# Legalized Prostitution



## kcdist (19 Feb 2006)

The Alberta Government has recently announced that it will enact legislation that authorizes the seizure of vehicles for those caught attempting to purchase sex.

This letter was recently published in one of our local papers. Funny and to the point:
__________________________________________________________________________________________
PROSTITUTION- Re: "Alberta ready to seize cars from johns" Feb 13

Let me get this straight. Some poor schlep who's so homely he has to give out some of his hard-earned money for sex, is now not only going to lose his reputation, he's going to lose his car, too.

I undersand prostitution is a problem, but I'm sure it's the same in every large city. People buy and sell sex. I say we legalize the sex trade. Let's have laws ensuring employee and health standards are met, sell business licences and collect taxes.

Take the sex out of criminals' hands and put it into the business sector. The city won't be an eyesore, the police will be free to deal with real criminals, and the economy will get a kick in the rear. The workers will have drug-free environments and no pimps or violence.

I say let the socially inferior, the awkward, the poor-spoken, and the downright ugly-looking pay for sex (if they have to resort to those means). For goodness sake, don't steal their cars. They've got it bad enough as it is.

Chris Lavis (published today in the Calgary Herald)
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments?


----------



## geo (19 Feb 2006)

Oldest trade in the world......

Escorts, mistresses, prostitutes...... they appear to be going after the bottom of the heap without adressing all of society's ills.

My take on it - it's just window dressing...... giving the appearance that they're doing something to satisfy one sector of the electorate.


----------



## Armymedic (19 Feb 2006)

We are all prudes. There is nothing wrong with legalized, regulated and gov't monitored prostitution.


----------



## The_Falcon (19 Feb 2006)

Technically, prostitution is legal in this country.


----------



## Sig_Des (19 Feb 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Technically, prostitution is legal in this country.



It's the solicitation that's illegal


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Feb 2006)

Marriage IS prostitution, just camouflaged.  "Mow the lawn or no nookie for you, Herb",  "h, what a beautiful ring, someone's getting lucky tonight".  Just variations on a theme...


----------



## George Wallace (19 Feb 2006)

Legalized Prostitution works in several European countries.  In Germany, the Polizei regularly patrol and check credentials.  It is mandatory that the prostitutes have Medicals every three months.  They are restricted to working in certain areas of the city, which become "Tourist sites".   Of course they are taxed.  The city has a 'well known' tourist site, and tourist dollars coming in.  Win - Win situation if implemented properly.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Feb 2006)

If we are going to make prostitution illegal, as this law seems to be angling for, why not clamp down on the industry the same way LE goes after drugs or smuggling?

If you want drugs off the street, do you run around grabbing every crackhead you can? Of course not, you arrest the suppliers.

Arrest every streetwalker you see, lock her up for oh, say a week or so, then make them do community service. 

It never fails to amaze me that in every other illegal industry, the suppliers are the bad guys, except in prostitution, where it is the customers.


----------



## kcdist (19 Feb 2006)

Notwithstanding my previous opposition to the 'swinger' ruling, I am fully in favour of authorized Red Light districts.

When I was working as a police officer, we would routinely lose some female members of our team so they could work the stroll with the vice unit. One particular member was a Shania Twain lookalike, and when she dressed in her whore gear, she looked truly amazing. Great abs, legs, face......oh, if I was only single and young and attractive.....but I digress. 

Anyhow, she related a story of one of her big arrests.

Young kid, 17 years old, overweight, glasses and a face full of acne. Smart and articulate though, and he worked at McDonald's to pay for his car. Kid comes up to PW (our slang for female officers), and initiates a conversation for the purposes of procuring sex. The kid was a virgin, and said his buddies at school rode him mercilessly for his status as such. A price is agreed to, and he digs into his pocket for money. He produces a handful of crumpled cash and holds it out like Oliver Twist holding up his soup bowl. The PW makes the signal, and the boy is promptly arrested by the stand-by team.

As the kid is a young offender, his parents are called down to the station. They are outraged and start yelling at the boy. He is released with an appearance notice and a court date.

What good could have possible come out of this? Poor kid was probably humiliated to the point of suicide. If he had better genes or social skills, sex, or the lack thereof, would likely have not been an issue at all. Peer pressure, coupled with the curiosity about the experience, fueled by the highly sexually charged society we live in, likely led him in his attempt to pay for sex. 

What other option did he have? I still feel sorry for the kid.

I say legalize, regulate and tax.


----------



## geo (19 Feb 2006)

Ahh.... to be young and stupid again.
Remember visiting Amsterdam while on leave after Reforger exercises in West Germany. Out the Train station door, hang a right and down the street to do some window shopping... they were clean and government certified. Ohhh Mama!


----------



## armyvern (19 Feb 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> *window shopping*


Too funny Geo!! Haven't we all done this? Window shopping is the operative word though!!


----------



## geo (19 Feb 2006)

I will have you know that I have never had to pay for services...... 

Am married.... it's a lot more expensive in some respects ;(


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Feb 2006)

I guess in our effort to avoid stigmatizing every element of society which occasionally strays over the line, someone forgot to include the johns.  However, I was reassured to see on the news last night that a pedophile has been located in a halfway house within rifle shot of a schoolyard.


----------



## mo-litia (22 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> It never fails to amaze me that in every other illegal industry, the suppliers are the bad guys, except in prostitution, where it is the customers.



Touche.  It's rather hypocritical of society to twist things around this way.



			
				kcdist said:
			
		

> What other option did he have? I still feel sorry for the kid.
> 
> I say legalize, regulate and tax.



I feel bad for that kid too.  Legalization and taxation would do a lot to transform this industry.  Canada may as well deal with this issue like a mature society; prostitution is NEVER going to go away, no matter how much some people would like it to.


----------



## Guy. E (22 Feb 2006)

Not being able to add any more usefull information or arguments, I completely agree with Legalise, Regulate and Tax.


----------



## Goober (22 Feb 2006)

Legalized prostitution works very well in the States. No pimps, the girls are clean, get regular weekly tests, there is security in case they need it.

Edit: In some NV counties I mean.


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2006)

Hmmm.... does the French army still have their mobile brothels ?


----------



## mo-litia (22 Feb 2006)

Mobile brothels?

I'm in the wrong army...


----------



## TCBF (22 Feb 2006)

"Mobile brothels?

I'm in the wrong army..."

- You want to remuster to WHAT?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2006)

These houses were always marked by a blue lantern if they served officers, and by a red one if they served common soldiers. 

Bordels Militaires de Campagne

would appear that France operated the brothels thru to the end of their occupation of Algeria - at which time they signed the International convention of 2 December 1949.

Oh well - party's over


----------



## TCBF (23 Feb 2006)

"Young kid, 17 years old, overweight, glasses and a face full of acne. Smart and articulate though, and he worked at McDonald's to pay for his car. Kid comes up to PW (our slang for female officers), and initiates a conversation for the purposes of procuring sex. The kid was a virgin,.... The PW makes the signal, and the boy is promptly arrested by the stand-by team.

What other option did he have? I still feel sorry for the kid."

- Law, shmaw, the PW should have serviced him, not arrested him.  Now, you don't want to marry THAT girl, you would get more sympathy out of a NURSE.

Now, the poor kid will probably suicide, still a virgin.

I say, legalise it and tax it.  Legal gambling has a horrible effect on society. On the contrary, legal prostitution would reduce unwanted pregnancies, not to mention unwanted marriages.  Is this whole 'Blame the John" agenda pushed by ugly feminists who realize once prostitution is legalized they will never again have a boyfriend?

And what do you think all those whores would do for a living if all the Johns became celibate? Would they get snapped up by big business to become CEOs?  Riiiiight.  Those girls are round pegs in round holes right now and they know it.

Tom


----------



## mo-litia (23 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> .  Is this whole 'Blame the John" agenda pushed by ugly feminists who realize once prostitution is legalized they will never again have a boyfriend?
> 
> And what do you think all those whores would do for a living if all the Johns became celibate? Would they get snapped up by big business to become CEOs?  Riiiiight.  Those girls are round pegs in round holes right now and they know it.



Ha ha ha ha  ;D I was under the impression that most feminists where not the type of women to be concerned about having *boy*friends...but perhaps years of seeing Gloria Steinem on the news may have skewed my perspective a little.

Whore's as CEO's?  That would make my life a little more interesting at the office the next time I submit a proposal up top.  "Well Vice-President of such-and-such, I understand your fiscal concerns about the viability of this plan of action.  Perhaps if I pay you twice the going rate to have a three-way with a midget, you may reconsider this action?"  

Bang on, Tom.  Some people are just cut out to be whores...just like some people are cut out to be soldiers-or peace activists.  Different _'strokes' _ for differnet folks, right?


----------



## Guy. E (23 Feb 2006)

Think of how much time and money you could save by going to your local brothel instead of to the bar, spending lots of money, getting drunk and in the end perhaps no action at all...


----------



## geo (23 Feb 2006)

some guys wouold say that using a brothel would be lots cheaper than getting married or having a girlfriend......
not that I'd subscribe to that belief


----------



## Bo (28 Feb 2006)

You hang around Montreal long enough, you'll notice just how big the sex trade is. May not be "legal", but the police sure turn a blind eye to certain obvious establishments.


----------



## Pea (28 Feb 2006)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> Ha ha ha ha  ;D I was under the impression that most feminists where not the type of women to be concerned about having *boy*friends...but perhaps years of seeing Gloria Steinem on the news may have skewed my perspective a little.
> 
> *****'s as CEO's?  That would make my life a little more interesting at the office the next time I submit a proposal up top.  "Well Vice-President of such-and-such, I understand your fiscal concerns about the viability of this plan of action.  Perhaps if I pay you twice the going rate to have a three-way with a midget, you may reconsider this action?"
> 
> Bang on, Tom.  Some people are just cut out to be whores...just like some people are cut out to be soldiers-or peace activists.  Different _'strokes' _ for differnet folks, right?



I realize that he has been banned, but I am not sure I find the whole "Some people are just cut out to be whores" comment to be very appropriate at all. Women don't just wake up one morning and decide to "be a whore". Many of these women that are now prostitutes have been victims of abuse while growing up. This type of situation has an odd affect on one. I am not claiming to know it all, and I am sure not all prostitutes have had this hard life. Being sexually abused can cause one to have some serious mental issues and unfortunately, not all seek help and do end up in a downward spiral to a point where they sell their bodies to support whatever habit or lifestyle they have. That being said, I do know a woman who to me looks like she models for a living. I see her in the grocery store with her kids, and she lives in a very nice house. What a police friend of mine just told me though, is that she is actually a prostitute. She has quite the comfy lifestyle, and I would never have guessed her chosen job.

Also, the comment on women worrying about not having boyfriends? Come on, I don't see how that would even be thought of. The fact that a man may be able to legally pay for sex from a woman does not make me worry about not having a boyfriend. Why would I worry about the thought of "losing a man" who for whatever reason is at the point where he needs to pay for a woman's company? There are so many men out there that actually want a relationship, why would we worry about the group that doesn't?

I better add that I am actually FOR legalizing prostitution. We all know it is going to continue to happen regardless, so why not make it as safe as we can?

Just thought I would add a woman's perspective on the topic.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Feb 2006)

Thanks, now get back in the kitchen...... ;D :warstory:


----------



## Guy. E (28 Feb 2006)

You would need that helmet if you said that to some of the women I know.


----------



## Pea (28 Feb 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Thanks, now get back in the kitchen...... ;D :warstory:



Thank you for your intelligent addition to this thread. The helmet icon seems very fitting after a comment like that. I'd head to the kitchen if I wasn't too busy working my way up to CEO...


----------



## muffin (28 Feb 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Thanks, now get back in the kitchen...... ;D :warstory:



From Earlier :
"Marriage IS prostitution, just camouflaged.  "Mow the lawn or no nookie for you, Herb",  "h, what a beautiful ring, someone's getting lucky tonight".  Just variations on a theme..."

Did someone do you wrong, love? Who's in your kitchen?

muffin


----------



## Scott (28 Feb 2006)

OK, back on track please.

Card_11, mo-litia was very fond of antagonizing people here, he's gone now, partly for doing just that, and we need not fall victim to his special brand of attention seeking any longer. What he said was wrong but he can't say it anymore so please try to move past it.

I have also seen some attempts at _humour_ here folks, let's keep it friendly and remember that you can't tell someone's tone of voice by their typing.


----------



## muffin (28 Feb 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> I have also seen some attempts at _humour_ here folks, let's keep it friendly and remember that you can't tell someone's tone of voice by their typing.



Roger 9er - my apologies


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Feb 2006)

yes, I suppose it's very difficult to see that gigundonormous smiley head guy right next to the gigundonormous helmet head guy, and instantly assume that I'm a woman hater.  Nothing farther from the truth, I love women, but probably couldn't digest a whole one......
> ;D  8) : :warstory:<  see them this time?


----------



## Pea (28 Feb 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> OK, back on track please.
> 
> Card_11, mo-litia was very fond of antagonizing people here, he's gone now, partly for doing just that, and we need not fall victim to his special brand of attention seeking any longer. What he said was wrong but he can't say it anymore so please try to move past it.
> 
> I have also seen some attempts at _humour_ here folks, let's keep it friendly and remember that you can't tell someone's tone of voice by their typing.



Ok, you're right, he was antagonizing and I shouldn't have let it get to me. I just want to point out that I wasn't trying to start anything by saying I thought what he said was offensive. The thread continued on after his comments were made, so I figured that meant it was still open for discussion. I also responded to a comment made about "ugly women not having boyfriends". I was in no way looking for an argument, just wanting to voice another opinion on the subject.

And you're right, humour does not always pass from the fingers on this end to the other persons screen. I apologize.


----------



## Scott (28 Feb 2006)

I wasn't trying to jump on you at all, just pointing out that a sh*t distruber is now skipping through bannedland and needs no response to his drivel. I don't mind someone pointing out (ONCE) that what he had to say was a crock. But when we turn it into a thread of bashing that person, who can't even respond now, it makes us no better than them.

The topic is still very much open for discussion and I want to keep it so. One way to accomplish this is to ignore the comments made by our exiled member and move on with the discussion.

Thanks all.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Feb 2006)

muffin said:
			
		

> From Earlier :
> "Marriage IS prostitution, just camouflaged.  "Mow the lawn or no nookie for you, Herb",  "h, what a beautiful ring, someone's getting lucky tonight".  Just variations on a theme..."
> 
> Did someone do you wrong, love? Who's in your kitchen?
> ...



You have absolutely no idea just how wrong, but that's my cross.  Tell me though, out of curiosity only, not a call to arms:  Can you honestly tell me that you've never used sex as some kind of Pavlovian reward system? Ever? You've got it, we want it, and are willing to do stupid things for it.  It would be unnatural NOT to use a biological imperative as a God given advantage.  Let's just admit it, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it just is.....


----------



## muffin (28 Feb 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Can you honestly tell me that you've never used sex as some kind of Pavlovian reward system? Ever? You've got it, we want it, and are willing to do stupid things for it.



I just showed this to my husband and quite seriously   said I have never done this have I (sounding all appauled ).... he walked away and said I am NOT commenting on THAT.... now what do you suppose that means (teehee).

Of course he knows that he can hold it against me just as easily as I can hold it against him.  :blotto:


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2006)

Legal prostitution discussion on one side and marital status discussion on the other......
Yikes!

I have to beat back my wife's advances (or at least play hard to get )....
such is the life of the dirty old sapper :warstory:


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Feb 2006)

Not absolutely true.  Been to "The Wall" in Nurnberg?  A good 80% of the girls there are university students, and find it an easy way to pay for their education. No, I am not making this up.... look in the windows, you see text books everywhere....


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2006)

Piper,
you haven't been to Amsterdam either I would presume
Closer to home, think of all the young ladies who dance for a living - a lot of them are college students who make a respectable living while they study such things as Law, Accountantcy, Physics, Chemistry, etc...... 

Not necessarily the type of employment I would want for my daughter but, some are doing it by choice


----------



## Rodders (1 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> But when we legalise and regulate prostitution...the women doing are still selling themselves off, a thing most of them hate to do. Put them in a safe envrionment and keep them clean, but the goal should be to ultimatly eliminate it....not keep it going under gov't control.
> 
> No women wants to be a hooker, they are forced into it somehow. Help the ones who are find alternate employment and get them back into a normal (dare I say moral) job and away from such a de-humanising and humiliating job..legal or not.
> 
> Geez, that sounded all idealistic of me.



I think that for the most part you are correct. However I think the following posts are also correct. Most women(and men) who are prostitutes would rather be doing something else to earn their money. However, making it illegal has done nothing to get people out of this life, unless you consider prison an option.

My opinion on this is similar to my view on the legalisation of marijuana. A war on drugs or a war on prostitution is doomed to failure because so long as the demand exists, their will be those willing to offer a supply. Now someone might suggest making penalties so extreme that few would dare attempt such a legal transgression. However, I think life imprisonment or execution for possession of marijuana or engaging in prostitution would be terribly extreme and ridiculous.

Therefore I think the next best option is to legalise it. Something which is legal is always easier to control than something which is strictly illegal. For the most part, you eliminate the higher-end criminal element. In the case of prostitution, you eliminate the role of the "pimp". If a woman or man wants to earn money by selling their bodies, who's business is it but theirs? We live in a society where 5-year-olds are tarted up and entered into beauty contests. I find that much more repugnant than an adult willingly having sex for money. 

There is also the pro of collecting taxes on said transactions, some of which can be directed at programs aimed to reduce such activities.

Just my opinion. I'm sure there will be some rebuttals.


----------



## geo (1 Mar 2006)

Piper,
On some points we might agree but..... a lot of em are doing it
and if you don't want to be seen by your school mates, you do your business 100km away in another town.


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> No one in their right mind wants to do such a thing to make a living. You can make decent coin doing it sometimes, but still...



What about people in Porn? They perform sexual acts for monetary compensation, hmm, just like prostitution!

If it's acceptable for that, then why not make prostitution safe, clean, and regulated?

Personally, I don't ply for sex with money (unless you count dating), but if that's what someone does to put food on the table....

Do I personally agree with it? no, but prostitution has always been around, and it always will be, so lets keep it safe


----------



## Rodders (1 Mar 2006)

[quote 

No one in their right mind wants to do such a thing to make a living. You can make decent coin doing it sometimes, but still...[/quote]

Well I wouldn't do it, but as had been said, you can't get in another person's head. Some people would not go skydiving or scuba diving if you put a gun to their head. I'm not comparing these to prostitution. I'm just trying to suggest that we not believe that everyone shares our own perspectives or personal values.


----------



## Guy. E (1 Mar 2006)

Who's to say that these people may not love what they do. Having sex and getting payed for it.

Hell, if i had the kind of body and opportunity I'd probably pose for play girl. That would be pretty cool for me.


(hows that sound now?)


----------



## Thirstyson (1 Mar 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> That would be amazing in my eyes.



I know what you mean to say there, but it just doesn't come off right


----------



## muffin (1 Mar 2006)

I find it interesting that this thread focuses on women - of course there are male hookers, strippers, escorts, etc as well. 
I wonder if anyone ever thinks "oh - that poor Chippendale" or "I feel so bad for Seymour Butts" 

But seriously - I think the first step should be the safety of anyone in any sex trade. I think increased support would allow people in the trades to more easily transition back to "normal society" (as we call it) IF they choose to. 

Perhaps the solution isn't in the selling - but the buying. They couldn't sell it if there wasn't anyone there to buy it.

muffin


----------



## camochick (1 Mar 2006)

Piper, have you ever talked to a stripper or a hooker. Some of them genuinely like what they do. I think if we clean it up, get help for the drug addicts, make it safe for them, then why the heck not let them do it. I know girls who work in a "massage parlor" they make awesome money ,one of them saved 60 grand in six months and also lives in a nice house and has two brand new cars she bought with cash and she liked what she did. . I live in a neighborhood known for prostitutes and I feel scared for them because a few have ended up in dumpsters here in Edmonton. Wouldn't we rather see them safe than dead. Long live porn, strippers and prostitutes. To each their own . >


----------



## Pea (1 Mar 2006)

muffin said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that this thread focuses on women - of course there are male hookers, strippers, escorts, etc as well.
> I wonder if anyone ever thinks "oh - that poor Chippendale" or "I feel so bad for Seymour Butts"
> 
> But seriously - I think the first step should be the safety of anyone in any sex trade. I think increased support would allow people in the trades to more easily transition back to "normal society" (as we call it) IF they choose to.
> ...



Muffin, and Camo...  I agree whole heartedly!

We know it will continue to occur, and as said above, they don't all hate doing it. Some of them in those "massage parlours" make a killer living and many are qualified to do other things. This tells me they enjoy their job, and choose to stay at it.

It bothers me how so many look down on women prostitutes, (hey it's your own opinion) but don't think anything of the John who is soliciting her service. How is he any different than she? He is also having the sex, but is instead paying for it. She is getting paid. To me, they are on the same level. (She probably gets the better deal, she walks away richer) 

But, we all know how dangerous this situation can be. Like Camo said there have been quite a few women prostitutes who have gone missing or have been found dead over the past year or so just in Edmonton alone. (who knows about everywhere else) So I say lets legalize it, and make it as safe as we can for both the prostitute and the john. Then we can work towards helping those that need help, and want out.


----------



## Guy. E (1 Mar 2006)

Can I ask you how much court time and tax payers dollars are being held up in the courts prosecuting these individuals for they’re ‘crimes’? At what point is it a crime to do what you please with your self? Tattoos are legal, body piercing is legal and so is plastic surgery. Why shouldn’t these individuals be free to do what they please with they’re body’s? Isn’t that the reason we are here? To fight for and protect the rights and freedoms of the people who live in out country?

You say it is a vile and terrable job? There are people who pick up road kill from the highways, there are people who inspect sewage systems for a living. I have had jobs shoveling horse shit, working on highway construction 14 hours a day 12 days out of 14 behind a paver, I have even washed filthy dished all day non stop at a restaurant for minimum wage. The thing is I didn’t like those jobs, so I quit and moved on to better. 

If these people have an addiction/ substance abuse problem that they are need these ‘jobs’ to pay for and cant get help other wise, why cant or shouldn’t there be more government funded programs to help rehabilitate them partially if not completely funded by what taxable revenue they help to bring in? If they enjoy what they do, again who are we to say “You cant do that!” ? 

Again, prostitution always has and always will be regardless. How ignorant are we to say no to all the financial benefits as well as attempting to help those who truly need it?


----------



## muffin (1 Mar 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> At what point is it a crime to do what you please with your self?



Illegal Drug Use,
Suicide,
Selling organs on Ebay
Selling "deflowering" on Ebay


 ;D


----------



## Guy. E (1 Mar 2006)

Illegal Drug Use,

I was under the impression it was illegal to posses, purchase and sell the substances.

Suicide

Highly debatable under what circumstances you are speaking of.

Selling organs on Ebay

With a doctor again saver then the black market and a subsequent repercussion of an independent medical system. It is legal to donate an organ, why not sell your spare kidney or lung to someone about to die?

Selling your "deflowering" on Ebay 

Nearly what we are discussing right here in this topic.


----------



## muffin (1 Mar 2006)

I did not mean to appear as though I was arguing with you - quite the contrary.

I am not saying that any of those things were any more or less right than selling sex itself - I was just listing other things that are illegal to do to ones self. 

I was under the impression it was illegal to be "high" but perhaps it is not. Maybe it is one of those bizzare laws like it is not illegal for those under 18 to smoke, but it is illegal to buy, or posess tobacco products.

There are a number of laws that govern what a person is able to do to his/her self - and I don't think any of them are any better than the one at question here. 

... but this could take this thread off in another direction - so I digress


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Mar 2006)

The reason that the johns get stung in sweeps is that it is one of the few instances where deterrence is effective.  Once you get piped in a hooker sting, you will definitely be saving up the extra for an escort.  
My most recent prostitution story:  Patrolling in a crappy area (Villages for you that know the area) notice a car driving slowly, seeming to be eyeballing homes.  Pull up and speak to the driver:
ME:  "Where you trying to get to?"
DRIVER:  "I'm trying to find an address"
ME:  "At 4:30 in the morning?"
DRIVER:  "My wife is an escort, I have to drop her off for a date"
PASSENGER:  "I won't be long, he usually just waits for me.  Is that okay?"
ME:  "Enjoy your evening"

Clearly, they are not too concerned about any relationship stress in the "arrangement".  
By and large, girls looking to put themselves through school will either strip or work a rub-and-tug (massage parlor).  The ones on the street are by and large wrecked people with a substance abuse problem.  The reason to keep after them is that they are so overflowing with diseases that they can potentially be a strain on health care.  And though it is easy to say "too bad if a john catches some Hep C, his problem" in about 70 percent of the arrests that we make, it will shortly be the guys wife's problem too.  Plus, crack whores are some of the best snitches, so if you are serious about going after the "source" guys, then this is where you start.
Arguing against the prosecution cost isn't really a great argument, only in that there is so much waste in the whole legal system the cost generated by this "victimless" crime is negligible.  This problem is also very different from the weed issue, but I am sure there are whole threads dedicated to "bud" arguments.   
As a generality, I am for legalizing it.  Whore houses, catalogues, the whole nine yards.  Then at least, the Fed and Prov could make a killing on sin taxes applied, and the hookers would have to declare their income and would not be able to dip into welfare, like they do now.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> Yes actually. Like the one who came here from Hungary, speks 10 words of English, has been stripping for 10 years and thats all she will ever do. I disagree with you, most don't. Some do, but they are the minority.
> 
> It's always going to exist and whatnot, that does not make it right.



So what ten words does she know, and is one of them "Piper"?   ;D


----------



## GO!!! (2 Mar 2006)

Piper,

You stated earlier that you "cannot imagine that anyone wants to be a prostitute" and "they are all forced into it, somehow".

I won't ask you to relate your vast and learned experience with the ladies of the night, but think of it this way....

I recently had conversation with a member of my extended family as to why I do what I do, it ended up with them saying;

"So you don't make as much money as you'd like to, you can be posted to remote locales, your peers are being killed and terribly injured in a war 62% of the public opposes, your wife hates it and you are often given vacation time at inopportune times, on short notice"

I said, "Yup"

Without getting into my rebuttal, I do this job voluntarily, and it REALLY sucks at certain times, so why can't a hooker do hers by choice? Just think, lots of tax free income, welfare too, sleeping in every day, and you get to ride in nice cars!

Think of a prison guard, or police officer who must work with the drug and disease addled bottom 2% of society every day! They are there by choice too! Just because you find it incomprehensible, doe'snt make it so....


----------



## GO!!! (2 Mar 2006)

I stay away from Vanier when in Ottawa, being more of a Minglewoods type of guy.  

If you think prostitution is wrong, don't sell or buy any of the product. I think many things are wrong (wranglers, telemarketers, brussels sprouts), but all of these things are businesses, and since money is being exchanged, the government should tax it, morality be damned.

These prostitutes will suck untold amounts of money from our health care, social assistance, law enforcement, welfare and prison systems over their lifespans, we should try to get every penny possible from them, in order to offset this cost. 

To do any less is to shortchange the taxpayer, who is, in effect, subsidising a chosen lifestyle.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> These prostitutes will suck untold amounts of money from ...



I'm still trying to decide if you should get points for artistic merit on that one ...


----------



## Sig_Des (3 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I stay away from Vanier when in Ottawa, being more of a Minglewoods type of guy.



Minglewoods? Ewwwww...

I hope you mean the new Minglewoods, and not the old 3 story one...

and Piper, why not compare soldiers to hookers? We're both 2 of the oldest trades around, the public doesn't like yet tolerates us, politicians are always making empty promises about both of us....

and we'll probably both be around for a loooong time ;D


----------



## TCBF (3 Mar 2006)

"To an extent I agree with you (if they take out money, tax it back from them), however, again, try to get them out of the business as soon as possible and persecute those who use/aid it. "

- They are performing a public service, and probably contributing to society to the limit of their abilities.

- Leave them alone, and leave the Johns alone. too.

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (4 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> ...possible and persecute those who use/aid it.



I disagree with this completely. 

Why not address the johns as "addicts" and send them for treatment for the "lifestyle" they have run afoul of?

Sex addiction is as well documented as any other, why should it's victims be persecuted?


----------



## Guy. E (4 Mar 2006)

I spend lots of money a year on gas for my vehicles. Not only do I spend A LOT on it but all the gas I buy goes in to green house gases and global warming intern killing several species of animals and causing tropical storms that kill more people. Better lock me up.

Your argument isn’t that strong. There are people addicted to gardening, that’s good for you right? Last time I checked sex was great exercise.

What’s so bad about legal prostitution in the first place? It works in Las Vegas and Europe. Or is the problem most of North America is tight assed prudes?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

Because almost every male politician is likely married, and if you are the guy who is going to spearhead this one not only will you take a pounding from the religious and special interest groups, but when you go home you are going to also be walking into a feces storm.  
"Hi baby, I'm home"
"Oh, it's the right honourable member from Amsterdam.  How was your busy day fighting for the sluts Mr. Whormonger, HMMM?".  (Just not the same if Sam Kinison can't be saying it).   :blotto:


----------



## GO!!! (4 Mar 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> "Oh, it's the right honourable member from Amsterdam.  How was your busy day fighting for the sluts Mr. Whormonger, HMMM?".



Once polygamy is made legal in Canada, I'll have my other wives sort her out.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

Hah.  Or they'll all gang up on you, and when it comes to the settlement, you will end up with one fifth of your stuff instead of the traditional half.


----------



## GO!!! (4 Mar 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Hah.  Or they'll all gang up on you, and when it comes to the settlement, you will end up with one fifth of your stuff instead of the traditional half.



Hah.

Ever heard of the "rule of thumb"?

 >


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Hah.
> 
> Ever heard of the "rule of thumb"?
> 
> >



Of course...and I think that brings our mini hijack back around to mistreated women.  Woohoo!  Posting at night rocks!


----------



## TCBF (4 Mar 2006)

"Just not the same if Sam Kinison can't be saying it"

- You are, Sir, a true konnaysoor of humour.  The world needs more Sam Kinison - A grossly misunderstood man: "YOU LIVE IN A *&%$**!# DESERT!"

Tom


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Just not the same if Sam Kinison can't be saying it"
> 
> - You are, Sir, a true konnaysoor of humour.  The world needs more Sam Kinison - A grossly misunderstood man: "YOU LIVE IN A *&%$**!# DESERT!"
> 
> Tom



"Get your kids, get your shit, we'll make one trip!!  We have deserts in America, we just don't live in them A$$HOLE"


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

FYI, just located this article of one of our local a$$hats.  Sadly, this story is not even close to being unique:

*Thief jailed for 53rd offence  * 

Sarah Sacheli, Windsor Star
Published: Friday, March 03, 2006 
One of Windsor's most prolific thieves was sentenced to three years in prison Thursday for his latest of 53 convictions.

Donald Meloche, 36, had been out of jail for just four days when he was caught Aug. 10 breaking into a Brock Street home. Given the standard two-for-one credit for the 71/2 months he has spent in jail, Meloche was sentenced to an additional 23 months, to be served in a federal penitentiary.

"I don't see too many mitigating factors here," said Ontario court Justice Harry Momotiuk, noting Meloche's long criminal record dating back to 1985, with multiple entries for every year since.

ON PROBATION

Before Thursday's convictions for break-and- enter and theft, Meloche had 51 prior convictions, most of them for similar property crimes. Most were committed while he was on probation for other thefts. One was for a theft he committed while serving a sentence in Windsor Jail.

When his lawyer noted that in the latest break-and-enter all the property was recovered, Momotiuk interjected that that was because Meloche and his accomplice were caught by police leaving the scene. Meloche was spotted carrying a bag of stolen items including an amplifier, DVDs and cordless telephones. "He dropped the bag and ran," Momotiuk said.

Momotiuk dismissed as "talk" much of what Meloche told a probation officer who prepared a report to be considered at sentencing.

Holding up a sheaf of papers listing Meloche's prior convictions, Momotiuk said, "I can't ignore this."

The report noted Meloche has a cocaine addiction, which he managed to keep hidden from his girlfriend.

"I'm trying to get my life straight. It's not just talk," Meloche told Momotiuk.

The three-year sentence is the harshest Meloche has been dealt to date. His last conviction for a break-and-enter netted him a two-year jail term.

His accomplice in the August theft, Michael Desrosiers, 46, was sentenced in September to 21/2 years in prison.

Windsor police Staff Sgt. Ed McNorton said "habitual offenders" like Meloche need to be dealt with severely by the courts.

"The repeat offenders are a big issue for us," he said. Police have conducted sweeps in the past, monitoring and arresting known burglars. "When they're in custody, our crime stats go down."

Many are drug users, stealing to finance their addictions. Others are career thieves who steal as a source of income.

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=10aee3b0-be1b-4bb4-a161-2a47c7143bb1&rfp=dta

Even more obnoxious, since most of the convictions of this tool are for breaking into peoples homes:

Criminal Code of Canada

348. (1) Every one who

(a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

(b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or

(c) breaks out of a place after

(i) committing an indictable offence therein, or

(ii) entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,

is guilty

*(d) if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life*, and

(e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction

And by the way "Meloche was sentenced to an additional 23 months, to be served in a federal penitentiary" means he will only do an actual year in jail.  What do you think he will do once he is released?  Right, go work for the Salvation Army and be "rehabilitated" by our excellent system that didn't subject him to the trauma of "marginalization" and "labelling".  
(I again re-itterate the need for a [scarcasm] smiley)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Mar 2006)

A year?   Sorry, if its Fed time, he will probably do less than that......


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A year?   Sorry, if its Fed time, he will probably do less than that......



Thanks for bursting my already cynical bubble... :crybaby:


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Dec 2013)

Apparently they needed to release this decision before Christmas and New Years, but the SCC had upheld the lower court rulings, and struck down the bulk of Canada's prostitution laws.  They are giving Parliament 1 year to rewrite new laws.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/12/20131220-094832.html



> OTTAWA - In a sweeping decision, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down all of the long-standing Criminal Code provisions dealing with prostitution.
> 
> In a unanimous decision, the justices found that the bans on brothels, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living off its avails violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because they endanger hookers' lives.
> 
> ...


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Dec 2013)

Their reasoning makes sense; you can't say doing something is legal, then make the all the related activities illegal.  They can either go and make the whole thing illegal, or stick with the SCC ruling and tax it.

Basically poop or get off the pot; now Parliment will actually have to make a decision!  Should be entertaining.


----------



## FJAG (21 Dec 2013)

Decision is at link:

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do

This is a very well reasoned decision supported by a full court which will give the current government something to think about. To this point the Feds have argued that the prostitution laws as set out are to prevent harm to the communities and to vulnerable women.

The courts have shown that the laws are far too broad for the purpose of controlling the "nuisance" of prostitution and as far as vulnerability is concerned the laws in fact make prostitution less safe for women who are already at risk.

The fact is that since confederation, prostitution itself has been legal in Canada. 

The choices for the Feds therefore are:

1. make prostitution itself illegal. That undoubtedly will not get rid of the issue but simply make things even worse for those women who practice it and will create an even greater number of women stigmatized by a criminal record; or 

2. get serious and write laws that control prostitution in such a way as to increase safety and health for its participants, punish those who exploit women in the business while allowing others to become co-workers (drivers, security, schedulers) without risk of criminality and permit controlled, safe places where it can be practised without being a public nuisance.

While I'm generally a Conservatives supporter, I just haven't seen any good and balanced legislation coming out of the Dept of Justice for quite some time. Everything seems to be extreme and designed to increase police powers to intrude into private affairs. I have my doubts that they'll get this one right.

 :subbies:


----------



## DBA (29 Dec 2013)

The 'University student' is an old con used to extract more money from clients. In Germany students pay no or very little tuition - sometimes just ~100 Euros a semester in combined enrolment and administration fees. 

The main problem I see with legalized prostitution is demand increases on the male side but society still stigmatizes the profession so supply is limited due to few women willingly entering the profession. The supply is usually then increased with less than willing women and girls. 

Like all cash businesses paid taxes are likely to be low as reported revenue is often far less than actual revenue.


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Dec 2013)

DBA said:
			
		

> Like all cash businesses paid taxes are likely to be low as reported revenue is often far less than actual revenue.



Typing on an iPad so trying to keep my response short, but in regards to this, in Nevada and Australia, the girls working in the brothels pay their taxes, since they are licenced and known to the government, despite it being a cash business.  I would imagine that it's better to pay up, rather than face an audit and/or prison time for tax evasion, since the government is aware of the income source.


----------



## DBA (29 Dec 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Typing on an iPad so trying to keep my response short, but in regards to this, in Nevada and Australia, the girls working in the brothels pay their taxes, since they are licenced and known to the government, despite it being a cash business.  I would imagine that it's better to pay up, rather than face an audit and/or prison time for tax evasion, since the government is aware of the income source.



There are 19 brothels in Nevada in which an insignificant number of the total sex workers in the state conduct business. Most offer the product closer to consumers - bars, casinos, strip clubs, street corners and hotels. I don't have the numbers for Australia but they are likely to be comparable. That low number does have to be considered in light of that fact state officials estimate there are some 30,000 sex workers just in Las Vegas, where prostitution remains illegal and brothel owners elsewhere commonly take a 50% cut. Brothels aren't really an option for most.


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Dec 2013)

DBA said:
			
		

> There are 19 brothels in Nevada in which an insignificant number of the total sex workers in the state conduct business. Most offer the product closer to consumers - bars, casinos, strip clubs, street corners and hotels. I don't have the numbers for Australia but they are likely to be comparable. That low number does have to be considered in light of that fact state officials estimate there are some 30,000 sex workers just in Las Vegas, where prostitution remains illegal and brothel owners elsewhere commonly take a 50% cut. Brothels aren't really an option for most.



Option or not, people still make the treks out to them, and the ladies inside manage to make a fair bit of coin and pay taxes on that income, which is what I was refuting.  The government still gets it's cut through licensing and taxes.  Also the 30,000 number, the keyword with your statement is "estimate".  Unless those reports and/or you have some solid details as to how those numbers were ascertained (aside from pulling it out of thin air as government officials are prone to doing), you might want to refrain from posting such information.


----------



## Haletown (29 Dec 2013)

Legalize it.

Setup a Crown Corporation modelled on the post office to deliver the service.

Get CUPE to organize the labor force with full seniority rights.


Problem solved, social obligations met, worker's rights respected.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Dec 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Legalize it.
> 
> Setup a Crown Corporation modelled on the post office to deliver the service.
> 
> ...



Don't we already pay the gov't to (*&^ us?


----------



## Nemo888 (29 Dec 2013)

What a can of worms to have cracked open close to an election. The Conservative base will want it recriminalized. Whatever you do even the most thoughtful compromise will piss off huge swaths of voters. Almost best to ignore it and let it become legal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Dec 2013)

>Get CUPE to organize the labor force with full seniority rights.

Prostitution governed by seniority.  Sounds like the basis of an amusing film.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Dec 2013)

Sounds like the basis for much of what goes on on Parliament Hill. 

After all, weren't Duffy and Wallin senior members of the press gallery?


----------



## Bobert (2 Mar 2014)

Here is the "Public Consultation on Prostitution-Related Offences in Canada" please fill this out so that your views can be heard:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/curr-cours/proscons-conspros/index.html#2014_02_17


----------



## WPJ (17 Apr 2014)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I say, legalise it and tax it.  Legal gambling has a horrible effect on society. On the contrary, legal prostitution would reduce unwanted pregnancies, not to mention unwanted marriages.  Is this whole 'Blame the John" agenda pushed by ugly feminists who realize once prostitution is legalized they will never again have a boyfriend?



Could not stop laughing


----------



## pbi (20 Apr 2014)

When I was in the Reserve (the first time) I spent a few years working in the security departments of two hotels in downtown Toronto. One was a very big luxury hotel, and one was pretty well a dive. One of our major tasks (in both places...) was controlling overt prostitution, primarily to keep the liquor license intact and to avoid police bother. I say "overt" because we never saw the call girls, who are essentially invisible since they don't have to troll to do their work.

What I learned was that there is a lot of BS around prostitution: it isn't very sexy, or nice, or anything else. It's grim. There is very little glamour about it, and many of the girls we rousted out of the hotel were quite young: one was 14. You can go ahead and legalize it, but ask yourself this: is that what you want your daughter to do?

To me it's like legalizing drugs: go ahead, but it won't be a panacea for anything. You'll just exchange one set of criminal problems for another set of medical and social problems. Look at alcohol.

The great majority of women who end up working as hookers will be the sick poor and stupid, just like it is now.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> To me it's like legalizing drugs: go ahead, but it won't be a panacea for anything. You'll just exchange one set of criminal problems for another set of medical and social problems. Look at alcohol.



Except the actual act of selling sex (between adults), is legal and always has been for a very long time.   Communication in public, being in a brothel, and living off the money, those are what was illegal.


----------



## ballz (20 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> You can go ahead and legalize it, but ask yourself this: is that what you want your daughter to do?
> 
> To me it's like legalizing drugs: go ahead, but it won't be a panacea for anything. You'll just exchange one set of criminal problems for another set of medical and social problems. Look at alcohol.
> 
> The great majority of women who end up working as hookers will be the sick poor and stupid, just like it is now.



If they legalized heroine tomorrow, no one who doesn't use heroine would go out and start using it just because it became illegal. I suspect the same types of people getting caught up in it now, would continue to be the ones that got caught up in it. I suspect whether my son or daughter ends up using heroine will not be dependent upon whether it is legal or not, but rather if my son or daughter grows up in poverty, etc etc etc.

I am guessing the same is likely for prostitution. As you say, the great majority of women who end up working as hookers will be the sick, poor, and stupid, just like it is now.

However... one point that opened my eyes was... what if we made drugs illegal and took all the money we spend on enforcing drug policies on rehab programs and access to rehab programs, providing better education to youth, etc etc... Look at the effect the "smoking is bad" campaign has had? Could the same not be done for drugs and prostitution?

Since we all agree that, legal or not, the same people will still get sucked in and all...


----------



## pbi (21 Apr 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> If they legalized heroine tomorrow, no one who doesn't use heroine would go out and start using it just because it became illegal...



Did you mean "legal"? If so, I still disagree. To me it is simple logic: the more accessible something is, the more people will try it. And the easier it is for the same sort of maladaptive, stressed, or low-coping (or whatever title you want to use...) sort of person to get hold of it, find that it does what they want, and start using it. Again, look at alcohol: it has taken, and continues to take, a very big toll on all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.

There is a fallacy that making access to alcohol easier, or providing it in a family setting, will somehow reduce the risk of alcoholism. I have a relative who is a public health nurse in Portugal: she says that they have a problem with teen alcoholism, precisely because alcohol is so easy to get ( ie: on the table with most meals) and so is readily used as a "self-medication" for the stresses and dysfunctions that teens suffer. Interstingly, however, binge drinking doesn't seem to be as much as an issue for them as it is here.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I suspect whether my son or daughter ends up using heroine will not be dependent upon whether it is legal or not, but rather if my son or daughter grows up in poverty, etc etc etc.



Actually, some of the best drugs get taken in some of the best neighborhoods....



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> ...However... one point that opened my eyes was... what if we made drugs illegal and took all the money we spend on enforcing drug policies on rehab programs and access to rehab programs, providing better education to youth, etc etc... Look at the effect the "smoking is bad" campaign has had? Could the same not be done for drugs and prostitution?



I think you meant "legal", again, right?

But, my answer is, "not necessarily". The people who need to take drugs or who are addictive personalities are probably not all that different from alcoholics (who are alcohol addicts). Alcoholism treatment and counselling has been widely available for years: do we have fewer alcoholics than we had 30 years ago, including teen alcoholics?

Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent from prostitution. And I'm certainly not an anti-boozer: quite the opposite.  :cheers:

I still think that about the best you can hpoe for where The Oldest Profession is concerned is to make things a bit safer and less stressful for the street hookers.


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> I still think that about the best you can hpoe for where The Oldest Profession is concerned is to make things a bit safer and less stressful for the street hookers.



Which is precisely why according to SCC, they struck down the laws they did.  In thier view those laws were unreasonable, as they prevented those in the "profession"  from taking steps to protect themselves, in what is a legal transaction.


----------



## ballz (21 Apr 2014)

For all the legals / illegals, I think I was probably having a dyslexia episode, which happens to me more than I'd like to admit  :blotto:



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Did you mean "legal"? If so, I still disagree. To me it is simple logic: the more accessible something is, the more people will try it. And the easier it is for the same sort of maladaptive, stressed, or low-coping (or whatever title you want to use...) sort of person to get hold of it, find that it does what they want, and start using it. Again, look at alcohol: it has taken, and continues to take, a very big toll on all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.



I really don't agree with the line of thinking that because something is illegal, it is less accessible. We have this debate with gun control all the time, most people agree that criminals have no problems accessing a firearm. People have an even easier time accessing illegal drugs than they do accessing firearms. In fact, I would argue that in high school it was easier to obtain cocaine (which was illegal, full stop) than it was to access alcohol and tobacco (which was legal, but not for minors, and well-regulated by the gov't)... if you could afford cocaine of course.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> There is a fallacy that making access to alcohol easier, or providing it in a family setting, will somehow reduce the risk of alcoholism.



I don't think making it more accessible would reduce alcoholism, I just don't think that making it illegal would make it less accessible. That has been tried before, and failed.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Actually, some of the best drugs get taken in some of the best neighborhoods....



Do we really need to Google the hard statistics to agree that those living in poverty are multiple times more likely to have a substance abuse problem than those not living in poverty? Yes, cocaine is a rich man's drug. I think you are also choosing to pick up on an outlier because it suits your thesis.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> But, my answer is, "not necessarily". The people who need to take drugs or who are addictive personalities are probably not all that different from alcoholics (who are alcohol addicts). Alcoholism treatment and counselling has been widely available for years: do we have fewer alcoholics than we had 30 years ago, including teen alcoholics?



Hard to conclude. The definition of an "alcoholic" 50 years ago when my Grandpa was a raging alcoholic in rural Newfoundland was quite lax, and it wasn't considered out of the norm for a man to come home after working for a week, shower, eat, and then go booze it up all weekend and not come home again until Sunday night. I am sure you will agree, the definition of alcoholism these days is a lot less lenient and most of us infantry folk are at the very least considered binge drinkers.  :cheers:



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent from prostitution.



A tangent for sure, but I think prostitution is an even better example of the point I was trying to make... Whether it is legal or not will not (in my opinion) influence people's decision on whether to partake in it or not, so we might as well legalize it, facilitate them in doing it safely, and try to help treat the root cause of the decision.


----------



## The_Falcon (21 Apr 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> A tangent for sure, but I think prostitution is an even better example of the point I was trying to make... Whether it is legal or not will not (in my opinion) influence people's decision on whether to partake in it or not, *so we might as well legalize it*, facilitate them in doing it safely, and try to help treat the root cause of the decision.



I will say it again, prostitution was already legal, PRIOR to this decision.  That fact is part of the reason (perhaps the biggest reason) that the communication, bawdy house, and living off the avails portions of the criminal code were struck down.  The courts essetianally said, that being able to sell yourself, but not actually use that money, practice in a location of your choosing, and discuss any of it in the open, is assinine.  And I agree, whatever government it was that wrote those provisions, was trying to straddle the fence and not pick a side (fully illegally, or legal and regulated).  The SCC has basically told the feds, pick a side.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I will say it again, prostitution was already legal, PRIOR to this decision.  That fact is part of the reason (perhaps the biggest reason) that the communication, bawdy house, and living off the avails portions of the criminal code were struck down.  The courts essetianally said, that being able to sell yourself, but not actually use that money, practice in a location of your choosing, and discuss any of it in the open, is assinine.  And I agree, whatever government it was that wrote those provisions, was trying to straddle the fence and not pick a side (fully illegally, or legal and regulated).  The SCC has basically told the feds, pick a side.



This is also why the Scandinavian approach, that some advocate, won't work either. Selling is legal but buying is illegal? Pretty stupid and indefensible position if you ask me. It is difficult to think of another transactional relationship where only half of the participants are guilty of a crime.


As much as Wikipedia is not a source, here's a small explanation of my point:



> The laws on prostitution in Sweden make it illegal to buy sexual services, but not to sell them. Pimping, procuring and operating a brothel are also illegal. The criminalisation of the purchase, but not selling, of sex was unique when first enacted in 1999, but since then Norway and Iceland have adopted similar legislation, both in 2009, and France began enacting a similar law in 2013.


----------



## ballz (21 Apr 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I will say it again, prostitution was already legal, PRIOR to this decision.  That fact is part of the reason (perhaps the biggest reason) that the communication, bawdy house, and living off the avails portions of the criminal code were struck down.  The courts essetianally said, that being able to sell yourself, but not actually use that money, practice in a location of your choosing, and discuss any of it in the open, is assinine.  And I agree, whatever government it was that wrote those provisions, was trying to straddle the fence and not pick a side (fully illegally, or legal and regulated).  The SCC has basically told the feds, pick a side.



Ack, I am tracking all that, prostitution is legal, soliciting wasn't (still isn't?). That doesn't change my point at all, but I will choose my wording more carefully as I understand the legal nuance can be a thorn in the side. :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (21 Apr 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This is also why the Scandinavian approach, that some advocate, won't work either. Selling is legal but buying is illegal? Pretty stupid and indefensible position if you ask me. It is difficult to think of another transactional relationship where only half of the participants are guilty of a crime.



The position is not indefensible. It is based on the "the prostitute (read woman mostly) is the victim" and "The man is the criminal" theory of the sex trade.

I totally agree with you, however, that it is stupid. All too often society--through its elected officials--uses criminal legislation in an attempt to achieve a pollyanna world that doesn't and cannot exist. It happens more and more when the legislators are kowtowing to vocal and strident religious factions.

 :cheers:


----------



## pbi (22 Apr 2014)

> I really don't agree with the line of thinking that because something is illegal, it is less accessible. We have this debate with gun control all the time, most people agree that criminals have no problems accessing a firearm. People have an even easier time accessing illegal drugs than they do accessing firearms. In fact, I would argue that in high school it was easier to obtain cocaine (which was illegal, full stop) than it was to access alcohol and tobacco (which was legal, but not for minors, and well-regulated by the gov't)... if you could afford cocaine of course.



OK, OK.....I just can't resist riding the Tangential Roller Coaster one more time!!!

Making something illegal would logically make it less accessible, to the population at large, less the percentage who are willing to break the law and risk the consequences (whatever those may be).
Under prohibition in the US, for example, liquor was not generally available for open, across the counter sales from about 1919 until about 1933 (In Canada, except for PEI, prohibition was pretty well gone by 1929 and never really enforced very strictly). This meant, I think, that for the average person who was not willing to risk being caught, it was less accessible. It doesn't mean that people willing to break the law couldn't get it, but they had to go some trouble and risk to do so.

BTW I thought Prohibition was a stupid idea, much like the equally ineffective "War on Drugs". What I guess I'm saying is that legalization of a harmful or potentially harmful practice isn't necessarily a panacea that suddenly stops making it harmful. It just doesn't make it criminal any more. Drugs and booze screw you up badly, legal or not. Prostitution is the sale of a human body and may involves some degree of degradation and risk, legal or not.



> I think you are also choosing to pick up on an outlier because it suits your thesis.



Yes, OK. It did suit it quite admirably. But...I was really, really inebriated at the time. I'm sorry. >


----------



## Journeyman (22 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> ...Prohibition....about 1919 until ......1929....
> 
> BTW I thought Prohibition was a stupid idea.....


Wow, you are old.


----------



## pbi (22 Apr 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wow, you are old.



Yes, I am. And drink-sodden.

But, whatever. :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman (22 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> But, whatever. :cheers:


Exactly  :cheers:


----------



## ballz (27 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> OK, OK.....I just can't resist riding the Tangential Roller Coaster one more time!!!
> 
> Making something illegal would logically make it less accessible, to the population at large, less the percentage who are willing to break the law and risk the consequences (whatever those may be).



No worries, I also can never resist a tangent ;D Perhaps it is logical to assume making something illegal makes it less accessible, but what I was getting at was that my experience (granted, is much less than someone who has been around since prohibition har har) as a minor was that illegal substances like marijuana/ecstacy/cocaine/etc all seemed more accessible than legal substances that were restricted (alcohol and cigarettes).



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> The position is not indefensible. It is based on the "the prostitute (read woman mostly) is the victim" and "The man is the criminal" theory of the sex trade.
> 
> I totally agree with you, however, that it is stupid. All too often society--through its elected officials--uses criminal legislation in an attempt to achieve a pollyanna world that doesn't and cannot exist. It happens more and more when the legislators are kowtowing to vocal and strident religious factions.
> 
> :cheers:



Well.... stupid or not... looks like that is the way we are headed :facepalm:

http://o.canada.com/news/national/new-federal-law-on-prostitution-coming-soon

Seems that the legislation will be some version of the Nordic model.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2014)

I wonder how our _Supremes_ will take to making one 'partner' in a perfectly legal transaction an automatic criminal?


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder how our _Supremes_ will take to making one 'partner' in a perfectly legal transaction an automatic criminal?



Probably be right back at this point.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2014)

The Conservatives have, in the proposed new prostitution laws, decided to appeal, very directly, to part of their base. I note that the _Evangelical Fellowship of Canada_ approves but my guess is that many others will not and, a couple of years from now, the _Supremes_ will strike this law down, too.

But, the election is next year and this bit of legal rubbish should suffice to shore up the _religious right's_ support until then.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Conservatives have, in the proposed new prostitution laws, decided to appeal, very directly, to part of their base. I note that the _Evangelical Fellowship of Canada_ approves but my guess is that many others will not


 :nod:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> a couple of years from now, the _Supremes_ will strike this law down, too.


When The Supremes ask for this sort of thing, does it have to go all the way back up through the lower courts via challenges?  Or do they "check things over" after legislation is developed in response to a "Ottawa, change the law" ruling?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, the election is next year and this bit of legal rubbish should suffice to shore up the _religious right's_ support until then.


Also  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> When The Supremes ask for this sort of thing, does it have to go all the way back up through the lower courts via challenges?  Or do they "check things over" after legislation is developed in response to a "Ottawa, change the law" ruling?




Maybe a lawyer can help us.

My _understanding_, and I'm not a lawyer, is that this law will need to be enforced by local police then challenged, on constitutional grounds, in a court, then that court's ruling, one way or the other, will have to be appealed a couple of times and this will probably have to happen in two or three provinces before the _Supremes_ rule on it ... by which time the 2015 election is long over and this has been a _wedge_ the CPC will have used to drive evangelical Christians away from the Liberals and NDP.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe a lawyer can help us.
> 
> My _understanding_, and I'm not a lawyer, is that this law will need to be enforced by local police then challenged, on constitutional grounds, in a court, then that court's ruling, one way or the other, will have to be appealed a couple of times and this will probably have to happen in two or three provinces before the _Supremes_ rule on it ... by which time the 2015 election is long over and this has been a _wedge_ the CPC will have used to drive evangelical Christians away from the Liberals and NDP.


If this is the case, I think your initial "couple of years" estimate may be optimistic - but I still like your read of the "why it was done this way".


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2014)

The whole issue is disingenious.....If you want to make prostitution illegal, do so, otherwise legalize it, tax it, put protections in place for the suppliers. 

It's just hypocrisy to the nth degree......


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jun 2014)

Well the government introduced it's bill, C-36.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/bill-c-36-do-you-think-the-sex-trade-should-be-legal-or-illegal-1.2665808

From the gist of it seems they are going with what was previously reported,  you can sell sex, but you can't buy it (interesting logic).  In addition it would now be illegal to advertise in print or online.   (Can't find the actually details yet from the Parliament website).  

I think this is doomed to fail, and will be challenged once again.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jun 2014)

Can someone explain the logic of selling being legal, but buying illegal?  To me, it seems the government wants to maintain the criminality of prostitution but save police officers from having to arrest prostitutes.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jun 2014)

Fortunately for Vic Toews, it will still be legal to have sex with your babysitter (as long as she's 18 or older, and you're paying for the babysitting, not for the sex).


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jun 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Can someone explain the logic of selling being legal, but buying illegal?  To me, it seems the government wants to maintain the criminality of prostitution but save police officers from having to arrest prostitutes.



Because ALL prostitutes/sex workers are victims, or so the new thinking goes.  Not a single person out there could possibly being doing this of their own free will.   :


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Well the government introduced it's bill, C-36.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/bill-c-36-do-you-think-the-sex-trade-should-be-legal-or-illegal-1.2665808


Attached is the first version of the bill, and here's the page where you can keep track of where the bill's at.



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> it would now be illegal to advertise in print or online.


This stands out for me in the draft legislation:


> “advertisement of sexual services” means any material—including a photographic, film, video, audio or other recording, made by any means, a visual representation or any written material—that is used to advertise sexual services


How about ads for "lonely?  looking for some company?" services?  "I'm advertising introduction and dating services, Your Honour - I have no control what consenting adults do once they're introduced."



			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I think this is doomed to fail, and will be challenged once again.


 :nod:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Can someone explain the logic of selling being legal, but buying illegal?  To me, it seems the government wants to maintain the criminality of prostitution but save police officers from having to arrest prostitutes.


As to the "why", I'm liking this ....


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Conservatives have, in the proposed new prostitution laws, decided to appeal, very directly, to part of their base. I note that the _Evangelical Fellowship of Canada_ approves but my guess is that many others will not and, a couple of years from now, the _Supremes_ will strike this law down, too.
> 
> But, the election is next year and this bit of legal rubbish should suffice to shore up the _religious right's_ support until then.





			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Because ALL prostitutes/sex workers are victims, or so the new thinking goes.  Not a single person out there could possibly being doing this of their own free will.   :


Yeah, some of THAT, too, but this government hasn't been visibly receptive to THESE "victims", so I kinda like ERC's explanation for the "why".


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jun 2014)

Just where does the definition of a "massage" begin and end?   :-\


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2014)

Based upon what I've read and heard, the _Supremes_ said:

     1. Prostitution exists.
     
     2. Prostitution is not illegal in Canada. (But did they say that it could be made illegal?)

     3. Some prostitutes are exploited but there are laws on the books to arrest and try those who abuse or traffic in women. Some prostitutes are not exploited.

     4. The web of laws that surrounded prostitution were unconstitutional and any new laws would have to be aimed at making it safer for women to practice their _craft_.

It seems to me that the new law ignores the _Supremes'_ *direction* at point 4 and will be struck down again.


----------



## quadrapiper (5 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Based upon what I've read and heard, the _Supremes_ said:
> 
> 1. Prostitution exists.
> 
> ...


Slightly off-topic, but it seems terribly inefficient and wasteful that there isn't a mechanism to run proposed legislation, created in response to a Supreme Court ruling, past the court before it's introduced, rather than spending years on running challenges all the way up the legal ladder.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jun 2014)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Slightly off-topic, but it seems terribly inefficient and wasteful that there isn't a mechanism to run proposed legislation, created in response to a Supreme Court ruling, past the court before it's introduced, rather than spending years on running challenges all the way up the legal ladder.



It can be done, but in this case it would get an answer they don't want.  As ERC pointed out, this is red meat to a part of the base.  And if it does get turfed by the Supremes in 2019 or so, well, that's red meat to another part of the base.


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jun 2014)

As I recall, the Federal Government can petition the Supreme Court directly to provide guidance on proposed legislation (IE like they did with the Clarity act, and more recently asking their opinion about making changes to the Senate).  However I doubt they will be very inclined to get the court's blessing on this legislation, and will instead pass it into law, and let the challengers have it, since by then it will be someone else's problem to deal with.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just where does the definition of a "massage" begin and end?   :-\



"Jack" would know.......... ;D


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe a lawyer can help us.
> 
> My _understanding_, and I'm not a lawyer, is that this law will need to be enforced by local police then challenged, on constitutional grounds, in a court, then that court's ruling, one way or the other, will have to be appealed a couple of times and this will probably have to happen in two or three provinces before the _Supremes_ rule on it ... by which time the 2015 election is long over and this has been a _wedge_ the CPC will have used to drive evangelical Christians away from the Liberals and NDP.



You're mostly correct.

The new bill is law that requires enforcement once passed by the legislature and given royal assent.

It does not need multiple challenges. Once a challenge to the law has been heard and gone through a provincial appeal then it may be appealed to the SCC who can pick up the case.

Confusion will result as the courts in individual provinces individually rule against the law's constitutionality as enforcement ought to fall aside province by province.

I've read over the new bill and IMHO it's a dog's breakfast that does nothing to resolve the SCC's concerns with the old legislation but just layers on a whole new grab bag of confusing and even more restrictive concepts. I thought this bull**** would stop once Toews was gone. I was obviously wrong.

:cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I've read over the new bill and IMHO it's a dog's breakfast that does nothing to resolve the SCC's concerns with the old legislation but just layers on a whole new grab bag of confusing and even more restrictive concepts. I thought this bull**** would stop once Toews was gone. I was obviously wrong.


When you put it that way, in addition to the "red meat" argument, could it also be one of these to The Supremes?







			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the new law ignores the _Supremes'_ *direction* at point 4 and will be struck down again.


Trickier question - if this is, indeed, the case, how many public servants/DOJ legal beagles said, "you know, this doesn't answer the SCOC's concerns", and who finally said, "thanks for your advice, and here's the final edits going to the politicians"?


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> As I recall, the Federal Government can petition the Supreme Court directly to provide guidance on proposed legislation (IE like they did with the Clarity act, and more recently asking their opinion about making changes to the Senate).  However I doubt they will be very inclined to get the court's blessing on this legislation, and will instead pass it into law, and let the challengers have it, since by then it will be someone else's problem to deal with.



The Governor in Council (i.e. cabinet) may make a reference to the SCC regarding the interpretation or constitutionality of any federal or provincial legislation under s 53 of the Supreme Court Act.

Under s 54 the House of Commons or the Senate may ask the SCC for a review of any "Private" members bill.

I agree that cabinet will not apply under s 53 although, with any bill drafting process there is an internal review within DoJ to test a bill for constitutional compliance. It's not unusual for there to be differing opinions as to the constitutionality of any particular provision and I don't doubt that on occasion a Minister will float a bill that may not have unanimous acceptance--after all this is the place where bureaucracy and politics meet at the coal face--its very much a matter of risk tolerance and political perception.

As a conservative supporter (mostly based on fiscal issues) I have found myself much troubled by my own government's draconian approach of using harsh criminal sanctions to solve complex issues (both social and otherwise and frequently only an issue in the eyes of small vocal groups).

I give this bill a big fail. I agree that they won't send it to the SCC for a constitutional review.

:cheers:


----------



## Privateer (5 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> When The Supremes ask for this sort of thing, does it have to go all the way back up through the lower courts via challenges?  Or do they "check things over" after legislation is developed in response to a "Ottawa, change the law" ruling.



The mechanism does exist, federally and provincially.  Federally, it is in _Supreme Court Act_, which provides the executive (Governor in Council) with the ability to refer questions to the Supreme Court of Canada:


> 53. (1) The Governor in Council may refer to the Court for hearing and consideration important questions of law or fact concerning
> 
> (a) the interpretation of the Constitution Acts;
> 
> ...




The Minister of Justice is _supposed_ to consider the issue before a bill is put before Parliament:

The _Department of Justice Act_ provides:


> 4.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister [of Justice] shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Minister shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.



and the _Canadian Bill of Rights_ (yes it still exists!) provides:


> 3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration pursuant to the Statutory Instruments Act and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.



But having seen the law and order bills coming out of this government, I wonder how seriously the Ministers of Justice have performed their duty...

I also agree that the government is likely disinclined to seek a preliminary review of the new prostitution bill because they know it has problems, constitutionally.  

Absent a reference, the matter will only come before a court when the law is enforced against someone.  When a person is charged with an offence, the person can defend the charge on the basis that the law is unconstitutional.  That will happen at a trial court, and so you then begin the process of a trial level decision, an appeal within the provincial court system, and then an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> When you put it that way, in addition to the "red meat" argument, could it also be one of these to The Supremes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Love seeing Calvin.

I think what we have in this legislation is twofold. 

First its an attempt to see how little amendment to the old law they can get away with. Their hope is that it might pass muster because there isn't much political value in being shot down by the SCC again. I think that there is a continuing presbyterianish attitude to prostitution that ignores the fact that this has been the oldest profession in the world for a fundamental reason. 

I'm a firm believer in the old Albert Einstein quote that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Making prostitution illegal as an attempt at social engineering it out of existence has failed over and over again. So will this.

Secondly, I expect that there was a grab bag of "issues" floating around (vocal interest groups including the police and within DoJ) waiting for an appropriate time to be thrown into the criminal code. As an example the amendment of the definition of "weapon" to include anything used, designed to be used or intended to be used to bind or tie up a person against their will had nothing whatsoever to do with the previous SCC case. Someone somewhere deep in the bowels of the bureaucracy had to have said "Damn. We need that one to make the country safer. Here's our chance to sneak it in." :not-again:

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jun 2014)

On the plus side, they are not trying to criminalize bondage with consent.


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> How about ads for "lonely?  looking for some company?" services?  "I'm advertising introduction and dating services, Your Honour - I have no control what consenting adults do once they're introduced."



I agree the wording seems overly broad and subject to wide interpretation.  There are plenty of legitimate sites were people are basically saying they just want to hook up, have a "casual" or "no strings attached/NSA".  In fact the latter is often used on the Plenty of Fish dating site. Then there is Canada's home grown, Toronto based "Ashley Madison" which is basically for people who want to have affairs. Can't forget the "Sugar Daddy" websites either.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I agree the wording seems overly broad and subject to wide interpretation.  There are plenty of legitmate sites were people basically saying they just want to hook up, have a "casual" or "no strings attached/NSA".  In fact the latter is often used on the Plenty of Fish dating site. Then there is Canada's home grown, Toronto Based "Ashley Madison" which is basically for people who want to have affairs. Can't forget the "Sugar Daddy" websites either.


Good point - lots of grey areas there.  The lawyers'll love wading through those thickets  ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Jun 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> You're mostly correct.
> 
> The new bill is law that requires enforcement once passed by the legislature and given royal assent.



That's if it actually makes it through all the process' required. According to my copy of _ The Canadian Regime_, the stages the bill must go through are as follows:

- First reading, which introduces the bill to Parliament;

- Second reading, which focuses on the bills basic principles;

- It then goes to committee for in-depth study;

- The committee than makes a report, which, among other things may include any suggestions for amendments;

- Then the bill goes to third reading;

- If it passes third reading, it then goes to the Senate where the whole process is repeated; and,

- Once, (If?) the Senate gives it its blessing, it is then given "royal assent" and becomes law.

Considering that Parliament, in the very near future, will be closing up shop for summer recess, that means the bill won't get debated until the fall. 

Which brings up a question; The Supremes gave the government a year to do something. Does the tabling of this bill fulfill the SCC requirement or does the bill actually have to be passed and given royal assent within that year??


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> That's if it actually makes it through all the process' required. According to my copy of _ The Canadian Regime_, the stages the bill must go through are as follows:
> 
> - First reading, which introduces the bill to Parliament;
> 
> ...



The SCC declared several provisions of the "prostitution" laws constitutionally invalid on June 13th 2013 and then "suspended the invalidity" for one year. Effectively on June 13th 2014 the invalidity is in effect.

Tabling the bill does not change the law. The new law does not take effect until it has received royal assent and is put into force (which is either on royal assent or some later date specified in the legislation)

op:


----------



## dimsum (6 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I agree the wording seems overly broad and subject to wide interpretation.  There are plenty of legitimate sites were people are basically saying they just want to hook up, have a "casual" or "no strings attached/NSA".  In fact the latter is often used on the Plenty of Fish dating site. Then there is Canada's home grown, Toronto based "Ashley Madison" which is basically for people who want to have affairs. Can't forget the "Sugar Daddy" websites either.



You seem to know much about these things.

op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The SCC declared several provisions of the "prostitution" laws constitutionally invalid on June 13th 2013 and then "suspended the invalidity" for one year. *Effectively on June 13th 2014 the invalidity is in effect.*
> 
> Tabling the bill does not change the law. *The new law does not take effect until it has received royal assent and is put into force (which is either on royal assent or some later date specified in the legislation)*
> 
> op:


Do I read this correctly to mean that as of next Friday (13 Jun 14), Canada will have no laws on prostitution in effect?


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Do I read this correctly to mean that as of next Friday (13 Jun 14), Canada will have no laws on prostitution in effect?


Friday the 13th you say.....    ;D


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Jun 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> You seem to know much about these things.
> 
> op:



I am single and I work overseas on a military base.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Jun 2014)

On the day the prostitution law ends, it would be nice if a group of prostitutes started soliciting in front of the Supreme Court on a daily basis.  I couldn't care less about the moral aspect of prostitution but society should be able to defend itself from the nuisance factor.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2014)

There are all sorts of nuisances out there there ... I, for example, regard the _blue-stocking_ folks who picket outside an abortion clinic on a downtown street as a nuisance, but I do not propose legislation to (further) restrict them. Our streets, here in the city in which I live, are, broadly and generally safe ... except at 0200 Hrs when gangs of rowdy young men (mostly men) are decanted our onto the streets and pose both a nuisance and a hazard ... should we bring back prohibition? Many of the homeless people on our city streets are mentally ill, many are a real, visible, public nuisance ... shall we round them up and lock them up? Some street prostitutes are, indeed, a nuisance, but they are just one of many.

Many countries manage to have legal, regulated, open, prostitution - Netherlands, Hong Kong and Singapore, in all of which I have lived/worked come to mind. They seem able to manage the nuisance factor.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Jun 2014)

One has to wonder where you're hanging out that prostitutes are such a nuisance...


----------



## FJAG (6 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Do I read this correctly to mean that as of next Friday (13 Jun 14), Canada will have no laws on prostitution in effect?



First of all let me apologize. When I reviewed the decision I mistook the filing date for the judgement date.  In fact the decision was rendered on *December 20th, 2013* which means that the period of suspended invalidity continues until *December 20th , 2014.* NOT June 13th.

As to the other part of your question. - The SCC only dealt with three specific provisions of the CCC: s 210 keeping common bawdy house, s 212(1)(j) living off the prevails of prostitution, and 213(1)(c) communication for the purpose of prostitution in public. 

There are numerous other provisions in ss 212 and 213 which deal with prostitution that were untouched by the decision. 

Definitely do NOT rush out on Saturday to set up a bawdy house or become a pimp or chat up a prostitute for her price list. All the provisions of the old legislation remain in full force and effect.

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2014)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Definitely do NOT rush out on Saturday to set up a bawdy house or become a pimp or chat up a prostitute for her price list. All the provisions of the old legislation remain in full force and effect.


Thank you, counsellor, for stopping THAT stampede  ;D


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Jun 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> One has to wonder where you're hanging out that prostitutes are such a nuisance...



Las Vegas


----------



## Nemo888 (6 Jun 2014)

Can't the new law be taken down for the same reason the old one was? If you are buying a legal service but cannot do so safely isn't that also a charter violation? It looks to me like prostitutes can now abuse their clients much easier. 

Isn't legalization and regulation the best solution? Tax it, cut down on disease transmission and get the under aged ones off the street. Make them licensed professionals. This law sucks and not in the good way. Canada never finds smart creative solutions anymore.


----------



## oscar2 (7 Jun 2014)

I am a working housewife who become obviously irritated with Leftists and communists. With malignant pleasure, a renter who happened to be Left  and probably was spying on me was able to seduce my husband which led to divorce. The communists theorize that prostitution is corollary to capitalism. Alas, why do they want to legalize prostitution? Prostitution is not about economics. I can have 3 legitimate jobs which can make me make both ends meet. The problem we have is that disgruntled commies or leftists blame prostitution on capitalism and not on moral grounds. My other ex was a frequent visitor in Kazakhztan of the Old Soviet Union in the 80's and every evening he hears a knock on the door from prostitutes. Of course, curious to have sex with a blonde communist caused him to sleep with some.


----------



## Nemo888 (7 Jun 2014)




----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2014)

oscar2 said:
			
		

> I am a working housewife who become obviously irritated with Leftists and communists. With malignant pleasure, a renter who happened to be Left  and probably was spying on me was able to seduce my husband which led to divorce. The communists theorize that prostitution is corollary to capitalism. Alas, why do they want to legalize prostitution? Prostitution is not about economics. I can have 3 legitimate jobs which can make me make both ends meet. The problem we have is that disgruntled commies or leftists blame prostitution on capitalism and not on moral grounds. My other ex was a frequent visitor in Kazakhztan of the Old Soviet Union in the 80's and every evening he hears a knock on the door from prostitutes. Of course, curious to have sex with a blonde communist caused him to sleep with some.



     Caution, :sarcasm: follows



Thank you for that thoughtful contribution to this debate.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jun 2014)

Oscar2, you do know that the common theme in your failed relationships is you?


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Jun 2014)

busconductor, banned yet again.


----------



## expwor (7 Jun 2014)

Well as I understand it, and no I am not a lawyer or police officer, prostitution (straight out selling sex for money) was legal, it was the related prostitution activities (soliciting, bawdy houses etc that were illegal) 
The SCC struck down the current laws but gave the Government one year to come up with a new law.  In that one year timeframe the existing laws stood, but for all practical purposes no police force would arrest because the charges likely would be thrown out.
The Government's  response generally is that selling sex is OK.  But buying it is bad and illegal.  And the buyers of sex are viewed as johns and pervs (Peter MacKay used those words btw)  Prostitutes however can sell sex legally, but they are viewed as victims.  But the government's concern for them isn't too great really.  Twenty million dollars to help prostitutes...on the scale of things not a lot of money.  But no additional money or resources allocated to police to enforce the new law.
This new law is more a political response to the SCC striking down the old laws than it is the Government having a calling to save prostitutes. There were laws on the books already that police could use for stings and raids, but it didn't happen.  I don't believe you'll see increased enforcement under the new law.  It isn't a law enforcement priority, the government didn't allocate more resources to enforce the new law and only a token amount to help prostitutes.
One bizarre thing, at least as I see it, selling sex is legal, buying it is illegal under this law...the Nordic Model, and the basis of this law.  What is next, trafficking drugs will be legal, but buying drugs illegal...just shaking my head at the thought processes going on in Ottawa at times, either make it legal, or illegal, not a little of both
Just my opinion

Tom


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jun 2014)

expwor said:
			
		

> What is next, trafficking drugs will be legal, but buying drugs illegal...



Therein lies the crux of the problem. I can think of no other legal sale that is confounded by an illegal purchase. Personally, I hope this provision is struck down. As well, the new law provides that selling sex is legal, but creates so many limitations on where and when as to de facto deny the participants an opportunity to legally advertise their wares.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Jun 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Therein lies the crux of the problem. I can think of no other legal sale that is confounded by an illegal purchase. Personally, I hope this provision is struck down. As well, the new law provides that selling sex is legal, but creates so many limitations on where and when as to de facto deny the participants an opportunity to legally advertise their wares.



My reading of the bill is that the prostitutes can't legally advertise, which, I guess, means a big downsizing in the Toronto Sun's classified section.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> My reading of the bill is that the prostitutes can't legally advertise, which, I guess, means a big downsizing in the Toronto Sun's classified section.




And that, a restriction on advertising a legal _service_, is just one of the (several) reasons that this silly bill will, eventually, fail ~ when the _Supremes_ get their hands on it. But, until then, we must understand *why* we have this bill. It is a win-win-win for the Conservatives:

     1. Right now, 2014/2015, it placates the _religious right_ which is unhappy with Prime Minister Harper over abortion, gay marriage, etc;

     2. It will act as a _wedge issue_ almost forcing the Liberals and NDP to come as "supporting prostitution;" and

     3. When it, inevitably, is struck down and we end up with no laws governing prostitution, _per se_, the CPC will still win because they will say: "We tried! You saw us try; but they, the _Laurentian elites_ thwarted us at every turn.


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jun 2014)

Saw this in my FB feed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/27/lies-damned-lies-and-sex-work-statistics/



> BY MAGGIE MCNEILL March 27
> (Maggie McNeill is a retired call girl. She writes at her blog, The Honest Courtesan.)
> 
> Sex worker
> ...



The gist, as with any arguement, study or report, it's important to dig down into the actual details, rather than just repeating and believing what was said verbatim.  No doubt some of this flawed "research" found a home when the Feds were crafting their new law.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Saw this in my FB feed
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/27/lies-damned-lies-and-sex-work-statistics/
> 
> ...



It appears that you are right. A write-up from the Hon. Peter Mackay, Justice Minister, in yesterdays National Post. See highlights in yellow. Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act. 



> Peter MacKay: A made-in-Canada solution to prostitution
> 
> Peter MacKay, National Post | June 14, 2014 6:45 AM ET
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Jun 2014)

If the Liberals legalized, licensed and taxed prostitution and weed they could present a very compelling economic plan with lots of new programs, a balanced budget and a decrease in the prison population.  

Why can't the libertarian arm of conservatism beat them to it? The base in Canada is much smaller and fringe than in the US. Maybe in 40 years if we destroy public education but now Canadians are still too savvy. It is a losing strategy as old white men are simply getting too old and once dead can no longer vote.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jun 2014)

Libertarian <> Libertine.  I doubt we will solve our fiscal crises on the backs of prostitutes and growers.

When all the "old white men" are gone, a new culture and a new tax base will replace theirs.  There is no immutable law of nature which dictates that the replacement must be as prosperous or free.  Either the values which promote prosperity and freedom will be sustained, or not.  Reap what you sow.  There is no free lunch.  Don't destroy a thing unless you can first demonstrate that you understand it.  Etc.


----------



## McG (7 Mar 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Libertarian <> Libertine.  I doubt we will solve our fiscal crises on the backs of prostitutes and growers.


... and it would seem that we do not have to legalize either to tax them.



> Prostitution revenue taxable, Quebec Court rules as it hits up operator of male-escort agency with $1.2M bill
> Paul Delean
> National Post
> 06 Mar 2015
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/06/prostitution-revenue-taxable-quebec-court-rules-as-it-hits-up-operator-of-male-escort-agency-with-1-2m-bill/


----------



## Tibbson (7 Mar 2015)

I've had a number of investigations I've done over the years where once someone was convicted the tax man swooped in and assessed them based on their illegal drug sales, embezzled money or fraudulent payments.  Revenue Canada always makes sure they get theirs.  lol


----------



## Privateer (7 Mar 2015)

Followed, no doubt, by the civil forfeitures office.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Mar 2015)

I remember watching a documentary on prostitution a few years ago, and one of the women on it worked out in Vancouver, she mentioned that she did in fact pay her taxes and mentioned the voluntary disclosure program. The CRA doesn't seem to care where the funds come from, just that they get their share.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Mar 2015)

Nothing new here. You may remember that, in the US, It was the IRS that put Al Capone behind bars, and it was for tax evasion.

On another note, some of you may have seen episodes of "Border Security", where the camera follows CBSA agents doing their work. Whenever the sniffer dogs get whiff of drugs in a vehicle or bag, you may have notice that they speak with the person entering Canada before searching and always with the same warning: "We don't care what you do with your life , but is there a reason why the dog picked a scent in your …"

Same thing apply for the Revenue services (Canada or Quebec): They do not ask for the source of your revenues, just that you declare them and pay your fair share. And funny enough, Revenue will also accept, for a prostitute, that the phone he/she uses for contact and the newspaper ads be set off against that revenue as business expenses.

That is also why your tax information is kept separate from your other government information. Revenue Canada has access to info on you from other departments but, except in very few specific instances (such as money laundering/terrorism investigations), your Revenue info is not available to other departments.


----------

