MP Bids to Make Buying Sex Illegal in Canada

[Alexandra-Sky 12606]

Some logical and well-rounded arguments on why the Swedish model is not working:

 

[Capital Hunter 18263]

 

This may be a good link to email to our MPs if and when it comes to a vote on this private bill, in the parliament... It comes directly from the source.

[Suzirider 737]

The Vancouver Sun reports, 5 July 2011:

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Backbench+aims+abolish+trade/5055416/story.html

"The Nordic model involves a public education program aimed at making it socially unacceptable to buy any sexual services

and

provision of a wide range of social services including housing, education, detox and income support to address the

reality that poverty and desperation

often drives women and children into the sex trade."

 

Yes, I get it !

If we can't punish the evil men first, poverty and desperation shall remain, as is ! (can't do anything about that without good reason, ya know)

 

And which came first, the Buyer or the Seller ?

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Hi there. Anyone can elaborate on this? If this private bill ever becomes a law (God forbid) would it be retroactive (not sure what the legal term is for this). What I mean to say is if buying sex becomes criiminal on January 1st, can only those buying sex be charged January 2nd or after only or even those who bought sex December 31 or prior (before it becomes the law) can be charged as well. All logic tells me that it should not be retroactive. Just thought asking from someone or someones who may know the law better than I do.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Hi there. Anyone can elaborate on this? If this private bill ever becomes a law (God forbid) would it be retroactive ....

 

I am not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that ex post facto criminal laws are prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

 

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless,

at the time of the act or omission

, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations ...

 

Furthermore:

 

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the

lesser punishment.

 

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_7

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I am not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that ex post facto criminal laws are prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless,

at the time of the act or omission

, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations ...

Furthermore:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the

lesser punishment.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_7

 

Thank you very much WIT. It confirms what I suspected and it only makes sense. You are truely a valued member.

[Phaedrus 209521]

IANAL, but I think it'd be highly unusual for any new law to be retroactive.

[techno123 100]

Ah I guess I've to go back to dating if this law does get passed. Wasn't planning to put any effort into that area for a while :(

[drlove 37202]

So, how would this affect the industry in general, especially agencies? Would they automatically be out of business?

[scribbles 6031]

I can't believe I read this whooooole thread... And on a Friday night, even! That's probably saying a lot about my lifestyle I'm not comfortable with. :s

 

I think the only aspect of the industry that would be noticeably impacted by Joy Smith's Bill would be street trade, simply because it would be manageable to enforce. LE targeting outcall or incall indoor work would be just as difficult and costly, hence as rare, as it is today. Realistically, they could use existing laws just as effectively now as they would any new law. But, the street workers are easier to pick off, from a LE standpoint.

 

Another question that should be asked is the practicality of legislating the Bill. As the Himel case has shown, legislation regarding sex work is extremely difficult because of the intricacies of Charter/Constitutional implications. The Swedish Model would be exceedingly difficult to introduce because it would be so open to challenges by opponents based on Charter Rights.

 

Not that it isn't worrying, but for me it's more worrying because it is taking the discussion away from the direction it should be going. None of this addresses safety and harm reduction, which should be the key concern.

[SamanthaEvans 166766]

I think the only aspect of the industry that would be noticeably impacted by Joy Smith's Bill would be street trade, simply because it would be manageable to enforce. LE targeting outcall or incall indoor work would be just as difficult and costly, hence as rare, as it is today. Realistically, they could use existing laws just as effectively now as they would any new law. But, the street workers are easier to pick off, from a LE standpoint.

 

The street trade is the only area of the industry that's likely to be affected immediately and, judging by experiences elsewhere, even street sex work will not be fully curtailed or eliminated. In Sweden, there was an initial 40% reduction in street prostitution, but that only lasted a couple of years. Reports are that there are as many street sex workers plying their trade now as there were originally. This is probably because the penalties men face if caught are insignificant.

 

In Canada, the great majority of street sex workers are aboriginal women who are addicted to street drugs and/or are mentally ill. LE doesn't take these women seriously, already, as the Picton murders demonstrated. Moreover, I know from my connections with the downtown east side, here, that the police are already over-extended when dealing with violence, drunkenness and mentally ill people in that neighbourhood.

 

No one I've spoken with in any of the neighbourhood agencies thinks that the police will have any increased motivation for arresting street prostitutes. Social service agencies here are more concerned about what happens when no one knows where the women are. After all, these women are not just working for the money. Many of them prefer to be paid in drugs rather than in cash. LE does little to nothing about the drug trade in the neighbourhood.

 

The drug trade is an essential aspect of the Vancouver economy to such a great extent that it is unimaginable that any genuine action will be taken to get rid of it in the near future. Attempting to get rid of street prostitutes just puts those women under the care of the drug dealers, many of whom already act as pimps.

 

. . . [Considering new laws] is taking the discussion away from the direction it should be going. None of this addresses safety and harm reduction, which should be the key concern.

I agree, absolutely! I no longer think that there is any real, legitimate concern about safety and harm reduction. None at all. The federal government takes the position that they have no obligation to look after the safety of women engaged in street prostitution. The harm they face is the price they pay for being on the streets to begin with.

 

Right now, we should really avoid fear-mongering. There is no point in raising anxiety.

 

The federal government is not going to enact legislation while the matter is before the courts. That the Ontario Court of Appeal decision will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada is a fait accompli. The government will be content to wait for the SCC to make rulings. In the meantime, regardless of what the Himel appeal decides, we can expect the current laws to stay on the books, as-is.

 

I believe that all of the government chatter about changes in the laws means nothing. Even if the government does attempt to write new legislation and is successful in passing it into law, nothing really will change. I am convinced that it's only a smokescreen, or perhaps something that they will point to in future campaigns as an example of their focus on law and order. The government is not interested in prosecuting men for engaging in consensual sex, even if they pay women to be their consensual partners. The government is also not genuinely interested in doing anything that will make a positive change in the lives of women in the street sex trade. They don't consider those women to be constituents: they're aboriginal, they don't vote and they don't represent significantly large enough numbers to be important.

 

Independent paid companions will not be subjected to police interference anymore than we are now. Most of us will carry on as before, increasing our screening requirements and perhaps raising our rates a bit, because we can; because the company of reputable, reliable companions is always a desirable commodity; and because slightly nervous but knowledgeable gentlemen appreciate having one less thing to be worried about and are willing to pay what it costs for that kind of peace of mind.

 

What will happen to the agencies is less certain. In some places, we can expect some of them to close. In many cases, frankly, this would not be a bad thing. However, there are also some very good agencies across the country who may decide to close their doors for awhile, for the sake of expediency.

 

So, for awhile, it may be more difficult to find a group of lovely women to provide care and comfort at bachelor parties, poker nights and Grey Cup parties. Is it a problem when someone has to do some work to find three or four women who are all available at the same time for the same event at the same fee, each? I don't think so!

[Capital Hunter 18263]

It is good to be optimistic (and yes fear mongering is wrong) but at the same time one has to be realistic and ready for the most likely scenario (hence being realistic pays off too).

 

I am not sure on what basis you are predicting what you commented...

 

For example you predict that the Federal government is not going to enact legislation while the matter is before the courts. It is my understanding that whenever a private bill is introduced in the parliament it is voted on within a few weeks on average or a few months at most and the bill will be introduced in September and the Federal government has a majority (I warned you not to elect a majority conservative lol!!!!). The parliament is a separate entity and independent of courts. So not sure why you are so sure that parliament is going to sit ideal for about 2 years until the SCC decides!!

 

I also read that in Sweden business dropped by 90% first few years not 40% so not sure where the 40% came from but yes it has been on the increase since no one yet has been sent to jail but just fined heavily and disgraced publically (as bad). No one is sure same thing would happen in Canada. People may go to jail so why do you thing the Cons are planning to spend billions on prisons lol!!!. In fact they are firing scientists at Environment Canada in order to hire prison guards and that is a fact (I told you NOT to vote for Cons lol!!!).

 

You predict that only street action will be affected. Again I don't see why you predict that because when buying sex becomes illegal and criminal it includes every type of sex for money, incalls, outcalls even at the privacy of my own home to have a date and give gift to my date becomes illegal. As stupid as it seems (and it is) that would be what the law would say...When it becomes criminal it is enough for me (and many others who have never broken any laws in our lives) to stop altogether so business for on-line escorts will be adversely affected too so again respectfully I don't understand your logic.

 

Yes I agree that this bill will not address the very important safety aspects of sex workers and even would make the working environment a lot more dangerous for everyone including clients and sex workers (as per my earlier post in this thread).

 

Enforcement would be easy and not costly. They have to do what they do now at street level and that is placing a few undercover agents among the on-line escorts or even board members and a few well publicized trials and scare everyone off. Mind you a review would become a confession to a crime committed by reviewer (in fact a recommendation would be against cerb rules as it is against the rules to discuss anything illegal on the board) so likely very few reviews if any and therefore harder to know or meet established escorts. Again I can't understand why you believe established SPs will not be affected or even charging more!!!!.

 

This government is the most right wing regime ever in Canadian history and not sure whay you may think they don't mean what they say and it is all smokescreen. They have to show results in 4 years time and that is a significant drop in prostitution as like in Sweden.

 

I believe quite the contrary. I believe we have to say it loud and clear (to galvanize opposition NOW) what it would be if it the bill passes the parliament (totally undemocratic and backward and counterproductive) right now, so that it will never passes the parliament. Provide statistics as in those countries that this law will not protect but rather endanger sex workers and has not been effective in long term and email the results/videos to our MPs when it comes to voting time later in the fall. Understating the effects and glorious optimistic predictions would only help those who want to pass the bill as those opposed would sit ideal and do nothing because they think that nothing would change for them and it would be business as usual or even better as you said they can charge more!!!!. I sincerely hope that you are right in your predictions and that I am wrong in what I call a more realistic scenario if we allow this stupid bill becomes law. And yes most likely your post would be a lot more popular than mine as readers would like to read what they wish to hear lol.

[scribbles 6031]

All due respect intended, SA, but what precisely are you proposing?

 

Let's all panic. Let's take up signs and bull-horns and take to the streets to shout our displeasure at this legislation-that-isn't-yet. As you rightly point out, there is a Conservative majority. Unless you think we'd be able to change the minds of Conservative MPs in substantial numbers, which brings to my mind an image of hundreds of happy hobbyists bashing their heads against the pavement.

 

And, what you're talking about *is* panic. LE would have to go through the same degree of effort to enforce the new law as they would now. In fact, if they simply enforced the laws we currently have, hobbying would be decimated. Don't think that because you hobby at home the current laws protect you, because there could be a case presented if they took the time to declare a private residence or hotel room a bawdy house. None of this happens because of the time and resources it would take to lay the foundation of an arrest. The Swedish Model won't be any different.

 

This is why it's the street workers that are at risk. Now just as then, they are the most exposed to view and ripe for arrest. And they're the ones taking the most risk and most in need of harm reduction measures.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I am simply stating the facts as I see them scribbles as what would happen if we allow it to happen. Nobody proposed banging our heads on the pavements. What I propose is that if and when time comes to it (a vote in the parliament) we should write to our MPs (both sex workers and hobbyists) and with reasons (the fact that it has not worked in Sweden and it would endanger our citizens, sex workers/clients alike) and convince them to vote against it and yes a demo or two on parliament hill may work as that was the case a few years ago when the Ontario government wanted to impose Shariat law (what did they call it...).

 

I know it may be regarded as a long shot but even among the Con MPs there are those who really care about the citizens if they become aware of the facts. They have a slim majority. Based on my calculations about a dozen Con MP minds need changing. We have to show the poll results loud and clear that the majority of Canadians are against this model and want prostitution legalized and regulated and more importantly take part in on-line polls. Challenge it in the courts (all the way to SCC) if God forbid, it ever becomes law. This is a democracy. The majority speaks. This is the time to be united not divided and be active not passive.

 

On your second comment/allegation, There is NO current law that could make a private residence a bawdy house. This is clearly an exaggerated (likely false) statement. A bawdy house is defined as a place of business where money is exchanged for sex and clients (plaural) are visiting frequently. Where we live and have dates with consenting guests and we don't make any money of our private resiidential places are not in any CURRENT law defined as bawdy houses no matter how much time they take. In an undemocratic countries LE can break the law, Go against it, build (fake) cases, plant evidence and imprison the innocent. Thank God Canada is still a democracy that we all respect and love. This will not happen in Canada.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... Don't think that because you hobby at home the current laws protect you, because there could be a case presented if they took the time to declare a private residence or hotel room a bawdy house....

 

...There is NO current law that could make a private residence a bawdy house. This is clearly an exaggerated statement. A bawdy house is defined as a place of business where money is exchanged for sex and clients (plaural) are visiting frequently. Where we live and have dates with consenting guests and we don't make any money of our private resiidential places is not in any CURRENT law defined as a bawdy house no matter how much time they take.

 

Providing sex for money in a provider's venue is illegal, since that would make their home/hotel room/etc a Bawdy House. As far as technical illegality, all it takes is one client, and the nature of the place otherwise (residential vs commercial, for example) is irrelevant. Providing sex for money in a client's private venue (home/hotel room/etc) is legal.

 

From the Criminal Code re bawdy houses:

 

197.(1) ... "common bawdy-house" means a place that is

 

(a) kept or occupied, or

(b) resorted to by one or more persons

 

for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency ....

 

210.(1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years ...

 

 

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

[Capital Hunter 18263]

Providing sex for money in a client's private venue (home/hotel room/etc) is legal.

 

 

Thank you WIT for your confirmation.

[scribbles 6031]

I wasn't proposing banging heads against the pavement SA, just suggesting that trying to change the minds of a Conservative MP on a religious/moral/ethical issue is kind of akin to that.

 

Slim majority? The Conservatives were elected with a pretty massive majority, actually.

 

I agree there should be action, but I think the time for action is when we can vote these far-right loonies out of office. Given that we've given Harper a majority in his third election, do you really think Canadians are against him in the majority? That doesn't add up.

 

I may be wrong about the bawdy house laws. I'm certainly no lawyer. However, defining it as a place where one or more persons resort to for the purpose of prostitution sounds open to abuse. As in, if you are shown to have three escorts over for the purpose of prostitution in one weekend, the definition could be argued to fit. Hell, if you have a regular SP over more than once, how does that not make your home the same as her operating out of a hotel?

I know, maybe sketchy, and I may be wrong, but the point is that the current laws are far from foolproof and could be used to ruin the hobby if LE bothered to apply them. We don't need the Swedish model to make a mess of things, nor will it make any bigger mess than what we could already have.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

 

I wasn't proposing banging heads against the pavement SA, just suggesting that trying to change the minds of a Conservative MP on a religious/moral/ethical issue is kind of akin to that.

 

Slim majority? The Conservatives were elected with a pretty massive majority, actually.

 

.

 

Am I wrong to think that 166 Con MPs were voted in and that is only a dozen over the magic number. If I am correct, it is not a pretty massive majority.

 

Even among conservative MPs there are some who care about their country and the well being of their citizens. If they know all the facts and if they become aware of what the majority view is on prostitution in Canada they may change their mind or soften the law (out of care or fear of not being elected next time).

 

Any law can of course be abused. They indeed manufacture criminal cases for lawyers who are trying to defend human right activists jailed for fighting for human rights and political freedom and democracy in certain countries but thank God Canada is not as such. I have full faith in the legal system we have.

 

However scribbles, if you really believe that after the Swedish model becomes law everything will remain the same and business will be as usual as usual and only SWs will be affected and there will be no drop in business for on-line escorts and we can still review on board, a what would be a criminal act (against current cerb rules) and no one will be arrested or fined for buying sex then I hope you are right and I respect your views no matter how different they may be to mind. And as I said I sincerely hope that I am wrong in my predictions.

[scribbles 6031]

I admire your optimism SA. It's good that some people still have enough faith in the decency of politicians to believe that they will follow the will of the people. And, I'm not being sarcastic here. As a cynical bastard often rewarded with examples of how dirty and deaf our leaders have become, it's refreshing to see optimists who still think things can change.

 

Slim, massive. Whatever. When the ruling party has 63 more seats than the official opposition, I call that fairly strong. You're assuming that all opposition parties would vote against Joy Smith's bill. That's a dangerous assumption, and unlikely. Even so, you would need 25 Cons to turn coat, and if anything we have seen how Harper controls his people. They vote the way HE wants them to, not their conscience. Just ask Garth Turner how well going against Harper's wishes works out for Conservative MPs.

 

Faith in the judicial system? Have you seen what the Ottawa police are getting in trouble for recently? Our judicial system has a pretty shady history too, don't fool yourself.

 

People are led by what leaders want them to think. I'd like to believe that collective reason wins out, but there are too many cases where this is shown to be false. Case in point: the majority of Canadians think that crime is on the rise and penalties are too lenient, despite years of data showing the opposite. Hence Harper's jails. Other case in point: this moral majority you speak of who want prostitution decriminalized certainly didn't rise up and keep the gov't from mounting an appeal to Himel, did it? If so many Canadians are against the status quo, that appeal should never have happened.

 

How do you figure anything different would happen in the Joy Smith scenario?

[scribbles 6031]

No worries, WIT, it's not a lack of belief. Part of this stems from the fact that I remember the content of something I read but not the source, and, at any rate, it dealt with an arrest on an outcall where LE was claiming that because the client had seen more than one SP in his hotel room the hotel room was deemed a bawdy house. Wish I could remember where I read that, but it escapes me.

 

Anyways, as I said, I'm not lawyer. Point was there are ways the laws can be twisted if the motivation is there, and the existing laws are scary enough.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

 

Slim, massive. Whatever. That's a dangerous assumption, and unlikely. Even so, you would need 25 Cons to turn coat, and if anything we have seen how Harper controls his people.

 

Faith in the judicial system? Have you seen what the Ottawa police are getting in trouble for recently? Our judicial system has a pretty shady history too, don't fool yourself.

 

this moral majority you speak of who want prostitution decriminalized certainly didn't rise up and keep the gov't from mounting an appeal to Himel, did it? If so many Canadians are against the status quo, that appeal should never have happened.

 

How do you figure anything different would happen in the Joy Smith scenario?

 

On your first point, our maths don't match up lol. For a majority vote, 154 is needed. The Cons have 166. As I said, only a dozen (12) over the majority. I remember in the 80's there was a free vote on Capital punishment and even though Mulroney voted against it but many con MPs voted for it and against their leaders.

 

Ottawa police is law enforcement not judicial system. The judicial system consists of courts, lawyers and judges. Even though not perfect but a far cry from some countries that I know of. Very unlikely to KNOWINGLY frame an innocent person to a crime he has not committed against the existing laws (like criminalizing a legal outcall date as you suggested earlier). Btw, Ottawa police action was one unfortunate case. A good majority of Ottawa police law enforcement officers are good hard working dedicated individuals, but no system in the world is always perfect.

 

I didn't call them a moral majority rather I said a majority of Canadians believe in decriminalized prostitution (53% I believe according to latest poll). While a relatively slim minority wanted it criminalized. Politicians sometimes have to listen to the public if they wish to be re-elected next time even if they may not personaly agree with them to protect their buttom lol. The constitution gives the legal right to the government to appeal a court ruling. Not sure why you expected the nation to rise up against an exercised right by the government!!.

 

I am not sure though what you are proposing?? That we assume everything will be fine and let the model to become the law and don't challenge it in the courts after God forbid, if it becomes the law (passiveness, submission). Anyways, I fear that we may be hijacking this thread as our last few posts don't exactly related to the subject at hand, however, we can continue our debate via PM, if you wish.

[scribbles 6031]

Law enforcement agencies are part of the justice system. Otherwise, what are they a part of?

 

And you can't have it both ways. Either people speak their conscience and the gov't listens and acts in accordance with their constituents, or they exercise a legal right because they can, whether 53% of their constituents want them to or not.

 

Yes, people within Mulroney's party voted against him. I again reference Garth Turner and the many other examples of Harper's strong-arming to say his MPs vote his way or suffer the consequences. This guy isn't Mulroney.

 

And if we go back to the beginning, I believe I said that I wouldn't be surprised if this supposed new law was challenged on the basis of Charter Rights and constitutionality. A Bill is not ready made legislation and policy, and framing the policy for implementing this measure would be a difficult task. I'm advocating that people don't panic and cry that the sky is falling. If the gov't wants this Bill to pass, it will. We should be more afraid of what will be in the omnibus bill Harper plans on launching than Joy Smith's delusional crusading.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

You asked me where I read about the 90% (estimated) drop in prostitution in Sweden and stockholm soon after 1999. I don't wish to attach links who are promoting the Swedish model or its goods (and at the same time they are hiding its evils and counterproductive results). So with your permission I am going to PM you those links that I came across and you can read them if you wish. Also I don't wish to drag on debating on an outcome that clearly we disagee (We will never reach consensus as what would be the outcome) and it not related to the thread subject (or as you said fear mongering). The truth is nobody knows now as we speak what the outcome will be or how tough the laws will be or if or how strongly or in what manner they will be enforced. We are all speculating and expressing our views without proof and that goes for me too. No body knows even in Sweden some dozen years after as how much really prostitution has dropped and estimates varies between (as you read ) 30% to (as I read) 90%. So, we are not in a position to make factual statements but rather making pure speculations.

 

Also with all due respect, there is also no need for making it personal. We are just debating as adults and presenting two different possible outcomes but believe it or not we are on the same side!!!!. We would like to see laws that provide more protection to sex workers, better/safer working environment, and end to abuse stigmatization of sex workers or sex industry, legal and safe access to consenting sex, and more importantly keeping the failed Swedish model off our democratic land.

 

My point has been all along that it should never be allowed for the model to become the law in this country by launching an active and coordinated campaign especially by those in the profession or industry when time is right. Nordic model of prostitution is stupid (that only one side of equation is guilty), backwards (this is Canada not Saudi Arabia lol), counterproductive (sex workers and clients alike will be in more danger) and undemocratic (goes against freedom of choice of profession or consenting sex) and these are the only facts which are not speculations.

[scribbles 6031]

I, for one, am not trying to make this personal SA. And, I actually feel that this debate is very much on topic with the subject of this thread. We are, after all, debating aspects of the Bill the Joy Smith plans on introducing.

 

I personally have a bit of an issue with the notion of coordinated and public action. I'm not saying it's wrong, I just think it can backfire. Canadians are fairly reserved people, unlike Americans. Loud demonstrations and protest don't tend to favor the cause being represented. We have strong opinions, buy we tend to look unfavorably on noisy protest groups. Add to that the fact that the topic is something considered relatively "taboo," and that recent history shows that protest involves certain elements trying to shock by coming out in leather and dominatrix gear... I worry about what coordinated and public action would actually do.

 

Given the 53% of Canadians you cite that support decriminalization (and no, I don't put much stock in polls), I'm surprised that nobody more from the center or left has put together and proposed legislation that contradicts Joy Smith's. I think that would be the most interesting and possibly helpful action that could be taken. Joy Smith is an elected official who clearly is supported by her constituents. If more than half of Canada supports decriminalization (which I doubt), another MP should have tremendous support for legislation that works more along those lines. We might be better served demanding action from our MPs in the opposition than trying to change Conservative minds.

[fortunateone 156618]

SA, I must say I am happy to see a change in your posts, lol. It seems like only a short time ago you had to be convinced and shown that prostitution is legal, and that when you have ladies come to visit you, you can not only give them money you can give them money for sexual services.

 

We've come a long way indeed if you are now of the opinion that you do not want this legal activity to become illegal thru a private members bill lol. This tells me that you do understand that the money is not a gift, and that the lady is there indeed for sexual services and that you are indeed paying her for these services, and that sexual services are prostitution, and that not all sexual services mean "sex".

 

You can be part of the solution by voicing your opinions to the powers that be, voting appropriately on polls and public opinion shows, and so on.