Public Consultation on Prostitution Law Changes

[Guest]

Oh

Hi toban,

Thanks for that news.
I had read it in haste and saw only the 17th, and quickly wanted to get it done with because today is the 16th - just the wrong month.

Speaking in general, here, you know, i really can't understand why some topics, that are damningly important, don't get to be STICKY threads, while other "topics", which mean nothing, at all (i mean really), get to be sticky.
I can't see how making a few subjects sticky, even if it's only for a few months or however long it takes for the event to live out its course of public (or PRIVATE) interest(s), could hurt.
A sticky thread can be made "un"sticky as easy as a mouse click.
I suppose, the sticky part of some sites is where a mod or administrator, if you will, has a personal blog space.

Just silently thinking out loud on the paper-like screen, here, because i missed out on that...whatever it's called...this (website) thing about answering questions to help the government decide on what to do with sex workers. Was that a petition? or a questionnaire?

That topic should have been a sticky subject because it helps to protect the clients (you nice guys), and the SPs (service providers) that spend time with you.

Anyway....
Whateverrrr. Right?

,ebaB
oxox

[Pantyhose1]

I saw this news story today suggesting that the conservatives will make selling sex OK but buying sex will be a crime. In other words, the Nordic model. This is very disappointing !!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06...#slide=3260522

[dom r]

Actually it should be ILLEGAL if men did NOT pay the more pretty gender for sex or else it wouldn't be fair for the pretty one because it can never be an equal exchange if one is prettier or younger than the other. Ironically the law makers allow women to give men sex then take the man's house,car,earnings and alimony after a divorce but illegal for a man to pay per fair service? Furthermore a woman can fuck and suck 1000 females if she wanted and this is legal but if she pays one suddenly its illegal? LOOK men can't get sex for free like the pretty ones can, therefore men SHOULD have the right to fullfill their needs and SHOULD have the right to pay AND pretty ones SHOULD have the right to receive payment or it wouldn't be fair for both. Wheres the freedom?

[dom r]

I saw this news story today suggesting that the conservatives will make selling sex OK but buying sex will be a crime. In other words, the Nordic model. This is very disappointing !!! http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06...#slide=3260522

AND this law is HYPOCRISY, a double crosser, trickery, a double standard, two faced and unfair and whoever made this into law or enforces it should be prosecuted because if its legal to receive money for a sexual service than it has to be legal to pay SINCE its LEGAL for her to receive the payment. Only an over controlling and over powered fascist mind set out to STICK IT to the man would write up a law like this one. In reality this law cannot and should not exist or be enforced and those who were arrested should sue because the law states its LEGAL to receive the payment, therefore MAKING the payment should NOT and CANNOT be illegal in this circumstance.

[xoxJanexox]

New proposed Bill came out. It is really tough.
No advertisement even!

[Pantyhose1]

The bill being tabled by the Feds says that pimps and customers will continue to be charged.

Sex workers will not be charged UNLESS they carry out their activities in a public place where there's a reasonable expectation that minors would be present. In the latter case, sex workers would be subject to a fine.

No advertising for sex services would be allowed anywhere, not even online and the police will have the power to go behind the ads to find out who is posting the ads.

Finally the Feds are committing $20 million dollars to help women get out of the sex trade business.

I disagree with the entire approach !! It doesn't even protect sex trade workers which was the whole point of the Supreme Court decision in the Bedford case. This new bill continues to make sex workers vulnerable.

The lawyer who helped persuade the Supreme Court to strike down the country’s main prostitution laws said the new law doesn’t answer the court’s concerns about safety of sex workers. Alan Young, who teaches law at Osgoode Hall Law School, said keeping prostitutes out of areas in which people under 18 are found, while also banning advertising of sexual services over the Internet, leaves them with no safe place. “At the end of the day it still raises the question of what is a safe forum for someone to legally sell sexual services,” he said in an interview. “I think the government position is ‘we don’t want to provide a safe forum.’ But that isn’t really their call anymore.”

[Rockheart]

I saw this news story today suggesting that the conservatives will make selling sex OK but buying sex will be a crime. In other words, the Nordic model. This is very disappointing !!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06...#slide=3260522

What a joke, so the escorts are ok but the clients are criminals.
This is supposed to be safer for the escorts? Dealing with criminals?
If all your customers are criminals, that makes you guilty by default.
This is just dumb, I hope there is major challenges to this one.

I really wish those girls had just left well enough alone.
Now the pot is stirred, hang on to your seat.

New proposed Bill came out. It is really tough.
No advertisement even!

That is really no different than now.
It is ok to advertise as a companion but any mention of sexual services is prostitution.

By law you need a business license to escort because it is a business.
Most places will not give you a business license if you have sexual suggestive service advertised.

The bill being tabled by the Feds says that pimps and customers will continue to be charged.

Sex workers will not be charged UNLESS they carry out their activities in a public place where there's a reasonable expectation that minors would be present. In the latter case, sex workers would be subject to a fine.

No advertising for sex services would be allowed anywhere, not even online and the police will have the power to go behind the ads to find out who is posting the ads.

Finally the Feds are committing $20 million dollars to help women get out of the sex trade business.

I disagree with the entire approach !! It doesn't even protect sex trade workers which was the whole point of the Supreme Court decision in the Bedford case. This new bill continues to make sex workers vulnerable.

The lawyer who helped persuade the Supreme Court to strike down the country?s main prostitution laws said the new law doesn?t answer the court?s concerns about safety of sex workers. Alan Young, who teaches law at Osgoode Hall Law School, said keeping prostitutes out of areas in which people under 18 are found, while also banning advertising of sexual services over the Internet, leaves them with no safe place. ?At the end of the day it still raises the question of what is a safe forum for someone to legally sell sexual services,? he said in an interview. ?I think the government position is ?we don?t want to provide a safe forum.? But that isn?t really their call anymore.?

It's the same thing as before but worse.
Mackay does not know what he is talking about.

He says almost all sex trade workers are forced into it.
Especially with shemale escorts, all the ones i know are in it of their own free will.
Unless he means their need to eat is forcing them into it?

I cannot see how this will pass as it was supposed to make prostitutes safer, not make it more illegal than before.

So will i get arrested now?
He says anyone that views sex as a commodity is guilty.

[Pantyhose1]

The Feds ( Harper ) are being sly by saying they are protecting the vulnerable people in society - but that's a different issue altogether.

Human trafficking is one problem, but it's separate and apart from the issue of protecting sex trade workers who want to remain in the business.

The Feds want the public to believe that all sex trade workers are victims of human trafficking.

This is is all too absurd !!!!!

[Rockheart]

The Feds ( Harper ) are being sly by saying they are protecting the vulnerable people in society - but that's a different issue altogether.

Human trafficking is one problem, but it's separate and apart from the issue of protecting sex trade workers who want to remain in the business.

The Feds want the public to believe that all sex trade workers are victims of human trafficking.

This is is all too absurd !!!!!

It is the Asian gangs and the Russian gangs and mostly the gangs from outside of Canada that are bringing girls to work in the sex trade. They need to stop the flow of trafficking into to Canada, that is where a majority of it is really coming from.

It is almost always girls that are trafficked too, not boys, not TS.

The government just has not idea, they just want to make it as illegal as possible in hopes it will just go away.

When all else fails there is always the cry:

If they cared so much about children why have they allow hookers to work beside the school at Homewood and Maitland in Toronto for years? Something proactive like creating a red light district might be the answer, but no just let them work beside a school.

[Franklinzed]

Wait so is this law already or does it need to pass some parliament vote?

[Rockheart]

Wait so is this law already or does it need to pass some parliament vote?

The bill was only tabled but with majority government it will be hard to stop.
I'm sure there will be challenges in court since this is worse than the last law.

As i say, those ladies should have just left the law alone.
Nobody was really enforcing anything much.
As everything was moving to the internet and off the streets, it seemed safety was improving on it's own.

I am hoping these lovely ladies are going to be there to fix this mess.
Some of them just like looked like they were doing it for the fun of getting on TV.

[xoxJanexox]

That is really no different than now.
It is ok to advertise as a companion but any mention of sexual services is prostitution.

By law you need a business license to escort because it is a business.
Most places will not give you a business license if you have sexual suggestive service advertised.

Under previous laws prostitution is "legal" both ways. The criminal offenses were limited to communication in a "public" place, living of the avail of prostitution and common bawdy house. Those provisions were very difficult to investigation and prosecute etc. So the hidden rule was if things are discreet, things should be fine.


Advertisement for prostitution was legal including by a third party (e.g. SC). Now, as proposed, it is an offence for a third party but allowed for independents.


Escort licence is a municipality by-law, not a criminal offence. It is not required in all cities. In Ottawa, there is no requirement for a licence while in Calgary it is required and they enforce it with fines.

[Rockheart]

Under previous laws prostitution is "legal" both ways. The criminal offenses were limited to communication in a "public" place, living of the avail of prostitution and common bawdy house. Those provisions were very difficult to investigation and prosecute etc. So the hidden rule was if things are discreet, things should be fine.


Advertisement for prostitution was legal including by a third party (e.g. SC). Now, as proposed, it is an offence for a third party but allowed for independents.


Escort licence is a municipality by-law, not a criminal offence. It is not required in all cities. In Ottawa, there is no requirement for a licence while in Calgary it is required and they enforce it with fines.

A business license is required to operate a business in all provinces, all urban, and some rural jurisdictions, period.
Escorts licenses only exist is some places and they are just specialized versions of the same thing.
You are operating a business you need to be licensed in any province and possibly city you work in, by law.
They don't enforce it much on escorts but they can anytime they want.
If you neighbour complains about your escorting, they can get you with no business license, or that you are conducting business in an area not zoned for business.

There is no business license i know of that allows you to advertise sex for money, there is always some morality clause and sometimes consultation with citizens. The Better Business Bureau would never endorse you
So that means it is illegal to advertise sex for money.

Any police in any city can bust you at any time for operating a business without a license.
This is what stops just anybody from setting up a hot dog stand anywhere they want.

Then if you are in a Federally regulated industry it gets even worse.
(And sex work is federally regulated)

[Raging Bob]

They're not targeting sex workers....so by definition sex workers can carry on their trade without harassment, or so you'd think. But if buying sex is illegal you have essentially driven all the sex workers out of business by driving away all their customers. It's like helping the fishermen by sinking all their boats!

Just plain dumb...like some Nordic models (They are blonde after all)

[Rockheart]

They're not targeting sex workers....so by definition sex workers can carry on their trade without harassment, or so you'd think. But if buying sex is illegal you have essentially driven all the sex workers out of business by driving away all their customers. It's like helping the fishermen by sinking all their boats!

Just plain dumb...like some Nordic models (They are blonde after all)

That's what i say.

How can prostitution be legal if is illegal to be a customer?
By default this means prostitution is illegal.

I think this is what the governments intentions are,
to make prostitution illegal without actually saying it.

Perhaps this would limit legal challenges by prostitutes?

In reality i'm sure Mackay would like to round up all prostitutes and their clients and burn them in a big furnace.
I just don't think they know the real volume of customers.