Canada's Sex Work Laws: Don't Break What We Worked So Hard to Fix

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I personally think that public health concerns would trump any other concerns. I am not a big fan of big government, but sometimes there is a legitimate reason for them to step in and put something like this in place for the common good. There are lots of other similar cases where so-called "human rights" give way to the common good, such as vaccinating front-line health workers, or government employees and soldiers going to areas where there are serious risks of contracting major illnesses. Or say the mandatory health and vision testing of pilots and others in similar lines of work.

 

I have to agree. If lawyers, doctors, and all other professions are somehow regulated for accountability purposes, I can't understand how sex workers could reasonably argue to be exempted from routine testing for sexually transmitted diseases, when providing sexual services is at the core of their enterprise.

 

Throw this argument to the public and just give them another reason to turn away toward the Conservatives campaign.

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

I have to agree. If lawyers, doctors, and all other professions are somehow regulated for accountability purposes, I can't understand how sex workers could reasonably argue to be exempted from routine testing for sexually transmitted diseases, when providing sexual services is at the core of their enterprise.

 

Throw this argument to the public and just give them another reason to turn away toward the Conservatives campaign.

Doctors, nurses, and other front line workers aren't required to undergo mandatory HIV/STI testing, even though there is the risk of needlestick injury and/or exposure to fluids. A surgeon takes precaution to avoid exposure to/from their patients, but there is still the risk of cutting themselves on the scalpel or puncturing themselves with a needle, thus exposing the patient. A sex worker takes precautions via use of safer sex methods, but there is still the risk of the condom breaking. So why is one chance of exposure deemed suitable for mandatory testing, and the other not?

(I know, not the same factor of bodily fluid exchange, but you get my point.)

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Doctors, nurses, and other front line workers aren't required to undergo mandatory HIV/STI testing, even though there is the risk of needlestick injury and/or exposure to fluids. A surgeon takes precaution to avoid exposure to/from their patients, but there is still the risk of cutting themselves on the scalpel or puncturing themselves with a needle, thus exposing the patient. A sex worker takes precautions via use of safer sex methods, but there is still the risk of the condom breaking. So why is one chance of exposure deemed suitable for mandatory testing, and the other not?

(I know, not the same factor of bodily fluid exchange, but you get my point.)

 

The reference to lawyers. doctors etc. was in reference to the need for accountability. So the equivalent in those professions is testing to ensure their competence is up to date for example.

 

The difference between the two situations is drastic. In the nurses and doctors example, the exposure to body fluids is an accidental one as opposed to the main service.

 

Not all sex workers use condoms for oral services, for example, the GFE/PSE are just examples. Therefore, when laws are created their main purpose is to take into account everyone.

 

To the average person, when sex workers plead the intimacy factor in this business as a waiver of many of the clients misfortunes, then for the purpose of mandatory testing they fail to recognize the same factor is paradoxical at least.

[fortunateone 156618]

Regulating as a public health issue might be the key to satisfying both sides of the issue:

 

https://www.healthed.govt.nz/resource/health-and-safety-information-sex-workers

 

 

I was looking to see if NZ had mandatory testing, and that is one of the links that came up. It does not appear that they have mandatory testing, but what they do have is a requirement that both sps and clients MUST practise safef sex practises.

 

The Act states that sex workers and their clients must adopt safer sex practices to reduce the risk of getting or passing on sexually transmissible infections (STIs).

 

This means you must take all reasonable steps to ensure commercial sex services are not provided without using a condom or other appropriate barrier. This includes vaginal, anal or oral sex, or another activity that may lead to the transmission of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).

 

Clients and sex workers must not say or imply that a medical examination means they are not infected or likely to be infected with an STI.

 

You may be prosecuted and fined up to $2,000 in a court of law if you do not comply with the Act.

[Phaedrus 209521]

The reference to lawyers. doctors etc. was in reference to the need for accountability. So the equivalent in those professions is testing to ensure their competence is up to date for example.

 

Yes, good point, Sex workers definitely need regular testing for competence.

 

I VOLUNTEERED FIRST, DAMMIT!!! EVERYONE ELSE GET IN THE QUEUE BEHIND ME!!!

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Yes, good point, Sex workers definitely need regular testing for competence.

 

I VOLUNTEERED FIRST, DAMMIT!!! EVERYONE ELSE GET IN THE QUEUE BEHIND ME!!!

 

Yes, good point, clients definitely need regular testing for "visual" competence.

 

And I won't volunteer, because time is money for a competent provider!

[canuckhooker 19203]

And to make sure that everyone understands what is said in that law in New Zealand is that they frown on BBBJ. So understand what that means given the arguments and debates we have hand on the subject on this board. And also the "foot in the door" this gives people who would regulate the activity if it is not criminalized.

 

And further to that, how would they enforce that, and to what lengths? Would they use decoys and put providers who would give a BBBJ out of work? Not beyond the realm of possibility if you have people in power who are abolitionists.

 

FFFS, it is not rocket surgery. Any competent, trust-worthy provider gets tested regularly. If not, then they place us all at risk. Sharing the results with "whomever", (and I will add sharing the results in trust), to keep public confidence should not be a big issue.

 

Seriously, a large part of the population is not effected by this debate. They are not providers nor are they hobbiests. If someone makes a public health issue out of this, and people are going to fight it, who's side do you think those people will support?

 

You take your victories and win the war. Bedford was a huge victory in so many ways, including public perception. If you want to fight about being legally obligated to do what you do anyway, then you have a good chance of losing the war. Give all those soccer moms and dads the ammunition and they can sway the decision.

 

And this comes from someone who at one point in my life had to undergo compulsory medical and physical testing to keep my job. If you want the job, you know the requirements. I had no issue with it. It made sense, and it protected not only me, but others who had to work with me, and more importantly people who relied on me.

[fortunateone 156618]

And to make sure that everyone understands what is said in that law in New Zealand is that they frown on BBBJ. So understand what that means given the arguments and debates we have hand on the subject on this board. And also the "foot in the door" this gives people who would regulate the activity if it is not criminalized.

 

And further to that, how would they enforce that, and to what lengths? Would they use decoys and put providers who would give a BBBJ out of work? Not beyond the realm of possibility if you have people in power who are abolitionists.

 

FFFS, it is not rocket surgery. Any competent, trust-worthy provider gets tested regularly. If not, then they place us all at risk. Sharing the results with "whomever", (and I will add sharing the results in trust), to keep public confidence should not be a big issue.

 

Seriously, a large part of the population is not effected by this debate. They are not providers nor are they hobbiests. If someone makes a public health issue out of this, and people are going to fight it, who's side do you think those people will support?

 

You take your victories and win the war. Bedford was a huge victory in so many ways, including public perception. If you want to fight about being legally obligated to do what you do anyway, then you have a good chance of losing the war. Give all those soccer moms and dads the ammunition and they can sway the decision.

 

And this comes from someone who at one point in my life had to undergo compulsory medical and physical testing to keep my job. If you want the job, you know the requirements. I had no issue with it. It made sense, and it protected not only me, but others who had to work with me, and more importantly people who relied on me.

 

 

The link below seems to indicate the majority of sex workers don't want to provide bbbj, or be pressured for bbfs, so i doubt if it would be any different here. I would think the majority of sps would welcome a government regulation that was put in place to protect their health, in spite of some claims that they don't like condoms on cbjs, they like syphillis less, and this gives them the backup they need to be able to say no.

 

They fine whichever one is providing or insisting on uncovered services, whether that is bbbj or daty. The fine is mentioned in my quote I think up to 2000 NZ $.

 

As far as I know, the reason to regulate and make safe sex mandatory is a public safety issue plus this way all sps are on level playing ground, and none of them have to risk their overall health to be competitive. This way the client or the employer can no longer put pressure on them to provide services that endanger their health, and they no longer have to defend themselves for providing safer sex services.

 

I think this link is from the review they did of the results of the PRA 5 years after it was brought in, this section concerns the safer sex requirement and some sp's responses about it.

 

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/commercial-property-and-regulatory/prostitution/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/key-informant-interviews/4-welfare-health-and-safety

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I have had a client who visited the Red Light district in Netherlands and he explained to me what was going on there. You go for hh and trust me it is 30 minutes. By the minute 29, you should be ready to leave as a client. Fair is fair I guess, and we shouldn't hear those terms (clock watcher etc.). You guys want this, and there you get it.

 

Safe oral, fair enough, but isn't kissing an oral activity? I got it, we will kiss with condoms on our tongues. I must love the NZ model. Am I ruining the fantasy? This is my niche so far!

 

No VOLUNTEERS Please!

[fortunateone 156618]

Pretty sure 'oral' refers always to mouth to genital activities lol

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

100% SAFE SEX = NO SEX AT ALL.

 

After that it is all a matter of probabilities depending on the activities involved. I don't consider kissing to be an absolutely safe interaction and if the NZ approach is founded on this, then there approach is simply flawed.

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

FFFS, it is not rocket surgery. Any competent, trust-worthy provider gets tested regularly. If not, then they place us all at risk. Sharing the results with "whomever", (and I will add sharing the results in trust), to keep public confidence should not be a big issue.

I get tested regularly, however, I do not tell them that I am a paid companion, because the effects it may have further down the line. There are some jobs/life events that require certain background checks, and having the title of "sex worker" on your medical record can get you denied from some things, including future employment and medical/life insurance.

 

(Also, isn't that funny? It's perfectly okay for my medical record to contain STI testings due to "multiple partners" (slut stigma). It's not okay once that happens with money exchanging hands. Oh, stigma.)

[canuckhooker 19203]

Well I would say that is two different issues. Being denied or discriminated against because you practice a legal profession is wrong, but unrelated to the question. I did put the proviso "in trust" about the results so that certain opponents of the industry could not try and stigmatize people who are doing something in the public interest. i.e. getting tested.

 

Here is what has made me uneasy about this whole issue since the Bedford decision. Firstly I think what is being referred to as the Nordic model is a non-starter. It has all the inherent flaws that caused the laws to be struck down in the first place. However, if politicians think they can get away with being more strict in law, then as I have said before I can see them criminalizing the whole industry. Once that happens, no more human rights issue, because the activity is illegal, and therefore the government has no duty to protect those engaged in an illegal activity. My guess is about 40-50% probabililty that laws like that may be enacted.

 

What is more likely to happen is regulation. Those kind of regulations exist already in some aspects of this business, in certain areas. I think there will be a good probability that licensing will be required. All businesses need to have licenses in most cities. In some jurisdictions, for example, exotic dancers have to have licenses. I know here in Ottawa, the clubs must keep copies of all the dancers ID's to prove they are of age etc. There are areas in Canada where Escort agencies must be licensed.

 

There also will be some public health requirements. Like in NZ, the requirement for condoms or barriers for all sexual contact, oral, anal, vaginal. There will be penalties for violating those rules. And I might add we will see added pressure, financial or otherwise for providers to break those rules. And if they break them and get caught, what would be the penalty?

 

I am sure their will also be some restrictions on where you can set up these businesses and work. Just like now with Strip clubs, MPs etc.

 

Now violation of these regulations will not be criminal, you will probably get a ticket or be asked to shut down your business. But once that happens, your anonymity will be gone. You will have been charged with an offense, albeit a minor one, and that charge will be public record. It will be a lot easier for LE and bylaw to issue tickets then what they need to do now to be able to lay charges.

 

So anonymity will quite probably be lost if everyone follows the regulations, even if mandatory periodic testing is not a requirement.

 

So, back to my original point. I would say lobbying for keeping mandatory testing anonymous, would be a wiser way to proceed then lobbying against it outright. It is a medical record after all. Those tested should be given paperwork that they have been tested (which is not the case now, based on my experience), that will prove they are compliant. As I said before, not everyone in this country gets it about sex-work, and doing something that looks proactive to counter certain negative perceptions is a good thing. We all know it is not perfect, but it is the path of least resistance.

 

This is going to get very interesting before it is finished.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

This does not strike me as a government that wants to setup a new regulatory regime around sex work. First it goes against both the conservative principals of it being immoral and the abolitionist article of faith that it is inherently violence against women.

 

I also cannot see regulations at the federal level because then there would be onus at the federal level for some sort of department to exist that would manage, license and inspect the industry. This all requires spending money and that is anathema to this government.

 

If the federal gov't left prostitution decriminalized then I think you would see such regulations brought in at either the provincial or more likely municipal levels. There is more appetite at these levels of government to hire inspectors and enforce such things.

 

However those are the types of the things that issues only later, after the federal government decides if / how it wants to legislate on the legality of the industry itself.

[roamingguy 300292]

Just a rambling thought here. Do single women and single men actively dating, or just doing the bar seen a few nights a week, or for that matter, married women and men engaged in extra marital affairs (sorry not intended to sound judgemental) shouldn't they have the same legal obligation to get tested and forced to practice safe sex the same as is expected of professional companions and their clients.

And given the high risk of disease transmission from iv drug use, I guess all iv drug users across the board should be legally banned from sexual contact with anyone

STD's/STI's comes from sex, not by sex with escorts, just sex...so that means the only safe sex is no sex...well masturbation. And if the authorities truly wanted to stop disease transmission then the rules they want applied to this lifestyle should be applied to ALL sexually active non monogamous people, and iv drug users too...am I missing anyone?

By the way this rambling has a hint of sarcasm attached to it

 

RG

[fortunateone 156618]

Even when regulated, i think they use the term 'safer' sex practises. Then they list what that means.

 

An infected person in the general population is obligated to inform past and future partners, I think, here and in the US. Failure to do this can lead to charges, mostly because if they have something like HiV one of the charges is exposing these new partners. if you were to google it, there are many cases of people actually in jail for infecting others, but also cases of not informing when they got diagnosed, etc.

 

So i think maybe technically they do have the legal obligation. After all, if you don't get tested and you do pass something on to someone else, it doesn't make you innocent should someone decide to lay charges for that.