Sign The Decriminalization Petition

[dreamer]

still dreaming!!!

firstly, i don't disagree that the poster to which you were responding was exagerating.

secondly, i was addressing YOUR assertion >
In places where the municipality licences escorts and escort agencies they do charge the employees with *living off the avails* as in the example I cited (Barrie) in direct response to your assertion that they don't.

I did. You didn't.

Quote from your earlier post "That includes the boyfriend or adult children of said hooker."

That is what my original post was about and you are simply wrong in your assertion. In fact my whole response was directed at the assertion that boyfriends, children etc can be charged with "living off of the avails". My example at the end was poor. I should had said that even escort agencies are being allowed to operate without being charged, unless there is indication of drugs, child prostitution or something else that attracts the attention of the police. I do agree with the concept that the laws are poorly written and allow alot of discretion on the part of police, and possibly harrassment on their part.

It is a fact the agencies and employees have been charged with living off of the avails, but I do believe there were other reasons as cited above on why they were selected for prosecution. Right now accross Canada the police can open up local papers and charge hundreds of escort agencies. Why don't they?

You also stated that "living off of the avails" is the most pursued charge. I believe you are also wrong on this assertion, most charges are for "communication". I read some stats from 1995 where 92% of the prostitution charges were for communication while 5% were for living off of the avails and 3% were for bawdy house. Now unless things have drastically changed in the last ten years, I do not think you are right.

The fact is that even though it makes headlines, escort agencies are rarely charged. But you are right, they can.

You also asked a question about why municipalities are not charged with living off of the avails. There is a City of Edmonton case dealing with that issue and rightfully so it was decided that they were not.

You make alot of statements about people you know being charged. Please cite the cases so that I may read them. Every one that I have read so far has always had background information about drugs and underage escorts as for the reason behind the investigation.

 

[HappyHookers]

What? I don't understand how you could say you want the current laws to be "inforced" more, when you must know you are are committing a criminal offence by keeping a common bawdy house if you do incalls. The spoc.ca website seems to be far more concerned about that than it is with street walkers.

And you "had a big hand in getting the committee back open"? Why would you have done that if you don't want the laws changed? Wouldn't you have preferred them to ignore the situation and do nothing?

And okay, I agree, no escort or agency has ever used misleading photos on their website. I apologize for implying that may ever have happened.

I've read that the committee will be making an initial report in June.

Why do I want the laws enforced??? You have to ask that, what to I care about being an incall chick, when I have pimps selling SW just down the street so he can buy his next 8 ball to sell for more cash. The drug dealing Pimps, sex slavery, etc has to go.

The committee is set up to look at the laws, if we don't enforce what we have now, we will not known what laws need to be charged and why. Not only that but what exactly is decriminalization going to do??? Seriously??? Legalizing and decriminalization are two different things. Simple fines, like weed smoking for SW. I think not, I am mother first, then a hooker and I don't want this kind of stuff around my children. I don't work from home, I don't work in a building that has kids, I run my business professional and with as much thought for others as possible. I would like to see more who are like me. You can't fix something when you don't know what is wrong, can you?

What does decriminalization do for the online escort????? Make it easier for us to have incalls???? Is that it? How many online incalls have been busted lately, or over the last 3 years let say? Not to many. SPOC has been and will always be about SW. Anyone can tell you that who actually works in this business.

HH

 

[feminista]

Quote from your earlier post "That includes the boyfriend or adult children of said hooker"

.

That is what my original post was about and you are simply wrong in your assertion. In fact my whole response was directed at the assertion that boyfriends, children etc can be charged with "living off of the avails". "

I know 2 boyfirends who have been charged with living off the avails. WHy do you say this isn't happeneing . IT IS. I believe one is ongoing and the guy will likely plead to something. It isn't in the papers.

I should had said that even escort agencies are being allowed to operate without being charged, unless there is indication of drugs, child prostitution or something else that attracts the attention of the police.

The big bust in Toronto was strictly about *living off the avails*. The police claimed they started the investigation after one call reporting there was an underage girl involved. They never found one. They did find polaroids of every girl hired with a copies of their ID proving they were of age. The cops went after the Toronto Agency owner after The Star did an expose on the millions he was making.

The bust in Barrie never included allegation of underage girls or drugs. It was strctly a *living off the avails* charge and plea.

It seems more like success breeds a bust. If you get too big or become too visible you become a target. That is what sucks about the laws. You don't have to have underage people or drugs or anything bad. The police can bust the agency for existing and they do.

police can open up local papers and charge hundreds of escort agencies. Why don't they?

Because too many other businesses are making too much money off the escort companies. If you know your place and never piss the pigs off and remain invisible within the community they will ALLOW you to continue.

You also stated that "living off of the avails" is the most pursued charge. I believe you are also wrong on this assertion, most charges are for "communication".

in relation to escorting it is. Communicating is not a charge commonly associated with the escort business. That's a street thing.

I am not saying it happens often. It is just unfair that one day it's fine and the next day on the whim of a cop it can all be shut down and people can criminalized and ruined after doing exactly what the cops knew they've been doing for years.

Can you refer me to the Edmonton case.

Thanks

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Right now most businesses, including mine are subject to regulations and laws, big deal, why should prostitution be any different. I am not suppose to run my business from my residence, but I do meet a few clients there and no one cares. If I had clients going in and out at all hours and causing parking problems I would probably be visited by licensing and told to stop.
I think that no matter how you look at it, street prostitution is dangerous and should not be allowed, and I am thinking of the prostitutes here.

I also think the prostitutes should require periodic testing as a condition of licensing. Again, given the nature of the business it makes sense to me.

Mostly I agree with your comments. And if they would get off the decrim of public nuisance street hookers bandwagon it would be more likely to get progress on less restrictions for incall and agencies. Then work on getting street hookers off the street into safer situations.

But on licensing, the issues you raise about your business being regulated and out of your home is a zoning issue, not licensing. Many cities at least in the U.S. allow home businesses if only so many people at a time come so not parking problem etc. Sexwork should be treated like any other business subject to zoning for incall or comply with any other home business rule. But I see no need for further licensing or regulation.

On the STD testing issue, outcall has always been legal in Canada (and most of the world) and I have never heard of any public health issues. I would argue that if STD's were an issue you first should license teenagers having sex vs non street hooker sex workers since their STD rates are far higher than professional sex workers.

I simply see no evidence from anywhere in the world that private sexwork has ever been any public health issue. I'd suggest sexworkers are far safer than the general public or picking up a women in a bar. I just don't see any real need for licensing or restrictions that don't apply to all businesses (i.e. zoning).

 

[dreamer]

.
Can you refer me to the Edmonton case.

Thanks

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed_escort20030410

always best to actually look at the case itself but this is all I could find.

 

[dreamer]

But on licensing, the issues you raise about your business being regulated and out of your home is a zoning issue, not licensing. Many cities at least in the U.S. allow home businesses if only so many people at a time come so not parking problem etc. Sexwork should be treated like any other business subject to zoning for incall or comply with any other home business rule. But I see no need for further licensing or regulation.)

I could be wrong but I doubt they would ever, through zoning, allow a prostitute to legally work from their home. However zoning incalls like they currently do massage parlours could work.

Also, here in Canada licensing is linked to zoning in many cases, ie as a condition of the license.

I simply see no evidence from anywhere in the world that private sexwork has ever been any public health issue. I'd suggest sexworkers are far safer than the general public or picking up a women in a bar. I just don't see any real need for licensing or restrictions that don't apply to all businesses (i.e. zoning).

If they changed the laws and actually licensed prostitutes I could see a day when somone sues the municipality if they ever caught something from a licensed escort. Right now the municipalities that actually license escorts are stating that they are not licensing prostitution.

 

[feminista]

Thanks Dreamer. I was not aware of this story.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Remember that the terms 'decriminalization' and 'legalization' have meanings that can be vague. If you are writing to a politician, it's probably better to be more specific about what type of system you want. For example the one mentioned in the first post of this thread describes the one that most of us would likely find to be the best example, the Australian state of New South Wales, which includes the country's largest city, Sydney.

I point this out because some of the anti-sex trade feminists have began referring to the prohibition on paying for sex in Sweden as "decriminalization". From their view, the prostitutes have been decriminalized, even though the customers have not. As previously mentioned, this has made life more dangerous for sex workers in Sweden.
http://www.petraostergren.com/english/studier.magister.asp

They are still attempting to maintain the false pretense that the Swedish prohibition has been a good thing for sex workers, and is what sex workers here in Canada would want! They are trying to make it sound like you agree with them when you say you want decriminalization.

BTW, I believe this is the website of the Edmonton escort who took the city to court.
http://www.sextradeworkersofcanada.com/main/home/

 

[mandrill]

Avails

Feminista, like I said, the relationship has to be exploitative for a charge to stick. Either your friends aren't telling you the truth about their relationships or the lawyers their boyfriends hired were REALLY useless.

Any decent lawyer could get an avails charge thrown out pronto if the Crown couldn't prove exploitation.

Do the cops sometimes lay charges that can't properly stick just ot get "leverage"? Uh-huh. Sure. But it's a more general practice than just in prostitution cases. They lay chickenshit fraud and assault charges too.

 

[feminista]

Any decent lawyer could get an avails charge thrown out pronto if the Crown couldn't prove exploitation

.

Unfortunately accused of the "totally useless" variety are way too willing to plead guilty. Perhaps this is becuz they are way too poor to pay for a defense or way too lazy to jump thru all the Legal Aid hoops.

One shouldn't be able to be charged criminally just because they are lazy bastards.

In what other situation could cops charge someone just for being sloth-like?
In what other situation would one have to worry about the blameless people in their lives being charged becuz of their benign profession?