How will parties approach the legality of sex work after the Supreme Court decision?

712 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

 Well I just helped talk a friend out of commiting suicide over this law, he's a nice man whose wife left him years ago, shy and he depends on escorts for intimancy and companionship. But I guess no ine here gives a shit about him, he's just a pervert who must hate woman right? Fuck that, fuck Bill C-36, and fuck anybody who supports it.

 This is all I have to say in this thread, I'm not wasting my time on selfish people whi think thier Gods who get to gst invovled in other peoples personal lives and fuck them ul for the men and women invovled. This was the final straw. Those who support this law and the Nordic model, will never see reason because they're blinded by self interest, they'll continue thier support for human rights violations no matter what.

Pondering

All of the links you provided are interesting and valuable but also long to read and even longer to respond to. I will eventually do that. It's just too much to manage all at once. 

I think posting exerpts from the Judgement and eventually from the Bill itself will allow people to evaluate the articles you referenced from a position of greater understanding. 

vincentL311

Brachina wrote:

 Well I just helped talk a friend out of commiting suicide over this law, he's a nice man whose wife left him years ago, shy and he depends on escorts for intimancy and companionship. But I guess no ine here gives a shit about him, he's just a pervert who must hate woman right? Fuck that, fuck Bill C-36, and fuck anybody who supports it.

 This is all I have to say in this thread, I'm not wasting my time on selfish people whi think thier Gods who get to gst invovled in other peoples personal lives and fuck them ul for the men and women invovled. This was the final straw. Those who support this law and the Nordic model, will never see reason because they're blinded by self interest, they'll continue thier support for human rights violations no matter what.

You cant expect sympathy in the public sphere unless you are willing to stand up and fight for your beliefs and rights out in the open and be prepared to face the ridicule of your opponents. Ofcourse most clients cannot afford to do that as the social cost would be too high for them, in terms of losing face, of breakup of marriage or loss of employment. So it naturally follows that in the debate about prostitution no one gives a shit for the johns besides perhaps the sex workers themselves.

The fight for decriminalization will primarily about safety for the sex workers as they are the one's willing to stick their necks out and be heard. Even the abolitionists have to atleast pretend to be concerned for their safety.

Pondering

Brachina wrote:
he depends on escorts for intimancy and companionship

He is buying sex and a fake relationship and deluding himself. As soon as he runs out of money the women are gone.

Brachina wrote:
Well I just helped talk a friend out of commiting suicide over this law, he's a nice man whose wife left him years ago, shy and.

If this guy is considering suicide because he is afraid he won’t be able to hire escorts after next fall when the law actually passes the law is not his problem. If he is seeing escorts now all he has to do is keep his little black book up to date. They aren’t going to suddenly vanish into thin air. Why the urgency to die now when the law hasn’t even been passed yet?

He was once brave enough to get himself a wife and apparently he isn’t too shy to hire escorts and tell them what he wants. There are lots of shy lonely women looking for love and companionship. Maybe what he needs is encouragement to develop a real relationship with someone instead of trying to buy one. Maybe not having that is what is making him feel suicidal. Maybe seeing escorts is a crutch preventing him from developing what he really needs, an authentic relationship with another human being. 

 

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
Brachina wrote:
he depends on escorts for intimancy and companionship

He is buying sex and a fake relationship and deluding himself. As soon as he runs out of money the women are gone.

no wonder this guy is suicidal if he relies on fakeness for intimacy and companionship.

my boy friend's business partner was doing the same after his marriage broke up, spending about 4,000 a week in Grand Prairie and couldn't understand why "she" wouldn't have anything to do with him when the money ran out. he was suicidal because he realized what a fool, putting it mildly, he was.

Unionist

Why are we discussing some lonely individual whom we don't know in this thread? Take it somewhere else, please.

Here's my conclusion so far:

1. As I said from day 1, the Conservatives were going to criminalize paid sex. Their bill does that, though it pretends not to criminalize the sex worker (some of the time anyway).

2. It is long past time for people to speak out in favour of decriminalization. Not a single party - nor a single representative of any party - has done so, to the best of my knowledge. Those NDP activists who have been vocal in the (increasingly distant) past have been told to shut the fuck up. And unfortunately, we have no more Svend Robinsons in our midst, who don't shut the fuck up on command.

3. Demanding referral to the Supreme Court is an offensive copout. Imagine Harper tabling a bill restoring the death penalty, and the opposition saying: "Well, we won't give any opinion about whether the death penalty should be restored, but we DEMAND that you ask the Supreme Court what they think first." Or abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage... Or cannabis. We do not need cowards pretending to play at "opposition". So far, that includes all of them. They're not looking at safety of sex workers, or basic human needs - they're counting polls and votes.

4. I believe there is an excellent chance that the Supreme Court, if it ever hears a challenge to this bill, will not strike down the criminalization of the purchase of sex. The entire logic of the Court's decision in Bedford was that the paid sex transaction was lawful, and that the impugned provisions created an unreasonable infringement on the security of sex workers. How does the argument go when the transaction becomes unlawful? Buying sex isn't a protected Charter right in any universe I know.

The whole movement for decriminalization is being diverted into a formalistic and defeatist "it's unconstituional" route. Where are the voices pressuring politicians that they should simply say NO to criminalization of paid sex?

 

theleftyinvestor

FWIW Libby Davies' Twitter stream from June 14 shows her at the Vancouver Red Umbrella rally against C36, standing beside a "Sex Workers United Against Violence" banner. @CDNSWAlliance tweeted "Big THANK YOU to @LibbyDavies & @MeganLeslieMP for joining in on Natn'l Day of Action events today & standing with us against #c36! #CdnPoli"

So she certainly isn't silent. I am curious what she said at the rally.

vincentL311

Unionist wrote:

The whole movement for decriminalization is being diverted into a formalistic and defeatist "it's unconstituional" route. Where are the voices pressuring politicians that they should simply say NO to criminalization of paid sex?

That is a good point but the best hope for decriminalization in the short term (like around 5 years) is the Supreme Court striking down most of C-36 as unconstitutional. Otherwise we are looking at years, perhaps even decades of activism and gathering of evidence as regards the harmful effects of criminalization on sex workers before a ruling party will be willing to overturn the new status quo.

Unionist

theleftyinvestor wrote:

FWIW Libby Davies' Twitter stream from June 14 shows her at the Vancouver Red Umbrella rally against C36, standing beside a "Sex Workers United Against Violence" banner. @CDNSWAlliance tweeted "Big THANK YOU to @LibbyDavies & @MeganLeslieMP for joining in on Natn'l Day of Action events today & standing with us against #c36! #CdnPoli"

Well, there's some excellent circumstantial evidence of something or other!

FYI, neither Libby nor Megan are allowed to say, "sex work should not be criminalized". Prove me wrong and I'll be happy.

Quote:
So she certainly isn't silent.

She certainly is silent about decriminalization, which she used to advocate quite openly and audibly.

Quote:
I am curious what she said at the rally.

Somehow, I think you'd find it disappointingly vacuous. But I'll wait and see what you discover.

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:
3. Demanding referral to the Supreme Court is an offensive copout. Imagine Harper tabling a bill restoring the death penalty, and the opposition saying: "Well, we won't give any opinion about whether the death penalty should be restored, but we DEMAND that you ask the Supreme Court what they think first." Or abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage... Or cannabis. We do not need cowards pretending to play at "opposition". So far, that includes all of them. They're not looking at safety of sex workers, or basic human needs - they're counting polls and votes.

Exactly. They aren't even saying which parts they think might be unconstitutional. 

Unionist wrote:
4. I believe there is an excellent chance that the Supreme Court, if it ever hears a challenge to this bill, will not strike down the criminalization of the purchase of sex. The entire logic of the Court's decision in Bedford was that the paid sex transaction was lawful, and that the impugned provisions created an unreasonable infringement on the security of sex workers. How does the argument go when the transaction becomes unlawful? Buying sex isn't a protected Charter right in any universe I know.

I agree, and I have been studying what the SCC said about the s.1 arguments they refused to hear. I recall some pundits saw it as a problem that the SCC refused to hear the s.1. arguments but I think I understand why they refused. Because the plaintiff can't be expected to challenge the laws as they are written, and also fight a separate case based on the unintended consequences of the laws. 

I believe bill C-36 will survive an s. 7. challenge but if it doesn't it will pass the s.1 challenge which overrides s.7 and unlike the previous laws the SCC will hear both the s. 7 and s. 1 challenges because the intent and outcomes of the legislation will match. 

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1391112250275

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.

Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

  • the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
  • the government's response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified.

Fighting Bill C 36 will be far more difficult than fighting the old laws. 

Instead of being grateful for the crumbs being tossed out by the Liberals and the NDP, I would hold their feet to the fire. 

 

 

cco

Pondering wrote:

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.

Did you intend these to be positive examples?

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. They can be limited in order to protect other rights or important national values. For example, freedom of expression may be limited by laws against hate propaganda or pornography.

Did you intend these to be positive examples?

Neither positive nor negative, just factual. I agree with Unionist that those banking on a quick Charter challenge as has happened with marijuana are mistaken. 

The pundits and activist lawyer writing as though C 36 will be easily defeated on the same grounds as the old laws are full of holes a truck could drive through. 

The preamble is hugely important and it isn't being analysed by anyone in the media. Discussion of the law has remained on a superficial political I like/don't like it so it will/will not hold. 

fortunate

Brachina wrote:

 Well I just helped talk a friend out of commiting suicide over this law, he's a nice man whose wife left him years ago, shy and he depends on escorts for intimancy and companionship. But I guess no ine here gives a shit about him, he's just a pervert who must hate woman right? Fuck that, fuck Bill C-36, and fuck anybody who supports it.

 This is all I have to say in this thread, I'm not wasting my time on selfish people whi think thier Gods who get to gst invovled in other peoples personal lives and fuck them ul for the men and women invovled. This was the final straw. Those who support this law and the Nordic model, will never see reason because they're blinded by self interest, they'll continue thier support for human rights violations no matter what.

 

Just tell him to consider the bill a nuisance law, and that provided he continues to visit independent indoor women that he has already seen before, he is in very little danger.  I agree, that the majority of abolitionists do not care about people, whether they are the sex workers or the clients.  They are far too caught up in their own idealogy and don't give a damn about what people are telling them about the reality.   The SCC gave very good examples of people who did listen, and didn't buy into the BS the government was trying to feed them. 

I hope you come back to read this post, as i have said that you need to get out of this or the feminist thread, and visit discussion in the sex worker forum instead.    i posted a ton of links for your perusal.  :)

 

Pondering discussion of the laws has been far from superficial, you are just picking and choosing what you want to read and what you do not want to see.   many legal experts have looked at this bill and found holes, big ones, and that means it won't survive an SCC challenge, and the main consensus is the Cons know that as well.  And that is the real reason they are ramming it thru debate, and refusing to consider review.   Why limit discussion to 5 hours, when this is a fairly big change to laws?  No reason, other than ramming it thru.    

The whole thing is fishy, and I'm surprised you can't see the tricks they are up to, pulling stats out of their asses and refusing to show the evidence, the polls, anything really.  There is a deadline for revealing the results of the poll, but the word is the Justice committee will be meeting before the middle of July.  The deadline for that info is July, and I'd bet real money (not bitcoin) that the day after the JC is due to close, is the date that information must be revealed.     so again, if they really believed that they have all the t's crossed, and i's dotted, why are they being so secretitive.  It's fishy, they are up to no good, and they make it even more obvious every day they don't do something that people are demanding.

And pondering, re: Brachina's story?   You more than proved my point.    And you completely missed his.    You've been told many times that sex work is not always about penetrative sexual intercourse, but your mental challenge is that you won't accept truths, and you go out of your way to make up or invent or find 'evidence' to prove your illogical misconceptions.   A lie is a lie is a lie, abolitionists can't dress up their 'concern' for victims on the one hand, then denounce them on the other hand.    it does, tho, go a long way in my understanding as to why people like abolitionists are so unconcerned by what sex workers want.  They are basically all sociopaths who have absolutely no empathy or concern for anyone but themselves and how they look to their cohorts.   

fortunate

Unionist wrote:

 

The whole movement for decriminalization is being diverted into a formalistic and defeatist "it's unconstituional" route. Where are the voices pressuring politicians that they should simply say NO to criminalization of paid sex?

 

 

with the existing laws tho, won't decriminalization remove 211-213 entirely, which means that coercion will no longer be against the law?   I can't see a good reason for that, as i think the laws selected to be challenged and that were overturned were the right ones.    The others i am perfectly ok with keeping, as i have listed them elsewhere i won't bother doing so again.    

Are the opposing parties able to come up with what goes along with decriminalization, and is that maybe why they don't just shout that out.  And why should they, isn't saying throw out C-36 the same thing as saying leave things the way they are right now?  That there are already ample laws to deal with all of the relevant issues (I do not consider criminalization of clients relevant or logical).    

in other words, isn't the most adequate response to this to send it to the SCC and have it overturned and stop wasting everyone's time with it's ridiculous proposals.  

By what happens with decrim, is that obviously you then have to put in place regulations and sex work related labour laws, etc, a la New Zealand.   Has anyone done that?  or are they just looking at the SCC challenge ruling and saying, yep, that's good the way it is now, i think that everyone can go about their business without increasing their own risk.    And that is the point of decriminalization of bawdy houses and loosening the living off the avails.    

Libby Davies has been absent from the debate, as have a long list of others, due to other committee commitments.    it was a lot of NDP members absent.  I am wondering why that is, because had they been there, during the second reading, which passed at 137 to 117, who knows, it might not have made it to the next step.   I find it curious that that many NDP members were unable to vote.   

here is the list

The following Bloc members did not vote:

  • André Bellavance
  • Louis Plamondon

The following Conservative members did not vote:

  • John Baird
  • Dean Allison
  • Leona Aglukkaq
  • Garry Breitkreuz
  • Rod Bruinooge
  • John Carmichael
  • Tony Clement
  • Barry Devolin
  • Peter Kent
  • Mike Lake
  • Ryan Leef
  • Andrew Scheer
  • Bruce Stanton
  • Maurice Vellacott

The following Green Party members did not vote:

  • Bruce Hyer

The following Independent members did not vote:

  • Brent Rathgeber

The following Liberal members did not vote:

  • Carolyn Bennett
  • Gerry Byrne
  • Irwin Cotler
  • Judy Foote
  • Chrystia Freeland
  • Hedy Fry
  • Ted Hsu
  • Yvonne Jones
  • Dominic LeBlanc
  • John McCallum
  • John McKay
  • Massimo Pacetti
  • Geoff Regan
  • Judy Sgro
  • Justin Trudeau

The following NDP members did not vote:

  • Malcolm Allen
  • Charlie Angus
  • Paulina Ayala
  • Dennis Bevington
  • Alexandre Boulerice
  • Andrew Cash
  • Chris Charlton
  • David Christopherson
  • Ryan Cleary
  • Joe Comartin
  • Don Davies
  • Libby Davies
  • Matthew Dubé
  • Pierre-Luc Dusseault
  • Claude Gravelle
  • Dan Harris
  • Sana Hassainia
  • Carol Hughes
  • Matthew Kellway
  • Alexandrine Latendresse
  • Megan Leslie
  • Brian Masse
  • Marc-André Morin
  • Peggy Nash
  • Jamie Nicholls
  • Manon Perreault
  • John Rafferty
  • Jasbir Sandhu
  • Craig Scott
  • Peter Stoffer
  • Mike Sullivan
  • Glenn Thibeault
  • Jonathan Tremblay

 

cco

fortunate wrote:

Libby Davies has been absent from the debate, as have a long list of others, due to other committee commitments.    it was a lot of NDP members absent.  I am wondering why that is, because had they been there, during the second reading, which passed at 137 to 117, who knows, it might not have made it to the next step.   I find it curious that that many NDP members were unable to vote.   

Yeah, "curious". To paraphrase Inglourious Basterds, "We have a word in English for that kind of 'curious'. We call it 'suspicious'."

Gustave

Unionist wrote:
She certainly is silent about decriminalization, which she used to advocate quite openly and audibly.

Decriminalization of sex workers is easy to sell outside a few "conservative" circles. Opposing criminalization of the demand is an other thing. It's hard to provide arguments that will not, at one point or an other, legitimize it. And that is a No No.

cco

Pondering wrote:

Neither positive nor negative, just factual.

Alright, then. In your opinion, should people be jailed for publishing and distributing "hate propaganda" or "pornography"?

Pondering

I wish it would go before the SCC prior to being passed but I suspect there isn't time. The SCC usually takes it's time coming to decisions and the law has to pass the Senate before December 1st. Governments don't typically put their legislation to the SCC before passing it and the Cons are arrogant. 

The NDP and the Liberals put together do not have enough seats to stop this bill at any stage or to force the Cons to do anything. The Cons have a majority of votes. 

The challenge was won based on the legislative goal being to deter nuisance and exploitation by pimps in the case of living off the avails. No matter how detailed the analysis of C - 36 if it ignores the preamble it is not a serious legal analysis because the preamble dramatically changes the legislative goals that are tested by s. 7. and opens the door to an s. 1. defense of the law by the crown. 

The legislative goals are far more powerful and the means through which they are achieved are completely different. It is not at all just a case of proving that the same outcomes result from the laws. 

The arguments complaining how difficult it will be to do business prove the Crown's argument that it's legislative goal is being met, deterring prostitution. 

The Cons are being secretive because that is what they do. Information is power and they don't want to share it. 

fortunate wrote:
You've been told many times that sex work is not always about penetrative sexual intercourse, but your mental challenge is that you won't accept truths, and you go out of your way to make up or invent or find 'evidence' to prove your illogical misconceptions. 

A person is not your friend if they won't see you unless you pay them. A shy divorced suicidal man needs help and encouragement to start a real relationship with someone not sympathy because he can't hire someone to pretend to have a relationship with him.  

fortunate

Did someone claim to be a friend?    If you go to the same hair stylist regularly, are you friendly with them, do you share stories, do you have a relationship with them, or do you consider them 'the help', throw them your money, and sit in silence keeping an eye on them to be sure that they are doing the job you are paying them to do.

 

You can't try to claim you know something that you have no experience with, and know nothing about.   Your stereotypes attempt to dehumanize both sex workers and clients.  If they are not human, then abolitionists feel as tho they can say and do anything to them that they want to do.    The other day I saw a headline mentioning that the guy who was an ardent Holocaust denier died.    The comparison of denying the holocaust happened to abolitionists denying the agency of consenting adult sex workers was not lost on me.    In spite of all evidence to the contrary, they will continue to deny the voices of sex workers to punish them for not behaving like proper gentlemen and ladies, and push thru with whatever they want for the sake of their ideology based on falsified statistics and bunk research.   

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
Did someone claim to be a friend?    If you go to the same hair stylist regularly, are you friendly with them, do you share stories, do you have a relationship with them, or do you consider them 'the help', throw them your money, and sit in silence keeping an eye on them to be sure that they are doing the job you are paying them to do.

Yes we talk, no I don't throw my money at them, no they don't see me unless I have money to pay them for cutting my hair. They never call me up for a chat. 

A person who is suicidal will not be cured by a haircut relationship or even by a paid relationship with a therapist. The therapist doesn't help by allowing the patient to rely on them for companionship. They help the individual develop real relationships that they don't have to pay for. 

Pondering

cco wrote:

Alright, then. In your opinion, should people be jailed for publishing and distributing "hate propaganda" or "pornography"?

Hate propaganda, yes, pornography, not as long as it isn't considered obscene under Canadian law. 

I agree with the Butler decision and the later Little Sisters decision. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Butler

 The Court noted obscenity could encourage degrading views of women and could promote violence. This contradicted the view of Canada as a society in which people are equal. Typically, the original purpose of the law is what is considered under section 1. In this case, the Supreme Court justified itself by saying the original purpose of avoiding immorality, and the recognized purpose in this case, of preventing harm, were linked. The immorality could lead to harm. The Court also noted that Canada had international agreements that targeted obscenity, namely the Agreement for the Suppression of the Circulation of Obscene Publications and the Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in Obscene Publications.

With a sufficient objective identified, it now had to be asked whether the law was rational and proportionate to the objective. The Court noted, then, that the law should not affect acceptable pornography, namely the type that might celebrate female sexuality and pleasure. Material that degrade women were similar to hate speech. It was rational to outlaw obscenity in order to protect society. Although it was disputed whether obscenity truly promotes harm, some reports did support this conclusion. The courts could then defer to the Parliament of Canada on this matter.

The Court found the law to be proportional. The legislation did not outlaw non-degrading erotica. Moreover, a vague definition of obscenity in the law was acceptable since politicians had difficulty in drawing up comprehensive definitions. Making the obscenity public was criminalized while private materials may not be.

 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

A person who is suicidal will not be cured by a haircut relationship or even by a paid relationship with a therapist. 

I think you are wrong on both those points. Suicidal people respond to various types of intervention including for some something as simple as having a good hair day after a nice chat with a friendly person. As for paid therapists are you really saying therapy cannot help prevent suicide in patients?

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

A person who is suicidal will not be cured by a haircut relationship or even by a paid relationship with a therapist. 

I think you are wrong on both those points. Suicidal people respond to various types of intervention including for some something as simple as having a good hair day after a nice chat with a friendly person. As for paid therapists are you really saying therapy cannot help prevent suicide in patients?

No, I am saying that just spending time with the therapist as if they are friends is not the cure. Therapists are trained to help someone identify the obstacles that are preventing them from achieving happiness. 

A haircut and a chat might make someone who is down feel more cheerful but it isn't likely to change someone's mind about wanting to die. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

A haircut and a chat might make someone who is down feel more cheerful but it isn't likely to change someone's mind about wanting to die. 

I can't agree. Do you have any studies or is that merely your personal opinion as well? I'm of the view that life altering events happen to people at different times and are unpredictable. 

If a haircut and chat makes one feel cheerful then at least for a while it means they are not dwelling on suicide. It might just be the trigger to get their brain out of a loop and onto more productivve thoughts.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I can't agree. Do you have any studies or is that merely your personal opinion as well? I'm of the view that life altering events happen to people at different times and are unpredictable. 

If a haircut and chat makes one feel cheerful then at least for a while it means they are not dwelling on suicide. It might just be the trigger to get their brain out of a loop and onto more productivve thoughts.

Nope no studies but if it's that unpredictable we should stop covering therapy fees and send people for a hair-cut instead. It's a much less expensive way to jog people out of their suicidal mood. 

fortunate

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

A person who is suicidal will not be cured by a haircut relationship or even by a paid relationship with a therapist. 

I think you are wrong on both those points. Suicidal people respond to various types of intervention including for some something as simple as having a good hair day after a nice chat with a friendly person. As for paid therapists are you really saying therapy cannot help prevent suicide in patients?

 

Many people respond to kindness.   And why should paying a therapist to listen (and be kind) be any different or less healing that paying an escort to listen (and be kind).   And why should the mere payment degrade a relationship regardless of what the circumstances of the relationship is.  To me, pondering is saying that an escort is incapable of being a human being capable of feelings of compassion for someone other than themselves, or motivated by something other than $$.  As in, she's getting paid to pretend to care, like she's incapable of having actual feelings for someone who comes to see her.   A therapist won't continue to see a client without being paid, so absence of payment is also not a sign the escort has to prove something.

 

This is not meant to be an insult, pondering, but sometimes you come off as someone who completely lacks empathy for other human beings.       And now unionist will let us know that everyone is off topic again.   :)

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
Many people respond to kindness.   And why should paying a therapist to listen (and be kind) be any different or less healing that paying an escort to listen (and be kind).  

A therapist is not being paid to listen and be kind. A therapist is trained to help the individual identify and deal with whatever issues they have so they won't need to see the therapist anymore. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I can't agree. Do you have any studies or is that merely your personal opinion as well? I'm of the view that life altering events happen to people at different times and are unpredictable. 

If a haircut and chat makes one feel cheerful then at least for a while it means they are not dwelling on suicide. It might just be the trigger to get their brain out of a loop and onto more productivve thoughts.

Nope no studies but if it's that unpredictable we should stop covering therapy fees and send people for a hair-cut instead. It's a much less expensive way to jog people out of their suicidal mood. 

Poorly veiled sarcasm, dismissive much? What is the point of a discussion with you?

One of the things that is true is that people need more than paid relationships in their lifes. We seem to agree on that point but somehow you haven't got the message.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I can't agree. Do you have any studies or is that merely your personal opinion as well? I'm of the view that life altering events happen to people at different times and are unpredictable. 

If a haircut and chat makes one feel cheerful then at least for a while it means they are not dwelling on suicide. It might just be the trigger to get their brain out of a loop and onto more productivve thoughts.

Nope no studies but if it's that unpredictable we should stop covering therapy fees and send people for a hair-cut instead. It's a much less expensive way to jog people out of their suicidal mood. 

Poorly veiled sarcasm, dismissive much? What is the point of a discussion with you?

One of the things that is true is that people need more than paid relationships in their lifes. We seem to agree on that point but somehow you haven't got the message.

Oh I get the message, I just don't agree that a hair cut or any other pleasant experience, even going to Disney World, is a means of preventing people from being suicidal. I know people who have been severely depressed and these are not solutions to suicidal thoughts. Justification or lack thereof for prostitution rests on the well-being of women.

There is disagreement over whether it is more damaging to women for prostitution to be legitimized or not. If it is damaging to women, then suicidal men are not a reason to sacrifice them. If it isn't damaging to women then it is also immaterial whether or not the man is suicidal unless he wants to take a woman with him. 

 

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

Oh I get the message, I just don't agree that a hair cut or any other pleasant experience, even going to Disney World, is a means of preventing people from being suicidal. I know people who have been severely depressed and these are not solutions to suicidal thoughts. Justification or lack thereof for prostitution rests on the well-being of women.

There is disagreement over whether it is more damaging to women for prostitution to be legitimized or not. If it is damaging to women, then suicidal men are not a reason to sacrifice them. If it isn't damaging to women then it is also immaterial whether or not the man is suicidal unless he wants to take a woman with him. 

 

 

And because it is NOT damaging to women, therefore there is no reason why women in the sex trade cannot be a form of support for men and women who don't feel that great about themselves.   It is because the abolitionists lie about this as violence or damaging that we even have a discussion about it all.   Sex workers are free to provide whatever type of sessions for their clients as they see fit, and based on what the client is looking for.  As long as that fits within the sex worker boundaries, then some outsiders deciding that is an 'inappropriate' use of sex worker services is immaterial.  

Bog post for those interested on the topic of compassionate care, or whatever we call it:   http://becauseimawhore.com/2011/08/17/sex-as-a-service/

 

Rabble article today, on topic again, http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2014/06/mackays-bill-c-36-creates-more-harm-good-its-time-he-listens#comment-1445835

 

The SCC's 80 page ruling cited failures in the system and how the current laws bear responsibility for the many risks and deaths sex workers face, and finally, that the laws do infringe upon a sex worker's section 7 Charter rights to security of the person "by preventing implementation of safety measures that could protect them from violent clients."

So here's where MacKay steps in with Bill C-36. Or rather, stomps in like a villainous monster with heavy feet, crushing everything in its path.

Not only does the bill flagrantly disregard the spirit of the SCC ruling, rendering the bill unconstitutional, it creates even more harms than the original laws. Upon closer analysis, sex workers are indeed criminalized in many -- if not most -- instances of selling their services.

Offering services safely in public? Criminal. Working together? Criminal. Working in a regular indoor location? Criminal. Working underage? Criminal. Advertising someone's services? Criminal. And so it goes...

These laws aren't about protecting workers; they're full on NIMBYism.

....

But let's get something straight: it's not the act of selling sex that is inherently dangerous, it's all the laws surrounding it.

You can listen to the 'rescue industry' all you want as they quote from fake statistics, debunked studies and government propaganda as to the true numbers of those in sex work.

....

But who do you think are better judges of who is exploited and who isn't? Is itpoliticians protecting their own base? The people who fundraise for their own celebrated foundations? Or maybe it's columnists for popular national publications.

No, it's the people who actually work in the industry who are the best judges.

.......

I recently attended an event that touted itself as an open forum for discussion about what's next for Canada's prostitution laws. What it turned out to be was a room of 30 or so well-coiffed guests and organizers arguing against the decriminalization of sex work, and me plus one other gentleman arguing for it.

Tax evasion, nasty STI transmission, the sanctity of marriage, absent fathers buying sex, why the government should bother protecting those who choose to do dangerous work, pimps and why-can't-they-just-get-a-real-job concerns: This is the face behind C-36's mask. 

Their issues trumped the actual issue at hand: safety and human rights for all Canadians, just as our Supreme Court wants the government to implement. 

 

 

 

 

 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

There is disagreement over whether it is more damaging to women for prostitution to be legitimized or not.

That is the debate. I tend to see this debate as a rerun of the temperance movement.  There is no doubt that alcohol is and was a blight on many families leading to abuse of women and children. However IMO it has been proven that the crimianl justice system is not an appropriate tool to deal with these kinds of complex social issues.  Even if prostitution related activities are not criminalized it does not mean that prostitution will be legitimized in most peoples minds. It might shift the debate from the Peter McKay morality play to a debate about our misogynist rape culture.

If this law is passed then it will require added resources to enforce, if not the existing officers will be looking into breaches of this law instead of finding the perpatrators responsible for the multitude of missing and murdered FN's women and other safety of women issues.  I'd spend our communal dollars on services for women who need them (so that they don't need to do anything they don't want to merely for economic reasons) rather than hiring more mostly male police officers to harrass sex workers and/or their clients.

fortunate

I think there were more attendees at the Red Umbrella walks on June 14 than attended Joy Smiths debateable 'town hall discussion of C-36"

https://twitter.com/MPJoySmith/media

 

OH, and this i saw on the @afterbedford twitter feed  https://twitter.com/AfterBedford

 

"I have 55,000 postcards that I cannot present to the House." say @MPJoySmith during QP. Then in a press release it's down to 10,000.

When in the twitter media feed for Joy Smith the caption is "Delighted to receive petitions with over 3000 names supporting Bill C-36. Thank you"

 

and that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the abolitionists come up with their statistics.   They make them up out of much lower numbers, or non existent numbers.  They inflate, then inflate the inflation, until there are more sex workers trafficked into a country than there are PEOPLE living in the country.    

Mórríghain

Pondering wrote:

There is disagreement over whether it is more damaging to women for prostitution to be legitimized or not.

Don't stress over this point; regardless of your personal views prostitution will never be 'legitimized'.

Pondering

Mórríghain wrote:

Pondering wrote:

There is disagreement over whether it is more damaging to women for prostitution to be legitimized or not.

Don't stress over this point; regardless of your personal views prostitution will never be 'legitimized'.

I actually adopted the term "legitimize" to replace the decriminalization/legalization debate. "Legitimizing" meaning it's no longer illegal. 

I agree that it will never be destigmatized. 

susan davis

why, because you can't imagine a world where sex workers would be respected members of society? valued even? i feel sorry for you to have such narrow vision...

i can imagine a world without stigma against sex workers. i am out of the closet and am well liked and respected in the community where i live. i believe that we can reach a point where the stgma begins to fade but only after people stop naming us all victims/ damaged goods.

you can't imagine a world without stigma against sex workers because your own opinion of us is so biased.

yup, just the kind of person i want speaking on behalf of sex workers....on behalf of my community.

interesting that you can see this bias as it applies to the feminist forum but not as it applies to sex workers rights. 

i wonder if i told you to "back off" and wasn't nice about it....would you?

fortunate

This is an analysis of "nordic style' policing, a test run so to speak, done for street workers in Vancouver.    Take the time to read and really study the results of this initiative, and the information collected by the researchers.    I've posted many articles and similar things in the sex worker forum, for those who wish to actually inform themselves on the topic (many rabblers articles too lol)

the PIVOT report shows what is being done, what the researchers concluded about the police actions, and then also constitutional analysis of that action/result.    

But also, there is in there reports, from the VPD about the # of arrests.   Which begs the question, is this really the results that the public expects to see.  With a real crack down on enforcement and focus on the clients (of street workers, now, which abolitionists still seem to insist is the majority of all workers) in 2012 there were 47 charged, and with even more focus thru 2013, there were 71.    

Hardly seems like there are so many 'perverts' out there that it even warrants much attention at all, particularly when the activity itself is legal, these guys are simply being charged due to where they are at the time of negotiations.  

 

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/pivotlegal/pages/615/attachments/original/1401811234/My_Work_Should_Not_Cost_Me_My_Life.pdf?1401811234

findings from the BMJ Open report by Krusi et al.

While sex workers who participated in the GSHI/UBCresearch felt that the shift away from arresting sex workers has been a positive step forward, their narratives clearly illustrate that the overall impact of the change has been severely curtailed by the continued dangerous conditions created by police efforts to target clients. The report concludes that criminalization of clients impacts sex workers’ safetyby exposing them to significant safety and health risks,including: displacement to isolated spaces; inability to screen clients or safely negotiate terms of transactions; and inability to access police protection.

The harms identified in the Krusi et al. report mirror findings from Sweden and other countries that have instituted a ban on the purchase of sexual services.

Mórríghain

susan davis wrote:

why, because you can't imagine a world where sex workers would be respected members of society? valued even? i feel sorry for you to have such narrow vision... And so on.

Susan, who was this post directed at?

fortunate

Mórríghain wrote:

susan davis wrote:

why, because you can't imagine a world where sex workers would be respected members of society? valued even? i feel sorry for you to have such narrow vision... And so on.

Susan, who was this post directed at?

 

Pondering, no doubt.

susan davis

Mórríghain wrote:

susan davis wrote:

why, because you can't imagine a world where sex workers would be respected members of society? valued even? i feel sorry for you to have such narrow vision... And so on.

Susan, who was this post directed at?

at pondering, above she says she believes the stigma will never go away but has started a thread in the feminist forum about these exact issues as they relate to women, it stikes me as a double standard. she expects women's voices to be at the forefront of feminist discussions but does not believe sex workers voices should be at the forefront of these discussions...a complete conflict with her own ideals

i am sure that people thought there would never be a world where stigma against the LGTB community would disappear and while its not gone completely, it is certainly on its way out. 

why not for sex worker stigma? why can't people imagine a world where sex workers are valued members of society? why not?

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
you can't imagine a world without stigma against sex workers because your own opinion of us is so biased.

yup, just the kind of person i want speaking on behalf of sex workers....on behalf of my community.

interesting that you can see this bias as it applies to the feminist forum but not as it applies to sex workers rights. 

i wonder if i told you to "back off" and wasn't nice about it....would you?

Yes, if it is in an area intended for people who support prostitution I would back off. 

I never speak on behalf of sex-workers. I speak solely on my own behalf based on my experiences as a woman and the experiences of women I know. 

There is another distinction.  You are not born a sex worker.  It is something you do not something you are. You frame it as a job or profession. As such it is not immune from criticism.  A lot of oil workers are going to be out of very well-paying irreplaceable jobs because pipelines are being stopped. We are stopping pipelines for the greater good.

To some, hunters are not respected, others don't respect CEOs, or police, etc.  I have and always will have respect for women who are sex workers, just not the work. Sometimes the language around sex work insinuates that it is like sexual orientation, or race, or sex, or age, but it is none of those things.  No woman is born a sex worker. If she is being coerced in some way it is wrong, if she is choosing it as a job it's as open to criticism as any other.

 My opinion is not rooted in external evaluation of sex work as a form of labour. My opinion is rooted in the way I experience sex and the way I perceive other women to experience sex as well as how prostitution affects women as a class, how our sexuality is conceptualized and the recognition of our humanity. 

People have a variable tolerance for the invasion of their non-sexual personal space, that is, some are super affectionate while others prefer a bit of physical distance feeling smothered when people are too close.  It's on a continuum.   

Reaction to undesired sex is probably on some sort of similar continuum with some women far more affected than others, either due to the temperament they were born with or due to personal life experience. Sexual abuse seems to increase  acceptance of, or at least tolerance to prostitution. When women are forced into prostitution they are "broken in" fast so they will be resigned to their fate and not resist the men that will follow. We know that people who are raped, both male and female, feel betrayed by their bodies for reacting sexually leading to self-disgust.

When I read this from a person who chooses to be a sex worker and supports it:

 Audacia Ray and Michelle Tea have written about the feelings of self-betrayal, horror, and general displeasure that can accompany orgasming with a client; I’ve been right there with them. I’ve mostly gotten over revulsion towards my own body’s responses, probably because I’m better at controlling those responses now.

<http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-context-of-sex-work/>

I am reading a description of paid rape. As a woman I simply can't interpret that as anything else. I have a visceral reaction, I have knowledge of being entered, I have knowledge of being entered against my will.  Think of the word this willing woman used, revulsion (a sense of disgust and loathing) towards her body. This is why rape is worse than a broken leg even when it leaves no physical trace. Think of what women do after they are raped, bathe, shower, scrub, but you can't wash it off. It's a part of you and always will be, even if you get over it. Sex will always have the potential to trigger memories.

Those are three pro sex-work advocates all of whom have experienced self-revulsion.

That a woman is willing to endure it for the money doesn't make it not rape. Money is acting as a tool of coercion. All workers are exploited you say, but not like that.  I accept that this reaction is on a continuum, that some women don't experience prostitution that way; that some feel like sex therapists and healers, or just simply don't mind that much, or even enjoy it. Even if that is true I don't believe that is the experience most women discover after entering prostitution.

 You say, "Well so what?" they are still more than willing, they seek out customers, it's what they want to do. If they are willing to endure, who are you to interfere?

That is when we get into political theory.  I believe that women are an oppressed class.  Minimal government involvement works out well for the people who already have power, not so much for people who don’t.

Quote:
Human Dignity Legal Definition:

An individual or group's sense of self-respect and self-worth, physical and psychological integrity and empowerment.

<http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HumanDignity.aspx>  

57% of Vancouver's DTES street workers are indigenous. Their continued presence perpetuates colonialism, it damages them personally and it damages indigenous peoples by perpetuating ugly stereotypes and framing indigenous women as "less than". Indigenous girls are fed into the system.  It undermines the group's (indigenous people) sense of self-respect and self-worth. It shames them to see FN women over-represented on the streets. It threatens their physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. It robs them of human dignity.

If you can see that the argument applies to indigenous peoples then you must be able to extend that logic to women as a class as we are even more radically over-represented.

I believe that the "revulsion" reaction is the most common and that women do learn to "get over it" unless they already "got over it" by being sexually abused young.  I recognize reactions are on a continuum so maybe there are quite a lot of women who are perfectly fine with it. I don't believe that is the norm. I believe  legitimizing prostitution as an industry will lead to far more young women willingly subjecting themselves to it before they have a chance to develop their own sexuality, and without understanding what the experience will actually do to them, even with "nice" johns.

I believe it will lead to more young women experiencing at best lower level physical and physiological abuse visited on them by johns. There are a lot of men out there who want to hurt women. Hiring one is a really easy way to gain access.  There is no way to make women not vulnerable to them.  Predators will always target prostitutes which is confirmed by the need for panic buttons within reach. It is inherently exploitative and cannot be made as safe as other forms of employment.

 

Unionist

You know, there are many threads in two other forums (sex workers and feminism) where this repetitious debate is ongoing. Why not please leave this thread to the political conversation about where the government and the opposition parties are going with this bill? Otherwise, in my respectful opinion, we will be letting them off the hook

Especially the cowards of the NDP and the Liberal party who refuse to take a stand on the substantive issue, namely, should a consensual uncoerced transaction between adults be a criminal offence.

It may not be of interest to some of you, but it is to me, and that's why I opened this thread.

Thanks.

Pondering

Sorry Unionist, you are right. I suppose it is partially because the parties aren't saying anything. 

I now think the Libs and NDP will vote against the Bill based on the fact that it wasn't put before the Supreme Court and studies and legal opinions weren't released. 

They can do that because they know the Bill will pass anyway due to Harper's Majority. 

Once it passes they will say the only thing to do is to let it work it's way through the courts. 

They will never say what they would do differently. Their platforms will contain no mention of it. Once elected, they will say leave it to the courts or change the soliciting where minors could reasonably be clause. 

If either party supported decriminalization or legalization they would be saying so by now. It's actually quite popular with Canadians so no reason to keep it under wraps. 

vincentL311

This is deeply divisive issue and sometimes people's emotions are bound to spill out, so as long as it doesn't completely derails the thread I dont think that it is a problem.

Anyhow, my opinion is that none of the parties want to really legislate this issue as it is mostly a political loser; the only reason the Conservatives are doing it because their hand was forced by the Supreme Court. While it might please their socially conservative base, the feminists who support the Nordic model will probably vote for the left wing parties anyway. And they might end up angering a lot of their Liberatarian supporters, especially some men, although it remains to be seen if that will translate into lost votes.

The Liberals and NDP face similar issues. There are many voters on the centre left and left who do want the Nordic model, and these parties are not going to risk losing votes over this issue, especially when there is no need for them as they can let this work its way through the courts over the next 3-5 years. They will address this only if they are in power when the Supreme Court hands down a decision on C-36.

My gut feeling is that if the Liberals or NDP had been in power now, we would have had some sort of a hybrid of the New Zealand and Swedish models; criminal law would have been used to go after trafficking, women co-erced into prostitution, street prostitution and pimping. However, independent sex workers who worked discreetly indoors and their clients would have been de-criminalized. Brothels or red light districts might not have been allowed but massage parlours would have been continued to be allowed to operate. 

Independent sex workers and their clients are mostly going to be mostly left alone even in the new regime as cost of going after all of them is prohibitive. But their might be a few high profile stings to make examples.

fortunate

vincentL311 wrote:

My gut feeling is that if the Liberals or NDP had been in power now, we would have had some sort of a hybrid of the New Zealand and Swedish models; criminal law would have been used to go after trafficking, women co-erced into prostitution, street prostitution and pimping. However, independent sex workers who worked discreetly indoors and their clients would have been de-criminalized. Brothels or red light districts might not have been allowed but massage parlours would have been continued to be allowed to operate. 

Independent sex workers and their clients are mostly going to be mostly left alone even in the new regime as cost of going after all of them is prohibitive. But their might be a few high profile stings to make examples.

 

And my opinion is similar, but a bit different:  I think that neither of them would have presented new legislation.  If they had been pushed for something by the fundamentalist feminists coalitions, they would hopefully have had someone (Libby Davies?) speak up and point out that all of the things you list there are already well served by current laws.    We would have seen the street beat stop harrassing clients of streetworkers.   And we would see what we are most definitely already seeing, that police refocus their attention towards those things that you listed.   There was a gang in Toronto, 8 people arrested, who must have been set up prior to Dec 2013, but it isn't until now that TPD seem to be able to get their act together to find them and charge them and get real victims out of being exploited and real criminals charged.   

 

What I don't think would have happened was regulation with complete decrim.  (personally I am not sure what else needs to be decriminalized among the existing laws and i think any govt would also have a hard time choosing amongst laws dealing with exploitation, coercian, and procuring.   Unless maybe to define all of those things to refer only to exploitation, and to exempt something like licensed business owners?    I'd like to see them come up with regulations, and OHS policies, but I really doubt they'd open up that can of worms.     I notice that not one of them ever really discuss anything other than the vague reference to decrim, 'like in NZ", with no real details as to what they think that means.      

Pondering

I just realized it won't necessarily take years to settle. It depends on who wins in the lower courts and if the loser wants to take it farther. If the lower court upholds the law how far up the chain are the lawyers willing to go, or whomever is paying them?

How many levels of courts are there to go through? 

It's possible there will be individual strike downs, if the Conservative government is out I can see both the Liberals and NDP leaving it alone. They would have the political cover of the first judgement to say forget it, it's a waste of time and money to fight and accept the judgement of the lower courts.  

What do you think? Will eithe side accept the ruling of a lower court?

vincentL311

The Conservatives would take it all the way to the Supreme Court if the law was struck down by lower courts, if they were in power. That is pretty clear from the Beford case. The plaintiffs may or may not appeal if they lost in the lower courts, if it did seem likely that the higher courts would also uphold the bill. 

I guess the interesting scenario would be if C-36 was struck down in a couple of years by an Appeals court in some province and the Liberals or NDP were in power; would they appeal to the Supreme Court, bring new legislation, or maybe even do nothing?

I also think it possible that if C-36 was upheld in the courts, the Liberals and NDP would accept it as the new Status quo

Gustave

vincentL311 wrote:
My gut feeling is that if the Liberals or NDP had been in power now, we would have had some sort of a hybrid of the New Zealand and Swedish models; criminal law would have been used to go after trafficking, women co-erced into prostitution, street prostitution and pimping. However, independent sex workers who worked discreetly indoors and their clients would have been de-criminalized. Brothels or red light districts might not have been allowed but massage parlours would have been continued to be allowed to operate. 

Well that’s pretty much how it works now, how it’s been working, except for some episodes of zealous combatting, for ever and how it will continue to work. This is basically the true abolitionist model that could have been modernized. However, the Swedish model, based of gender theory, is radically opposed to abolitionism and harm reduction. There is just no way to build a hybrid of abolitionism and the Swedish model. Some may say that the Finland model (criminalizing of clients of coerced sex workers, whether or not his aware of it) is such a hybrid. But then again, the Finland model is not at all based on gender theory.

vincentL311 wrote:
Independent sex workers and their clients are mostly going to be mostly left alone even in the new regime as cost of going after all of them is prohibitive. But their might be a few high profile stings to make examples.

The cost per arrest would not be prohibitive. It’s easy to find just about any client. But it would be prohibitive if we expect a significant effect on the prevalence of prostitution.

 

Pondering

Gustave wrote:
Well that’s pretty much how it works now, how it’s been working, except for some episodes of zealous combatting, for ever and how it will continue to work. This is basically the true abolitionist model that could have been modernized. However, the Swedish model, based of gender theory, is radically opposed to abolitionism and harm reduction.

The Swedish model is the primary abolitionist model. Harm reduction and abolitionism are not mutually exclusive approaches. I don't consider the commercialization and institutionalization of prostitution to be "harm reduction" because it doesn't reduce the harms. 

I am not quoting, so I could be mistaken, but I do believe that fortunate has agreed that decriminalization did not reduce violence in NZ nor did it reduce street work. In my opinion those are the reasons that the public supports industrialization. If they were aware of this information we would see support drop like a stone. 

fortunate

What i mentioned is that it is usually held up as a reason to claim that the NZ model 'failed'.    Laws and/or regulations about prostitution are not possible to solve the issue of violence against women.  You'd have to start with some off base assumptions, like violence against women only occurs in sex work, and nowhere else.  Because if it didn't occur elsewhere, then you could make the claim that a law would somehow eliminate VAW.   Of course, that is nonsense, so that is why i continue to say that saying that elimination of VAW as a goal of any sex work related legislation is nonsense.   

Which is another reason why C-36 is such a mess.       It's missing the point.

I think what is being missed sometimes is the message isn't that regulation and decrim 'solves' all societies ills, but that criminalization has never lead to safety for sex workers.  NZ's PRA wasn't intended to eliminate of violence against women, it was intended to improve the working conditions of all sex workers so they wouldn't be forced into the shadows.   Being in the shadows means that first you have to come out, expose yourself as a stigmatized sex worker, expose yourself as someone who is working illegally albeit in a legal occupation, and then report the assault.   so the most significant improvement of the PRA wasn't the elimination of violence against women, but the elimination of the shadows, so that they are more confident in reporting assaults.   And as we know, when assaults are reported, more charges are laid, and the person who makes a habit of harming other people, is stopped.       And as we know, the criminalization kept the streetworkers in the shadows, they didn't report Picton, or when they did, they were not believed, and it took years to stop him.    

 

Gustave, i kind of agree the cost of arresting clients of indoor workers would be prohibitive, just based on the amount of time and effort goes into these things now.  A massage parlour is easy, you go in after you've been in earlier to confirm sexual services are available, then you go back in and arrest anyone in there.   With private places, such as the illegal brothels in houses or apartments, with multiple people from out of the country, it apparently takes them 2 or 3 months to figure out what is going on  before they charge in and arrest everyone in there.   I can't see them doing all that to get one guy seeing one escort.   

 

vincentL311

fortunate wrote:

Gustave, i kind of agree the cost of arresting clients of indoor workers would be prohibitive, just based on the amount of time and effort goes into these things now.  A massage parlour is easy, you go in after you've been in earlier to confirm sexual services are available, then you go back in and arrest anyone in there.   With private places, such as the illegal brothels in houses or apartments, with multiple people from out of the country, it apparently takes them 2 or 3 months to figure out what is going on  before they charge in and arrest everyone in there.   I can't see them doing all that to get one guy seeing one escort.   

It is ofcourse ridiculous that they would do a 3 month long investigation in order to arrest one guy seeing one escort. But with ban on communication for prostitution, a sting would be pretty easy to set up, place an add online and arrest anybody who responds to the add. You dont even need the client to show up with the intention of proceding with the act.

But clients who stick to seeing providers they know well are unlikely in the extreme to get charged.

Pages