Where are outcries for sex workers?

[J Galt 337]

"I don't believe the government should be allowed to make the Charter of Rights irrelevant."

 

Rights, by definition, supercede any law. If your "rights" can be taken away, they were never rights, just privileges granted to you by the government.

I can't add much to the original post except to say that I agree from both angles - that sex-trade workers are treated disgracefully under the law, and hockey players are ridiculously glorified.

 

Years ago I injured my back. On the exact same day, a player in the NHL suffered the exact same injury, in Canada as well. I was given a prescription for painkillers and told to stay in bed, the hockey player was rushed into emergency surgery, after midnight, and had the damage actually repaired. I still have the damage in my back(not debilitating any more, but an occasional pain). The NHL player continued to earn over $3 million per year until he retired in his early 30s.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

Thank you for posting this article. It's a very interesting and helpful analogy.

 

One of the things that really irritates me about the Ontario government's position is the apparently repeated declaration that prostitutes are all working outside the law. In fact, it's not at all illegal to be a prostitute in Canada and many of us always work within the limits of the laws. (I'm not one of those, however.) A woman who sees clients solely on an outcall basis, meeting them in their hotel rooms or residences isn't doing anything illegal. My intuition tells me that the Ontario government would prefer not to protect women who work legally now, in addition to weaseling out of their obligation to protect the rest of us.

[Lowdark 5613]

In our culture, violence has always been seen as more acceptable than sex. Filmakers often complain that sexual content in their productions earn the dreaded NC-17 rating far easier than gratuitous and often ridiculous violence. It stands to reason that those who belong to a culture that worships violence but demonizes sex would react with (justifiable) outrage to an injury suffered by a professional athlete in a fast, often violent sport, while they neglect those whose safety is threatened because they make their living from sex. We could argue all day why our collective moral compasses are so messed up, but that's the way it is. And the second part of the problem is that people are very slow and reluctant to educate themselves on any issue, let alone a culturally taboo one like sex (which everyone wants and experiences at some point in their life). If it can be argued that our cultural bias against sex is rooted in religous values, that would also explain why common ignorance is also a problem (institutionalized, mainstream religion depends on ignorance for it's inlfuence). But all that aside, I'd like to wish Pac's a swift and speedy recovery.

[A.J. Raven 100]

Thank you for posting this article. It's a very interesting and helpful analogy.

 

One of the things that really irritates me about the Ontario government's position is the apparently repeated declaration that prostitutes are all working outside the law. In fact, it's not at all illegal to be a prostitute in Canada and many of us always work within the limits of the laws. (I'm not one of those, however.) A woman who sees clients solely on an outcall basis, meeting them in their hotel rooms or residences isn't doing anything illegal. My intuition tells me that the Ontario government would prefer not to protect women who work legally now, in addition to weaseling out of their obligation to protect the rest of us.

 

I think this is very important to note - a prostitute is not (necessarily, sp?) a "lawbreaker". The government framing it's appeal in this manner is smoke & mirrors. Law-abiding citizens who work as prostitutes are asking that laws pertaining to their work, which makes their work (often mortally) dangerous be removed so they may work safely & contribute like every other working Canadian.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

Law-abiding citizens who work as prostitutes are asking that laws pertaining to their work, which makes their work (often mortally) dangerous be removed so they may work safely & contribute like every other working Canadian.

 

Actually, AJR, prostitutes are as subject to the Canadian income tax laws as everyone else, whether we earn our income in strictly legal ways or not. The CRA only cares that our income is reported and taxed appropriately.

 

While it's true that cash transactions are not traceable, not reporting income or not reporting all of it, will backfire eventually. Canada Pension and other benefits that we won't receive until old age are often tied to income earned in our working lives.

 

I'm sure that many or most of us who have been in this business for awhile file accurate tax returns. It's actually not so easy to pay cash for major expenses like rent or a mortgage without being suspected of being involved in something illegal. Making very large purchases--such as buying a car--and paying cash can get you flagged, as well. Sensible people recognize that they may have to account for the source of income they deposit into their bank accounts.

 

Most paid companions think of ourselves as businesswomen!

[Lowdark 5613]

The government's new legal argument is that striking down the laws based on their failure to allow women full legal protection is irrelelvant because women choose this lifestyle, dangers and all. The government seems to have forgotten that is obligated to protect all citizens, no matter that it thinks of their chosen profession. If this is the argument the governement chooses to make, we need only ask how many tax dollars Ontario pays to protect Paul Bernardo from the violence of other inmates. And while the hockey analogy still applies, I doubt many hockey players sign up for the chance to have their faces rammed into steel truncheons. I wonder what PM Harper would have to say to that, being a confessed hockey fan and all?

[A.J. Raven 100]

Actually, AJR, prostitutes are as subject to the Canadian income tax laws as everyone else, whether we earn our income in strictly legal ways or not. The CRA only cares that our income is reported and taxed appropriately.

 

While it's true that cash transactions are not traceable, not reporting income or not reporting all of it, will backfire eventually. Canada Pension and other benefits that we won't receive until old age are often tied to income earned in our working lives.

 

I'm sure that many or most of us who have been in this business for awhile file accurate tax returns. It's actually not so easy to pay cash for major expenses like rent or a mortgage without being suspected of being involved in something illegal. Making very large purchases--such as buying a car--and paying cash can get you flagged, as well. Sensible people recognize that they may have to account for the source of income they deposit into their bank accounts.

 

Most paid companions think of ourselves as businesswomen!

 

I did not say anything about tax contributions - I know this already and I resent the implication of your last comment with the "!". Knowing we are in danger all the time may hinder us to contribute to our communities, and in other ways, openly.

[wellie 652]

One of the things that really irritates me about the Ontario government's position is the apparently repeated declaration that prostitutes are all working outside the law.

 

Samantha, I quite agree with the tenor of your quote, with a minor correction.

The original article says that the FEDERAL Gov (under PM Harper) is appealing the decision by Judge Himel.

 

I think the decision to appeal the decision is a symbolic gesture to the right wing

of the Conservative Party. It may motivate a few Conservatives to vote in the coming election.

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

I believe the government is using the "safety argument" because the laws were struck down on that basis, they must respond to the reasoning supporting that decision.

 

Their argument is the activities that were struck down were illegal and therefore not deserving of the state's protection....on its face it seems to be a common sense argument.....ie prostitutes operating within the law deserve protection but prostitutes who break the prostitution laws do not.

 

However I think that is the whole point, that the prostituion laws simply don't make sense, and have created dangerous conditions for those that wish to engage in it.

 

Imagine it being perfectly legal to sell cigarettes but not from a store, no public advertising allowed, and only as an independent operator. Selling cigarettes would become an inherently more dangerous vocation as a result, and many cigarette sellers would find themselves in violation of the laws as they attempted to reduce the economic and personal safety threats. Obviously laws like this would make no more sense than the ones regarding prostitution.

 

The bigger question though is whether it is for the courts to decide such issues or the legislature.

 

Bottom line is that the appeal decision will not be the end of the road as whoever loses will likely appeal to the SC.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

I did not say anything about tax contributions - I know this already and I resent the implication of your last comment with the "!". Knowing we are in danger all the time may hinder us to contribute to our communities, and in other ways, openly.

 

AJR, I apologize that it seems there is something hostile in that line of my post. I didn't intend to implicate anyone or anything by using that exclamation mark and I'm sorry that it appears that I did. I'm also sorry that you feel we are in danger all the time. I know that many companions feel this way. I don't feel under significant threat, myself, but that may be more a reflection of where I am, my experience, or simple naiveté

 

. . . The original article says that the FEDERAL Gov (under PM Harper) is appealing the decision by Judge Himel.

 

I think the decision to appeal the decision is a symbolic gesture to the right wing of the Conservative Party. It may motivate a few Conservatives to vote in the coming election.

 

Wellie, of course you're correct about the Federal Government. I seem to have thought one thing and typed another! Thanks for catching my error.

 

Bottom line is that the appeal decision will not be the end of the road as whoever loses will likely appeal to the SC.

 

Scott, I agree with everything you said in your post. I would add that many companions feel that, even if they work strictly within the limits of the law, seeing clients in their homes or hotel rooms, they are not as safe as they would be if they saw them in the companion's own incall location or a hotel room she has rented. We may feel better able to make a police report if we're hurt or threatened on an outcall, but the simple fact is that we're just a lot less likely to be harmed in a place that we control. I always know how many people are in my place, how to get out of it, and whether anyone might arrive unexpectedly. I don't know these things if I go to someone's home.

[redmachine 1916]

I haven't really followed this case or the political posturing that has been going on as a result. I'm not sure if decriminalizing prostitution is as important as somehow stopping people from dehumanizing sex workers.

[Guest C*****tte]

The argument is that the criminalization of sex work and sex workers is dehumanizing. Criminalization is one of the main factors leading to violence towards us and our stigmatization.

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

The argument is that the criminalization of sex work and sex workers is dehumanizing. Criminalization is one of the main factors leading to violence towards us and our stigmatization.

 

Well said, and it is the criminalization of sex worker's actions under certain arbitrary conditions (location, communication, partnering) while leaving those same actions legal (again depending on location, communication, partnering) which causes the confusion and creates the dangerous situation.

 

The laws are upside down as it pertains to sex worker safety, if incall, brothels, and public communication were legal, and outcall illegal, sex workes would likely have a better opportunity to work in a safe enviroment.

 

This then begs the question if the laws were indeed designed to create a "unsafe enviroment"