new prostitution bill

[Phaedrus 209521]

Incorrect. It applies to everyone!

 

"Criminalize the advertising of sexual services in print or online, with offenders facing a maximum prison term of five years. "

 

But this is precisely where you need to be completely up to speed with the details of not just the proposed legislation, but all relevant existing legislation too. That sentence, taken out of context, is essentially meaningless. It may mean exactly what it says, or there may be enough exceptions elsewhere that it's completely neutralized. I don't know which, because I've read neither the bill nor the acts it updates. I strongly suspect that most people commenting on the bill, both amateurs like us and professional journalists, are in the same situation - whether or not they actually admit it.

 

In the meantime, the folks who *really* understand this stuff are probably saying nothing right now, because they know it'll take them a few days to digest it all. I'd regard any commentary at this point as largely uninformed - and before you ask... yes, that includes mine :) (Although that doesn't stop me having a go at things that I consider obviously wrong.)

[tomfool 220]

The issue in both is that when the "activity" is criminal, one can't evade it by doing related transactions overseas.

 

To run a website from a Canadian soil (i.e local IP address), the advertiser could be prosecuted in Canada. Using an overseas server/host etc. doesn't negate that the offence was commenced in a Canadian soil.[/quote

 

Hard to prove and with the use of proxies through many routes would be hard pressed to follow for most LE agencies due to limited budgets and manpower.

 

Maybe hard to prove but any such overseas advertising would be very small compared to what we see today, if at all.

 

Additional Comments:

But this is precisely where you need to be completely up to speed with the details of not just the proposed legislation, but all relevant existing legislation too. That sentence, taken out of context, is essentially meaningless. It may mean exactly what it says, or there may be enough exceptions elsewhere that it's completely neutralized. I don't know which, because I've read neither the bill nor the acts it updates. I strongly suspect that most people commenting on the bill, both amateurs like us and professional journalists, are in the same situation - whether or not they actually admit it.

 

In the meantime, the folks who *really* understand this stuff are probably saying nothing right now, because they know it'll take them a few days to digest it all. I'd regard any commentary at this point as largely uninformed - and before you ask... yes, that includes mine :) (Although that doesn't stop me having a go at things that I consider obviously wrong.)

 

I expect that the professional journalists have lawyers on staff to help with the interpretation.

[frenchlover22 261]

Typical conservative rethoric and overbroad solution to a problem that is narrow in scope. Like shooting a mouse with a cannon. Their version of this law will prevail because they have the majority in the House and Senate. It is hard to fathom a public outcry such as we saw for the ill-conceived and musguided Elections Act. On that they finally backed down somewhat. On this one it is unlikely we will see a broad coalition strong enough for them to back down.

Sigh.

 

The future? More private adult clubs with memberships and privileges beyond the reach of the law. Freedom to be a member of an exclusive club with private mail lists and facilities a la CMJ are likely the way this will evolve...until the next Supreme court challenge and the law will once again be struck down...years from now.

The Cerb community will need to change to fly under radar or risk seeing its hobbyists walk away to safer ground.

 

Meanwhile we should be building our private ATF lists of ladies we want to have private chats with as adults do and have done for eons.

[Guest *l**e]

with anything regarding government, negotiating tactics are always primary. I totally expected a completely Draconian law to be brought forth in the hopes that the actual final law will be close to what they actually wish to enforce. They want something similar to Nordic, so their starting point is something much worse than the Nordic model.

Opponents to this law will argue for laws much more lenient (or decriminalisation) and the result will be in the middle; somewhere near Nordic.

 

This is all very predictable. Sit tight, watch, wait, make your opinions known, support those fighting for improvements and stay informed.

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

So...this may be a bit sarcastic for humor purposes, but here it is..

 

so If I am INDY, and yet pay taxes on my income, pay my mortgage, etc..does this make CRA and my bank " benefiting off of others" ?

 

wow, I should let my bank and accountant know now..hahhaha

[scribbles 6031]

Seriously, now, did anybody really *not* see this coming as soon as the ruling in Bedford came down? Did anybody *really* expect a brighter, better world for all?

 

I am fully supportive of the notion that the laws that existed were bad for women in the industry. I fully support the idea that those laws need to change, and not in the way they did today. But, I also know we live in a world where that notion will likely never be realized.

 

They can't do this? Harper has a majority. He can do whatever the hell he wants. Negotiation? Under threat of what? It'll never pass muster with an SCC challenge? Great, so we'll live with this bullshit for 10 years, then see this cycle repeated all ocer again.

 

Polls show overwhelmingly that Canadians reject these proposals? Be *very* wary of polls. They often tell you a lot less than they claim to.

 

The reality is this won't change anything today, or tomorrow, but it will become law and change things for some time. I figure that MPs/spas will be the most visibly affected, with indoor indies flying further under the radar, but that's just an opinion. Either way, I don't feel that Bedford won anyone a whole lot when the laws that are put in place because of Bedford are even worse than those that were struck down.

 

I'm ashamed to be Canadian today. But, then, I have ever since we elected that fat bastard into office in the first place.

[Miss S. Lane 67128]

The purpose of Bedford wasn't to argue for decrim for escorts. It was to fight for the safety of street workers. And now, thanks to the Harper government, street workers will die. This is disgusting. Things will be ok in the long run for independent escorts. But agencies are through and street workers are in inherent danger. I truly fear for their lives :(

[Hastings56 1148]

This New proposed Nordic Model is pretty Fucking awful! Actually.....Quite ridiculous!! The ladies can sell......We can't buy......and nobody can Advertize????? "WTF"......Hard to believe the people on the Hill get paid to come up with this stuff! This is Not at all helpful!!!

[bcguy42 38594]

 

It's bad guys. Really bad.

 

The first clue this might happen came last week when listening to a radio interview where some woman (didn't catch her name) was extolling the virtue of Sweden's laws. When the interviewer said something about people who were in favour of prostitution she interrupted him and said "You mean pro-violence."

[VedaSloan 119179]

Well I suppose now we just hope that the bill doesn't actually make it to law. It has to go through three readings, then the senate, so maybe it won't make it?

[Phaedrus 209521]

So... reading stuff in this thread, and elsewhere on the interwebs, I've realized that there's another very important point that needs to be made.

 

Yes, today's bill is a slap in the face, a kick in the balls, a punch to the gut, call it what you will. Not unexpected, perhaps... but it hurts, nevertheless. People are saying that the SCC decision in the Bedford case was a Pyrrhic victory; that the Bedford case was a mistake because it has just provoked the government into proposing more draconian legislation.

 

These people are wrong.

 

I'll say that again, because it's important: THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG.

 

It is never wrong to fight injustice.

 

It is never wrong to fight for a fair deal for those marginalized by society (both sex workers and their clients, in this context).

 

It is never wrong to fight to help those who are vulnerable to exploitation.

 

It is never wrong to fight to give people a better chance at life.

 

The Bedford case was launched many years ago; while it was obvious that it would take a long time for a final verdict, there was no way to predict which party would be in power by the time it was resolved. We've had at least two general elections since it was launched; it's not the fault of anyone who fought and won that battle that the rest of us left Harper et al in power for all that time.

 

And so, yes... now we have a backlash. This is not unexpected. But was it ever reasonable to expect that the path to enlightenment would be free of potholes? That nobody would throw roadblocks in our way? That we could win the war without ever losing a battle or suffering a setback?

 

There's a long way to go. We've seen the government's opening salvo; now it's up to us to return fire. And some version of this bill, be it more or less bad, will probably become law in the not-too-distant future... and that'll be the end of another battle, which we'll have fought on fundamentally unfavourable ground. But after that, there will be legal challenges, and the campaign will once again move to the courts.

 

And once in the courts, the fight will be different. There will be a level playing-field. Each side will have to back up their rhetoric with evidence. Logic will matter. Reality will matter. What can be proven will count. Unverifiable dogma will be dispensed with.

 

And the prohibitionists will do just as well as they did last time around.

 

We'll win.

 

Again.

 

And perhaps by then we'll have a sensible government, or at least one that cares more about the well-being of Canadians than their religious fanatics. Or perhaps the SCC will take the decision from their hands. Who knows?

 

In any event, we're on the right side of history, and we'll get there in the end.

[TheRiddlerMan 872]

I'm not sure why some people here think this is going to be amended or defeated. They have a majority, so even if the opposition was willing to fight hard against it wouldn't matter. I doubt very much that either the NDP or Liberals would fight it anyway. The only political reaction I saw was quite muted. This is not a major issue for the public and won't affect the next election at all.

 

The only chance I see is that Harper decides to ignore his own law again and call a snap election before the bill is done in Parliament. If so, it would die on the table with everything else and the next government would have to reintroduce legislation. That's pretty remote though.

 

It's clear that this is intended as an easy "we're tough on sex trafficking/pedophiles/perverts" win and also to mollify NIMBYs. I doubt it will survive a court challenge but that will take years to go through the system.

 

It's also clearly aimed at backpage.com style advertising, which sadly encompasses this site and others like it. Independents may have the right to continue advertising, but they'll have to do it on foreign-hosted forums or through their own sites. Agencies and (depending on how broadly sexual services are defined) massage parlours are done. Certainly the spas with casual attitudes towards "extras" will have to be a lot more careful. So will the strip clubs.

 

There's a lot of latitude also in the bill for zealous municipalities to greatly restrict the "legal" sex work. Any residential area, apartment building, etc has the potential for children to be exposed if you interpret it broadly enough. It could mean we're heading back to the days when hotel outcalls were the dominant way to meet.

 

I hope you've all been careful with what you post in public and in private about your real identities, addresses, etc on sites like Cerb. It's true that the government lacks the resources to really police at that level, but they only need to make a few examples to put fear into the rest. Normal text messaging would certainly require burn phones - if you were trading texts with a sex worker and she was busted for working near kids, all her saved numbers would fall into a police file. Not where I'd want my name to be, whether they act on it or not. At least there are existing mobile apps which can be adapted for this, the ones that delete all traces after a set time.

 

Get your fun in while you can, kids. A brave new world is about to begin.

[redmana2 2754]

Well I suppose now we just hope that the bill doesn't actually make it to law. It has to go through three readings, then the senate, so maybe it won't make it?

 

It is always possible they could alter the bill, but it is extremely unlikely. It would require significant public backlash. Sadly, I don't think nearly enough people are engaged on the issue to have more than a passing opinion. When this new cycle ends most talk will end too.

 

I don't the Conservatives care if this bill won't stand up to court scrutiny. It is consistent with their dogma, and it will survive long enough to get them through the next election. That's all they care about: making sure this isn't an election issue, and it won't be a significant one because while the other parties may feel differently they don't want to walk through this mine field either.

[TheRiddlerMan 872]

So... reading stuff in this thread, and elsewhere on the interwebs, I've realized that there's another very important point that needs to be made.

...

There's a long way to go. We've seen the government's opening salvo; now it's up to us to return fire. And some version of this bill, be it more or less bad, will probably become law in the not-too-distant future... and that'll be the end of another battle, which we'll have fought on fundamentally unfavourable ground. But after that, there will be legal challenges, and the campaign will once again move to the courts.

...

In any event, we're on the right side of history, and we'll get there in the end.

 

I agree that it's wrong to be bitter about the original court challenge, as sex workers have a clear right to work in safety. They had no way of knowing which way the winds were going to blow politically. To be honest though...there is no "we", not when you get down to actions and not words. Johns are a hidden group, despised by society. People may or may not see sex workers as victims, but everyone detests their clients. It'll be up to the sex workers themselves to fight this law. We'll cheer from the sidelines, but the vast majority of us have far too much to lose to do anything openly.

 

One of the ironies of this law is that it will create the adversarial relationship its creators believe is already inherent in sex work. Where will the trust be, especially for people new to the industry? We will have to assume the worst, due to the potential consequences if we don't. All the critiques are accurate when it comes to how it will impact sex work, but this government has never listened to criticism unless a political gun was pointed at its head.

[Guest c**io**m7]

Interesting...and not necessarily in a good way. Time is on industry's side at the moment. This proposed bill will likely require not only 3 full readings but, since it is severely constitutionally challengeable, referral to special committee as well for detailed analysis.

 

This is a process that takes several months before being sent to the Senate for review and eventually Royal Assent. Consider this: the Senate is under the greatest scrutiny it has ever endured in its history due to recent scandals rendering it foolish to give approval to anything unconstitutional, regardless of political affiliation.

 

3 readings, likelihood of committee referral, constitutional issues plus a recently "careful" Senate = increased time for assent. 2015 is an election year. I, for one, would be surprised to see this bill passed prior to the next election. It has too many challengable flaws.

 

Just one man's opinion.

[Guest **sh****he***ac***th]

I went to bed last night and I didn't lose any sleep over this nor will I tonight. Relax!

[tomfool 220]

No communication in any manner. No advertising. No payment for services period.

 

When this bill passes Canada will go from one of the more lenient countries to one of the most strict , possibly the most strict Western democracy.

[Midnite-Energies 110563]

This bill is so poor that deep down we all know it will fizzle out...eventually. Until that point it will be hanging over our heads and creating drama and angst and THAT is what it boils down to. It is THAT concept that I think everyone is upset about even if they haven't acknowledged it yet.

 

It's more fighting and trying to get a voice heard. It's trying to convince people who won't listen that we are people who should have the same rights as anyone, that we matter. We are NOT all victims, some have chosen this. We make things safer for ourselves and those we share this industry with because no one seems to want to do it for us. Our government is trying to take away our safety, our livelihood and most importantly our voice. It IS politics, politics forsaking a large group of people and using them as a patsy for someone else's agenda.

 

Even if it gets thrown out entirely, beaten down etc. It will be creating negativity and drama in our lives for the foreseeable future. It will impact our lives and our businesses and those of our clients. It will impact our society and the way we are perceived in the world. It will raise angry voices until the end, voices that are fighting on both sides for justice and to be heard. THAT is the reality of this legislature. What happens in the end matters but it's all the stuff between now and then that will have the greatest impact.

[Siren 347]

I just read the article in the paper it's rithorical... Although I see where the justification lies on trying to protect an SP, but people(hobbyists) should be able to spend their earned money as they see fit too. ( ex. Mayor Ford)sorry had to add that lol. If it gets made a done deal and the BILL goes through it's not going to be safe for anyone including SPs. We already have to be careful and safe, but it's going to mean more screening with the hobbyists to make sure it's not a cop trying to book for an arrest instead of pleasure! Sigh the way politics work I would never be in that profession!

[scribbles 6031]

Phaedrus, I have a lot of respect for your opinion/analysis and how you present it. I also don't want to be perceived as anti-Bedford, because that's not at all the case. I just don't think we live in a world where Bedford could produce the result we were hoping for.

 

And I think that's largely our own fault.

 

What strikes me is the delusions we seem to be living under. Take a look at this community. There are rules that govern our conduct, not the least of which is the rule against discussing illegal activity. To begin with, that rule is largely ignored. The bulk of discussion here is about sex: SOG, COF, Greek, GFE/PSE, and a plethora of much more graphic language that, I've pointed out elsewhere, seems to be proliferated recently. This accepted because, as I've seen the Mod indicate, the running assumption is these activities are conducted legally at an outcall location. Except that's a thin assumption, given that people just as readily talk about their INcall locations as they do the services on offer.

 

What will happen when the exchange of money for those services will be criminal? Will this community die because ALL discussion will be, de facto, discussion of illegal activity?

 

Abolitionists can do what they do because the research and literature is skewed in their favour. I'm sure some of you will argue this point, but consider: there is almost no representation in research literature for what is termed "hidden populations," meaning indoor sex work. There is even less research on client-side factors; motivation, demographics, profile, etc. Almost everything that can be read focuses on street prostitution, which we will ALL agree is very different, and much easier to stigmatize.

 

Simply, you can't have a voice if you don't speak.

 

I joined this community in large part because I wanted to write about it, and the first place to start was to immerse myself in it to understand it. I would still love to write about it. But, that requires brave individuals who are willing to share their stories and talk about themselves, under the promise of anonymity, so that a picture can be painted that is currently, dangerously, lacking. If any SPs, MAs or clients are willing to do this, PM me. I'm willing to bet my point will be proven and I won't hear from any of you.

 

Until the culture around us changes to be more accepting of sex for money, bills like yesterday will always have a receptive audience. The general public just doesn't care enough, and certainly doesn't know enough, to know just how wrong that bill is. It's up to us to change that.

 

You know where to find me!

[olderguy 5797]

So I've wondered what happens if the Bill passes in it's entirety? The enforcement side of the legislation is a quagmire. Police services lack the resources required to enforce it to any great degree.

[Mackinaw 198]

An SP advertises she is selling erotic pictures.

 

$250 for a picture of her having intercourse.

$100 for a picture of her giving oral sex.

$300 for a picture of her having anal.... etc

 

Offers a phone number where you can arrange to pick up the photos.

 

At that location what happens after you buy the picture is between consenting adults. The John hasn't bought sex and the SP hasn't advertised sex.

 

Has the new law been broken?

 

If a model can be paid to have sex in the porn industry is the porn industry in trouble too? If not, can a creative SP advertise herself as a Porn industry sex instructor to train potential male models? LOL might be stretching things.

 

The point is lets start thinking outside the box. no pun intended

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

An SP advertises she is selling erotic pictures.

 

$250 for a picture of her having intercourse.

$100 for a picture of her giving oral sex.

$300 for a picture of her having anal.... etc

 

Offers a phone number where you can arrange to pic up the photos.

 

At that location what happens after you buy the picture is between consenting adults. The John hasn't bought sex and the SP hasn't advertised sex.

 

Has the new law been broken?

 

If a model can be paid to have sex in the porn industry is the porn industry in trouble too? If not, can a creative SP advertise herself as a Porn industry sex instructor to train potential male models? LOL might be stretching things.

 

The point is lets start thinking outside the box. no pun intended

 

I do believe that we will just go back to the old school ways, " transactions are for time spent only, sex is free" If this is how we advertise, it is the gent's that will have to understand that NO COMMUINATION can take place on phone, internet . So there are no more questions of " do you offer bbbj, msog, " etc...the answer from us ladies will be " I do not charge for sex at all" When meeting a new lady, you will have to just go and meet blindly on what activates you may enjoy. You will only communicate once you are face to face at the location. Once your inside, no one can prove what is or is not taking place.

[mrrnice2 157005]

I quite realize that I am preaching to the converted with anything that I write here. The legislation that has been tabled is still very recent and needs ample study before any of us will know exactly what it means in reality. Even at this early stage however there are a number of areas that are open to rational discussion.

 

In any piece of legislation or law there is the intent and then there is the reality that will eventually be interpreted by a court, or in this case, probably multiple courts. In watching the news conference yesterday delivered by Peter MacKay his intent was very clear.

 

His intent is to criminalize anyone who purchases sex, regardless of age, sex or circumstance. His bias and lack of knowledge was so apparent with his use of the word perverts to describe me as a client. He did refer to the ability for the use of discretion from the police and that could be taken as a positive, however, discretion does not substitute for solid legal standing. In a small and conservative jurisdiction such as PEI and probably in many other rural areas in this country, I CAN see the police focusing resources on visiting SP's and from them reaching to their clients with full intent to press charges.

 

The intent of Mr MacKay is to save all of you ladies from yourselves. His equated you with drug users, abused women and women who are controlled by others all in the same quote. Enough said on that.

 

I already have read here in this thread discussion and confusion about the ability for sex workers to advertise. His words were very clear - advertising will be liable to criminal charges if done in any public place, and in that exact sentence he defined a public space by including the word internet. That is clearly the intent, and it will unfortunately be in court that the interpretation will have to be made.

 

I truly am distressed, and shocked by this legislation. I really did not believe that they would go this far - It's the Nordic model but way worse. The fact that they have done so leads me to believe that they will use their majority government to pass it as is. I see optimism in this thread that the Supreme Court will overturn this legislation as it did in the Bedford decision. The problem with that is that in order to take a case to court and then ultimately to the Supreme Court takes years and a great deal of money to do. In the meantime, we shall be working in an atmosphere that none of us find promising or beneficial or safe.

 

It saddens me that this legislation has been introduced under the guise of protecting people when we already have in the existing criminal code every single law required to protect against violence, underage sex, slavery, illegal immigration and every single thing that he mentioned. Therefore the intent is not protection of sex workers but is designed solely to punish prostitutes and their clients.

 

At the press conference the reporters asked some very pointed questions with answers that scared me. When asked about drivers and body guards, Mr MacKay would NOT say that was OK. Instead he said anyone who takes advantage monetarily of a prostitute will be charged. However accountants and lawyers for prostitutes he stipulated are quite OK. He's willing to take your tax dollars ladies. Again, there is intent vs the legal interpretation that has yet to be made in court.

 

The entire rationale behind the Bedford decision was that the old laws increased the level of violence and impinged on the safety of sex workers. This new proposed legislation does not address that concern in the least and I fear may in fact make the profession even more dangerous than it is for sex workers.

 

Last evening on the news I saw an interview with Emily Symons from the P.O.W.E.R. organization based in Ottawa. Kudos to you Emily for your courage, your eloquence, your emotion and may the political powers that be heed your words.

 

Allow me to close with two thoughts.

 

1. How insane is it to pass a law that make the sale of something perfectly legal yet the purchase of it a major crime. Where is the logic?

 

2. I do not now feel like a criminal, and even if this bill is passed I will still not feel like a criminal.

 

Many argue that this in reality will not change things. The bottom line however is this. No matter what we believe or feel, a law is a law, and we can only ignore it at our own peril.

[jafo105 39057]

It is not law yet people! It is still just a Bill.

 

It still has to be scrutinized by the Senate and three other readings. When it is in the hands of the Senate they should have their lawyers and constitutional experts critique it.

 

The problem is that it is June. The Government will be shutting down in a few weeks for the summer. so all this (should / will) delay its passing until mid to late fall. Ugh....

 

But then again it is the Harper Government. They tend to do things their way -- Then get their knuckles rapped after the fact.