How would you prefer Canada dealt with prostitution?

[Meg O'Ryan 266444]

Very much appreciated!

[piano8950 32577]

4. Decriminalization

 

Simply removes the criminal laws pertaining to prostitution from the books, without inserting new laws or regulations. New Zealand decriminalized prostitution in 2003.

 

One thing I've learned in my years in Canada, no laws get changed without a ripple effect in other laws. That's the part in decriminalization that I've always been curious about. In my mind, I started to wonder about NIMBY groups and such, and checked out if groups like these sprung up in response to decriminalization.

According to an unspecified poll cited by the New Zealand Herald, about 60%+ would vote to enact new laws to keep escort incall locations out of residential areas. I'm almost certain that following decriminalization, cities would rush to enact limitations for where this sort of business can run, effectively re-criminalizing a lot of incall locations run from private residences.

 

Personally, I support removing the laws relating to prostitution, it's pointless. I support laws that go after traffickers and abuser. Why the two seem intertwined is beyond me.

 

 

------------

 

 

Another quirk regarding decriminalization is that the industry would fall under the Charter. As in no one could be discriminated against due to race among other factors. I haven't noticed it on Cerb, but on other boards that shall remain nameless, many SPs are quite specific on the race of the clients they are willing to entertain. It would be a rather interesting should one of those clients sue based on discrimination.

 

 

Laws and their endless complexities fascinate me

[VedaSloan 119179]

 

Another quirk regarding decriminalization is that the industry would fall under the Charter. As in no one could be discriminated against due to race among other factors. I haven't noticed it on Cerb, but on other boards that shall remain nameless, many SPs are quite specific on the race of the clients they are willing to entertain. It would be a rather interesting should one of those clients sue based on discrimination.

 

 

Laws and their endless complexities fascinate me

 

How would the client know he was being turned away due to his race unless she asked and was obvious about it? I turn away lots of clients for various reasons, none of which they usually get to hear about.

[fortunateone 156618]

How would the client know he was being turned away due to his race unless she asked and was obvious about it? I turn away lots of clients for various reasons, none of which they usually get to hear about.

 

 

I will also add that you can't have two opposing requirements. One argument is that according to the charter, no sp can turn anyone away for any reason. However, one of the fundamental things in the NZ regulations is that of course no sp can be forced or required to see anyone. If she decides to decline a session, that is the final word on that. So no one is going to be able to take her to court and use the charter against her without challenging that.

 

One of those requirements trumps the other, and I think it is obvious which one of them is not going to be enforced.

[Eric Northman 16522]

'There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation' - Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1967)

 

In my opinion the current laws are sufficient to protect sex workers just as they are sufficient to protect everyone else. The nasty bits of the business like trafficking, exploitation, violence, etc. are already covered by existing regulation. Prostitution itself is a victimless crime and should not need any special regulation above and beyond what any other profession would have.

 

 

Treating sex work differently is paternalistic and moralistic. Grown ups should be able to make their own decisions about what to do with their bodies.

 

Additional Comments:

Another quirk regarding decriminalization is that the industry would fall under the Charter. As in no one could be discriminated against due to race among other factors. I haven't noticed it on Cerb, but on other boards that shall remain nameless, many SPs are quite specific on the race of the clients they are willing to entertain. It would be a rather interesting should one of those clients sue based on discrimination.

 

This is a pretty interesting point but I think it would be moot. In principle, it's illegal to discriminate in hiring as well. In practice, if you don't want to hire someone, you're not going to. Even if it's for a bad reason (age, sex, race) it's pretty unlikely you'll ever get called on it unless you're stupid enough to actually say that's why you're not hiring them.

[MightyPen 67414]

Thanks Berlin! I found the descriptions you included really helpful, particularly those exploring the difference between legalization and decriminalization.

 

Looks like I learned my new thing for the day. (Guess that means I have bad news for my colleagues when I get to my desk shortly! :) )

[piano8950 32577]

How would the client know he was being turned away due to his race unless she asked and was obvious about it? I turn away lots of clients for various reasons, none of which they usually get to hear about.

 

If she's in the business long enough with a policy on race, I imagine that word would eventually get out about it. Cerb is pretty closed on the topics discussed, but on the other boards, they are extremely vocal.

 

Or another hypothetical situation is that she turns someone away at the door after realizing his race.

 

Or like some, she has it specifically stated on her website

[CristyCurves 169032]

Thank you Berlin for your informative post. My vote is for Decriminalization. New Zealand sounds like the place to be as they have always been on the forefront of human rights and common sense. Why other countries can't take their lead, :confused0024:????

New Zealand was the first country in the world to allow women to vote-1893

It adopted old age pensions-1898

child welfare programs-1907, social security for the elderly, widows, orphans, along with family benefit payments; minimum wages; a 40 hour work week and unemployment and health insurance-1938

socialized medicine -1941

legalized same sex marriage-april 17-2013-:)

 

in Canada we're still worried and wondering about who's zommin who!!

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

The post explains well the possible ways of handling prostitution.

 

My only suggestion is that 3&4 could be also be labelled as Decriminalization +/- Governmental Regulation respectively.

 

I am quiet skeptical about polls on this subject in escorts recommendation/review forums for the reason that the results are severely contaminated and not reflective of the society that will be having the final say on the outcome through its elected members in the Canadian Parliament or the legislative assembly of each province.

[Eric Northman 16522]

I am quiet skeptical about polls on this subject in escorts recommendation/review forums for the reason that the results are severely contaminated and not reflective of the society that will be having the final say on the outcome through its elected members in the Canadian Parliament or the legislative assembly of each province.

 

This! As nice as it is for us to discuss all this, it's pretty much a circle jerk. We're just preaching to the choir. Seriously...no one here will vote for full criminalization but you could be pretty damn sure there's a large subset of our society that would vote for exactly that. Many people have awfully strong opinions on things to which they've never given a moments serious thought.

[Guest Sniper3161]

This! As nice as it is for us to discuss all this, it's pretty much a circle jerk. We're just preaching to the choir. Seriously...no one here will vote for full criminalization but you could be pretty damn sure there's a large subset of our society that would vote for exactly that. Many people have awfully strong opinions on things to which they've never given a moments serious thought.

 

yuppppp. i agree with this

[piano8950 32577]

I enjoyed reading that Plato.

 

Like you I think it's unlikely, but I think given enough time, I wouldn't be surprised that this issue were to pop up. (I'm talking decades, not years). There have been a couple of cases against someone in a service industry discriminating based on a criteria that everyone would assume rational.

 

To be more specific, because I'm in the industry, we've talked about this trial a lot; a photographer was sued because she said her religious beliefs prevented her from taking pictures of a gay couple's wedding. She lost. (This was in US, in one of the states where Gay marriages is legal)

 

A men's barber shop was sued because a woman said that she deserved equal access to their services. (This was in Toronto, from what I understand, the case is pending).

 

In both instances, it's a hassle to the person being sued. And it's rare, and unfortunate. But lets tweak the circumstances a little bit, with conditions that does exist. In Toronto, there are a few 'private' escort agencies, usually a couple of friends pooling in their resources and running out of one website and number. One of such 'agencies' runs out of East Toronto, and specifically has a Caucasian only client rule. Now as a business representing a 2 or more ladies, the definition of a reasonable limit could change according to your perspective.

 

As for accepting clients based on sex, I need to brush up in my law. I know that some gyms only accept female clients, so I wonder how what precedence allows for that. And whether it could be applied here, for selection of clients based on sex and other factors.

 

Btw, anyone want a crack at the residential restriction that people want in the NZ model?

[fortunateone 156618]

This! As nice as it is for us to discuss all this, it's pretty much a circle jerk. We're just preaching to the choir. Seriously...no one here will vote for full criminalization but you could be pretty damn sure there's a large subset of our society that would vote for exactly that. Many people have awfully strong opinions on things to which they've never given a moments serious thought.

 

 

 

Absolutely agree. This is the last place I'd expect anyone to say 'status quo' as in do not decriminalize and remove the laws surrounding prostitution, but there are some who do want that. They are happy the way things are right now because they can't be sure what is going to happen with decrim. I am not happy with not being able to legally do what I am currently doing, it makes me vulnerable to extortion and eviction the way things are right now. I'd prefer to not only have the right to do it, but to have everyone else know that I have the right to do it.

 

Same thing is I would prefer to have the right to pay a driver to take me from point A to point B for the purpose of work, or an agency to book appts and advertise for me more freely than how they are able to do that for their employees now. I think it would be safer and more comfortable for an sp working for an agency if the booker could say yes or no she does or does not do A, B and C, and this is how much it costs. That is not possible now, and even tho you see some doing that, it doesn't change the law that says 3rd parties cannot be paid by sps or take any portion of their earnings for any reason.

 

Additional Comments:

re: the residential restriction, I think they have a point. Currently sps who work from home in NZ do not need to get a license. Licensing is for business front or places where there are more than 4 working in one location. Then one of them would have to be the 'owner', obtain a license (after criminal screening), and pay for the license.

 

But think about that for a second. There can be 4 sps working out of one location which can be in an apartment building or house without any sort of licensing from the city or government. That is a lot of traffic, potentially, and i can't think of any other sort of work from home that might have 4 employees on site seeing as many clients as 4 people could see together in one day being able to run a business out of an apartment setting without drawing attention from the neighbours.

 

If it was a shop or store or cafe, for example, it couldn't be done that way. It is different if the law said well, 2 sps can share one space if working out of a residential building.

 

 

There will always be some who abuse this sort of thing, my guess is the majority of indy sps are working solo from residential buildings or maybe 2 or 3 share a space that they don't live at, but from time to time you are going to see a set up where there are obviously more than 4 sps, plus friends or security or whatever else, all in one 3 bedroom condo, running what can only be described as a brothel that should be in it's own commercial building.

[MightyPen 67414]

This! As nice as it is for us to discuss all this, it's pretty much a circle jerk. We're just preaching to the choir. Seriously...no one here will vote for full criminalization but you could be pretty damn sure there's a large subset of our society that would vote for exactly that. Many people have awfully strong opinions on things to which they've never given a moments serious thought.

I think you're right about everything except the circle jerk part. The denizens of CERB are an outrageously biased sample, IF the objective of the poll was to determine "what do Canadians as a whole think about this?". I don't really think that's what Berlin was trying to do.

 

On the other hand, I think the poll IS a useful way to get this particular community, who is not only more interested in the subject but also (presumably) better informed, thinking about the issue more precisely -- and that's particularly handy when it's before the court. I wish I could say that being so invested meant we would all be going out and pressing the case to the others in our lives, but... that doesn't really follow, does it? ;) Maybe that can change someday, too.

 

I do like that, at the moment I write this, we have one vote for full criminalization and one for partial. :) Provocateurs! Or just jolly teasing, more likely. But there's also a healthy split between the last two options, and that's probably the part that's most interesting to we CERBites.

 

In my spare moments today I've been conducting a little debate inside my own head about the virtues of legalization & regulation versus simple decriminalization. So far it's a draw. The definitions Berlin provided have a clear idea which is best, and I understand the reasoning presented; but I can think of other factors at play too. My internal arguments are too complicated, with examples and counter-examples, to post here. But I wouldn't have had that internal debate if I hadn't read Berlin's poll this morning, so in my case I think it's probably served just the purpose she was after. Thanks again, Berlin.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I think you're right about everything except the circle jerk part. The denizens of CERB are an outrageously biased sample, IF the objective of the poll was to determine "what do Canadians as a whole think about this?". I don't really think that's what Berlin was trying to do.

 

On the other hand, I think the poll IS a useful way to get this particular community, who is not only more interested in the subject but also (presumably) better informed, thinking about the issue more precisely -- and that's particularly handy when it's before the court. I wish I could say that being so invested meant we would all be going out and pressing the case to the others in our lives, but... that doesn't really follow, does it? Maybe that can change someday, too.

 

I do like that, at the moment I write this, we have one vote for full criminalization and one for partial. Provocateurs! Or just jolly teasing, more likely. But there's also a healthy split between the last two options, and that's probably the part that's most interesting to we CERBites.

 

In my spare moments today I've been conducting a little debate inside my own head about the virtues of legalization & regulation versus simple decriminalization. So far it's a draw. The definitions Berlin provided have a clear idea which is best, and I understand the reasoning presented; but I can think of other factors at play too. My internal arguments are too complicated, with examples and counter-examples, to post here. But I wouldn't have had that internal debate if I hadn't read Berlin's poll this morning, so in my case I think it's probably served just the purpose she was after. Thanks again, Berlin.

 

If I may respectfully disagree! And let me first echo that Berlin did a great job.

 

In my view, when a poll is created, this is meant to address a question or an issue for which the answer is neither predictable nor known. This is not the case with the current issue in an escorts recommendation or review board.

 

It looks really nice on papers on this forum, at least, that most of the people are in favor of decriminalization without governmental regulation! Will the average Canadians accept that? Will the average Canadian females (wives, girlfriends etc) accept that? Will we accept in-call locations in residential areas? Please keep in mind that the whole foundation of discretion nowadays is dependent to a large extent on the existing criminal laws!

 

This of course doesn't take from the fact that the subject matter is interesting and could be put for discussion.

[curve 130]

It looks really nice on papers on this forum, at least, that most of the people are in favor of decriminalization without governmental regulation! Will the average Canadians accept that? Will the average Canadian females (wives, girlfriends etc) accept that? Will we accept in-call locations in residential areas?

 

 

Regulations often are put forward cloaked under the guise of good intentions to help to protect sex workers, and their clients, from criminal elements or to stop the transmission of disease, and so on. But all too often they go overboard, they will look to it as a revenue stream, they will then hire people to monitor, start compiling lists, perhaps even look to licensing. That means paperwork. It will become difficult for independents, granting advantages to larger companies, who then have the money to lobby governments to create new rules to their advantage, and on it goes. How long before Revenue Canada starts requesting client lists? Sure, we will all be assured the information will be kept confidential....

 

Regulations may solve some problems, but you can pretty much bet the bank it will create new ones.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

It looks really nice on papers on this forum, at least, that most of the people are in favor of decriminalization without governmental regulation! Will the average Canadians accept that? Will the average Canadian females (wives, girlfriends etc) accept that? Will we accept in-call locations in residential areas? Please keep in mind that the whole foundation of discretion nowadays is dependent to a large extent on the existing criminal laws!

 

It's pretty clear to me that the huge amount of public education we've been doing since Justice Himmel's Ontario court decision, the Picton hearing and the Ontario Court of Appeal decision is just a start. If the SCC decides to uphold the OCA and, by extension, Justice Himmel, things will be in flux for quite awhile and public education will need to increase. For example, the public should know is that there are many thousands of independent paid companions in Canada and that we've been working in their neighbourhoods for many years, very quietly and discretely, without causing a problem for anyone. Most of us don't want to change what we're doing or the way we do it. If we haven't caused a disturbance already, it's highly unlikely that we will in time to come.

 

People will raise concerns about noise, traffic, parking and any potential dangers related to lust-crazed men roaming around their neighbourhoods. But most of these concerns are unrealistic. Noise problems are municipal by-laws offenses already. As for traffic and parking, well, I know that a psychiatrist lives about a block and a half to the west of me and that he sees five or six patients in his home every weekday. They park on the street. There's a marriage and family therapist who runs her practice out of her home, about two blocks north of my home. She probably has five or six meetings per day, too. As for me, I haven't seen five or six clients a day in years. But even if I did, that traffic wouldn't be any greater than the psychiatrist's or the therapist's. Heck, a family with three active teenagers is likely to have more people arriving and leaving during the evening and on weekends than I ever could. So we'll need to talk about the scale of our work and the kind of impact a one or two-worker brothel like mine has on the community.

 

Bigger establishments are a different matter, but they also can be regulated via municipal by-laws, building codes and the like. I think that people will quickly begin to understand that these places are not going to spring up overnight, like mushrooms after it rains. No one knows how many will open, or where, or who will fund them. There are ladies who want to work in publicly recognized brothels, but no one knows whether there's enough clientele to support more than a couple in most cities.

 

I don't want to work in a multi-worker establishment: it's just not my style and, after all these years, I don't want to change. I'm also quite certain that virtually none of my regular visitors would ever consider going to a known brothel. Their privacy is extremely important to them.

 

This is why I don't agree with Miss Jane when she says that "the whole foundation of discretion nowadays is dependent to a large extent on the existing criminal laws". The criminal laws have influenced the way that many of us work, it's true. But I think that many people will have enduring interest in privacy and discretion even if the laws change. Perhaps one day, decades from now, the social climate will be different. But I doubt that my guests or I will be alive to see it.

 

As I've said elsewhere, if the SCC strikes down the laws and prostitution is decriminalized, I think the major focus will be on multi-staff, commercial establishments for quite awhile, not on independent companions. The large houses will attract a lot of attention. But regulating independent women like me is a much greater headache because our work varies greatly. For example, I usually entertain one person a day. For much of the rainy winter, I met them at my home. In the last two weeks, I've only seen four visitors here. I've met everyone else in hotels, mostly downtown. Now, I've been working for quite awhile but most paid companions join our profession for less than six months; the next-largest group works for just under a year before retiring. Keeping track of all of us is all but impossible.

 

What will the public accept? It's very hard to say. Different communities, different neighbourhoods and different parts of the country will probably take different attitudes and approaches. Vancouver will be very tolerant, in general, much as it is with marijuana. Toronto will probably be almost as accepting. But Red Deer? Regina? Fredericton? I have no idea.

 

Regulations often are put forward cloaked under the guise of good intentions to help to protect sex workers, and their clients, from criminal elements or to stop the transmission of disease, and so on. But all too often they go overboard, they will look to it as a revenue stream, they will then hire people to monitor, start compiling lists, perhaps even look to licensing. That means paperwork. It will become difficult for independents, granting advantages to larger companies, who then have the money to lobby governments to create new rules to their advantage, and on it goes. How long before Revenue Canada starts requesting client lists? Sure, we will all be assured the information will be kept confidential....

 

Regulations may solve some problems, but you can pretty much bet the bank it will create new ones.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about the difficulties for independents, Curve. That is, legislators and by-laws writers may try to regulate independent companions, yes. But will they succeed? We are notoriously difficult to regulate, now and highly adept at working around laws, restrictions and limitations. I don't imagine many of us will change. I for one will accept whatever advantages new legislation may bring and am more than likely to reject restrictions that I don't consider to be of benefit to me and my visitors. I've been quite comfortable working outside the bounds for a long time and am prepared to continue, if need be.

[Hastings56 1148]

Yep!......Decriminalization is the best way to go!!:icon_cool:

[curve 130]

I wouldn't be so sure about the difficulties for independents, Curve. That is, legislators and by-laws writers may try to regulate independent companions, yes. But will they succeed? We are notoriously difficult to regulate, now and highly adept at working around laws, restrictions and limitations. I don't imagine many of us will change. I for one will accept whatever advantages new legislation may bring and am more than likely to reject restrictions that I don't consider to be of benefit to me and my visitors. I've been quite comfortable working outside the bounds for a long time and am prepared to continue, if need be.

 

I am not disagreeing with you Samantha, that is part of my point. The government will create these rules, they will benefit a few, but for many it will put them at a disadvantage. It fixes some problems but creates others. So independents will likely flout those rules as well. Like you said, it is difficult for them to regulate and you are going to reject the rules that are of no benefit to you, so now we have *more* rules that people disregard. Why bother?

[MightyPen 67414]

If I may respectfully disagree! And let me first echo that Berlin did a great job.

 

In my view, when a poll is created, this is meant to address a question or an issue for which the answer is neither predictable nor known. This is not the case with the current issue in an escorts recommendation or review board.

 

That's cool. :) I think our views on the issue are more similar than different.

 

I don't think the outcome of the poll was entirely foreseeable. While I do feel we could be sure almost nobody would choose Berlin's first two options, I think the split between the third and fourth is unpredictable and has a lot to do with how the two options are presented and perceived -- which varies widely. Berlin's post examines that difference closely. That's where the value lay for me.

 

Plus, the poll format might seem odd, but we know it wasn't out of the blue -- it was an attempt to re-frame the options in response to another, uh, less successful attempt.

 

It'll be a long time before the general public sheds its preconceptions about the sex industry, and their responses to polls like this one start to resemble anything like what we're seeing here on CERB. But if it happens, it'll be thanks to stepping stones like these kinds of private discussions; the public conversation surrounding the case now before the courts, thanks to the uncommonly brave representatives of the industry who have gone public; and, someday, people realizing they already know both clients and sex workers among their friends and members of their own family, and they're actually fine, normal people. Here's crossing my fingers.

[cyclo 30131]

Another quirk regarding decriminalization is that the industry would fall under the Charter. As in no one could be discriminated against due to race among other factors.

 

Plato has already provided an excellent commentary on this. What I'd like to add is that we should remember that prostitution (the exchange of money or other compensation for sex) in Canada is not a criminal act. It is legal. Nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision will change that legal fact. When we talk about "decriminalization" of prostitution in Canada we're referring to the activities associated with it (bawdy houses, solicitation, living off the avails etc). In other words, "decriminalization" in Canada doesn't deal with the "what" it addresses the "how".

 

Since prostitution is already legal, if there is an issue of discrimination it already falls under Provincial Human Rights legislation which generally prevents people or corporations from discrimination "based on a characteristic or perceived characteristic". As Plato pointed out the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects "individual" political, civil and linguistic rights from being violated by excessive and unreasonable "government laws". The Supreme Court decision won't suddenly introduce discrimination as a new issue.

 

Additional Comments:

I'm almost certain that following decriminalization, cities would rush to enact limitations for where this sort of business can run, effectively re-criminalizing a lot of incall locations run from private residences.

 

There's quite a significant difference between a Criminal Code violation and a municipal bylaw violation for a zoning or licensing infraction.

 

A criminal conviction related to current prostitution laws can result in jail time. That's hardship enough for the person convicted, but it also has an impact upon family/dependants. It can result in children being placed in foster care or affect child custody cases. A criminal record will arise in criminal records checks for employment, thereby limiting future employment and income opportunities. In other words a criminal conviction follows you for the rest of your life at significant financial and emotional cost to an sp and their family

 

A municipal bylaw infraction on the other hand is like a parking ticket. It won't recriminalize sp's. You pay the fine and it doesn't result in a criminal record. You carry on with your life. In the most extreme instances it might result in an injunction or cease and desist order requiring you to move the business and obtain the appropriate permits/licenses. That's inconvenient, but a huge advance over the current legal situation.

 

Municipalities will try to restrict and specify where prostitution services can take place. That's what zoning laws do. For sp's working discretely by themselves from home, a rented apartment or doing outcalls, municipal zoning bylaws and licenses aren't really going to change anything even if municipalitues prohibit prostitution services as a "home based business" or "home occupation". Sp's will carry on with their business under the radar, regardless of bylaws and there won't be any "crackdowns" by municipal bylaw officers. Bylaw investigations will only occur if there's sufficient activity to draw the attention and complaints of neighbours. No different than now really. No harm no foul.

 

Brothels will be where the real zoning debate will occur. If you look at where and how strip clubs and massage parlours are currently permitted in your municipality that will give you a pretty good idea of where and how brothels will be permitted.

[TheRiddlerMan 872]

It doesn't much matter what Canadians think, honestly. We have a Harper majority government which would never accept decriminalization of prostitution on their watch. If the courts strike down the current laws, expect new ones to be passed swiftly along the Swedish model. It'll be supported by that subset of feminism which believes women can't actually consent within a prostitution model, activists against sexual trafficking and the NIMBYs who think that decriminalization will lead to prostitutes on every corner and in their suburbs. It will pass easily and that will be that, and don't expect it to be revoked by a Liberal or NDP successor.

 

It would have been much better if the challenge had never been brought, though they couldn't have known that at the time.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

I am not disagreeing with you Samantha, that is part of my point. The government will create these rules, they will benefit a few, but for many it will put them at a disadvantage. It fixes some problems but creates others. So independents will likely flout those rules as well. Like you said, it is difficult for them to regulate and you are going to reject the rules that are of no benefit to you, so now we have *more* rules that people disregard. Why bother?

 

I am very interested in getting rid of laws that make it a criminal act to work safely and securely in a legal profession, laws that make it illegal for my clients to visit me in my workplace and laws that make it illegal for someone to rent me an apartment, house or hotel room. There is nothing inherently criminal in these things. I also think it is grossly inappropriate for someone to be threatened with or to carry the burden of a criminal record because they were a prostitute at some point or because they engaged the time and companionship of or rented an apartment to a prostitute. A respectful agreement between consenting adults to exchange intimate companionship for a mutually-acceptable fee should not qualify as heinous activity that is a real or potential danger to other people.

 

If criminal legislation is abolished, as I think it should be, I'm not interested in having special regulations imposed upon independent paid companions. There are municipal by-laws that apply to people who work from their homes. There are laws about parking and noise and being a public nuisance or interfering with others' quiet enjoyment of their homes. I'm happy to comply with these laws as much as anyone else does. But if by-laws are created and imposed upon us because of stereotypes about the kinds of people we're assumed to entertain or presumptions about our health status, I'm not likely to comply. I'm most likely to flout laws that compromise my safety, well-being and the privacy of my family, friends and visitors to my home.

 

I do favour establishing professional standards, but that's very different from municipal by-laws, and it's complicated when most companions have very short careers in our industry. However, some clients might feel reassured to know that someone they're interested in meeting is a member of a professional organization that requires them to uphold certain standards which could include confidentiality, safer sex practices and other things. Rules of this kind could benefit everyone.

 

Obviously, there will always be people who break laws and refuse to comply with rules. When the laws and rules are harmful, refusing to follow them makes sense.

[ngtime 560]

Much like America, where it's clearly a legal thing ( without the Canadian ambiguities) in various counties of Nevada. It would be very difficult for the federal government to change the laws, every province has their own view. Another consideration is the tax issue, where it may be controlled there is a new source of tax for the province. So there would go the 'cash business' aspect of service providers. HST etc would need to be collected just like any other business.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

Much like America, where it's clearly a legal thing ( without the Canadian ambiguities) in various counties of Nevada. It would be very difficult for the federal government to change the laws, every province has their own view. Another consideration is the tax issue, where it may be controlled there is a new source of tax for the province. So there would go the 'cash business' aspect of service providers. HST etc would need to be collected just like any other business.

 

In the US, States and even counties determine laws to a much greater extent than has ever been the case in Canada. Here, criminal laws are federal, period. If something is a crime in Saskatchewan, it's a crime in New Brunswick, too, because the criminal code is the same everywhere. Provincial courts do take into account things like community tolerance, customs and the like when issuing sentences. Police forces seem to operate somewhat differently in different parts of the country, at times. For example, in Winnipeg, there is little help available from the RCMP for prostitutes who have been assaulted or who are being stalked by clients whereas the police are considerably more helpful in similar situations in Vancouver.

 

The tax issue isn't something I understand very well, in terms of the division between federal and provincial tax laws. However, I DO pay HST (now Provincial sales tax and GST in B.C.). It's the law for anyone who earns over $30K a year from self-employment. And there's never a problem with being paid in cash. All the CRA and the laws care about is that income is declared, in full, no matter how it's received.