Article in Today's Toronto Sun: Councillor wants to shut down sex spas

[RobX 2084]

An article in today' Toronto Sun ( http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/10/25/11517611-sun.html ) states that a Toronto City councillor is trying to shut down the massage parlours in T.O. because he :

"worries clubs could become legal depending on the outcome of an appeal by dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford and prostitutes Valerie Scott and Amy Lebovitch. The case involves three provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with prostitution."

[drlove 37204]

I hope that the courts rule in favour of Bedford and de-criminalize the sex trade. Then, politicians will have very little say, indeed.

[cordsboy 184]

I hope that the courts rule in favour of Bedford and de-criminalize the sex trade. Then, politicians will have very little say, indeed.

 

Funny how politicians are vocal against the trade but are probably one of the trades best repeat customers...

[drlove 37204]

Funny how politicians are vocal against the trade but are probably one of the trades best repeat customers...

 

Of course... it's all hypocritical rhetoric - they're just afraid their wives will find out! *lol* I've had escorts tell me that they've seen politicians... it's no secret. The irony is, they're shooting themselves in the foot by passing and/or upholding restrictive legislation. They should copy a page from Germany, Australia or the Netherlands when it comes to sex for sale, and quit whining.

[fortunateone 156618]

An article in today' Toronto Sun ( http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/10/25/11517611-sun.html ) states that a Toronto City councillor is trying to shut down the massage parlours in T.O. because he :

"worries clubs could become legal depending on the outcome of an appeal by dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford and prostitutes Valerie Scott and Amy Lebovitch. The case involves three provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with prostitution."

 

What is meant by "legal" though. I mean these are already businesses paying business license fees for something, so aren't they already operating a legal businesses???

 

I often wonder why politicians never seem to know what the actual laws about anything are, when they are often the ones saying something like prostitution should not be legalized. Oops, too late, lol. It already is. So now what. :confused:

 

And 3000!!?? Seriously, are there really 3000 mps in Toronto alone?? Are there enough people to work in them, let alone visit that many lol.

 

Giorgio Mammoliti claims crime syndicates are involved in smuggling girls into Canada, obtaining club space, paying for advertising and offering protection.

That is also an interesting comment. Does he imply that there are no local women working in mps? They are all illegal and/or tricked into the biz? And how is "paying for advertising" suddenly a bad or sinister thing, exactly?

[YoungStud 468]

What is meant by "legal" though. I mean these are already businesses paying business license fees for something, so aren't they already operating a legal businesses???

 

Well, if you actually read the Toronto Sunday Sun article, you'll find that a Ward 7 councilor claims there are 3000 (!!) "illegal" massage parlours in Toronto. ("Illegal" would seem to mean in breach or one or more regulations or laws. That's not really spelled out.)

 

How this civic worthy arrived at that figure and what is the definition of illegal massage parlours both seemed way too difficult questions for the reporter writing the article, Tom Godfrey, to ask. (Most Sun reporters are pretty much just "stenographers" when it comes to quoting "crime-fighting" city politicians. Much easier to write good headlines that way. Lol.)

 

Headlines like this one:

 

Councilor wants to shut down sex spas

90 OF T.O.'s 3,000 in his York Ward

 

 

 

[mod 135639]

I hope that the courts rule in favour of Bedford and de-criminalize the sex trade. Then, politicians will have very little say, indeed.

 

Oh Boy! That is not true... The top level politicians may ignore but your city officials will be able to create BY-LAWS and that actually makes it easier for police and cities to control. Right now they can not legally set up by-laws for prostitution as that would constitute living off the avails (charging a fee for a license to be a prostitute) if this court case has any effect on these laws (either way - new laws making living off the avails or complete decriminalization) the cities will quickly make by-laws (This will include zoning laws, license fee's, etc.. etc..). If you think decriminalization means the cities can not make by-laws you are VERY wrong. That is NOT the case! If it all becomes completely legal it is just like any other business at that point and falls to the same city by-laws as all the others. Some cities will make it so impossible to meet the by-law requirements that nothing will be legal (Like many cities do now with gentleman's clubs). The girls working will need police checks done and everyone and every business involved will need to pay licenses so the cities can hire more by-law enforcement to police the by-laws.

 

What is meant by "legal" though. I mean these are already businesses paying business license fees for something, so aren't they already operating a legal businesses???

 

If no "sex acts" are going on they are a legal body rub parlors (licensed) but remember right now a "common bawdy" house law makes them illegal if they offer "extra's" and the HJ and nude massage is really in the gray area (really any sexual touch - it does not have to be sex can make a place a common bawdy house - intercourse does not have to happen - this is why the no-sex dungeons still get busted as they are still in-house and appealing to the sexual desires of the client). Having a body rub license only makes it "legal" with you city by-law (not the actual criminal code laws) technically they are very much illegal but it is very hard to charge people involved in these operations under these laws.

 

Again.. making it legal will allow the cities and towns to make new BY-LAWS and this actually means MORE Local laws to control it. (Zoning/fee's/police checks/etc..)

[Guest S***e]

Municpal elections in Ontario aren't too far away (next year) so this kind of thing comes as no surprise to me. Anything to bolster their self-serving interests prior to an election!

[Annessa 22743]

the latest comment to this piece of literary garbage (that focuses of the words "day and night, and 24/7, too much it makes me wonder [again] if a journalist temp wrote it) is awesome, and I think it says what we're all thinking..... :

 

"It looks like Mammoliti has pulled the wool over born in coookoo Toronto's eyes. How do you think our Ward got this bad in the past 15 years? It's only during election times that George comes out of the woodwork for his photo ops. Do you really think that taping a letter to the door of the spa in front of all the cameras is going to scare everyone away? ...

 

 

Perhaps you should do your homework and dig into the City Council documents to find out how many problems night clubs have had their liquor licenses approved by George, knowing about past shootings and other problems. Don't be naive in thinking these establishments haven't come under fire long before George came along with cameras. George is not empowered to do the job of the police."

 

 

amen.....politicians fighting the "good fight" and justifying these places as attractions for violence....well I went out last weekend and saw a girl start a 20-person brawl outside Pub 101 in the Market....tonight there were two people stabbed on the same corner, it was already on the radio when I was cabbing home......bars, spas, house-parties in the suburbs where kids have nothing better to do......sh*t happens everywhere.

 

 

tell you what, lets go start taping letters to all the "danger-zones" in hopes that the world will be a better place. whos with me?.....no-one?....thats what I thought

 

 

but if you're being documented on camera and are running for a politcal standing, it *may* get you brownie-points right? (and yes that was sarcastic)

 

 

give me a break.

 

 

political brown-nosers with disregard for the "bigger picture" or "seeing the forest through the trees" make me want to run for political parties......and I REALLY hate politics, lol

[Guest S***e]

 

That's one thing we have in common. Now that I live in Ottawa politics are constantly in your face be they federal, provincial or municipal. It's so tiresome.

[Annessa 22743]

That's one thing we have in common. Now that I live in Ottawa politics are constantly in your face be they federal, provincial or municipal. It's so tiresome.

 

agreed! Ottawa has the 'conservative" reputation of being very proper and centered around our supposed political standings. But seeing these so called "educated advocates" (aka, opinionated a**-kissers) try and win over the general public with insane numbers, ridiculous claims, and what they consider "bold messages" to businesses that are causing less harm than they lead the public to believe make me want to run for prime minister, lol

 

ok granted, there may be a few scandals due to a political leader being found out as a past escort.....but I think in that case I may at least sway the male population right? LOL

[Guest S***e]

You got it! LOL

 

agreed! Ottawa has the 'conservative" reputation of being very proper and centered around our supposed political standings. But seeing these so called "educated advocates" (aka, opinionated a**-kissers) try and win over the general public with insane numbers, ridiculous claims, and what they consider "bold messages" to businesses that are causing less harm than they lead the public to believe make me want to run for prime minister, lol

 

ok granted, there may be a few scandals due to a political leader being found out as a past escort.....but I think in that case I may at least sway the male population right? LOL

[drlove 37204]

Oh Boy! That is not true... The top level politicians may ignore but your city officials will be able to create BY-LAWS and that actually makes it easier for police and cities to control. Right now they can not legally set up by-laws for prostitution as that would constitute living off the avails (charging a fee for a license to be a prostitute) if this court case has any effect on these laws (either way - new laws making living off the avails or complete decriminalization) the cities will quickly make by-laws (This will include zoning laws, license fee's, etc.. etc..). If you think decriminalization means the cities can not make by-laws you are VERY wrong. That is NOT the case! If it all becomes completely legal it is just like any other business at that point and falls to the same city by-laws as all the others. Some cities will make it so impossible to meet the by-law requirements that nothing will be legal (Like many cities do now with gentleman's clubs). The girls working will need police checks done and everyone and every business involved will need to pay licenses so the cities can hire more by-law enforcement to police the by-laws.

 

This is a very interesting argument / analysis. I have a few questions:

 

1) When this topic came up for discussion on another board, most of the escorts favoured decriminalization as opposed to legalization. Why do you suppose this is, and what exactly is the distinction?

 

2) To use Germany as an example, that particular country does not seem to have a problem integrating brothels into the mainstream. If it can work there, it can work here. Agree, or disagree?

 

3) What specifically, would be the best outcome concerning the constitutional challenge?

[NotchJohnson 214123]

Funny how politicians are vocal against the trade but are probably one of the trades best repeat customers...

This is false I'm not a repeat customers.LOL

[VedaSloan 119179]

What is meant by "legal" though. I mean these are already businesses paying business license fees for something, so aren't they already operating a legal businesses???

 

I often wonder why politicians never seem to know what the actual laws about anything are, when they are often the ones saying something like prostitution should not be legalized. Oops, too late, lol. It already is. So now what. :confused:

 

And 3000!!?? Seriously, are there really 3000 mps in Toronto alone?? Are there enough people to work in them, let alone visit that many lol.

 

That is also an interesting comment. Does he imply that there are no local women working in mps? They are all illegal and/or tricked into the biz? And how is "paying for advertising" suddenly a bad or sinister thing, exactly?

 

 

It is not illegal to sell sex for money, but working out of your apartment or with other women in the same building constitutes a "common bawdy house" or a brothel and that IS illegal. Women can get away with advertising because the "soliciting" (which is illegal in public) is in a form of media.

[VedaSloan 119179]

This is a very interesting argument / analysis. I have a few questions:

 

1) When this topic came up for discussion on another board, most of the escorts favoured decriminalization as opposed to legalization. Why do you suppose this is, and what exactly is the distinction?

 

Legalization has traditionally meant government regulation, but not of the work, but of the prostitute herself. This, in a way, still criminalizes them. In countries with legal or tolerated brothel systems, the brothel district is sometimes completely separated from the rest of the city and women working in those districts require a permit to leave, even for a doctor's appointment; prostitutes who work (or even walk) outside the defined districts are subject to arrest and imprisonment. Take Nevada for example. They must identify themselves and register with the police, they are not allowed in certain parts of the city, and they have a curfew. They generally have no say in who they see, and can work up to 15 hour days. It generally means controlling prostitution, but without giving the prostitutes any rights.

 

Decriminalization would mean the repeal of the laws associated with sex work and the institution of health benefits, labour codes etc.

 

It is the countries with the most restrictive laws that have the most problems with violence against prostitutes (and women perceived to be prostitutes), pimping, and the involvement of children. These include the US and many countries in Southeast Asia.

 

Countries with the least restrictive measures have fewer problems, such as the Netherlands, Western Germany, Sweden and Denmark.

 

2) To use Germany as an example, that particular country does not seem to have a problem integrating brothels into the mainstream. If it can work there, it can work here. Agree, or disagree?

 

No country is totally free from problems, no matter how restrictive their laws, but I would agree that this system is certainly better than others.

 

The stigma is still very isolating and remaining laws would perpetuate the stigma, rather than dispel it and truly legitimize the people who work in this profession.

 

3) What specifically, would be the best outcome concerning the constitutional challenge?

 

Decriminalization, and the distinction needs to be made between forced and voluntary prostitution. The UN guide on human trafficking states that "migrant sex workers are incapable of consenting to sex work." No distinction whatosever is made. A girlfriend of mine is a migrant sex worker, and she definitely chose that profession all on her own.

[Guest]

Yes, I disagree with young girls being smuggled into our country. It seems to be a common excuse that politicians use to make our jobs dirty and to victimize us. It truly paints a bad picture. Like girls are forced to work 24/7. LOL, do the clients get a discount when the girl falls asleep. Talk about a dead f&*k. Isn't there any other way to get votes, come on.

[YoungStud 468]

Peachy, I always appreciate your point of view. You have a quirky but very funny sense of humour.