MP Bids to Make Buying Sex Illegal in Canada

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... Hobbyists could be subjected to extorsion....

 

Extortionists would just be putting themselves out of business - under any legal framework. Word would quickly get out. After all, married guys face possible extortion from escorts now with regards to fidelity issues and liability in potential divorce proceedings ... but how many are actually extorted? (That's a rhetorical question, btw)

 

... private bills ... what would be different this one? ...

 

Adult sex-for-money is a different issue than, say, Child Trafficking. It'll be a lot harder to achieve a consensus in Parliament on the current issue. There's no doubt that Smith's track record shows that she is tough and tenacious - but the merits of the bill (or lack of them) do count for something!

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Extortionists would just be putting themselves out of business - under any legal framework. Word would quickly get out. After all, married guys face possible extortion from escorts now with regards to fidelity issues and liability in potential divorce proceedings ... but how many are actually extorted? (That's a rhetorical question, btw)

 

 

Adult sex-for-money is a different issue than, say, Child Trafficking. It'll be a lot harder to achieve a consensus in Parliament on the current issue. There's no doubt that Smith's track record shows that she is tough and tenacious - but the merits of the bill (or lack of them) do count for something!

 

With likely closure of review boards not sure how the word would get around to put them out of business. As far as extorting married men now, The difference is that now as we speak, anyone trying that would implicate herself in an illegal activity and would face prosecution (both for being a sex worker as well as an extortionist). Not so under Nordic system

 

On your second paragraph yes you have a good point. I agree that it would be tougher to pass this one, but lets not underestimate this woman and do our job to make the public and our MPs aware of the undesirable consequences of this system. This model has NOT been successful in Sweden and anyone who claims otherwise is distorting the facts.

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

Thanks for the update WIT. We will have to see how this turns out. Private Members bill or not she does say she has the PMO's (Prime Minister's Office) backing which seems to suggest she will succeed. A sizeable number of Conservative MP's would have to abstain or openly vote against the measure, for it to be defeated, and thats assuming all of the opposition votes against it too. I think most MP's of all parties will find the combination of "human trafficking" "Sweeden", and "punishing the Johns" to be irresistable.

[drlove 37204]

Even if a private member's bill such as this one is pushed through, how would it ever be enforceable? For instance, who's to say that an independent escort isn't just visiting a bonafide friend and hanging out, as opposed to seeing a client? Will LE resort to wiretaps on suspected escort's phone lines?!?! lol. The idea that law enforcement's time and manpower would be wasted on pursuing such matters instead of devoting their resources to fighting "real crime" is a monument to idiocy.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Even if a private member's bill such as this one is pushed through, how would it ever be enforceable? For instance, who's to say that an independent escort isn't just visiting a bonafide friend and hanging out, as opposed to seeing a client? Will LE resort to wiretaps on suspected escort's phone lines?!?! lol. .

 

Well somehow they did it to 757 men in Sweden lol.... Likely a complain (by neighbors, hotel guests, staff.....) or in case of SWs likely the use of undercover police officers, as they do it now frequently as we speak. The undercover tasks may extend to escorts too under new laws (so to TOFTT would be a lot riskier in more ways than one....). If review boards are outlawed then the task of finding a well established SP would be a lot more difficult. If advertising is outlawed too then finding an escort would become very difficult too. No one knows in what shape or form it would be implimented in canada and how forcefully it would be enforced. Lets hope it would NEVER come to that ....

 

a monument to idiocy.

 

So what is new about this conservative government lol??

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... Private Members bill or not she does say she has the PMO's (Prime Minister's Office) backing which seems to suggest she will succeed....

 

My impression is that the usual practice is that when a Government is fully and wholeheartedly committed to a specific measure, it introduces a piece of its own legislation through the usual channels. It doesn't leave it to a Private Members' Bill. That's the point I was trying to make. Smith's success should not be considered a foregone conclusion, we should keep on fighting.

[cat 262460]

My impression is that the usual practice is that when a Government is fully and wholeheartedly committed to a specific measure, it introduces a piece of its own legislation through the usual channels. It doesn't leave it to a Private Members' Bill. That's the point I was trying to make. Smith's success should not be considered a foregone conclusion, we should keep on fighting.

 

Exactly. Well said WIT. This far from over, everyone needs to stay informed and be prepared to voice what they want. Take advantage of the online comments sections of newspapers when relevant articles are written, send letters in to the Editors, vote in online polls. Whatever it takes to get the point out that there is a voice of sanity amongst voters. We will see an increase in articles in the future...

cat

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

My impression is that the usual practice is that when a Government is fully and wholeheartedly committed to a specific measure, it introduces a piece of its own legislation through the usual channels. It doesn't leave it to a Private Members' Bill. That's the point I was trying to make. Smith's success should not be considered a foregone conclusion, we should keep on fighting.

 

I think fighting where possible is worth it, the private members bill allows the PMO to put forward the measure without laying their prestige on the line or making it part of the agenda (in this case the PMO's doing everything it can to avoid appearing the least bit concerned with issues of morality), kind of a stealth tactic.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Many things are possible. No single possibility is certain.

Many outcomes are possible. No single outcome is inevitable.

 

It ain't over til it's over - and I for one intend to act accordingly.

[Phaedrus 209521]

A couple of thoughts on this.

 

First up, this is bound to be harder to push through than a bill about trafficking minors. I can't see that anyone would oppose the latter, but this one... it's not hard to make the case that this industry contains quite a few consenting adults who are very happy with the service being provided/paid for and whose activities harm no-one. Also, I think that most people in this country recognize that your own disapproval of something is not sufficient reason to inflict your views on everyone else (although not all, obviously). Having said that, the composition of the HoC is obviously more favorable to these things, now.

 

Secondly, I don't think the Government's position matters all that much. I'm sure they're quite happy for it to go ahead - if only as a deniable stalking-horse, if it gets shot down in flames - but the fact that it's a private member's bill rather than official Government business means that any vote is unlikely to be heavily whipped.

 

Thirdly, if it does go through... how much effect will it have? Some guys will stop seeing SPs, for sure. And anyone picking up a SP on the street will be more likely to be arrested on the spot, if LE are around (which will clearly make life even worse than it is now for the SPs that work that way). But the folks who arrange a rendez-vous with a lady in advance... how much risk do they run? I may be complacent here, but I really can't see LE going to a lot of effort to stake out SPs incalls to see who's visiting, or setting up stings to entice guys that they can then prosecute - if they really wanted to do that then I think we'd see a lot more SPs with incalls busted under the bawdy-house law than we currently do. I think the most serious potential impact would be the impact on businesses that are now legal (SCs, MPs, agencies) - if the final bill were worded so that using their services became illegal, life would be very difficult for them.

 

A final question that I really know nothing about: if this bill went through, what would be the effect on the Himel ruling and that case? Would it have no effect as that case is about the selling of sex, not the buying of it? Or would the whole thing have to go back to square one as the law is now different?

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

A final question that I really know nothing about: if this bill went through, what would be the effect on the Himel ruling and that case? Would it have no effect as that case is about the selling of sex, not the buying of it? Or would the whole thing have to go back to square one as the law is now different?

 

 

Well if Himel was upheld and this private members bill became law it would make Himel a moot case since Himel concerns the current laws (which allows the buying and selling of sex, but restricts aspects of it).

 

If Himel was struck down (ie the current laws left in place) its hard to know what would happen. Perhaps the PMO would quietly urge members to vote against it since the existing laws remain, or maybe they would encourage passage so that the new law (making it illegal to "buy" sex) would serve as a hedge.

 

The interesting question is what would happen if the private members bill became law. Would someone challenge it all the way to the SC? What John would do this?

 

Say what you like about its merits the Swedish model is a very clever approach from a political point of view.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... A final question that I really know nothing about: if this bill went through, what would be the effect on the Himel ruling and that case? Would it have no effect as that case is about the selling of sex, not the buying of it? Or would the whole thing have to go back to square one as the law is now different?

 

... some free-form head-scratching prompted by your questions, Phaedrus (and definitely far from claiming to be an answer to anything):

 

The Himel ruling affects current Criminal Code provisions regarding communication, living on the avails, and bawdy houses. The Ontario COA will make its ruling on Himel. If, in the interim, the impugned laws have been replaced with a new and different set of laws, then the ruling will be irrelevant ... in the immediate sense. In that circumstance, it's quite possible that the Supreme Court of Canada would not be appealed to, or would decline to entertain further appeal (because the laws at issue would be defunct anyway). The COA ruling, whatever it was, would stand.

 

Turning to a wider perspective, the reasoning of the COA as presented in its ruling will also become part of Canada's body of criminal jurisprudence. Depending on the court's ruling, and the specific reasoning behind it (which we'll only know when we see the written ruling), the results could very well have a bearing on the question of the constitutionality of any new law that might, while criminalizing the buying of sex, at the same time leave the selling of sex legal.

 

Let's suppose that the Ontario COA (or the SCC if the appeal did go that far) ultimately upholds Himel based on some form of the general line of reasoning that the impugned laws make the practice of a legal line of work less safe, without providing sufficient counterbalancing benefits to society. If so, then that finding might be relevant to a new law in a similar, although obviously not an identical, fashion. In the case of a Joy-Smith type law, sex workers would still be pursuing a legal profession - but their jobs could be argued to be less safe due to the inability (as in Sweden) to hire drivers/agents/bodyguards, openly screen clients, openly rent premises for use as an incall or bawdy house, etc. Of course the sex workers wouldn't be placed in a position of choosing between their own liberty (in the physical sense of imprisonment) and safety, which would certainly be one key difference. It would be more along the lines of their having to choose between their economic livelihood and safety. This could still be argued to fall within Section 7 rights under the Charter - and this category of argument actually was made in the Prostitution Reference case in the SCC 1990. (In 1990, this argument was not ruled on by the highest court, imprisonment being deemed sufficient without bothering to also consider the more nuanced and contentious economic argument.)

 

If the legislation enacting a new law stated its objective as combatting human trafficking, as it is indeed now being promoted as doing, then a lack of any demonstrated connection between the law and its purported objective would be a potential weakness in defending its constitutionality.

 

I think that almost certainly any charter challenge to a new Joy-Smith type law would have to start at square one again. But I'm no expert in the law - so I don't really know enough to entirely rule out the seemingly very unlikely possibility of an appeal of the new law within the proceedings of the current case. Any possibility of piggy-backing would depend, I think, on the findings and specific logic presented in the final ruling of the highest appeal court that the Ontario challenge reaches. There might be a similar enough potential flaw in its constitutional underpinnings to prompt its acceptance, with suitable delay for adjustment of arguments and marshalling of new evidence. Hard for me to really imagine it happening that way, though.

 

Bottom line, after all this rambling is ... my brain hurts trying to guess even a few of the permutations and twists of constitutional law that might possibly be invoked in the scenario we're speculating about.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

If Himel was struck down (ie the current laws left in place) its hard to know what would happen. Perhaps the PMO would quietly urge members to vote against it since the existing laws remain, or maybe they would encourage passage so that the new law (making it illegal to "buy" sex) would serve as a hedge. .

 

As in my previous posts I have been hoping for Himel to be struck down (as I knew the challenge would bring all this on us), however, I think that as it stands, the private member's bill would likely be voted (in September) BEFORE a decision is made on Himel's by OSC, likely later in the fall or new year. Am I incorrect?

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... as it stands, the private member's bill would likely be voted (in September)...

 

The newspaper article claimed the bill would be introduced in September. The standard procedure then would be: First reading in the House (i.e the introduction); Printing of the Bill; Second Reading in the House, including debate and vote on the principle of the Bill; reference to Committee; debate in Committee, including possible calling of witnesses; report by the Committee back to the House, including any recommended ammendments to the Bill; House considers amendments and votes for or against them; Third reading in the House, including debate and vote on Bill as amended; Bill sent to Senate for their consideration (including a repetition of the same steps there as was conducted in the House); Royal assent.

 

Private Members' bills have a restricted time allocation to get all this stuff done (only one hour a day is allocated to Private Members' business), compared to regular government bills.

 

So a Bill would not be at all likely to reach the final voting stage in the same month it is first introduced.

[Newton 714]

I don't know if Sweden has a bill of rights or something similar. I always thought if something is legal to sell, then it's legal to buy. Otherwise, it insults reason.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

There are many unanswered questions about this idiotic model. For example what constitutes (buying) sex. To me sex is only when two people have sexual intercourse not kissing or touching. Then in my definition having private dancers would still be legal, however, I do remember last year in our debate, the majority view was that kissing is sex too so no more private dancers either. At least not legally. I understand that in Sweden they have taken it one step further and dancers in strip bars are not allowed to take off their underwears (a new meaning to a strip bar lol) so even looking is same as buying sex in Sweden or was it Saudi Arabia LOL!!!!!. So in that case what would happen to our strip bars. Would they close or stay open and be dead all the time. Nobody buys sex in strip bars lol!!!. If laws enforced would enforcement be limited to SWs or would extend to online or independent escorts too?. What would happen to escort agencies. With tough new laws against living off the avails would they be able to advertise or even exist or will be frequently busted?. Will there be advertising sites still operating like DL or BP or review boards like cerb? What would be the penalty for buying sex. Would it be as tough as one year in jail (Swedish law) or a more lenient $5000 fine, like in Norway? (Norwegian law adopted from Sweden in 2009). Will the names be publicized? Would that be a criminal act or just offence?.

 

Most importantly would these laws just be written on the paper (to satisfy a few religious zealots in the conservative party) or would they be actually enforced and put innocent people in jail, heavily fine or publicize names and destroy lives and break up families?

 

I hope that our law makers think with their hearts and minds if and when they come to vote on this bill. Poll after poll indicate that a big majority of Canadians don't support this system or even criminalization of prostitution. A big majority of Canadian want prostitution legalized and regulated (53%). Only less than half (24%) want it criminalized. THE MESSAGE IS LOUD AND CLEAR FROM CONSTITUENTS to ELECTED MPS. It is the job of our elected MPs to vote on behalf of their constituents and unless they wish to turn this great country where democracy and freedom is rooted for over a century into a dictatoship similar to unelected religious dictatorships in the Middle East, then they have to say no to this bill and vote in a democratic way and the only way to keep this country democratic is to vote NO to this backward unfair, idiotic model which clearly has not work elsewhere and will not improve the safety of the sex workers either.

[Phaedrus 209521]

... some free-form head-scratching prompted by your questions, Phaedrus (and definitely far from claiming to be an answer to anything)

Thanks, WIT - always interesting to read! Can't give you any more rep points, alas...

[Capital Hunter 18263]

There will be always ways to do things legally. For example for status quo I have been hobbying for 2 years and a half seeing hundreds of escorts and not once broke any of the laws associated with existing prostitution laws. I have been strictly outcall only (not to break the bawdy house law) since the beginning even at the expense of financial losses and missing on some great incall-only ladies. Always used internet or cell phone to contact ladies for date (therefore never broke the solicitation in a public place law either) and always checked the IDs (for age verifications) when having slightest doubt..... Can I do still everything legally under new laws???.

 

Well if the Nordic system is imposed (If so, I expect to start kicking in, on January 1st 2012) even outcalls will be illegal too so my tactic will not work after that date so I have to find another way to see ladies legally. Not much comes to my mind at this moment as we speak but what I can say as an immediate thought is that there will be always ladies needing material goods instead of cash (exchange of cash after the date will be considered as buying sex if the imposed bill passes), I may propose to a lady to go to Sears for example and buy her a washing machine that she may need (equivalent to a few sessions) or a TV set or a fridge or furniture with my credit card as a GIFT to her or take her to dinner or buy her clothing or jewerly but no cash. Certainly no cash exchange during or after the date. Yes I know it may be hard to find a lady who trusts me so much that would spend several sessions with me just on my verbal promise. But those who have met me and know me they know I will never go back to my word, no matter what. I am hoping that I can find at least a few of those ladies among the many ladies that I have met since early 2008. For those who don't trust me, I trust them. I buy them the gift first (a material good not cash) and leave it to them to see me later to fulfill their promise. There may be other stategies to have dates legally but can't think of any right now.

[fortunateone 156618]

^^^ Technically cel phones are not going to be automatically OK re: public solicitation, since they are mobile. I would suggest that you stick to a landline phone, if you want to be strictly compliant. You can't prove you weren't sitting in the middle of a playground while contacting sps on your celphone lol.

 

I kind of think that what might work with a Swedish model is that regulars stick with their regular sps. They've already worked it out that neither one is going to report the other, and business as usual. It is a side effect of this biz that clients change, and a certain portion are non-repeaters, which is why we continue advertising. Plus regular clients often look to the ads for contact info, even to find someone they've seen before. In such an environment, advertising would pretty much have to go underground, so guys would have to save contact info for people they've seen before. It would be nearly impossible for a new sp to start working, or one who'd taken a break to come back to it.

 

Like most things, these laws affect the street workers, already marginalized, much more than indoor workers. And these laws of Sweden are probably meant to be directed to the street trade more than the indoor one, because frankly that is what most people "see" and don't want to "see".

 

The issue with this model is that the workers still work, they just work in darker alleys and further from safety nets. The car dates still happen,, just necessarily have to go further and further, and the clients still come, just fewer of the decent ones leaving many more of the types likely to hurt or rip off the ladies. These guys always seem to feel invincible. And, the worst possible side effect, is that ladies on the street are unlikely to have condoms, neither do the clients,because the presence of condoms are used as proof of sex service purchase.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Speculation as to the contents of a law which is yet to be written is sheer guesswork.

 

Cash vs Material Goods?

 

Whether or not a new law would break new ground on the definition of "prostitution" remains to be seen. The Criminal Code does not currently define it, and it has been left to the courts to do so. For example, the Supreme Court has defined it as "the exchange of sexual services of one person in return for payment by another...." (http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1990/1990canlii105/1990canlii105.html). This does not seem to restrict the form of payment to cash only, and it is unlikely that any law which attempts to make the purchasing of sex illegal would restrict the illegal forms of payment to cash, and allow everything else. (In Sweden, the courts have been explicitly instructed that payment includes non-monetary forms - http://www.globalrights.org/site/DocServer/Don_Kulick_on_the_Swedish_Model.pdf)

 

Enforcement and practical proof under any legal regime is of course problematical.

 

Cell Phones and public solicitation?

 

Part VI of the Criminal Code ("Invasion of Privacy") expressly states that its privacy provisions also apply to "radio-based telephone communications" (i.e. cell phones). Section 183 defines "private communication" for the purposes of Part VI:

 

"private communication" means any oral communication, or any telecommunication...

that is made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the originator to expect that it will not be intercepted by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it ...

 

When one places a phone call from a private place, one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, the communication is private.

 

Underground advertising?

 

Escorts don't seem to have any problems advertising on the net in either Sweden or the USA, even though buying sex is illegal in Sweden and selling and buying sex is illegal in the USA (except in rural Nevada).

 

The USA is home to many Escort Review Boards, several of which are pretty high profile. They cannot be named here, since they are competitors of Cerb.

 

On-line escort verification services in the USA also exist. Their role is that of verifing the legitimacy of both escorts and clients. Among other things, they screen to confirm that neither have law enforcement connections - i.e that they are not undercover police or their decoys. Escorts are required to have reviews on Escort review sites.

 

So declaring something illegal doesn't seem to be enough to make it also vanish from the information superhighway.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

Verification services are extremely important in the US and are becoming increasingly important in Canada. If a genuine anti-prostitution law is passed in Canada, the verification services will be mandatory.

 

It is very expensive to target independent paid companions who work indoors, however. There are many legitimate reasons for someone visiting someone else's apartment or home, just as there are many legitimate reasons for me to see someone in his hotel room or invite him to join me in mine.

 

I want to point out that many of us do not sell sex on the Internet. I quote prices for my time, alone, and not for specific services. This appears on my website:

 

DISCLAIMER: Money exchanged is solely for my time and companionship. Whatever may or may not occur between me and my client is a matter of choice between consenting adults of legal age. This is NOT a contract for, or request to be contracted for, prostitution. No fees, tips or other forms of compensation will be quoted, negotiated, assessed or collected in exchange for any sexual activity. Contacting me constitutes your agreement to and acceptance of these terms.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

All they have to do is to place a few undercover agents among independent escorts working indoors and scare off most of hobbyists. Not that expensive. Yes a police state lol!!!!

 

I too when I contact an unknown SP for first time I always say the exchanged donation is for her time and companionship only however, my understanding of WIT's post is that, this won't cut it anymore if this model becomes law.

 

WIT, buying material goods instead of cash exchange would make it a lot harder for the courts to convict (I assume that we will still have a justice system after January 1st 2012). If they convict people so harshly then who dares to take a girlfriend or even a wife to a dinner and pay for the dinner too LOL !!!!!!. This means a complete distatorship where people's relationshiips/friendship is based on distrust!!!! Any unhappy girlfriend or wife can legally accuse her partner of buying sex lol!!!.

 

Btw, WIT thanks for the comment regarding privacy of cell phone. I never believed that cell phones used in playgrounds or public places can be regarded as public place and now I have your confirmation.

[fortunateone 156618]

All they have to do is to place a few undercover agents among independent escorts working indoors and scare off most of hobbyists. Not that expensive. Yes a police state lol!!!!

 

.

 

 

I suppose they could scare them off with some sort of warning, but I think the expense of setting this up when there couldn't be any charges laid would prohibit it. If, for example, you are lured to a location by a fake escort ad, there is no prostitution taking place there, so you are not in a bawdy house, so there is nothing to charge you with lol.

 

However, if you are talking only about a Swedish model of making sex service purchase illegal, then yes, just the offer of money would nab you.

 

I imagine that some prostitutes in Sweden would benefit from taking this law as a challenge specifically if prostitution services are not illegal, then the challenge would be overturning the criminalization of the clients. Not being that familiar with the law itself, I imagine that it would have to be the client charged that would have to initiate this kind of appeal process. Which is probably why they tackled that instead of going after the sps to control their activity with other outside laws.

 

There haven't been that many charges laid, as far as I know from reading about it a while ago. They use it more for harrassment purposes, I'm thinking.

[VedaSloan 119179]

[etasman2000 15994]

 

This video is worth viewing by everyone!

 

Her comment about clients informing Law Enforcement of underage/traffic sex workers is a key point to note.

 

Are the current laws (Sweden and possibly Canada) consider misogynistic even as they may be promoted by (so called) feminist ? There seem to be a hyper focus on female sex workers as pointed out in the video.