MP Bids to Make Buying Sex Illegal in Canada

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

Thank you for those links, SA. One is for an Iranian news site, another is for an anti-decriminalization blog, and the third is for an article in Maclean's magazine that notes that "some" estimate the amount of prostitution in Sweden plummeted 90%, though it gives no sources.

 

I reckon that if the Swedish government says both that it has no idea how many street prostitutes there were, or are, and that it also believes street prostitution dropped by 30-50%, higher estimates have even less validity since the Swedish government considers a 30-50% drop to be a sign of success for their laws.

 

Whether there will be new legislation and what such legislation may contain is, at this point, conjecture. I do notice that Libby Davies, NDP MP for Vancouver East and deputy Opposition leader, is in favour of decriminalizing prostitution. Her riding includes Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. What she has to say is indicative of the position the Opposition would take on legislative changes.

 

Public debate is helpful, but when the issue is full of stigma, it's difficult to have an open debate. I, for one, will write about issues related to prostitution, but because I have children who would be unfairly affected, I don't feel it would be responsible of me to speak out in public about prostitution and my views based on my experience as a paid companion. Many other companions are in similar situations. I'm grateful to those who are more free to take a public stance.

 

It would be wonderful if the police, lawyers, judges and Members of Parliament who are our clients would speak out about their experiences and support decriminalization, but I am under no illusions that this will happen before the anticipated freezing-over of Hell. Even "ordinary" men are not likely to make clear public statements supporting prostitutes' rights and safety.

 

One of the bitter aspects of the debate is that so much depends on self-interest. While we are all concerned about women in the sex trade, safety is a genuine day-to-day issue for all sex workers--whether working indoors or outside. For our clients, unfortunately, our safety is generally less important than their desire not to be stigmatized as customers of prostitutes.

 

Enormous integrity and strength of character are required of those who publicly advocate change that flies in the face of conventional morality. Sadly, too few will attempt to pass the character test.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

SA, it seems like only a short time ago you had to be convinced and shown that prostitution is legal, and that when you have ladies come to visit you, you can not only give them money you can give them money for sexual services. .

 

I have to respond one more time.....

 

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to fortunateone. I opened a thread almost exactly a year ago saying that when I have ladies (SPs) over at my place I consider them as my guests and my time with then as Dates (rendezvous) rather than pay for sex and the money exchanged is a gift for their time and companionship as I have had many dates in which no sexual services were asked or provided (and I asked others if they feel the same way) and I still am of the same opinion and even stronger (and the thread was nominated by many readers though there were some, mostly SPs who opposed the idea and debated against it). I never said prostitution is illegal in Canada!!!!. I knew all along outcalls are legal and I always knew about the public solicitation law and bawdy house law.

 

My thread infact is somehow related to this thread and I may discuss it briefly that the extreme elements in the government are claiming that buying sex should become illegal because it is abuse and exploitation of women (which is true for many cases not sure what percentage but not all) and that women are in this profession not out of choice but out of force (pimped or drug addiction which again is true in many cases but not all). If we had promoted the idea that our encounters are voluntarily and consenting and as dates enjoyable by both sides rather than pay for sex, then we may have never come to where we are now. I am not saying that my thread a year ago would have changed the minds of those extremists but am saying if this idea was promoted years ago by our older hobbyists and SPs then we would not have been where we are now, facing criminalization of prostitution for ALL cases rather than selective for those who are pimped (not them but the pimps) or in there by force or the abuser/exploiters of those woman but all those who pay for sex even those having a private date for exchange of gift (outcalls).

 

Please note that this thread is not about me or what I believe or believed or whether outcallls are legal/illegal or what I do (outcall only) may be twisted as illegal but about the conservative MP who wants to bring a private bill before the parliament in September to make buying sex illegal in Canada and a criminal act generalized to all types of prostitutions, even voluntarily or consenting sex (the failed swedish/nordic model). I will ask you again to please not to make this debate personal.

[drlove 37204]

So, what are the chances of such a bill actually being pushed through and made into law? I think it's outrageous! I for one would not want to be branded a "criminal" by the powers that be just by virtue of being a hobbyist.

[Susie 1472]

joy smith is a moral zealot and with a majority conservative government...? it might happen.

 

we are fighting for inclusion in the federal human trafficking strategy development and hope to go through the federal ombudsman for the victims of crime to fight the implementation of any kind of criminalization including criminalize the client.

 

on a personal note; hope everyone in cerb land is well!!

love susieXXXO

[Suzirider 737]

Will be interesting to see how logically she sorts out this little bit of reality in her proposed new law.

If the Buyer commits the crime of buying sex, then the Seller has in their possession, Proceeds of a Crime.

Will it be OK to pay your taxes with Proceeds of a Crime?

 

(Social) Engineering is about details.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

Interesting!

 

She's working on an anti-trafficking bill and wants to support agencies that work with people who have been trafficked.

 

Fine.

 

She's not saying that she proposes bringing in legislation to outlaw prostitution, criminalize prostitutes or focus on criminalizing our clients.

 

This is useful information, I think. As I argued, earlier in this thread, it didn't make sense for the federal government to be drafting legislation related to the issues addressed by Justice Himel before the SCC hears the anticipated appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. It looks like Joy Smith is simply going to focus on human trafficking even though she wants to rail about the sex trade in general.

 

I would like to know what she finds inadequate about the anti-trafficking laws we already have. Are the laws ineffective or is there a problem with the police or the judicial will to pursue these cases?

 

I hope that Joy's proposed legislation will not victimize people who have been trafficked. I hope that it will reflect an understanding of the reasons that people get involved in being trafficked in the first place because, from what I've read in Lara Agustin's work, trafficked and indentured workers are not being rounded up spontaneously on the city streets. Most are in dire economic straights at home and desperate to do something to help their families.

 

I am also curious to know what the proposed legislation will say, if anything, about illegal migrant workers. People do come to Canada in order to work illegally. They may not earn minimum wage, but in most cases they're earning considerably more than they would in their countries of origin. It's easy to understand why some migrant workers may decide to enter the sex trade rather than be paid a pittance for harvesting fruit, working in construction or doing housework and childcare.

 

Thanks for posting this update, WiT.

[fortunateone 156618]

I don't think she has a problem with the way the trafficking laws are being applied, since she so readily points out how effective they are with having found 143 victims, and 49 different cases.

 

I mean, she uses that as proof to Lowman as to how much information is out there to support this effort of hers. Of course its ridiculous on the one hand to proclaim that laws are needed then turn around and show how the current ones are perfectly adequate, and being enforced, and getting results.

 

I think it must really aggravate some of these zealots to realize that the hundreds of thousands they want to save don't exist, and that every effort made is only ever going to find a small handful of people. The reality is that new laws are not necessary, enforcing and using the ones there are perfectly fine.

 

And as you say, the lack of effort to protect migrant workers in any field is what is a crime.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... She's not saying that she proposes bringing in legislation to outlaw prostitution, criminalize prostitutes or focus on criminalizing our clients....

 

My own reading of her article is that this in fact does remain part of her agenda. She spends half of the article talking about the inherent harms in prostitution itself, and in the buyers of sex:

 

"prostitution facilitates sexual exploitation and human trafficking ... Legalizing prostitution is little more than normalizing the sexual servitude of women and youth ... I am unapologetically for the abolition of prostitution, a system that dehumanizes and degrades humans and reduces them to a commodity ... "

[fortunateone 156618]

I am always offended by someone lumping women in with children. I can't see what kind of arrogance it must take to figure they know what's best for grown women, and apply a law or regulation that is designed to protect children.

 

Why isn't someone out there creating regulations and laws to protect men and children, lets say from the evils of cigarettes? They should come up with a law that will blanketly be good for a grown man over 40 as well as a 12 year old. Shouldn't be a problem, after all, its designed for their own good.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

My own reading of her article is that this in fact does remain part of her agenda. She spends half of the article talking about the inherent harms in prostitution itself, and in the buyers of sex:

 

You may be right, WiT. I read the last paragraph in her article as a statement of what she was going to be doing: clamping down on human trafficking because she thinks it's linked to prostitution.

 

She gets to storm around making ridiculous statements about prostitution and she doesn't have to worry about whether they're accurate or not because she can claim that her real issue is trafficking.

 

Trafficking is such a sexy, titillating topic when we get to talk about prostitution! It's nowhere nearly as exciting if we're talking about tobacco harvesters, grape-pickers, roofers and others. We need crops to be harvested and roofs to be nailed onto buildings, which makes trafficking a more complex issue. Joy Smith doesn't think we need anyone to be paid or to pay for having sex.

 

We'll see what happens when the House convenes in a couple of weeks, I suppose.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I don't think she has a problem with the way the trafficking laws are being applied, since she so readily points out how effective they are with having found 143 victims, and 49 different cases ... Of course its ridiculous on the one hand to proclaim that laws are needed then turn around and show how the current ones are perfectly adequate, and being enforced, and getting results...

 

I'd guess that Smith's point here is really aimed at the legality of sex-for-money, and that she wishes this argument to underline the supposed connection she has claimed previously in the article - namely, that prostitution "facilitates" trafficking. In other words, her argument, and what she wishes us to conclude, is: Look at all the trafficking that is going on now - when prostitution is legal! Therefore, we must make it illegal, so as to cut down on all this trafficking".

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

Oh, for sure, WiT! I absolutely agree with you.

 

It explains why these prohibitionists focus on trafficking only when it pertains to the sex industry. They really don't care much about people who are indentured into other occupations where they're badly treated, horribly underpaid and sometimes working in very dangerous conditions.

 

It also seems, almost by definition, that anyone who is working in the sex trade who is not a Canadian is automatically "trafficked," whether the women think that's true or not. Laura Agustin writes a lot about migrant labourers, including sex workers, who leave their home countries to go elsewhere to earn money to send home. Many of them know that they'll be doing sex work and still they come.

 

The majority of Asian women working in the micro-brothels here in Vancouver are migrant workers, not trafficked. They come here for four or five months, work hard, send money home and then go home before their visas expire.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

The study found the legalization and regulation of prostitution led to a dramatic increase in the involvement of organized crime in the sex industry, in child prostitution, in the number of foreign women trafficked into the region, and a general increase in violence against women.

 

A 2006 study examining legalized prostitution in the Netherlands found 60% of prostituted women suffered physical assaults, 70% experienced threats of physical assaults, 40% experienced sexual violence and 40% had been forced into prostitution or sexual abuse by acquaintances. Since then, Amsterdam has announced plans to shut down a third of its brothels.

 

The studies above appear to confirm my earlier statements in another thread that decriminalization of prostitution would lead to more trafficking (as criminals target easy targets) and more forced prostitution!! And more violence against sex workers and more lives in danger. And I gave Holland as an example in comparison to Sweden. That is why I support status quo and oppose decriminalization as I don't wish to see that happen in my homeland in fact anywhere in the world.

[scribbles 6031]

I'd be very interested in knowing how the studies were conducted and whether there were identical studies conducted before decriminalization to define a baseline.

The problem with studies is they often aren't carried out in a manner that describes change, so the change they *imply* is always negative. This all looks like an increase, and looks terrible, but could in fact be unchanged by decriminalization or even decreased. Too little information here to know.

 

I also read on the RCMP that there have been less than 10 trafficking convictions over the years. Does this mean an ineffective justice process, or grossly overstated trafficking statistics? Not that a single case of trafficking should ever happen, but the numbers compared to the population are statistically insignificant. There's a greater scourge of people being hit by cars while crossing the street. Perhaps joy Smith should craft a National Action Plan for crosswalks.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

The studies above appear to confirm ....

 

The devil is in the details. Joy Smith's bald and simplisitic statements about such studies and evidence should not be taken at their broad-brush face value. She's an advocate of abolition, remember.

[scribbles 6031]

Correction: According to the RCMP website, there have been 7 convictions under the current human trafficking (note: not specifically sex trafficking) laws. Under their FAQ section, it also states that assessing the prevalence or scope of human trafficking is "difficult;" no assessments of numbers are given.

However, looking through some of the links in Joy Smith's online arsenal, "End Modern Slavery" states that the same thing (interestingly, blaming it on how "lucrative" the criminal enterprise is,) but also notes that the RCMP "estimated" in 2004 that 800 people are exploited in Canada each year through human trafficking (600 of which are involved in the sex trade, apparently).

 

So, a grand total of 0.0025% of the Canadian population is at risk through human trafficking. Only 0.00188% are at risk for being trafficked for sexual exploitation.

 

Conclusion: Existing laws have resulted in a miniscule number of convictions for a crime that involves a ridiculously tiny fraction of a percentage of the population. Joy Smith is crafting legislation aimed at an illusory crisis, which means she's likely really aiming her guns at a completely different target for a different reason: "mainstream" prostitution. However, even if she criminalizes the clients in the equation, the problem will still boil down to an issue of enforcement; the existing laws on prostitution and human trafficking are under-enforced, so beefing them up without changing the enforcement strategy and resources won't change the landscape any at all.

 

My thought: if the government uses this as an end run around Himel, basically saying "sure, we'll drop those provisions in the code and not criminalize the providers," and shift the focus to the consumer, they bypass the appeals decision entirely. I'm sure such a thing would be up for challenge as well in the courts, but it would be a whole new argument (with some of the same words) being brought before all new courts.

 

Either way, I would be far more concerned if her National Action Plan involved budgeting for and creating specific enforcement resources dedicated to enforcing the existing laws. She could say "clients will be shot on sight" and it wouldn't matter, since the guns are all being pointed at other kinds of criminals right now.

Just my opinion, anyways.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

I'm sure that human trafficking is a problem, world-wide. Relatively few charges and convictions in Canada can't be taken as an indication of how much trafficking is, or isn't, going on.

 

From what I've read, it's impossible to know how many trafficked labourers of any kind there are. They don't report to some government service or co-ordinating agency when they leave home or when they arrive in their destination, after all. This makes it easy to inflate their numbers; it also makes it easy to discount them.

 

Reports I've read estimate that only 2-4% of trafficked women end up in the sex trade. It's impossible to know what to make of the estimate, though. It seems clear that most workers are in farm labour, industrial labour of various kinds, construction and domestic work. However, sorting out the trafficked from the migrants isn't an easy task.

 

I think we also need to be aware of the biases that are part of being privileged in Canada and elsewhere. For many people, it's difficult to imagine choosing to travel across the world to work in what we may consider to be subsistence employment. If we don't want to work on farms or do someone else's housework and childcare, we may not appreciate why other people might want those jobs. Our lack of awareness about the economic plight of many of the world's people can lead to snap judgments. The real problem may not be that people will come to Canada illegally to work; it may be that economic conditions make it impossible for them to work and support their families at home. Blaming people for finding even desperate solutions to their problems is a convenient way to avoid addressing the real issues.

 

It's not surprising to me that prohibitionists ignore the hard realities that motivate migration. Taking shots at prostitution doesn't require much analysis. But just as prohibitionists skate over the reasons for migration, they also ignore the reasons that many women enter the sex trade.

 

Speaking for myself, I had never considered this to be a way for me to make a living. Only when circumstances made it impossible for me to support my children--when I had no other options that did not include giving custody to their father who would ensure that I had no further contact with them--I chose to become a prostitute. I didn't know if I could do it, or if I could do it for very long. I saw it as a short-term, stop-gap maneuver that might buy me some time. I made most of the mistakes that many women make when they start out; high volume service at low rates seemed to be the way to go. I might have carried on with that had I not had some clients who encouraged me to think differently. Those good men were fundamentally important because, at the time, they were better than I was at assessing me, what I had to offer and how to package it. In Toronto's highly competitive market, I was able to be successful even though I was older than most companions.

 

I'm pretty sure that Joy Smith's simplistic analysis about the sex trade and violence against women cannot take into account the ways that male privilege and family law frequently harm many, many women and their children. Joy might say that it would have been better for me to lose my children than to become a paid companion. She has no idea about the realities of most women's lives. She doesn't trust women to know what is best for them and their children.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

The devil is in the details. Joy Smith's bald and simplisitic statements about such studies and evidence should not be taken at their broad-brush face value. She's an advocate of abolition, remember.

 

The studies were not conducted by Joy Smith. She just quoted the result of the studies. Are there any studies to counter above that infact legalization has decreased violence against women and sex trade trafficking and forced prostitution anywhere in the world?. Are there such studies in New Zealand where someone said legalization has worked well? It would be great to know if there are.....

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... She just quoted the result of the studies. Are there any studies to counter above that infact legalization has decreased violence against women and sex trade trafficking and forced prostitution anywhere in the world?. Are there such studies in New Zealand where someone said legalization has worked well? It would be great to know if there are.....

 

It's all really just guesswork. Trafficking is a murky business, and numbers are impossible to pin down. Anyone like Joy Smith who claims to know ... just doesn't, that's all.

 

There is no evidence of a general correlation between whether prostitution is legal or illegal in any given country, and the amount of human trafficking in that country.

 

Joy Smith does not "quote" the studies. She gives her own interpretation of the studies. Her interpretation fails to mention that hard evidence is fundamentally non-existent. The 2003 study for the Scottish Parliament she mentions uses a handful of anecdotal, unsubstantiated statements, not substantive or statistical evidence, to come to its we-don't-really-know conclusion that " Legalisation has not limited trafficking, and there is some evidence that it has resulted in increased flows.":

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/lg/inquiries/ptz/lg04-ptz-res-03.htm#P91_6163

 

Neither is there any persuasive evidence of increased trafficking in New Zealand following legalisation.

[Susie 1472]

there are plenty of studies demonstrating the tremendously positive impact of decriminalization in new zealand,australia,etc...google it and also check out the words of the workers themselves...decrim is the only solution.

 

http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/

http://www.nzpc.org.nz/index.php?page_name=Home

 

the studies refered to done by perrin and farley are absolutely bogus and do not meet the criteria set out by the federal government governing research involving human beings- known as the tri-council policy statement- this is why farely's "research" was thrown out in the ontario charter case. in my opinion the perrin and farely data is promotion of hatred and can not be held up as a reason for any actions taken by the canadian government.

 

consider if you took a religion let's say just for fun christians in general.

 

imagine if a member of parliament said they were un apologetically chasing the complete abolition of christianity... or the hebrew religion....is this seeming familiar to anyone else....?

 

perrin and farely are constantly and consistently held up as the leaders in "research" but its crap. they only care about their own goals- making money and the abolition of prostitution- no matter who they hurt.

 

i have contacted the federal ombudsman for the victims of crime and demanded that their office intervene and ensure the inclusion of actually working sex working peopled uring development of any plans or strategies that may comprimise the safety of sex working people.

 

their mandate forces them to have to meet with us and take our concerns forward. i will keep people updated. also, the ongoing missing women's inquiry in vancouver- while it may seem un related- should be able to give us all a powerful tool to combat these kinds of morality based actions.

 

they are inverstigating the actions of police- broadly- during the timeline of the case of the missing women and also now. i have told them the details of what we learned about the effects of on going brothel/health enhancement center raids, show lounge closures,etc... the bc coalition- www.bccec.wordpress.com- of which i am a member have done a number of projects related to gaps in services provided by the criminal justice system including victim's services...yes, a conflict of interest to be sure to have the police in charge of victims services.

 

i am hoping that the report could be used to combat future efforts to "irradicate" our community.....

 

as always, please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

love susieXXXO

[Nikki Thomas 23145]

First off, I'd like to thank everyone who has made such thoughtful posts on this issue, and I learned a lot by reading through all the various posts. I don't engage in a lot of online discussions, so please don't mistake my silence for non-participation; I read everything I can about the subject, and I am truly impressed by the level of discussion on this forum in particular. But for the most part, I mainly use review boards for advertising, rather than activism, because I find it difficult to do both at the same time. I usually only comment when it's something I feel very strongly about, or something I think that needs to be said.

 

Because this is such a serious issue for everyone on this board, I felt it was important to share it as soon as possible. I hope I'm not jumping the gun, but a lot of recent information seems to indicate that Joy Smith has backed away from her promise to introduce legislation to criminalize the purchase of sexual services.

 

SPOC has been in touch with a number of Toronto-area MPs, mostly members of the Conservative Party. Today, I had a meeting with one of them, and from what he told me, it seems very likely that Joy Smith WILL NOT try to invoke the Nordic APPROACH (I refuse to legitimize by calling it a "model" for anything) during the upcoming session. The current bill, as he understands it, focuses entirely on trafficking and does not attempt to rewrite S.213© to exclusively target the clients.

 

I can't confirm this until I see a copy of the proposed legislation, and we're working on getting it as we speak - if anyone could assist us in this matter, it would be extremely helpful. However, all the indications point towards the government backing off this issue, at least for now. I don't think it's going to last, because sooner or later, the Supreme Court will uphold Himel's decision and the government will be forced to deal with it. But between now and then, there's a lot of work to be done, especially in terms of networking with government officials - after all, most of them will be there for another four years, and I fully expect the SCC to rule before the next federal election.

 

I hope that the government will continue to wait for the courts to rule before tabling any legislation, and in the meantime, will examine the existing and forthcoming evidence, to try to get a clearer picture of sex work in Canada. We will continue to engage in dialogue with members of all parties, to ensure that the lines of communication remain open when the government is ready to talk about this again.

 

There are a number of ongoing studies, many of which are recruiting now or in the near future, that specifically aim to provide sex workers with a voice. Susi probably knows more details than I do, but if anyone has ever wanted to share their story in hopes of making a difference, there are many chances to do so. The research that's going on NOW will be the research that the federal government examines after the SCC rules on the challenge, so if we want to discredit the Farleys and Fiolleaus even further, we need to counter their claims not just with methodological criticisms, but also with well-conducted, unbiased studies. Saying "those stats are flawed" isn't as nearly useful as saying, "those stats are flawed and here are some stats that aren't." Politicians respond much better to the latter, believe me. If you are interested in participating in such a study, please ask Susi or myself for more details (sorry for volunteering you Susi, but you know it comes from love! <3)

 

Anyways, I'm pleased about this turn of events, and I hope I'm not getting ahead of myself. I know the government will have to deal with this sooner or later, but for right now, they don't want to touch it. I guess they realized that if they start policing people's bedrooms even further, they'll have one hell of a fight on their hands!

 

Oh, and guys? We know you treat us well (especially on this board!) and that's why we love you... but the fact is, we've been shouldering the entire load when it comes to sex work activism, while you've been mostly (and justifiably) silent. I certainly don't begrudge you for it, and I entirely respect your reasons - but now, they're coming after you. Maybe it's time to start thinking of ways that you can do more for the cause? After all, Joy Smith has four more years before she's up for re-election...

[Capital Hunter 18263]

. However, all the indications point towards the government backing off this issue, at least for now. I don't think it's going to last, because sooner or later, the Supreme Court will uphold Himel's decision and the government will be forced to deal with it.

...

 

Comments Deleted. Promised myself not to engage in any debate on this board anymore.... Thanks for the update Nikki.

[mrrnice2 157005]

Oh, and guys? We know you treat us well (especially on this board!) and that's why we love you... but the fact is, we've been shouldering the entire load when it comes to sex work activism, while you've been mostly (and justifiably) silent. I certainly don't begrudge you for it, and I entirely respect your reasons - but now, they're coming after you. Maybe it's time to start thinking of ways that you can do more for the cause? After all, Joy Smith has four more years before she's up for re-election...

 

This entire thread has been incredibly educational and eye opening. I truly appreciate the time and effort that many have put into this discussion, into the lobbying that is happening, into the sex worker organizations that exist, and for working on behalf of all of us.

 

This note from Nicki struck me almost as hard as anything else that I have read here.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... Oh, and guys? ... the fact is, we've been shouldering the entire load when it comes to sex work activism ... Maybe it's time to start thinking of ways that you can do more for the cause?...

 

The usual ways:

 

- Writing to Members of Parliament

- Writing comments on on-line news articles

- Providing financial support to Sex Worker organizations

 

Anyone have further suggestions? Or know of specifics on how and where we can do more? Nikki mentions studies dedicated to providing sex workers with a voice ... are there any studies afoot that would facilitate the voice of clients in a similar way?

[Phaedrus 209521]

- Writing comments on on-line news articles

 

OOI, how much do politicians pay attention to this sort of thing? Anyone know?

 

Anyone have further suggestions? Or know of specifics on how and where we can do more? Nikki mentions studies dedicated to providing sex workers with a voice ... are there any studies afoot that would facilitate the voice of clients in a similar way?

 

Or, indeed, simply finding out who clients are. If the likes of Farley are to be believed, we're a bunch of homicidal maniacs, and the absolute dregs of society. Is there research into demonstrating what we know damn well - that the clients are simply ordinary people?