How legal are websites likeLeolist?

[yak30000 1012]

Regardless the country where leolist is hosted (or the company behind it). How legal are these kind of websites in Canada?

[webdesign93 1141]

Completely legal I believe. Since 2014 sex work was legal to sell and illegal to buy. So only us as the consumer really has to worry. The website itself should be completely legal as well as the services offered.

[yak30000 1012]

thanks, do you happen to know the name of the law, so i can read it.

[Malika Fantasy 144625]

Its ball bill c-36 . Its the nordic/swedish approach which make it legal for me to sell but illegal for you to buy. However as far as I am aware no one got arrested since the beginning of this law (except the obvious pimping, underage )

[Meg O'Ryan 266444]

I may be in a mood but....you are looking at it so if you have access what does it matter? The owners of said website would be liable not you!

 

Additional Comments:

I may be in a mood but....you are looking at it so if you have access what does it matter? The owners of said website would be liable not you!

[Boomer 33202]

I think on the whole probably quite legal. But I think if an owner of a web site knowingly were to post ads for under age or trafficked ladies, he might experience some blow back from the law. Maybe not under C36, but I'm pretty sure there is a statute that might be employed against him.

[Phaedrus 209521]

It was Bill C-36 while it went through Parliament, and a lot of people still call it that. Now that it's law it revels in the glorious name of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (S.C. 2014, c. 25).

[drlove 37204]

It was Bill C-36 while it went through Parliament, and a lot of people still call it that. Now that it's law it revels in the glorious name of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (S.C. 2014, c. 25).

 

 

True, but thankfully being challenged next January. (Apparently the London agency case will be heard in another court in a larger city).

[TorontoMelanieJolliet 4458]

Law C-36 states that it is okay for independent ladies to advertise, but it is NOT okay for anyone to host those ads. That was one of the Catch 22's of Harper gov't new laws. One that made no sense. But essentially, an independent lady can advertise, but if she is too explicit then she brings attention to website enough to warrant investigation of that website, that website faces being taken down.

 

 

 

The new US laws say that a website is liable and will be seized if they allow to be advertised services of a sexual nature. That is retroactive so even if in the past they allowed those ads, they can still be seized.

 

 

Basically C-36 has been "Trumped" by the new US laws so actually whatever is going on there is the way it has to be here. If you are a SP and you blatantly advertise it, then anyplace you go on the internet can lead back to where you talked about/advertised your service. Then if the US law finds/reaches you, you are then responsible for letting the cat out of the bag and the people who host your content (speech/ads/pics) can be held liable and seized.

 

 

 

No one is allowed to advertise sexual services anywhere. Plain and simple. And offering services is not allowed either. It is the responsibility of all those involved to see what their actions/words can be perceived as and to prevent being the reason platforms can disappear and be taken away.

[Phaedrus 209521]

Law C-36 states that it is okay for independent ladies to advertise, but it is NOT okay for anyone to host those ads.

 

...which is why sexual services aren't allowed to be specified in ads here, for anyone who was wondering :)

 

The new US laws say that a website is liable and will be seized if they allow to be advertised services of a sexual nature. That is retroactive so even if in the past they allowed those ads, they can still be seized.

 

 

Basically C-36 has been "Trumped" by the new US laws so actually whatever is going on there is the way it has to be here.

 

Not really. Canadian laws apply in Canada, US laws apply in the US, and which apply to any given website depends on where the domain is registered, where it's hosted and who runs it - and all three of those may be in different countries.

[Vicky Lopez 1886]

To me, no matter which country you host your site, you still have to watch the wording, not be explicit. Hosting sites often have Terms and Conditions that discourage advertising of a sexual nature.

[TorontoMelanieJolliet 4458]

Canadian laws apply in Canada, US laws apply in the US, and which apply to any given website depends on where the domain is registered, where it's hosted and who runs it - and all three of those may be in different countries.

 

 

So therefore, US laws DO affect us! Why do you think the new law left SW around the world scrambling? The US laws do affect us and others. That is why sites have changed locations, ads are sanitary, so hosting websites don't get taken down.

 

 

I know. I've done my research babe. After all, it has affected me so I better know what I'm doing to stay afloat

[Jasmine Rain 23126]

On 7/3/2018 at 9:06 PM, TorontoMelanieJolliet said:

 

 

So therefore, US laws DO affect us! Why do you think the new law left SW around the world scrambling? The US laws do affect us and others. That is why sites have changed locations, ads are sanitary, so hosting websites don't get taken down.

 

 

I know. I've done my research babe. After all, it has affected me so I better know what I'm doing to stay afloat

1

Actually, the law passed gives the US right to press charges internationally. 

 

I don't know how that works, because the other country could have different laws, like Canada. But that was put in that bill, that they can arrest internationally.

 

Many places just closed up shop out of fear that they could be prosecuted even outside of the US. 

[viridian728 55]

So how does it all apply to sites used internationally, you may be posting here, but the website's hosted out yonder.

[yak30000 1012]

On 6/11/2018 at 2:22 PM, Boomer said:

I think on the whole probably quite legal. But I think if an owner of a web site knowingly were to post ads for under age or trafficked ladies, he might experience some blow back from the law. Maybe not under C36, but I'm pretty sure there is a statute that might be employed against him.

It would be 18+ ads, any suspicious ad that would mean human trafficking, pimping or underage will be deleted.

[yak30000 1012]

On 6/18/2018 at 6:34 PM, Phaedrus said:

 

...which is why sexual services aren't allowed to be specified in ads here, for anyone who was wondering :)

 

 

Not really. Canadian laws apply in Canada, US laws apply in the US, and which apply to any given website depends on where the domain is registered, where it's hosted and who runs it - and all three of those may be in different countries.

I was about to say something like that. Focus in Canada.

[Stephen1387 3]

Seriously? It's called the protection of person exploited law? How is that possible? I have a hard time believing it 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Stephen1387 said:

Seriously? It's called the protection of person exploited law? How is that possible? I have a hard time believing it 

   According to C-36 :

   "Those who sell their own sexual services are protected from criminal liability for committing this offence if they advertise their own sexual services (paragraph 286.5(1)(b))"

   Fact Sheet - Prostitution Criminal Law Reform: Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (justice.gc.ca)

   

    LL and other classified sites are only allowed to publish ads from independent providers who respect that law.

    In LL guidelines:

    "If you have a reason to suspect that content distributed might be of suspected criminal activity -- please report it immediately to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Once contacted by the proper authorities, LeoList will cooperate to the fullest extent possible. However, LeoList does not have capability to investigate or offer meaningful resolution – if you suspect or believe you have been the victim of a crime – please report it to the proper law enforcement agency. Only by reporting illegal activity to the appropriate authorities, can you assist us by effectively ensuring that LeoList remains a safe environment."

  

[[email protected] 0]

HOw on earth could it be legal to sell but illegal to buy since 2014? Isn't that some level of entrapment? It just seems like this obvious paradox would have been solved by now....IMO

[Guest]

7 hours ago, [email protected] said:

HOw on earth could it be legal to sell but illegal to buy since 2014? Isn't that some level of entrapment? It just seems like this obvious paradox would have been solved by now....IMO

 

       It's legal to buy companionship, therapeutic or any form of services as long not of sexual nature. 

   What consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business. Entrapment can only occur if you openly solicit illegal activities from a complete stranger. Do your homework, understand who you're meeting and understand the law.

        Current Prostitution Laws in Plain English - Lyla

        How to: Verify pics, ads and identify potential fraud. - Lyla

        How to Verify ads 2.0 - Lyla

        

        

       

[Evie Rosewood 528]

7 hours ago, [email protected] said:

HOw on earth could it be legal to sell but illegal to buy since 2014? Isn't that some level of entrapment? It just seems like this obvious paradox would have been solved by now....IMO

The whole justification is that it's supposed to "End Demand" and thus completely abolish prostitution by intimidating the buyer through legal repercussions... Obviously it's super ineffective here in Canada and we see the same results in other countries where it's been enacted.

Last year there was a parliamentary review of PCEPA in the House of Commons, as well as a provincial hearing regarding C-36 in which it was ruled as unconstitutional by the Ontario Supreme Court. So while some progress is slowly being made, Canada has a ton of bureaucratic red tape that prevents any major changes being made in a timely fashion. From the viewpoint of politicians, realistically, sex work is a highly controversial subject amongst voters and addressing this issue carries very little incentive... it just hasn't been on their radar in the current political climate.

Hopefully major changes will be made in the coming years, but we can expect that any progress will take a lot of time. 

[[email protected] 0]

On 3/2/2023 at 4:17 AM, Berlin Moss said:

The whole justification is that it's supposed to "End Demand" and thus completely abolish prostitution by intimidating the buyer through legal repercussions... Obviously it's super ineffective here in Canada and we see the same results in other countries where it's been enacted.

Last year there was a parliamentary review of PCEPA in the House of Commons, as well as a provincial hearing regarding C-36 in which it was ruled as unconstitutional by the Ontario Supreme Court. So while some progress is slowly being made, Canada has a ton of bureaucratic red tape that prevents any major changes being made in a timely fashion. From the viewpoint of politicians, realistically, sex work is a highly controversial subject amongst voters and addressing this issue carries very little incentive... it just hasn't been on their radar in the current political climate.

Hopefully major changes will be made in the coming years, but we can expect that any progress will take a lot of time. 

But I don't understand, if it was illegal before then how would decriminalizing it for the advertisers and keeping it illegal for the buyers decrease demand or scare them off? And wouldn't the government like to get the extra tax revenue that would be generated if buyers were less afraid to pay using their bank accounts or any traceable methods without getting in trouble? Keeping it illegal for the buyers just causes the buyers to want to pay in cash and there goes any potential tax revenue. It all just seems so strange to me. I think it should just be legalized for consenting adults and keep it out of the dark seedy shadows because that's where all the bad stuff happens. When you go on a date you're paying for it, just with less chance of getting what u paid for Haha!

[Evie Rosewood 528]

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

But I don't understand, if it was illegal before then how would decriminalizing it for the advertisers and keeping it illegal for the buyers decrease demand or scare them off? And wouldn't the government like to get the extra tax revenue that would be generated if buyers were less afraid to pay using their bank accounts or any traceable methods without getting in trouble? Keeping it illegal for the buyers just causes the buyers to want to pay in cash and there goes any potential tax revenue. It all just seems so strange to me. I think it should just be legalized for consenting adults and keep it out of the dark seedy shadows because that's where all the bad stuff happens. When you go on a date you're paying for it, just with less chance of getting what u paid for Haha!

Yeah it can be quite confusing! Prohibition of anything rarely yields the results that policy makers hope to achieve. Their 'logic' is that the potential shame and legal consequences associated with being criminally charged will serve as a major con to buyers that outweigh any pros to purchasing sexual services. Granting legal immunity to the seller protects them from being punished for their "exploitation", something that the nordic model says is inherent to the work itself. (Which it is not.)
As for taxes, those are collected by the provider at the time of purchase. Much like any other service, you pay the applicable taxes and the government collects those from the business. It's a very common misconception that sex workers don't pay taxes; in fact we do have a tax code to file under, but many choose a vanilla cover business to show on paper for reasons related to stigma. If one is doing this as their sole form of employment, not filing income drastically limits what they can purchase and/or borrow. Of course there may be some who choose not to file a portion of their sex work income. The same can be said of some restaurant staff, taxi drivers, handymen, etc.
You're getting to the right track, but decriminalization is the type of legislation that we as sex workers hope for. For a lot of people, they may think this boils down to semantics, but there are key differences between that and a legalized framework. Legalization still allows for government involvement in a high capacity by creating expensive/inaccessible legal hoops for sex workers to jump through in order to be in accordance with the law. This in turn pushes marginalized workers further into those dark shadows you mentioned. This is a whole other discussion on its own, but if you want to learn more about it, I'd encourage a bit of rummaging around on google. The benefits to decriminalization of sex work are well documented through many human rights organizations. 🙂  

[Taigh815 299]

17 minutes ago, Berlin Moss said:

Yeah it can be quite confusing! Prohibition of anything rarely yields the results that policy makers hope to achieve. Their 'logic' is that the potential shame and legal consequences associated with being criminally charged will serve as a major con to buyers that outweigh any pros to purchasing sexual services. Granting legal immunity to the seller protects them from being punished for their "exploitation", something that the nordic model says is inherent to the work itself. (Which it is not.)
As for taxes, those are collected by the provider at the time of purchase. Much like any other service, you pay the applicable taxes and the government collects those from the business. It's a very common misconception that sex workers don't pay taxes; in fact we do have a tax code to file under, but many choose a vanilla cover business to show on paper for reasons related to stigma. If one is doing this as their sole form of employment, not filing income drastically limits what they can purchase and/or borrow. Of course there are some who choose not to file a portion of their sex work income. The same can be said of some restaurant staff, taxi drivers, handymen, etc.
You're getting to the right track, but decriminalization is the type of legislation that we as sex workers hope for. For a lot of people, they may think this boils down to semantics, but there are key differences between that and a legalized framework. Legalization still allows for government involvement in a high capacity by creating expensive/inaccessible legal hoops for sex workers to jump through in order to be in accordance with the law. This in turn pushes marginalized workers further into those dark shadows you mentioned. This is a whole other discussion on its own, but if you want to learn more about it, I'd encourage a bit of rummaging around on google. The benefits to decriminalization of sex work are well documented through many human rights organizations. 🙂  

Well said. Looking around on Twitter and some other fora, it's apparent there is a vibrant, healthy, lucrative and relatively safe industry across much of the English speaking world. I wouldn't know about elsewhere as English is my only language. When I say relatively safe, I understand the risks providers take in making themselves vulnerable to the ill-intentioned, but there are risks in any trade and can be mitigated. As a client, I honestly have no real fear of any legal entanglements, especially as I take care to only visit established and verified providers. Having said that, full legalisation would be ideal, but you can bet your bottom dollar it will come with all manner of government rules and regulations.