounts of discretion comes a higher risk. And enforcement does not look the other way, they have been having a good old time busting a myriad of incalls and parlours over the last few years.

That is not the case here in Ottawa. We have had busts of incall locations, but they were mostly ones that had unacceptable traffic for the neighbourhoods they were in, as well as other problems.

I'm not sure what your point is about Cassandra Do and "long time clients."

..c..

 

[laurelg@maggies]

That's an entirely different issue. Any time you have "migrant" workers, there are going to be different dynamics and that needs to be dealt with through immigration law.

My point about the migrant workers is that most of the sex workers who work in the licensed brothels in legalized systems are migrants. The nationals would prefer to work underground because they don't like the system in place.

That's what I worry about: once "licensed brothels" are in place, they will pressure authorities to come down on escorts (which are not brothel workers) for offering incall.

See, that is one of the reasons I am endorsing decrim. I am an incall provider, and I don't necessarily want to work for an agency. Under decrim I could set up my own incall, without being charged under the bawdy house laws.

Whoa. When did you ever hear of an outcall escort being charged with going to a premise more than once?

Honestly, I don't know any who were convicted. But, when an outcall agency I worked for was bust, some of the workers were threatened to be charged for this if they did not comply.

Sometimes the law needs to be broad to give it the teeth to deal quickly and efficiently with problems. As long as it is not being used against considerate operations, why should that bother us?

How does it help exactly?

That is not the case here in Ottawa. We have had busts of incall locations, but they were mostly ones that had unacceptable traffic for the neighbourhoods they were in, as well as other problems.

Granted incalls should always be considerate of neighbours, but with other laws already in place to protect their interest, what good is the bawdy house laws?

I'm not sure what your point is about Cassandra Do and "long time clients."

..c..

The investigating officers of her case stated that they strongly felt that who ever murdered Cassandra was a longtime client. That was my point.

 

[JoyfulC]

con't....

You're right; a sex worker can file for taxes, but as long as they are working outcalls, and alone. If they work incalls, or with other people, they can be charged under the bawdy house and procuring laws.

No, I don't agree. Tax law is entirely seperate from criminal law. Revenue Canada doesn't care how you earn the money -- if you're a drug dealer, a hit man, an escort, or run a lawn maintenence service.

Further, if you look on your tax filing forms, it says right there that Revenue Canada does not and will not share information with other government agencies.

Of course this is how it is supposed to be now. So, isn't it a little redundant to have *extra* laws in place to 'protect' sex workers? The whole point of those extra laws is to make the statement that sex work is a vice.

Extra laws? Can you quote? I am not aware of such. My understanding is that sex workers are not to be dealt with differently than other persons as victims with respect to the law. (Admittedly -- and thankfully! -- I haven't had the opportunity to check it out first hand.)

I have personally been in contact with outreach workers from NS Wales, and they have stated themselves that due to decriminalization, assaults, rapes and murders are almost nil.

I believe that if escorts and other sex workers here in Canada verified the identify of their customers -- as I do -- they'd also enjoy a near-zero incidence of problems.

Also due to decrim, sex workers and the police have a better relationship, so when if there is any bad dates, sex workers feel safer to report them.

Over the years, I've both run bad date lists and had good friends who were cops. Sorry, but I'm not convinced that the quality of information coming from the average sex worker is all that terrific.

As an outreach worker I have been privy to many cases where sex workers have reported assaults et al to the police. In my experience for every positive outcome, there are a shitload of bad. This was mainly due to apathy from the police and the sex worker herself being charged.

I'm sure that's the case in many instances -- but you must also know that some sex workers are the architects of their own bad outcomes.

A child has not been charged in Canada under these laws (but there are cases in Sweden where they have similar laws in place), however, the fact that this *could* happen is absolutely horrible.

I sincerely doubt that it would happen here because the law itself could be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Hope I got that right!)

And frankly, I doubt that either law enforcers or prosecutors want to see that particular law challenged because it will make it more difficult for them to deal with some of the predators that they encounter.

My friend is an OR nurse. She has supported her husband and children, off and on, for 20+ years. If she has the right to do that, then why shouldn't I have the right to contribute to my own household and family? Obviously, I should and the courts would agree.

The trouble is that some little girl, who is getting drugs and validation from someone who turns her out on the street, might be just as eager as I am to "stand by her man." And yet, as adults, we know she is being exploited. The law needs to be able to deal with that situation, and for that reason, they need to have my situation be technically illegal. I am confident that they'll never charge my husband -- and that, if they ever tried, it wouldn't work out well for them. Maybe I should be annoyed that my situation is technically illegal -- but frankly, I'd rather have the law be able to deal with those who hang around bus stations and prey upon run-aways.

cont'd

 

[JoyfulC]

The law is draconian and needs to be abolished. As far as partners/spouses go, this has happened frequently, and is almost as terrible as if it were to happen to a sex worker's child.

I don't agree, and I never heard of it being applied this way in Canada in any case where the partner wasn't truly a pimp.

Yes, protect us from the asshole pimps as well as agency owners, our drivers

That much I will give you. For purely political and publicity reasons, the crown goes after agencies from time to time. Initially, there's aways a big stink in the news -- but if you follow these cases down to their conclusions, they rarely amount to much. Even in cities such as Calgary, that license escort agencies, the crown exploits public opinion to aggrandize itself by putting a few heads on posts.

This is wrong -- and while most of us here are independent escorts, we still need to stand by the agents. Agents have their place in our business -- not everyone is cut out to be an independent or situated to be an independent. Escorts should have the right to have agents to represent them, if they deem it desirable.

Ah well, the agency I used to work for comes to mind. I know Rachel Allen and her children sure miss Dave.

I only have third hand knowledge of that, and cannot speak on it.

I am sure that the 600 sex workers who are missing or who have been murdered in the last 20 years (since the communicating law was put in place, December 1985) would tend to disagree.

Let's not be ridiculous! Sex workers were being killed way before that, and will continue to be killed no matter what the law is. The thing that gets sex workers killed is dealing with anonymous customers -- predators prefer to remain anonymous. It has nothing to do with the law.

Infact, it looks like the government is getting so uncomfortable that they are actually talking of decriminalization. Sure, we probably wont get it any time soon, but for a government to suggest such a taboo, something must be wrong with our laws.

Or maybe that some MP wants to create opportunities for "licensed brothel" operators -- READ: third parties who wish to profit off the sex workers.

Street prostitution will never be accepted because of the problems it creates for the communities it happens in. If it isn't dealt with at a federal level (which is actually the most fair) then it will be dealth with at a municipal level. Let's not kid ourselves: if streetwalkers can't get jobs indoors at massage parlours and escort agencies today, they won't get them tomorrow at "licensed brothels." Further, if they can't handle the simple and low-cost requirements of working as independent escorts (a cell phone and an ad), then it's doubtful they'll be able to manage the requirements and costs of being licensed. And if they are willing to defy the Criminal Code of Canada to walk the streets, is it so unreasonable to believe that they'd be able to defy municipal licensing?

At some point, we, as sex workers, have to stop being "rebels without a cause" and start thinking pragmatically about how the law relates to us.

Myself? I believe that Canada's prostitution laws are currently the most just and intelligent of any I've seen in any country around the world. And yes, I've checked it out.

..c..

 

[JoyfulC]

My point about the migrant workers is that most of the sex workers who work in the licensed brothels in legalized systems are migrants. The nationals would prefer to work underground because they don't like the system in place.

That right there is VERY TELLING! It pretty much screams that those sex workers who consider themselves first class citizens of the society feel that they'd rather be illegal than tolerate being licensed.

See, that is one of the reasons I am endorsing decrim. I am an incall provider, and I don't necessarily want to work for an agency. Under decrim I could set up my own incall, without being charged under the bawdy house laws.

I think you're being very short-sighted about this.

In order to license brothels, municipalities will have to deal with the zoning issue. Licensed brothels will only be able to exist in properly zoned areas -- much the same as strip clubs and massage parlours are today.

But once licensed brothel operators have paid their licensing fees and set up shop in properly zoned areas, do you think for a minute that they're going to tolerate the municipality allowing escorts such as you and me to advertise incalls -- competition to their businesses -- in non-zoned areas?

Yeah, right!

Licensed brothel owners will want the "incall" business that is currently going to escorts who offer incalls -- and they will pressure municipalities to enforce the "bawdy house" laws in ways that the municipalities currently do not.

Honestly, I don't know any who were convicted. But, when an outcall agency I worked for was bust, some of the workers were threatened to be charged for this if they did not comply.

When the police take down an agency, it's not uncommon for them to try to threaten and scare the agency's escorts. And usually it works. But that doesn't mean it's legal.

How does it help exactly?

The way the law reads is "Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house or in a house of assignation is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution" -- this means that they don't need the prostitute to testify that the "pimp" exploited her. In the case of very young or drug-addicted or other affected sex workers, they may be too dependent upon their pimps to testify against them, even though they are being exploited by them.

The law reading the way that it does gives law enforcement the ability to deal with predatory pimps without requiring the victims to testify against them.

Granted incalls should always be considerate of neighbours, but with other laws already in place to protect their interest, what good is the bawdy house laws?

What other laws?

I'm not aware of any other laws that protect communities from high-traffic, problematic incall prostitution operations.

The investigating officers of her case stated that they strongly felt that who ever murdered Cassandra was a longtime client. That was my point.

But as of today, we have no way of knowing. That's the sad thing.

..c..

 

[laurelg@maggies]

I don't agree, and I never heard of it being applied this way in Canada in any case where the partner wasn't truly a pimp.

Again, Dave Allen comes to mind. As well as some lower-profiles.

Let's not be ridiculous! Sex workers were being killed way before that, and will continue to be killed no matter what the law is. The thing that gets sex workers killed is dealing with anonymous customers -- predators prefer to remain anonymous. It has nothing to do with the law.

Well, given that I have lost people, and too many that I know have lost people, I find the fact that you call this 'ridiculous' rather insulting. Yes, sex workers have been murdered way before 20 years ago, but 600 in a generation is rather scary. Oh, and given that the murder rates have sky-rocketed in those last 20 years has nothing to do with it, I suppose?

I firmly believe that the laws have alot to do with it, given laws dictate and contribute to social attitudes. Hatred and ignorance is what gets sex workers murdered.

And if they are willing to defy the Criminal Code of Canada to walk the streets, is it so unreasonable to believe that they'd be able to defy municipal licensing?

So many sex workers are 'defying' the laws, not just outdoor sex workers. I wonder how many actually abide the laws to perfection? Not I, I work incall.

At some point, we, as sex workers, have to stop being "rebels without a cause" and start thinking pragmatically about how the law relates to us.

I don't know about the rest of the lot, but I am sure as hell am not a rebel without a cause. My cause is about sex workers' rights, and I do believe that I have had a sober look at how the laws affect me.

Myself? I believe that Canada's prostitution laws are currently the most just and intelligent of any I've seen in any country around the world. And yes, I've checked it out.

..c..

And your stance is respected on my end.

 

[laurelg@maggies]

That right there is VERY TELLING! It pretty much screams that those sex workers who consider themselves first class citizens of the society feel that they'd rather be illegal than tolerate being licensed.

Decent working conditions or deplorable ones...hmmmm....

I think you're being very short-sighted about this.

In order to license brothels, municipalities will have to deal with the zoning issue. Licensed brothels will only be able to exist in properly zoned areas -- much the same as strip clubs and massage parlours are today.

But once licensed brothel operators have paid their licensing fees and set up shop in properly zoned areas, do you think for a minute that they're going to tolerate the municipality allowing escorts such as you and me to advertise incalls -- competition to their businesses -- in non-zoned areas?

Yeah, right!

Well seeing as how they don't 'zone' brothels in NS Wales, and numerous independent sex workers work out of their own incalls, it can be done. If independent sex workers are being bullied by larger incalls in NS Wales, I haven't heard about it.

Licensed brothel owners will want the "incall" business that is currently going to escorts who offer incalls -- and they will pressure municipalities to enforce the "bawdy house" laws in ways that the municipalities currently do not.

In a legalized system where they have licensed brothel owners, it is a monopoly, so there is no chance for independent sex workers anyways. It's funny how in NS Wales where the brothels are not licensed any differently then any other business, that they go to the point of have co-op brothels, and non-profits. And hey, the indies seem to do just fine.

When the police take down an agency, it's not uncommon for them to try to threaten and scare the agency's escorts. And usually it works. But that doesn't mean it's legal.

That just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

The way the law reads is "Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house or in a house of assignation is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution" -- this means that they don't need the prostitute to testify that the "pimp" exploited her. In the case of very young or drug-addicted or other affected sex workers, they may be too dependent upon their pimps to testify against them, even though they are being exploited by them.

The law reading the way that it does gives law enforcement the ability to deal with predatory pimps without requiring the victims to testify against them.

And for those like me who are most definitely not being exploited can't say much if and when our loved ones are classified as pimps.

What other laws?

I'm not aware of any other laws that protect communities from high-traffic, problematic incall prostitution operations.

There are a various laws in place (I would assume it would be different in each locale) that deal with rowdy and bothersome neighbours.

But as of today, we have no way of knowing. That's the sad thing.

..c..

Ya, and the saddest thing is that they have closed her case, along with Lien Pham's.

 

[JoyfulC]

Again, Dave Allen comes to mind. As well as some lower-profiles.

But Allen was an agent, is that so?

Again, that's a different issue and one that I certainly do think that we, as an industry, need to address. Agents seem to be targeted and taken down by crown prosecutors and law enforcement, from time to time, for no reason other than publicity.

As an escort who worked for many, many years prior to the internet -- and who often relied on agents -- I feel that we should stand behind agents when one of these situations happens. Sadly, though, many independent escorts feel that they have no responsibility to agencies. They fill a legitimate and viable role in our industry, though, and we need to stand behind them.

Well, given that I have lost people, and too many that I know have lost people, I find the fact that you call this 'ridiculous' rather insulting.

Be as insulted as you'd like -- however, that won't stop innocent women from being murdered by predators. It has nothing to do with the law.

Yes, sex workers have been murdered way before 20 years ago, but 600 in a generation are rather scary. Oh, and given that the murder rates have sky-rocketed in those last 20 years has nothing to do with it, I suppose?

I firmly believe that the laws have alot to do with it, given laws dictate and contribute to social attitudes. Hatred and ignorance is what gets sex workers murdered.

If that's what you believe, fine.

However, I believe that sex workers tend to be murdered for a couple of reasons:

1) because predators believe that we're "disposable" -- that no one will give a shit if we're murdered; and

2) because sex workers too often allow customers to be anonymous, "no questions asked," which offers predators the opportunity to evade the consequences of their actions.

I don't know about you, but I will not see someone unless I verify his identity first. Yep, I lose some business over this -- but I also have essentially a zero rate of problems.

Sadly, many sex workers would rather have the $$ from anonymous customers than the safety and security of verification. It's a choice.

So many sex workers are 'defying' the laws, not just outdoor sex workers. I wonder how many actually abide the laws to perfection? Not I, I work incall.

Well, actually, I preferred it better when the bawdy house laws were more stringently enforced, and most customers accepted that outcall was the norm for first time appointments. That's not to say that incall wasn't an option -- only that it had to be earned by customers. If an escort was comfortable with a client, she would extend incall to him, after seeing him outcall once or more times.

I'd be just as happy to see it return to that. I think it was safer and more civilized.

I don't know about the rest of the lot, but I am sure as hell am not a rebel without a cause. My cause is about sex workers' rights, and I do believe that I have had a sober look at how the laws affect me.

I think you are looking at them, but I don't think you're looking at the broader context. It's not just about how it affects you, but how it affects communities, the vulnerable among us and -- yes -- even other business operators -- that counts. You need to take a broader, less subjective view.

..c..