How would you deal with a Nordic-style law in Canada?

[Guest Ou**or**n]

Absolutely avoid email or text as both those can be stored and retrieved for use by police.

 

Personally I know a couple of ladies pretty well and will stick to them until we see how this plays out. Chances of seeing someone new are zero for the time being.

 

There are encrypted texting solutions like Wickr as a very safe alternative to texting.

 

Secondly phones can only be listened in on with a warrant so calling will replace emailing for longer conversations.

 

At the end of the day there are three outcomes.

• No law against clients
  
• A nordic law that will be appealed to the SCC
  
• A nordic law with the notwithstanding clause
  

 

From everything I've been reading a law without the notwithstanding clause would get struck down. Given how much Harper has pissed off the SCC I'm sure they allow the fastest possible appeal.

 

If they use the notwithstanding clause then we just need to wait for an election.

 

Any laws will be temporary, the police will know this and they'll keep that in consideration. Some things will also depend on the wording of the law. My gut says very little will change even under a nordic law. This industry survives everywhere on the planet.

[Ann Gallerie 7910]

Terri-Jean Bedford is quoted as saying recently that the new laws will be in place shortly.

 

I am not aware of our Government, in its infinite wisdom, testing out other models. Therefore I am inclined to think by implication that the Nordic model will be the direction they take.

 

The point of Msses Bedford, Rabinovitch, and Scott's plea and passion is safety, not penalty.

[roamingguy 300292]

I'll stand by what I've always maintained. Just because a new law is going to be drafted it is only a political response to the Supreme Court Of Canada decision.

It doesn't make it a law enforcement priority. I doubt the various police forces are planning on forming "Flying Squads" LOL dedicated to enforcing a new prostitution law. Police still are restricted by their budgets and I don't see the government (politicians) loosening the purse strings

As for concerns about police stings there were enough laws on the books previously that professional companions and agencies could have been targetted. It wasn't a priority then

I can't see it a priority now. LE's focus IMHO will remain focused on street prostitution

just the politicians will pat each other on the back about passing a new law

A rambling from someone who isn't so pessimistic about this

 

RG

[Guest L**gh M****e]

I haven't seen on this thread yet (and if I'm wrong, I apologize) that most, if not all, research with regards to the laws, the latest SCC decision, advocates, media and such, has been focused on street sex workers and NOT research with (independents, parlours, dancers etc). So regardless of our opinion and hopes, legislation will only rule on what has been brought to the table.

 

(And there's many blind sides.)....I have no problem with lobbying for us girls!

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

I heard Valerie Scott say that under the Nordic Model the law can compel an sp to testify against customers, and if she doesn't then she goes to jail. So the idea of sps being decriminalized is a myth.

 

well legal loophole non-expert here .....

 

what if the lady has signed a non-disclosure agreement? Would she be legally bound NOT to testify?

 

Doctors and Priests are often able to refuse to provide confidential information about their private conversations ... why not us?

[kerrixoxo 33719]

To comment: There is lots of horrible offshoot laws and policies from the Nordic Model. Police can summon anyone to testify at any time for any law. But under Nordic model, I could see it meaning that the police have to catch you in the act with your client to prove he was paying for your sexual services. The question remains, "How will they go about doing that if the majority of sex work occurs indoors?" which demonstrates how BAD this entire model actually is. This blog post on the struggles of one sex worker (and eventually her murder by her abusive BF even after the court ignored her pleas for help) illustrates how bad this model is and not just looking at the criminalizing of clients but how it affects sex workers in other ways.

 

To comment on issue of police going after clients: in reality, police wouldn't go after high profile clients to prove that this model actually work. They would go after the most accessible and visible clients--in other words, the street based sex workers' clients. Proving a model works doesn't mean garnering support for the most scandalous case but increasing numbers of arrests (not convictions but arrests). This is most easily done through the most visible and accessible subjects.

[roamingguy 300292]

well legal loophole non-expert here .....

 

what if the lady has signed a non-disclosure agreement? Would she be legally bound NOT to testify?

 

Doctors and Priests are often able to refuse to provide confidential information about their private conversations ... why not us?

 

Doctors, Priests, Lawyers Psychiatrists and so on get their confidentiality from Common Law

But for example groups like AA, NA don' t get such confidentiality

Likewise Paramedics don't get such confidentiality

Long answer short, the law spells out which professions have confidentiality and which don't

And although not a lawyer a non disclosure agreement would be binding in civil court but not in Criminal court

But when a client talks to a SP and vis versa if there is concern over police or going to

Court watch what you say

 

RG

[Ann Gallerie 7910]

Actually, a 12-step member can in fact refuse to comment on what another member has said in the context of a meeting and anonymity. They may well be sanctioned for it, and they will undoubtedly consider the greater good AND their own fine posteriors in the process. But I have a qualified feeling that it happens rarely.

 

I suppose that someone somewhere may try to enforce a confession, but a surprising number of 12-steppers include the judiciary, including a former Supreme Court justice (US), and they do not take their commitments to anonymity lightly.

 

But we are not here to deliberate 12 steppers.

 

Things get said when a man and a woman are together. Both parties are bound by covenant to remain discreet. My evil twin argues that it might - and I say might -be argued that a client is in fact a temporary spouse. In which case, what is said there, stays there.

 

I am optimistic, because common sense dictates that the Canadian government has better things to do than eavesdrop on naughty boys and girls. That information such as this can destroy people, homes, families, and government. That we all have a right to happiness and peace of mind.

 

Cheers!