C-36: irrational fears

[gugu]

Information is the core of police work. The SPVM knows quite a lot more about the sex work scene in Montreal than they are ready to admit.

They have a strong will to combat exploitation. They’d be ready to add more resources if needed. However, I guess they feel like they are looking for a needle in a haystack. If you have an equivalent of ten officers-year and find only 30 cases are they going to add 10 others to find 20 more?

So basically, I think they’d probably give the same diagnostic as the average merb member would. The severe cases are concentrated in one main area: gangs and lonely pimps around the Centres jeunesse. Narcoprostitution is one specific social problem very well looked after by them.

Otherwise, the issue of people controlling others, well it’s day to day life, probably even more so within a police structure. We have to presume that people are able to defend themselves. Sex workers are among those freer to move among us. They’ll get a job elsewhere within a day.

Are they going to put listening devices in their homes to make sure their boyfriends do not manipulate them into cooking the evening‘s diner? They are looking for people controlling others. They have problems finding some even in street prostitution where there are no pimps anymore.

Fifteen years ago, it seems quite clear that the Québec’s public prosecutor and the police forces have decided to stop prosecuting incall. There were more than 100 brothel accusations each year at that time. Today, it’s down to less than 10. This helped, I’m quite sure, the growth of the massage parlors, where, I’d say, around 40% of sex workers work today. During the same period, street prostitution diminished quite a lot. So it’s a win/win situation for LE: less complaints about street prostitution and more secure places to work for the sex workers.

There is just simply no way the SPVM would see things otherwise in a city the size of Montreal with the size of it’s sex sector. If it aint broke don’t fix it. This is why the SPVM has made it’s clear policy statement yesterday: BUSINESS AS USUAL.

The next few months will probably be difficult in Montreal because of some anxiety. How am I going to advertise? I’m I going to provide some client info? I’m I at risk of arrest? And many more questions.

Well, I’d give one simple answer to that. Put yourself in the shoes of the SPVM. They have a much improved sex scene now compared to 15 years ago. Do you seriously think they’ll start throwing grenades everywhere with the unpredictable consequences? That would be suicidal.

The only way the SPVM is to do a better job is to get better at information gathering. And the only way to achieve that is by talking to people. You don’t do that by throwing grenades. Prostitution is a network of actors with complex interactions: providers, clients, intermediaries, LE, lawyers, judges, sex worker organizations, healthcare providers, rescuers, researchers, city planners, neighborhood communities. LE may be the actor with the most influence but it's ability remains weak. Planning operations for them presupposes foreseeing the outcomes. They are hard to predict. One is predictable however: going after the clients would break an equilibrium that has improved quite a lot in the last 15 years.

They cannot say it the way I did because LE cannot admit publicly that the prostitution scene has improved.

The ONLY unpredictable factor that may seriously affect the sex industry in the next few months is the client’s reaction: the fear factor.

The reason I made this post is to say: THAT FEAR IS IRRATIONAL.

 

[Mike's Mansion]

Very well said guys.
"Fear cuts deeper than swords" -George R.R. Martin
"Just do it" -Nike
:eyebrows:

 

[Siocnarf]

Very good analysis gugu. The fact that many politicians and LE across the country are openly suspicious of this new law should also help to calm people. There is no real will behind this new law. If it was like in Sweden, where the law had full support for enforcement it would be a different thing. I am looking forward to seeing the recommendation of Ontario's Attorney general; I hope it doesn't take very long.

 

[sigma69]

I am looking forward to seeing the recommendation of Ontario's Attorney general; I hope it doesn't take very long.

Yes, me too. But these things always take a long time. I expect it will take several months before we hear from the AG's office.

 

[sigma69]

Another thing to consider is that this law is headed straight for the courts - where it will bounce around for the next several years probably.
Law enforcement will probably wait to see where the courts are headed on C-36 before investing any resources on enforcement. They will use the law when egregious violations are discovered during the course of other investigations - see the SPVM's position in Reverdy's post (#32) here: http://merb.cc/vbulletin/showthread...-have-changed-!!!-new-categories-to-announce-!!

If we were to guess if/where police forces may want to use C-36 in the near future to go after users or advertisers, it would probably be in more conservative areas of the country (i.e. the "conservative base"). Most of these areas are well West of Quebec.

 

[easyguy]

You guys all missing the point. C-36 has already inflicted damage to the hobby industry without any enforcement. One thing is to practice hobby legally or semi-legally as before and quite another by constantly looking over your shoulder knowing that what you do is against the law of the land. In many places in the US you can hobby pretty much safe and yet we all valued Montreal not only for the great talent available but also for the practical legality of the escort industry. The same was with Amsterdam before the current weed revolution in the US. Though dope was readily available in the US everywhere people was visiting Amsterdam to enjoy legality of it.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

You guys all missing the point. C-36 has already inflicted damage to the hobby industry without any enforcement.

It is called fear mongering panic mode. I can see the board changing to overseas account, less descriptive advertising. If I was in Montreal I do not think my hobbying schedule will change.
All these threads saying what do we do and are you going to stop.... Really?

 

[easyguy]

[screen screen screen, BOYZ! Is exactly an explicit expression of the panic mode, lol

 

[bushleague]

I agree with the original poster about the irrational fears. This new law is outrageous, and is pissing me off because 1) it's stupid 2) it put Canadian citizens (sex workers) at a greater risk than others, and that's unacceptable. It's driven by ideology and vote-seeking. Personally, I'm not worried, I still feel safe and will not change my habits. But this law is not about me, it's about sex workers, and the fact that they are, again, considered second-class citizens not worthy of being protected from murder and rape.

I have a question that maybe someone here could answer. The government of Ontario has asked its Attorney-General to investigate whether the new law is actually protecting sex workers and communities and/or infriging constitutional rights. What I understand from a National Post article I will link to at the bottom of this post, is that if Ontario refuses to enforce C-36, the cops could technically still make arrests, but the province's Attorney-General would not prosecute? Is it working the same way in every province?
As for Montreal, could the city asks its police department to enforce or not enforce a law, not just this one but any law?
Has the government of Québec reacted so far to C-36?

By the way, a person guilty of purchasing sexual services risk a $500 fine for a first offense. They will need to convict a lot of people to a lot of $500... Is it worth the human and financial resources that would be required from LE? Absolutely not, the same way busting massage parlors was a considerable waste of time and resources for the police department. C-36 or not, that fact remains: police departments would surely prefer to invest their resources elsewhere. How do you build a case against two consenting adults agreeing to sell/purchase sexual services anyway? How much time and money do you need to spend in order to do this? It's simply not worth it.

And let's face it, if the new law is not enforced, nobody except a prude or two will complain: people worry and demand the police take action to "protect the communities" when streets are made unsafe by homicides, sexual assaults, etc., or when gang members are engaged in a war, as it happened when a bomb exploded in Hochelaga in the 90s in the middle of the bikers war, causing much anxiety and public outrage. If it's not seriously and frequently enforced, and nobody in the general population cares, they won't be specifically asked for nothing more, and they will be more than happy to avoid the extra workload.

Might just be wishful thinking on my part, but I can see a scenario like this one playing out: PDs in many several Canadian cities will simply not bother enough. I can't see people in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver caring very much either. It might be the best outcome for sex workers in the hope of a fair legislation and another Supreme Court intervention.
From National Post: "Provinces could kill new prostitution law by refusing to enforce it"
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...w-prostitution-law-by-refusing-to-enforce-it/

 

[gugu]

I have a question that maybe someone here could answer. The government of Ontario has asked its Attorney-General to investigate whether the new law is actually protecting sex workers and communities and/or infriging constitutional rights. What I understand from a National Post article I will link to at the bottom of this post, is that if Ontario refuses to enforce C-36, the cops could technically still make arrests, but the province's Attorney-General would not prosecute? Is it working the same way in every province?
As for Montreal, could the city asks its police department to enforce or not enforce a law, not just this one but any law?
Has the government of Québec reacted so far to C-36?

By the way, a person guilty of purchasing sexual services risk a $500 fine for a first offense. They will need to convict a lot of people to a lot of $500... Is it worth the human and financial resources that would be required from LE?

1 The strategy in applying the law is basically discussed between LE and the DPCP (Québec’s general prosecutor). Some general principals are made public by the DPCP. He specifics are not made public however. You will not hear from the DPCP on C-36.

2 There is of course close relation between LE and cities (those having police forces). Those relations go mainly one way: the city getting information and recommended procedures from LE. Most of the time, the City will follow those recommendations. You would have good reasons to believe Paquin (responsible for prostitution at the SPVM), Parent (chief of the SPVM), Samson (responsible for city planning on this issue) and Coderre (mayor) are all following the lines drawn by Paquin. There could be disagreements, but there are none in this specific case. In some cases, the City will inform LE of citizens complaints and ask them to do something. This applies mainly to cases of concentrated street prostitution.

3 Taxation revenues from the sex sector are never quite significant for a city, even one like Amsterdam. However, the city prefers having those revenues than not. Applying C36 and closing indoors (mp being the main ones) is a net relatively small loss for the City. Also, going after clients is a net loss. It means spending in law enforcement without any gain from the fines (these are not cashed by the City).

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

There is just simply no way the SPVM would see things otherwise in a city the size of Montreal with the size of it’s sex sector. If it aint broke don’t fix it. This is why the SPVM has made it’s clear policy statement yesterday: BUSINESS AS USUAL.

Very well put. Can you possibly provide a link to the SPVM statement, if, indeed, it's posted online?

I wonder, as well, if the Harper government wants the law enforced or if the law is simply lip service. Until there's an actual arrest and court challenge, the law will stand. Once there's an arrest and a challenge of the law, it will be struck down. It's probably in the Harper administration's best interests to simply have it there, unenforced, and unchallenged.

 

[gugu]

Here is the link. It's an interview with Le Devoir.

Harper does not have the means to enforce that law. It's mostly a provincial responsibility.

 

[Merlot]

Guys,

I have a question that maybe someone here could answer. The government of Ontario has asked its Attorney-General to investigate whether the new law is actually protecting sex workers and communities and/or infriging constitutional rights. What I understand from a National Post article I will link to at the bottom of this post, is that if Ontario refuses to enforce C-36, the cops could technically still make arrests, but the province's Attorney-General would not prosecute?

It's interesting to see that politics in Canada work much the same as in the U.S.. Make the law first THEN test it's Constitutionality. Get it on the books then try to remove it.

Might just be wishful thinking on my part, but I can see a scenario like this one playing out: PDs in many several Canadian cities will simply not bother enough. I can't see people in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver caring very much either. It might be the best outcome for sex workers in the hope of a fair legislation and another Supreme Court intervention.

We here...on a sex board (note priorities)...can all agree that enforcement of C-36 is going to be a big problem for many good and rational reasons. But let's not forget it got to be a reality in law despite all the logical reasons against it, the question of Constitutionality, and the problem of enforcement. Am I worried. NOPE. As a sometimes visitor, not a chance. For you locals and regulars, you should be reasonably cautious, but not all that worried if you don't take real chances you don't have to.

Still, there was enough support to get the law passed and as long as it is on the books it does offer opportunities and supporters will no doubt try to make make points as well as a political splash about it's legitimacy during any sexual exploitation incidents. At those times who knows how far that may extend a crackdown.

Harper does not have the means to enforce that law. It's mostly a provincial responsibility.

Yes, but does that translate to no enforcement at all? Political and media hype over abuse episodes will force some action. Don't be irrationally fearful, but don't go around like nothing has changed.

take care,

Merlot

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Harper does not have the means to enforce that law. It's mostly a provincial responsibility.

From my read of some of the recent articles in the linked area, I might have been wrong in suggesting that the courts would require an arrest and conviction prior to a challenge. It seems that Ontario's Premier is already planning to contest it before the courts.

 

[gugu]

Yes, but does that translate to no enforcement at all? Political and media hype over abuse episodes will force some action. Don't be irrationally fearful, but don't go around like nothing has changed.

Yes exactly: no enforcement at all. More precisely, nothing will change in enforcement. For the first time in history, more guys then girls were arrested for communication in the public space in 2012. This was the tendency even before the law was passed. All police services we heard from across Canada said they will not change their way to operate. Episodes are unpredictable. If 10 sex workers are killed next year in Montreal, you can expect some action, with or without any law. But acting against day to day johns has zero impact in preventing a serial killer.

From my read of some of the recent articles in the linked area, I might have been wrong in suggesting that the courts would require and arrest and conviction prior to a challenge. It seems that Ontario's Premier is already planning to contest it before the courts.

It would be the perfect solution, but I doubt it will happen. As for a conviction, it's not clear it could lead immediately the a global challenge. The Now magazine in Toronto could challenge the law. But that would be only about publicity. I have no idea for the rest. Alan Young did not show any clear option either. But that could be strategic.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

It would be the perfect solution, but I doubt it will happen.

From my read of the linked article, she is planning to contest the bill now.

As for a conviction, it's not clear it could lead immediately the a global challenge.

If you have a conviction, you can have an appeal. Any appeal of a conviction would have to be based on the constitutionality of the law itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Alan Young stated when he was in front the Senate Justice Committee that with the old laws, if the Prosecution had any hint that an appeal based on the constitutionality was on the horizon, they dropped charges as they knew the provisions would fail the Charter of Rights test.

Well, that makes total sense. However, if the Attorney General of the prosecuting province were of the same mind as the current Premier of Ontario, ie wanting to be rid of C-36, it would behoove him or her to continue the case for the very purpose of seeing it tossed. Certainly the provinces are not in lock-step with the Harper government. (Note that I have very little familiarity with Canadian/provincial government structure. I can, for example, see the AG of the State of (say) Maryland proceed in such a fashion to see a US federal statute thrown out.)

 

[gugu]

Rumple, she has asked the Attorney general for recommendations on the opportunity to do so. It's a very complex constitutional challenge, much more complex than the previous one. It will take some time before the Ontario AG makes up his mind. As for a conviction, it would most probably lead to examining only one or two provisions of the law (communication, publicity or client's criminalization).

 

[Siocnarf]

I wonder, as well, if the Harper government wants the law enforced or if the law is simply lip service. Until there's an actual arrest and court challenge, the law will stand. Once there's an arrest and a challenge of the law, it will be struck down. It's probably in the Harper administration's best interests to simply have it there, unenforced, and unchallenged.

This is also my feeling. This promise to eliminate prostitution is nothing more than another empty electoral promise. His real goal was to replace the old law with something that will serve the same purpose. Even if the law is not enforced, sex work will still be discreet and those people can pretend it's not happening.

This begs the question of how they will evaluate the law in five years (as stated in the bill) if it is not really enforced.

However, if the Attorney General of the prosecuting province were of the same mind as the current Premier of Ontario, ie wanting to be rid of C-36, it would behoove him or her to continue the case for the very purpose of seeing it tossed.

This would be sick and twisted, as it would imply trying to get an innocent person convicted with a law they don't approve in the hope of overturning that law (unless the defendant agrees explicitly to get himself convicted to achieve that goal)

The previous trial was under the civil rule of proceeding, not the criminal rule. For this you don't need a conviction as far as I understand. However a previously convicted defendant is surely useful as they have a clear standing to challenge the law. Anyone can in theory gain standing and challenge a law if they can demonstrate that they are somehow affected by it. From Wikipedia:
''A party must have standing (locus standi) to bring a constitutional challenge to the courts. Those who wish to challenge a law can do so in one of several ways. A party who is directly affected by the law that purports to be unconstitutional has standing as of right. Likewise, rights holder may challenge any law that will limit any of their rights. Those who are not protected by a right but are nonetheless prosecuted by that law may challenge it as well.[nb 5]

Public interest groups may also gain standing if they satisfy the requirements of the Borowski test.[nb 6] The group must demonstrate that the law raises a serious constitutional issue, the group has a genuine interest in the matter, and that there is no other reasonable and effective manner in which the issue may be brought before the Court.''

 

[chadnyc]

Agree with the fear factor. "Unknown" is a powerful motivator and when your imagination kicks in, it can accelerate the pain assumed by the unknown. Think of the police and public. the police are very smart political people. if the choice is between catching some dude and an escort in a hotel room VS street worker and pimp & john publically operating in the street. people visit mtl for food, shopping and sex. blocking safe agencies and girls that voluntary work at VS drive by action, what would you do. prostitution is the worlds oldest profession. why not accept that and regulate things to insure all are safe, protected and eliminate the girls forced into working for pimps and others.