canuckhooker

Do you even understand how our legislative process and courts work? The court does not overrule laws passed in the legislative process. It is not how it works. However it will hear appeals and offer opinions on laws, and strike laws down if they are contradictory, infringe on human rights, are unconstitutional etc. But for them to do that someone has to complain, or appeal as it were. That is what Bedford did. My point is that since those items are already ruled unconstitutional, if the legislature was silly enough to try and re-instate those provisions, no court would convict and most prosecutors would decline to prosecute. (and most LE would not charge.) The don't want to waste their time and the embarrassment of having their verdicts overturned on appeal, which would surely happen. A little legal thing called precedent.

Then it won't be the Nordic model. The supreme court was quite explicit in saying that the government cannot put sex-workers in dangerous situations by using contradictory laws. If it is legal to sell sex, then they will have to allow brothels, living off the avails etc. etc. So their choice is outright prohibition, or allowing sex work and regulating it. They know they are between a rock and a hard place, and they are looking at all sorts of ways to solve what they see as an issue. However their biggest issue is trying to keep votes from people on both sides of the discussion. So what they say now, and what actually gets presented as a new set of laws will be two different things. And it will still have to get through committee, the house, the senate etc etc. And it will also have to be evaluated by all sorts of legal experts. There is no magic loophole that will allow them to enact a law that will be in contravention of the court's decision.

I hate double standards, I hate social-engineering, I hate these people who beleive in equality until it inconveniences them. How in a free society can you punish only one of two people involved in an illegal activity? They are trying to find a solution to a problem by creating inequity. If they want to end prostitution then they need to make it illegal, outright. Half measures are just stupid and only designed to satisfy their warped view of the world. Punishing one person in an illegal act and giving the other a pass is so illogical, and their reasoning is so insulting. In fact it is misogynistic and misandristic at the same time. It makes all women helpless individuals incapable of making a decision for themselves, and makes all men predators and abusers.

Despite what the politicians say right now, most of that is to appease the abolitionists and make it look like they are doing something. They have no appetite for making this an issue. Also they will not implement the Nordic model. They know it has the same inherent issues that the over turned sections of the Criminal Code had. It brings back a prohibition on bawdy houses, living off the avails and to some extent the soliciting provision. All that will do is bring the issue back to the front page, where they don't want it to be. The first charge that is laid will be overturned by the first judge that sees the case. Judges don't like having their convictions reversed or judgements overturned, which will happen if they try and convict with the Nordic model. Regardless of what you think of them, most politicians are not stupid, and realize that this is the same laws in a different guise. They cannot let sexworkers work legally and then put the same restrictions in place, which is how the Nordic model works. They will either outright criminalize all aspects or regulate the trade. It is their only two real options.

Yeah, there are more and more new girls there now. I saw a couple of new girls from Montreal yesterday and was told there are some new hotties starting tonight. I think I feel the need to have a beer or two tonight. A real change in atmosphere and a great club to hang and just have a beer. But there is a dancer for every taste.

You have an interpretation of what was said in Bedford that is deeply flawed. The court ruled that current laws are unconstitutional. They gave the government a one year stay to prevent what would be a vacuum in the current system. If they struck down all those laws immediately, it would create a vacuum in the whole sex work industry. And despite all the good intentions of everyone on this board, the people most likely to see an opportunity in this, and more importantly the way to make a lot of dollars, are those who are the criminal element; the pimps, the procurers; the traffickers. Despite the other laws governing trafficking and abuse, the court would literally be giving them an open field on which to play. They needed the government and the common citizen to understand the magnitude of the decision, and how to react to protect the most vulnerable. We have a tight, tolerant, respectful, supportive community on this board, and on other boards. That is not the reality for all people who are coerced in to sex work. I don't think their numbers are any where close to like the press and the abolitionists like to think, but they do exist. People reading this are probably the best equipped folks to understand and protect those who are being exploited. We can debate this all we want, but the Supreme Court did the right thing, not only for Sex Workers, but also to protect those who were vulnerable to end up being trafficked. It is complex, and I am happy with what they did. They didn't stay the decision for one year to make the Conservative party happy, they did it to protect everyone.

Sorry but it won't be 5-10 years of fighting. That battle is won, and they can't go back on it. It is why the Nordic model will not be implemented. It will be impossible to get a conviction because every court case will be thrown out. Lower courts cannot ignore the Supreme court ruling. So look, for the not withstanding clause maybe, but even then that may not fly either. You are going to see outright criminalization or regulation.

I don't think they need to ask the courts. It won't be Nordic because the major points of that model were struck down by the court, because prostitution is legal. Unless they criminalize the SPs as well as the clients they are basically reinstating the same laws. They won't need the courts to tell them that, they have enough lawyers on staff who will give them the same opinion.

Don't cloud the issue by buying into the flawed logic and lies of LE and the abolitionists. There were many different ways they could have engaged SPs but they didn't. Did they talk to a group like POWER? Nope. And trust me groups like POWER would not tolerate for one minute human trafficking or abusive pimps. I would wager they would be the one's calling LE if they knew of underage, trafficked or abused women. They didn't go after the younger at risk girls. In Ottawa almost every lady they went after were established, well regarded SPs who all are older than 25 and advertise as such. The way they approached these solo SP's compared to how they went to the spas and agencies says volumes about the intent. They were polite and sent only two officers (I was told one was female) to the spas. They identified themselves gave out business cards etc. Of course the spas have security cameras and there was more than one person working so there were witnesses. For the solo SPs they booked under false pretenses, arranged it so that they could surprise the SP with their "show of force", (4 to 5 male officers). They didn't hand out business cards, they refused to provide names and badge numbers and behaved in a rude and threatening manner. I am surprised they didn't show up in brown shirts ready to hand out black triangles. (look it up) Their behaviour was an infringement of human and civil rights, their attitude was appalling, and now they are lying about or denying some of their worse abuses. And this comment comes from me, who is usually a big supporter of LE knowing they often have a difficult job to do. However I also recognize that there are a number of assholes out their carrying badges and guns, and sullying the reputation of the good cops. It seems they all were assigned to this detail. Don't you find it ironic that the way they try and combat human trafficking and protect vulnerable women is by surprising women who are alone, by showing up with a large number of armed men, who behaved in a bullying manner? Some example they set. They should be ashamed of their tactics rather than trying to justify them in the media.

I did loan an SP of my acquaintance one of my inflatable mattresses ( a good quality queen size one with a built in pump.) when she was moving appartments. Of course we had to try it out, and I think by all accounts the time on the "bouncy castle" was quite memorable.

I have a couple of theories on this. One is based on the fact that they did their homework, but poorly. I would have graded it an F. Some of the news coverage says that the police said they checked out online boards and ads. There was often screen shots of CERB as well as some photos I recognized from some providers sites. Perhaps they looked for keywords or phrases in certain SPs ads, their posting patterns and maybe even if the paid to advertise on this board. Ads with phrases like "naughty schoolgirl, young and perky, daddy's girl etc." could have been something they searched on. Or assumed if they weren't a paid advertiser maybe they were being pimped. Again, I don't think that, but who knows what logic an outsider has. Who knows what put up a red flag to them. The other theory is that they have a bit of a bloody nose after the Bedford decision and decided that a good old witch-hunt would make them feel more useful. I hate that theory, but it is not outside the realm of possibilty. This kind of "jackboot" policing has no place in a democratic country. Either way it was disgraceful conduct. They had the means to contact all these women, without resulting to those tactics. They are being disingenuous when they say they were doing it to protect people being trafficked. They were doing it to show who is still the boss.

I hate to admit I got 20 out of 20, but that may be more to my mind being a trap for useless knowledge more than anything else.

Can we all pack up and move to Newfoundland? They seem to have a monopoly on common sense when it comes to police response to the issue.

Funny how the spa visits seemed to be more reasonable then the visits to independents. If the police were truly trying to reach out, then they would not have used subterfuge to book an appointment, nor would they have shown up with four uniformed officers. Whether the in-call was a hotel, an apartment or a house, 4 uniformed police officers showing up is bound to be noticed. Certainly not discrete, and could even be considered a show of force. I tend to come down on the side of LE a lot because they have a tough job to do and often get unfairly judged. In this case however, it looks like intimidation and harassment in the guise of something else. They say they had good intentions but it was poorly thought out.

Yeah, depending on my mood, and how busy I am, I visit certain sites. I know there are a few ladies on here that frequent the sites. I have seen a few on MFC.

Well I would say that is two different issues. Being denied or discriminated against because you practice a legal profession is wrong, but unrelated to the question. I did put the proviso "in trust" about the results so that certain opponents of the industry could not try and stigmatize people who are doing something in the public interest. i.e. getting tested. Here is what has made me uneasy about this whole issue since the Bedford decision. Firstly I think what is being referred to as the Nordic model is a non-starter. It has all the inherent flaws that caused the laws to be struck down in the first place. However, if politicians think they can get away with being more strict in law, then as I have said before I can see them criminalizing the whole industry. Once that happens, no more human rights issue, because the activity is illegal, and therefore the government has no duty to protect those engaged in an illegal activity. My guess is about 40-50% probabililty that laws like that may be enacted. What is more likely to happen is regulation. Those kind of regulations exist already in some aspects of this business, in certain areas. I think there will be a good probability that licensing will be required. All businesses need to have licenses in most cities. In some jurisdictions, for example, exotic dancers have to have licenses. I know here in Ottawa, the clubs must keep copies of all the dancers ID's to prove they are of age etc. There are areas in Canada where Escort agencies must be licensed. There also will be some public health requirements. Like in NZ, the requirement for condoms or barriers for all sexual contact, oral, anal, vaginal. There will be penalties for violating those rules. And I might add we will see added pressure, financial or otherwise for providers to break those rules. And if they break them and get caught, what would be the penalty? I am sure their will also be some restrictions on where you can set up these businesses and work. Just like now with Strip clubs, MPs etc. Now violation of these regulations will not be criminal, you will probably get a ticket or be asked to shut down your business. But once that happens, your anonymity will be gone. You will have been charged with an offense, albeit a minor one, and that charge will be public record. It will be a lot easier for LE and bylaw to issue tickets then what they need to do now to be able to lay charges. So anonymity will quite probably be lost if everyone follows the regulations, even if mandatory periodic testing is not a requirement. So, back to my original point. I would say lobbying for keeping mandatory testing anonymous, would be a wiser way to proceed then lobbying against it outright. It is a medical record after all. Those tested should be given paperwork that they have been tested (which is not the case now, based on my experience), that will prove they are compliant. As I said before, not everyone in this country gets it about sex-work, and doing something that looks proactive to counter certain negative perceptions is a good thing. We all know it is not perfect, but it is the path of least resistance. This is going to get very interesting before it is finished.

Perla on Victoria Park. Not too far and well worth it.

And to make sure that everyone understands what is said in that law in New Zealand is that they frown on BBBJ. So understand what that means given the arguments and debates we have hand on the subject on this board. And also the "foot in the door" this gives people who would regulate the activity if it is not criminalized. And further to that, how would they enforce that, and to what lengths? Would they use decoys and put providers who would give a BBBJ out of work? Not beyond the realm of possibility if you have people in power who are abolitionists. FFFS, it is not rocket surgery. Any competent, trust-worthy provider gets tested regularly. If not, then they place us all at risk. Sharing the results with "whomever", (and I will add sharing the results in trust), to keep public confidence should not be a big issue. Seriously, a large part of the population is not effected by this debate. They are not providers nor are they hobbiests. If someone makes a public health issue out of this, and people are going to fight it, who's side do you think those people will support? You take your victories and win the war. Bedford was a huge victory in so many ways, including public perception. If you want to fight about being legally obligated to do what you do anyway, then you have a good chance of losing the war. Give all those soccer moms and dads the ammunition and they can sway the decision. And this comes from someone who at one point in my life had to undergo compulsory medical and physical testing to keep my job. If you want the job, you know the requirements. I had no issue with it. It made sense, and it protected not only me, but others who had to work with me, and more importantly people who relied on me.

I will echo what has been said. The membership fee is next to nothing ($10 a year) and well worth it. It fits into their business model, which makes complete sense when it is explained at your orientation. As for giving out names, that is also explained and I am confident that that information is properly safeguarded. Because of the membership rules there are no walk-ins, you have to book as a member. That increases the security of the girls and the clients IMO.

Let me clarify my logic. The supreme court struck down three sections of the Criminal code because they were inconsistent and violated the human rights of a certain segment of society. The effect may have been to liberalize prostitution laws, but that was not the reason, nor the intent of the decision. They did it because those sections endangered individuals practicing a "legal" activity. Prostitution is not currently illegal. However they clearly said that prostitution was a complicated issue, and that the government had the right to regulate or legislate. If the government criminalizes prostitution, and all those who participate in it, (both clients and providers) then the fact they struck down those provisions becomes irrelevant. The judgement is only relevant when prostitution is not prohibited by law. The reason they will not implement the Nordic model is that in that model prostitution will remain legal, but the three laws that were struck down, are intrinsic to how the model is supposed to work. (Bawdy house, solicitation, and living off the avails) They are not stupid enough to take a second run at a solid brick wall, knowing that the basic laws of physics are not going to change. Even if they were stupid enough to implement it, nobody would ever be successfully prosecuted. No judge in their right mind would convict someone knowing that based on the Bedford decision the conviction certainly would be overturned on appeal. So what are their choices? They will not overlook the issue completely, they will have to do something. Their choices will be outright criminalization like in the US and other countries, or some type of regulation. I think we will see more regulation.

There are so many leaps of logic here I don't know where to start. Firstly, I have said it time and again, stop blaming Harper and the Tories. This is not their issue, and I am more than certain they would wish it would just go away. There is a large portion of the conservative support that are libertarians and would rather leave this whole issue alone, and leave it up to consenting adults to decide. Not so the parties to the left. They love to meddle. And I suppose you didn't read the article by Warren Kinsella last week entitled, "It Isn't Sex- Its Bought Rape". Here is a link to his blog where it is reprinted http://warrenkinsella.com/page/2/ Kinsella is one of the biggest Liberal party apologists and partisans. And you will find just as many people in that party, the NDP even the Greens who see this as an extreme feminist issue in logic akin to the infamous Andrea Dworkin who basically sees all male-female relationships as rape. They support the same paternalistic illogical attitude that created the Nordic Model in the first place. Sure people like MacKay are making comments on the harm of prostitution, but all politicians have to pander to all points of view unfortunately. What they do is what is important, not what they say. They will not be stupid enough to try and implement the Nordic model, as it has the exact same flaws that the overturned laws had. They tried to make activities around an otherwise legal activity illegal, and thereby created unsafe conditions. Their only course of action in this regard would be to outlaw prostitution itself, and criminalize everyone, clients and providers. Then they no longer create the 'unsafe' situation. They don't have to worry about the safety issues of someone who is engaged in an "illegal" activity. And make no mistake the Supreme Court did not intend to "liberalize" prostitution laws. They merely remedied an inconsistency in current laws that endangered citizens engaged in a legal activity. They clearly said in the judgment that the government has the right and power to regulate and legislate prostitution. The government is within its rights to criminalize prostitution as long as it does it in a fair and consistent manner. The laws that were stuck down, did not pass that test.

Sorry but I disagree with this statement. You are engaging in intimate contact where infectious diseases can be spread. You are right that it is incumbent on both the client and the provider to take precautions and be tested. However, the provider is charging for a service and arguably, on average, have many more partners than a client. Therefore the risk of causing multiple transmissions is more likely with the provider. And because they are the one who is providing the service, it is them who are more likely to be regulated in this regard. A good analogy would be in the food service industry where there are protocols in place to avoid making people sick. Aside from the policies that a kitchen or restaurant may put in place themselves, there are government mandated food handling courses, there are mandatory inspections and there are procedures to deal with any outbreak of food born illness including medical checks of the staff involved in preparing and serving the food. I personally think that public health concerns would trump any other concerns. I am not a big fan of big government, but sometimes there is a legitimate reason for them to step in and put something like this in place for the common good. There are lots of other similar cases where so-called "human rights" give way to the common good, such as vaccinating front-line health workers, or government employees and soldiers going to areas where there are serious risks of contracting major illnesses. Or say the mandatory health and vision testing of pilots and others in similar lines of work. Fighting against this common sense provision would be one way to turn those undecided on legalization, against it. Trust me I have known of, and even seen some providers, and know some clients who do not take proper precautions. I have stopped seeing a provider for that reason, and take great care with those I know who may have seen certain clients who are less than cautious.

This was how all the clubs in Germany were when I lived there many moons ago. Big cities had legal brothels, smaller places had strip bars. The girls danced, but were also available to go in the back room. The service depended on what drinks you ordered. You order a "cocktail" for her and a beer, and you would get a "HJ". A nice bottle of white wine, and BJ. If you ordered "Champagne", then you would get served a tray with a bottle of sparkling wine, two glasses and a condom. I don't think this would chase away as many people as you think. A lot of it goes on now, so why not make it legal, for health and safety reasons if nothing else.

What he says to keep the support of those opposed and what actually happens are two different things. I suspect they will drag their feet, take too long examining the options etc, and then the point will be moot. And again, remember it is not the right pushing the Nordic model. It is those who think they are helping by pushing it. And IMHO, they would not be so stupid as to put in Nordic model as it exists in Sweden and other places. That would fail the charter test, and I am sure their lawyers will advise them of that. If they chose to act they will criminalize the act, and all involved, the client and the provider. No nasty charter challenges then.