The Nordic Model - We May Be Worse Off Than Before...

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

This is a pretty sobering thought. It appears that not everyone on the board is getting this message, as some still believe that having the laws struck down is a good thing - While it is in theory, the Harper government will use it to its advantage by drafting draconian laws that will serve to advance their own conservative agenda. The loss of Cerb would be a huge blow to a lot of people, SPs and hobbyists alike. It looks like we're all going to get screwed, and not in a good way!

 

What people have to understand is that the Nordic model is not that bad. It might not be perfect, but still manageable.

 

Under the Nordic model, sex workers are not criminalized for running bawdy houses and even solicitation in public. In those circumstances,some of the practices done by some SPs (screening) will become moot.

 

Sex workers can operate from safer places where they have security measures installed (cameras, sharing in-calls, advance alarming systems etc.). Therefore, the stringent screening process of some providers won't be necessary anymore. Of course, those who fail to adapt will be severely affected.

 

I think the Nordic model will affect more street workers because simply it is easier to run an under cover sting in those circumstances. It will affect as well providers who can't prove their authenticity online. Clients will be hesitant to go for a provider without an online persona of some sort. Overall, I believe it would be a matter of adaptation for both sex workers and clients.

 

No model will abolish this industry entirely. Look down south, both ends of the equation are incriminated, yet it is one of the biggest markets around the world.

 

Along the same lines forums will adapt as well. If fact, forums will be one of the best tools for clients to search for legitimate SPs as the case is down south. This industry is premised on "basic instincts", sex for the consumers and money for the sellers and both ends will find their own way. It must be the world's oldest profession for a reason.

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

There is still a decent chance that as part of the Commonwealth we will follow the Commonwealth model and implement Western Australia's system or something similar.

 

I foresee laws surrounding 'loitering for the purpose of prostitution' and strict proximity guidelines around schools, churches, community centres etc.

 

I don't foresee any laws that criminalize the client instead of the provider, that's like a slap in the face of the Supreme Court.

 

I've contacted some media with an attempt to get the voice of an independent sex worker heard. Will let you know if I get anywhere.

 

Going to be a long year.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

Sex workers can operate from safer places where they have security measures installed (cameras, sharing in-calls, advance alarming systems etc.). Therefore, the stringent screening process of some providers won't be necessary anymore. Of course, those who fail to adapt will be severely affected.

 

Sorry, but this won't happen as no reasonable guy is going to commit a criminal act under such highly visible conditions.

 

If the Nordic model goes into effect the ONLY place I would consider seeing a provider is in my own location where I can be assured there are no cameras or security as what I would be doing is illegal. Look how people buy drugs.

 

I think the Nordic model will affect more street workers because simply it is easier to run an under cover sting in those circumstances. It will affect as well providers who can't prove their authenticity online. Clients will be hesitant to go for a provider without an online persona of some sort. Overall, I believe it would be a matter of adaptation for both sex workers and clients.

 

I agree the industry will of course continue, however many 'good' clients will leave it as they are unwilling to take the risk. It won't die overnight as established providers and clients will continue to see each other. There will be big barriers to entry because as you say, only providers with firm online reputations will be seen by the fewer remaining good clients.

 

No model will abolish this industry entirely. Look down south, both ends of the equation are incriminated, yet it is one of the biggest markets around the world.

 

Along the same lines forums will adapt as well. If fact, forums will be one of the best tools for clients to search for legitimate SPs as the case is down south. This industry is premised on "basic instincts", sex for the consumers and money for the sellers and both ends will find their own way. It must be the world's oldest profession for a reason.

 

First, I think you are sadly missing the fact that the world of sex workers will become both smaller and more dangerous overall. Yes some providers with good online reputations will do well but for many others it will be more dangerous.

 

Boards like CERB will have a huge drop in volume if they are not banned completely or shut down voluntarily (depends on the exact wording of the law). Right now the ownership group and operating locations of CERB is known as they are a Canadian company doing nothing illegal. If anything becomes illegal about it they will shut down. New boards hosted by unknown entities in foreign countries may take their place.

 

Board usage will drop because we are now aware of the very large scale monitoring of electronic activities by LE agencies at all levels. Sophisticated members can use VPN's and other means to maintain the anonymous nature but for the average guy using his home computer it would be far safer to close his account.

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

Sorry, but this won't happen as no reasonable guy is going to commit a criminal act under such highly visible conditions.

 

If the Nordic model goes into effect the ONLY place I would consider seeing a provider is in my own location where I can be assured there are no cameras or security as what I would be doing is illegal. Look how people buy drugs.

 

I am sure many other gents would feel the same way, but I'm certain that many others wouldn't.

I agree the industry will of course continue, however many 'good' clients will leave it as they are unwilling to take the risk. It won't die overnight as established providers and clients will continue to see each other. There will be big barriers to entry because as you say, only providers with firm online reputations will be seen by the fewer remaining good clients.

 

First, I think you are sadly missing the fact that the world of sex workers will become both smaller and more dangerous overall. Yes some providers with good online reputations will do well but for many others it will be more dangerous.

I agree completely that sketchy providers will not do well and those with stellar reputations will be fine. Gents who don't mind client verification sites and providing references will be just fine too.

Boards like CERB will have a huge drop in volume if they are not banned completely or shut down voluntarily (depends on the exact wording of the law). Right now the ownership group and operating locations of CERB is known as they are a Canadian company doing nothing illegal. If anything becomes illegal about it they will shut down. New boards hosted by unknown entities in foreign countries may take their place.

I think this is best addressed by the Mod of the board. I don't think we should assume anything about the board shutting down without input from the Mod.

Board usage will drop because we are now aware of the very large scale monitoring of electronic activities by LE agencies at all levels. Sophisticated members can use VPN's and other means to maintain the anonymous nature but for the average guy using his home computer it would be far safer to close his account.

LE has been monitoring boards for years, I just don't see them focusing manpower and funds browsing boards to find consenting adults looking for a lay when their focus should be on the underaged, exploited and trafficked. Just my opinion.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Sorry, but this won't happen as no reasonable guy is going to commit a criminal act under such highly visible conditions.

 

If the Nordic model goes into effect the ONLY place I would consider seeing a provider is in my own location where I can be assured there are no cameras or security as what I would be doing is illegal. Look how people buy drugs.

 

Look down south (US) and you will see one of the biggest market of flesh around the world from street workers to the most elite companions around the world who won't even consider touring Canada because there is no chance that they will be paid their premiums.

 

I agree the industry will of course continue, however many 'good' clients will leave it as they are unwilling to take the risk. It won't die overnight as established providers and clients will continue to see each other. There will be big barriers to entry because as you say, only providers with firm online reputations will be seen by the fewer remaining good clients.

 

Good clients in the US are taking their chances. The same about good clients in Norway and Sweden where the Nordic model is implemented.

 

There are good clients as well who were refraining with our previous model. For you it might have been reasonable and for others it might have been risky. Therefore, under the previous model, some might have viewed you as unreasonable too. Show me your "holy" ruler for gauging reasonableness and I will quit this debate.

 

First, I think you are sadly missing the fact that the world of sex workers will become both smaller and more dangerous overall. Yes some providers with good online reputations will do well but for many others it will be more dangerous.

 

Boards like CERB will have a huge drop in volume if they are not banned completely or shut down voluntarily (depends on the exact wording of the law). Right now the ownership group and operating locations of CERB is known as they are a Canadian company doing nothing illegal. If anything becomes illegal about it they will shut down. New boards hosted by unknown entities in foreign countries may take their place.

 

Board usage will drop because we are now aware of the very large scale monitoring of electronic activities by LE agencies at all levels. Sophisticated members can use VPN's and other means to maintain the anonymous nature but for the average guy using his home computer it would be far safer to close his account.

 

Again look down south, the flesh market is one of the biggest around the world. Review forums in the states are even far more advanced than the Canadian forums. Number of participants is non comparable.

 

There was a study done in Norway and showed that prostitution never actually decreased with the Nordic model. It is all about adaptation. Those who fail to adapt, both clients and SPs, will be out of the market and those who can, will survive. Think about evolution and natural selection ;)

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

Look down south (US) and you will see one of the biggest market of flesh around the world

I'm sorry, but the term "market of flesh" really bothers me and I don't think it is respectful.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I'm sorry, but the term "market of flesh" really bothers me and I don't think it is respectful.

 

Well honestly, if you want to extract a word out of a lengthy essay then this is wholly unfair. The word was meant to address in a contextual manner how prostitution is rampant in the US akin to flesh markets.

 

Yes, there are flesh markets, just visit some of the poor countries where prostitutes are pimped for $10 of full service.

[drlove 37202]

The entire premise of the Nordic Model is nonsensical. It would be legal for ladies to open and work out of a brothel, but God forbid a client would dare purchase their services - he will be arrested. As others have said, I feel not many clients would want to take the risk of arrest, a criminal record, a fine and/or a mandatory minimum sentence. Typical Conservative logic at its finest...

[Guest Ou**or**n]

It is all about adaptation. Those who fail to adapt, both clients and SPs, will be out of the market and those who can, will survive.

 

This is an interesting point. The US has the client verification system because sex workers there are subject to arrest. Under the Nordic model the reverse would be necessary - an escort verification system. I think this would push the industry into two tiers - escorts verified through either confirmed online reputation / review / verification and those without.

 

I don't know much about what goes on in the US or even for that matter in countries that have the Nordic model. It would be interesting if anyone who has direct experience could share.

[drlove 37202]

I'm beginning to think it would have been better if Bedford et. al. had adhered to the old adage of leaving well enough alone with respect to Canada's prostitution laws.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

I'm beginning to think it would have been better if Bedford et. al. had adhered to the old adage of leaving well enough alone with respect to Canada's prostitution laws.

 

From our safe little world of indoor sex workers and clients, yes I would agree. From the broader perspective of the very real fact that those laws were further endangering sex workers then I must agree change is necessary. I firmly believe that in the long run that almost any law attempting to restrict prostitution will end up getting struck down because it will endanger people. Along this path we may have to endure an attempt at the Nordic model.

 

My prayer is that sanity will prevail and the conservatives will realize there is little political value in enacting a law that will only get struck down.

[drlove 37202]

I agree that keeping sex workers free from harm is of paramount importance. However, if the current laws are indeed replaced with the Nordic model, or some variation thereof, then not much will have changed in terms of safety since the industry will still be relegated to the shadows. This begs the question " would the Nordic model be challenged and struck down?" If so, how long would the process take before equitable, well thought out laws take their place? I fear we are going back to the dark ages with both the clients and the ladies suffering the fallout.

 

From our safe little world of indoor sex workers and clients, yes I would agree. From the broader perspective of the very real fact that those laws were further endangering sex workers then I must agree change is necessary. I firmly believe that in the long run that almost any law attempting to restrict prostitution will end up getting struck down because it will endanger people. Along this path we may have to endure an attempt at the Nordic model.

 

My prayer is that sanity will prevail and the conservatives will realize there is little political value in enacting a law that will only get struck down.

 

Additional Comments:

My prayer is that sanity will prevail and the conservatives will realize there is little political value in enacting a law that will only get struck down.

 

I'm not holding my breath on that one...

[cinelli 22184]

My prayer is that sanity will prevail and the conservatives will realize there is little political value in enacting a law that will only get struck down.

 

The Tory/TeaParty is concerned with attracting voters. They don't care if the policy is good for prostitutes or effects a harm reduction. Coming down hard on "crime" is one of their main vote-getters.

 

The Tory/Tea Party gets a bonus, now they can attack the "Liberal" judges who are soft on crime. This is perfect for them, they love to create an enemy and portray themselves as the hero who will save the decent people from that enemy. They refer to SPs as victims and those who patronise them as exploiters. Now all decent folk (ie Tory target audience) will be disgusted by the evil exploiters and applaud the Tory stance against the customers. The Tories also make themselves look good for protecting the SPs from their exploiters.

 

How many votes are they going to lose by attacking prostitutes and their customers? They have done a calculation, the answer is "not as many as they will gain".

 

It simply DOES NOT MATTER if the policy is good or bad. All that matters is getting votes.

[Malibu-Jack 848]

I wonder if they might let the law just laps. But that being said. If they made the purchase of sex the issue I think there would be so many ways to skirt that issue that it might be difficult to prosecute.

 

example.

 

Internet Transfers where the only thing that changes hands is the password. Warrants would be required I think.

 

Not positive though.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

I wonder if they might let the law just laps. But that being said. If they made the purchase of sex the issue I think there would be so many ways to skirt that issue that it might be difficult to prosecute.

 

example.

 

Internet Transfers where the only thing that changes hands is the password. Warrants would be required I think.

 

Not positive though.

 

Pre-wiring the transfer and exchanging the password in person is interesting. They might be able to get you on all the circumstantial evidence of seeing a known prostitute at a known location for a specific amount of time and exchanging a password that enabled an exchange of money (amount wouldn't matter). A lot would depend on the wording of the law and the precedents set during the first few prosecutions.

 

I think there will be an initial drop while people figure stuff like this out and then a return to near normal for those in the indoor industry and stuff like this gets done.

[fortunateone 156618]

LE has been monitoring boards for years, I just don't see them focusing manpower and funds browsing boards to find consenting adults looking for a lay when their focus should be on the underaged, exploited and trafficked. Just my opinion.

 

 

I am not 100% sure that LE does monitor boards, tho maybe they should be. I find it hard to believe that if they did they'd have such a hard time shutting down illegal workers, and yet it always seems to be such a surprise to them that stuff is going on behind the scenes. A couple of hours of reading reviews would give them links to ads, phone numbers, and possibly IP addresses, and yet, it takes these guys 3 months of 24/7 surveillance and hard work to get anywhere lol.

 

 

I am not sure why there is this persistant believe that cerb and other ad sites and forums would shut down. Prostitution in itself even in a Swedish model would still be legal. It isn't in the USA, and they have a dozen or so different sites, reviews, forums, and discussion sites on the topic of which sps to see and not see. If it doesn't affect the business in a country where it is always illegal, not sure why it would affect this country in the ways described.

 

Additional Comments:

This is an interesting point. The US has the client verification system because sex workers there are subject to arrest. Under the Nordic model the reverse would be necessary - an escort verification system. I think this would push the industry into two tiers - escorts verified through either confirmed online reputation / review / verification and those without.

 

I don't know much about what goes on in the US or even for that matter in countries that have the Nordic model. It would be interesting if anyone who has direct experience could share.

 

 

On some US forums, escorts rely HEAVILY on the reviews. They are concerned if they are new, they don't get reviews, and no reviews means no business. The more reviews they have, the better chance they have of getting business. A couple of reviews could be plants, to get clients to come and it ends up being a sting. But a dozen or two, necessary for them, will virtually guarantee they are guaranteed as legitimately sp, not LE.

 

Those verification sites help both client and sp, and again, very necessary in a way to verify neither one is LE. The charges there are serious, they aren't like here if someone gets stung with a solicitation (public) and has to go to John school for 4 hours. Or a stern talking to from LE and a abolitionist 'help' crisis centre volunteer.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

I am not sure why there is this persistant believe that cerb and other ad sites and forums would shut down. Prostitution in itself even in a Swedish model would still be legal.

 

Once a government gets to needing to pass laws to stamp out something it doesn't like it pulls out all the stops. With prostitution they will be limited by the SCOC ruling so they may look to various other avenues. I could easily see them pass laws against advertising. Many legal products (cigarettes, alcohol) that are also 'vices' have restrictions against advertising. In the past this wasn't a big concern with prostitution because advertising relative to the cost of the service was so high that only it was limited to classified ads.

 

Now its the Internet age and the economics and power of advertising are very different. I'm just sayin' that anything is possible over the next few months.

[cyclo 30131]

Bedford vs Canada is premised on a "private interest standing" granted to the applicants as the criminal provisions would "directly" affect the "three sex workers".

 

A private interest standing is not to be granted when the party is "indirectly" affected. A public interest standing is a wholly different issue and I believe that Bedford et al never sought such a standing and in my opinion they would have been denied such standing if requested.

 

Possibly sex workers groups can gain a public standing, but there is something different this time. They would have to show "evidence" that sex workers "in general" could be affected by such laws. Again evidence and not hearsay. For this evidence to accumulate: time, reports etc need to evolve.

 

It is a fantasy, in my opinion, to presume that the Supreme Court will hear an application, even by hobbyists, immediately following a release of a new legislation. The reasonable thing is to give the legislation time to work first unless it incriminates sex workers as well, because Bedford et al can restore their standings.

 

Please note that I am not commenting here on the public perception of such an application when it comes from sex workers on behalf of their clients as it must be obvious.

 

Hi Miss Jane. You raise several good points which I'm sure will be argued before the courts in the initial stages of any challenge/defence of Nordic style legislation. I'll provide a few alternative points, not to dismiss yours, but to illustrate some alternative arguments which they'll also likely hear.

 

The courts certainly won't let just anyone proceed with a legal challenge. They want to weed out those who are unprepared and/or will make frivolous arguments.

 

The courts take a more relaxed view when granting standing if there's a "systemic issue" which is being addressed. That's been the basis of some of the legal arguments and decision in the recent prostitution case. If there's a systemic issue being considered, the facts of a specific case/appeal are not essential for the courts.

 

Groups/individuals may be given Public Interest standing if they show a willingness and ability to mount a solid case, especially if it seems that a private interest party (in this case clients) is unlikely to come forward to launch a challenge. Another question they'll ask is "Do the parties mounting the challenge have a real stake in the issue?" In this case arguments will be made that despite the fact that clients are targeted by the law, there is a disproportionate negative impact upon sex workers.

 

It's also true that the courts prefer to hear challenges based upon the facts of a specific case and don't like to hear legal arguments in the abstract. They will however make exceptions if there's no adequate case currently proceeding through the legal system and there is unlikely to be one in the future. It's also possible that they may accept relevant research done on the impact of similar laws in other jurisdictions.

 

Another criteria they'll consider is whether the challenge is a good use of their limited time and resources. For example, "Is it an important issue to society or is it an important issue because of the degree of impact upon an individual's liberty or safety etc?" In their recent decision, the Supreme Court certainly articulated the significant issues and impacts which they saw resulting from the current laws. How this reasoning will be applied to any new laws is uncertain.

 

It's correct that in the recent case, Bedford et al were granted Private Interest standing. This doesn't necessarily mean that they were ineligible for Public Interest standing in this case, or a future case. Once they were granted Private Interest standing, it was unnecessary to examine whether they were eligible for Public Interest standing. They had standing and the challenge proceeded form there.

 

All of these points which Miss Jane and I have raised can seem pretty obscure and irrelevant to people's real lives, but they are representative of arguments which will be considered by the courts before they even get to the meat of the issue.

[Guest Ou**or**n]

All of these points which Miss Jane and I have raised can seem pretty obscure and irrelevant to people's real lives, but they are representative of arguments which will be considered by the courts before they even get to the meat of the issue.

 

Thanks for this great info. This is the kind of information the gov't will know as they are considering the kind of legislation they will bring forward because it determines how fast it could be back before the courts.

 

Would the challenge process have to go through the same steps - a provincial challenge, appeal and then SCOC or could it be challenged directly to the SCOC?

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

The courts take a more relaxed view when granting standing if there's a "systemic issue" which is being addressed. That's been the basis of some of the legal arguments and decision in the recent prostitution case. If there's a systemic issue being considered, the facts of a specific case/appeal are not essential for the courts.

 

Groups/individuals may be given Public Interest standing if they show a willingness and ability to mount a solid case, especially if it seems that a private interest party (in this case clients) is unlikely to come forward to launch a challenge. Another question they'll ask is "Do the parties mounting the challenge have a real stake in the issue?" In this case arguments will be made that despite the fact that clients are targeted by the law, there is a disproportionate negative impact upon sex workers.

 

It's also true that the courts prefer to hear challenges based upon the facts of a specific case and don't like to hear legal arguments in the abstract. They will however make exceptions if there's no adequate case currently proceeding through the legal system and there is unlikely to be one in the future. It's also possible that they may accept relevant research done on the impact of similar laws in other jurisdictions.

 

I have one comment about individuals given public interest standing. In my opinion, this would be very difficult. To convince a judge that a single individual is somehow representative of the interest of a group of the public while the Attorney General, speaking on behalf of the public, is on the other side is rather tenuous. Organizations/Groups are wholly different as they carry the weight of their members.

 

In Bedford case, the court relied on many local reports on the effects of the current laws. To operate in a vacuum would deem arbitrary in my opinion. Also, giving any new law the time to function is necessary, as it would be premature to argue the harmful effects of a law that hasn't been tested. Of course, there are cases where the newly implemented law is ridiculous, but I don't believe that a government with all the logistic legal support would draft something to that extent, at least on the surface.

 

Apart from that I think you mentioned some good points, there is no right or wrong answer and time will tell.

[Nikki Thomas 23145]

I suspect that others have already said this (the thread is tl;dr) but IMHO, the best solution would be no new laws at all, just as things remain with abortion after Morgentaler. FYI, the abortion ruling also happened during a conservative government (Mulroney's PCs) and also upset a great deal of the PC base, but we remain (fortunately) devoid of criminal laws regarding abortion.

 

The parallels are quite similar; for example, it's illegal to practise medicine without a license, and infanticide is illegal. These two laws already preclude the most appalling sides of undesired pregnancy (back-alley abortions and babies in dumpsters) and the existing laws against coercion/exploitation (via the procuring law) and sex trafficking can be said to do the same. I'm not entirely convinced that new laws are needed, and I suspect the greater concern is exploitation and non-adult coercion, which the existing laws already address. We can ask the lawmakers to "double-down" on these laws, perhaps by increasing the upper range of sentencing options for particularly nasty offenders (as opposed to mandatory minimums, which usually suck) and increasing enforcement money to fund better police work. Then, leave it to the municipalities to license and regulate (which may well be worse for us, but it's outside the federal jurisdiction and therefore outside the scope of the national discussion).

 

Oh, and guys? Don't sweat the Nordic Approach (can we PLEASE stop calling it a "model"?) too much. The governments that have implemented it are leftist governments who draw much of their support from middle-class women, whereas the existing Conservative government draws much of its support from white, straight, affluent men (and a surprising number of recent immigrants). Don't think for a minute that they're going to risk criminalizing half the MPs in parliament by outlawing the purchase of sexual services. They'll come after us before they go after you - they'll lump some sort of law into the trafficking legislation (calling it "providing material support to sex trafficking" or some such BS) and do everything short of criminalizing sex work itself.

 

Besides, what happens to strip clubs, swinger's clubs, registered agencies (in the cities that already regulate them), phone sex operators, camshows, and all those other things if the purchase of "sexual services" is made illegal? The governement has to clearly define what constitutes sexual services in order to make it illegal to purchase said services; do you think Stephen Harper wants to get up in the House and explain exactly what he's criminalizing? Hell no, he's going to avoid this issue like the plague, draft some wishy-washy laws, cram them into an omnibus bill at the end of a parliamentary session, and pass it in the middle of the night when he thinks nobody's watching. That's precisely what he's done on previous issues, and it's exactly what he'll do this time as well.

 

Of course it'll be illogical; of course it'll be unconstitutional; of course it'll be stupid and overly broad and unprosecutable. But they'll do it anyways, because it's the easiest way to avoid an extended debate on the issue and we'll be back in court in 5-10 years once again. The cops will sigh, the public will shrug, and the hookers will scream bloody murder - and the status quo of consenting adults doing whatever the hell we please in the privacy of our own bedrooms will continue undisturbed.

 

The cycle continues...

[scribbles 6031]

Having read most of this thread, and certainly Nikki's post, what strikes me as most odd is that the SCC ruling was exactly what people were hoping for, yet there seems to be a very negative tone to most of what is written about the ruling now that the decision has been made. If everyone is so worried about what the gov't will do with new laws or legislation, I have to ask if any thought was given to that before the case was first brought before the courts. If decriminalization will truly bring a legislative backlash that makes things worse, or, as Nikki wrote, perpetuate a cycle of marginalization and struggle, why was it invited at the expense of a very flawed but clearly (from many comments) preferable status quo?

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

why was it invited at the expense of a very flawed but clearly (from many comments) preferable status quo?

 

Because nature is premised on constant change. Heroes like Bedford et al throw a stone in a stagnant water, and make a "step" toward an overall change on the "long" run.

[Phaedrus 209521]

The Tory/Tea Party gets a bonus, now they can attack the "Liberal" judges who are soft on crime.

 

Not in the face of a 9-0 ruling :) If the court had split, then yes, I'm sure they'd have played this for all it's worth... but to try and argue that all nine justices are liberal activists would be a tough sell.

 

If everyone is so worried about what the gov't will do with new laws or legislation, I have to ask if any thought was given to that before the case was first brought before the courts.

 

Well, it was certainly discussed around here back when the case was being heard at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. I wasn't on the board back when the case was originally heard, and I'm too lazy to look back and see what was said then.

 

One thing to note: things like this are always a risk, and given how long the complete judicial process takes you're almost always going to get at least one federal election before the SCC makes a decision (for cases that get that far), so it's really hard to predict what the political environment will be that far out. In this case, the original arguments were heard in 2009, back when Harper only had a minority government. We've had a chance to get rid of him since then. You can't blame anyone who brought this case for the fact that he ended up with a majority instead.

[cyclo 30131]

Besides, what happens to strip clubs, swinger's clubs... if the purchase of "sexual services" is made illegal?

 

Nikki has made several good points in her post. I just want to add some information with respect to swingers clubs and strip clubs.

 

In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that swingers clubs were not involved in prostitution. It was determined they were not "common bawdy houses" because there there was no "purchase of sexual services" (prostitution) taking place in them. Members were engaged in consensual sex and they weren't paying each other for sexual services. In the case of commercial swingers clubs, since there wasn't any prostitution occurring the club owners were not "living off the avails" of prostitution. It was also determined that since the clubs were private, regardless of whether they were in a home or commercial club, they weren't violating public indecency/nudity laws either.

 

In the case of strip clubs, the courts have dealt with them under the indecency/nudity laws rather than prostitution laws. They provide erotic services, but not sexual services. (Provided of course that dancers are not illegally providing hand jobs or blow jobs etc in the champagne rooms, in which case they'd be providing sexual services; they and their customers would be engaging in prostitution; and the clubs would be bawdy houses/brothels.) Generally the move to contact dances for example has been upheld by the courts as not violating indecency laws and they have determined that there is no public harm which would cause them to be outlawed. In addition strip clubs aren't being charged with prostitution. (There is one case in Quebec, but it appears to be an anomaly and it wasn't taken to the Supreme Court.)

 

There would have to be a very serious rewriting of the laws to catch swinger's clubs and strip clubs up in any new prostitution laws.

 

Having said that, I'm sure strip clubs are now looking at the business opportunity to expand into sexual services by providing on site brothels and escort services. In many European countries for example, strip club and brothel services are offered under one roof. In this type of environment it becomes more difficult for dancers to find work if they only want to provide dances and not sexual services also.