new prostitution bill

[cinelli 22184]

NOT JUST GUY'S ...I am an agent, and female, don't think the law will state "guy's" ....it is ANY one other then the SP/MA that will be illegal.

 

Yes, my bad.

[newboy 4919]

Oh Fuck!!! Now the government will be monitoring my emails and text conversations to see if I am a "pervert". I can't even hide in the basement and wack off to online porn, 'cause the Internet Service Providers will provide the cops a list of all sites I have visited. What the fuck is happening to the country? Not impressed one little bit...!

[cinelli 22184]

If they are advertising their own sexual services they won't be prosecuted anyway. So what difference does it make?

 

I was answering an inquiry in an earlier post.

[newboy 4919]

If they are advertising their own sexual services they won't be prosecuted anyway. So what difference does it make?

 

Thank you Savannah.

[Phaedrus 209521]

A few initial thoughts on this. Full disclosure: I've read Pivot's analysis of it, but not the bill itself (I've scanned the bill, and it's basically impossible to follow unless you're already familiar with existing legislation). Anyway...

 

...yes, it's bad, but I see no reason to panic. The sky is not falling, despite the government's wish to drop it on us.

 

As Gia noted, this is not a final bill; it's an opening bid in a political process. Some provisions in there will be things the government really wants to make happen, but some will be stuff that's there purely to be negotiated away so that the government can claim they're being reasonable. Yes, the government has a majority... but negotiations will still take place and compromises will happen.

 

An aside: given the government's current relations with the SCC, I can't help but wonder how much of this is less about sex work than Harper just wanting to deliver a solid "Fuck you" to the court. Obviously sex workers and their clients are just collateral damage here...

 

On communication: it still talks about "any place", and the Internet (including email) is still not a "place".

 

On advertizing: does the law prevent the hosting of ads, or just the placing of them? The former is completely unenforceable; contrary to what some others have said in this thread, anything outside of Canada is beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, as are any servers physically located in another country and run by a non-Canadian company. So, to pick three more enlightened countries at random: if we set up cerb.de, hosted on servers in New Zealand by an Australian company, the courts here are powerless.

 

And for those who disagree with me on that... think for a moment about Wikileaks. Think about Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, and what they've published between them. Think about the stuff they've put online, and how much it has pissed off the most powerful and technologically advanced nation in the world... and on a subject far more important to The Powers That Be than sex work could ever become. Can they stop it? Can they shut those people down? Of course not, or they would have already done so. Given that, do you really think the Canadian government will be able to kill a board like this if it's hosted abroad, even if they were foolish enough to try?

 

Now, if the placing of an ad is a crime... well, that's enforceable. But will LE have the resources and inclination to actually enforce it? Maybe, but that depends on the LE in question. And that only applies if ads stay the way they are today... if advertizing sexual services is illegal, then we simply do what's already common in the US: "Money exchanged is for time and companionship only (nudge, wink)." Problem solved: no sex advertized, no law broken.

 

On the idea that this bill could kill the industry in Canada: well, I'm sure the government would love that to happen. But, really... look south. Even if this bill passed as written, the legal environment for sex work would still be less oppressive than that which exists in most of the US. Tell me, doom-mongers, are there no sex workers in the US? Are there no clients? And, bearing in mind the answers to those two questions, do you honestly think the industry will die here? It's called the Oldest Profession for a reason, and it's survived worse than this.

 

Now, that's not to say there will be no effect at all. We may end up with a more US-like situation where providers have to be more careful about screening clients, and clients will have to be more careful about which ads they respond to, and newcomers on both sides of the fence will probably find it harder to get established. Some clients and providers may well be scared out of the industry, and it may decline in size as a result. But it will continue; I have no doubt about that.

 

My gut feeling is that enforcement of whatever finally becomes law will, as today, be mostly aimed at street workers and their clients. Let's face it, this is about politics, and what drives politics is public opinion... and what drives public opinion is what the public sees. The man in the street probably doesn't know that the nice lady in the apartment upstairs is a sex worker, and therefore he won't complain to either LE or his MP about her; he's going to complain about the lady in the short skirt on a street corner, never mind the fact that she's just a random person meeting a friend for a night out and not a sex worker at all.

 

Finally: as many have noted, this is all obviously going to be struck down by the SCC on the same grounds as last time, provided we can get plaintiffs for a test-case (or maybe two; it strikes me you'd need one case for the laws aimed at clients, and one for the laws aimed at providers). Sure, most people won't want the publicity... but it only needs one or two courageous and determined individuals. And a decade.

[tomfool 220]

You are reading it wrong. No communication in public. No different than now. :)

 

No different than now for a provider. For a customer will be illegal to communicate anywhere.

 

from the draft bill

 

"286.1 Everyone who , in any place , obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for purpose of obtaining for consideration the sexual services of a person ..."

[Ice4fun 78396]

A few initial thoughts on this. Full disclosure: I've read Pivot's analysis of it, but not the bill itself (I've scanned the bill, and it's basically impossible to follow unless you're already familiar with existing legislation). Anyway...

 

...yes, it's bad, but I see no reason to panic. The sky is not falling, despite the government's wish to drop it on us.

 

As Gia noted, this is not a final bill; it's an opening bid in a political process. Some provisions in there will be things the government really wants to make happen, but some will be stuff that's there purely to be negotiated away so that the government can claim they're being reasonable. Yes, the government has a majority... but negotiations will still take place and compromises will happen.

 

An aside: given the government's current relations with the SCC, I can't help but wonder how much of this is less about sex work than Harper just wanting to deliver a solid "Fuck you" to the court. Obviously sex workers and their clients are just collateral damage here...

 

On communication: it still talks about "any place", and the Internet (including email) is still not a "place".

 

On advertizing: does the law prevent the hosting of ads, or just the placing of them? The former is completely unenforceable; contrary to what some others have said in this thread, anything outside of Canada is beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, as are any servers physically located in another country and run by a non-Canadian company. So, to pick three more enlightened countries at random: if we set up cerb.de, hosted on servers in New Zealand by an Australian company, the courts here are powerless.

 

And for those who disagree with me on that... think for a moment about Wikileaks. Think about Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, and what they've published between them. Think about the stuff they've put online, and how much it has pissed off the most powerful and technologically advanced nation in the world... and on a subject far more important to The Powers That Be than sex work could ever become. Can they stop it? Can they shut those people down? Of course not, or they would have already done so. Given that, do you really think the Canadian government will be able to kill a board like this if it's hosted abroad, even if they were foolish enough to try?

 

Now, if the placing of an ad is a crime... well, that's enforceable. But will LE have the resources and inclination to actually enforce it? Maybe, but that depends on the LE in question. And that only applies if ads stay the way they are today... if advertizing sexual services is illegal, then we simply do what's already common in the US: "Money exchanged is for time and companionship only (nudge, wink)." Problem solved: no sex advertized, no law broken.

 

On the idea that this bill could kill the industry in Canada: well, I'm sure the government would love that to happen. But, really... look south. Even if this bill passed as written, the legal environment for sex work would still be less oppressive than that which exists in most of the US. Tell me, doom-mongers, are there no sex workers in the US? Are there no clients? And, bearing in mind the answers to those two questions, do you honestly think the industry will die here? It's called the Oldest Profession for a reason, and it's survived worse than this.

 

Now, that's not to say there will be no effect at all. We may end up with a more US-like situation where providers have to be more careful about screening clients, and clients will have to be more careful about which ads they respond to, and newcomers on both sides of the fence will probably find it harder to get established. Some clients and providers may well be scared out of the industry, and it may decline in size as a result. But it will continue; I have no doubt about that.

 

My gut feeling is that enforcement of whatever finally becomes law will, as today, be mostly aimed at street workers and their clients. Let's face it, this is about politics, and what drives politics is public opinion... and what drives public opinion is what the public sees. The man in the street probably doesn't know that the nice lady in the apartment upstairs is a sex worker, and therefore he won't complain to either LE or his MP about her; he's going to complain about the lady in the short skirt on a street corner, never mind the fact that she's just a random person meeting a friend for a night out and not a sex worker at all.

 

Finally: as many have noted, this is all obviously going to be struck down by the SCC on the same grounds as last time, provided we can get plaintiffs for a test-case (or maybe two; it strikes me you'd need one case for the laws aimed at clients, and one for the laws aimed at providers). Sure, most people won't want the publicity... but it only needs one or two courageous and determined individuals. And a decade.

 

I like your analysis....

 

In my opinion I think the biggest risk is that the threat of criminal charges will cause some people who might gave seen an SP to be nervous and not proceed... this will restrict the market and make it much harder for SP who do not have established clients.

 

Just my opinion

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I am so sad for my girl:(

She is not ready for INDY work, just before meeting her she had thoughts of going to a big city and with no credit card to book hotel etc...she was tempted to street walk! I saved her by bringing her in and teaching her how to work safely. Now I fear I will not be able to help her and many others that may have come my way! This is a sad day for any reputable agent:(

I am looking at ways to evolve into a co-op, where as everyone just pays a percentage of expenses, but not sure if that will be considered as " benefiting of others" . I will need my lawyer to help me on this. Maybe I will be consultant instead?? hahaha

 

I will focus a lot of time to making sure she knows her rights and how to work safe, I just hope I can teach her everything she needs to know to stay safe and healthy!

 

BOOOOO!!!!!

[Miss S. Lane 67128]

CRAP I forgot about Bill C-13 Protecting Canadians From Online Crime Act. They will have the ability to monitor your net use without a warrant. So no privacy on the net period.

 

 

286.5 No person shall be prosecuted for

 

a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit derived is from the provision of their own sexual services or

 

b) an offence made under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisementr of their own sexual services.

 

:)

[cinelli 22184]

Please be careful with the co-op. Legally three people form a "gang" in the legal sense. You would be subject to extremely harsh penalties if the Crown went after you.

 

Remember: even if you are right and win in the end, in the meantime they can ruin your life.

[Phaedrus 209521]

I am so sad for my girl:(

She is not ready for INDY work, just before meeting her she had thoughts of going to a big city and with no credit card to book hotel etc...she was tempted to street walk! I saved her by bringing her in and teaching her how to work safely. Now I fear I will not be able to help her and many others that may have come my way! This is a sad day for any reputable agent:(

 

Sorry to hear that... but in the absolute worst-case scenario, you still have a few months to teach her enough that she can fly solo.

 

And as I said, I don't think the worst will happen.

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Please be careful with the co-op. Legally three people form a "gang" in the legal sense. You would be subject to extremely harsh penalties if the Crown went after you.

 

Remember: even if you are right and win in the end, in the meantime they can ruin your life.

 

 

YES true too, WOW...Sophia the gangster hahahha...well I will see what lawyer will say, thanks for reminding me!

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

On advertizing: does the law prevent the hosting of ads, or just the placing of them? The former is completely unenforceable; contrary to what some others have said in this thread, anything outside of Canada is beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, as are any servers physically located in another country and run by a non-Canadian company. So, to pick three more enlightened countries at random: if we set up cerb.de, hosted on servers in New Zealand by an Australian company, the courts here are powerless.

 

So I can run a Ponzi scheme in Canada because I am advertising for my fraudulent activities in Nicaragua!

[Phaedrus 209521]

So I can run a Ponzi scheme in Canada because I am advertising for my fraud activities in Nicaragua!

 

They wouldn't be able to stop you advertizing your Ponzi scheme (unless it was also illegal in Nicaragua). They'd still be able to get you for running it.

 

However, I think that's a really bad analogy. I'm not aware that there's any law against merely advertizing a Ponzi scheme, or against buying into one... what's illegal is running one. Sex work would be in completely the opposite situation... legal to sell, illegal to advertize or buy.

 

Although reading Savannah's posts, it sounds like the advertizing thing may not apply to independent workers.

[Dori 759]

This proposed bill is ridiculous!

 

Its a copy of the American model of prostitution, which is not surprising considering Harper's government is like Bush Jr. Lite.

 

 

So the new bills provisions means this website has to come down, Including not being able to collect money for banner ads as well. No SP can advertise their services at all online on any website including their own.

 

 

Next stop, mandatory minimum sentences for johns, pimps, and SPs.

[Miss S. Lane 67128]

This proposed bill is ridiculous!

 

Its a copy of the American model of prostitution, which is not surprising considering Harper's government is like Bush Jr. Lite.

 

 

So the new bills provisions means this website has to come down, Including not being able to collect money for banner ads as well. No SP can advertise their services at all online on any website including their own.

 

 

Next stop, mandatory minimum sentences for johns, pimps, and SPs.

 

 

OMG stop with the fear mongering!!! Seriously... Independents can advertise for their own sexual services without prosecution. Sheesh!!!!

[Dori 759]

 

Although reading Savannah's posts, it sounds like the advertizing thing may not apply to independent workers.

 

 

Incorrect. It applies to everyone!

 

"Criminalize the advertising of sexual services in print or online, with offenders facing a maximum prison term of five years. "

 

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/prostitution-bill-would-make-it-illegal-to-buy-sell-sex-in-public

[tomfool 220]

Incorrect. It applies to everyone!

 

"Criminalize the advertising of sexual services in print or online, with offenders facing a maximum prison term of five years. "

 

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/prostitution-bill-would-make-it-illegal-to-buy-sell-sex-in-public

 

 

My reading , for what it is worth, says that Savannahs is correct. An independent is free to advertise. Agencies it seems would not.

 

It would be a crime for anyone to communicate in any way with the independent about the advertisement but the advertisement it seems will be legal.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

They wouldn't be able to stop you advertizing your Ponzi scheme (unless it was also illegal in Nicaragua). They'd still be able to get you for running it.

 

Your comments were for CERB etc to run through offshore hosts and this was the context of my analogy.

 

 

However, I think that's a really bad analogy. I'm not aware that there's any law against merely advertizing a Ponzi scheme, or against buying into one... what's illegal is running one. Sex work would be in completely the opposite situation... legal to sell, illegal to advertize or buy.

 

Running a Ponzi scheme is like running an advertisement website for the sex workers to advertise through. So as you alluded they would still get who is running the website from a Canadian ground.

[Phaedrus 209521]

Your comments were for CERB etc to run through offshore hosts and this was the context of my analogy.

 

Yes, I know. I'm just saying that I think your analogy is completely inappropriate.

 

Running a Ponzi scheme is like running an advertisement website for the sex workers to advertise through.

 

Sorry, you've lost me. How is an advertizing service like a Ponzi scheme? I don't get that at all.

[tomfool 220]

I guess the catch on the advertising, even by independents , is that it may be legal for them to advertise but not legal for anyone to accept payment for such advertisement. A catch 22 of sorts.

[newboy 4919]

Let me get this straight, (if the bill passes). I am unhappy with my sex life, (or have none at all). I want to make a transaction with a woman to have some fun with her. For that I am labeled a criminal? I am going to bed now...

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Sorry, you've lost me. How is an advertizing service like a Ponzi scheme? I don't get that at all.

 

The issue in both is that when the "activity" is criminal, one can't evade it by doing related transactions overseas.

 

To run a website from a Canadian soil (i.e local IP address), the advertiser could be prosecuted in Canada. Using an overseas server/host etc. doesn't negate that the offence was commenced in a Canadian soil.

[mrgreen760 37785]

Regardless of the various interpretations of what is OK and what is not OK there will be an impact from today's announcement. Some won't stick around to find out what's what and will view it as too much risk and will split from the game both johns and providers.

 

Peace

MG

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

The issue in both is that when the "activity" is criminal, one can't evade it by doing related transactions overseas.

 

To run a website from a Canadian soil (i.e local IP address), the advertiser could be prosecuted in Canada. Using an overseas server/host etc. doesn't negate that the offence was commenced in a Canadian soil.[/quote

 

Hard to prove and with the use of proxies through many routes would be hard pressed to follow for most LE agencies due to limited budgets and manpower.