That sounds to me like a total waste of Canadian taxpayer money. They don't have any evidence of any women being trafficked and are looking for some. What the item does not point out, Reverdy, is that each female they meet who denies being trafficked (which they're assuming is a lie with out a proof), that meeting become paid for with tax dollars and a huge investment of LE time that would have been spent investigating real crimes. Sounds very witch-hunty to me. i'd be appalled if I were a Canadian taxpayer.
Bill C-36 Media Watchlist - you can help!
- Thread starter escapefromstress
- Start date
NT decriminalises sex work as Attorney-General Natasha Fyles pushes through change
By Lauren Roberts and Jacqueline Breen
Updated about an hour ago
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...8oLtqYWmZ68PGlT4vCPOOku75p8WqMIjBKafDhurSOxvM
Link to other articles in the site
"Sex work has now been decriminalised in the Northern Territory — with the Territory Parliament voting 16-5 to repeal the NT's old sex work laws and pass a new act.
NT Attorney-General Natasha Fyles said the new act was about keeping workers safe.
"When you take the word 'sex' out of it, we are looking at it from a worker safety perspective and we are looking it from regulating it so our community has a say in it," she said.
"We have taken the approach that this is something that happens in our communities and we want to regulate that so that communities can have a say on what activities take place and we look at this through a business framework."
Ms Fyles also said the NT Government would not allow brothels to operate next door to childcare centres or schools but was not able to say exactly how far away the businesses could be.
Speaking on the bill, Member for Braitling Dale Wakefield broke down in tears.
"I do know many fabulous and fierce women who have been in the sex work industry in the past, in the present and possibly in the future and they deserve, like anyone, any worker anywhere to access services when and where they need it, to report a crime, to have a violence-free workplace and to be able to control the manner in which they do their job," she said.
The Scarlet Alliance, the peak body representing Australian sex workers, said the vote meant that the NT had become just the third jurisdiction in the world to decriminalise sex work.
Sex Worker Outreach Program NT coordinator Leanne Melling has long been advocating for the change.
"It's going to be a very huge relief, I think it will set a precedent as well for other sex workers who are fighting for rights," she said.
"Sex workers have had a gutful of registering for life with police.
"It's draconian, it's problematic, it's caused a lot of pain for sex workers."
CLP withdraws its support for the bill
In a statement released earlier today, Opposition Leader Gary Higgins said his party was unable to support the bill because it did not "achieve the balance of public welfare with the rights and freedoms of individuals".
Mr Higgins said to treat sex work the same as any other business "denies reality".
"Sex work is different to hairdressing or pet grooming — it can be a risky enterprise for both workers and customers and the health risks are apparent," he said.
"This bill makes no provision, aside from advertising restrictions, for the use of safe sex practices."
Mr Higgins said the process also lacked transparency as regulations to accompany the bill were not tabled in the Legislative Assembly or provided in draft form.
"Given the amount of potentially delegated authority in the bill, the form of the regulations could have a significant impact on the operation of the sex work industry in the Territory," he said.
"Whatever an individual's attitude towards sex work in general, most reasonable people would not approve of sex work being performed in the house next door or on the same street as a church, primary school or day care centre," Mr Higgins said.
"The Government has indicated that these matters will be dealt with under the Planning Act (1999) however, this is simply not good enough."
Independent MLA Gerry Wood called again for a halt to the process and a full inquiry into laws around sex work.
He accused the Government of being "in bed" with the sex industry and individually implored female MPs to oppose the bill.
He said by the time the laws were reviewed in three years time there would be "more vulnerable young people in prostitution, and industry more entrenched".
Mr Wood has advocated for the Nordic model, under which the purchase of sex is illegal rather than the sale.
A 'world-leading example of regulation for the sex industry'
Despite these concerns, the bill had the backing of the industry representing sex workers — as well as the in-principle support of Law Society NT, the NT Women's Legal Service, NT AIDS and Hepatitis Council and the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission.
Prior to it being debated in NT Parliament, the NT Government received 46 submissions about the bill — 27 supporting the decriminalising sex work in the Northern Territory and 19 against.
In her submission, Scarlet Alliance chief executive Jules Kim said sex workers in the NT had "long being campaigning for the full decriminalisation of sex work".
"The passing of this bill will provide an unparalleled opportunity to capitalise on prior experience in other states and research to inform a world-leading example of regulation for the sex industry and effective, practical and accessible protections for sex workers," Ms Kim said.
Another submission, from a sex worker named Astrid Leigh, said decriminalising the industry would make work safer for workers.
"Decriminalisation of the sex industry is the only model that gives sex workers access to justice and work health safety mechanisms," Ms Leigh wrote.
"My experience of working in NT is that I felt that, had a crime been committed against me, I would not have felt safe to report it to the police.
"When I was the victim of a crime as a sex worker in NSW I was able to report it under the decriminalisation model.
"The perpetrator would have gone unreported if he'd been in NT, and would be free to continue to commit crimes against women.""
By Lauren Roberts and Jacqueline Breen
Updated about an hour ago
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...8oLtqYWmZ68PGlT4vCPOOku75p8WqMIjBKafDhurSOxvM
Link to other articles in the site
"Sex work has now been decriminalised in the Northern Territory — with the Territory Parliament voting 16-5 to repeal the NT's old sex work laws and pass a new act.
NT Attorney-General Natasha Fyles said the new act was about keeping workers safe.
"When you take the word 'sex' out of it, we are looking at it from a worker safety perspective and we are looking it from regulating it so our community has a say in it," she said.
"We have taken the approach that this is something that happens in our communities and we want to regulate that so that communities can have a say on what activities take place and we look at this through a business framework."
Ms Fyles also said the NT Government would not allow brothels to operate next door to childcare centres or schools but was not able to say exactly how far away the businesses could be.
Speaking on the bill, Member for Braitling Dale Wakefield broke down in tears.
"I do know many fabulous and fierce women who have been in the sex work industry in the past, in the present and possibly in the future and they deserve, like anyone, any worker anywhere to access services when and where they need it, to report a crime, to have a violence-free workplace and to be able to control the manner in which they do their job," she said.
The Scarlet Alliance, the peak body representing Australian sex workers, said the vote meant that the NT had become just the third jurisdiction in the world to decriminalise sex work.
Sex Worker Outreach Program NT coordinator Leanne Melling has long been advocating for the change.
"It's going to be a very huge relief, I think it will set a precedent as well for other sex workers who are fighting for rights," she said.
"Sex workers have had a gutful of registering for life with police.
"It's draconian, it's problematic, it's caused a lot of pain for sex workers."
CLP withdraws its support for the bill
In a statement released earlier today, Opposition Leader Gary Higgins said his party was unable to support the bill because it did not "achieve the balance of public welfare with the rights and freedoms of individuals".
Mr Higgins said to treat sex work the same as any other business "denies reality".
"Sex work is different to hairdressing or pet grooming — it can be a risky enterprise for both workers and customers and the health risks are apparent," he said.
"This bill makes no provision, aside from advertising restrictions, for the use of safe sex practices."
Mr Higgins said the process also lacked transparency as regulations to accompany the bill were not tabled in the Legislative Assembly or provided in draft form.
"Given the amount of potentially delegated authority in the bill, the form of the regulations could have a significant impact on the operation of the sex work industry in the Territory," he said.
"Whatever an individual's attitude towards sex work in general, most reasonable people would not approve of sex work being performed in the house next door or on the same street as a church, primary school or day care centre," Mr Higgins said.
"The Government has indicated that these matters will be dealt with under the Planning Act (1999) however, this is simply not good enough."
Independent MLA Gerry Wood called again for a halt to the process and a full inquiry into laws around sex work.
He accused the Government of being "in bed" with the sex industry and individually implored female MPs to oppose the bill.
He said by the time the laws were reviewed in three years time there would be "more vulnerable young people in prostitution, and industry more entrenched".
Mr Wood has advocated for the Nordic model, under which the purchase of sex is illegal rather than the sale.
A 'world-leading example of regulation for the sex industry'
Despite these concerns, the bill had the backing of the industry representing sex workers — as well as the in-principle support of Law Society NT, the NT Women's Legal Service, NT AIDS and Hepatitis Council and the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission.
Prior to it being debated in NT Parliament, the NT Government received 46 submissions about the bill — 27 supporting the decriminalising sex work in the Northern Territory and 19 against.
In her submission, Scarlet Alliance chief executive Jules Kim said sex workers in the NT had "long being campaigning for the full decriminalisation of sex work".
"The passing of this bill will provide an unparalleled opportunity to capitalise on prior experience in other states and research to inform a world-leading example of regulation for the sex industry and effective, practical and accessible protections for sex workers," Ms Kim said.
Another submission, from a sex worker named Astrid Leigh, said decriminalising the industry would make work safer for workers.
"Decriminalisation of the sex industry is the only model that gives sex workers access to justice and work health safety mechanisms," Ms Leigh wrote.
"My experience of working in NT is that I felt that, had a crime been committed against me, I would not have felt safe to report it to the police.
"When I was the victim of a crime as a sex worker in NSW I was able to report it under the decriminalisation model.
"The perpetrator would have gone unreported if he'd been in NT, and would be free to continue to commit crimes against women.""
The Chronicle Herald
STUART CHAMBERS: Canada's prostitution law is the worst of all worlds
Published: Nov 29 at 4:52 p.m.
Updated: Dec 02 at 6 a.m.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/o...qrl2FdiG3vrU7AB8OftWrsA#.XeZ0stPCtDp.facebook
Canada’s prostitution law is untenable. Here are five reasons why it must be jettisoned.
In 2014, the Harper government passed Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. Based on the Nordic model, Bill C-36 adopts a radical feminist definition of prostitution as a form of male violence against women. As a way of redistributing guilt from seller to buyer, the bill criminalizes the demand side of prostitution (mostly heterosexual men) and provides exit strategies for the supply side (mostly heterosexual women).
In its first mandate, the Trudeau government failed to address the act’s major deficiencies. Here are five reasons why Bill C-36 must be jettisoned.
First, it criminalizes consensual sex. Under Canadian law, voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity signifies consent — that is, unless financial considerations are involved. In circumstances surrounding paid sexual services, abolitionists maintain that prostitutes cannot consent to their own exploitation. Within feminist discourse, however, this position is highly contested.
For instance, third-wave feminists embrace individual choice and find the idea that women are somehow brainwashed or manipulated insulting. Postmodern feminists argue that grand narratives describing sex work as oppressive are open to interpretation. Influenced by John Stuart Mill, liberal feminists place the freedom of sex workers and their clients above state paternalism. Yet, as commentator Colby Cash acknowledges, Bill C-36 did not involve a balance of competing feminist perspectives. It was, in fact, shaped by radical feminist ideology.
Second, Bill C-36 is arbitrarily enforced. The Harper government criminalized the exchange of sexual services for material benefit, but prostitution constitutes only one form of sex work. Pornographic filmmaking, strip clubs and erotic massage parlors all provide paid sexual services in one form or another. Therefore, the state acts inconsistently when it criminalizes one type of sex work but allows others to operate freely without the threat of criminal sanctions.
Third, the judiciary previously rejected illiberal laws that placed prostitutes in danger. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision, found the Criminal Code provisions restricting prostitution unconstitutional. The justices emphasized that the provisions prevented prostitutes from working indoors (a far safer option), forced them to vet clients quickly, and prevented them from hiring security. Much to the chagrin of interveners in the case, the Supreme Court focused on the law, not men collectively, as the source of the problem.
Fourth, Bill C-36 is anti-secular. Secular values, notes Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, revolve around key liberal principles, such as equality and freedom. Because Bill C-36 specifically targets men and singles them out for punishment, it fails to treat both sexes equally. In a pluralistic society, especially one that respects contractual agreements, citizens must also be free to define the good life for themselves. When it comes to prostitution, the state becomes the arbiter of sexual morality, deciding which version of the good is and is not appropriate.
Fifth, Bill C-36 is pure dogma. In place of evidence-based inquiry, radical feminists wish to impose their ideology on men whose behaviour they find personally offensive. It’s irrelevant if legal sex workers generally feel safe, if more women are purchasing sex from men, or if homosexual prostitutes complicate matters over whom to punish, the demand or the supply side.
Nuanced arguments are simply sidestepped in favour of sloganeering. Abolitionists claim that prostitution is inherently harmful to women; in contrast, men are denounced as the root cause of women’s oppression. If these assertions possessed any merit, why would Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization all support decriminalization?
Bill C-36 represents a devil’s bargain between the far right and the far left. Although the bill was passed by Harper Conservatives, it was framed in the image of radical feminism. This collusion between strange bedfellows led to the implementation of a punitive scheme, the aim of which is to supplant liberalism and to replace it with a radical feminist worldview.
Stuart Chambers, Ph.D., teaches in the school of political studies at the University of Ottawa.
STUART CHAMBERS: Canada's prostitution law is the worst of all worlds
Published: Nov 29 at 4:52 p.m.
Updated: Dec 02 at 6 a.m.
https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/o...qrl2FdiG3vrU7AB8OftWrsA#.XeZ0stPCtDp.facebook
Canada’s prostitution law is untenable. Here are five reasons why it must be jettisoned.
In 2014, the Harper government passed Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. Based on the Nordic model, Bill C-36 adopts a radical feminist definition of prostitution as a form of male violence against women. As a way of redistributing guilt from seller to buyer, the bill criminalizes the demand side of prostitution (mostly heterosexual men) and provides exit strategies for the supply side (mostly heterosexual women).
In its first mandate, the Trudeau government failed to address the act’s major deficiencies. Here are five reasons why Bill C-36 must be jettisoned.
First, it criminalizes consensual sex. Under Canadian law, voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity signifies consent — that is, unless financial considerations are involved. In circumstances surrounding paid sexual services, abolitionists maintain that prostitutes cannot consent to their own exploitation. Within feminist discourse, however, this position is highly contested.
For instance, third-wave feminists embrace individual choice and find the idea that women are somehow brainwashed or manipulated insulting. Postmodern feminists argue that grand narratives describing sex work as oppressive are open to interpretation. Influenced by John Stuart Mill, liberal feminists place the freedom of sex workers and their clients above state paternalism. Yet, as commentator Colby Cash acknowledges, Bill C-36 did not involve a balance of competing feminist perspectives. It was, in fact, shaped by radical feminist ideology.
Second, Bill C-36 is arbitrarily enforced. The Harper government criminalized the exchange of sexual services for material benefit, but prostitution constitutes only one form of sex work. Pornographic filmmaking, strip clubs and erotic massage parlors all provide paid sexual services in one form or another. Therefore, the state acts inconsistently when it criminalizes one type of sex work but allows others to operate freely without the threat of criminal sanctions.
Third, the judiciary previously rejected illiberal laws that placed prostitutes in danger. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a unanimous decision, found the Criminal Code provisions restricting prostitution unconstitutional. The justices emphasized that the provisions prevented prostitutes from working indoors (a far safer option), forced them to vet clients quickly, and prevented them from hiring security. Much to the chagrin of interveners in the case, the Supreme Court focused on the law, not men collectively, as the source of the problem.
Fourth, Bill C-36 is anti-secular. Secular values, notes Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, revolve around key liberal principles, such as equality and freedom. Because Bill C-36 specifically targets men and singles them out for punishment, it fails to treat both sexes equally. In a pluralistic society, especially one that respects contractual agreements, citizens must also be free to define the good life for themselves. When it comes to prostitution, the state becomes the arbiter of sexual morality, deciding which version of the good is and is not appropriate.
Fifth, Bill C-36 is pure dogma. In place of evidence-based inquiry, radical feminists wish to impose their ideology on men whose behaviour they find personally offensive. It’s irrelevant if legal sex workers generally feel safe, if more women are purchasing sex from men, or if homosexual prostitutes complicate matters over whom to punish, the demand or the supply side.
Nuanced arguments are simply sidestepped in favour of sloganeering. Abolitionists claim that prostitution is inherently harmful to women; in contrast, men are denounced as the root cause of women’s oppression. If these assertions possessed any merit, why would Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the World Health Organization all support decriminalization?
Bill C-36 represents a devil’s bargain between the far right and the far left. Although the bill was passed by Harper Conservatives, it was framed in the image of radical feminism. This collusion between strange bedfellows led to the implementation of a punitive scheme, the aim of which is to supplant liberalism and to replace it with a radical feminist worldview.
Stuart Chambers, Ph.D., teaches in the school of political studies at the University of Ottawa.
New paternalistic bill will transform sex work in the Netherlands It's hard to get information in english, but this presentation by a sex workers organisation gives the details.
https://sekswerkexpertise.nl/englis...yrx3h4vnXtp6pJh9_xUXZOHPkXHa7I1wXEsDsFZdmC8jQ
Information sheet draft Bill on the regulation of sex work (WRS).
Let the government know your opinion about the bill!
The government has drafted a new Sex Work Regulation Bill (WRS). The purpose of the bill is to combat human trafficking and other abuses. It also states that the aim is to improve the position of sex workers. At the same time, the cabinet acknowledges that it puts sex workers in a position that is different from any other workers. In their opinion, this is justified because, according to them, prostitution is not a normal job and cannot be compared with other work.
The proposal is now up for consultation. Everyone can share their viewpoints. In response to the reactions, the government may decide to change (minor) parts of the proposal. Then, the final bill will go to the Parliament, which can change its content or reject it altogether. When the Parliament adopts the Bill, it will go to the Senate. The Senate cannot amend the bill anymore, they can only approve it or reject it.
The deadline for reactions to the draft bill is December 15th 2019.
This is what the bill says:
Licensing system for sex workers
All sex workers must have a license, even if they work via the opting-in or behind the window
In order to obtain a license, sex workers must be over 21 years of age and be allowed to work in the Netherlands
All sex workers are obliged to have an interview with a civil servant who will decide whether they are ‘self-reliant’ enough to be allowed to work as a sex worker. If the official has no ‘major objections’ against the sex worker entering or continuing sex work, she or he will receive a license
If the official thinks that the sex worker is not ‘self-reliant’ enough or that she or he may be working under duress, a license will not be granted. A license will also not be issued to sex workers who are not yet 21 years old or do not have the right papers to work in the Netherlands
Sex workers are only allowed to advertise with their license number and a work phone number
A license is valid for five years
Home-based sex workers
A license does not mean that sex workers have a permit to work home-based
The bill is very vague about home-based sex workers. On the one hand it says that municipalities may not treat independent sex workers different from other self-employed workers, such as hairdressers or pedicures. On the other hand, municipalities have the power to set extra rules, and most zoning plans and housing corporations prohibit home-based prostitution
Withdrawal of the license
The license may be revoked:
when the authorities believe a sex worker is no longer sufficiently ‘self-reliant’ or may be working under coercion
when a sex worker repeatedly advertises without their license number and work phone number or has not immediately reported a change in their work phone number
National register of sex workers
All licensed sex workers will be listed in a national register with their social security number, their work phone number and their license number
It is mandatory to provide a work phone number. Any change must be reported immediately
The national register will also include the following information about sex workers:
When they were caught working without a license
When they advertised without a license number and registered phone number
When they did not immediately report a change in their work phone number
When the officials think they may be working under duress or have doubts about their self-sufficiency
Anyone can check in the national register whether a license number actually exists and whether a particular license number and telephone number belong together
Only the authorities can also see the social security number of the sex worker
Criminalization of unlicensed sex workers and their business relations (the bill calls this “illegal prostitution”)
Sex workers who work without a license or do not comply with the rules, may face a penalty up to € 20,750. This also applies to sex workers who (still) work while their application for a license was rejected
Business relations of sex workers without a license are criminalized. They can face up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine up to € 20,750. In the bill they are called “facilitators of illegal prostitution”
This applies, for example, to drivers, bodyguards, cleaners and other service providers of unlicensed sex workers. Possibly, it may also apply to partners of sex workers who drive them to work, take care of their safety or with whom the sex worker shares her or his income. It may also apply to sex workers who work together with a colleague. The bill is not clear on this point.
Criminalization of clients of unlicensed sex workers
Clients can check in the national register whether a license number actually exists and whether a particular license number and telephone number belong together
Clients who have sex with an unlicensed sex worker or a sex worker who works for an unlicensed sex business, can face up to one year imprisonment or a fine up to € 8,300
Licensing system for sex businesses
All sex businesses must have a license, including, for example, escort services
Municipalities can set a maximum to the number of licenses
Municipalities may also decide not to issue any licenses (so-called ‘zero-option’)
Only licensed sex workers are permitted to work in sex business which hold a license
There will be a national register of all sex work businesses
Want to know more?
The complete draft Bill and Explanatory Memorandum can be found here: https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/sekswerk or here: https://www.recht.nl/nieuws/strafrecht/177463/concept-wetsvoorstel-regulering-sekswerk/
The press release from the Ministry of Justice can be found here:
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actuee...prostituees-en-exploitanten-van-seksbedrijven
What do we think of the bill?
We think adoption of this bill is a bad idea as it will not combat abuses. Instead it will make sex workers more vulnerable to abuse and violence. Sex workers who cannot register because of their age or because they don’t have the right papers, as well as sex workers who are unwilling to register because of privacy concerns and distrust in the governments ability to properly protect their data, will be pushed into the illegal circuit. They can no longer safely go to the police when they, or a colleague become a victim of intimidation, extortion, coercion or violence because they are punishable themselves. They can no longer advertise on websites such as Kinky. Consequently, they will have to relay on others to find clients.
Clients and working relations of unlicensed sex workers are also criminalized. They will therefore no longer report abuses. Abusers know this and will take advantage of it.
The criminalization of clients and working relations of unlicensed sex workers has nothing to do with coercion, violence or deception. It only has to do with sex workers’ unwillingness or their inability to comply with the obligation to register. Coercion, violence, exploitation and deception are already punishable, irrespective whether it concerns forcing someone into prostitution or forcing someone to hand over their money or sex work under unfree conditions. The bill will not change that.
The bill was made without sex workers and fails to meet their needs. Sex workers’ warnings against the bill were not listened to. It treats sex workers as children who cannot make decisions about their own body, life and work. It increases the stigma on sex work and further marginalizes them.
We see sex workers as partners in addressing abuses rather than as unmanageable children who must be controlled by the police, the state and the brothel owners. Sex workers are adults, they are the first to have an interest in a clean sector and they know best what is good for their sector. Sex workers are not the problem, they are part of the solution.
Let the government know how you feel about this bill
We call on you to respond to the draft bill. The more sex workers and people working with sex workers oppose the bill, the more likely it will be rejected.
You can react until December 15th! You can do this by clicking on the button ‘Give your reaction to this consultation’ on this website: https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/sekswerk. You can also write a letter and attach it as a document.
Opinion pieces
Various people have had their opinions on the bill published in newspapers.
This is an opinion piece in the Volkskrant of Marjan Wijers, member of SekswerkExpertise Registration of sex workers has the opposite effect https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-o...-sekswerkers-heeft-averechts-effect~b585407d/
In English: New prostitution law Netherlands will have opposite effect https://www.amsterdamredlightdistricttour.com/news/prostitution-law-netherlands/
This is an opinion piece in the NRC of Rik Viergever, who is on the board of My Red Light: In this way, sex workers will not become their own boss https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/10/23/zo-wordt-sekswerker-geen-eigen-baas-a3977803
A video about the protest against the bill by PROUD, the Dutch sex workers union, can be found here: My body, my business’ – sex workers mark Halloween with protest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j78DzdvPoFc&feature=youtu.be
In 2017, Joke Swiebel and Marjan Wijers wrote in the NRC about the Coalition Agreement in which the bill was announced: Cabinet forces sex workers into illegality https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/10/31/kabinet-dwingt-sekswerkers-de-illegaliteit-in-13756368-a1579287
SekswerkExpertise, 20 November 2019
https://sekswerkexpertise.nl/englis...yrx3h4vnXtp6pJh9_xUXZOHPkXHa7I1wXEsDsFZdmC8jQ
Information sheet draft Bill on the regulation of sex work (WRS).
Let the government know your opinion about the bill!
The government has drafted a new Sex Work Regulation Bill (WRS). The purpose of the bill is to combat human trafficking and other abuses. It also states that the aim is to improve the position of sex workers. At the same time, the cabinet acknowledges that it puts sex workers in a position that is different from any other workers. In their opinion, this is justified because, according to them, prostitution is not a normal job and cannot be compared with other work.
The proposal is now up for consultation. Everyone can share their viewpoints. In response to the reactions, the government may decide to change (minor) parts of the proposal. Then, the final bill will go to the Parliament, which can change its content or reject it altogether. When the Parliament adopts the Bill, it will go to the Senate. The Senate cannot amend the bill anymore, they can only approve it or reject it.
The deadline for reactions to the draft bill is December 15th 2019.
This is what the bill says:
Licensing system for sex workers
All sex workers must have a license, even if they work via the opting-in or behind the window
In order to obtain a license, sex workers must be over 21 years of age and be allowed to work in the Netherlands
All sex workers are obliged to have an interview with a civil servant who will decide whether they are ‘self-reliant’ enough to be allowed to work as a sex worker. If the official has no ‘major objections’ against the sex worker entering or continuing sex work, she or he will receive a license
If the official thinks that the sex worker is not ‘self-reliant’ enough or that she or he may be working under duress, a license will not be granted. A license will also not be issued to sex workers who are not yet 21 years old or do not have the right papers to work in the Netherlands
Sex workers are only allowed to advertise with their license number and a work phone number
A license is valid for five years
Home-based sex workers
A license does not mean that sex workers have a permit to work home-based
The bill is very vague about home-based sex workers. On the one hand it says that municipalities may not treat independent sex workers different from other self-employed workers, such as hairdressers or pedicures. On the other hand, municipalities have the power to set extra rules, and most zoning plans and housing corporations prohibit home-based prostitution
Withdrawal of the license
The license may be revoked:
when the authorities believe a sex worker is no longer sufficiently ‘self-reliant’ or may be working under coercion
when a sex worker repeatedly advertises without their license number and work phone number or has not immediately reported a change in their work phone number
National register of sex workers
All licensed sex workers will be listed in a national register with their social security number, their work phone number and their license number
It is mandatory to provide a work phone number. Any change must be reported immediately
The national register will also include the following information about sex workers:
When they were caught working without a license
When they advertised without a license number and registered phone number
When they did not immediately report a change in their work phone number
When the officials think they may be working under duress or have doubts about their self-sufficiency
Anyone can check in the national register whether a license number actually exists and whether a particular license number and telephone number belong together
Only the authorities can also see the social security number of the sex worker
Criminalization of unlicensed sex workers and their business relations (the bill calls this “illegal prostitution”)
Sex workers who work without a license or do not comply with the rules, may face a penalty up to € 20,750. This also applies to sex workers who (still) work while their application for a license was rejected
Business relations of sex workers without a license are criminalized. They can face up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine up to € 20,750. In the bill they are called “facilitators of illegal prostitution”
This applies, for example, to drivers, bodyguards, cleaners and other service providers of unlicensed sex workers. Possibly, it may also apply to partners of sex workers who drive them to work, take care of their safety or with whom the sex worker shares her or his income. It may also apply to sex workers who work together with a colleague. The bill is not clear on this point.
Criminalization of clients of unlicensed sex workers
Clients can check in the national register whether a license number actually exists and whether a particular license number and telephone number belong together
Clients who have sex with an unlicensed sex worker or a sex worker who works for an unlicensed sex business, can face up to one year imprisonment or a fine up to € 8,300
Licensing system for sex businesses
All sex businesses must have a license, including, for example, escort services
Municipalities can set a maximum to the number of licenses
Municipalities may also decide not to issue any licenses (so-called ‘zero-option’)
Only licensed sex workers are permitted to work in sex business which hold a license
There will be a national register of all sex work businesses
Want to know more?
The complete draft Bill and Explanatory Memorandum can be found here: https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/sekswerk or here: https://www.recht.nl/nieuws/strafrecht/177463/concept-wetsvoorstel-regulering-sekswerk/
The press release from the Ministry of Justice can be found here:
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actuee...prostituees-en-exploitanten-van-seksbedrijven
What do we think of the bill?
We think adoption of this bill is a bad idea as it will not combat abuses. Instead it will make sex workers more vulnerable to abuse and violence. Sex workers who cannot register because of their age or because they don’t have the right papers, as well as sex workers who are unwilling to register because of privacy concerns and distrust in the governments ability to properly protect their data, will be pushed into the illegal circuit. They can no longer safely go to the police when they, or a colleague become a victim of intimidation, extortion, coercion or violence because they are punishable themselves. They can no longer advertise on websites such as Kinky. Consequently, they will have to relay on others to find clients.
Clients and working relations of unlicensed sex workers are also criminalized. They will therefore no longer report abuses. Abusers know this and will take advantage of it.
The criminalization of clients and working relations of unlicensed sex workers has nothing to do with coercion, violence or deception. It only has to do with sex workers’ unwillingness or their inability to comply with the obligation to register. Coercion, violence, exploitation and deception are already punishable, irrespective whether it concerns forcing someone into prostitution or forcing someone to hand over their money or sex work under unfree conditions. The bill will not change that.
The bill was made without sex workers and fails to meet their needs. Sex workers’ warnings against the bill were not listened to. It treats sex workers as children who cannot make decisions about their own body, life and work. It increases the stigma on sex work and further marginalizes them.
We see sex workers as partners in addressing abuses rather than as unmanageable children who must be controlled by the police, the state and the brothel owners. Sex workers are adults, they are the first to have an interest in a clean sector and they know best what is good for their sector. Sex workers are not the problem, they are part of the solution.
Let the government know how you feel about this bill
We call on you to respond to the draft bill. The more sex workers and people working with sex workers oppose the bill, the more likely it will be rejected.
You can react until December 15th! You can do this by clicking on the button ‘Give your reaction to this consultation’ on this website: https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/sekswerk. You can also write a letter and attach it as a document.
Opinion pieces
Various people have had their opinions on the bill published in newspapers.
This is an opinion piece in the Volkskrant of Marjan Wijers, member of SekswerkExpertise Registration of sex workers has the opposite effect https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-o...-sekswerkers-heeft-averechts-effect~b585407d/
In English: New prostitution law Netherlands will have opposite effect https://www.amsterdamredlightdistricttour.com/news/prostitution-law-netherlands/
This is an opinion piece in the NRC of Rik Viergever, who is on the board of My Red Light: In this way, sex workers will not become their own boss https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/10/23/zo-wordt-sekswerker-geen-eigen-baas-a3977803
A video about the protest against the bill by PROUD, the Dutch sex workers union, can be found here: My body, my business’ – sex workers mark Halloween with protest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j78DzdvPoFc&feature=youtu.be
In 2017, Joke Swiebel and Marjan Wijers wrote in the NRC about the Coalition Agreement in which the bill was announced: Cabinet forces sex workers into illegality https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/10/31/kabinet-dwingt-sekswerkers-de-illegaliteit-in-13756368-a1579287
SekswerkExpertise, 20 November 2019
Impact of Bill C-36
Many of you say how Bill C-36 has no effect but I tend to disagree. Unless you are limited to Merb escorts only, Bill C-36 changed everything especially at the stripclubs. First thing is first under that new law lapdancing is officially illegal but LE is applying selective enforcement. I remember in 2015 there was an immediate drop in mileage across the board. Before I used to meet fun strippers offering fun and mileage and take out was easy to find. Since C-36 the clubs began to clamp down on fun due to them being afraid to be shut down by the city. There was a time in 2014 when I was able to get grinding action at Club Downtown and Les Amazones but all that changed with C-36 and they went back to the no grind rule.
To make a long story short. In 2014 they city went after two clubs owned by the same owner as Le Garage, Champions, Bar SexeMania and shut down Sexe D'Or and Alphonsos (Bazzaz). In 2015 the province ruled that lapdancing was a form of prostitution. I noticed that the owner put non contact dance signs in Sexe Mania and Champions. Girls still gave contact dancing but officially it is non contact. My point I am getting at is I see girls are using that to their advantage to get more money out of customers. I bring this up due to the post of C.B.Brown in the Cleopatra thread.
In 2017-2018, I came across a weird situation at Bar Sexe Mania where a bunch of girls were collaborating and telling clients straight up that for $10 it is non contact dances and if I want contact it is $20 a dance. The thing is that is a hard thing to dispute since the signs all say $10 non contact dances but it clearly was a charade by the clubs to show to LE that there is no prostitution going on. I complained to management and it shortly stopped.
However recently I came across the same type of thing. At 10/35 I came across a girl who would not take her top off and said that we have to go to the VIP to have that. Last week at Doric I took a spinner sexy girl and I was not allowed to touch her boobs she goes it is at the VIP for that. But if you see the signs the signs at most clubs changed. You no longer see contact dances. The girls are taking advantage of that and I think it is catching on. Bill C-36 is the reason this is happening. Bill C-36 is also why we saw a big hike in scams from Backpage type sites. Anyhow the point is that Bill C-36 change the game completely.
Many of you say how Bill C-36 has no effect but I tend to disagree. Unless you are limited to Merb escorts only, Bill C-36 changed everything especially at the stripclubs. First thing is first under that new law lapdancing is officially illegal but LE is applying selective enforcement. I remember in 2015 there was an immediate drop in mileage across the board. Before I used to meet fun strippers offering fun and mileage and take out was easy to find. Since C-36 the clubs began to clamp down on fun due to them being afraid to be shut down by the city. There was a time in 2014 when I was able to get grinding action at Club Downtown and Les Amazones but all that changed with C-36 and they went back to the no grind rule.
To make a long story short. In 2014 they city went after two clubs owned by the same owner as Le Garage, Champions, Bar SexeMania and shut down Sexe D'Or and Alphonsos (Bazzaz). In 2015 the province ruled that lapdancing was a form of prostitution. I noticed that the owner put non contact dance signs in Sexe Mania and Champions. Girls still gave contact dancing but officially it is non contact. My point I am getting at is I see girls are using that to their advantage to get more money out of customers. I bring this up due to the post of C.B.Brown in the Cleopatra thread.
In 2017-2018, I came across a weird situation at Bar Sexe Mania where a bunch of girls were collaborating and telling clients straight up that for $10 it is non contact dances and if I want contact it is $20 a dance. The thing is that is a hard thing to dispute since the signs all say $10 non contact dances but it clearly was a charade by the clubs to show to LE that there is no prostitution going on. I complained to management and it shortly stopped.
However recently I came across the same type of thing. At 10/35 I came across a girl who would not take her top off and said that we have to go to the VIP to have that. Last week at Doric I took a spinner sexy girl and I was not allowed to touch her boobs she goes it is at the VIP for that. But if you see the signs the signs at most clubs changed. You no longer see contact dances. The girls are taking advantage of that and I think it is catching on. Bill C-36 is the reason this is happening. Bill C-36 is also why we saw a big hike in scams from Backpage type sites. Anyhow the point is that Bill C-36 change the game completely.
Cloud you may be right but in all honesty strip joints were starting to disappear even before C-36 came into law.
They just can’t compete with escorts or even MP.
Things change with time and strip clubs are a thing of the past.
I didn’t mind going to a SC to have a few beers with friends after work or after training when I was playing sports, but that was a long time ago and honestly I never understood what guys got out of having a stripper grind herself on their lap and pay extra to be able to touch her boobs or ass and in the end go home with blue balls and having spent about the same as seeing an escort. It just seems like unnecessary torture.
They just can’t compete with escorts or even MP.
Things change with time and strip clubs are a thing of the past.
I didn’t mind going to a SC to have a few beers with friends after work or after training when I was playing sports, but that was a long time ago and honestly I never understood what guys got out of having a stripper grind herself on their lap and pay extra to be able to touch her boobs or ass and in the end go home with blue balls and having spent about the same as seeing an escort. It just seems like unnecessary torture.
All the SC you name had problems with LE before Bill C-36. They were considered linked to organized crime for whatever that means. LE had everything they needed before C-36. Bill C-36 just added a bullet to a loaded gun. A strip joint under surveillance may just not want to give opportunities. So I'd blame the low milleage on the operators, not C-36.
Strip clubs have the advantage that you don't have to commit to an hour with an escort but can pick and choose from so many dancers at a strip club based on body type, friendless, sensuality and some "connection" and intelligence for us looking for more than just getting rid of blue balls. I don't even drink other than diet coke or Pepsi and have little interest in the stage dancing. I've seem zillions of naked women (and men) in my life and its just no big deal - I am old guy in 70's.
I enjoy many strip clubs over the decades both in Phoenix, San Francisco and 20 years of about annual trips (in Summer when its 110 degrees F. in Phoenix) to Toronto (almost 2500 posts on Terb.cc plus was on Fred's prior similar board - forget its name). I have no interest in getting off or extras and while often offered at Toronto clubs (actually only go to clubs in Mississauga with more liberal thanks to ex-Mayor Hazel for like 30 years who retired at about age 90.) I enjoy caressing their bodies with caring touch and the great response I get from most dancers that my hands are so soft etc. - not bragging but have developed good touch skills. I have had dancers cry in my arms wishing their boyfriends/husband had such good touch - again not God's gift to women but encourage guys to learn good touch skills.
While I have no interest in grinding or more (nor examining a vagina or butt in my face), I enjoy doing Esalen type breast massage on small to medium sized natural breasts and great feedback I get vs the usual groping and grabbing they tell me. I have been trained and taught couples groups on Esalen massage popular in the 80s etc.. For me, DD's or large enhanced are almost ugly
I also enjoy the nude-reverse parlors of Mississauga for decades and carefully selected more sensual type escorts with personality after careful selection by doing a pre-trip spreadsheet and mostly using the many great Agencies in Toronto.
Its been many years since my Montreal reports here (or Fred's prior board) and my sexworkmontreal.com site. Plan to return to Montreal but my main point is in response to above comment. There may be some of us that enjoy strip clubs for more sensual contact with so many choices in front of you, not just more sexual options.
BTW I hadn't looked at my old Montreal site for a long time and just discovered when I renewed it changed to wrong dns entry - should be back up soon! Looks like all my other sites still working sexworktoronto.com, sexworkcanada.com etc. You can tell I like Canada without the legal issues of the U.S and have written lots about C36 as have many here.
It is not only in Phoenix. Busts all over the U.S. "VIP escorts" a huge agency in New York just got a major bust. Federal authorities charged organizers of a high-end prostitution ring with money laundering Tuesday, accusing them of being behind an operation that channeled more than $10 million in sex profits through personal and business accounts at home and abroad.
And if more than one person is involved like a women who uses a driver or booker to answer calls it is a criminal enterprise felony and every transaction is money laundering.
I have been in Court and heard "Donald Advicements" were companions are warned they could face up to 40 years in prison if they don't take a plea deal .i.e. the Phoenix Goddess Temple case. All pled to felonies and got probation except the leader who was easily convicted after a long trial and was sentenced to 5 years in prison (she just got out late 2019). The trial lasted about six months and the total Court proceedings lasted five years from the SWAT team raid of the Temple and arrest of 35 mostly older women.
I have use a monitoring service that every week reports on major prostitution arrests around the U.S. Various cities every week conduct large sting operations usually off websites where they set up ads and get the guy to say the wrong thing by phone, email or text and arrest when show up usually at a hotel.
Sheriff Joe is now running again for Sheriff in 2020 after pardoned by Trump. The controversial ex-sheriff has far out-raised all the other candidates in the 2020 sheriff’s race up until this point (last week), but has done so by relying heavily on out-of-state donors, according to a Phoenix New Times analysis of campaign filings. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/new...ection-2020-penzone-sheridan-finance-11443901
I sort of agree with you in general terms. I don't think legislations had major impacts in the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden or Canada except for the sex workers themselves since they can't get a criminal conviction for the practice of prostitution in almost any setting. This results in part from the new prostitution law, but also from intervention policies by the SPVM that began way before 2015. The fact of the matter is that the main factor impacting prostitution is policies adopted by LE whatever the framework of the law.
I also don't want to fuck with what exists now in Montreal. The equilibrium is just fine in Montréal and it was for the last 15 years. However, the case won in Ontario is quite significant. I don't know much about the agency. Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like nothing wrong was going on in this agency (minors, drugs, organized crime). It looks like LE had broken the unwritten rule to avoid interventions in such a setting. I doubt that the DPCP (Québec's prosecutors) would have pursued the case. However, a win for the Ontario prosecutors may have disturbed the equilibrium. That's the main reason I'm happy.
There will be no changes in legislation unless it is initiated and won by a member of the public or interest group.
My sense is what really got the agency in trouble in London, ON is the fact they were running an agency in London, ON not in Toronto where there are what 10 or maybe even 15 agencies that the Toronto Police never lay a hand on. London, ON has a reputation in legal circles for being puritanical so I am not sure why anyone would purposely open a "sin" business in London unless you want to purposefully be busted in order to challenge the law in court(Which has happened before in London with obscenity and pot cases). There was also another court case involving an agency in Ontario prosecuted for living on the avails with no(minors, drugs, organized crime) back in the 1990s but again in Sault Ste Marie. Again the biggest mistake was the agency was based in Sault Ste Marie not Toronto or Ottawa(Which had many similar agencies right in the same province at the same time). In this case which did not challenge the statute on constitutional grounds but instead interpretation of the statute the agency owner was found gulty but sentenced only to time served based on between when she was arrested and made bail.
In terms of the decline of strip clubs their are two Supreme Court rulings to keep in mind which might provide a crystal ball in terms of their future. One is that if a strip club allows patrons to have sex it can be shut down for promoting indecency. The second says that swingers/sex clubs are a Constitutional protected form a freedom of association and expression. In the second the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the L'Orage swingers club in Montreal was a constitutional protected form of association. The court in fact goes so far as to say unlike Marijuana which the court once called socially "useless" that "Sexual activity is a positive source of human expression, fulfillment and pleasure" that is constitutionally protected." In turn the court makes the argument that a "pure" sex club like L'Orage is ok as everyone there "knows" the primary purpose of the establishment is sex while some patrons of strip club might "only" be going for the stripping and nudity and allowing sex is a form of anti social behavior especially when the club as most do "claim" sex is prohibited by club rules but club management turns a blind eye. Thus the police can shut down such clubs. Yes I know this seems convoluted but is what is. I will also note that most Bill C-36 supporters seem to forget the L'Orage case where the SCC said that sexual activity is positive instead taking this sex negative that sex is socially useless as the court once claimed about marijuana.
The third comment I will make is if decriminalization happens and I think it is not an if but a when is that under Canada's Constitution unlike that of the US it will be very difficult for the Federal government to play a significant role in whatever legalization/regulatory scheme is enacted. Thus it will fall into provincial competence and in all likelihood the provinces(at least QC, ON, BC) will undoubtedly defer heavily to what each municipality wants for itself with the usual suspects like Montreal and Toronto taking a "liberal" approach with the London's and Sault Ste Marie's trying to prohibit as much as possible like today.
Which gets me to my final point I think when the history of sex work in Canada is written I think it will show that it has historically and will probably continue to be up to the municipalities how they want to deal with the sex industry. Somewhat unlike the US where you have a big federal law enforcement machine that has gotten involved in cases such as Elliott Spitzer's Emperor's Club even when local police are not particularly interested although again I would note that NYC is still far more anti prostitution than any of the major Canadian citizens. Yes there are the RCMP and SAQ/OPP but I have seen little history of them getting involved in these matters other than in places where they are the local "contract" police force. Nothing in Canada like the IRS CI or HSI.
Anyways just some thoughts of mine as a new member. Welcome any disagreement.
In terms of the decline of strip clubs their are two Supreme Court rulings to keep in mind which might provide a crystal ball in terms of their future. One is that if a strip club allows patrons to have sex it can be shut down for promoting indecency. The second says that swingers/sex clubs are a Constitutional protected form a freedom of association and expression. In the second the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the L'Orage swingers club in Montreal was a constitutional protected form of association. The court in fact goes so far as to say unlike Marijuana which the court once called socially "useless" that "Sexual activity is a positive source of human expression, fulfillment and pleasure" that is constitutionally protected." In turn the court makes the argument that a "pure" sex club like L'Orage is ok as everyone there "knows" the primary purpose of the establishment is sex while some patrons of strip club might "only" be going for the stripping and nudity and allowing sex is a form of anti social behavior especially when the club as most do "claim" sex is prohibited by club rules but club management turns a blind eye. Thus the police can shut down such clubs. Yes I know this seems convoluted but is what is. I will also note that most Bill C-36 supporters seem to forget the L'Orage case where the SCC said that sexual activity is positive instead taking this sex negative that sex is socially useless as the court once claimed about marijuana.
The third comment I will make is if decriminalization happens and I think it is not an if but a when is that under Canada's Constitution unlike that of the US it will be very difficult for the Federal government to play a significant role in whatever legalization/regulatory scheme is enacted. Thus it will fall into provincial competence and in all likelihood the provinces(at least QC, ON, BC) will undoubtedly defer heavily to what each municipality wants for itself with the usual suspects like Montreal and Toronto taking a "liberal" approach with the London's and Sault Ste Marie's trying to prohibit as much as possible like today.
Which gets me to my final point I think when the history of sex work in Canada is written I think it will show that it has historically and will probably continue to be up to the municipalities how they want to deal with the sex industry. Somewhat unlike the US where you have a big federal law enforcement machine that has gotten involved in cases such as Elliott Spitzer's Emperor's Club even when local police are not particularly interested although again I would note that NYC is still far more anti prostitution than any of the major Canadian citizens. Yes there are the RCMP and SAQ/OPP but I have seen little history of them getting involved in these matters other than in places where they are the local "contract" police force. Nothing in Canada like the IRS CI or HSI.
Anyways just some thoughts of mine as a new member. Welcome any disagreement.
Maybe a group of brave and informed Canadian politicians can reformulate Bill C-36 as an anti-trafficking law that would appeal to the masses.
I don't know what to make of today's (June 15, 2020) story in Global Montreal about a university student from London who was supposedly tricked into performing sex work against her will. I'm somewhat dumb founded by "Mellisa's" story. How can a Canadian university graduate be forced to engage in sex work against her will.
Sucked into sex trafficking, London woman shares experience in wake of LAWC funding cuts | Globalnews.ca
For Melissa, the last thing she imagined starting her first year at Western University in 2009, with plans to become a lawyer, was become a stripper, let alone fall victim to human trafficking.
globalnews.ca
"The last thing Melissa imagined when she started her first year at Western University was that she would become an exotic dancer and fall victim to sex trafficking.
Melissa, whose name Global News has changed to protect her identity, had plans to become a lawyer. In 2010, she was in her second year studying English, when she says a woman approached her about exotic dancing."
. . . .
"Because of London’s proximity to Detroit and Toronto and its multiple highway access points, the city is a hub for sex trafficking, according to Megan Walker, executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre (LAWC).
“We have a university and a college, so it’s not only a city where traffickers bring women they sell. It’s a community where traffickers come and actively recruit women and girls to take out of the city,” says Walker.
Statistics Canada reports that between 2009 and 2014, there were 396 victims of police-reported human trafficking, the majority of whom were women."
. . . .
"After graduating from Western, Melissa went back to working in exotic clubs until 2015. By then, she was living in a house with the women she danced with. After a while, Melissa noticed her money was starting to go missing. A woman she lived with encouraged her to go dance in Calgary.
. . . . .
She and the woman arrived in Calgary in late February 2015 and were put up in a condo, where she was once again placed on Backpage. The woman who brought Melissa to Calgary had complete control over her.
“I was under her full control. I wasn’t able to leave. I wasn’t able to make any decisions for myself, and every dollar that I made went into her wallet,” says Melissa.
This is common, according to Walker, who says sex traffickers use women to recruit other women.
Because it’s illegal for anyone to recruit someone into trafficking, Walker said in cases like Melissa’s, traffickers will often pick one woman to manage the others in exchange for that woman not having to meet the same quota as the others."
IMHO, American hobbyists are more paranoid about LE than our Canadian counterparts.
It seems that while Canada's Supreme Court has a concrete rule on police entrapment, the application of that rule has yet to be solidified even among the Canadian Supreme Court justices. In any event, it seems that a hobbyist is more likely to prevail on an entrapment defense--stick to the story: the SP's is being paid for her (precious) time.
The recent case of R. v. Ahmad suggests Canada's entrapment indicates that the application of this law remains unsettled (based on the language in the dissent). The case involved two different dial‑a‑dope LE operations in B.C.
scc-csc.lexum.com
Decision was issued on May 29, 2020
"The Court’s decision in Mack settled the law of entrapment in Canada. It set out two alternative branches, either of which is sufficient to ground an accused’s claim of entrapment and justify a stay of proceedings. On the first branch, at issue in these appeals, the police may present an opportunity to commit a crime only upon forming reasonable suspicion that either a specific person is engaged in criminal activity or people are carrying out criminal activity at a specific location, sometimes referred to as a bona fide inquiry. The offer of an opportunity to commit a crime must always be based upon a reasonable suspicion of particular criminal activity, whether by a person, in a place defined with sufficient precision, or a combination of both. In every context, the reasonable suspicion standard ensures courts can conduct meaningful judicial review of what the police knew at the time the opportunity was provided. This standard requires the police to disclose the basis for their belief and to show they had legitimate reasons related to criminality for targeting an individual or the people associated with a location."
. . . .
"A phone is a means of private communication between persons, and calling a number, or exchanging text messages, is an inherently private activity. Accordingly, state surveillance over virtual spaces is of an entirely different qualitative order than surveillance over a public space." [Virtual platforms like the Internet and Social Media and Emails presumably are accorded the same heightened privacy protection.]
. . . .
"Unlike in A’s case, there was nothing in W’s responses to suggest that the phone number was being used to sell drugs before the officer provided the opportunity to traffic. Therefore, W was entrapped. . . . The police had no more than a bare tip that someone using a particular phone number was selling drugs and this did not ground reasonable suspicion."
It seems that while Canada's Supreme Court has a concrete rule on police entrapment, the application of that rule has yet to be solidified even among the Canadian Supreme Court justices. In any event, it seems that a hobbyist is more likely to prevail on an entrapment defense--stick to the story: the SP's is being paid for her (precious) time.
The recent case of R. v. Ahmad suggests Canada's entrapment indicates that the application of this law remains unsettled (based on the language in the dissent). The case involved two different dial‑a‑dope LE operations in B.C.
R. v. Ahmad - SCC Cases
This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.
scc-csc.lexum.com
Decision was issued on May 29, 2020
"The Court’s decision in Mack settled the law of entrapment in Canada. It set out two alternative branches, either of which is sufficient to ground an accused’s claim of entrapment and justify a stay of proceedings. On the first branch, at issue in these appeals, the police may present an opportunity to commit a crime only upon forming reasonable suspicion that either a specific person is engaged in criminal activity or people are carrying out criminal activity at a specific location, sometimes referred to as a bona fide inquiry. The offer of an opportunity to commit a crime must always be based upon a reasonable suspicion of particular criminal activity, whether by a person, in a place defined with sufficient precision, or a combination of both. In every context, the reasonable suspicion standard ensures courts can conduct meaningful judicial review of what the police knew at the time the opportunity was provided. This standard requires the police to disclose the basis for their belief and to show they had legitimate reasons related to criminality for targeting an individual or the people associated with a location."
. . . .
"A phone is a means of private communication between persons, and calling a number, or exchanging text messages, is an inherently private activity. Accordingly, state surveillance over virtual spaces is of an entirely different qualitative order than surveillance over a public space." [Virtual platforms like the Internet and Social Media and Emails presumably are accorded the same heightened privacy protection.]
. . . .
"Unlike in A’s case, there was nothing in W’s responses to suggest that the phone number was being used to sell drugs before the officer provided the opportunity to traffic. Therefore, W was entrapped. . . . The police had no more than a bare tip that someone using a particular phone number was selling drugs and this did not ground reasonable suspicion."
Last edited:
I'm cerebral so I kill time my reading different materials. I've been reading various Canada Supreme Court cases on its website.
Based on my reading of the following Judgement that was rendered on November 29, 2019, I'm not certain that Bill C-36 would pass constitutional muster. Perhaps our friends here who are versed in Canadian jurisprudence would care to offer their learned opinions. LE's enforce Bill C-36 at their own personal peril -- LE's are subject to civil lawsuits if they act unreasonably. The question is who (SP's, agencies, and/or hobbyists) will risk their reputations and livelihood to test the constitutionality of Bill C-36. (Therefore, it seems prudent for LE's to turn a blind eye to Montreal's Hobbyland.)
scc-csc.lexum.com
"On May 13, 2009 at 5:05 p.m., Ms. Kosoian ("K"), a 38‑year‑old student and mother, was in the Montmorency subway station in Laval. She planned to take the Montréal subway to travel to the Université du Québec à Montréal to attend a class".
"K took the descending escalator in a subway station without holding the handrail. A police officer employed by the city, who had been designated as an inspector by the authority responsible for the subway system (“STM”), ordered her several times to hold the handrail, since the STM taught police officers that holding the handrail was an obligation under a by‑law. K refused to comply and to identify herself. The police officer arrested her and searched her bag. He gave her a statement of offence for disobeying a pictogram indicating that the handrail should be held, which the STM had posted near the escalator pursuant to its By‑law R‑036, and another statement of offence for hindering the police in their duties. After being acquitted in the Municipal Court, K instituted a civil liability action against the police officer, his employer and the STM, arguing that the arrest was unlawful and unreasonable and that it constituted a fault because holding the handrail was not an obligation under a by‑law, but simply a warning."
. . . . .
The Canada Supreme Court unanimously (9 justices) upheld K's rights to disobey the unlawful requirement to hold the handrail while riding an escalator in the Montreal Metro (STM), and upheld K's right to sue the police officer in a civil action for damages. (Unlike Canada, police officers in the USA have "qualified immunity" whereby they cannot be sued personally in a civil suit for damages.)
"A reasonable police officer in the same circumstances would not have considered failure to hold the handrail to be an offence. The police officer therefore committed a fault when he arrested K. The STM committed a fault by teaching police officers that the pictogram in question imposed an obligation to hold the handrail, a fault that explains — at least in part — the officer’s conduct. Finally, as the officer’s principal, the city must be held liable for his fault. As for K, she was entitled to refuse to obey an unlawful order, and she therefore committed no fault that would justify an apportionment of liability. "
. . . .
"Under Quebec law, a police officer, like any other person, is held civilly liable for the injury caused to another by his or her fault, in accordance with art. 1457 C.C.Q., which imposes on every person “a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another”. A police officer commits a civil fault where he or she acts in a manner that departs from the conduct of a reasonable officer in the same circumstances. Police conduct must be assessed according to the test of the normally prudent, diligent and competent police officer in the same circumstances; this test recognizes the largely discretionary nature of police work."
"In exercising these powers, police officers are therefore bound by strict rules of conduct that are meant to prevent arbitrariness and unjustified restrictions on rights and freedoms (Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, at para. 71; Jauvin v. Québec (Procureur général), [2004] R.R.A. 37 (C.A.), at para. 46). Police officers who deviate from these rules may be civilly liable. They have no public law immunity in this regard (Jauvin, at para. 42; Régie intermunicipale de police des Seigneuries v. Michaelson, [2005] R.R.A. 7 (Que. C.A.), at para. 22; Popovic v. Montréal (Ville de), 2008 QCCA 2371, [2009] R.R.A. 1, at para. 63)."
"Under Quebec law, a police officer, like any other person, is held civilly liable for the injury caused to another by his or her fault, in accordance with art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec (“C.C.Q.”). The officer’s employer is bound to make reparation for the injury if the fault was committed in the performance of the officer’s duties, pursuant to arts. 1463 and 1464 C.C.Q. In short, there are no exceptional rules applicable to the police (M. Lacroix, “Responsabilité civile des forces policières”, in JurisClasseur Québec — Responsabilité professionnelle, by A. Bélanger, ed., fasc. 13, at para. 6; J.‑L. Baudouin and C. Fabien, “L’indemnisation des dommages causés par la police” (1989), 23 R.J.T. 419, at p. 422)."
Based on my reading of the following Judgement that was rendered on November 29, 2019, I'm not certain that Bill C-36 would pass constitutional muster. Perhaps our friends here who are versed in Canadian jurisprudence would care to offer their learned opinions. LE's enforce Bill C-36 at their own personal peril -- LE's are subject to civil lawsuits if they act unreasonably. The question is who (SP's, agencies, and/or hobbyists) will risk their reputations and livelihood to test the constitutionality of Bill C-36. (Therefore, it seems prudent for LE's to turn a blind eye to Montreal's Hobbyland.)
Kosoian v. Société de transport de Montréal - SCC Cases
This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.
scc-csc.lexum.com
"On May 13, 2009 at 5:05 p.m., Ms. Kosoian ("K"), a 38‑year‑old student and mother, was in the Montmorency subway station in Laval. She planned to take the Montréal subway to travel to the Université du Québec à Montréal to attend a class".
"K took the descending escalator in a subway station without holding the handrail. A police officer employed by the city, who had been designated as an inspector by the authority responsible for the subway system (“STM”), ordered her several times to hold the handrail, since the STM taught police officers that holding the handrail was an obligation under a by‑law. K refused to comply and to identify herself. The police officer arrested her and searched her bag. He gave her a statement of offence for disobeying a pictogram indicating that the handrail should be held, which the STM had posted near the escalator pursuant to its By‑law R‑036, and another statement of offence for hindering the police in their duties. After being acquitted in the Municipal Court, K instituted a civil liability action against the police officer, his employer and the STM, arguing that the arrest was unlawful and unreasonable and that it constituted a fault because holding the handrail was not an obligation under a by‑law, but simply a warning."
. . . . .
The Canada Supreme Court unanimously (9 justices) upheld K's rights to disobey the unlawful requirement to hold the handrail while riding an escalator in the Montreal Metro (STM), and upheld K's right to sue the police officer in a civil action for damages. (Unlike Canada, police officers in the USA have "qualified immunity" whereby they cannot be sued personally in a civil suit for damages.)
"A reasonable police officer in the same circumstances would not have considered failure to hold the handrail to be an offence. The police officer therefore committed a fault when he arrested K. The STM committed a fault by teaching police officers that the pictogram in question imposed an obligation to hold the handrail, a fault that explains — at least in part — the officer’s conduct. Finally, as the officer’s principal, the city must be held liable for his fault. As for K, she was entitled to refuse to obey an unlawful order, and she therefore committed no fault that would justify an apportionment of liability. "
. . . .
"Under Quebec law, a police officer, like any other person, is held civilly liable for the injury caused to another by his or her fault, in accordance with art. 1457 C.C.Q., which imposes on every person “a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another”. A police officer commits a civil fault where he or she acts in a manner that departs from the conduct of a reasonable officer in the same circumstances. Police conduct must be assessed according to the test of the normally prudent, diligent and competent police officer in the same circumstances; this test recognizes the largely discretionary nature of police work."
"In exercising these powers, police officers are therefore bound by strict rules of conduct that are meant to prevent arbitrariness and unjustified restrictions on rights and freedoms (Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, at para. 71; Jauvin v. Québec (Procureur général), [2004] R.R.A. 37 (C.A.), at para. 46). Police officers who deviate from these rules may be civilly liable. They have no public law immunity in this regard (Jauvin, at para. 42; Régie intermunicipale de police des Seigneuries v. Michaelson, [2005] R.R.A. 7 (Que. C.A.), at para. 22; Popovic v. Montréal (Ville de), 2008 QCCA 2371, [2009] R.R.A. 1, at para. 63)."
"Under Quebec law, a police officer, like any other person, is held civilly liable for the injury caused to another by his or her fault, in accordance with art. 1457 of the Civil Code of Québec (“C.C.Q.”). The officer’s employer is bound to make reparation for the injury if the fault was committed in the performance of the officer’s duties, pursuant to arts. 1463 and 1464 C.C.Q. In short, there are no exceptional rules applicable to the police (M. Lacroix, “Responsabilité civile des forces policières”, in JurisClasseur Québec — Responsabilité professionnelle, by A. Bélanger, ed., fasc. 13, at para. 6; J.‑L. Baudouin and C. Fabien, “L’indemnisation des dommages causés par la police” (1989), 23 R.J.T. 419, at p. 422)."
Last edited:
Not sure if this is the right thread or has been discussed on another but assume everyone knows that C36 was declared unconstitutional in the London escort agency case in Ontario that has gone on for 5 years. The judge was very clear that C36 has the same violation of the Charter of Rights "security of persons" that the original law did that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld lower courts extensive ruling it violated the Charter.
It is my understanding that the Crown had decided not to appeal since if they lost again and then up to the Supreme it would totally eliminate C36 in all of Canada. As it now stands from my understanding of Canadian law, it is only precedent in Ontario and does not prevent other conservative cities such as London to charge. However, a prosecutor anywhere in Canada should be aware of the Ontario lower case well-written opinion against C36 that might influence prosecutors to not try the case.
Others probably have a better understanding of the case. The judge also mentioned the Crown's defense of C36 was totally non-objective etc. The judge was clear that agencies, websites, etc provide for the safety of "prostitutes" and restricting them violates the Charter.
When I have more time will do a more detailed summary if others don't here and for my sites and my other sexwork related outlets.
It is my understanding that the Crown had decided not to appeal since if they lost again and then up to the Supreme it would totally eliminate C36 in all of Canada. As it now stands from my understanding of Canadian law, it is only precedent in Ontario and does not prevent other conservative cities such as London to charge. However, a prosecutor anywhere in Canada should be aware of the Ontario lower case well-written opinion against C36 that might influence prosecutors to not try the case.
Others probably have a better understanding of the case. The judge also mentioned the Crown's defense of C36 was totally non-objective etc. The judge was clear that agencies, websites, etc provide for the safety of "prostitutes" and restricting them violates the Charter.
When I have more time will do a more detailed summary if others don't here and for my sites and my other sexwork related outlets.
Similar threads
