Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels, sweeps aside many of Canadaâ??s anti-pros

[Guest S***dst***]

I think you are being a little over zealous :P

(or maybe I'm taking it too literal when you use the car analogy)

 

SP's are people, not cars..cheaper parts and labour do not apply...

Service and lasting power(product seems a poor word but only one I can think of) will determine who is successful and who makes a quick buck then fades away. i.e cant make a living.

 

Prostitution IS legal in Germany and it actually creates a different force on the market. Granted I don't know the economy over in Europe but the "average escort" charges 300 euro (roughly 400-450? cdn) per hour/service; and get plenty of clients.

 

One consideration (other than the much larger population) is anyone can do it but also anyone can see the escort, and may be more inclined to do so, since they are not breaking any laws.

 

I'm also very tired at the moment (lousy insomnia) so my thoughts may just be incomplete ramblings and/or incoherent thoughts/sentences.

I hope my message came across (no pun intended) as just that, a message/thought and not an angry rambling.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

I just don't want to see service providers become a commodity item like hotel rooms (or cars). Hotels have had to lower their rates (and give Expedia a cut) and in the case of priceline they are selling any left over capacity at rock bottom "name your own" prices. Sure, people will still stay at the Royal York in Toronto or the Waldorf Astoria in New York or Whites Hotel in London but the majority of people will just search for the best price and value they can get. Could we ever get to the point that a service provider appointment is open for eBay style bidding on the Internet? Wow have I gotten some great deals there, items for 1/100 of their value.

 

Service providers are real people, not inanimate objects like cars. An internet booking service that lists every service provider in a given city, her availability, her rates in comparison to every other and what services she offers, with the ability to sort by price and how soon it can be delivered seems "objectionable" to me but we do have such sites that help you shop for a new car that way. If and when it should occur there is no doubt it would put pressure on anyone that wasn't willing to participate and it would put pressure on rates as well -- or perhaps I am wrong (hope so) and it makes the world a better place... only time will tell I guess.

 

If they do add "exploitative" to the new avails law then look out agencies when the judge hears how much of the ladies fee they are currently taking, he'll have no problem deciding this is exploitation and convicting them of living off the avails.

 

The thing about comparing prices in order to get the best deal on the same Honda is that, in the end, one expects to have a specific car that will perform predictably. We expect each brand new Honda Civic to be pretty much the same as every other.

 

It's very different with human beings. A lot of psychotherapists might charge the same hourly fee, but that's no measure of any one's suitability as a therapist for a particular person.

 

The other thing is that lots of us don't want to see just anyone who can make a booking. This is one of the main reasons some women leave escort agencies to work on their own: they want to screen their clients themselves.

 

I'm just glad we decriminalized SamanthaEvans because we were so wrong to criminalize her in the first place, she has done no harm and bothers no one :)

 

Thank you, backrubman. I understand what you mean. My quibble is that prostitution is legal in Canada. I cannot be prosecuted simply for being a prostitute. The issue has been how and under what circumstances I may work. The Bedford decision is about our right to work in safe conditions.

 

One consideration (other than the much larger population) is anyone can do it but also anyone can see the escort, and may be more inclined to do so, since they are not breaking any laws.

 

It's possible to see a paid companion right now without breaking any laws, though many people don't know it. If a man invites a companion to visit him in his home or his own hotel room, it's perfectly legal for him to pay her for and receive her time and companionship. Nothing in the Bedford decision would change this. What is added is that it will be legal for a companion to entertain a paying guest in her own home or workplace. Many of us feel much safer when we control our work environment. In another year, or after the Supreme Court looks at the situation, it may very well be just as legal for us to work on an incall basis as it is to accept outcalls only.

 

I think it would be much healthier for our society to relax about sex in general and about paid companionship specifically. Maybe broader legalization will be a step along the way.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I've never been convinced by those who speculate that decrim will either raise or lower prices that sex workers will be able to charge. I do see the logic in thinking that making an exchange easier or more convenient will tend to increase the number of those who are willing to both sell and buy. Any potential net effect on overall prices would remain to be seen, I suppose.

 

If there are licensing fees and regulatory costs under any new legal regime, the marketplace would have to work out how much of those costs would be absorbed by the provider, and how much would be passed on to the clients. I don't see why clients' behaviour as far as selection criteria for providers would be radically altered, including a tendancy towards commodification, by any changes to the law.

 

As noted - a person is not a hotel. Because pieces of their lives do not go to waste if not auctioned off to the lowest bidder. Providers have multi-dimensional lives to lead, and, like anyone else, work-life is only one dimension. Surely they have better things to do with their time than flog hours on ebay or expedia, ha ha. Freetime is not a worthless thing to human beings, like empty rooms are worthless to a hotel.

 

Since advertising is entirely legal now, and escort boards and directories exist in profusion, I can't imagine what sort of upheaval could possibly trigger any particular directory gaining gorilla-status in the marketplace. I'm not sure why there'd be any particular reason to think that the advertising environment would be either more or less concentrated than it is now, based solely on changes to laws about bawdy house or living on the avails.

 

Please note that the addition of the word "exploitative" is a narrowing of the range of application of the living on the avails law - not a widening of the net.

 

Also please note that the concept of "exploitation", in Canadian jurisprudence, is not a black box into which courts can project anything that pops into their heads. As the recent Court ruling carefully pointed out:

 

[236] ... [the current law] is that people who supply services to prostitutes, because they are prostitutes, commit the living on the avails offence. Thus, a bodyguard, driver, receptionist, bookkeeper, manager or anyone else providing services to a prostitute, for the purpose of her prostitution, comes within the offence. The offence does not require proof of exploitation unless the accused lives with the prostitute ....

 

[270] Exploitation is already an element of the offence where the accused and the prostitute are living together ....

It is a concept that courts have used in other contexts and is often found where the victim is in a state of dependency. There will be hallmarks of exploitation that will assist in delineating the area of risk, as where the prostitute is dependent on the accused for drugs or because of youth, where the accused has no legal or moral claim to the prostitute's earnings, or where the accused takes a portion of the prostitute's earnings that is out of all proportion to the services provided.

On the other hand, where there is no exploitation in this sense ... the person would not be committing the offence of living on the avails of prostitution ...

 

http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0186.pdf

[backrubman 64800]

...

Since advertising is entirely legal now, and escort boards and directories exist in profusion, I can't imagine what sort of upheaval could possibly trigger any particular directory gaining gorilla-status in the marketplace. I'm not sure why there'd be any particular reason to think that the advertising environment would be either more or less concentrated than it is now, based solely on changes to laws about bawdy house or living on the avails.

 

I think it goes to the living of the avails change mostly. Historically, escort agencies were forced to arrange "escorts" and "massage" services and try to hide behind the thinly veiled argument that they didn't know or couldn't take responsibility for any activities that might occur between the escort and the client (consenting adults) to avoid being snagged by "the living off the avails" law. For them to openly say they are a "prostitution providing agency" would have opened them up to being charged with living off the avails. But now (because prostitution is and always was completely legal) they can't be in legal trouble for living off the avails, so they can do just that if they want to.

 

So my concern was that we could now have the Expedia, Tavelocity, or Priceline.com type of prostitution providing booking service that no longer hides behind escort or massage services and just openly sells prostitution using the lowest price is the law mentality. And who knows, this could be a good thing; perhaps a lot of ladies that work for agencies would find their bookings through such a site at a much better price then paying an agency to find them work? The compensation for them might just be better?

 

The entrepreneur part of me wants to get to work on this right away and charge the ladies $1 every time they get a successful booking from my web site and do 100 million bookings a year. The moral part of me wants nothing to do with it. I like things just the way they are "now" with the exception of the upholding of the communication law.

 

Somehow it never failed to make me smile when one of the ladies asked me if I wanted a date as I passed by (oh sure I knew I could be a couple of hundred pounds heavier and very ugly and they would still have asked but it somehow never failed to lift my spirits). Unlike so many others, I never ignored them or failed to acknowledge them or ever shouted some derogatory profanity at them. Rather I would politely decline and wish them a good evening -- and sometimes when I was really really sure, I'd say "nice evening officer" :)

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... So my concern was that we could now have the Expedia, Tavelocity, or Priceline.com type of prostitution providing booking service ... perhaps a lot of ladies that work for agencies would find their bookings through such a site at a much better price then paying an agency to find them work? ... The entrepreneur part of me wants to get to work on this right away and charge the ladies $1 every time they get a successful booking from my web site and do 100 million bookings a year ...

 

So, in such a world, who would be responsible for essentials like screening clients? Or for other services such as monitoring of safety, verification, transportation, brand-name recognition etc that agencies provide for their ladies?

[backrubman 64800]

So, in such a world, who would be responsible for essentials like screening clients?

 

Very good question. Couldn't agree with you more. That is a big part of why I said "The moral part of me wants nothing to do with it."

 

Having said that, a booking with confidentially held and verified identification of the client costs the service provider $50 more (not $1). Does that indirectly start to show the moral dilemma? Of course such a high volume site could only hold the identity of the person making the booking in escrow and not verify much beyond that.

 

Having said that, let's give each lady her own personal calendar, reminder service and even access to the knowledge that the person booked before and the lady who he booked subsequently identified him as a good guy. Yes, with the power of today's computers we can even have a rating system for clients. So I guess she signs a waver and agrees to hold the site harmless if she accepts any bookings from a client that hasn't previously booked on the site and been subsequently identified as a good guy.

 

But I'm just not going to go there. I only fear someone now will and maybe they will make $1 X 100 million or a $100 million from this idea.

 

Point was the "avails law" change has wide ranging effects, mostly good but like all things good, it can usually be used for evil also.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

There's nothing morally wrong with the priceline.com business model. But on a practical level, I can't help thinking of the nature of personal services businesses and how they attract and keep their customers.

 

I think of all the types of personal-services businesses that I know right now. The ones to which no legal "issues" are currently, or have been, attached. What percentage of their business is attracted through those kinds of rock-bottom price-comparison websites?

 

I myself can't imagine that sex work and sex workers would behave any differently than these other personal service businesses and providers already do in a comparably legal environment.

[roamingguy 300292]

Maybe I'm missing the point (I sometimes do) of the Priceline analogy

but really will anything change. I can see agencies handling the bookings of ladies they represent, as they do now...if you are interested in seeing an agency lady. Independent ladies, they can handle their own bookings, as they do now.

The ladies' safety and security, well now they can legally hire drivers/security. And verification, that wouldn't change. Either verification information is provided by a prospective client, as is the case now, to the lady, or a verification service can be utilized.

Some ramblings, but maybe I missed the point

RG

[backrubman 64800]

Same reason it hasn't happened with other fully-legal personal service businesses. It's impractical; cumbersome to administer; impossible to adjudicate disputes about service delivery or non-delivery; etc. The main point, though (sorry to repeat myself): It's just not how people in general prefer to buy or sell personal services.

Just because you can imagine building something, doesn't mean people will come.

 

I agree and most respectfully, I remember precisely these same arguments when eBay was about a week old like it was yesterday. Yes, you can buy LOTS of personal services on eBay today (web design, lessons and tutoring, promotion, etc.) and while it isn't that much of a stretch to extend Spanish lessons into sex lessons on a regional basis as anything and everything turns to online content, I do hope you are right.

[fortunateone 156618]

Very good question. Couldn't agree with you more. That is a big part of why I said "The moral part of me wants nothing to do with it."

 

Having said that, a booking with confidentially held and verified identification of the client costs the service provider $50 more (not $1). Does that indirectly start to show the moral dilemma? Of course such a high volume site could only hold the identity of the person making the booking in escrow and not verify much beyond that.

 

Having said that, let's give each lady her own personal calendar, reminder service and even access to the knowledge that the person booked before and the lady who he booked subsequently identified him as a good guy. Yes, with the power of today's computers we can even have a rating system for clients. So I guess she signs a waver and agrees to hold the site harmless if she accepts any bookings from a client that hasn't previously booked on the site and been subsequently identified as a good guy.

 

But I'm just not going to go there. I only fear someone now will and maybe they will make $1 X 100 million or a $100 million from this idea.

 

Point was the "avails law" change has wide ranging effects, mostly good but like all things good, it can usually be used for evil also.

 

Dear backrubman,

 

There are already a number of sites that do this already. Including, to a certain extent, this one. preferred411, date-check, verifyhim, etc etc charge fees, clients can register with their private details thru the site, get verified, and book with ease using only a reference name or number. The sps on the site have access to prescreened clientele.

 

However, that, like any clients who know about review sites or escort forums, is such a teeny tiny fraction of the entire client pool out there, it is one of those things nice in theory, and not viable in reality. The reality is that many guys refuse to divulge personal details to a 3rd party. Another is they will choose to see street workers or walk into massage parlours rather than even divulge their phone #, let alone anything else.

 

Sps who want someone else to handle every aspect of their marketing and booking, and there are oodles of them, will always work with agencies or at massage parlours. Sps who grow tired of being sent to anyone with a wallet, go independent and decide for themselves who to see. And also, if they start to dislike the cut the agency takes.

 

Nothing in the decriminalization will change any of this, imo. It is unlikely that anything other than the majority of sps who work from home will now no longer fear the next knock on the door is LE shutting down their illegal incall. I definitely don't see any link between decrim and rates. I also am fairly convinced there is no link between decrim and any increase in new sps.

 

And going into the priceline, pay by CC, etc etc, well just go back to my comments about how much detail most clients are willing to provide. They are not willing to provide to the sp or a 3rd party, in the majority, full name, address, CC info, expiry date and 3 digit pin, just to secure an appt with most sps.

 

And even if there was an enterprising person out there to come up with that idea, do you have any idea at how few sps would have anything to do with it? If an sp is indy, she is indy all the way. NO one is going to get between her and her level of what is considered enough or reasonable screening. NO one is going to take an additional fee to process CCs, or any other consideration.

 

I am at a loss in general as to why or how so many people come up with so many elaborate ideas about the results of decriminalizing the bawdy house law, and the living off the avails. I think there is this assumption about thousands of people sitting around waiting for the opportunity to become sex workers, or work for one, or build and open brothels, and oh but for the sake of those two little laws, they would have done it 25 years ago.

 

There weren't any brothels built 25 years ago before these laws were created. There were no bawdy house laws, no living off the avails, no laws against public solicitation. So why weren't there any brothels? Why no priceline set up for prostitutues? Why did sps work for agencies, and mpas go to work at massage parlours. Why did sps rent hotel rooms instead of setting up their own incall in the privacy of their own home?

 

Lots of things to consider, but also to get a bit of perspective as well.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I have no quibble whatsoever should a provider choose to sell or even auction off their personal services on an ebay-type site, or in any other way they might opt to explore. That would be their prerogative, and not something immoral or evil. Let's call it, say ... "freedom".

 

As I've mentioned - providers of sexual services already advertise their services on innumerable on-line boards, marketplaces, and directories.

 

But remember that the following is the scenario that has been promoted on this thread, and that it's the scenario I've been commenting on:

 

.... One of my worries is that we could see a Travelocity, Expedia or Priceline style of booking agents pop up where the lowest price rules... it would mean intense competition for anyone that wasn't wiling to lower their price and lost business or anyone not willing to hop on board....

 

This is not a scenario that applies to any personal services business today, and I can't imagine that anyone will ever be effectively forced to join some ubiquitous mega-on-line-lowest-price-rules-merchandiser in order to succeed in any personal services business in the future, including sexual services. As I've said, that's just not how people in general prefer to buy or sell personal services. No on-line site will ever be powerful enough to effectively coerce providers to join that particular site and lower their prices.

[fortunateone 156618]

This is not a scenario that applies to any personal services business today, and I can't imagine that anyone will ever be effectively forced to join some ubiquitous mega-on-line-lowest-price-rules-merchandiser in order to succeed in any personal services business in the future, including sexual services. As I've said, that's just not how people in general prefer to buy or sell personal services. No on-line site will ever be powerful enough to effectively coerce providers to join that particular site and lower their prices.

 

 

This is a good point. There is already lots of opportunities for those clients who are only interested in cost, and could care less who is providing the service as long as it is cheap. Usually they also go along with the bait/switch or unique advertising that comes along with this.

 

But the majority of clients, in my and many other sps experiences, are not just interested in price and checklists. They want to see specific people. Having a lowest price guarantee is pretty meaningless to them. And for those where that is the only important issue, there are plenty of agencies that have one set price system.

 

It is the sort of business that thrives on selection and variety, not uniformity and standardizations.. I cannot think of one single story in the countries that have decriminalized and regulated sex work itself where the individual sps don't have the same sort of work choices they had before. They simply have the ability to work like any other industry, with support instead of on the edge of legality. Street workers still work on the street, agency workers still work via agencies, indies still work out of their own space, and so on.

 

Even the assumption that every sp will have to get a license has not been enforced in newly decriminalized and regulated countries. And even those who open brothels have to be clean of criminal history. Now, who is stopping anyone from opening an escort agency or massage parlour? If you decriminalize work spaces, then you open the door to the kinds of regulations that require criminal background checks of agency owners or massage parlour operators. I think the city of Toronto doesn't even require agencies to have business licenses right now.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

fortunateone, I can't give you any more rep points until I've spread the love more widely, but I agree with everything you've said.

 

While I'm sure there may be ladies who would be willing to work through an online booking site, I'm not one of them. I don't care how much verification such a place may get from a prospective client. I only see the gentlemen I elect to see because I want to see them. References can be helpful. I have accepted verification from some US sites, too. These things have never been the deciding factor for me when I'm considering engaging a new client. I have my own reasons for choosing to meet, or not to meet, someone.

 

In the end, the only person I trust to make decisions about who is or is not appropriate for me to see is... me. The only one to whom I will be accountable about the time I spend with a client is the client himself. The only one who should ever know who that client is also happens to be me.

 

Lots of people want to find ways to make some money from some aspect of the sex industry. I'm sure that future changes in the law will encourage some folks to try things that they haven't tried yet. That's how markets work, all the time. But the old-fashioned way still works beautifully for me.

[whiteman 14028]

Looks like the Supreme Court is getting ready to rule on this issue, this week.

 

Explainer: Top court to rule on the future of prostitution in Canada

 

"A panel that included all nine Supreme Court judges heard arguments in June and have sorted through 22,000 pages of evidence, including that provided by more than 20 organizations and provincial attorneys general with intervener status.

 

The court can find all the laws constitutional or declare them all or certain aspects of them unconstitutional. If they opt for the latter, the court might strike them down and tell Parliament to fix them, immediately or within a certain time frame. The court could also do what the lower courts did and fix the laws itself by adding or removing words in a bid to make them Charter compliant."