I agree: the questions themselves seem fine to me. The real concern is whether the responses will guide the government's policy-making at all, as it seems it has pretty much made its mind up already.
Terri Jean Bedford case at the Supreme Court of Canada
Tue, 2014-02-18 18:08
#102
Thu, 2014-02-20 01:06
#103
I agree: the questions themselves seem fine to me. The real concern is whether the responses will guide the government's policy-making at all, as it seems it has pretty much made its mind up already.
\
I agree. I doubt we will see the results at all. I don't think they will be much different than the majority of opinion polls we see in major newspapers, which in some cases are overwhelmingly in favour of non interference, and most definitely not the Nordic model.
i think #4 could be a problem, but as you say most people will be able to look around the lead it may try to take you. The other thing is why isn't this an actual yes, no, maybe poll? I think it would take a huge effort, even tho there are only 5 quiestions, to tabulate the actual results. how many people are just going to say Yes or No at the beginning, and then give the explanations? Anyone tabulating the results can easily misread them any way they want it to be read.
It wouldn't be the first time the govt has done a study, gets the recommendations, then decides to do the complete opposite.
Sat, 2014-02-22 10:26
#104
Six questions, six nays. That was easy.
Sat, 2014-02-22 21:38
#105
1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? No.
Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Not sure -- maybe if the adult does not appear to be contracting under their own agency.
2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? No.
Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Not sure.
3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain. It should not be allowed on the streets or other public spaces.
4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Yes.
Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Not sure.
Sat, 2014-02-22 23:23
#106
Define benefit economically
Their accountant? Driver? Security? Hairdresser? Victoria Secret? Even just boyfriend/Girlfriend/wife/husband/children? Secretary? Offic3e manager?
Then no
Something making them do it and turn over all their money (ie a pimp) then yes
Sun, 2014-02-23 13:33
#107
Define benefit economically
The way the stupid question is worded, it could include:
1. The sex workers themselves (the question doesn't exclude them).
2. Anyone who provides free, or rented, space for sex work or advertising.
3. The whole society, which will benefit from taxation, licences, etc.
The only worse joke than these questions is the silence of the political parties.
Tue, 2014-03-04 21:03
#108
Tue, 2014-03-04 23:37
#109
I like the lefty investors line in the sand being coercion.
Thu, 2014-03-06 15:51
#110
Yeah that "4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult?" is problematic. "The prostitution of an adult" also hints at the usage of that turn of phrase "prostituted women" we hear from abolitionists, a term which is thrown at all sex workers and removes their own agency.
On the other hand: "Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the sexual coercion of an adult?" - Yes. And that really is the dividing line between where the law shouldn't or should get involved.
(edited for grammar)
Thu, 2014-03-06 15:55
#111
Yes, I think if coercion & harm are the criteria laid out by the law, it should really cover all the cases where the law has a moral imperative to intervene. It would cover human trafficking, and it would cover anyone who forcibly takes a profit from another person's sex work.
Thu, 2014-03-06 23:07
#112
Yes, I think if coercion & harm are the criteria laid out by the law, it should really cover all the cases where the law has a moral imperative to intervene. It would cover human trafficking, and it would cover anyone who forcibly takes a profit from another person's sex work.
When it comes to coercian and force, there are already laws in the criminal code to deal with those issues for any other kind of work, they can be applied, therefore there is no reason to create new laws specific only to sex work. I think that is the main argument laid out with the SCC challenge and calls for decriminalization in the first place. Why create two sets of laws, as tho sex workers are not legitimate citizens and adults, and need 'special' handling. There was no change to the minimum age requirement and no changes to the laws against exploitation. Therefore the existing laws are sufficient to control and regulate prostitution for all legal aged consenting adults.
Fri, 2014-03-07 15:15
#113
When it comes to coercian and force, there are already laws in the criminal code to deal with those issues for any other kind of work, they can be applied, therefore there is no reason to create new laws specific only to sex work. I think that is the main argument laid out with the SCC challenge and calls for decriminalization in the first place. Why create two sets of laws, as tho sex workers are not legitimate citizens and adults, and need 'special' handling. There was no change to the minimum age requirement and no changes to the laws against exploitation. Therefore the existing laws are sufficient to control and regulate prostitution for all legal aged consenting adults.
I agree that existing laws cover each of those pieces independently - sexual coercion is already against the law, and abusive working conditions are also against the law. I do support the line of reasoning that sex work should be treated like any other type of work in terms of rights and working conditions. Yet I think many of us can still agree that due to the deeply personal nature of sex, it's not a perfect analogy. If my boss at a grocery store needs me to work 10 more hours a week or I won't survive my 3 months probation, that's probably legal. If a sex worker is working through an agency and the owner requires her to work 10 more hours a week to survive her probation, is that now considered sexual coercion?
Not that I am expecting the CPC to handle this level of nuance. But I think it would be reasonable to provide a legal framework that describes specific rights and responsibilities where labour law intersects with sex laws. Otherwise it's left to the courts to interpret, and a worker who does not know if she will be protected may not want to have to be the next test case.
Fri, 2014-03-07 20:04
#114
The answer in both cases is legally the same. Unless otherwise specified in a contract, overtime is voluntary. Sexual trade or predation in retail the same laws apply. Clearly workers are often intimidated by management. Ununionized workers often have no real power to refuse overtime. The only real answer is a union.
Fri, 2014-03-07 23:25
#115
I think trying to define things in terms of "coercion" or not just muddies the waters. If we understand that the question refers to the profiting from the sale of sexual services by anyone other than oneself, it makes it really clear. Under what circumstances is the profiting by one person of another person's sexual service okay? Why would you want to protect that circumstance?
Fri, 2014-03-07 23:52
#116
I think trying to define things in terms of "coercion" or not just muddies the waters. If we understand that the question refers to the profiting from the sale of sexual services by anyone other than oneself, it makes it really clear. Under what circumstances is the profiting by one person of another person's sexual service okay? Why would you want to protect that circumstance?
Well, i think with the question #4 is more related to who is going to decide who the sex worker is going to be permitted to pay or hire or give her money to, and if it is anyone other than her making that decision it should be wrong. So in that case, then the government itself shall no longer be allowed to determine who she can pay/hire/gift her money to. Currently one of the laws has been overturned, but it is directly related to controlling who she can give her money to. "living off the avails' may now be applied to 18 and over children, a landlord, a security person, a driver (when doing outcalls, the legal way to provide services, some sex workers hire a driver. this person knows where they are, how long they will be there, and is backup in case of a problem. However, under the 'living off the avails' law, she is not legally permitted to pay that driver.
There are a number of different ways that, if the govt decides to legislate this, they will continue to create situations where everyone around the sex worker can be legally charged with some kind of crime simply because she needs to pay them in order to manage her own business.
There will and should always be laws against exploitation. If a sex worker is earning income, and someone else takes 100% of that income, that is exploitation and there are laws that can address that already. Also, in the case of an agency or massage parlour employer, there has to be regulation, which would be provincial or municipal, preventing them from issuing fines for workers who fail to meet unreasonable demands. They should have a % cap, otherwise an employee may end up owing them at the end of a shift, or walking away with less than minimum wage for an 8 hour shift for example. Either she is doing contract work, and between the management and the worker she only pays them a flat room rental fee, and nothing else, or she is an employee and they have to pay her minimum wage to be on site on call whether she gets a client in that day or not.
Sat, 2014-03-08 01:27
#117
Well, i think with the question #4 is more related to who is going to decide who the sex worker is going to be permitted to pay or hire or give her money to, and if it is anyone other than her making that decision it should be wrong. So in that case, then the government itself shall no longer be allowed to determine who she can pay/hire/gift her money to. Currently one of the laws has been overturned, but it is directly related to controlling who she can give her money to. "living off the avails' may now be applied to 18 and over children, a landlord, a security person, a driver (when doing outcalls, the legal way to provide services, some sex workers hire a driver. this person knows where they are, how long they will be there, and is backup in case of a problem. However, under the 'living off the avails' law, she is not legally permitted to pay that driver.
I think you're making up strawmen. Just as me paying a cab driver or grocery store for goods & services provided has nothing to do with them "profiting" from whatever business or livelihood I am involved in (since my money could be coming from anywhere), so such a law would not seek to control where the sex worker spends his or her money, simply that no one but him/herself is receiving profits from his/her services sold. Why not just stick to that definition? It makes things really simple.
Under what circumstances would someone profiting from sexual services sold by another be an okay thing anyway?
Sat, 2014-03-08 01:54
#118
Well, i think with the question #4 is more related to who is going to decide who the sex worker is going to be permitted to pay or hire or give her money to, and if it is anyone other than her making that decision it should be wrong. So in that case, then the government itself shall no longer be allowed to determine who she can pay/hire/gift her money to. Currently one of the laws has been overturned, but it is directly related to controlling who she can give her money to. "living off the avails' may now be applied to 18 and over children, a landlord, a security person, a driver (when doing outcalls, the legal way to provide services, some sex workers hire a driver. this person knows where they are, how long they will be there, and is backup in case of a problem. However, under the 'living off the avails' law, she is not legally permitted to pay that driver.
I think you're making up strawmen. Just as me paying a cab driver or grocery store for goods & services provided has nothing to do with them "profiting" from whatever business or livelihood I am involved in (since my money could be coming from anywhere), so such a law would not seek to control where the sex worker spends his or her money, simply that no one but him/herself is receiving profits from his/her services sold. Why not just stick to that definition? It makes things really simple.
Under what circumstances would someone profiting from sexual services sold by another be an okay thing anyway?
I understand that you don't understand how that law has been actually applied. :) This is why sex workers and clients both understand that answering that question can be problematic. I do know that agency owners cannot be seen to be providing information about sex workers that work for them, because right now that is techincally living off the avails. So a sex worker who does not want to be an owner/operator runnning her own ads or transporting herself to client's appointments or booking her own appointments cannot decide to pay or have a portion of her earnings with helf by an agency owner. If you put limits that 'no one' can profit from sexual services sold by another, you prevent her from working the way she wants to work. Her agency will be criminally charged for providing the services the sex worker wants them to provide, and is willing to pay for.
The only way they make money is if she makes money, therefore this is indeed a circumstance that it is OK. The same with a driver, it is the reality right now that no one can be a driver for a sex worker. For one thing even if she doesn't pay them, they can be found guilty of 'procuring' or trafficking. If she does pay them, they are 'living off the avails.' Again, this is another situation where it is OK for a perzon to profit (earn) that is directly related to the sex worker making money by providing sexual services. She wouldn't be getting paid to provide them if she can't get to the appointment. She can't get to the apointment without a driver, or agency owner.
These are the very same people that current laws, and potential future laws, would forbid the sex worker from paying or profiting from her work.
Advertising venues, location rental, all the same thing. She pays out of her work, it means they profit directly because she earns from providing sexual services.
Never underestimate the govt's ability to try to take something good (you don't want sex worker's money taken from them in an exploitive way) and make it bad (govt decides everyone she wants to pay are criminalized,...the way they are right now)
Sat, 2014-03-08 13:54
#119
susan davis
Well, i think with the question #4 is more related to who is going to decide who the sex worker is going to be permitted to pay or hire or give her money to, and if it is anyone other than her making that decision it should be wrong. So in that case, then the government itself shall no longer be allowed to determine who she can pay/hire/gift her money to. Currently one of the laws has been overturned, but it is directly related to controlling who she can give her money to. "living off the avails' may now be applied to 18 and over children, a landlord, a security person, a driver (when doing outcalls, the legal way to provide services, some sex workers hire a driver. this person knows where they are, how long they will be there, and is backup in case of a problem. However, under the 'living off the avails' law, she is not legally permitted to pay that driver.
I think you're making up strawmen. Just as me paying a cab driver or grocery store for goods & services provided has nothing to do with them "profiting" from whatever business or livelihood I am involved in (since my money could be coming from anywhere), so such a law would not seek to control where the sex worker spends his or her money, simply that no one but him/herself is receiving profits from his/her services sold. Why not just stick to that definition? It makes things really simple.
Under what circumstances would someone profiting from sexual services sold by another be an okay thing anyway?
it would be ok i that person was your agent/ booking person...they are working for a sex worker and would require pay...
the same thing for security guards/ drivers....they are working for us...its not like buying groceries...its about paying people to do work for us...critical work...like booking appointments or acting as security....
this has also been used to evict sex workers...the landlords are threatened with pimping charges and the sex worker is evicted....
Sat, 2014-03-08 17:57
#120
it would be ok i that person was your agent/ booking person...they are working for a sex worker and would require pay...
the same thing for security guards/ drivers....they are working for us...its not like buying groceries...its about paying people to do work for us...critical work...like booking appointments or acting as security....
this has also been used to evict sex workers...the landlords are threatened with pimping charges and the sex worker is evicted....
None of these examples suggest pimping or brothel ownership. Even the booking agent example is simply a service contract with a client -- or it can be legally rearranged to be so in the ideal everything-legalized scenario, which I think is what we're talking about. As long as it is strictly that: a fee for service arrangement.
I'm not sure what you mean by "drivers" - if you mean cab driver, I would be very surprised if there have been any convictions of cab drivers for "living off the avails of". But please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sat, 2014-03-08 18:14
#121
I understand that you don't understand how that law has been actually applied. :)
Indeed, I may not.
This is why sex workers and clients both understand that answering that question can be problematic. I do know that agency owners cannot be seen to be providing information about sex workers that work for them, because right now that is techincally living off the avails.
I'm not sure what you mean by "providing information" beyond a normal concern-for-privacy situation -- how that relates to living off the avails.
So a sex worker who does not want to be an owner/operator runnning her own ads or transporting herself to client's appointments or booking her own appointments cannot decide to pay or have a portion of her earnings with helf by an agency owner. If you put limits that 'no one' can profit from sexual services sold by another, you prevent her from working the way she wants to work. Her agency will be criminally charged for providing the services the sex worker wants them to provide, and is willing to pay for.
As I suggested to Susan Davis, in the desired new legalized situation, you can arrange anything to be a contract arrangement, as with any commercial enterprise, which would legitimately not be living off the avails. And this puts the worker back in charge.
The only way they make money is if she makes money, therefore this is indeed a circumstance that it is OK. The same with a driver, it is the reality right now that no one can be a driver for a sex worker. For one thing even if she doesn't pay them, they can be found guilty of 'procuring' or trafficking. If she does pay them, they are 'living off the avails.'
Again, a fee for service arrangement in a legalized enterprise context would achieve the same end, but keeping the worker in complete control.
Again, this is another situation where it is OK for a perzon to profit (earn) that is directly related to the sex worker making money by providing sexual services. She wouldn't be getting paid to provide them if she can't get to the appointment. She can't get to the apointment without a driver, or agency owner.
1) You're confusing the word "profit" with "earn". If the existing laws have confused these issues, then sex workers haven't been hiring good enough lawyers. And I assume the advocacy work being done right now is, in part, an effort to clarify these distinctions.
2) Why can't she get to the appointment without a driver?
I recognize my ignorance on a lot of these issues and I'm not trying to exasperate you. But I believe we're talking about a new, all-legit commercial scenario. This changes a lot of the old definitions which, imo, means you can now have a clause that states that no one but the worker herself can profit from the sex service being provided.
Sat, 2014-03-08 22:59
#122
She can't get to the appt without a driver because the driver is usually protection vs attack
Sun, 2014-03-09 01:24
#123
I won't requote but just try to address the issues. I did set up the example to refer to a sex worker who does not do outcalls UNLESS she has a driver to take her to it. This is actually very common. So , she 'can't' get to the appointment 'unless' she hires a driver to take her.
http://maggiestoronto.ca/news?news_id=87
3. The law against “Living off the Avails of Prostitution” was modified and might be gone some day--but is still in place for now. The meaning of this law was changed so that you could legally hire people to help you run your business. E.g. a driver, a receptionist or someone to be your safe person while you see clients. It also means that your partner/spouse, roommates, children and other personal relationships will *probably* not be considered criminal anymore. We can only say "probably" because “Living Off the Avails” will still be considered illegal if these relationships are considered "exploitative"--but the judges didn't define "exploitation" so we don't really know what that means or how it will be interpreted. For now though the law is still in place and nothing has changed.
4. The law against “Operating a Common Bawdy House” was struck down and might be gone in one year (March 2013). This means that if you see your clients indoors, in your own home or a hotel, this may become legal in a year. And we may see legal brothels. But the changes won’t come into effect for at least a year and in the meantime, the judges demanded that the government come up with a new way to regulate sex workers who work inside (hotels, outcalls, their own home etc). For now though, unfortunately, nothing has changed and working out of your own home, working indoors with someone else or in any one place regularly is still illegal. The only legal way to work remains by doing outcalls or moving from hotel room to hotel room.
Sun, 2014-03-09 01:38
#124
http://maggiestoronto.ca/uploads/File/POWER_Report_TheToolbox.pdf pg 10
i am unable to copy the text, which refers to the criminal codes related to prostitution.
Sun, 2014-03-09 01:39
#125
http://maggiestoronto.ca/uploads/File/10reasons.pdf
http://maggiestoronto.ca/uploads/File/8.2.Stella.pdf
http://maggiestoronto.ca/news?news_id=109
The three laws being challenged at the Supreme Court are:
a. Communicating For The Purposes of Prostitution in a public place (section 213)
b. Living off the avails of prostitution (section 212)
c. Keeping a common bawdy house (section 210)
Since the introduction of the anti-sex work laws in 1985, there has been a 500% increase in mortality amongst our sisters and brothers in the sex industry. Sex workers and people in the sex trade are our family members, our friends, children, colleagues, partners, leaders and part of our communities. Over our 26 year history, we have seen how criminalizing any aspect of the sex industry hurts all of us. Decriminalization is only one step in the process of achieving our goals of living and working in safety and dignity.
How repealing these laws will increase protection for the most marginalized sex workers
1.Repealing the law prohibiting “keeping a common bawdy house”
In the midst of the slaughter of sex workers in the downtown eastside of Vancouver, an Indigenous street-based sex worker—Jamie-Lee Hamilton—opened her own house up so that other sisters in the trade could work indoors rather than disappearing into cars with clients. Women were disappearing, the police were doing nothing and something urgent had to be done. This effort to save lives was shut down by the Vancouver police force using the Bawdy House law—and the massacre of women continued. If the law were struck down, workers could create our own collective workplaces run by and for other sex workers, where we are in charge and protected, where safer sex and services are openly negotiated.
2.Repealing the law prohibiting “Communicating for the purposes of prostitution in a public place”
Upwards of 95% of all prostitution related charges are through this law which primarily impacts street-based (outdoor) sex workers. This law makes being homeless and a sex worker illegal and dangerous. A criminal record has a dramatic impact on someone’s life. Criminal records marginalize those doing sex work due to poverty, can lead to the apprehension of their children and limits other economic options. For the most part, street based sex workers experience the criminal legal system as a source of danger and harassment, not protection. Indigenous sex workers are vastly more likely to experience violence by police and over-incarceration. Repealing this law would be one step to reducing contact between the criminal legal system and sex workers.
Removing this law would remove a significant barrier that sex workers face when attempting to negotiate services, safer sex and assess risk. This is a critical interaction between sex workers and prospective clients that saves lives. Removing this law means that sex workers no longer have to work in areas that are isolated and under-protected, another source of danger.
3. Repealing the law prohibiting “Living off the avails of prostitution”
This laws is purportedly for the protection of sex workers from exploitative pimps and organized crime. In its impact however, it criminalizes all relationships between sex workers and their community, leaving workers without access to colleagues, security, receptionists, community and support. We have reports that boyfriends, managers and friends are often charged under this law based on racial profiling, where men of colour are more likely to be perceived as “pimps” or “traffickers” due to racist stereotyping.
Repealing this law will allow sex workers to make decisions about who they want to work with and will remove one tool of racial profiling used by police.
Sun, 2014-03-09 10:25
#126
My answers to the gov't's survey:
1 No I do not think it should be an offence.
2 No I do not think it should be an offence.
3 Rules promoting health and rights should be put in place. So, the right to change one's mind and not proceed with the sale should be present. So, even if money has changed hands, if at the last minute the sex trade worker changes his or her mind, then there should be no obligation to proceed. The worker should always have the option to decline to serve (and thus refund any money put forward). Also, an obligation that condoms would be used should be put in place. Highway traffic should not be obstructed, but I think that's more a provincial thing to regulate.
4 No. If a sex trade worker wishes to advertise, hire a body guard, accountant, marketing agent, etc., this should be allowed. Business is business. In cases of coercion or abuse, I think the current laws, including the remaining parts of s. 212, are adequate to protect people.
5 Sex between two consenting adults, whether for money or not, should not be a criminal matter. Prostitution is a business for some, so some regulation of this should take place. But neither the sale nor the purchase of sexual services between two consenting adults should be criminal, I feel. I don't see this as a harmful activity.
6 No
Sun, 2014-03-09 13:47
#127
Some good points Mark, but how are the existing laws regarding coercion or exploitation working out so far? Not that well, by the sounds of it. If you just make it explicit and redundant in this set of laws that no one but the first party can profit from services sold then you're covered. It is already obvious in contract and other law that "profit" does not mean benefit, since all contractual relationships involve mutual benefit.
Probably most existing service/financial arrangements in the nuts and bolts of the sex trade would survive with a simple legal re-ordering of the relationship -- and one that will always give the control to the worker.
Sun, 2014-03-09 14:03
#128
I won't requote but just try to address the issues. I did set up the example to refer to a sex worker who does not do outcalls UNLESS she has a driver to take her to it. This is actually very common. So , she 'can't' get to the appointment 'unless' she hires a driver to take her.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that in a new legalized/decriminalized environment where sex workers are full members of the work force and complying with commercial laws and paying required taxes, then they also receive the same legal and law enforcement benefits that other commercial enterprises receive. Such an environment would be much more open and safe since everything is above board. It would probably also discourage the creepy johns who get much of their kick from the current hidden and illicit nature of buying sex.
It also appears that you already can hire drivers legally, so I'm not sure why you're worried that the new laws would prevent that.
Sun, 2014-03-09 15:06
#129
Some good points Mark, but how are the existing laws regarding coercion or exploitation working out so far? Not that well, by the sounds of it. If you just make it explicit and redundant in this set of laws that no one but the first party can profit from services sold then you're covered. It is already obvious in contract and other law that "profit" does not mean benefit, since all contractual relationships involve mutual benefit.
Probably most existing service/financial arrangements in the nuts and bolts of the sex trade would survive with a simple legal re-ordering of the relationship -- and one that will always give the control to the worker.
Thanks jas. Yes, I've made references in posts here to issues I believe may exist within contract law with the proposal to make the sale legal but the purchase illegal. I didn't get into that with the responses though.
Regarding exploitation/coercion, it's really a digression from the central question of legal issues surrounding full service sex-trade work (coercion not being the same as work/employment), but question 4 is somewhat ambiguous, so I figured I'd throw in a comment. I don't really know how well current laws on coercion or exploitation are working.
Regardless, for laws to work, people need to trust law enforcement to assist them. Groups that have a mistrust of law enforcement and of the courts will be less likely to access justice when they are victims, since they don't want to be further victimized. Making law enforcement a viable option then is the best way to make laws regarding coercion or exploitation work (rather than just writing more redundant laws). I think respecting rights of groups that previously had been discriminated against (IE, had their employment/business made unduly difficult to practice due to bizarre restrictions placed upon it) is the best way to do this. If the system respects the group in question, then the group in question will respect the system (of law enforcement). Repeating the same mistake of the past, that being to make the practice legal but to legislate various obstacles to pursuing the practice, is not the way to go.
Sun, 2014-03-09 17:30
#130
I guess what I'm suggesting is that in a new legalized/decriminalized environment where sex workers are full members of the work force and complying with commercial laws and paying required taxes, then they also receive the same legal and law enforcement benefits that other commercial enterprises receive. Such an environment would be much more open and safe since everything is above board. It would probably also discourage the creepy johns who get much of their kick from the current hidden and illicit nature of buying sex.
I believe if prostitution were legalized (it won't be decriminalized during my lifetime) prostitutes may be more inclined to report bad dates and police forces would be legally obligated to respond to said complaints like they are (supposedly) now. Whether they will remains to be seen, if it ever comes to that. A change in laws may result in more of the underground trade being made visible but the prostitution aspect of the sex trade will not be legitimized any time soon. The stigmas attached to prostitutes are not there because of their currently poor legal status, they have been there long before a change in laws became an issue and will remain long after. Even temple prostitutes would be looked down upon in most cities in 21st century North America. Most of us are still rather puritanical when it comes to activities such as overtly commercial sex.
Sun, 2014-03-09 19:31
#131
It also appears that you already can hire drivers legally, so I'm not sure why you're worried that the new laws would prevent that.
I know i am failing to communicate when i've tried to say 3 or 4 times that no, right now, sex workers can NOT HIRE drivers legally.
Any new law that restricted a sex worker from paying another person for any reason means that it would continue to be illegal. And that is the point of reactions to #4 in the questionaire mark copied his answers from. That government legislation could continue, if people overall say No, that a sex worker's earning should not be accessible by any 3rd party, that the criminalization can (and has been) applied to things like drivers or adult children, but especially spouses. It isn't what you think is a reasonable interpretation of the laws, it is what they actually are used for.
Now, if/when the current living off the avails (providing it is not exploitative situation) is dropped in Decemeber this year, and under the condition that NO other new laws come to pass that just repeat that same law, THEN in December 21, 2014, it will (finally) be legal to hire a driver.
I think you are trying to make logical sense out of the current laws the SCC overturned. The reason the SCC overturned them is because they are not logical, and they have been used against sex workers and their clients. Even tho sex work is legal in Canada.
Before the challenge made the news, I would say a significant number of sps believed that sex work in Canada was illegal. Even afterwards, you would continue to see them put disclaimers in ads (money is for time and companionship only, blah blah) They knew about the solicitation (public) law and truly believed that to mean that all sex work anywhere is illegal. Not because of where or how you were doing it, but because they believed it was the exchange of sex for money that was illegal.
Some of them still do believe that. I've had wannabe pimps call me up and try to tell me what the laws are and how much better off I will be with them, because they want to try to tell me that working out of an incall from home is illegal (true enough) but that working out of a hotel incall is not (they are the same thing). I have no idea what nonsense they put into the heads of new to the biz younger sex workers, but it isn't for their protection. If they continue to tell people that it is fully illegal, that person is going to want someone out there watching her back (as in watching for the police to come knocking on her door).
The Nordic model would make all of that worse, because there would be no doubt: prostitution would be illegal, and all the clients criminals, if they seek their services. More and more sex workers would need 'help' to watch the doors to make sure no police are coming to bust down the doors.
Sun, 2014-03-09 19:54
#132
I believe if prostitution were legalized (it won't be decriminalized during my lifetime) prostitutes may be more inclined to report bad dates and police forces would be legally obligated to respond to said complaints like they are (supposedly) now. Whether they will remains to be seen, if it ever comes to that. A change in laws may result in more of the underground trade being made visible but the prostitution aspect of the sex trade will not be legitimized any time soon. The stigmas attached to prostitutes are not there because of their currently poor legal status, they have been there long before a change in laws became an issue and will remain long after. Even temple prostitutes would be looked down upon in most cities in 21st century North America. Most of us are still rather puritanical when it comes to activities such as overtly commercial sex.
Some of the anti decrim proponents shout that if it is all decriminalized, then the numbers of sex workers will increase because it will be showing that it is acceptable. i am not sure what world they live in that they believe that removing a couple of laws is announcing that this is a viable and acceptable work opportunity (as in agencies setting up a table at a school trade fair) because the stigma is HUGE. Even without sex work, any young woman who provides sex to multiple partners is stigmatized. There is no way that the majority of women are going to choose to do it just because they can now provide in a massage parlour instead of hiding in an apartment.
Below, agencies fall under the definition of procuring, and drivers fall under the definition of transporting as well as living off the avails. Living off the avails is presumed in any case where someone is living with a sex worker, even if they can prove their own income. Or even if they do not live together, but just spend a lot of time together. The legislation essentially criminalizes any friends or spouses of all sex workers. We already know no two sex workers can share spaces, so basically the law wants to further stigmatize sex workers into not just working alone, but living alone.
I don't know very many laws that apply to any other type of worker that make criminals out of their friends or family members.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Canada
Mon, 2014-03-10 05:07
#133
My last post is quite far upthread now so a lot has been said. I share the concerns about the "living off the avails" clause, in that it can be read very broadly into a wide range of individuals who receive any funds that may have originated in sex work.
In my post I put forth that the uniquely personal nature of sex work deserves to be addressed in labour law in some respect. I used the example of coercing a grocery store worker to work more hours versus a sex worker. Yes, overtime is voluntary, but yes, the reality is many employees do not have leverage in these sorts of situations and will comply with such demands.
Not to make light of poor working conditions of course. The grocery worker who is coerced to crank out more hours will have an upsetting experience and has every right to be outraged. The sex worker who is coerced to take more clients - I cannot speak for that experience but I would imagine it to be deeply traumatic.
In principle the rights of all workers should be a framework for how the law treats sex work. However I think the law must further recognize that where labour laws and sex laws intersect, sex workers have rights and protections that are uniquely suited to the risks and personal nature of their work.
Mon, 2014-03-10 11:42
#134
susan davis
the driver is our security. the person who kicks down the door and saves you if you miss a call check in....
so your driver takes you to the call, you go in and within a preset time- 5 mins- you call and check in with a pre arranged phrase...for me its "all good" - if i call the driver and say i am so happy here or he's really nice...the driver knows this is not my security phrase and will come and kick down the door.
if i check in fine after 5 mins, there are then checks every 20 mins where the driver phones me seeking the same security phrase. if i answer and say all good, the driver hangs up and calls back in another 20 mins...
if i don't answer, the driver kicks down the door or...if i do answer and say anything other than the security phrase, he/ she kicks down the door.
so a driver is not a "cab driver" and we do not recommend workers going alone on outcalls without security.
yes the advocacy we are engaged is is trying to clarify how these things work.
re: hiring good lawyers
i guess you have never been through the criminal court process. first, sex workers generally don't hire lawyers, we mostly use "legal aid" which has been stripped so far back through the years it is very difficult to get representation if you are not facing jail time and even if you do qualify for representation you do not get to choose your lawyer, you get who you get.
the distinction between profit from and earn are very clear to sex workers but not to the mainstream community. current government statements fall into the stereo typical territory of all sex workers being victims so there for no one earns from sex workers, they are all profiting from or exploiting us.
so while it may seem like any reasonable and rational person could understand the distinction, the voices of sex workers have been stripped by abolitionist rhetoric which has cast us all as victims without any control over our lives or earnings.
this is the cost of aboltionism. peter mackay has stated outright, he will not be meeting with sex workers before making decisions on our lives and safety, because he believes that we have no voice or agency, because the powerful and wealthy outsiders, abolitionists,have told him so....i mean why would they lie...? right?
Mon, 2014-03-10 12:59
#135
Yes, I can see why particular interests would like to keep prostitution illicit, and that an abolitionist stance, even well-intentioned such as is coming fron the feminist community, will not achieve the goals it claims to seek.
I think probably even sex workers realize that full decriminalization, and bringing sex work into the open, into the legitimate, above-board commercial world, will likely have the effect of reducing demand for bought sex. But the payoff will be a safer, more legitimate and honest work environment, maybe more along the lines of 'The Sessions', possibly more equal gender representation among both buyers and sellers, as well as, as I see it, just plain better clients -- those whose reasons for buying sex are not to act out disturbed and/or violent sexual issues, fantasies which an illicit trade encourages. In other words, taking the dirty out of the profession would kill the buzz for a lot of sick johns.
Mon, 2014-03-10 13:25
#136
why hasn't it in other countries? it's not taken the "dirty" out of it or the "sickos".
the NDP better not be taking apro stance but i have my doubts they won't i'm still waiting for an answer from them and iknow they've got it because they've sent me other emails to my new email address
Mon, 2014-03-10 13:56
#137
susan davis
you mean like new zealand? where it has increased the safety of sex workers quizzical? or like in sweden where violence is escalating and even the minstry of justice there are admiting the problems have increased for sex workers like petite jasmin...?
please provide links that show the foundation of your assertions quizzical....and not from unethical/ biased sources or news paper articles....and not about legalization...about decriminalization....
please, post one link.....not from farely, not from poulin, not from malerek, not from perrin...not from raymond ...all of whom were given no weight by the SCC....
Mon, 2014-03-10 14:02
#138
susan davis
Yes, I can see why particular interests would like to keep prostitution illicit, and that an abolitionist stance, even well-intentioned such as is coming fron the feminist community, will not achieve the goals it claims to seek.
I think probably even sex workers realize that full decriminalization, and bringing sex work into the open, into the legitimate, above-board commercial world, will likely have the effect of reducing demand for bought sex. But the payoff will be a safer, more legitimate and honest work environment, maybe more along the lines of 'The Sessions', possibly more equal gender representation among both buyers and sellers, as well as, as I see it, just plain better clients -- those whose reasons for buying sex are not to act out disturbed and/or violent sexual issues, fantasies which an illicit trade encourages. In other words, taking the dirty out of the profession would kill the buzz for a lot of sick johns.
re: sick john's
part of a sex workers job is to help men who have experienced some kind of event or trauma which has shaped the sexuality into an unacceptable form.
rape fantasies, incest fantasies (involving parent or children), submissiveness, domination...
i try to help them work through it and come to a place where they can recover and gone on to have a happy sex life and rewarding relationships. each case is unique so going into detail is pointless...but i think a kind of sexual rehab can have a profound effect on some of these cases where a man's sexuality has transformed into something unhealthy...
kind of off topic but....there it is....and its my opinion, not based on research of any kind but rather 28 years of experience
Mon, 2014-03-10 14:29
#139
Some of the anti decrim proponents shout that if it is all decriminalized, then the numbers of sex workers will increase because it will be showing that it is acceptable. i am not sure what world they live in that they believe that removing a couple of laws is announcing that this is a viable and acceptable work opportunity (as in agencies setting up a table at a school trade fair) because the stigma is HUGE. Even without sex work, any young woman who provides sex to multiple partners is stigmatized. There is no way that the majority of women are going to choose to do it just because they can now provide in a massage parlour instead of hiding in an apartment.
True. Those who cry, "The moral sky is falling" because of a liberalization of our prostitution laws are following a traditional so-con pattern—make change look bad by using hyperbole. I recall the so-cons moaning about how the legalization of gay marriage will result in the downfall of heterosexual marriage and encourage men to rut with beasts. Nonsense. If the only thing preventing young women from becoming prostitutes are three or four minor laws that are easy to work around there would be so many prostitutes on the game that the market would collapse as the value of the service would be effectively reduced to nothing. Personal morals (not state mandated morals), stigmas, lack of opportunity, and fear keep the young out of the trade, not cops and courts.
Mon, 2014-03-10 15:39
#140
re: sick john's
part of a sex workers job is to help men who have experienced some kind of event or trauma which has shaped the sexuality into an unacceptable form.
Well, I think each sex worker decides what his/her job is, but I appreciate you speaking from your experience.
There are many ways people who have been abused and traumatized can explore and heal. It doesn't require enacting out shit on other people. If a sex worker wants to take that kind of garbage on, I hope they're charging enough for it. Some, I think, just get drawn into it without having the skills or self assurance to deal with it appropriately, let alone therapeutically.
I was really referring to the kind of clients for whom buying sex is mostly appealing because so much around the trade is hidden and illegal. Bringing the trade into open and safe grounds I think will cause a lot of those types to scatter. And I'm sure this includes high-level, high-income clients, clients who are married, etc. "Sick johns" wasn't the best term for that.
Mon, 2014-03-10 19:43
#141
susan davis
you misunderstand...i don't let them act their shit out on me....i help them work through it....
and while i understand that it being taboo makes it more exciting... i don't honestly think that will change much...decrim or not the stigma remains and sex buyers experience some of the worst stigma...thus shame the john's being so effective...
Tue, 2014-03-11 01:47
#142
re: sick john's
part of a sex workers job is to help men who have experienced some kind of event or trauma which has shaped the sexuality into an unacceptable form.
Well, I think each sex worker decides what his/her job is, but I appreciate you speaking from your experience.
There are many ways people who have been abused and traumatized can explore and heal. It doesn't require enacting out shit on other people. If a sex worker wants to take that kind of garbage on, I hope they're charging enough for it. Some, I think, just get drawn into it without having the skills or self assurance to deal with it appropriately, let alone therapeutically.
I was really referring to the kind of clients for whom buying sex is mostly appealing because so much around the trade is hidden and illegal. Bringing the trade into open and safe grounds I think will cause a lot of those types to scatter. And I'm sure this includes high-level, high-income clients, clients who are married, etc. "Sick johns" wasn't the best term for that.
I think what happens in the case of possible childhood trauma is that we don't judge. (no offense, but we wouldn't call it 'garbage' that a man might have been abused by a teenage female babysitter and now he needs to have a woman's feet on his face in order to reach orgasm) It is something that a 17 year old girl did to a 10 year old boy for example or an older woman did to a mid teen boy that can affect them in relatively harmless but embarassing to them ways. Being men in this society, it isnt something they feel they can discuss with a spouse, or ask them to do. Say, spouse, how about you put on some pantyhose and use your feet on me for something completely different? He'd be afraid of her reaction, but he feels confident in asking a sex worker.
And let's face it, in the scheme of strange requests, that is pretty harmless. Use feet instead of hands? Sure, why not :)
People think they know what goes on behind these closed doors, but they just don't believe what actually goes on. Feel free to watch the show Secret Diary of a Call Girl, because really she covers the whole gamut of the mundane things that happen day after day
Sex work is work, just like any other job, and the people are pretty normal, just like everyone you meet at work, in a store, at a bank, wherever whenever. But as long as we can work safely, we can have a steady income. As long as we have a steady income, it means we can 'afford' to turn away 'bad money', which is basically anyone who contacts us who sets off the red flags of danger danger. If someone is working in isolation, and thinks all this is illegal so she can't ask for help, and she can't report to the police, that is someone who is going to end up face to face with a dangerous criminal.
Will dangerous sick people stop contacting sex workers just because of decriminalization? Not a chance. But with decriminalization, and set ups that make working together a possibilty for those that want to, and more information disseminated to new workers, etc, then the sickos will have fewer potential targets, imo.
Tue, 2014-03-11 02:12
#143
I think what happens in the case of possible childhood trauma is that we don't judge. (no offense, but we wouldn't call it 'garbage' that a man might have been abused by a teenage female babysitter and now he needs to have a woman's feet on his face in order to reach orgasm)
Nor was I calling it that in that context, but rather in the context of someone who thinks they need to work it out using someone else instead of working it out through other means, as many women survivors do.
It is something that a 17 year old girl did to a 10 year old boy for example or an older woman did to a mid teen boy that can affect them in relatively harmless but embarassing to them ways. Being men in this society, it isnt something they feel they can discuss with a spouse, or ask them to do. Say, spouse, how about you put on some pantyhose and use your feet on me for something completely different? He'd be afraid of her reaction, but he feels confident in asking a sex worker.
You start off talking about trauma then end up with embarassment. If we're talking trauma let's at least acknowledge for the sake of honesty that, more often than not, it will be from being raped or molested by a man, not a woman, since the overwhelming majority of sexual violence and sexual abuse is committed by men.
Wed, 2014-03-12 02:28
#144
I think what happens in the case of possible childhood trauma is that we don't judge. (no offense, but we wouldn't call it 'garbage' that a man might have been abused by a teenage female babysitter and now he needs to have a woman's feet on his face in order to reach orgasm)Nor was I calling it that in that context, but rather in the context of someone who thinks they need to work it out using someone else instead of working it out through other means, as many women survivors do.
It is something that a 17 year old girl did to a 10 year old boy for example or an older woman did to a mid teen boy that can affect them in relatively harmless but embarassing to them ways. Being men in this society, it isnt something they feel they can discuss with a spouse, or ask them to do. Say, spouse, how about you put on some pantyhose and use your feet on me for something completely different? He'd be afraid of her reaction, but he feels confident in asking a sex worker.You start off talking about trauma then end up with embarassment. If we're talking trauma let's at least acknowledge for the sake of honesty that, more often than not, it will be from being raped or molested by a man, not a woman, since the overwhelming majority of sexual violence and sexual abuse is committed by men.
When it comes to grown men with certain fetishes, no it isn't men that put that on them, it was a woman or older girl. They are heterosexual men who had a sexual experience before puberty, or just at puberty. it cannot always be laid at the feet of men to take all the responsibilty for everything wrong about sexual feelings. All men are not evil, that is another stereotype perpetuated by political correctness, for want of a better explanation.
The fetish is directly related to first sexualization or first contact. it is not always directly related to inappropriate conduct by an older person, but it can be. When i say these grown adult men with blue collar jobs are 'embarrassed' by the fact they are turned on by wearing pantyhose, or feet, or non sexy underwear, i mean just that. It isn't 'normal'. It's 'sick' as mentioned by quizzical. They are embarrassed to even ask or talk about it. They would be mortified if anyone they knew found out about it, let alone their spouse.
So by embarrassment I mean just that. There is trauma whether someone is male or female, if something sexual happens when they are too young to understand it, when younger, but what holds them back from talking about it is embarrassment as being seen to be a victim. Same thing happens with adults who may have been abused by their SO. Again, male or female, chances are they aren't talking about it because they don't want to see judgment in others eyes.
In the case of women survivors, I think often what happens is that they do not work it out. They end up living in fear of intimacy or contact or being alone with men, and I think that they are losing a whole piece of their own humanity if they do this. If it was more common, they might be able to role play out situations where they have the upper hand to help work thru this, with a male sex worker, if it came to that. imo, there are many women who may be playing that out by entering the BDSM scene, as a submissive rather than dominant. Personally i find the idea of female submissives horrifying, and it greatly concerns me when i hear of them deciding to enter the sex trade and providing those kinds of services. Sex workers have not been providing submissive roles, and to me it sets a dangerous precedent, to provide in a paid situation, services that are best left to long term relationships or very controlled situations like BDSM clubs.
Wed, 2014-03-12 09:58
#145
. It's 'sick' as mentioned by quizzical.
this is an absolute fabrication on your part i never said a fkn word about "sick" you retract this asap or i'm will make a report to the mods about you slandering me.
Wed, 2014-03-12 10:40
#146
Back to the thread. Part of the significant problems with the NZ. Swedish and German systems is that they are used I conjunction with immigration deportations.Sex workers who are undocumented migrants are deported. This also puts their safety at risk.
Wed, 2014-03-12 11:59
#147
susan davis
i agree that the issues facing the sex industry re:migrant workers is a difficult one and one which we are accutely aware of.
this is why i think we need a made in canada model...we could address problems with the other approaches and tailor something to fit the canadian experience....
in the GAATW reports we read that when these workers are deported they are sometimes thorwn into prison immediately upon arrival in their home countries or in some cases they are executed...
while i have heard anti migrant sentiments here and in some ways understand that these workers have stolen my jobs and are undermining my wages....i cannot simply say, go back to your home....when i know what can potentialy happen to them when they return home...
the federal government are busy closing the doors to migrants and are including language around the sex industry forcing people to sign statements that they will not engage in sex work while in canada....there used to be visa's for exotic dancers....not any more....
so i don't know what we should do...i know that we would do more good if we could allow some way for them to legally work here, give them accurate information about their health and safety and ensure they know abotu fair wages and what the minimum standards are in canada...
we work with SWAN alot in vancouver and hope to continue to find ways to improve the safety of migrant sex workers here...
Wed, 2014-03-12 12:00
#148
susan davis
. It's 'sick' as mentioned by quizzical.
this is an absolute fabrication on your part i never said a fkn word about "sick" you retract this asap or i'm will make a report to the mods about you slandering me.
hey fortunate, does this remind you of anyone else....? lol
Wed, 2014-03-12 12:02
#149
susan davis
why hasn't it in other countries? it's not taken the "dirty" out of it or the "sickos".
the NDP better not be taking apro stance but i have my doubts they won't i'm still waiting for an answer from them and iknow they've got it because they've sent me other emails to my new email address
who are you calling sickos here then quiziical?
Wed, 2014-03-12 22:56
#150
if you notice the words were in quotes and from a post above mine and i was taking exception to their use.
you go on the attack without even bothering to really 'see' what's being said
Thu, 2014-03-13 00:28
#151
. It's 'sick' as mentioned by quizzical.
this is an absolute fabrication on your part i never said a fkn word about "sick" you retract this asap or i'm will make a report to the mods about you slandering me.
You are quite right. You said "sickos". My mistake.. Quoting you here:
Why hasn't it in other countries? it's not taken the "dirty" out of it or the "sickos".