Ontario Court Deems Prostitution Laws Unconstitutional

[whiteman 14028]

After all of the appeals the law against pimping and bawdy houses will be removed, even if someone is not licensed or is not paying taxes on their income while working in this business, they still can't be charged with a criminal offense, it'll just be either a taxation or city bylaw-related offense.

 

Besides, I don't think anyone has to worry about excessively high HST fees, as some basic portion of the fees (e.g. door fees) can be charged HST, while the rest can be just a tip, much like a waiter & restaurant. Some waiters declare their tips in income taxes, while others don't. But in either case, when declaring those tips, they aren't subject to HST, just income taxes.

 

Taxation and licensing issues aside, I know most people here like the bawdy house laws being lifted, but how do they feel about the pimping laws also being lifted?

[SoreBack 100]

The 'pimping laws' are the ones that make it illegal to live off of the profits of prostitution. Basically, if an escort doing her taxes declares her income specifically coming from her work as an escort, she is opening herself up to charges.

 

The idea of the court ruling is to better secure the safety of the service workers. The purpose behind quashing this portion of the law is that so service workers have more avenues than getting caught in the classic rut of being under the thumb of an abusive controller (pimp). With the ruling they can go to the police to file complaints and charges in relation to their activities without having to expose themselves to charges.

 

It is also part and parcel with the keeping of a common baudy house, where the penalties can include the confiscation of the service providers property where they work (in most cases their homes).

 

In reality it's a nasty system that is in play now. It's designed so that there are automatically 3 charges that immediately get laid against the defendant, communicating, keeping a common baudy house, and living off the avails. All 3 have stiff penalties. If a plea bargain is reached the courts still have the other offenses to prosecute with, and they are considered 'serious' by the prosecution. They can say they are tough on crime because they stack the deck in their favour.

 

Think of it in sports terms. If the average service provider were a baseball player, getting charges laid against them is akin to getting all 3 strikes on 1 swing, and then going back to the dugout so the team manager can kick you in the stomach....

[fortunateone 156618]

After all of the appeals the law against pimping and bawdy houses will be removed, even if someone is not licensed or is not paying taxes on their income while working in this business, they still can't be charged with a criminal offense, it'll just be either a taxation or city bylaw-related offense.

 

Besides, I don't think anyone has to worry about excessively high HST fees, as some basic portion of the fees (e.g. door fees) can be charged HST, while the rest can be just a tip, much like a waiter & restaurant. Some waiters declare their tips in income taxes, while others don't. But in either case, when declaring those tips, they aren't subject to HST, just income taxes.

 

Taxation and licensing issues aside, I know most people here like the bawdy house laws being lifted, but how do they feel about the pimping laws also being lifted?

 

 

I know living off the avails sounds like it only applies to pimps, but it also applies to drivers/security (the people who can help assure the safety of an sp either onsite, nearby or transporting her and waiting for her appt), the manager of an mp or agency (someone who simply does her advertising, sets up appts, helps out, provides a space for her to work along with others), her adult children who live at home, her SO who lives with her (and may be out of work or unable to work), anyone she might wish to hire to assist her in her business. Many of these things actually help the sp stay safe, work efficiently, work safely, or just have a normal life like any other type of worker.

[mod 135639]

The 'pimping laws' are the ones that make it illegal to live off of the profits of prostitution. Basically, if an escort doing her taxes declares her income specifically coming from her work as an escort, she is opening herself up to charges.

 

that is not true. the living off the avails law clearly states that any third party (pimp, agent, other lady or driver etc..) not the lady doing the prostituting.

 

The idea of the court ruling is to better secure the safety of the service workers. The purpose behind quashing this portion of the law is that so service workers have more avenues than getting caught in the classic rut of being under the thumb of an abusive controller (pimp). With the ruling they can go to the police to file complaints and charges in relation to their activities without having to expose themselves to charges.

that is in part true. it is to make a safer working environment but more than that it is because the current law takes basic chartered rights away from those who work in this profession. the courts are recognizing that not all these ladies are drug addicts, controlled by pimps or forced into this business. many ladies choose to work in this business (especially the 'escorts' who you see here on cerb joining the conversations).

 

 

In reality it's a nasty system that is in play now. It's designed so that there are automatically 3 charges that immediately get laid against the defendant, communicating, keeping a common baudy house, and living off the avails

not true again. communicating is only in a public place (street, hotel lobby, casino, etc...). if the lady communicates in private she is not charged for this... and I explained living off avails above. third most single ladies working from a low traffic in call location that is not a commercial unit and is not accepting walk in appointments is really not on the radar. it would take public complaints and a over ambitious police force to see this as harmful to the public and waste resources on targeting such places so these places are usually ignored.. it's the high traffic commercial places (massage spa, brothels and strip clubs like the famous fantasias that was closed in markham a few years back) ... those are the targets for law enforcement. that and streetwalkers and pimps... but the current laws give pimps many ways out and really only target the ladies.

[Pink Kitty Escorts 6195]

I agree. And just to add to that point. There are many ladies that are afraid to go to the police about a pimp that is forcing them to work in this industry for fear of getting into legal trouble. Now they would be able to and not have to sweat it at all.

 

And for agencies that are playing by the rules, they would have less to worry about. They would never have to worry about ladies that could use the law to extort agencies by threatening to try and get them busted to gain leverage. (this can be a problem that happens from time to time).

 

One question.. Does anyone know if all of the parts of the section 212 was scheduled to be removed as something I havent heard much about was the subsection involving exercising direction and control and the procuring.

[Guest C*****tte]

I believe the subsection was not affected.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... One question.. Does anyone know if all of the parts of the section 212 was scheduled to be removed as something I havent heard much about was the subsection involving exercising direction and control and the procuring.

 

Only 212(1)(j) was found to be unconstitutional -- affecting anyone who "lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person". The balance of Section 212 was not involved in the case, and stands unaffected.

 

(Quote from the decision: "[515] Sections 212(1)(a) through (i), which deal with procuring, were also not challenged by the applicants. These provisions remain in effect.")

 

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html#_Toc270411986

 

Additional Comments:

... I know most people here like the bawdy house laws being lifted, but how do they feel about the pimping laws also being lifted?

 

None of the unconstitutional provisions are needed to deal with pimps.

 

In her ruling, Judge Himel pointed out that there are plenty of non-prostitution Sections of the Criminal Code under which true pimps can, and have been, prosecuted and convicted:　

"[524] In many cases, attacks against prostitutes by pimps involve charges laid under both

general

and specific prostitution-related provisions of the

Criminal Code

. For example ...

kidnapping, forcible confinement, procuring... and uttering threats

, where a woman was kidnapped, abused, and forced into prostitution ...

robbery, assault

, and uttering threats where the complainant was a prostitute.

 

[525]... a man who had assaulted his girlfriend and forced her to work as a prostitute. He was convicted of kidnapping, for which he received 12 years, use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, for which he received three years consecutive ... and aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats, for which he received concurrent sentences totalling 22 years? imprisonment. ...

 

[526] In other cases, pimps have been successfully tried without resort to these [unconstitutional] provisions. For example ... a five-year sentence for

extortion

, three counts of simple assault, and three counts of uttering threats ... after a young woman was forced to attempt to prostitute herself as a result of threats and violence.

 

[527] In many of these cases, the crime of

uttering threats found in s. 264.1

of the

Criminal

Code

, punishable by up to five years? imprisonment, is used to punish the exploitive conduct of the pimp. In others,

s. 423 (intimidation)

has been used. This section makes it an offence to use violence or threaten violence or injury to property, intimidate or threaten a person in order to compel them to do something that they have the right to abstain from doing. Intimidation is a hybrid offence; the maximum sentence on indictment is five years? imprisonment. In

R. v. Yu

2002 ... convictions for kidnapping, intimidating, assaulting, menacing, beating, and degrading a prostitute to recover a debt were upheld ....

 

[533] Introduced in November 2005,

s. 279.01 prohibits trafficking in persons:

 

279.01(1) Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to imprisonment for life if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence; or

(b) to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years in any other case.

(2) No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid.

 

[534] Section 279.02 punishes individuals who benefit economically from trafficking in persons and carries a maximum penalty of ten years? imprisonment. In

R. v. Nakpangi,

2008 ... the accused was charged under both this section and s. 212(2) in relation to his control over two young persons involved in prostitution, and received a global sentence of five years? imprisonment.

 

[535]

In conclusion, I respectfully reject the argument made by the respondent that a legal vacuum would be created by an immediate declaration of invalidity in this case.

"

 

[fortunateone 156618]

This was posted on another site, and I am sure susi doesn't have time to copy on all the sites, so here you go.

 

post by susi

 

Thank you for taking the time to hear what Canadian Sex Industry Workers think about the future safety and stability of Canada’s Sex Industry!!

 

Member of Parliament for Kildonan-St. Paul, Joy Smith,[1] would have you believe sex workers are all victims in need of care and that we do not understand the barriers we face in our lives. She would have you accept her misrepresentation of trafficking and believe that every sex workers is trafficked against her will into sex work. She would have you believe that the sex working community has not planned for the future stability of our industry. Not true.....

 

All over Canada sex workers are rising in their own defense, calling for an end to criminalization. We have developed plans to increase the safety of ALL community members. Our plan is detailed and could be adapted to fit communities from coast to coast, bringing transparency, accountability and safety to Canadian Sex Industry Workers. The plan includes:

 

- Labour review boards or complaints processes to hear labour related complaints, which would include police, city staff, health authorities and sex industry workers working to combat youth exploitation and human trafficking, as proven effective in Calcutta for over 12 years;

Specialized policing services to increase reporting of violence and exploitation;

Sex consumer education to promote ethical purchasing and consumer reporting of any exploitation they witness;

Municipal bylaw revisions to support sex industry transparency and accountability; and

A low-barrier system of professional accreditation to ensure all workers are given access to supports, resources and tools to make safe decisions about their work.

 

These proposed processes will work to combat exploitation in the sex industry while respecting the choices of adult consensual sex industry workers. Please see the attached “Opening the Doors” Executive Summary, report and draft materials to support the proposed processes that are being developed by sex industry workers themselves.

 

Inclusion is key. Consensual adult sex industry workers must be included in all decisions, processes and planning, as Canadians decide how best to support sex worker safety in the future to ensure all people’s concerns and experiences are respected. Whatever actions are taken, all sides must be heard.

 

Joy Smith’s plan to stabilize the safety of adult consensual sex workers is to have no plan at all. She would rather sex industry workers “sink or swim” in isolation, be further criminalized and driven underground by anti-sex work policies.

 

Under the banner of saving youth and trafficking victims, Joy Smith is willing to compromise the human rights of thousands of adult consensual sex workers. Joy Smith has never worked with or even consulted any person actively working in the sex industry. Instead, her plans are based solely on the experiences of persons exploited in the sex industry or the opinions of researchers deemed less than credible by Justice Himmel,[2] and do not include ANY consideration for people choosing to work in the sex industry.

 

Compromising the rights of one group to “save” another is prohibited by the International Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, it explicitly states that no part of the declaration may be used to justify the removal of an individual’s rights. I question the motives of any person willing to harm a woman to save a woman.

 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Part II - Article 5

 

1.Nothing in the present covenant maybe interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at the limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present covenant.

Do not support Joy Smith’s Private members Bill calling for the implementation of a Swedish Model of criminalizing the sex industry.

 

Nowhere has this model been proven to combat the exploitation of youth or human trafficking, but it has had questionable results for the safety of adult consensual sex industry workers. In fact, the Swedish Parliament is currently reviewing the effectiveness of its approach. Please see the attached FIRST paper about the Swedish model developed by Esther Shannon, co-author of the Human Trafficking, Sex Work and the 2010 Games Report: [link removed]

 

It is time to put the voices of sex industry workers at the forefront. It is time to move away from punishment, towards protection.

 

We do not need to inherit another nation’s mistakes. Prostitution is legal in this country. Only through development of a “Canadian Model” will we ever be able to bring safety and stability in Canada’s sex industry, end exploitation and end the murder of members of our community.

 

Please take the time to educate yourself on the issues before making your decision. Please support the protection and inclusion of Canadian Adult Consensual Sex Workers.

 

Thank you,

 

Susan Davis

http://www.wccsip.ca

http://www.bccep.wordpress.com

http://www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com

 

 

[Andee 220524]

The 'pimping laws' are the ones that make it illegal to live off of the profits of prostitution. Basically, if an escort doing her taxes declares her income specifically coming from her work as an escort, she is opening herself up to charges.

 

As MOD pointed out, living off the avails pertains to third parties, not the escort herself. Since it's not illegal to be a prostitute, there is no repercussions for filing your income tax as one even though most ladies prefer to refer to themselves as consultants or entertainers.

 

CRA doesn't care how you make your living, only that you pay your taxes and there are plenty of SPs who do!

[Guest O***wa**W]

Can someone clarify something for me, if it is legal, and you pay taxes to CRA, if you are audited, wouldnt you have to provide details on all clients to certify the amount you make?

Would these changes mean having to register as a business or contractor?

 

Additional Comments:

The living off the avails rules also apply to third parties who live with you, such as roommates, even if they dont know about it? Is that correct?

[mod 135639]

Can someone clarify something for me, if it is legal, and you pay taxes to CRA, if you are audited, wouldnt you have to provide details on all clients to certify the amount you make?

No, that is like telling a store they have to keep detailed records of every customer why buys a can of pop. If you make under (I think it's 30K) a year you do NOT need a business license. Anything above that requires a HST number and business number (Registered business - about 80.00 in most municipalities). Claiming taxes has a LOT of benefits (Especially if you want to buy a house, get a loan for a car, etc...)

 

Would these changes mean having to register as a business or contractor?

Right now legally you should own a business if your doing over (again I think it's 30K) what could happen with decriminalization (or other changes that remove the living off the avails laws) the cities and towns could make new by-laws that would require you to have a registered business, pay for a license, work within some insane guideline they have, etc... cities and town by-laws are often abused (especially with adult business's as stripclubs have had to deal with - zoning, hours of operation, signage laws, etc... ALL BAD and ALL taking the rights away from the companies)

 

 

The living off the avails rules also apply to third parties who live with you, such as roommates, even if they dont know about it? Is that correct?

Yes and No... If you work out of the same apparentment your "Room mate" would be changed with being in a common bawdy house for sure. The police may ask you if she/he knows what you do, may ask if you give them any money, may ask if you pay the rent and they live for free... things like that. Things that would prove they are befitting from the proceeds you collect from prostitution.

 

It's very hard (It may even be impossible) for them to stick "living off the avails of prostitution" without a prostitute herself going on record stating that they give that person money.

 

Unfortunately this is why the law is so ineffective to what it was originally intended for... to get rid of pimps. This is why pimps get away so easily as the ladies are often afraid to go to the police and testify against the pimp and without the ladies accusation they have a very hard time proving that he/she was living off the avails.

 

Drivers on the other hand... are often charged with living off the avails, Agents (agency owners) are more easily charged then street pimps as they don't hide in the dark alleys of the streets like most of the street level pimps.... and most of them are not heavy handed drug wheeling slimeballs. (I did say most - as bad people exist in every business and escort prostitution is no exception unfortunately the powers that be group streetwalkers and escorts in the same GROUP and are ignorant and uneducated to the fact that things are VERY DIFFERENT).

[BootyLoving 2441]

Only 212(1)(j) was found to be unconstitutional -- affecting anyone who "lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person". The balance of Section 212 was not involved in the case, and stands unaffected.

 

(Quote from the decision: "[515] Sections 212(1)(a) through (i), which deal with procuring, were also not challenged by the applicants. These provisions remain in effect.")

 

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html#_Toc270411986

 

Additional Comments:

 

 

None of the unconstitutional provisions are needed to deal with pimps.

 

In her ruling, Judge Himel pointed out that there are plenty of non-prostitution Sections of the Criminal Code under which true pimps can, and have been, prosecuted and convicted:　

"[524] In many cases, attacks against prostitutes by pimps involve charges laid under both

general

and specific prostitution-related provisions of the

Criminal Code

. For example ...

kidnapping, forcible confinement, procuring... and uttering threats

, where a woman was kidnapped, abused, and forced into prostitution ...

robbery, assault

, and uttering threats where the complainant was a prostitute.

 

[525]... a man who had assaulted his girlfriend and forced her to work as a prostitute. He was convicted of kidnapping, for which he received 12 years, use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, for which he received three years consecutive ... and aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats, for which he received concurrent sentences totalling 22 years? imprisonment. ...

 

[526] In other cases, pimps have been successfully tried without resort to these [unconstitutional] provisions. For example ... a five-year sentence for

extortion

, three counts of simple assault, and three counts of uttering threats ... after a young woman was forced to attempt to prostitute herself as a result of threats and violence.

 

[527] In many of these cases, the crime of

uttering threats found in s. 264.1

of the

Criminal

Code

, punishable by up to five years? imprisonment, is used to punish the exploitive conduct of the pimp. In others,

s. 423 (intimidation)

has been used. This section makes it an offence to use violence or threaten violence or injury to property, intimidate or threaten a person in order to compel them to do something that they have the right to abstain from doing. Intimidation is a hybrid offence; the maximum sentence on indictment is five years? imprisonment. In

R. v. Yu

2002 ... convictions for kidnapping, intimidating, assaulting, menacing, beating, and degrading a prostitute to recover a debt were upheld ....

 

[533] Introduced in November 2005,

s. 279.01 prohibits trafficking in persons:

 

279.01(1) Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) to imprisonment for life if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence; or

(b) to imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years in any other case.

(2) No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid.

 

[534] Section 279.02 punishes individuals who benefit economically from trafficking in persons and carries a maximum penalty of ten years? imprisonment. In

R. v. Nakpangi,

2008 ... the accused was charged under both this section and s. 212(2) in relation to his control over two young persons involved in prostitution, and received a global sentence of five years? imprisonment.

 

[535]

In conclusion, I respectfully reject the argument made by the respondent that a legal vacuum would be created by an immediate declaration of invalidity in this case.

"

 

 

Thanks WiT,

 

I'm a little more comforted and enlightenned now with your exert. Media coverage and discussion of both parties point of view got me worried that we are openning up floodgates for the vunerable to become further abused. So long as 279.x is there, and is a decisive tool against trafficking, I can sleep better.

 

This should reduce the kangaroo court that SP (and maybe us John's too) have to contend with, and allow for law enforcement to focus on segment of the sex trade that are unpleasant. Such as trafficking, child abuse ...

 

My remaining concern / question. What are the specific tools that are used by LE to define the difference between a pimp and agency? Does the line ever get blurred?

 

I do my best to avoid "agency" who may be coercing ladies into situations they'd rather not be in. I don't think we talk about that too much, but some John / Hobbiest like myself would like to know how to navigate the industry while reducing a negative footprint.

 

I am BootLoving, and I'm getting edumacated!

[HappyJay 154]

Hi all. THanks for all the discussions. I am better educated now. I think the Ontario court ruling was absolutely right and I am applauding for it. We definitely should voice our concern/opinions and try to prevent such a law to surface to criminalize all sex workers. I will email my MP...:boobies:

 

Additional Comments:

Thanks a lot for Mod to clarify this.

 

No, that is like telling a store they have to keep detailed records of every customer why buys a can of pop. If you make under (I think it's 30K) a year you do NOT need a business license. Anything above that requires a HST number and business number (Registered business - about 80.00 in most municipalities). Claiming taxes has a LOT of benefits (Especially if you want to buy a house, get a loan for a car, etc...)

 

Right now legally you should own a business if your doing over (again I think it's 30K) what could happen with decriminalization (or other changes that remove the living off the avails laws) the cities and towns could make new by-laws that would require you to have a registered business, pay for a license, work within some insane guideline they have, etc... cities and town by-laws are often abused (especially with adult business's as stripclubs have had to deal with - zoning, hours of operation, signage laws, etc... ALL BAD and ALL taking the rights away from the companies)

 

 

Yes and No... If you work out of the same apparentment your "Room mate" would be changed with being in a common bawdy house for sure. The police may ask you if she/he knows what you do, may ask if you give them any money, may ask if you pay the rent and they live for free... things like that. Things that would prove they are befitting from the proceeds you collect from prostitution.

 

It's very hard (It may even be impossible) for them to stick "living off the avails of prostitution" without a prostitute herself going on record stating that they give that person money.

 

Unfortunately this is why the law is so ineffective to what it was originally intended for... to get rid of pimps. This is why pimps get away so easily as the ladies are often afraid to go to the police and testify against the pimp and without the ladies accusation they have a very hard time proving that he/she was living off the avails.

 

Drivers on the other hand... are often charged with living off the avails, Agents (agency owners) are more easily charged then street pimps as they don't hide in the dark alleys of the streets like most of the street level pimps.... and most of them are not heavy handed drug wheeling slimeballs. (I did say most - as bad people exist in every business and escort prostitution is no exception unfortunately the powers that be group streetwalkers and escorts in the same GROUP and are ignorant and uneducated to the fact that things are VERY DIFFERENT).

[johnsvp 523]

I cannot believe that the government nor society would allow brothels to exist as a business like any other. What exactly is the status today ? I am really tired of the hoops you have to go through to get some loving company.

Just as I don't go to the grocery store every day, I don't closely monitor CERB or any other info web page and I find the whole thing overwhelming. For personal reasons I don't date but I do have a lot of desire for intimacy. I understand that even though I have belonged to CERB for over 900 days I still don't seem to belong because I haven't posted 5 posts in 5 days. Well, hopefully I am posting today.

I would really like a safe, clean place that I can go to for intimacy, where I would be kind and generous (or be thrown out like I would in a strip club). I am very introverted and shy. But there are many like me out there who would be excellant clients. Well run, legitimate, safe, clean, brothels, is the only way to go for both parties. But will it ever happen?

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

I cannot believe that the government nor society would allow brothels to exist as a business like any other. What exactly is the status today ? I am really tired of the hoops you have to go through to get some loving company.

 

Just as I don't go to the grocery store every day, I don't closely monitor CERB or any other info web page and I find the whole thing overwhelming. For personal reasons I don't date but I do have a lot of desire for intimacy. . . .

 

I would really like a safe, clean place that I can go to for intimacy, where I would be kind and generous (or be thrown out like I would in a strip club). I am very introverted and shy. But there are many like me out there who would be excellant clients. Well run, legitimate, safe, clean, brothels, is the only way to go for both parties. But will it ever happen?

 

At the moment, brothels are completely illegal in Canada. This may change after the Supreme Court of Canada renders a decision, probably sometime next year, but I wouldn't expect changes to come quickly.

 

According to the current laws, every companion who works independently is operating a "common bawdy house"--a brothel--even if she's the only one working there. Some ladies would like to share an in-call space with one, two or a few others. Many of us won't change anything, being content to carry on much as we always have but without the threat of criminal prosecution hanging over us.

 

Undoubtedly, some brothels with many ladies will open if it's legally possible. Where, how and when that might happen is anyone's guess at this point, though. In large cities, municipal regulations will likely come into play that may limit where such establishments may be located, their hours of operation, etc. Expect for there to be considerable community resistance, at least initially, too.

 

If you want to wait for legal changes and all the other things that would need to happen, expect to wait for quite a while.

 

In the meantime, why not do some research, find a lady in your area who is well-respected and contact her? Believe me, we see lots of men who feel shy and uncertain about engaging with us. You can tell the lady of your choice that you're feeling nervous. She will be prepared to help you with that and I'm sure that you'll forget all about your nerves in no time!

[EvaAdore 7767]

WOW!!!! This is a step in the right direction! I read it wrong the first time, I had to read the comments to fully understand what is happening... but now that I have, I am so happy! And just in time for me to get back to work!!! YESSSSSS

[Capital Hunter 18263]

It is my understanding that next week SCC will hear from various groups for and against (not sure when it will actually rule for the case before it). Unfortunately I am not as optimistic as most of you appear to be. Yes I also anticipate that SCC will rule for legalizing the bawdy houses and non-exploitive living off the avails (On the grounds that sex workers are engaged in a legal profession and hence like any other worker need safety and protection under the law and the bawdy house rules and lack of ability to hire guards and drivers will put their safety in jeopardy). Well excellent!!!!!!! but that will not end there. I expect that soon after the majority conservative government will move fast to use its majority to make prostitution illegal in Canada so that it will no longer be obliged to obey the SCC ruling and protect workers engaged in an soon to be illegal profession. The end result would be much worse than status quo!!. Well I hope I am wrong in my anticipation.

[whiteman 14028]

I don't think that's going to happen, even with Harper running the show.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I hope you are right whiteman. Somehow it is very difficult for me to envisage opening up of legal bawdy houses all over the country under the nose of a majority ultra conservative government but time will tell. Hopefully they will be too busy covering up their scandals to have time for this anytime soon.

[Cowboy kenny 50799]

Harper's got to get his house in order ( and it's in a fucking mess) before he and is government worry about shutting down bawdy houses and challenging whatever comes about from the supreme court decision.

[whiteman 14028]

I don't envision big bunny ranches opening up across the country, but I do envision simple incalls becoming legal, with only a couple of girls working together at a time.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

If the Harper government wants to focus on prostitution laws after the SCC renders its decision, I have a sense that the Canadian public will see this as one more example of being out of touch with voters. Prostitution has never been illegal in Canada. There's no compelling reason to change that. Even the sorely misguided prohibitionists claim not to be interested in prosecuting sex workers.

 

Whether Stephen Harper will continue on as leader is an important question. Having little to no hope of defeating Justin Trudeau or of living down the spate of fiscal scandals, he's likely to step down sometime later this year or next. But whether he's still the PM or not, the government will have a hard time convincing voters that the sex trade is a greater concern than who is appointed to wallow before the patronage pork barrel.

 

I imagine the SCC will agree with the Ontario Court of Appeal, for the most part, and will then leave the regulation of brothels up to municipalities which are, after all, better-equipped to evaluate community standards and keep an eye on things. I doubt that municipalities will be too concerned about women working alone or with another lady. They're much more likely to be interested in larger-scale operations and safer-sex practices, while collecting steep business licensing fees. Their opportunity to make money will be the deciding factor in the end.

 

Sex workers' groups have been meeting with municipal officials across the country for many months, exploring various options. I'm sure that the by-law drafters will have realized, by now, that it would be unwise to expect sex workers to cooperate with regulations that are punitive or have a strongly negative impact on our trade. We've worked outside the law for many generations. Many of us are content to continue doing so.

[Guest S****r]

I agree with Samantha:

Their opportunity to make money will be the deciding factor in the end. (Samantha)

 

Once they acquiesce to the "morality" issue, how to grab money will be the main issue. I foresee licensing fees, etc ahead. So am not sure how I feel about this.

 

My main desire is that we don't have to worry about our incall location being illegal. But am I willing to put my name on paper (a license) to have that reassurance? Hmmmm.......not so sure. I hate paper trails of any kind in this business. Even if the government becomes okay with it all, society's moral judgement still makes me want to not have my name or address appear on anything that can help anyone connect the dots to me and this "trade."

 

Hopefully society will evolve so that the next generation doesn't have any of these issues.

 

Here's hoping!

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Prostitution was never illegal in Sweden either until it became illegal. Harper government has been out of touch with Canadian public before so this wouldn't be the first time. Under the new law (if it is ever implemented) sex workers will not be prosecuted and they will be regarded as victims of violence (even those in this business by choice and that is the flaw with Nordic system) but only pimps and Johns will be prosecuted (which I have no issue with prosecuting pimps and violent Johns either but good respectful hobbyists will be equally prosecuted and this is another flaw with Nordic model). It may gather momentum and support among the feminists and left and ultra right and religious groups when it is introduced. Enough to pass easy by a majority conservative parliament. Unlike abortion which Harper promised not to open up, no such promised was made about prostitution law. I also seriously doubt that Harper will resign. To the contrary I think that he has an agenda and would wish to see it through to the end.

 

What works against them is the Canadian public opinion that a majority at this moment believe prostitution should remain legal and become safe (though public can be brainwashed too as it happened in Sweden). The other thing against them is as said their pre-occupation with the mess they have created over past 2 years and dealing with scandals and corruptions so though majority it is a weak government . And third if the SCC decision come late say in the last 12 months of this government (2015) then they may leave it to the next elected government and I doubt it that with all these scandals Canadians will elect another majority conservative government in spite of good management of economy relative to Europe and US. I don't wish to be an alarmist unnecessarily, , but unfortunately above scenario is definitely a possibility and it has happened before in equally democratic and advanced societies (like Sweden, Norway, Ireland......) and I am speaking on different side of a debate. Btw, anybody knows roughly when a final decision by SCC will be made?

[Guest S****r]

I believe the ball is in Parliament's court right now, isn't it? So the SCC will do nothing until Parliament responds. And it seems to me that just maybe a month or so ago Parliament tabled it, to deal with it later. So....who knows. Maybe it will be put off until the next government, who will then be left to deal with it. And who knows what THAT will mean.

 

Not sure, but it seems to me that that is where it is at.