The aftermath: in call regulation
Imagine the following :
1 Sometime next year, the Supreme Court of Canada decides that the article 210 of the criminal code (forbidding in-call) is unconstitutional.
2 Following the judgment, the government of Canada is faced with the obligation to amend its legislation. It has many options ranging from the minimum intervention to comply with the judgment to a complete revision of itís approach on prostitution (that could be a total ban like in Sweden). For political reasons, the PM does not want the inevitable harsh public debate around a new law on prostitution. So he decides to do the minimum to comply with the Supreme Court judgment.
3 The minimum the government can do is to abrogate the article 210 from the criminal code and leave the local governments deal with the issues, creating that way a mosaic of local regulations. Fearing that this would create too many disparities, it chooses to adopt specific regulations regarding in-call.
Put yourself in the position of the Canadian legislator and take into consideration the public interest and the protection of the sex workers themselves. You are asked to write down a regulation draft on in-call.
Abstraction made of the complex issues of the separation of jurisdiction between the different levels of governments (national, provincial, regional and local) that limit the ability of the federal government to legislate on different matters:
Do you permit any type of in-call (brothels, FKK, window prostitution, indy homes, etc.)?
Do you put conditions on ownership (criminal record check up, limit ownership to the sex workers themselves, etc.)?
Do you impose special licensing for the businesses?
Do you impose licensing to the sex workers themselves?
Do you impose mandatory testing for std? (normally a provincial jurisdiction)
Do you impose mandatory in site check ups by government controllers?
Do you impose Canadian citizenship to work in those businesses in order to fight human trafficking or do you accept work permits for foreigners wanting to work in the businesses ?
Do you respect the municipalities control on zoning, including their power to forbid, by zoning means, any type of sex businesses on their territory?
Do you recommend any other measure?
What's that ? semester exam ?
Last edited by Mod 11; 03-18-2011 at 10:18 PM.
People who have nothing interesting to say about the topic of this thread are requested to stay away from it...
Before imagining any action, the Tory government is going to have to survive the brewing Bruce Carson scandal.
Once the Bruce Carson scandal has had its few minutes of fame and the political blood letting has taken place we will see the results
Frankly I do not see any of the big three parties willing to make prostitution a national election issue.
Originally Posted by gugu
- Limited roll-out program starting with a few cities in yr 1 (3-5yr roll-out plan)
- Sex workers need licensing + permits
- Sex workers are all treated as indy owners on condition a sex worker led board is established to monitor internal activities + develop industry
- Regulatory agency to enforce + check trade
- Mandatory STD testing
- In-call types to be introduced gradually starting with Private residence (specific zoning changes ie Downtown commerical core), FKK (specific zoning restrictions + max. worker limit set)
- steering committee comprised of reps from municipalities to establish legislation proposal list from which municipalities can adopt their legislation from after steering committee revu + revisions.
Anything the gov. regulates gets fucked up. So given the nature of this business it'll be a double fuck up.
Dbl F-up for sure and rates will be driven up in that scenario given ladies will want to pass permit/license/rent costs onto clients. Though in MTL, rates would likely still be competitive relative to other North American cities.
From the make-up of the Supreme Court of Canada, which I do not know, do you think they will uphold the judge's decision from the lower court?
I kind of think that they could not make a ruling that would mimick Sweden's law. Sweden's law makes it illegal for only the male to engage and solicit in prostitution. The lower court's ruling had nothing only ruled that law against incall or bawdy houses was unconstitutional. I would think that the legislature would have to change the law as such to mimick Swedish law, and wouldn't there be constitutional challenges to a law that would discriminate based on the sex of a person?
As far as regulations are concerned by the local governments, I think the local muncipalities have the power to register outcall SP's. Doesn't the city of Windsor already license outcall SP's? Most do not because of the cost involved in setting up new govt agencies.
I would not mind seeing a zoning for incalls, but the rest of the possible regulations that evillethings list would be a pain in the royal rear end. It would be the classic case of be careful of what you ask for.
Totally irrelevantÖ as usual. I refer to a case where the government has to intervene by obligation made by the Supreme Court.
Originally Posted by eastender
In your opinion, did things get worst in New Zealand, Germany and Netherlands where governments decided to regulate in-call?
Originally Posted by sinbad
I assume permits rates would be the same as for any other business: a few 100 bucks. They do not represent a significant expenditure for most businesses. Licenses are not used as a taxation mean. Rates are fixed to cover the maintenance of a the registry of licensees. I would be surprised that such rates would be more than 50$/y for each sex worker. If both were passed on to the client, I don't think they would raise the costs significantly.
Originally Posted by evillethings
Of course, rents are a much bigger spending. But that is part of in-call. And in-call has some advantages to compensate: no drivers to pay, less time on the road, less complicated security, etc. Agencies like VIP in Quťbec city ask more money for out-call than in-call.
Itís very hard to predict the ultimate ruling from the Supreme Court. I hope they will maintain the first instance ruling, which, in the opinion of many jurists, is very solid. But, as judge Himel said herself, and will be followed on this by the Supreme Court, it is not for the courts to decide if prostitution should be legal or not in Canada. Prostitution is legal in Canada and has always been. But nothing restricts the parliament to make it de facto illegal like in Sweden. Such a law could be brought before the Courts again but it would be a new ball game.
Originally Posted by daydreamer41
I donít think Windsor has any specific regulation for out-call. They have specific regulations for parlors (http://www.citywindsor.ca/003279.asp). I donít think municipalities have the power to register out call SPs themselves unless they own or operate the business.
Evil, Iíll come back to your points later on.
Agree the reco's I posted would be a major pain... but that's probably the way to do things "right" and allow the gov't their share of $$ and rationale for the creation of a new industry + associated bureaucrate jobs (need paper pushers to issue + revu permits, etc.). Essentially, a gov't would setup, monitor + regulate the in-call industry the way they do the health care industry in many ways.
Originally Posted by daydreamer41
And like the healthcare industry, a 2-tier in-call industry will emerge with HDH SP's (regulated) on 1 hand and LDL SP's (un-regulated) on the other.
It will be tolerated, never condoned.
Hi all and thanks for your answers.
1 Are permit/licenses revenues an issue?
IMHO, this is not at all an issue for any government level. Special permit/license for in call businesses is not meant as a taxation measure. They are used to exercise control over ownership. Fees are calculated to cover the expenses of the control system put in place. Itís the same for permit/licenses emitted to the sex workers themselves.
2 Then, what is the interest of the Canadian government in regulating in-call?
Its main interest is to keep organized crime, drug and abuses (trafficking, minors, coerced work and all other form of violence) out of the business.
Depending on the legislature, the government may also seek other objectives: improving work rights and conditions, adopt program to help those wanting to leave the trade, public health, etc.
3 Legalization or decriminalization?
Legalization (answer yes to most questions of the seminal post except first and last) is governmental structuring and strong regulation of the industry. Nevada is one of the few cases that come close to that.
Decriminalisation (answer no to most question of seminal post except first and last) is making the sex industry a sector like any other: there should be no specific law or regulation on prostitution. There is no pure example of it, New Zealand, Netherlands and Germany being the closest.
Q1: Legalize all types? Yes.
Yes. But municipalities should be able to regulate or forbid by zoning means certain types if they feel itís contrary to public order. Not all could implement red light districts, a necessary condition to have something like window prostitution.
Q2: Special conditions on ownership? Yes.
Germany is the only country, in my knowledge, that does not impose specific condition on brothel owners. Even New Zealand does, at least for any in-call business of more than 4 self-employed sex workers. They do it to check for criminal records, links to organized crime and past sexual exploitation issues of potential owners and operators. I think this is normal in such a business just like it is for lawyers, policemen, teachers, most public servants and many other professions and businesses.
Q3 Licensing of the sex workers? No.
Although licensing of sex workers is felt a useful measure to fight trafficking and minorís employment, it is rarely used in legislations on prostitution and it usually comes with testing obligation . IMHO, it is a breach in personal rights and I doubt it would pass an examination by the Supreme Court.
Q4 Mandatory testing? No
Iím not talking about people who commented here, but I was always surprised to hear hobbyists requiring compulsory testing. I find itís a way to infantilize sex workers and, over all, get rid of their own responsibility. For god sake, if STDís drive you nuts, practice safe sex. Otherwise, assume your responsibility.
Mandatory testing has side effects: it requires licensing sex workers; it gives a false impression of security and make bare sex look less dangerous; it infringes on the rights of sex workers already having responsible attitudes; it would encourage some sex workers to go back to underground, either because they donít agree with compulsory testing or because they thin they would be stigmatized if tested positive to even the easiest treatable diseases. But prevention is the key answer to STDís, not testing. Itís too late when you test positive. Nevada brothels have no problems with STDís. Itís not because they have mandatory testing, itís because they have mandatory safe sex. New Zealand does not impose testing. But the law makes it compulsory for sex businesses of more than 4 people to implement programs of prevention.
It is hard to deny that the incidence of STD is higher among sex workers than the rest of the population. I would agree with mandatory testing only if it was proven that they play an important role in the sudden spreading of a decease that would represent a significant risk for the population in general. It is certainly not the case for any STD in Canada at the moment, and has, in my knowledge, never been the case in the past.
Q5 On site inspection? Yes and no
Yes. On site inspection of businesses are possible in Canada, as in most countries, to insure the compliance with labour and health laws. Of course, police may also enter the premises if granted a warrant by a judge. There is no reason why in-call sex businesses should be excluded from such obligation.
No. There is no need for specific measures in the prostitution businesses. But it is very probable that the power to emit permits/licenses to in-call businesses will be transferred to the local authorities. And it will be very hard to contest any such specific obligations made by the municipalites.
Q6 Canadian citizenship? No
If this is to be a business sector like the other, no specific criteria should apply. New Zealand imposes citizenship (either from New Zealand or Australia) to own a brothel but not to work in the sex industry. It did not fear problems of trafficking. Trafficking of labour is a minor problem in Canada contrary to what the abolitionists pretend. And there other means to deal with it.
Q7 Respect municipalitiesí powers? No choice.
Disparities between regions and between municipalities constitute a major problem in Netherland and Germany. Itís less a problem in the politically centralized New Zealand where regions and municipalities have a lot less powers. There is basically nothing we can do about it, or at least nothing that can be imposed by law. This is feared by the John Lowman, the most respected researcher on prostitution in Canada, and by many jurists. That will feed the tribunals after decriminalization/legalisation occur in Canada.
Q 8 Anything else? Yes
An impossible dream: that brothels and other sex businesses be controlled by the sex workers themselves.
If the government declares in-calls to be legal, there will be slow and minimal intervention. It is a subject that most politicians do not want to deal with.