Punish the clients, not the prostitutes, says Tory MP Joy Smith

[Guest Ou**or**n]

So if this is how it shall be...

as the article states " if the client is caught paying for sex" well what if we used bitcoin? I suppose then there would be no case, as bitcoin is not "real" money?

[scribbles 6031]

Pretty sure that anything that can be reasonably contrived to be currency or substantive trade would be considered payment.

 

What's obvious is that the basis for this abolitionist's approach is founded on unsupported stereotypes. Studies have shown that indoor sex work is almost never motivated by addiction. The causal link for street sex work is questionable as well. And, to say workers choose sex work in order to survive isn't any different than saying I chose my career in order to survive. Whenever people work for money, they're doing it out of an interest in survival.

 

Unfortunately, there's been less study on the motivations of clients (something I'm academically intetested in,) which makes it a lot easier for a picture of victimization to be painted the way Joy Smith does. Not that she seems to apply much considered thought to researching her position in the first place...

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Bingo! Those guys are not playing at all. They even choose a woman to come up with the proposal for the new laws.

[Guest S****r]

I couldn't stand it any more!

In response to this announcement in the Ottawa Citizen today regarding the Tipping Point proposal, I emailed Joy Smith, Member of Parliament, and sent her a copy of two articles: Legitimate Sex Work in Canada, and A Day In The Life of an Escort, both of which are from my blog on my website. I wrote the email under a pseudonym to protect my privacy.

 

I urge others to speak up, too, even if using a pseudonym. We have to educate these people on the difference between Legitimate Sex Work and human trafficking.

 

I wish us all the best.

[canuckhooker 19203]

I hate double standards, I hate social-engineering, I hate these people who beleive in equality until it inconveniences them.

 

How in a free society can you punish only one of two people involved in an illegal activity? They are trying to find a solution to a problem by creating inequity.

 

If they want to end prostitution then they need to make it illegal, outright. Half measures are just stupid and only designed to satisfy their warped view of the world. Punishing one person in an illegal act and giving the other a pass is so illogical, and their reasoning is so insulting. In fact it is misogynistic and misandristic at the same time. It makes all women helpless individuals incapable of making a decision for themselves, and makes all men predators and abusers.

[drlove 37204]

I'm really worried about how this will affect our industry and community. The threat of fines and/or jail time will be a great deterrent to many hobbyists, and thereby drive the industry even further underground and into the shadows. This cannot bode well for Sps and hobbyists alike.

[roamingguy 300292]

I hate double standards, I hate social-engineering, I hate these people who beleive in equality until it inconveniences them.

 

How in a free society can you punish only one of two people involved in an illegal activity? They are trying to find a solution to a problem by creating inequity.

 

If they want to end prostitution then they need to make it illegal, outright. Half measures are just stupid and only designed to satisfy their warped view of the world. Punishing one person in an illegal act and giving the other a pass is so illogical, and their reasoning is so insulting. In fact it is misogynistic and misandristic at the same time. It makes all women helpless individuals incapable of making a decision for themselves, and makes all men predators and abusers.

 

I too hate double standards, but it goes on. I also hate the condescending attitude of the government towards women, well specifically SP's. They can't for one second conceive that two adults, outside of marriage, dating or some relationship can enter into a mutually beneficial sex for money arrangement. But judging from the government's attitude women aren't adult and able to make decisions about their own bodies, they need Big Brother to look after them. It isn't a case of victim and victimizer, it is a case of two consenting adults entering what is probably the most honest adult intimate relationship ever, without the drama of a conventional relationship. And my experience at least, most companions are far more selective and discrete about who they see compared to the average bar pick up in conventional society

No matter what law is passed, nothing is going to end prostitution. It's the world's oldest profession and will stay that way. It's illegal in the United States, for the most part, but you can see ads for escorts in the United States, and I'm sure there is street level prostitution too.

Anyhow, a rambling for what it's worth

RG

[Ice4fun 78407]

If this is where we are headed it will be back to all the games... no discussion of sex... just time. Good clients who fear charges leaving the industry and lousy abusive clients requiring secrecy so they can operate in the margins and take away any security for the SP.

 

I think it's time for Canada to Grow the Fuck Up....do we really think the Sex Industry is going away??

[drlove 37204]

I think it's time for Canada to Grow the Fuck Up....do we really think the Sex Industry is going away??

 

Try telling that to Stephen and Joy...

 

Additional Comments:

According to a Halifax newspaper article, Justice Minister Peter Mackay stated that he fully intends to introduce a Canadian version of the Nordic Model, which will abide by the SCC's ruling.

[canuckhooker 19203]

Try telling that to Stephen and Joy...

 

Additional Comments:

According to a Halifax newspaper article, Justice Minister Peter Mackay stated that he fully intends to introduce a Canadian version of the Nordic Model, which will abide by the SCC's ruling.

 

Then it won't be the Nordic model. The supreme court was quite explicit in saying that the government cannot put sex-workers in dangerous situations by using contradictory laws.

 

If it is legal to sell sex, then they will have to allow brothels, living off the avails etc. etc. So their choice is outright prohibition, or allowing sex work and regulating it.

 

They know they are between a rock and a hard place, and they are looking at all sorts of ways to solve what they see as an issue. However their biggest issue is trying to keep votes from people on both sides of the discussion. So what they say now, and what actually gets presented as a new set of laws will be two different things. And it will still have to get through committee, the house, the senate etc etc. And it will also have to be evaluated by all sorts of legal experts.

 

There is no magic loophole that will allow them to enact a law that will be in contravention of the court's decision.

[drlove 37204]

So, would the SCC have the power to veto a Nordic style law? The reason I ask is that the last time the law was changed in 1990, it passed even though it contained the 'living off the avails' clause and the 'bawdy house' clause etc. If I recall correctly, some justices in the SCC even remarked that it 'was a stupid law' or something to that effect.

 

Then it won't be the Nordic model. The supreme court was quite explicit in saying that the government cannot put sex-workers in dangerous situations by using contradictory laws.

 

If it is legal to sell sex, then they will have to allow brothels, living off the avails etc. etc. So their choice is outright prohibition, or allowing sex work and regulating it.

 

They know they are between a rock and a hard place, and they are looking at all sorts of ways to solve what they see as an issue. However their biggest issue is trying to keep votes from people on both sides of the discussion. So what they say now, and what actually gets presented as a new set of laws will be two different things. And it will still have to get through committee, the house, the senate etc etc. And it will also have to be evaluated by all sorts of legal experts.

 

There is no magic loophole that will allow them to enact a law that will be in contravention of the court's decision.

[Phaedrus 209521]

MP Joy Smith of Kildonan-St. Paul riding in Winnipeg was expected to release a report, titled the Tipping Point, on Thursday for legislation that would criminalize people who buy sex, not the people who sell it.

 

No woman would be punished under legislation proposed by Smith.

 

Because, as everyone knows, there are no female clients. Oh no. Definitely not.

 

Why does the law have to be made by people who are so self-evidently ignorant?

[canuckhooker 19203]

So, would the SCC have the power to veto a Nordic style law? The reason I ask is that the last time the law was changed in 1990, it passed even though it contained the 'living off the avails' clause and the 'bawdy house' clause etc. If I recall correctly, some justices in the SCC even remarked that it 'was a stupid law' or something to that effect.

 

Do you even understand how our legislative process and courts work? The court does not overrule laws passed in the legislative process. It is not how it works. However it will hear appeals and offer opinions on laws, and strike laws down if they are contradictory, infringe on human rights, are unconstitutional etc. But for them to do that someone has to complain, or appeal as it were.

 

That is what Bedford did. My point is that since those items are already ruled unconstitutional, if the legislature was silly enough to try and re-instate those provisions, no court would convict and most prosecutors would decline to prosecute. (and most LE would not charge.) The don't want to waste their time and the embarrassment of having their verdicts overturned on appeal, which would surely happen. A little legal thing called precedent.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

The legislature is not silly nor is this government! They know how to make the spin and direct the masses. This is called politics.

 

The Supreme Court did not examine the Noridc model, this was not the question before it. If someone want to select certain paragraphs here and there then as I said previously, the Taliban regime might find some paragraphs in their favor as well.

 

For the Nordic model to be found unconstitutional, "time" and "evidence" need to evolve and not a bunch of hobbyists and sex workers screaming in review forums.

 

They won't criminalize both ends because sex workers proved they are resilient and they won't regulate because they clearly said that they will introduce criminal provisions. so, the ones left for them to exercise authority over are the Johns. Still in doubt, let's wait and wake-up on the reality one day.

[roamingguy 300292]

Targeting clients will be the easy way for the law and law enforcement to go. That said, the LE focus IMHO will be on street prostitution, not on escorts/companions/courtesans and their clients. Those encounters are behind closed doors so to speak, not in the public/police eye. It would require major resources to investigate. And likely that type of encounter would require an undercover operation with LE posing as an escort, to catch the clients. That requires major time, dollar and manpower resources, which are resources taken away from other LE priorities.

I really don't think in reality much is going to change. Police are going to investigate and enforce those laws which are their priorities. Political grandstanding or not, seeing SP's/companions/courtesans is not going to be their priority IMHO

Just as a case in point, right now, incalls are illegal...how many have seen a companion in her home/condo/hotel (just raise your hands, who knows, the police could be watching LOL) Not recommending or endorsing incalls but it is a reality of this lifestyle. Or how many ladies use drivers and have security, not to mention the agencies that operate.

A morning rambling

RG

[Guest Ou**or**n]

I fully expect the Tories to introduce the Nordic model against all reason and logical arguments and internal legal opinions. McKay wants to be PM and he doesn't mind both subjecting more women to violence and certain death along the way. How ironic that he will introduce legislation that he will claim is to protect women when it will most certainly harm them.

 

Even more ironic is the twisted hierarchy of 'morals' shared by both moral conservatives and abolitionist feminists holding that the being against the principals of prostitution (for different reasons for both groups), tumps what should be a moral imperative to minimize harm to those women involved. The arguments that a Nordic law will harm those women that continued in prostitution were made back in Sweden in 1999 and the general response was that it was more important that law make its statement that prostitution was wrong.

 

It sickens me that McKay values his own ambitions to be PM over the health and safety of women in Canada.

 

The biggest sliver of hope lies in the bawdy house aspect of the ruling. The SCC was clear that allowing sex workers to work together indoors was not something that should be restricting. By making it illegal for clients to pay for sex, commonly known indoor locations for sex workers will vanish like reason at a PC convention. If any Canadian news reporters gain enough backbone to actually push this point it would be interesting to hear the double-talk responses. It would also be interesting to see how this point is addressed in any committee review of the proposed laws.

 

However I still expect Mckay to ram it through parliament with a view that if a future court ruling makes it unconstitutional then there is nothing they can do. I don't share the optimism that the obvious unconstitutional nature of the law will stop police forces and crown attorneys from prosecuting.

 

I hope I'm wrong but I see dark days and big changes ahead.

[Malibu-Jack 848]

Does this mean that if I take someone on a date and pay for everything and we then go back to her place and have sex would I be breaking the law.

 

These are not the only detrimental changes in the country I have seen by the people WE put in charge of our country.

 

Peace

[scribbles 6031]

Jazztrec, I guess that would depend on if you negotiated, prior, that exchange of food and time for guaranteed sex. ;)

 

Roamingguy, I think the point is probably a good one about LE resources and time, and what direction they would go in. On the other hand, while I think you're right about indoor, independent workers, I have a feeling the attention wouldn't focus solely on street workers. I think that effort would get directed to a much lesser extent towards the agencies, and to an equal extent towards spas. Spas may be indoors, but are still extremely visible.

[roamingguy 300292]

Jazztrec, I guess that would depend on if you negotiated, prior, that exchange of food and time for guaranteed sex. ;)

 

Roamingguy, I think the point is probably a good one about LE resources and time, and what direction they would go in. On the other hand, while I think you're right about indoor, independent workers, I have a feeling the attention wouldn't focus solely on street workers. I think that effort would get directed to a much lesser extent towards the agencies, and to an equal extent towards spas. Spas may be indoors, but are still extremely visible.

 

Yes but agencies should already be a LE focus then. Isn't an agency technically speaking illegal already?

 

RG

[drlove 37204]

These are not the only detrimental changes in the country I have seen by the people WE put in charge of our country.

 

Peace

 

Yes, but then again, who in their right mind would have ever voted for the Conservatives to begin with?

[roamingguy 300292]

Yes, but then again, who in their right mind would have ever voted for the Conservatives to begin with?

 

Unfortunately as it turns out, the majority

 

RG

[canuckhooker 19203]

 

For the Nordic model to be found unconstitutional, "time" and "evidence" need to evolve and not a bunch of hobbyists and sex workers screaming in review forums.

 

They won't criminalize both ends because sex workers proved they are resilient and they won't regulate because they clearly said that they will introduce criminal provisions. so, the ones left for them to exercise authority over are the Johns. Still in doubt, let's wait and wake-up on the reality one day.

 

Really, screaming in forums? Hello pot, this is the kettle.....

 

You are right they didn't examine the Nordic Model. What they examined was certain provisions in current legislation and ruled they were unconstitutional and violated individuals charter rights. Those provisions were the bawdy house provision, the living off the avails and the solicitation. Two of those provisions are key to how the Nordic model is implemented, Bawdy house and living off the avails. The model doesn't work and is difficult to enforce without those provisions.

 

So if a Nordic-like model is implemented with those provisions and selling of sex still legal, when someone is charged under them, the case would be tossed out of court. This is called legal precedent. It would be appealed rapidly because the courts really don't like to have to fight the same arguments over and over after they have made a ruling. The court sent a clear message to parliament to make real changes to the laws.

 

So yeah, the government may try and pass a law like that, but it will have no teeth and they will be sent back to the drawing board after the first case is tossed. This is how our legal system works. They will have to implement a law that respects the supreme court decision, and criminalizing the purchaser does not satisfy that condition.

[scribbles 6031]

RG, agreed. I was thinking more in terms of the opportunity this would present for US style sting opps. LE could disrupt agencies by posting ads and then arresting clients as they arrive. Just a thought, though. My bigger concern was the impact on spas.

[drlove 37204]

I agree with what you're saying. However, let's look at it from the perspective of a client who opts for outcalls exclusively. Under the current law it is 100% legal. If the Noric model is implemented, that will change. Therefore, (pragmatically speaking) the risk of being charged exists, and if someone is charged, then the damage to their reputation and possibly their employment is already done, regardless of whether the case is eventually dismissed or whether the laws are again challenged and thrown out. That's what I'm most worried about.

 

Really, screaming in forums? Hello pot, this is the kettle.....

 

You are right they didn't examine the Nordic Model. What they examined was certain provisions in current legislation and ruled they were unconstitutional and violated individuals charter rights. Those provisions were the bawdy house provision, the living off the avails and the solicitation. Two of those provisions are key to how the Nordic model is implemented, Bawdy house and living off the avails. The model doesn't work and is difficult to enforce without those provisions.

 

So if a Nordic-like model is implemented with those provisions and selling of sex still legal, when someone is charged under them, the case would be tossed out of court. This is called legal precedent. It would be appealed rapidly because the courts really don't like to have to fight the same arguments over and over after they have made a ruling. The court sent a clear message to parliament to make real changes to the laws.

 

So yeah, the government may try and pass a law like that, but it will have no teeth and they will be sent back to the drawing board after the first case is tossed. This is how our legal system works. They will have to implement a law that respects the supreme court decision, and criminalizing the purchaser does not satisfy that condition.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

So yeah, the government may try and pass a law like that, but it will have no teeth and they will be sent back to the drawing board after the first case is tossed. This is how our legal system works. They will have to implement a law that respects the supreme court decision, and criminalizing the purchaser does not satisfy that condition.

 

This is how your legal system works.