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

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

.... 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).

 

New Zealand's "Prostitution Reform Act 2003" (alias "PRA") is a great reference point for thought about bylaws. (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...html#dlm197815)

 

In New Zealand, Territories are given district authority for regulating location of brothels, but brothels cannot be banned outright. Some attempts at overly-strict zoning restrictions have been struck down in court. Overall, the New Zealand experience is neither gloom-and-doom -- nor, of course, all sun-and-blue-sky either.

 

From the NZ Ministry of Justice, the 2008 report from the Prostitution Law Review Committee "Response of Terriorial Authorities to the PRA":

 

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/legislation/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/9-response-of-territorial-authorities-to-the-pra　

In passing the PRA, Parliament made it clear that it was not taking a moral stance on prostitution, but rather was legislating to deal with issues associated with the health and safety of sex workers, and their human rights. However, much of the debate from local communities about the legislation revolved around questions of morality, and was often expressed in terms of strong emotion.

 

Community consultation by some TAs [Territorial Authorities], notably in Christchurch, Manukau, Auckland and Hamilton, revealed strong opposition to the establishment of brothels, particularly in residential areas. The bylaws that resulted from this consultation attempted to control the location of brothels, as well as regulating signage. Other bylaws have gone further, and prohibit soliciting and touting for brothels or commercial sexual services in a public place.

In some cases, the local government's response to community concern was at odds with the aims of Parliament when it decriminalised prostitution.

 

.... the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Committee sent a questionnaire on the PRA to the

73 TAs

in New Zealand.... Forty-three TAs indicated that the enactment of the PRA had prompted them to consider the sex industry in their district ...

Fifteen TAs either promulgated a new bylaw or amended an existing one

... All 15 bylaws that were promulgated as a result of the enactment of the PRA control signage for brothels, and

13

also

control location

...

 

Twelve councils have defined specific areas within which brothels are permitted to operate. In all cases these areas are located in commercial and industrial zones.

Eight of these have included SOOBs [small Owner-Operated Brothels] in their definition of brothel.

Three of these have been challenged in court,with two having their bylaws struck down, largely because of their impact on SOOBs

. ...

 

The Committee is concerned that TAs have attempted to force SOOBs to work in the same area as larger brothels. A SOOB, almost by definition, is run from home, and is therefore unlikely to be found in a commercial or industrial zone. Further, locating brothels in industrial and commercial zones often means they are in areas that are not as well lit, and certainly not as populated, as the suburbs. This may place sex workers working from SOOBs at greater risk of violence and/or robbery, as they may not have the security arrangements that a larger brothel has. In the Committee's view, a SOOB should be regulated in the same manner as any other business run from home, that is by general rules provided for in a district plan ...

 

The developing case law on the location of brothels indicates that control over the location of brothels by bylaw is possible, provided the control is not so total as to amount to prohibition ...

 

At least seven TAs have established a licensing regime for brothels by way of bylaws

under the LGA and the Health Act 1956.

Annual licensing fees range from $200 per annum to $566 per annum ...

 

Anecdotal evidence provided to members of the Committee indicates that some brothels in Manukau have applied for brothel certification, but withdrawn their applications when learning of the hygiene and health and safety requirements in the Auckland and Manukau bylaws. This, coupled with the fact that the Auckland bylaw includes an expensive licensing system over and above the PRA certification system, has led some to choose to remain 'massage parlours' ...

 

The imposition of a licensing regime by TAs, with high fees for brothel operators, has the potential to create a two-tier industry that the designers of the relatively inexpensive certification scheme in the PRA were at pains to avoid. As far as the Committee is aware, high licensing fees and restrictive health, safety and hygiene requirements are rare at present, but the Committee wishes to place on the record that these practices have the potential to subvert the intention of the PRA, and create a two-tier system ....

 

SOOBs are not a new phenomenon, and have not caused widespread problems in the past. Most are so discreet that they go unnoticed. A SOOB can consist of a single sex worker working alone, and at the most only four sex workers can operate from a premises to qualify. There is little evidence that such activity causes disturbance, other than moral indignation, to the community. When complaints regarding suspicions that a neighbour is operating a SOOB are made to a TA, they are generally resolved by discussion between the SOOB, the TA and the complainant ...

 

Three

bylaws controlling the location of brothels have been challenged at the time of writing ...

 

The

Christchurch

City Brothels (Location and Signage) Bylaw 2004 restricted brothels to an area in the central business district. This meant that no brothels, including SOOBs, could operate in the suburbs .... the bylaw was invalid because of its effect on SOOBs ... Judge struck out the whole bylaw ...

 

The Auckland

City Council's Brothels and Commercial Sex Premises Bylaw severely restricted the locations where any brothel could operate. The Court found that the aspect of the bylaw that dealt with the location of brothels was invalid and accordingly struck it down ... The Court went on to state 'a Council's bylaw making power must be exercised on legal rather than on moral grounds ...'

 

The

Hamilton

City Council Prostitution Bylaw 2004 creates a 'Permitted Brothel Area'. This area covers 'the CBD and the city's main industrial area'. The bylaw was challenged on a number of grounds, the strongest of which was that it effectively prohibited SOOBs from operating. The applicant claimed that SOOBs have special features, and are 'a home based industry with their 'natural habitat' being the suburbs' ... The Judge then examined the facts of the situation and concluded that, while it would be a challenge to find a house in the permitted area that could be used as a brothel, it would not be impossible ...

 

In the Committee's view, the sex industry should be regulated, as far as possible, in the same manner as other industries, that is, subject to the general law of nuisance and a regulatory

scheme that is based around ameliorating that nuisance

. Such an approach may assist in reducing the stigma attached to the sex industry.

Where nuisance is not a likely result of the establishment of a shop, factory or brothel, it is unreasonable to place a prohibition on its establishment ...

 

The Human Rights Commission (HRC), in a letter to the Committee regarding the impact of the PRA on human rights, stated that there appears to be a significant degree of uncertainty about the level of protection accorded to the human rights of sex workers under section 3(a) of the PRA, particularly about territorial authorities' ability to make bylaws under sections 12-14 of the Act...

 

The Committee notes that the law is still developing in this area ... There may be further legal challenges to bylaws ahead regarding location, but ... each case will be settled on its own facts. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate, and very difficult, to legislate hard and fast rules that would apply nationwide to the location of brothels.

[drlove 37204]

If the Supreme Court upholds Judge Himmel's decision, will the federal government be forced to abide by it, or could they in turn make prostitution completely illegal, as in the United States? (I know a decision in favour of the adult entertainment industry would stick in Harper's craw.)

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

If the Supreme Court upholds Judge Himmel's decision, will the federal government be forced to abide by it, or could they in turn make prostitution completely illegal, as in the United States? (I know a decision in favour of the adult entertainment industry would stick in Harper's craw.)

 

Judge Himel's ruling only dealt with the specific issues brought before her. From Judge Himel's decision:

 

"[25] It is important to state at the outset what this case is not about:

the court has not been called upon to decide whether there is a constitutional right to sell sex

or to decide which policy model regarding prostitution is better. That is the role of Parliament."

 

Parliament remains free at any and all times whatsoever to make laws regarding prostitution.

[Vanessa381 110]

Just curious, an RMT can solicit business, as can any doctor or therapist of the "legitimate kind" , that includes sex therapists. They are also legally able to have a store front in any major mall or building if they choose. They are also free to hire an independent body, or agency to help organize and maximize their business.These are all professions that deal with a persons body and well being, and other than the sexual nature of this business, why is it viewed any differently.? We should be treated in the eyes of the law, the same as the above mentioned professionals. It's the laws that create a nasty underbelly to this industry, and that happens whenever you legislate something underground. Remember prohibition? people didn't stop drinking, and organized crime flourished. By all means, keep it off the street corners, but lets also create a safer more professional environment for service providers to work in.

[Guest T**E******s]

Here is my idea for prostitution laws in Canada.1 license prostitutes. Any prostitute without a license should be subject to a lengthy prison term. Up to 10 years. This would make it unprofitable not to get proper licensing. 2. In order to prevent human trafficking, trafficking in women, make it impossible to get a license without proof of either immigration or citizenship for at least two years. This would make it difficult for traffickers to support the women long enough, so that it would become difficult to make any money and they would go into more lucrative business. I also support the establishment of red light districts within any major city along the model of Amsterdam, where if you are in that district it's assumed, that you are either selling, or looking for sex, so nobody is particularly offended by the fact that it is prevalent. This would make it much easier for the police to look after public order, and check licenses. It would also almost eliminate pimps, because the main function of a pimp, is to ensure the smooth operation, and safety of his girls, if the roles filled by the pimps are no longer required, they would very quickly become a dying breed.

 

I completely agree with you! With that being said, only if I was registering under a false identity in complete anonymity. I don't need my children, friends or family attending school, social functions or getting into politics and hearing snickers about what their mother does as a side job. All because some old harridan who hasn't gotten laid since the last war recognized my name, and toddled off to gossip with her cronies. Even with Efile, someone needs to read it over, check my facts and sign off. That's too many people involved in my business to keep a secret.

 

Imagine you needed a license to see an escort, how secure would you feel that your wife, boss, children, partner or church wouldn't find out.

[JoyfulC 132299]

Imagine you needed a license to see an escort, how secure would you feel that your wife, boss, children, partner or church wouldn't find out.

 

Exactly. It's easy for the hobbyists to be cavalier about this and think there's no problem with our needing licenses. But the very nature of our business leaves us more vulnerable to stigma and to predatory crimes. If they were on the other end of things, I'm sure they'd see things differently.

 

Besides, licensing drives up the costs of doing business, and those costs are always carried forward. We won't be the ones paying for the licenses, ultimately -- they will be.

 

There is another option. Similar to their approach to incall, municipal law enforcement agencies could adopt a different posture with streetwalkers, only arresting those creating problems through their behaviour or dress, and establishing a rapport on the streets so that prostitutes feel comfortable bringing safety concerns to them. I believe they already assign officers to prostitution outreach in most cities. As it stands now, they go out and do "sweeps" where they bust every streetwalker or john they can net -- but is that productive? As with the incall providers, it might be more effective to focus only on those creating true problems.

 

It seems to me that the whole basis for the argument that the laws are making some prostitutes unsafe is because the current situation forces them to sneak around and hide from law enforcement. Imagine a situation where streetwalkers would feel safer working on a street where there was a cop car parked, watching the goings on, than on one with no police presence.

 

Another thing city councils could do is sweeten the pot for businesses in red light districts by offering them slightly lower property taxes. That, combined with an assurance that those causing problems will be dealt with, might make business operators more agreeable to allowing discreet, well-behaved streetwalkers and johns to do their business on their streets. Similarly, if an area wants 100% enforcement, then let them pay higher taxes for it. I believe there will be neighbourhoods where local businesses have no problem with allowing some degree of street action -- it might even be good for business.

 

The thing is, if they bring in licensing, this is not going to keep streetwalkers safer. If streetwalkers currently can't even scrape together enough for a small private premise, a cell phone and an ad each month, they're not going to be able to do all that and pay for licensing, as well. We'll still have a street problem -- but those prostitutes and their customers who aren't causing that problem will be paying for it.

 

Typical government solution that totally misses the problem.

[Guest T**E******s]

Well said, as usual JoyfulC. While people try to eradicate class distinctions between many different social groups it's not always helpful. The difference between someone like myself, who doesn't use drugs, has an abode, a cell, a vehicle, and a streetwalker is huge! They will never get the help they might need, if we're all lumped in together.

[mrrnice2 157005]

For me at this time, this question gives me the opportunity to write what will probably be a multi-faceted response that perhaps should be in its own forum question, however it DOES apply to the question at hand.

A preamble to start.

I am a relatively new member to CERB, and certainly a new participant in the world of service providers or paid companions, whatever term one cares to use. It is curious that I steer away from the use of the word prostitute, as many others do here, and probably for me and for many others perhaps it is the negative connotation that is associated with the word.

I have always been aware of the industry, and knew that it was around me, but until very recently had never felt any desire nor any need to avail myself of the services that are available or to question some of my beliefs about those who do so.

My stereotypical view has been shattered and since my stereotypes were quite negative, then that is a good thing. My beliefs about the women who are in the business being there because of drug use, or abuse, or organized crime, or pimps, or desperation seem to be disappearing.

I DO question myself however. I want to believe that the women are here because they like people, or because they enjoy sex, or because it is a way of being financially and personally independent, but I really do not know why they are here. I hope that I am not misleading myself, or burying my head in the sand, because the idea for me of taking advantage of someone because they are a victim of unfortunate circumstances is reprehensible to me. One SP recently mentioned to me that for those women who are here because they may be in that situation, that I should look at it as a way of helping someone out. I wonder if that is a question that could be posed in a forum?

Even when I say that I am here because of the death of my wife, which I tend to do when I write posts here, I know that I am being judgemental of some others who are hobbyists. I shall have to work more on that perception, because I am confident that all participants in this industry do so for their own personal and valid reasons. As I should not judge myself, neither should I judge others.

And nor should the politicians, which brings us to the question at hand.

What would I like to see? I would like to see a law that;

1. Provides for an open, safe environment for women and their clients.

2. Provides for opportunity for women to work as self employed individuals or under a business model that is fair and equitable to the employees, with good wages, benefits and health and welfare provisions included.

3. Provides for and encourages attitudes towards the profession in the same way as these are provided for other professionals and blue and white collar workers, without discrimination or negative connotations.

4. Provides for fair wages for the women.

For me right now, this industry is not just something that I want to have available, but something that I NEED to have available. It certainly has met some of my physical needs, but also and maybe even more importantly, has met some mental needs. The women here, in my experience, have been wonderful people who have conducted business in the same way that other professionals do - with courtesy, compassion and caring, personal interest and interaction, and service. These are the very same qualities one would expect from your doctor, your mechanic, or anyone else that you purchase a service from. As I say, my stereotypes have been shattered.

The idea that I am contributing to and participating in any sort of illegal act is just wrong. I do not in any way feel as if I am participating in anything that is morally wrong and I resent any laws that are in existence or that might be implemented that would make this activity on my part, or on the part of service providers, illegal.

 

Just an opinion.

[Guest T**E******s]

I'm trying to be optimistic that the new law will be passed as it started out, a simple decriminalizing of prostitution. It was in no way meant to make the act of purchasing illegal. If the original version goes through, it'll be pretty much as MOD said, a business. Paying taxes on it wont be happening though, :) as that would constitute the government living of the avails, I don't see why they have a problem (as the government) with that, as this is what they do to everyone lol.

[JoyfulC 132299]

I'm trying to be optimistic that the new law will be passed as it started out, a simple decriminalizing of prostitution. It was in no way meant to make the act of purchasing illegal. If the original version goes through, it'll be pretty much as MOD said, a business. Paying taxes on it wont be happening though, :) as that would constitute the government living of the avails, I don't see why they have a problem (as the government) with that, as this is what they do to everyone lol.

 

Actually, if they decriminalize the "living off the avails" parts for agencies and family members of SPs, I'm pretty sure they'll decriminalize it for the tax man too.

 

And, in fact, no matter how you earn money -- even if you make it as a hired assassin or a drug dealer -- you still have to report your earnings and pay your taxes. I'm not positive, but I believe that Canada Revenue's privacy policy is such that they cannot report someone to any other agency. Not sure exactly how that works. I wonder, say, if you were running a grow op, could you write off your equipment and expenses?

 

I recall reading, a couple years back, that the Hell's Angels won a legal battle to get their club house back (?) which had been seized because either the police threatened to sic CRA on them, or vice versa.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

The "living on the avails" doesn't apply to the CRA or to the cities that require escorts to purchase licenses, unfortunately.

 

You're required to report all income that you receive in any given year, from all sources. The CRA isn't as picky about what you call yourself or your work. They're just manic about receiving their share.

 

And remember, when you open a bank account in Canada, you have to provide your social insurance number. The CRA is entitled to monitor deposits, though I'm not sure that they do it regularly. They will do so if they have any reason to think that someone isn't declaring their full income. Large deposits are subject to reporting, though, with "large" being $5,000 or more.

 

Many people think that we get away with hiding our incomes since most companions are paid in cash. It's possible to do that, to a certain extent. One can put cash in a safety deposit box, or in a shoe box in a closet, if that's what they want to do. The thing is, it's not easy to spend large amounts of cash. Most landlords prefer a cheque for the rent, for example. Showing up at a car dealership, ready to buy a new car with cash, will set off a lot of alarms, as will going to a jeweler and trying to pay cash for an expensive diamond necklace. The dealers don't want to be accused of helping organized crime by laundering their money.

 

Declaring what you earn as a self-employed person entitles you to write off expenses incurred to do business, which reduces the taxes owing. You can also make substantial RRSP contributions and other investments that may give you a tax break. Talk to an industry-friendly accountant--they're out there!

 

And remember, what you will receive in terms of Canada Pension and other benefits when you retire is based on your declared earnings throughout your working life, so it's to your advantage to ensure that you declare what you earn for that reason, too.

[JoyfulC 132299]

The "living on the avails" doesn't apply to the CRA or to the cities that require escorts to purchase licenses, unfortunately.

 

Yup.

 

And remember, when you open a bank account in Canada, you have to provide your social insurance number. The CRA is entitled to monitor deposits, though I'm not sure that they do it regularly. They will do so if they have any reason to think that someone isn't declaring their full income. Large deposits are subject to reporting, though, with "large" being $5,000 or more.

 

Not so sure about that. I think the bank is only entitled to demand an SIN when you are opening an interest bearing account. If you are opening a chequing account, there may be some deposit or transaction level above which they are required to report, but while I think they can ask for your SIN, I don't think they can legally insist upon it.

 

Most landlords prefer a cheque for the rent, for example.

 

We've obviously had different landlords. ;)

 

I think that's true if you're renting from a property management agency. But when dealing with private property landlords, we've found consistently that they're only too happy to accept cash, and even provide incentives for paying in cash.

 

Showing up at a car dealership, ready to buy a new car with cash, will set off a lot of alarms, as will going to a jeweler and trying to pay cash for an expensive diamond necklace. The dealers don't want to be accused of helping organized crime by laundering their money.

 

Again, I'm not sure these examples always ring true. Although I've worked all my life in a cash business, I've found that the average Canadian business or individual is eager to do a deal to circumvent taxes.

 

I've prepared resumes and other employment documents for people since the mid-80s, and I have actually had federal government employees and even CRA employees ask if there's a discount if they pay cash. I chalk that up to the average Canadian's feeling that the government bends over backwards to give tax breaks to big business, while piling taxes on workers. And I think even that was tolerable for many years, until recently when the government started acting like it was pinched and so some social and cultural programs were going to have to be cut. Let's face it, if there's one thing worse than feeling that all the tax burden is on the little guy, it's feeling that the little guy's safety net is going to get cut on top of it, so we can continue to afford to kowtow to big business (... which really isn't giving us much in the way of returns anyway -- not much in the way of quality secure jobs and not much in the way of paying their fair share).

 

Declaring what you earn as a self-employed person entitles you to write off expenses incurred to do business, which reduces the taxes owing. You can also make substantial RRSP contributions and other investments that may give you a tax break. Talk to an industry-friendly accountant--they're out there!

 

Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but I think that, for most people, saving for retirement is a scam. It's just a pool of money that will be suctioned off by blood suckers when the time comes. My advice? Live well today, and don't plan to live too much longer than you can support yourself.

 

(Cynical? Mm-hmm. ;) )

 

 

And remember, what you will receive in terms of Canada Pension and other benefits when you retire is based on your declared earnings throughout your working life, so it's to your advantage to ensure that you declare what you earn for that reason, too.

 

But again, you have to pay into CPP in order to benefit from it. And that's assuming it will be solvent when you are ready to collect.

 

I'm sorry to say it but my advice to young people these days, after kicking around on this planet for 50+ years, is enjoy life now. We don't know what the future will bring, but we can guess that any wealth accrued is going to be a target for bandits. And as we've seen over the past 30 years or so, this is a bandit's world.

 

My advice to young SPs -- and to hobbyists as well -- is don't make more than you need, don't spend more than you need, and avoid paying taxes coming and going and/or making yourself a target for bandits. Spend the time you might spend making money you don't really need right now improving your quality of in ways that you could never buy -- no matter how much you earn or spend. Learn to bake your own bread. Grow and can your own tomatoes. Read all the stuff you always wanted to, even if you have to get books from the library. Get into star gazing!

 

There are some things that can neither be taxed nor exploited. We're living in crazy times. Let's never forget that the goal in life isn't to have the biggest bank account or to screw the other guy more than we get screwed, but to live and appreciate and enjoy life in all its sensuality. That's something that surpasses dollars and cents. And that's something that's non-taxable.

 

(...for the moment...)

[VedaSloan 119179]

Exactly. It's easy for the hobbyists to be cavalier about this and think there's no problem with our needing licenses. But the very nature of our business leaves us more vulnerable to stigma and to predatory crimes. If they were on the other end of things, I'm sure they'd see things differently.

 

Besides, licensing drives up the costs of doing business, and those costs are always carried forward. We won't be the ones paying for the licenses, ultimately -- they will be.

 

There is another option. Similar to their approach to incall, municipal law enforcement agencies could adopt a different posture with streetwalkers, only arresting those creating problems through their behaviour or dress, and establishing a rapport on the streets so that prostitutes feel comfortable bringing safety concerns to them. I believe they already assign officers to prostitution outreach in most cities. As it stands now, they go out and do "sweeps" where they bust every streetwalker or john they can net -- but is that productive? As with the incall providers, it might be more effective to focus only on those creating true problems.

 

It seems to me that the whole basis for the argument that the laws are making some prostitutes unsafe is because the current situation forces them to sneak around and hide from law enforcement. Imagine a situation where streetwalkers would feel safer working on a street where there was a cop car parked, watching the goings on, than on one with no police presence.

 

Another thing city councils could do is sweeten the pot for businesses in red light districts by offering them slightly lower property taxes. That, combined with an assurance that those causing problems will be dealt with, might make business operators more agreeable to allowing discreet, well-behaved streetwalkers and johns to do their business on their streets. Similarly, if an area wants 100% enforcement, then let them pay higher taxes for it. I believe there will be neighbourhoods where local businesses have no problem with allowing some degree of street action -- it might even be good for business.

 

The thing is, if they bring in licensing, this is not going to keep streetwalkers safer. If streetwalkers currently can't even scrape together enough for a small private premise, a cell phone and an ad each month, they're not going to be able to do all that and pay for licensing, as well. We'll still have a street problem -- but those prostitutes and their customers who aren't causing that problem will be paying for it.

 

Typical government solution that totally misses the problem.

 

I don't think segregating us into red-light districts is really the best idea if you want to lessen stigma.

 

And the cops are one of the biggest problems in this profession. They certainly aren't going to change their feelings just because the law changed. Working with them is definitely something Ottawa needs to work towards, but it's a bit naive to assume that they're going to take the loss of some of their favourite punching bags lying down. And arresting someone for "problems with dress"? What might be the problem? They're wearing something too provocative? I don't think it's a good idea to start policing what women can wear. This is just going to lead to more distinctions being made between "regular" women and whores. If what you are wearing can label you a whore, then half the women in the Market on a Friday night are going to be in trouble.

 

And no, NOT ALL cops are this way. But if you read the chapter on police harassment and violence in Challenges: Ottawa Area Speaks Out, it's pretty eye-opening.

[Lou 9208]

I don't get the need for any sort of registration for anyone who provides sexual services. Only rules and zoning for businesses of importance size need these

 

If someone can work from home as a researcher, a painter, an accounter, why not a independent provider? If one opens a big place, the owner registers his buisiness, not his employees. Why would he? Do bars register their waitresses, likewise for the resto? Hell no! Why us then?

 

Great idea, let's abolish the gun registry and create a sex worker one instead! If we don't register, harper can throw us in one of his new jails.

 

Why should i do time in jail if I don't register? Are the construction workers sent to jail when they work without permits? Hell no! Are they valuable reasons for a permit to work in the construction business? yes! Is there one for escorting? I can't find one!

 

We don't need to change the laws, we need to abolish them. Just like New Zealand.

[Guest T**E******s]

But again, you have to pay into CPP in order to benefit from it. And that's assuming it will be solvent when you are ready to collect. Quote

 

I've already taken care of that issue. I incorporated my business, I pay myself in dividends which means come tax time I am not required to contribute to CPP. Which is a scam. But because at one point in time I did contribute, I will be eligible to draw on it. Just before I hit 65 if I find myself without any money, I can try and find a minimum wage job which will contribute to CPP, then allowing me to draw a larger sum in combination with the old age supplement. Although I don't actually believe after the baby boomers that there will be any money left.

 

My legit business filters my "extra" money through it -well some. I am therefore able to make purchases and not have red flags on accounts with CRA.

 

My bank account was opened with my Drivers license, I'm sure this can be traced back to my sin of course.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... CPP.... But because at one point in time I did contribute, I will be eligible to draw on it. Just before I hit 65 if I find myself without any money, I can try and find a minimum wage job which will contribute to CPP, then allowing me to draw a larger sum ....

 

Of course, your individual level of CPP benefits is calculated based on a formula which takes into account your average contributions (as a proportion of the maximum allowable contribution) over 85% of your entire working life, i.e. between the ages of 18 and 65. So no "free lunch" (if you will) comes from a few contributions here and there.

[Guest e**m***h]

Thoughts about beauty, erotic health and law...

 

I saw someone remarkable from the business yesterday. The session could not have unfolded more perfectly: the time was filled with professionalism, genuine kindness, beauty (definitely!) and a healthy sense of erotic pleasure and freedom that has deepened for me what sensuality is all about. I left feeling healthier for having done this, respected and happy.

 

Just at the end, we chatted lightly about the rights of sex workers and some of what is happening legally around the industry. The experience has me reflecting.

 

Not for the first time, I am struck by how dim and ill equipped the legal system is to resolve what is really going on, both in terms of what goes well in the industry (or brilliantly well), what goes terribly wrong, and all in between. I guess regulating human sexuality has always been a mess. Just reading this thread, it is very challenging to say exactly how it could get better than it is now, which is clearly not great.

 

But still I am wondering, at the heart of things, what it would be like if the law and our social views could take more into account what really goes on and what is needed by all involved, instead of just fighting court case by court case for a bit of recognition of basic safety measures. In my happiest world, and perhaps that of a few others here on the board, the law would leave it completely up to individuals to do it or not, with a few very important restrictions like no minors, and really come in only when things are going wrong or very wrong to make sure, with protective ground rules, that everyone has rights so no one gets physically or financially hurt or is treated unfairly or unconscionably.

 

Yet this kind of approach could only be premised on the general idea that the service is generally valuable and good. Is this really part of the issue? Promoting how professional, healthy, fulfilling and even beautiful it is when it is going well is really tough to do in the general domain of society. So far only here in this remarkably well governed space within CERB am I seeing a mature discussion of values, trying to untangle what is positive from what is undesirable, hurtful and damaging. Not an easy discussion, but a hugely important one. So here's to hoping all our lawmakers become members at some point, and have the same kind of amazing day as I did yesterday!

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Ah, I posted in the wrong thread. Sorry...

[CoyoteCarl 100]

Prostitution is legal and they have to pay taxes.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I just noticed that the Canadian Review of Sociology Vol.48 No. 1 (Feb 2011) has published "Rising to the Challenge: Addressing the Concerns of People Working in the Sex Industry", by Frances M. Shaver (Concordia University), and Jacqueline Lewis and Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale (University of Windsor).

 

Full paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2011.01249.x/pdf

 

Using data from studies with people working in the sex industry (PWSI) and key informants conducted in several Canadian cities, they examine three domains related to worker health and safety: occupational health and safety, perceptions of and behaviors toward workers, and access to essential services. They believe that addressing these issues necessitates moving beyond simple decriminalization. They conclude that using a harm reduction/labor rights framework (as has been done in New Zealand) would enhance the ability to address these issues.

 

They draw evidence from studies they have conducted since the early 1990s in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and smaller cities in Ontario.

 

Some excerpts:

 

Occupational Health and Safety

 

Although existing provincial and municipal legislation (i.e., labor codes, OHS legislation, workers' compensation, supplemental health insurance, and municipal licensing requirements for establishments) collectively have provisions that appear to address most concerns raised by the sex workers we interviewed, this legislation cannot be applied to work that violates the CCC [Criminal Code of Canada] ... If Justice Himel's ruling is upheld, a major impediment to the application of labor and health-related codes, legislation, and policy will be removed ...

 

Based on our research it seems clear that if CCC provisions related to sex work remain standing, PWSI - regardless of where and how they conduct their work - are on their own with respect to ensuring their health and safety on the job. They are denied rights to protection under legislation designed to enhance the health, safety, and well-being of workers and under CCC provisions designed to protect all persons from harm imposed by others. The workers we interviewed did take precautions to protect themselves, but almost all the precautions they took violated CCC provisions ... Together, the framing of labor and OHS legislation and the criminalization of ways of conducting sex work in a safer and healthier manner severely impede the ability of PWSI to access a safe and healthy work environment and deny them their right to health. Even when victimized by others, sex workers are not afforded the rights of protection and redress that any other person in Canada can expect. Clearly, as Justice Himel articulated in her Ontario Superior Court ruling, decriminalization is a necessary step toward removing barriers to the right to health of PWSI. But full inclusion of independent workers in legislation related to labor standards and OHS, and recognition of their rights to protection and redress for crimes against their person or property require more than the legal changes implemented in the course of decriminalization.

 

Perceptions and Behaviours

 

Recent literature demonstrates the ongoing stigmatization and marginalization of the sex industry and PWSI ... This has been documented even in settings where sex work has been decriminalized ... Stigmatization is often grounded in misperceptions of sex work that lead to mistreatment and denial of human rights ... This is evidenced both in the orientation of programs designed to address problems in the industry and in individual behaviors toward sex workers ... by police, public, and clients ...

 

Many of our participants noted that the definition of ''the problem'' was based on residents' concerns, excluding PWSI who lived and worked in the same neighborhood.... Key informants also argued that the projects were grounded in a simplistic understanding of the sex industry and of the people working in it. The industry was seen as a danger to residents and PWSI were perceived to be a homogenous group ''in need of saving,'' rather than diverse individuals with dissimilar needs ...

 

Police responses to residents' complaints ... dispersed and relocated workers, increasing their vulnerability and limiting their access to resources ... The negative perceptions and behaviors behind these failures reflect moral discourses that hamper good policy development ... police ... felt that by giving PWSI a ''hard time'' and denying them the protection and redress provided to nonsex working persons, they were ''helping'' them to see how dangerous their work was, thereby ''encouraging'' them to get out of the business ... Landlords were reported to expect workers would ''fuck them if [they] wanted to keep [their] place'' ...

 

Off-street workers were less likely to be exposed to the negative attitudes and behaviors of the police and public because they were less visible. Nevertheless, they shared many concerns with street-based workers including ''being outed'' to family and friends ... They feared that health-care providers would reject them if they spoke of their job, that they could lose their children if the child welfare authorities learned of their involvement in the sex industry, that they could lose their savings through ''proceeds of crime legislation'' ... and that the laws would impede their ability to travel ...

 

... decriminalization is a first step, but the attitudes and behaviors identified here will not change, and the programs designed for PWSI are unlikely to succeed, without additional efforts being made. Success depends upon the recognition and acceptance of PWSI as full citizens and sex work involving consenting adults as a legitimate revenue generating activity. This second step involves setting aside our individual moral positions and values when planning appropriate and effective policy.

 

Essential Services

 

Changes in attitudes and behaviors grounded in misconceptions about sex work are also necessary in order to ensure that PWSI have access to essential services ...

 

Funding limits what services can be provided and to whom. As a result community agencies have a ''seriously limited ability to respond to requests for services'' ... unless it is for services related to HIV ... drugs ... or exiting the industry ... even well funded sex work specific programs are not without their problems. One of the main issues is tied to access to and visibility of PWSI when accessing services. Both groups reported that street patrol officers use these programs as a way to target workers. Police sometimes ''stake out'' the facilities ... and when workers exit, they are ''harassed,'' ''frisked for drugs,'' and ''pulled into'' police cars for background checks and ''questioning.'' ... ''[despite] the upper echelons of the police . . . totally supporting the program, it's not always filtering down to the cop on the street'' .... Municipal politicians and neighborhood groups also attempt to interfere with the projects and their clients ... Such actions ... serve to deter people from accessing programs designed to be ''accessible and nonjudgmental'' harm-reduction services ...

 

Key informants identified a variety of service needs for PWSI but the two primary ones were ''safe and appropriate'' short- and long-term housing and general health care. Although some housing services were available in the areas we studied, none were sex worker specific and only one was sensitive to the work schedules of PWSI ...

 

Conclusion

 

... moving to a decriminalization model leaves many critical issues unaddressed, especially ones tied to OHS, attitudes and behaviors, and services. Shifting toward a harm reduction/labor rights framework ... facilitates our ability to address these issues because it already recognizes and reinforces the rights of PWSI to physical, social, and mental well-being as well as sexual rights. The effectiveness of such a shift was demonstrated in NZ where it became clear that lobbying for harm minimization and human rights enabled many people with a strong antipathy for sex work to refocus their thinking in support of the Prostitution Reform Act ...

 

... insights into potential ways to address these challenges ... echo those of NZ workers and the policy change initiated by the NZ government. Since passage of the Prostitution Reform Bill in 2003, NZ's sex industry operates under health and safety regulations outlined in ''A guide to occupational health and safety in the New Zealand sex industry'' (Occupational Safety and Health Services 2004). Developed in consultation with sex workers' rights organizations, self-employed sex workers and owners/operators, the Ministry of Health, police, and other government organizations, it takes into account the concerns of all these stakeholders as well as the way sex work is conducted ...

 

In addition to reworking OHS legislation, more attention needs to be paid to changing the way PWSI are perceived and treated and the types of services that are available to meet their needs. Our informants recommended, inline with the model used in NZ, that these changes be made with all stakeholders at the table and with a focus on harm reduction and meeting the basic needs of PWSI. When this does not occur, when some parties are absent, project failure can be the result ... Once at the table, it is essential that all parties are ''respectful and nonjudgmental,'' ''responsive to the needs'' of all concerned, and work toward consensus on goals and objectives ...

 

it will be imperative, following the federal decriminalization of sex work, to ensure that policies developed and modified at the provincial/territorial and municipal levels do not maintain or enhance existing levels of risks and harm faced by PWSI or create differential justice across Canada.

[JoyfulC 132299]

There's an interesting op-ed piece in the NYT today called "Outlaws Make Better Lunches" by Zach Brooks. It mirrors the situation with incall independents here in most Canadian cities. For much the same reasons, I feel our present laws should be allowed to stand, and actually are the fairest for the community at large, and most advantageous to both customers and SPs.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15zachbrooks.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212