Gangs join forces to prostitute women

[Capital Hunter 18263]

That is why we need very harsh enforced anti-pimping laws to combat this kind of slavery of the weak. Throw away the keys on these animals. When I call for someone on the internet how do I know if she is doing it out of her own will or if she is forced by a ruthless pimp? when we have modest laws against pimping and even those laws are not enforced :icon_frown:.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

That is why we need very harsh enforced anti-pimping laws to combat this kind of slavery of the weak. Throw away the keys on these animals.

I'm not convinced laws are the way to go. People do stuff whether it's legal or not. I think social initiatives would be better.

[cat 262460]

I'm not convinced laws are the way to go. People do stuff whether it's legal or not. I think social initiatives would be better.

 

I agree entirely Megan....

cat

[Capital Hunter 18263]

People may still do stuff but would be far less numberwise and far less frequent if we have harsh laws against what they do but more importantly if they are properly enforced (they will think twice and those who do will will in prison lol......). Drunk driving is a good example of that. The number of drunk drivers has come down significantly since harsh laws were passed and more importantly after they were enforced. That is why we need some kind of prostitution laws in Canada that would extend to pimps (not body guards, drivers or family, friends) and public solicitation laws as well.

 

I am not sure what you mean by social initiative but if you mean education I don't believe those ruthless heartless pimps can be educated. They know what they do is evil (no need to tell them lol) they just don't care period. We need a punishment that fits the crime and that is called justice.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

That is why we need very harsh enforced anti-pimping laws to combat this kind of slavery of the weak....

 

These laws exist.

 

Remember that only 212(1)(j) of the procuring laws was challenged in the current court case -- affecting anyone who "lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person". The balance of the anti-procuring law- Sections 212(1)(a) through (i) - was not challenged.

 

Also, there are plenty of non-prostitution Sections of the Criminal Code under which true pimps can, and have been, prosecuted and convicted. For example ... kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering threats, robbery, assault, use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, assault with a weapon.

 

In many of these cases, the crime of uttering threats found in s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, is used to punish the exploitive conduct of the pimp. In others, s. 423 (intimidation) has been used. This section makes it an offence to use violence or threaten violence or injury to property, intimidate or threaten a person in order to compel them to do something that they have the right to abstain from doing.

 

Introduced in November 2005, s. 279.01 prohibits trafficking in persons:

 

279.01(1) Every person who recruits, transports, transfers, receives, holds, conceals or harbours a person, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person, for the purpose of exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

 

(a)

to imprisonment for life

if they kidnap, commit an aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault against, or cause death to, the victim during the commission of the offence; or

 

(b) to

imprisonment for a term of not more than fourteen years

in any other case.

 

(2) No consent to the activity that forms the subject-matter of a charge under subsection (1) is valid.

 

Section 279.02 punishes individuals who benefit economically from trafficking in persons and carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment

 

None of the unconstitutional prostitution provisions are needed to deal with pimps. The police need only defend sex workers using the same laws with which NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS are defended.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

These laws exist.

 

Remember that only 212(1)(j) of the procuring laws was challenged in the current court case -- affecting anyone who "lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person". The balance of the anti-procuring law- Sections 212(1)(a) through (i) - was not challenged.

.

 

Anyone who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person extends to pimps too, does it not??.

 

These laws exist.

 

Also, there are plenty of non-prostitution Sections of the Criminal Code under which true pimps can, and have been, prosecuted and convicted. For example ... kidnapping, forcible confinement, uttering threats, robbery, assault, use of a firearm in the commission of an offence, assault with a weapon.

.

 

Pimping may not necessarily involve any of above (for example it could be just psychological intimidation or psychological exploitation), though I agree that if it involves physical violence the punishment must be much harsher and I don't mean just a few years in jail. when violence against the defenceless is involved the punisment must fit the crime.

[roamingguy 300292]

What is needed is the de-stigmatization of sex work. Mainstream (and I hate that word in this context, but used to understand my point) society and law enforcement (police) must treat sex workers as any other individuals with the same rights and freedoms as anyone else. Mainstream society lets sex workers become marginalized, it isn't a LE priority for the most part, and this allows such exploitation to go on

RG

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Pimping may not necessarily involve any of above (for example it could be just psychological intimidation or psychological exploitation.....

 

I remind you of the next paragraph I wrote, directly beneath the passage you've cited:

 

...In many of these cases, the crime of uttering threats found in s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, is used to punish the exploitive conduct of the pimp. In others, s. 423 (intimidation) has been used. This section makes it an offence to use violence or threaten violence or injury to property, intimidate or threaten a person in order to compel them to do something that they have the right to abstain from doing.

 

I also reminded you that the anti-pimping laws still exist:

 

The balance of the anti-procuring law- Sections 212(1)(a) through (i) - was not challenged

 

This is the current anti-pimping law (with the challenged section (j) left out):

 

Procuring

 

212. (1) Every one who

 

(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,

 

(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prostitution,

 

© knowingly conceals a person in a common bawdy-house,

 

(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,

 

(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that person in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,

 

(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, directs or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,

 

(g) procures a person to enter or leave Canada, for the purpose of prostitution,

 

(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,

 

(i) applies or administers to a person or causes that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual intercourse with that person ...

 

is guilty of an indictable offence and

liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

[Guest tr*****e]

I'm not convinced laws are the way to go. People do stuff whether it's legal or not. I think social initiatives would be better.

 

In the long run(I'm talking about the whole country's collective mindset here), social changes will have the greatest beneficial effect for ensuring safety in the sex-trade.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I also reminded you that the anti-pimping laws still exist:

 

Yes and I saying that anti-pimping laws must continue to exist (showing my opposition to the court challenge as I have been doing so) and more importantly they should be enforced.

[Guest J******aA***l]

If I may, I'd really like to point out that this is definitely not about me.

Thank you,

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Yes and I saying that anti-pimping laws must continue to exist (showing my opposition to the court challenge as I have been doing so....

 

I know we are going around in circles, but the way this is phrased (which seems to make a link between the court challenge and anti-pimping law) prompts me to once again remind everyone that in the court challenge:

 

... the anti-procuring law- Sections 212(1)(a) through (i) - was not challenged.

 

Pimping is, and will continue to be, just as illegal as ever, no matter the ultimate outcome of the constitutional challenge.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

 

Remember that only 212(1)(j) of the procuring laws was challenged in the current court case -- affecting anyone who "lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person". The balance of the anti-procuring law- Sections 212(1)(a) through (i) - was not challenged..

 

 

I thought I read somewhere that pimping law has been challenged too, but yes if it clearly re-defines so that to target pimps only, I have no problem with that (I still have problems with the challenge of public solicitation law). However, my point from the beginning has been that the timing for court challenge is not right and that if the supreme court votes in favor of sexworkers and strikes down the existing prostitution laws, it won't be long before this very right wing conservative government to use its majority to push through very strong anti-prostitution laws which may include the Swedish model where prostitution is totally illegal and hobbyists (even for outcall dates) may be subjected to six months in jail and disgraced in public. CAN ANYONE GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN???

[JoyfulC 132299]

Pimping -- as in other relationship crimes like spousal and child abuse -- can be incredibly difficult to prosecute because the victim often sides with the perpetrator for any number of complex reasons.

 

I believe the "living off the avails" law was as broad as it was precisely to remove the need for the victim's assistance for prosecution.

 

But I know of no instance in which the law was used to break up legitimate families. Technically my husband has been in violation of this law for nearly 30 years, yet we knew he'd never never be prosecuted.

 

I didn't have any problem with the laws as they were (are). It seems to me that this whole challenge is about streetwalker safety, although all sides seem to agree that dropping the laws will neither inhibit streetwalking or make streetwalking any safer.

 

All my life, I've had cops, politicians, and self righteous assholes use streetwalking as grounds for treating me unfairly, trying to deny me my rights, and exploiting me It breaks my heart now to see misguided women in my own profession doing the same thing.

 

These women DO NOT speak for all of us, and are doing as good a job of exploiting us as the best of them.

 

I salute the lawyer -- what a feather in his cap. I'm sure he's smart enough to know the implications this will have for his short-sighted Pollyanna clients, but it's not his job to do what's best for them. It's his job to advance his career.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I thought I read somewhere that pimping law has been challenged too ...

 

Yes, in a few instances the media have made the error of repeating the deliberate spreading of this bit of misinformation by those who are against the constitutional challenge. Plenty of correct information exists elsewhere, though - including, of course, on Cerb. Such as in my thread "Understanding Bedford v Canada".

 

... CAN ANYONE GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN???

 

One way to work towards avoiding possible doomsday scenarios such as you are imagining is not to repeat misinformation such as the incorrect claim that if the constitutional challenge succeeds, it will make pimping legal. It's precisely the repetition of inflammatory falsehoods like that that can sway the opinion of both public and legislators into undesirable paths!

[Capital Hunter 18263]

But I know of no instance in which the law was used to break up legitimate families. Technically my husband has been in violation of this law for nearly 30 years, yet we knew he'd never never be prosecuted.

 

I didn't have any problem with the laws as they were (are). It seems to me that this whole challenge is about streetwalker safety, although all sides seem to agree that dropping the laws will neither inhibit streetwalking or make streetwalking any safer. .

 

I agree too with what you say. Status quo is just fine and is the best comprise law that we could have. In those countries where prostitution has become legal human trafficking is thriving as criminals choose easy targets and avoid those places with tough laws. Most of the prostitutes in those countries are foreign workers. Not tomention the large number of very unsafe red light districts. I do not wish to see a Canada like this myself.

 

One way to work towards avoiding possible doomsday scenarios such as you are imagining is not to repeat misinformation such as the incorrect claim that if the constitutional challenge succeeds, it will make pimping legal. It's precisely the repetition of inflammatory falsehoods like that that can sway the opinion of both public and legislators into undesirable paths!

 

It is not my imagination. It is a real probability and anyone who tries to deny this likely scenario is closing his or her eyes and lives in an imaginary world.

 

Denying this scenario or lessening its probability (what you called doomsday scenario) is not going to do anyone any good or help to prevent its implementation. Telling it outright as is on the other hand may help to convince sex workers, in particular escorts to drop it or drop their support for it before it is too late as the end result (government imposing the Swedish model) will mean a significantly less safe working environment for everyone and not just for street walkers. Bacause by making it illegal, they push the trade underground even further and also a big portion of safe hobbyists would stop hobbying (likely only the unsafe ones would continue as they don't care about breaking what would be a criminal law).

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

... all sides seem to agree that dropping the laws will neither inhibit streetwalking or make streetwalking any safer.

 

I'd just like to point out that all sides do not agree regarding the effects of the current Communication Law on streetwalkers' safety. Safety has been the fundamental issue around which the case has revolved since the original court application in 2007, and has remained a key point of dispute throughout the proceedings.

 

The applicants claim that it is safer for streetwalkers to have the time to be able to openly communicate with potential clients in order to more effectively screen them. Justice Himel agreed, concluding:

"s. 213(1)© [the Communication Law] prohibits street prostitutes, who are largely the most vulnerable prostitutes and face an alarming amount of violence, from screening clients at an early, and crucial stage of a potential transaction, thereby putting them at an increased risk of violence."

There is certainly a wide range of opinion about many of the issues at stake in Bedford v Canada. But one thing is very certain (separate from the question of whether others agree with them not): both the applicants and Justice Himel do claim that the current Communication Law makes streetwalking less safe.

[qwertyaccount 15793]

If elected prime minister, I will enact a solution to the scumbag pimp problem.

 

I'll round them up and stick them into a woodchipper, feet first.

 

Once they are out of the picture, everything else should take care of itself.

 

Sorry to be so gruesom but I'm not awake enough yet to word this better.