Fantasy World Escort Court Case

[drlove 37204]

The owners of Fantasy World Escorts will be staging what amounts to the first real challenge of  C-36.  Instead of being heard in London Ontario where the alleged offenses occurred, the case will be moved to another venue sometime in early 2019.

 

The agency owners are challenging the advertising and material benefit provisions of the law. In other words, if the sale of sex is legal, then does it make sense to prohibit third party advertisements and third party profiting where those selling said service are essentially employees of said business? I must admit I’m not that familiar with the workings of the courts or the interpretation of law in Canada. My question is, if these two aspects of the law are found to be unconstitutional, would it mean that only these tenets will be stuck down, still leaving the purchase of sexual services illegal, or by extension, might the judge go further and strike down C-36 in its entirety? An interesting topic for discussion and debate...

[WhereIRoam 21825]

The saying, "Be careful what you wish for." comes to mind.

By its definition pimp is a person(s) who advertises for and/or profits from the sale of sex of another individual. This includes any person(s) operating a highly regarded escort agency, MP as well as your stereotypical street pimp. Removing the illegal aspect of this until C-36 is revisited by the powers that be would prevent prosecution of pimping to any person(s) profiting from another individual's sale of sex.

 

Pros and cons.

Though I'm for decriminalizing the sex industry I'm strongly opposed to forced prostitution and human trafficking where underage workers are, for the most part, operating from.   

[drlove 37204]

6 hours ago, WhereIRoam said:

The saying, "Be careful what you wish for." comes to mind.

By its definition pimp is a person(s) who advertises for and/or profits from the sale of sex of another individual. This includes any person(s) operating a highly regarded escort agency, MP as well as your stereotypical street pimp. Removing the illegal aspect of this until C-36 is revisited by the powers that be would prevent prosecution of pimping to any person(s) profiting from another individual's sale of sex.

 

Pros and cons.

Though I'm for decriminalizing the sex industry I'm strongly opposed to forced prostitution and human trafficking where underage workers are, for the most part, operating from.   

Fully agree, but I seem to recall that when C-36 was drafted, the Conservatives were deliberately conflating human trafficking with consensual sex work. To curry favour with the voting public, the government  ostensibly made the claim that C-36 was needed to combat human trafficking, pimps and the like. However, I distinctly remember  that those in favour of full decriminalization posited that such a draconian law was unnecessary, as anti trafficking laws already exist  for this express purpose. In other words, sex workers, agencies and patrons involved in the non-coercive sector of the adult entertainment industry should be allowed to operate freely, while existing laws governing human trafficking would protect the vulnerable. Did I miss something there?

[Phaedrus 209521]

You're absolutely right, DrLove. Conflating sex work with trafficking is absolutely standard for anyone who wishes to regulate or abolish sex work, but it doesn't stand up to any sort of analysis or reasoning. It's funny how trafficked people in agriculture or domestic services never get this level of attention.

Laws like C36 hurt trafficked people because they make it far less likely that clients will raise the alarm about someone who may need help (they'd be admitting to a crime, after all) and are far more resistant to a lot of screening procedures, which makes everyone less safe. But the people who push these laws either don't care about the safety of sex workers, or view this as a good thing as they think the increased danger might drive women out of the industry.

As to your original question: IANAL, but I'd have thought that the courts will only make decisions on the case that's brought before them, so if this one only challenges certain parts of C36 then the rest of it will be unafffected.

[drlove 37204]

At least it’s a start, regardless. Assuming that the agency owners are successful in refuting the advertising and material benefit charges, it may pave the way to another challenge in the future. Essentially, then you’d have a situation where a specific service is legal to sell, advertise and profit from both from an individual and third party standpoint. For anyone (especially a court of law) to uphold the tenet which makes said service illegal to purchase is non sensical and anathema to independent thought. I’d say there’s a very strong possibility that the odds will swing in our favour at that juncture. Certainly, the court should take into account the spirit of previous rulings pertaining to the issue at hand in reaching a decision (See Himmel  et. al.), and recognize that a partisan law based on an arbitrary construct (“morality”) has no justification being a part of the Criminal Code Of Canada.

 

[Jasmine Rain 23126]

The law needs to set the difference between an escort hiring a company and being pimped.

 

There are already provisions for that. For example, an escort can now safely hire a web designer, photographer, security staff and a driver. But she is not allowed to hire someone to handle her advertising. It makes no sense. 

[drlove 37204]

8 hours ago, Jessica Rain said:

The law needs to set the difference between an escort hiring a company and being pimped.

 

There are already provisions for that. For example, an escort can now safely hire a web designer, photographer, security staff and a driver. But she is not allowed to hire someone to handle her advertising. It makes no sense. 

Exactly.

[waterat 20911]

To Phaedrus' and Jessica's comments: I agree and there was also a thread referencing research conducted and published by Dr. Chris Bruckert at UOttawa analysint why many sex workers wish to hire various 'service providers' i.e. booking agents, drivers, security, etc. I'm still stumbling through the new lyla on a very shallow learning curve but, if | find a link to it, I will post it here.