What do you think is the right prostitution laws for Canada?

[fortunateone 156618]

Typically, places that have escort licenses as part of city bylaws, issue fines. I think you will find that a hefty fine, and interrupting the sps ability to work that evening, or week, can be more of a deterrant than an unlikely jail sentence for the same offense.

 

You always want to hit people where it really hurts: in their wallets.

 

In Edmonton, the independent escort license is say $2000. The typical fine when the bylaws run a sting to catch unlicensed sps is about $2000. Hit her once, and she will think twice about not just paying for a a license.:mad: right. The license # is supposed to be in their ads, so it is pretty easy to find the unlicensed ones.

[mod 135640]

but again this is a escort license (not a license to prostitute) the cities are not allowed to license prostitution at this time so instead they nail you for being a "escort" and define it as someone who socially escorts someone (pretending not to know that a escort is a prostitute). if you put in your ads " I am not an escort I am a prostitute " the city can not fine you under that bylaw .... they may try but you can get it appealed easily. if you do not dispute it and choose not to pay it... the worst they can do is send a collection agent after you (no jail or criminal fines)

[masterowls 249]

I have a question, I assume, that we are talking about how to best enforce compliance with any licensing program that the government may institute. Since in the example, we are speaking of the girl already having been issued a fine for not complying with regulations, exactly how would you suggest we make her comply with the conditions of her fine, since she has obviously chosen to disregard authority anyway? This is why I recommend mandatory jail terms. I'm not trying to necessarily criminalize the women, I'm trying to physically remove the ability for her to make money for a period of time to be determined by whatever authority the government chooses to put in place to oversee licensing. I agree the best way to enforce compliance is to make it too expensive not to comply. The problem is as I've said, figuring out some way to motivate compliance. I don't think fines will work, because if she's been fined, she has obviously already chosen not to comply.

Typically, places that have escort licenses as part of city bylaws, issue fines. I think you will find that a hefty fine, and interrupting the sps ability to work that evening, or week, can be more of a deterrant than an unlikely jail sentence for the same offense.

 

You always want to hit people where it really hurts: in their wallets.

 

In Edmonton, the independent escort license is say $2000. The typical fine when the bylaws run a sting to catch unlicensed sps is about $2000. Hit her once, and she will think twice about not just paying for a a license.:mad: right. The license # is supposed to be in their ads, so it is pretty easy to find the unlicensed ones.

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

This is why I recommend mandatory jail terms. I'm not trying to necessarily criminalize the women, I'm trying to physically remove the ability for her to make money for a period of time to be determined by whatever authority the government chooses to put in place to oversee licensing. I agree the best way to enforce compliance is to make it too expensive not to comply. The problem is as I've said, figuring out some way to motivate compliance. I don't think fines will work, because if she's been fined, she has obviously already chosen not to comply.

 

 

 

Mandatory sentencing is always a bad idea in jurisprudence. Its the southern US model and it wreaks havoc. Our system relies on judges to use their reasoning to follow sentencing guidelines, but they must retain flexibility because not all situations are black white.

 

As for someone who repeatedly violates the law, they will eventually face jail time, all judges recognize the importance of dealing harshly with those who hold the system in contempt.

[Newton 714]

I agree the best way to enforce compliance is to make it too expensive not to comply.

When the law is just and reasonable, citizens follow it voluntarily and out of moral conviction. When the law is unjust and unreasonable, citizens follow it because of fear of punishment. I think we should search for laws that are just and reasonable, instead of implementing laws that instill fear and resentment.

[masterowls 249]

Newton,

I agree with you, most Canadian citizens do follow just laws. I don't think asking a prostitute to obtain a business license, like any other independent business person is required to do is particularly unjust or unfair. However as we all know, there are always a few who choose to ignore the rules. What I am saying, is that we need rules that carry penalties that are stiff enough to deter people who might otherwise choose to take their chances without a license.

When the law is just and reasonable, citizens follow it voluntarily and out of moral conviction. When the law is unjust and unreasonable, citizens follow it because of fear of punishment. I think we should search for laws that are just and reasonable, instead of implementing laws that instill fear and resentment.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Opinion in the Globe & Mail, 30 Nov 2010, by Marina Adshade. Adshade is an Economics professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, and writes on the economics of sex and love on her blog "Dollars and Sex" (http://bigthink.com/blogs/dollars-and-sex). Here she underlines the role of regulation in creating a barrier between indoor work and the street trade.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-economists/regulating-brothels-will-keep-women-on-the-streets/article1819594/

Regulating brothels will keep women on the streets

　

Last week, the Globe quoted federal government lawyer Michael Morris as saying that Canada will be plunged into an "social experiment unprecedented in this country" if sex work is decriminalized. At least he had enough sense to add the qualifier "in this country", since many countries around the globe have decriminalized sex work.

　

Yet the fact that this is seen as an experiment suggests that decision makers have not looked at economic research on the effect of regulation in the sex trades. Anyone who thinks the street sector will disappear overnight is ignoring the overwhelming evidence against that claim.

　

The argument for decriminalization is that it will make it easier for sex workers to move off the streets and into brothels, making prostitution a safer occupation. The argument made for legalization is that will make it possible to regulate sex work by issuing licenses to sex workers and brothel owners, enforcing condom use and requiring sex workers to be regularly tested for STI?s.

　

That makes selling and buying of sex safer for everyone, including the spouses and partners of clients.

The economic evidence, however, is that while decriminalization may get (some) sex workers of the street, regulation will push them right back out there.

 

So, if we are going to have any form of legal sex work in Canada, policy makers will have to decide if the benefits from regulation are worth the cost of an expanded street sector.

　

Even without regulation, the street sector will persist just as it does in other countries that have stopped treating the sex work as criminal behaviour. Men who don?t want to pay brothel prices, or don?t want to play by brothel rules (especially if condom use is enforced), will make sure there is a steady demand for sex work on the street.

　

Where there is demand, supply will follow; sex workers with addictions, sex workers with STIs, underage sex workers, and illegal immigrants ?or perhaps those who don?t want to collect HST and pay income taxes ?will continue to work on the streets.

　

Adding regulation to this mix, in the form of licenses and enforcement, will drive up the price of sex in a brothel even higher sending more clients out on the streets looking for the cheaper unregulated service.

　

They will find there too, especially if sex workers are moving out onto the streets either because they are unwilling (or unable) to bear the cost of regulation or because they have failed STI testing.

The solution is a policy mix of street sector and brothel regulation that keeps in mind that workers and clients can move between the sectors. The question is: How far will we be into the ?social experiment? before policy makers start to think about the economics behind sex work?

[waterrat 1261]

CBC Morning Radio interviewed POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Educate & Resist) this morning regarding its report that will be issued later today. Excellent advocates. This was followed by a piece on a Montreal woman who had been assaulted by police in 1987 and was charged with assault as a result. The producers at CBC are bringing light to a story that has been ignored for too long.

 

Our sex work laws were historically used as a mechanism to control women. Let us remember that women were not considered to be "persons" in this country a century ago. THey could not control their own property, vote or hold the office of a judge. All of these things have changed. We have a woman as Chief Justice, we have had (briefly) a woman as Prime Minister and twice as Governor General. Yet we continue to subjugate women in many areas.

 

In "blue collar" workplaces it can still be tougher for women. The police departments are examples. It is a small minority of police officers who behave as those who did in mistreating Ms Bonds. It does not matter, even one bully is too many. We need to take away one of the tools at their disposition - the antiquated prostitution laws that are used to control and abuse. At the same time we need to educate.

 

Tolerance, acceptance and caring for our fellow residents of the city should be the tone set by the rank and file. The Chief of the Ottawa Police Service is doing his part. The police union needs to follow his lead. Society (today polls suggest that we are evenly split) has to accept that there is a place for sex workers. That they deserve protection not harassment. Politicians too need to follow that lead.

 

Only then will be be able to say that we are truly a tolerant and caring society.

 

Part of the "social compact" must also include responsibility on the part of sex related businesses and their customers. Most already do this, but not all. I remember volunteering to help clean the playground and parking lot at a daycare that was 500m from a strip club. Every Sunday we would clean up the condoms and wrappers that had been left there by "patrons" from Friday and Saturday night. The staff of the daycare did it on week days. That behaviour encourages disproportionate reaction.

 

Let's respect each other and learn to live together - the first steps are to repeal repressive laws and to show responsibility - on the part of the industry, it customers and police.

 

As a child I was taught to trust police officers. Generally that has been true. Unfortunately, the unionization of our police departments has led to an environment where bullies are protected and flourish. We need to end this. We need transparency in the operation of police departments. We should not fear our police authorities or any part of our government. Police officers need to ask themselves about their actions "how will this look if I am videotaped and this shows up on Youtube?".

[JoyfulC 132299]

Here are some concerns I have about licensing, and other suggestions:

 

This business is not like others, such as operating a hot dog or chip stand, in which the operator invests in assets that can be seized if fines aren't paid. Tossing people in jail (for up to ten years! as one person suggested) may not offer a cost effective solution to the public, and may go further to encourage practices that put prostitutes' lives and safety at risk.

 

Business licensing is often the domain of the municipality, and I've noticed that cities that license escorts generally exercise tremendous bias. In Calgary, for example, licensing fees for escorts are the third highest and by far much higher than those for categories with less expensive fees. The most expensive, I believe, was licensing for public or outdoor events -- and that's reasonable, given the likelihood that the event would generate noise nuisance complaints and higher than normal demands on law enforcement services. The second highest was for home alarm installers, and again, this seems reasonable because false alarms generate unnecessary costs for the city's first responder system.

 

But escorts should come in a close third? By what reasoning? What problems do escorts cause in cities without regulation? On the contrary, unless someone is looking for us, we're almost invisible. The City of Calgary had at one time (not sure about now) a rationalization for this on their site, explaining that the provincial municipal bylaw act allowed them to set higher licensing fees for businesses that ran contrary to the community's sense of "morality." Mind you, they didn't *have* to set a higher fee for escorts -- they decided to gouge them because, after all, they're escorts. They deserve to overpay.

 

Licensing will result in a greater number of prostitutes working on the streets and in other dangerous situations. Those most vulnerable will likely also be those least likely to be able or willing to get licensed: the drug addicted, the pimped, those with criminal records, illegal immigrants, minors and so forth. Further, one of the main purposes of the licensing process is to put on public record the identity of the license holder -- and let's face it, because of the stigma, many prostitutes do not wish their involvement in this business to be on their permanent public record. Many are young and looking just to make some money for school or to get started in another business, and have no plans to be in the business long term -- and therefore may well be extremely reluctant to have entered on their permanent record something that might come back to embarrass them or limit their opportunities later in life.

 

And it goes without saying that having one's identity and info on public record is a stalker's wet dream.

 

I believe that most cities that license escorts have as much or more street prostitution (and LE costs related to it) as those that do not. It's a mistake to think that politicians will take a reasonable, common sense view of any problem -- especially if there's an advantage to spinning it some other way. Many municipalities cite the escort licensing as a means to defer costs for enforcing street prostitution laws -- but why should law-abiding escorts pay for those who break the law? Especially when it's the bylaw itself that forces many of those prostitutes out onto the streets? That's a clear example of a disincentive.

 

Licensing and zoning will also be boons to organized crime types and other greedy, unethical players. Red light zones will be relegated to the ghettos, as the NIMBY mindset takes over, but think again if you think rents will be cheap just because the area is rundown and unsafe. Such properties will be bought up by greedy slumlords, looking to gouge prostitutes. And who will stop them? You know what they say about where prostitutes can find sympathy. (Hint: between "sh*t" and "syphilis" in the dictionary.)

 

Licensing costs will inevitably be passed down to customers. We already have a trend in this business that a significant percentage of customers are perfectly willing to deal with flagrant violators of the law (streetwalkers). This won't change with licensing. (In many businesses, customers are often reluctant to deal with unlicensed contractors. This certainly isn't one of those businesses.) I predict that licensing will encourage even more consumers of sex services to seek out unlicensed providers, for lower costs, more anonymity, and to avoid the possibility of being seen in areas zoned "red light."

 

I am extremely disappointed in the women who brought this challenge. It makes no sense that the reason women are risking their lives on the streets is because it's illegal to work indoors. It's illegal to work on the streets! And the chances of getting busted for that are hundreds of times greater! I also don't buy the crap about the living off the avails law being so onerous. When was the last time we heard of anyone's legitimate life partner, child or other non-pimp person being charged under this law? Frankly, I think this lawyer saw these dumb bunnies coming. To challenge the constitution and win is quite the feather in his cap, and his career is the better for it. Unfortunately, prostitution in Canada -- and most specifically the safety of prostitutes and the fairness that they can expect from society has been placed in jeopardy.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

I'd like to see existing laws used to regulate behaviours and social issues that concern people about sex workers. We already have laws against drugs, obstructing traffic, disturbing the peace, abuse, human trafficking, etc. Why do we need laws that are sex-work specific?

 

If some guy is abusing his girlfriend, does it really matter if she is a sex worker or not? If a person is obstructing traffic, does it really matter if she's a sex worker or a religious person handing out flyers? If a person is disrupting an apartment by being excessively loud and having lots of traffic, does it really matter if the occupant is a sex worker or just some university partying slut doing it for free?

[JoyfulC 132299]

Megan, it may seem counterintuitive but having these laws in the Criminal Code serves to protect us. Without them, municipalities would be forced to deal with us as just another business -- and for reasons I tried to point out above, that may not suit our business and many of the workers in it so well. Regardless what they do with the law, the stigma will persist. The laws we have right now (and current enforcement strategies) offer us perhaps the greatest degree of protection.

 

I'm sorry to say it, but (as is so often the case) the only person who will benefit from this is the lawyer. SPs and customers will find themselves with worse outcomes.

 

I guess I'm just totally shocked by this whole matter. I worked many years in the US, and so I've always had a deep appreciation of Canadian prostitution laws. I know how well we have it here.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

JoyfulC, I think that the experiences of the law are very different between "privileged" workers and "less privileged" workers. More on this in the POWER report!

[JoyfulC 132299]

JoyfulC' date=' I think that the experiences of the law are very different between "privileged" workers and "less privileged" workers. More on this in the POWER report![/quote']

 

What is it that makes one worker more "privileged" than another?

 

By "less privileged," do you mean the prostitutes who choose to work the streets?

 

I really can't see these same prostitutes opting to get licensed if the laws were struck from the Code, and replaced with local business licensing requirements and zoning bylaws. Can you?

 

I agree that the problems that street prostitutes face are horrific, but you know as well as I do that they don't have to be out there. These days, it's too easy to work indoors and it can be done with very slight overhead. It's really difficult to understand why they're worried more about the law than about the dangers they're risking, especially since they know that they would be less likely to be busted if they worked indoors. I worry that, under municipal zoning schemes, they will only be further marginalized, exploited and persecuted. I predict they'll get the worst of this.

 

Street prostitution is one of those intractable social problems, like homelessness or seeing to the needs of the mentally ill. I don't see how knocking out one big, but generously tolerant, system of laws and replacing them with a myriad of local laws driven by demagoguery and stigma is going to help the most vulnerable among us.

 

This is one time when I hope the government prevails in quashing this court ruling.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

I believe many people who work on the streets don't see working indoors as a viable option. To work as an escort, you basically need to be able to get hired by an agency, to be reasonably internet-fluent, or you need to have money to put an ad in the paper. These are not options for many underprivileged people. If you're poor and don't know how to use the internet, working as an escort is not really an option. Nor is getting hired by an agency. One of my friends works with women on the streets and it's amazing to listen to her describe the challenged faced by these women.

 

I don't support zoning or licensing and I find it insulting that I should somehow be zoned out of the greater community.

 

The laws pretty much work for me. I'm able to conduct my work safely and with very little fear of arrest. However, they don't work for everyone and it's important to consider the entire industry, not just the privileged ones, when discussing the laws. It is abundantly clear from Pickton, the POWER report, and other research that these laws put women in great danger.

[JoyfulC 132299]

I believe many people who work on the streets don't see working indoors as a viable option.

 

Too bad there is no one to assist them and help them become better educated about their options.

 

I also don't support zoning or licensing.

 

Me neither, but that's where it will go if the laws in the Criminal Code are struck.

 

Some in the business seem so convinced that this is a victory. I say, we'll see.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

Too bad there is no one to assist them and help them become better educated about their options.

Well, I wrote about my friend who does work with street women. She has tried getting them set up with email addresses, showing them the internet, etc. It's very challenging, but I admire her for all she does.

[JoyfulC 132299]

Well' date=' I wrote about my friend who does work with street women. She has tried getting them set up with email addresses, showing them the internet, etc. It's very challenging, but I admire her for all she does.[/quote']

 

Me too. Over the years, I've seen many outreach programs for streetwalkers, but most are aimed at getting them out of prostitution altogether (and into what? a minimum wage job??) and/or getting them into rehab. It's just not effective. What would be more effective would be to help them make better choices as prostitutes and drug users. To help them see that just because they choose to be prostitutes or to use drugs even doesn't necessarily mean that they have to behave self-destructively. There are safer, healthier and more dignified options.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

This is a complicated situation, the outcome of which depends on so many partially-predictable factors and future happenstances that it cannot be fully known beforehand. Uncertainty is unsettling. If and when the legal situation does ultimately change, some will inevitably suffer inconveniences. Some will benefit. Some will see no practical personal impact.

 

Remember that Judge Himel based her ruling on 25,000 pages of submitted evidence, she didn't just pull her conclusions about safety out of thin air.They do "make sense", even if one disagrees with them. In my opinion, the intelligence and good intentions of the appellants, their council, and the judge are beyond question. I don't think it serves any constructive purpose to personally attack them.

 

Opinions on the substantive issues certainly differ, and that part is of course fine.

[Guest C*****tte]

Further, one of the main purposes of the licensing process is to put on public record the identity of the license holder -- and let's face it, because of the stigma, many prostitutes do not wish their involvement in this business to be on their permanent public record.

 

This worries me greatly. I travel to the USA for my other work and if I have to register with my municipality I will not be able to travel there because they do not allow prostitutes into the country (knowingly - and if it is on record they will know).

[fortunateone 156618]

:jackoff:

This worries me greatly. I travel to the USA for my other work and if I have to register with my municipality I will not be able to travel there because they do not allow prostitutes into the country (knowingly - and if it is on record they will know).

 

 

Before you assume this, I would recommend you contact some licensed sps out of Edmonton or Calgary. Their city bylaw requires escort licenses, and they would know if there are any problems with this.

[JoyfulC 132299]

:jackoff:

 

 

Before you assume this, I would recommend you contact some licensed sps out of Edmonton or Calgary. Their city bylaw requires escort licenses, and they would know if there are any problems with this.

 

Unfortunately, things are changing very quickly with the border. I know someone who appeared in some porn south of the border who was recently denied entry on the basis of that.

 

The US is out of control right now. They're denying access to people like Cat Stevens and a world-acclaimed Swiss Muslim prof invited to teach at Notre Dame University, for goodness sake.

 

Last thing we need in this climate is our own government hanging labels around our necks.

 

I hope it won't be a problem, but frankly, being an American myself, I don't see it going that way. There are serious problems in the US right now. We don't need to help them discriminate.

[Andee 220524]

Me too. Over the years, I've seen many outreach programs for streetwalkers, but most are aimed at getting them out of prostitution altogether (and into what? a minimum wage job??) and/or getting them into rehab. It's just not effective. What would be more effective would be to help them make better choices as prostitutes and drug users. To help them see that just because they choose to be prostitutes or to use drugs even doesn't necessarily mean that they have to behave self-destructively. There are safer, healthier and more dignified options.

 

Finally, someone is saying what I have believed for years! It was only until this year that I was able to find a counsellor who was SP-friendly. We need to help empower these women that they do have other choices to continue to do what they do but under as you said, "more dignified" circumstances.

 

The street workers which I have met are unable to work inside because of their housing (or lack of) situation that does not allow it. For example, those living in a rooming house, would be quickly evicted when it was discovered what they were doing. Those who couch surf or live in shelters...obviously unable to as well. When I hear people says SWs choose to be on the street when they could be inside don't realize it's not that easy especially for the ones who may suffer from mental illness or drug addiction. But yes, the options should be there to help, not hinder them from continuing to do what it is they choose to do. Harm reduction is still better than turning a blind eye and doing nothing.

[JoyfulC 132299]

The street workers which I have met are unable to work inside because of their housing (or lack of) situation that does not allow it. For example, those living in a rooming house, would be quickly evicted when it was discovered what they were doing. Those who couch surf or live in shelters...obviously unable to as well. When I hear people says SWs choose to be on the street when they could be inside don't realize it's not that easy especially for the ones who may suffer from mental illness or drug addiction. But yes, the options should be there to help, not hinder them from continuing to do what it is they choose to do. Harm reduction is still better than turning a blind eye and doing nothing.

 

WRT streetwalkers suffering from mental illness, I think the remedy should be to overhaul our mental health care system -- not our prostitution laws. As it is, we are letting too many of our mentally ill slip through the cracks, living under deplorable conditions, sometimes homeless, not uncommonly incarcerated rather than hospitalized or in a supported living home, sometimes a threat to themselves and others. And why? Budget considerations? Are we becoming so much like our friends over the border that, rather than to bear the thought of anyone getting something they didn't "work for," that we're ready to forfeit any sense of civilized compassion? It's a shame, the state of our mental health policy.

 

But as for those living in rooming houses or on people's couches, if they're working the streets, they're making money -- but unlike the rest of us, they're obviously not paying their bills first so they can get a place of their own which they can then use as a means to support themselves and whatever habits they might have.

 

Over the years, I have found financial illiteracy to be the number one contributor to insecurity for prostitutes. Yet time and again, we see prostitution advocacy groups that want to take on the laws, take on the police, but which are light on offering life skills training to prostitutes to help them learn to to set up and live within a reasonable budget, for instance.

 

This financial illiteracy ultimately affects us all. I believe it to be a key factor in the rate stagnation we've been experiencing for a couple decades now.

[Suzirider 737]

Here is a sample Bylaw !

 

http://webdocs.edmonton.ca/Bylaws/C12452.doc

 

http://www.edmonton.ca/bylaws_licences/licences_permits/escort-licence.aspx

 

"A complete list of every introduction arranged for each such Escort specifying the calendar date, time, and location."

( this gets reported to City Manager, once a month)

 

"?Escort? means a person who charges or receives a Fee for acting as a date or providing personal companionship for a limited period of time;"

 

And so, what is missing ?, the definition of "date" ? (Dinner....a Movie...Bowling....Sex maybe?) :roll:

[mod 135640]

They don't say sex as right now it is ILLEGAL for them to license prostitution. They are claiming that this is a "Paid Social Date" meaning sex is not what you are paying for the social companionship is. We all know this is bullshit (They know this as well) but no one takes these cities to court!!

 

They claim that a person who is paid to "escort" another person on a date. What happens on the date has nothing to do with the act of going on this date. They all know escort means prostitute but they get away with this. The ladies just need to advertise without using the word escort in these cities. They need to state that they "Are not an escort but a courtesan" if they do this and get a bylaw ticket the judge will throw it out the door!

 

The term "escort" is something they can pretend has nothing to do with prostitution and that lets them license it at this time (and to scare people even more they have silly rules like a LOG to be submitted). This is just another example of the cities ABUSING these bylaws! Worst of all it makes the citizens think that the INCALL location they are going to that has a "Escort" license is a LEGAL BROTHEL but that is NOT the CASE!! If prostitution is going on in a MASSAGE SPA or from a LICENSED ESCORT in a common bawdy house of any kind this is very much ILLEGAL at this time under the criminal code!!

 

If prostitution is decriminalized this means the cities can write bylaws that do outline SEX and Prostitution... can you just imagine how abused those bylaws will be!!!

 

Some of the groups fighting for decriminalization say they will fight any city that draws up bylaws that impede a ladies rights to conduct her business but that will cost A LOT of money (and time) and in the meantime we could see a lot abuse before something is done. Plus why would a prostitution group in BC fight say a bylaw made in Barrie Ontario? Answer: They Won't... they would expect the local organization to do this and in the smaller cities no organizations for this exist. At least Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver have these organizations willing to battle for the ladies... but edmonton, calgary, winnipeg... Barrie, etc.. etc.. It will be abused severely and no one will have the money, time or guts to challenge the bylaws.

 

Bylaws for prostitution need to either be outlined federally of what can and can not be done or the federal government needs to outline the laws in detail and restrict cities to zoning. (Fair zoning as some cities will just make a bylaw that says not within 50km of a school and that will limit the entire city as no area would exist that would be within these limits).