OPP Make Additions To "Serious Crimes" List

[Kate von Katz 49953]

Well the Ontario Provincial Police, and their municipal counterparts have added some new crimes to the umbrella of "serious crimes". Guess what is now considered as a "serious crime"? Yep, prostitution.

 

What does this mean for most of us? Nothing at all, really. Law enforcement are solely concerned with street girls, pimps, bawdy houses/brothels, and other indiscreet forms of an otherwise respectable vocation.

 

No need to get spooked by this, but there is an increasing need to make sure the lady/ladies you see are of good repute, and conduct their business with discretion.

 

Law enforcement seem to have a good understanding of the difference between an escort and a prostitute - the differences namely being class and discretion.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

The new Federal regulations target organized crime in Canada by designating several "signature activities" of criminal groups as serious offences. Included on the list is the specific offense of: Keeping a common bawdy-house.

 

The new regulations will allow authorities to pursue wiretaps, the seizure of proceeds of crime along with tougher bail, parole and sentencing conditions for organized rings involved in drug smuggling, prostitution and gambling.

 

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the new rules aren’t just meant to target madams and gambling cheats. The real targets are the gang kingpins who make immense profits from the illegal activities and could previously escape the toughest measures aimed at gangsters.

 

“Such crimes are often considered signature activities of organized crime because of its long-standing involvement in and reliance upon those activities,” Mr. Nicholson said.

 

"We've got to close these loopholes on organized crime," he said.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/08/04/tories-organized-crime-nicholson.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crime-overhaul-targets-gang-leaders-madams-and-bookies/article1662131/

[Kate von Katz 49953]

Precisely! Well-put! And thanks for citing sources I was too lazy to :-)

Posted via Mobile Device

[Lou 9208]

Sorry to contradict you Lindsay but my understanding of what is happening is not exactly how you portrait it.

 

The new Regulations prescribing certain offences to be serious offences is of federal jurisdiction, not provincial, which means it applies all over Canada. By classifying of serious offencethe keeping of a common bawdy-house (subsection 210(1) and paragraph 210(2)(c)), keeping a bawdy-house, when suspected of being kept by 3 individuals, now falls under crimes regulated by the dispositions regarding organized crime. This means that keeping a bawdy-house can now be punished of a minimum five years sentence and plus, that people suspected of these activities can be wiretap, found guilty of organized crime, etc.

 

Now, if you look through some court decisions, a woman who was working from her apartment on a regular basis was convicted of keeping a bawdy-house (1972), etc. This means, as an exemple, that if you, me and another lady decide to share a flat for incalls, we could be convicted of being a "criminal organization" perpetrating an "organized crime" because we are 3 individuals practicing a lucrative activity that is prohibited and now qualified of serious offence - which are the criteria used by justices to determine if an act qualify of organized crime.

 

Of course discreet independent escorts are not authorities number one priority. Nevertheless, I have no doubt this new regulation can hit in places where it should not. In my humble opinion, it is also a way to enforce all laws surrounding prostitution. Our right wing minority government dislike all kind of prostitution and makes no discrimination when it comes to define who is a prostitute or not, whatever you define yourself as (street hooker, courtisane, escort...). Their douchebags jesus freak supporters all over Canada think the same way and lots of them are elected or powerful policeman with too much time on their hands.

 

To what I know, sex workers groups are, in part, fighting to abolish the existing disposition regarding bawdy-house in order for us to be able to work as groups in safe environments, share fees... while sparing us facing criminal charge.

 

I find this news quite depressing. However, I still have hope that the constitutional challenges in Ontario and Vancouver will put an end to that nonsense.

 

FYI: This new regulation does not need to be vote. Since 2002, right after september 11, the Chamber voted in favor of permetting the elected government to pass new regulations concerning criminal offences without having them debate and voted by the majority.

 

http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2010/2010-08-04/html/sor-dors161-eng.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Canada#197_Bawdy_house_definition

 

Additional Comments:

Sorry, i guess i was replying at the same time than you both.

[drlove 37204]

This is an outrage! I can't wait for the next federal election so we can get rid of Harper and his cronies once and for all.

[VedaSloan 119179]

We're ALL prostitutes under the law, regardless of how we each individually identify. I'm sure you meant no ill will Lindsay, but dividing us based on "class" isn't helpful.

 

Legally, things just get more and more depressing.

[Lou 9208]

I am totally with you on that Erin, dividing us based on "class" or whatever other reasons is pointless. We are all offering sexual services in exchange of a remuneration. What I appreciate about the New Zealand Prostitution Act is that street prostitutes are not criminalized. Instead, the act encourage police, health services, social organizations and municipalities to collaborate in order to provide effective supports to these women often facing personnal struggles such as drug addictions, roaming and mental health.

 

As The San Francisco Exotic Dancers Alliance

was saying: "United We Stand, Divided We Bend Over."

[drlove 37204]

What I appreciate about the New Zealand Prostitution Act is that street prostitutes are not criminalized. Instead, the act encourage police, health services, social organizations and municipalities to collaborate in order to provide effective supports to these women often facing personnal struggles such as drug addictions, roaming and mental health.

 

This is exactly the type of system we should have in Canada!

[rickoshadows 937]

I have always advocated for legal status of prostitution and throwing out the bawdy house laws. A significant number on here disagreed and said that things are fine the way they are. The trouble of not having a recognized legal status is that when the winds of politics change, sex workers become collateral damage. Here is a perfect example of that. In some more tolerant jurisdictions, life will carry on as normal, but I expect that some of the more conservative provicial and municipal governments will use this opportunity to crack down on the more visible sex workers in order to garner suport among the more conservative factions of society, seeing as this is the way the wind of change is currently blowing.

[etasman2000 15994]

....but I expect that some of the more conservative provicial and municipal governments will use this opportunity to crack down on the more visible sex workers in order to garner support among the more conservative factions of society, seeing as this is the way the wind of change is currently blowing.

 

Seriously that's partly because the level of participation in the last election was abysmal, lowest ever recorded turnout.

[Lou 9208]

Harper has already been elected twice. The one's who are too lazy to get of their coutch on election day deserve what they get. If Harper's first years at the Parlement was not a sufficiant motivation for those who take democracy for granted to take 30 minutes of their time to vote, it means that people are as fatuous as he is. Furthermore, him and his troup are doing harm every day to our civil and fundamental rights but very few seem to care or even get it. Surveys show he is still very popular and it is impossible to know yet if he will be reelected or not.

 

 

Rickoshadows, you are claiming that a significant number of cerb members believe in statu quo regarding the law? What are their arguments? Girls who don't wish paying income taxe and clients who are scared of seing a price boum? Are people that selfish and insouciant or there is something else? I don't get it.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... a significant number of cerb members believe in statu quo regarding the law? What are their arguments?...

 

I think it is a question of fear of the unknown. I don't want to presume to speak for them, but their major concerns are that if the current laws are struck down, then the Federal Government (especially if it is still a Harper Government, driven by ideological and moral motives) might attempt to introduce much more radical legislation than Canada has now. Also, Municipalities may either feel the need or take the opportunity to introduce more onerous or restrictive zoning and licensing rules.

 

There was debate on this in these threads, for example:

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=13627&page=4

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=29695&page=2

[Lou 9208]

As we all testified yesterday, with the present laws, they can allready manage to be more severe. If the Supreme Court determines that the actual laws are unconstitutionnal, there are no ways the legislative will be able to make striker laws. More power might be given to the cities in order for them to create zones for specific activities but not necessarly to all activitites that involved sex in exchange of money.

 

Such as they did in progressive New Zealand, the key to a decent change that corresponds to the needs of the industry is to have sex workers consulted and listened to when the bylaws, the regulations and the laws will be rethink and rewrote.

[rickoshadows 937]

Rickoshadows, you are claiming that a significant number of cerb members believe in statu quo regarding the law? What are their arguments? Girls who don't wish paying income taxe and clients who are scared of seing a price boum? Are people that selfish and insouciant or there is something else? I don't get it.

 

Here is the debate. I chime in at post 37 and get a number of replies strongly supporting the staus quo.

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=1642

 

 

In post 65, my third point is "Fawking Pshycic"

 

In case my link doesn't work: the topic is titled:Escort Laws in Plain English and it was started 18 Jul 2007.

[Lou 9208]

Finally some good news: Published this am, an Ekos survey ordered by CBC is now showing that the Conservative are going down, not down the drain yet but still, we have a little hope here!!!

 

Additional Comments:

Yes, I did read the judgments about swapping clubs and lap dancing which also makes me believe that the Chart challenges have chances of succeeding. My only fear is that the women involved in these challenges won't be recognized by the judges as plaintiffs because they don't work anymore, one is a Misstress not a prostitute and the others in BC are doing it anonymously. It takes a lot of courage, time, efforts, convictions and energy to fight the laws, they have all my respect for doing so.

[fortunateone 156618]

New Zealand policies take into account reality, and i think that everyone is satisfied there with the results. sps can legally work from home, and share their space with one or two others. Larger groups work with business licenses, etc, where the site owner undergoes a criminal check. Everyone working with sps are regulated and must conduct themselves according to laws which benefit sps. And the street workers have rights to refuse service, and feel more confident in reporting incidents than before.

 

What has not happened is an increase in Street workers, an increase in women and men entering the business, and an increase in riff raff in school zones coming to visit their neighbourhood escort parlour. Organized crime has no teeth because they don't have anything to offer the sps in terms of safer places to work etc.

 

Many things make the NZ policies superior to whatever the government here might dream up on their own, but as you say the sex workers were actively involved with these new regulations.

[Lowdark 5613]

I have always suported an apporoach similar to the New Zealand one has as well because it protects the women themselves, prevents women in vulnerable situations (like addicts) or underage girls from being exploited, puts and keeps pimps out of business and is even a public health issue (I read an article once citing that countries that had legalized prostitution actually had lowers rates of HIV/AIDS and other STDs).

 

As for the political reality, no government in Canada will enact progressive change without there being a lobby for it. People talk about Harper, and while I am not defending or advocating him, there is no more a chance of the Ignatieff Liberals or Layton NDP going down this road either. And the truth is it doesn't matter who their leader is, politicans do not change anything unless their is plenty of popular support for it and money by campaign donors. Unfortunately, there is neither. Robert Pickton's murder spree in BC is evidence of that. The majority of the public and police ignored the problem for years while women disappeared. You have to ask yourself if that would have been the case had it been "regular" women. Ugly and disgusting but true.

[Guest s******ecan****]

I believe if the law is struck down there will only be 2 realistic outcomes. Either the government of the day does nothing (unlikely), or a new law is brought in that esssentialy outlaws prostitution entirely.

 

If we have a Harper government we will get the second. Its an issue they can use to make happy with their religious base without offending the majority of Canadians (who don't care about the issue). In other words an easy win on a moral issue unlike say abortion etc.

 

If we have a Liberal, or Liberal/NDP government we'll likely get a similar outcome dressed up as "protecting exploited women".

 

Their is no real support in the country for easing current restrictions on prostitution. I would even go as far to say that if you polled Canadians an overwhelming majority would likely respond that prostitution is already 100% illegal as few are aware that there is a perfectly legal option (outcall, without public solicitation).

[Lou 9208]

We don't need official lobbying and tones of money if the Supreme Court opinion is that the laws are indeed unconstitutional. We need money to get to Supreme court, lawyers on this case are not pro bono!

 

FYI, the fed government always had special commissions on prostitution. Sex workers organizations around Canada are or have been involved in these working groups.

 

To get the ideal law project like New Zealand has, it will take us more work simply because we are a way larger country, more people to convince, etc. I know that the leader of the sex workers group in New Zealand had family in the Government and one politician was an out ex-prostitute. It helps for sure!

 

The first thing is to have the Supreme court recognizing that the laws are unconstitutional. Afterward, the regulations and laws will need to be rewrite in consideration of the court opinion. This is where the SP's and the social organizations that have worked with us should take a special role in. This is what we need to lobby for.

 

In my opinion, the Supreme court have been pretty decent in its judgments. If Harper does not stay in power too long - which means he will not have another opportunity to appoint a judge - I think we have good chances of winning such as gay mariage, lap dancing clubs and swapper clubs did. Our Court is pretty liberal regarding these issues.

[Lowdark 5613]

I hope that one day we can adopt a New Zealand type of program taylor made for Canada, but I have no confidence that any of Canada's political forces have the will do to so. Even Paul Martin danced around his initial support for same sex marriage after taking over from Jean Chretien because of some public backlash. When it comes to these kinds of issues, politicans of any stripe have little or no backbone. Unless, as I stated before, there is money involved. Its cynical, but unfortunately true. Right now there is no public appetite for change on this issue, and no money to convince any politician it's worth their support. Only money and suffering equals change, even in a more democratic country like Canada. And if the suffering that resulted from Pickton didn't convince anyone things need to change, I don't know what will.

[PistolPete 61421]

I hope that one day we can adopt a New Zealand type of program taylor made for Canada, but I have no confidence that any of Canada's political forces have the will do to so. Even Paul Martin danced around his initial support for same sex marriage after taking over from Jean Chretien because of some public backlash. When it comes to these kinds of issues, politicans of any stripe have little or no backbone. Unless, as I stated before, there is money involved. Its cynical, but unfortunately true. Right now there is no public appetite for change on this issue, and no money to convince any politician it's worth their support. Only money and suffering equals change, even in a more democratic country like Canada. And if the suffering that resulted from Pickton didn't convince anyone things need to change, I don't know what will.

 

Well said and put,I certainly do not think that any change in the government or monies will convince the public for change.

 

Although I'm very hopeful and wishful that public would really open their eyes to the situation.

 

WIT that post was most informative and a excellent good read,thanks!

[kih 458]

The amendments to the code are pathetic. It's a desperate government attempting to make themselves appear tough on crime.

 

A group of three or more that gets together for a innocent poker game or other gambling such as sports pools consisting of $ could also be considered "serious criminals" if convicted.

[Lou 9208]

I understand what you are all saying but you also got to understand that the changes wont come from the government, who ever that government is. Such as gay mariage, it is an issue that has to be address in court FIRST via a Constitutional challenge such as it is happening now in Toronto and Vancouver. If the Supreme court declares that the Criminal code dispostitions regarding prostitution are depriving sex workers of their fundamental rights, the government will have no choice but to abolish the existing laws and rewrite them in respect of the Constitution.

 

These law cases are only beginning. When you undertake a fight like this, you have to know that it takes on average from 6 to 8 years for the Supreme court to hear you. The actual cases are now in provincial courts, it will take many more years until it gets at the summit of the courts hierarchy. The gay wed cases were first brought to inferior courts in 1998 (or 99 if I am not mistaking). It went faster to Supreme Court that it was supposed to because the liberal governement asked directly to the court if, according to the judges, the Constitution prohibits gay marriage (actually they asked 4 questions but no need to get into the details here). The court said No. When the gay mariage got debated in Parlement and in Supreme court, the population was, by a majority of 52% in favor of it. The jugdment was unanimous, all judges stated in favor of it. FYI, the Liberals had included in their 1993 program civil mariage for homosexual. It has been one of their promises since then.

 

This question is not one of morality, it is a Constitutional question so it is the Constitution that will give the answer, not Harper, not Ignatieff or who ever will be there at the time. The politicians write the laws, they don't decide if their laws are legit or not, it is the Supreme court judges main job to do so when asked.

 

Sorry about my english, not easy to discuss this topic in another language than my maternal one.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Yes, it's a legal question now. Under the scenario that the courts ultimately strike down the current laws, then the question will arise as to the political will of legislators to draft new laws or not. If there is no political will to tackle the issue after the current laws are struck down, then prostitution will by default remain decriminalized. Period.

 

But if, after the legal case is concluded, the legislators who are in power are ideologues who wish to use the issue to play to their public extreme-right-wing-"morality" power base (exactly as they are doing now with so many trumped-up "anti-crime" initiatives), then you can bet they will have a few slimy legislative tricks up their sleeves. They will be at their most inventive in devising avenues to try to somehow legislate around the court decision. The voices of reason and moderation will then have a difficult and nasty political war to fight and win, and they will be going up against the champions of sanctimonious nastiness. Political mobilization of the troops, and influencing wider public opinion in an active (not passive) way will then count big-time. If this particular scenario comes to pass.

 

I am by no means saying it is not a war worth fighting (the troop trains have already left the station in any event). But if the current laws are struck down by the courts, then the decisive battles will ultimately be fought in the political arena, one way or another.

[capitalman 3861]

What's all the fuss about anyway? I'm not too concerned. I've never, and will never, give a lady money for sex! I merely meet ladies I like and we get along well, and I make a decision to give her a donation towards her living expenses, a gift. I can gift my money away as I see fit. This law has no impression on me whatsoever, and I don't think it should affect anyone on this website either!:butt: