Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Actually, there are many people/organizations here working towards sex workers' rights. Maggie's, Nikki Thomas, SPOC (who led the SCC challenge) are all here. Furthermore there are plenty of activist sex workers and allies, clients and agency owners, doing their share. Of course in a case like this, the more the merrier, as we're looking towards legitimizing this, so anyone interested in how things are going and/or wants to contribute, please contact the people I just mentioned.
He made that huge commitment because he wanted kids and never thought to see if they actually could beforehand?
I disagree completely with this. Slapping a brothel license on any business doesn't mean MP's aren't "getting rich". There are already brothels in this city....incalls in every condo building in the GTA...unlicensed & for now, flying below the enforcement radar. and MP's survive just fine
. Adding a license to that doesn't change the customer demand for MP services. Why would agencies want to now pay a huge licensing fee when they can run unlicensed in residential condos/hotels? Unless LE is gonna close them all down & force them to buy a license, I don't see agencies closing their 3 & 4 locations to spend more & make less.
The Devils Playground example is exactly what MP's shouldn't be used for. 1st off, they are Holistic. 2nd, using a makeshift Body Rub Parlor as a front for a brothel is exactly what LE can pounce all over.
The debate isn't about what is; it's about what is to come....I disagree completely with this. Slapping a brothel license on any business doesn't mean MP's aren't "getting rich". There are already brothels in this city....incalls in every condo building in the GTA...unlicensed & for now, flying below the enforcement radar. and MP's survive just fine
Why would agencies want to now pay a huge licensing fee when they can run unlicensed in residential condos/hotels? Unless LE is gonna close them all down & force them to buy a license, I don't see agencies closing their 3 & 4 locations to spend more & make less.
The Devils Playground example is exactly what MP's shouldn't be used for. 1st off, they are Holistic. 2nd, using a makeshift Body Rub Parlor as a front for a brothel is exactly what LE can pounce all over.
There is absolutely no scenario in which the status quo for in calls will be permitted to continue by any level of government in a decriminalized environment. As "legitimate businesses", they can only shift closer to MP turf.
Ok so hypothetically, they turn sc's or mp's into brothels....or they make 10 brothel licenses new...who exactly is gonna shut down the incalls in private residences? and don't say LE...because LE can't shut down the 1000+ Holistic spas they have in Toronto as it is. the LE system is maxed out policing what IS, never mind what's to COME.
2nd...since those incalls will still exist...why would an agency with several incalls close them down in order to get a brothel license...spend the 15k...then license all their girls for another several grand....have to buy/lease &build their new licensed brothel facility....
3rd....if SC's or MP's are the new brothels...are agencies gonna buy one? at what cost? MP's go for a half million +, SC's are most likely 1mill+ because of the liquor license.
Nope. Don't see it happening.
So Toronto will still have Holistics, Bodyrubs, Strip clubs, & incalls.....
sorry for my tardy reply! thankyou dreamblade!! yes, i know all of the organizations you are referring too. we have all even met in toronto, vancouver, montreal and victoria on several occasions in efforts to legitimize.
the work we have been doing since about 2006 in terms of by-laws/ municipal regulation and police enforcement policy and practices is pretty cool and encouraging. because we have allies like the mayor and chief of police, we seem to be gaining control over the way things play out post SCC decision.
here's a link to the public vpd enforcement policy stating that adult consensual sex work is not a priority and lists specific "practices" should a warrant need to be served ( that's what they call a raid) such as allowing workers to get dressed before taking them outside and during police attendance at the location- where ever that might be...
http://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/reports-policies/sex-enforcement-guidelines.pdf
city council also just unanimously adopted the work of the city wide task force including contributing to a fund for the children of the missing and murdered women.
i am hoping we could share some of what we did with people there and give support to getting sex workers to the table during these discussions about how to move forward.
nikki kicks ass! i know she would into working on this too and is familiar with the work we have done out here. it takes alot of people though. there are so many committees and "communications strategies" in which there are endless emails and meetings with policy makers.
i got your message MPAsquared and pm'd you back. anyone else who would like to know more please feel free to contact me.
susie
in vancouver indy workers are not required to be licensed and we are allowed to work from home as long as its only 1 or 2 workers in a place. there are by-laws that can be used if a place becomes a problem. for example running 10 escorts from an apartment 24/7 and being really noisy.
under the new rules, we have 2 sex industry liaison positions - edit to add- these are full time positions in social planning at the city of vancouver and there is one more- a VPD sex industry liaison officer- which will be the buffer between mainstream community and the sex industry community. if there's a complaint which is purely based on not liking sex workers or sex industry businesses, the complainant will be given sensitivity training by sex workers!! it is no longer acceptable to say "get rid of the whores" in this town.
sex industry businesses like massage parlours will still require licenses, all businesses in vancouver do, but the workers or attendants will not be required to licensed. parlours will be required to keep a list of employees and proof of age and have it available for the license inspectors should they ask to see it but that is already the common practice here so won't really change anything. at least workers won't have to be officially registered with the city like is happening on the prairies.
also, "health enhancement center" is the license of choice for MP's here and it was decided to embrace that license and to simply revise to be more fair and open and to avoid and disruption /displacement of the safe working environments that exist.
the requirement for "certificates" proving you can give a massage will be gone however as it was shown to be a way that people were taking advantage of workers. one MP owner told me she would pay $8000.00 for a registered massage teacher to come into the MP and teach for 1 day, so her workers could get their "certificates"....i mean WTF?
anyway, once you start unpacking all the ways the rules and regulations apply to the sex industry community, there is not one area which does not touch our lives. health authorities, residents groups, churches, government departments....its insane....system wide reform....
my point is i guess that its possible to work with these systems and to find the middle of the road moving forward...we have had some success here and i hope we can transplant some of that in support of others...
cheers everyone!
susie
So basically, your vision of the brave new world is that most adult agencies will choose to operate illegally (regardless of the licenses/bylaws that the city might introduce)?
That is a different, and perhaps more interesting, discussion. I suspect that you are right, given the nature of the industry. A tiger can't change its stripes. However, I don't think the city will tolerate it (and there are very different dynamics between licensed holistics operating as body rubs and unlicensed incalls operating in a residential zone).
This is the problem I see with that article someone posted that listed arguments against the amsterdam model. (i.e., anti-registration, anti-STD testing, etc). If the adult biz wants to be legitimized, it better become legitimate.
I disagree completely with this. Slapping a brothel license on any business doesn't mean MP's aren't "getting rich". There are already brothels in this city....incalls in every condo building in the GTA...unlicensed & for now, flying below the enforcement radar. and MP's survive just fine
Why would agencies want to now pay a huge licensing fee when they can run unlicensed in residential condos/hotels? Unless LE is gonna close them all down & force them to buy a license, I don't see agencies closing their 3 & 4 locations to spend more & make less.
The Devils Playground example is exactly what MP's shouldn't be used for. 1st off, they are Holistic. 2nd, using a makeshift Body Rub Parlor as a front for a brothel is exactly what LE can pounce all over.
Once you have a regulated environment, visible or high profile agencies will want to be licensed lest their compliant competitors rat them out and sabotage their business.
While I think your summary is correct as far as it goes, I don't think any of us can accurately visualize what the scene might be like in a year or two. Or six.
There will undoubtedly be some operators who try to continue without changing, and some who always want to be the first, and perhaps will change too fast, bringing down troubles on themselves and their less adventurous peers. But just as there will be a few who would rather be outlaws, there will be many who will be happy there's a law that they can work with aboveground at last.
The neighbours have always been a concern for incalls that just want to do business competantly. Legal brothels would be unhappy with their unlicensed competitors and would be happy to help with any such complaints I'm sure. The City may move slowly, but it does move; the holistic vs. bodyrub issue hasn't gone away, but Council's been a tad unfocussed just lately*, and figuring out how to distinguish the naughty sensual services from the properly licensed ones is a very knotty problem, whether we're talking words on a license or gathering evidence on the spot. Even in a climate that believes 'adults making no trouble should have the services they want', I don't think anyone ('cept mebbe us TERBles) really approves of the holistic backdoor to bodyrub route. I have faith time will erase it, but prety much equal faith those kept from the 'easy mony' of body-rubs by restrictive licenses will find another way.
I think you're right that when the dust has settled things will be much the same. There will indeed be SCs (and booze-cans), MPs (and holistics, perhaps working some other loophole) and underground incalls. If they come, legal brothels can't help but shake that up, as some old operators will undoubtedly try to transition, and some will give up. But not everyone.
Sadly, I think there isn't the honesty to admit we have brothels now and that we should license and regulate them. My money's on OHG extending the unworkable suppression regime by going the Nordic route. And I'd watch out for collateral damage affecting MPs and SCs as they try to word a law that makes sex-services a criminal purchase, while pretending the innocent sellers are being 'helped'.
----------------
*
There have been various interesting articles about Colorado and Washington's preparations to go legal with licensed marijuana sales, and just how complex an undertaking that is, especially with the stupidly harsh federal laws still in place. But it had to be done.
A Council that wasn't distracted might well have quietly asked the Manager to have City staff similarly examine the sorts of measures that might be needed, and their feasibility, if the SCC's ruling—like their Morgenthaler ruling—remained the last word on the matter. One does have to note that hellfire and brimstone did not rain down to divinely punish us abortion-loving Canucks. In fact we seem to manage our lawlessness in this life and death matter in a fairly orderly fashion. As long as you're not a PEI woman, that is.
No. As it stands, there is no illegal-ness to running an incall in a private residence. Hence why agencies open several locations. With minimal expense. My personal opinion is that none of them would spend the $$ BodyRub & Strip club owners have. Why would they? They can run multiple locations, zero LE hassle, zero licensing expense, no businesses to purchase, and now...no bawdy house charges.
Well. It was always a grey area before, it arguably did violate the law, but the police weren't enforcing. Now that law had been chucked out by the SCC though technically it is still in force for another year.
Hard to imagine the police would start enforcing provisions they previously ignored on a law that was thrown into limbo over more egregious cases!
So yeah... I am just being pedantic in quibbling. In practice you are probably right, which is what really matters.
To be fair, the status quo is that incalls are illegal (remember, the decision has been stayed until this December). Criminal code aside, I know that Toronto and Mississauga also already have zoning bylaws that deal with running home businesses.
Do you think that the city will allow incalls to run unlicensed and in residential areas? I maintain that there is no scenario in which that will happen. Hence, on the assumption that the city will introduce some form of regulation, your position is ??? Like I said, I suspect that you're right. The types of people who are unafraid of operating bawdy houses when it was illegal are not likely to comply with banal municipal codes.
But, I don't believe that the city will turn a blind eye and go laissez faire on the biz. Allowing brothels in residential areas is not the same as allowing holistics masquerading as body rubs in a strip mall. There are also public policy considerations (health and safety) and the need to appear as tho the city (and yes, the police) have control of the situation.
If you're already ducking the ultimate seriousness of the Criminal Code, what's a few bucks in fines for contravening the zoning bylaw about where you can and cannot operate a business? Especially if that unremarkable residential front increases your invisibility, which is a Very Good Thing. But if the laws change, and you can operate out in the open, with a big inviting sign, an honest lease and neighbours who are also businesses and who value high traffic, instead of despising it, why wouldn't you?
The entire sex industry here has been shaped by the law, and MPs/bodyrubs owe their very existence to the Criminal Code, which up until now has made a viable operation out of almost any businesses that were 'the next best thing' to places selling sex outright. I am confident that some comfy bars where beautiful women disrobing and socializing are part of the scene will survive, just as I'm confident that some massage providers who focus on offering sensual luxuries instead of rigorous therapies will also have a place. Even if neither offers sex on-site, and even after Google StreetView starts showing us Toronto brothel signage popping up along our roads. I am also confident that in all three categories there will be scofflaws of varying degree, just as there are today.
But the dull-normal operators, who think to continue their incall business as usual at 'buzzcode3456, apt78' to save some licensing expenses, haven't the smarts to keep up the needed level of professional discipline once fear of the Code is removed. Nor will their neighbours be so hesitant to complain if 'those nice girls' will no longer face jail time. And the City—even a cheap City, running on Memories of Gravy™—will be unable to turn a blind eye to display ads complete with addresses, or to ignore building managers and condo boards demanding action; no more, 'that's a police matter, let me give you the number'. Like any tectonic shift in the marketplace, there will be some who rise and others who fall, but there will either be brothels under new laws, or the same bad old laws wearing new make-up for us to get used to.
Or most likely, and even worse, all-new bad laws. Don't we live in interesting times, as the Chinese supposedly say.
Damn. I wish I could english like you, oldjones.
I believe the phrase is "May you live in interesting times", which is actually regarded as a curse.
I believe the phrase is "May you live in interesting times", which is actually regarded as a curse.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ion_municipal_regulation_of_prostitution.html
So much for a brave new world. Quite interesting about Trudeau as well.
SEAN KILPATRICK / THE CANADIAN PRESS
Justice Minister Peter MacKay says prostitution is too complex to be legalized outright or regulated by municipal laws.
By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Mon Jan 20 2014
Republish
OTTAWA—Casting an eye on what he called the “significant harms” flowing from the sex trade, Justice Minister Peter MacKay says prostitution is too complex to be legalized outright or regulated by municipal laws.
In an interview published in the Prince Arthur Herald, MacKay appears to shut the door on a decriminalized approach.
When asked if it would be an option to allow communities to regulate prostitution through zoning and licensing bylaws instead of treating it as a criminal law matter, MacKay said no.
“I don’t believe so. I say that because it really is in the federal area of criminal legislation, in my view, to address this broadly across the country.”
“It’s going to take a much more concerted effort than what any local government or jurisdiction could do. So for that reason I think you will find that there is a necessity within that 12-month period that the Supreme Court (of Canada) has granted that we will bring forward legislation, and amendments that will address what we think are significant harms that flow from prostitution.”
The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in December focused on the harm the law itself inflicts on vulnerable prostitutes and marginalized streetwalkers, while acknowledging that Parliament has an interest in controlling the public nuisance that can flow from prostitution.
But the country’s top court found three laws — against brothels, living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating for the purposes of prostitution — to be unconstitutional because they endanger the life, liberty and personal security of those forced onto the streets. The Criminal Code does not ban the exchange of money for sex, but the court noted it does ban prostitutes from hiring drivers or bodyguards, or talking at length to clients to screen for intoxication, condom use or potential for violence. The judges sent the legal regime back to Parliament.
Laws against child prostitution or human trafficking were not challenged, and remain in force.
Since then, MacKay has said he wanted to study international laws on prostitution, especially the “Nordic” model.
Laws in several Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Denmark — vary, but take a somewhat more targeted approach towards criminalizing the pimps and clients of prostitutes, instead of criminalizing the sex workers themselves. The Netherlands has legalized prostitution, but it has also used legislation and law enforcement to try to curb the number of illegal immigrants who practice the trade.
MacKay suggested to the Prince Arthur Herald that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau tacitly supports legalizing prostitution as well as marijuana, and went on to condemn both as “detrimental to our country’s best interest.”
“It would certainly further endanger vulnerable segments of our population. And I don’t believe that any government of any political stripe should be facilitating the increase of access to drugs or to the sex trade,” MacKay said according to a transcript published on the newspaper’s website.
“I don’t think it’s a good thing for our country, certainly not in the best interests of young people, or our citizens.”
MacKay’s characterization of Trudeau’s view echoes that of his cabinet colleague and former cop Julian Fantino last week. But Trudeau did not endorse a resolution proposed by the Liberal party’s youth wing to legalize prostitution, which will come up for debate at a party policy convention in Montreal next month.
Trudeau said only he was mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in December that found “the current approach is not protecting extremely vulnerable women and sex workers and we need to make sure that we are finding a way to keep vulnerable Canadians protected from violence that surrounds prostitution but also is intrinsic to prostitution.”
In French, Trudeau said he views prostitution a form of violence against women, suggesting his view is not that different than that of many grassroots Conservatives.
At the Conservative party convention in November, party members passed a resolution urging Parliament to craft a regime that would criminalize the purchase of sex.
So much for a brave new world. Quite interesting about Trudeau as well.
SEAN KILPATRICK / THE CANADIAN PRESS
Justice Minister Peter MacKay says prostitution is too complex to be legalized outright or regulated by municipal laws.
By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Mon Jan 20 2014
Republish
OTTAWA—Casting an eye on what he called the “significant harms” flowing from the sex trade, Justice Minister Peter MacKay says prostitution is too complex to be legalized outright or regulated by municipal laws.
In an interview published in the Prince Arthur Herald, MacKay appears to shut the door on a decriminalized approach.
When asked if it would be an option to allow communities to regulate prostitution through zoning and licensing bylaws instead of treating it as a criminal law matter, MacKay said no.
“I don’t believe so. I say that because it really is in the federal area of criminal legislation, in my view, to address this broadly across the country.”
“It’s going to take a much more concerted effort than what any local government or jurisdiction could do. So for that reason I think you will find that there is a necessity within that 12-month period that the Supreme Court (of Canada) has granted that we will bring forward legislation, and amendments that will address what we think are significant harms that flow from prostitution.”
The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in December focused on the harm the law itself inflicts on vulnerable prostitutes and marginalized streetwalkers, while acknowledging that Parliament has an interest in controlling the public nuisance that can flow from prostitution.
But the country’s top court found three laws — against brothels, living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating for the purposes of prostitution — to be unconstitutional because they endanger the life, liberty and personal security of those forced onto the streets. The Criminal Code does not ban the exchange of money for sex, but the court noted it does ban prostitutes from hiring drivers or bodyguards, or talking at length to clients to screen for intoxication, condom use or potential for violence. The judges sent the legal regime back to Parliament.
Laws against child prostitution or human trafficking were not challenged, and remain in force.
Since then, MacKay has said he wanted to study international laws on prostitution, especially the “Nordic” model.
Laws in several Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland and Denmark — vary, but take a somewhat more targeted approach towards criminalizing the pimps and clients of prostitutes, instead of criminalizing the sex workers themselves. The Netherlands has legalized prostitution, but it has also used legislation and law enforcement to try to curb the number of illegal immigrants who practice the trade.
MacKay suggested to the Prince Arthur Herald that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau tacitly supports legalizing prostitution as well as marijuana, and went on to condemn both as “detrimental to our country’s best interest.”
“It would certainly further endanger vulnerable segments of our population. And I don’t believe that any government of any political stripe should be facilitating the increase of access to drugs or to the sex trade,” MacKay said according to a transcript published on the newspaper’s website.
“I don’t think it’s a good thing for our country, certainly not in the best interests of young people, or our citizens.”
MacKay’s characterization of Trudeau’s view echoes that of his cabinet colleague and former cop Julian Fantino last week. But Trudeau did not endorse a resolution proposed by the Liberal party’s youth wing to legalize prostitution, which will come up for debate at a party policy convention in Montreal next month.
Trudeau said only he was mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in December that found “the current approach is not protecting extremely vulnerable women and sex workers and we need to make sure that we are finding a way to keep vulnerable Canadians protected from violence that surrounds prostitution but also is intrinsic to prostitution.”
In French, Trudeau said he views prostitution a form of violence against women, suggesting his view is not that different than that of many grassroots Conservatives.
At the Conservative party convention in November, party members passed a resolution urging Parliament to craft a regime that would criminalize the purchase of sex.
Yup. Thanks for being so generous; my English prof years ago described my style as crabbed and confusing, and there's more than one TERBosopher today who'd side with him against you.
