Commons committee abolishing prostitution laws

[joeblow]

Just because either prostitution or marijuana is decriminalized rather than legalized, does not mean that the taxes can conveniently be evaded. As someone mentioned upthread, even ILLEGAL businesses can be taxed. Making the business of prostitution decriminalized rather than legalized simply allows SP's to go about their business without incrimination or fear of incarceration.

Legalization will effectively put the government in a position of a bureaucratic pimp. We DO NOT want this. However, if prostitution is completely decriminalized, then SPs will be in control of thir own bodies and businesses. This does not mean that SPs will be able to evade taxes at all.

I see legalization in an encompasing sense, meaning that agencies will undertake all the general obligations of a regular business, including income tax. Escorts would receive workers' compensation if they catch an STD. All this may or may not affect the selling price. Taxes and contributions to the social safety net would push prices up, but decriminalization would exert downward pressure on prices. No one can predict the net outcome with respect to prices.

As for regulations particular to the escort industry, some kind of periodic STD testing would surely be in order. This creates regulatory compliance costs for the industry, which would be passed on to the clientèle, but I believe these are justified in light of the social cost of propagating STDs.

Your phrase "bureaucratic pimp" is catchy, but devoid of any connection to reality. Pimps may handle the marketing of escorts and may exploit them. Governments would do neither: your marketing is none of their concern, and the taxes they would levy from the industry would serve to pay for health and other services. That is a far cry from pimping.

As an aside, I have a friend who works in a government welfare office, on Cremazie street I believe. Every month, she meets escorts that come to pick up their monthly cheque. They come dressed in their unmistakeable working clothes and sometimes hop into their pimp's car upon exiting the welfare office. Of course, these sexworkers claim to be unemployed. Presumably, they live on a combination of dole and earnings. To solve this problem, the government would have to hire private investigators to follow these people around and prove they actually do earn money. But PIs cost too much, so the taxpayers continue to get fleeced. In that sense, I agree with the Woodworker's rant ( ) : giving jobs to the unemployed, even low-paying ones, is preferable to ddoling out free money.

 

[Magda]

I Repeat:

For the average Joe or John ( as the case may be) the distinction between decriminalization and legalization is rather blurred. I mean it's all just semantics isn't it?

If prostitution is legal then why should it be exempt from tax? Or regualation ?
I mean my manufacturing business is subject to this so why isnt every legal commercial enterprise ?

It does not matter whether a business is legalized, decriminalized or illegal. All income is subject to taxation. Decriminalizing prostitution does not exempt sex workers from taxation, neither does the fact that it is partially illegal, (that part being the communication, predominately).

 

[HonestAbe]

Audit

I have a friend who works in a government welfare office, on Cremazie street I believe. Every month, she meets escorts that come to pick up their monthly cheque. They come dressed in their unmistakeable working clothes and sometimes hop into their pimp's car upon exiting the welfare office. Of course, these sexworkers claim to be unemployed. Presumably, they live on a combination of dole and earnings. To solve this problem, the government would have to hire private investigators to follow these people around and prove they actually do earn money. But PIs cost too much, so the taxpayers continue to get fleeced.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. The part about PI's though strikes me as a glaringly inefficient way to garner evidence against a purported tax cheat. If you have ever had the misfortune of being audited by the IRS, and I hope you haven't, you would be shocked at how hard it is to prove your innocence which is precisely what you must do! Agents have the authority to subpoena nearly anything they wish, including phone records, Credit card bills, employment history, and what you ate for lunch yesterday LOL!

The problem got so bad that changes had to be made recently making it a bit harder for them to declare you guilty until proven innocent without having some reason to come after you in the first place. That being said, how hard would it be to simply call up every single agency in Montreal and book every girl possible, have them show up at different hotel rooms where agents would meet them with many interesting questions, threaten to press charges against them(collecting welfare while earning income and not reporting it or paying taxes is a felony) and send them to prison and see how quickly they spill the beans on everything and everyone they know.

This happens in other industries where there is widespread tax evasion, like the bar/restaurant industry, where they take all the bartenders and waitresses aside and give them a chance to fess up. They are assessed penalties but escape serious action if they come forward. If you do not come forward you must be prepared to open your rear end and allow them to shine a flashlight up your ass. Not fun, but if you are innocent you must endure it. I don't wish that on anyone. Be honest and save yourself a government fisting. I don't know, maybe Canada is different.

 

[joeblow]

HA,

I don't know much about the methods of our federal and provincial revenue collection agencies, but I believe they have less bite than those of your IRS. Perhaps they should be toughened up indeed.

Btw, you are beginning to sound just like EB

 

[Magda]

Exactly ! So why does it really matter whether it is legalized or "decriminalized" ?

Good question.

I will answer that and this next quote with one shot....

Your phrase "bureaucratic pimp" is catchy, but devoid of any connection to reality. Pimps may handle the marketing of escorts and may exploit them. Governments would do neither: your marketing is none of their concern, and the taxes they would levy from the industry would serve to pay for health and other services. That is a far cry from pimping.

Legalizing prostitution gives the government authority over regulating the sex trade industry. Thus, they will place controls on the market (and marketing, therefore). The government's understanding of the business is very limited and will most likely be set up in the government's favour, and to the requested specifications of anti-prostitution lobbyists and/or agency owners. This is just oppression in a different form than the current law. Unless of course, if sex workers were consulted about regulations regarding their trade. In that case - if sex workers were actually consulted to create appropriate regulations and standards, then I think most sex workers would celebrate legalization. I personally would love to see some enforced regulations, but even in a currently legalized aspect of sex work - exotic dancing, the regulations seem to only benefit the government and the owners of strip clubs. The actual labourers are practically invisible and without political clout. This is because the actual labourers of the exotic dance industry are without political organization.

For example: When the Crown decided that lapdancing and contact dancing was innocuous, they never asked the labourers of the trade how they felt about this. The whole industry changed almost overnight and there was very little we could do about it. This is a LEGAL occupation that is controlled by a government that appeals to the business owners and not the labourers - unless the workers are unionized or organized, to give themselves a voice.

The issue is control over our own bodies, lives and businesses. If prostitution is decriminalized first, then we can organize and negotiate intelligently our needs as labourers in the sex trade industry. Then, and only then, can legalization have a beneficial impact on the trade.

Decriminalizing first will give us the ability to conduct business without fear, (for both client or SW), of criminal reprecussions.

In the meantime, while we are organizing to oppose the criminalization of prostitution, we are creating a significant network for the unionizing of the trade. Once prostitution is decriminalized, we can then work closely with governing bodies to legislate appropriate regulations for the safety, protection and rights of sex workers and their clientelle.

 

[bond_james_bond]

Nevada

If the Nevada brothels are an example of legalized prostitution in North America, I don't think we'd want legalization.

The prices are outrageous and no more GFE! I heard that even DATY in Nevada has to be done with Saran Wrap! I vaguely recall hearing the same about brothels in Australia.

For us guys, legalization would mean extra attention and regulation paid towards the industry in general. Everything would be "safe", too "safe", and the GFE you enjoy now would be a thing of the past.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of incall or street action, so the law in Canada seems fine the way it is.

 

[Nugie]

Legalizing prostitution gives the government authority over regulating the sex trade industry. Thus, they will place controls on the market (and marketing, therefore).

Bonus side effect: SP`s now graded by government regulators as though they are sides of beef.

Instead of pondering whether or not your dinner guests will be able to appreciate the difference in taste between a choice tenderloin and a prime tenderloin, (in my hypothetical fantasy world) SP`s would now be required to carry identification cards reading, ``GFE, TCCIM, DFK``.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous; it`s meant to. But maybe then would we finally get an answer to what the difference is between GFE and GFE++.

And since JB was kind enough to bring up medical MJ, I had to share this Moment of Stupid with the Americans here - last night, during the gubernatorial debate in NJ, both candidates were asked their opinions about medical MJ. Um... as if the governor of a state has any control over a federal regulatory agency. Might as well have asked them if they thought NJ should start printing its own currency.

 

[Nugie]

IMHO, decriminilization speaks mostly to the concept of raising criminal standards/thresholds to the level where nothing can be prosecuted except for the most egregious acts...

This isn't so far fetched of an idea. Not to pick on the MJ issue as an example, but there's a big difference between having to pay for a government-issued license to sell it and simply not being prosecuted for possession of anything less then a pound.

I know lots of kids that mow lawns around my neighborhood. Do there exist regulations governing that sort of thing? You betcha. It simply isn't enforced. It probably would never be enforced until there was a problem that couldn't be ignored.

 

[HonestAbe]

What can I say?

HA, you are beginning to sound just like EB

My lifes aspiration finally reached. Thank You.

 

[joeblow]

Legalizing prostitution gives the government authority over regulating the sex trade industry. Thus, they will place controls on the market (and marketing, therefore). The government's understanding of the business is very limited and will most likely be set up in the government's favour, and to the requested specifications of anti-prostitution lobbyists and/or agency owners. This is just oppression in a different form than the current law. Unless of course, if sex workers were consulted about regulations regarding their trade. In that case - if sex workers were actually consulted to create appropriate regulations and standards, then I think most sex workers would celebrate legalization. I personally would love to see some enforced regulations, but even in a currently legalized aspect of sex work - exotic dancing, the regulations seem to only benefit the government and the owners of strip clubs. The actual labourers are practically invisible and without political clout. This is because the actual labourers of the exotic dance industry are without political organization.

Could you be more precise as to which industry-specific regulations you would welcome and which you fear? In this discussion, I think we have to go beyond symbols and scarecrows to build a better understanding of the issues at stake.

For example: When the Crown decided that lapdancing and contact dancing was innocuous, they never asked the labourers of the trade how they felt about this. The whole industry changed almost overnight and there was very little we could do about it. This is a LEGAL occupation that is controlled by a government that appeals to the business owners and not the labourers - unless the workers are unionized or organized, to give themselves a voice.

The issue is control over our own bodies, lives and businesses. If prostitution is decriminalized first, then we can organize and negotiate intelligently our needs as labourers in the sex trade industry. Then, and only then, can legalization have a beneficial impact on the trade.

Decriminalizing first will give us the ability to conduct business without fear, (for both client or SW), of criminal reprecussions.

In the meantime, while we are organizing to oppose the criminalization of prostitution, we are creating a significant network for the unionizing of the trade. Once prostitution is decriminalized, we can then work closely with governing bodies to legislate appropriate regulations for the safety, protection and rights of sex workers and their clientelle.

I understand your view is couched in a political analysis: which group's interest will prevail in future (hypothetical) regulations: the agency owners' or the sexworkers', or the government's or the anti-prostitution lobby's.

You speak of unionization as if the pimps that run these agency's were like regular employers. Hell, some of them run an agency out of the front seat of their car! I'm not taking their side, just questioning how much political clout they really have, in comparison to a recognized/subsidized organisation like Stella or its likeminded affiliates. Close to zero in my view... And what is the government's interest in this issue? I'd say public health and safety, and bringing sexwork into the taxable economy. Nothing wrong with that to me... As for the anti-prostitution lobby, I don't know (does such a thing exist?), please explain what their agenda is.

I think the political impetus for a government to move on decriminalisation/regulation would have to do with protecting SPs from Vancouver-like dramas, just like the firearms registry in Canada originated from the Polytechnique massacre, and the crackdown on Hell's Angels in Quebec got serious when a 11-year old bystanding boy got killed by a car bomb intented for an opponent in the war of gangs. The economic issues, for all parties involved, come second.

If I were in your shoes (I am assuming you work at Stella), I'd hurry to articulate a platform on the regulation that would be acceptable to you, and promote that platform through an attractive spokesperson (that should not be too hard to find ) on all the public affairs television shows. A proactive approach, whereby you would position sexworkers front and center to the debate seems wiser to me than the three-step strategy I understand you are pursuing (first decriminalisation, then unionization to develop a "rapport de forces", then regulation). I agree with Train on that: it won't happen like in that scenario because you don't control the agenda, the government does.

 

[Magda]

Certainly it is just semantics, and an unfortunate choice of nomenclature, especially since it is backwards.

"Decriminalisation" in its ordinary sense (not in the sense it is used in the current prostitution debate) merely means that the impugned activity is no longer a violation of the criminal law. It does not mean that it is made legal. There are many many illegal activities which are not criminal (most traffic offenses are illegal but not criminal). "Decriminalisation" means that the activity is not criminal, but may still be illegal. Non-criminal offenses are typically punished by fines while criminal offenses carry the risk of a gaol term.

"Legalisation" implies that the activity is no longer illegal, meaning that it no longer violates ANY laws, be they criminal laws, provincial laws, municipal by-laws etc. Legalisation implies a far lesser regulation than mere decriminalisation.

Unfortunately in the context of the prostitution debate, those who have framed the terms of the debate got the terminology backwards, so we likely have to live with it.



As for taxes, until wives and girlfriends view a trip to the brothel as any other male activity such as going to the hockey or football games, the sex trade will continue to operate in a clandestine manner - meaning it will be part of the cash economy. Cash businesses never report all of their income.

No, the terms aren't backwards. I am certain that after ten years of Stella fighting for the rights of sex workers (and various other sex workers' organizations internationally) that they have a bit of clue as to the definitions and implications of terms like "decriminalize" and "legalize". There is a difference if we understand the semantics (which, BTW, quite literally means "the study of meanings").

Please read this article on Legalization vs. Decriminalization of Private Sexwork

Legalization hasn't worked as well as decriminalization, mostly
because legalization includes heavy criminalization of prostitution
that occurs outside the legal framework; thus the problems of illegal
prostitution live on even though it's been legalized.

So, your assertion that:"Legalisation implies a far lesser regulation than mere decriminalisation.", is incorrect.


Australia
Different states in Australia have different approaches to legislation. Some states it is completely illegal and in others it may be regulated to just include outcall service and/or brothels. The Tasmanian sex industry is the only totally unregulated state in Australia, regarding prostitution. However, it is mostly run by motorcycle clubs and underworld criminals.

Nevada
According to COYOTE (Call Of Your Old Tired Ethics), in the legalized system (ie. Nevada) prostitutes end up exchanging on exploitive system for another. Many prostitutes do not want to have to work in a brothel, but it is the only accepted format of sex work there. Brothel prostitutes work as independent contractors and thus do not receive any unemployment, retirement or health benefits. The women typically work for a period of several weeks, during which time they live in the brothel and hardly ever leave it. They then take some time off. It has been argued that the tight control that brothels exert over the working conditions precludes the women from legally being classified as independent contractors.


There are many other countries that have decriminalized or legalized prostitution, including: New Zealand, Mexico, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, England and even Iran.

ONe argument for the legalization over decriminalization is the regulation of STD/STI with required regular testing for workers. Sex worker organizations are generally opposed to this. Not because we wish to be neglectful, but because this type of regulation only serves to protect the client and not the sex worker - as client do not need to show proof they are disease free and the SW is still at risk. As mentioned in the article I linked to, often if clients are shown this medical proof (which in some countries is required of SWs to provide clients) then the client pressures the SW for bareback service.

The concept of something being in effect "outside of the law" i.e. decriminalized is never going to happen , in my opinion, except by some acccident of circumstances. It is hard to make an argument that bureaucrats and the public at large will buy. A few stories of underage prostitution and/or exploitive pimps or agencies and the dream of legal but no regs or controls is over. Let's face it the industry has shown absolutely no ability to self regulate in the past so why would lawmakers assume it would be capable of doing so in a "decriminalized " state?

Decriminaliztion does not mean "outside of the law". AND the reason the industry has not "shown the ability to self regulate" is because it currently is not completely illegal! Without the freedom to run our business without reprecussion most definately impedes self regulating within the industry.

I think you would be more likely to get legalization with upfront input from the industry concerning regulations.

Well, this is exactly what Stella is trying to do along with support from many other Sex worker organizations around the world. It is a process, but if so many other countries can achieve this, so can we as Canadians.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of incall or street action, so the law in Canada seems fine the way it is.

Well no, it isn't. Our laws do not protect the worker or the client. It simply protects the moralistic and uniformed conservative public from their imagined horrors of the sex trade. Meanwhile, it is those very laws that these constituents approve of that perpetuate the very conditions that are offensive to them. Such as: minor sex trafficking, manipulation and coercion by pimps, violence against women, drug abuse, etcetera...

Magda,

I have always been under the impression that (private)communication over the phone for outcall is totally legal, however, communication in public for the purposes of prostitution was illegal. Am I wrong?

No. You are correct, HA. However, I seem to recall that cell phones are not regarded as private (as opposed to a landline), and could be considered illegal. In the case of solicitation, it is indeed a matter of public or private commmunication.

Another question for us to ponder, and hopefully to be answered:

Living off the avails of prostitution is illegal, correct? So doesn't it stand to reason that only the owner can be found guilty of this "crime"? Or is it that the client and Sp can both be held somehow complicit since the service was booked through an agency?

Both can be charged with living off the avails. Actually (and this shocked me when I was informed of it), a sex worker's children can be charged for living off the avails, as the law is now in Canada! can you believe that!? Also, so can anyone who lives with a sex worker and shares expenses with them. Taxi drivers can also be charged with transporting a sex worker for the purposes of prostitution.

Read for yourself...

The Canadian Criminal Code regarding Solicitation & Prostitution

ARTICLE 210: The act of operating or being found in a bawdy house, (a place
maintained, occupied by, or visited by one or more persons with the
objective of prostitution, or of commiting indecent acts. )

ARTICLE 211: The act of taking, or of transporting, someone to a bawdy
house.

ARTICLE 212: The act of influencing a person to practice prostitution, or of
living completely, or partially, from the revenues of prostitution.

ARTICLE 213: The act of communicating, in a public place, with the objective
of practicing prostitution.


Prostitution is not illegal in Canda? What a crock. What is currently whitewashed as a code to protect the citizens of Canada
only serves to oppress and to facilltate harm that far exceeds the initial
so-called "crime" of solicitation because of the ill-informed perceptions of hoi polloi regarding prostitution.

 

[Nugie]

I can't believe I missed that in a previous post.

There's no right-to-privacy for cell phone conversations?

Does Canada use the same standard (average person/reasonable expectation of privacy) as the US? Is the technology needed to intercept cellular communications now so prevalent and available to the average citizen that it is no longer a protected interest?

 

[Magda]

In the case of prostituion, Parliament will have to address the constitutional issue. While both the criminal law and the regulation of interprovincial and international trade and commerce are within the jurisdiction of Parliament, regulation of business within a province has been held to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. So Parliament could repeal provisions of the criminal code dealing with prostitution, but would have no say in how each of the individual provinces would chose to regulate the industry. Even if Parliament were so inclined, the federal authorities cannot prevent a province from regulating the sex business. Thus to achieve the utopia of legalisation without regulation (or "decriminalisation" to use the new nomenclature), would require the cooperation of both orders of government.

Well, yes. Of course all levels of government need to be considered when trying to change law. Is your didacticism out of concern that the Sex Worker's Rights movement in Canada is unaware?

AND...

Of course there is a need to have some regulation if sex work is decriminalized. I know that appropriate regulations would be welcomed by sex workers. You see, decriminalizing will swing the door wide open for abuse and exploitation. Those of us that are working to create these changes are supportive of regulations that are made for the rights of the workers and client, but keeping in context of free enterprise.

Main Entry: free enterprise
Function: noun
: freedom of private business to organize and operate for profit in a competitive system without interference by government beyond regulation necessary to protect public interest and keep the national economy in balance

Your statement "utopia of legalisation without regulation" is not what anyone is expecting, at all. However, making labour regulations without consulting the labourers is simply the actions of an irresponsible government.

You see this in the strip club business, where Ottawa has no rôle, save for the immigration status of dancers who are not Canadian citizens, but where the provinces and municipalities regulate the industry through the liquor permit process and by-laws. I understand that individual dancers must have licenses for Ontario, but no such requirement exists in Quebec.

Ah, the strip club business...now here is a perfect example of our government being irresponsible and not concerning itself with the work and lives of those who work in the business. Laws were changed without consulting or even reviewing the needs of the labourers. The business is completely legal and regulated. However, those regulations, inadequate or inappropriate or not, are only enforced on occassion. Not that those regulations in anyway provide protection or consideration for the exotic dancer, but it actually condemns dancers to simply deal with the current situation, tolerate sometimes unethical club managment tactics, and the increasing pressure to perform sex acts in strip clubs in some regions. This is because of the lack of understanding of the ripple effect of allowing contact. Now I am not against contact per se, but no one considered that maybe some dancers did not wish to have contact but are now forced to compete alongside dancers that do. Club owners decided to offer up "their dancers" breasts and buttocks in order to gain profits, while at the time cutting all wages to dancers. Dancers are expected to put out, or shut up and don't complain that they are unable to make money because they do not want to give contact dances. Please do not tell me that a dancer doesn't have to provide some contact and can choose to do airdances. We all know from the reviews here that contact is desired by customers in strip clubs and therefore, due to it's legalization, if dancers don't allow contact chances are their income will greatly decrease. Please keep in mind that I am not for or against contact dancing, but the decision to legalize it changed our business without even trying to consult a good majority of us for our input.

Of course, it would be helpful if erotic dancers (I prefer "erotic" over "exotic") had a union to do this but that is another difficult issue as it is not looked favourably upon by club owners. Being organized and having political clout as a union would take a lot of control over dancers away from strip club owners and management. Precisely why decisions can be about us and not for us or by us. Obviously this needs to change so we can have some control over our working environment. There are concerns by many dancers that if they are part of a union, clubs simply won't hire them. We shall see about this...

In order to avoid losing control over our business and lives, prostitutes, escorts and other sex workers are becoming much more cohesive. Our solidarity will force the government to consider our rights as legitimate labourers and independant businesses. It is the very fact that one can prostitute autonomously and not have to work at an establishment that gives us the ability to make these demands of the government. We do not have to worry about going up against owners opposing our demands in favour of their own interests. Agencies may have to adjust to meet proper standards of practice, as they are not entirely necessary, but can be helpful tools for sex workers. We can self regulate in this sense, with the support of the government, both provincial and federal. We need the government to help enforce the decisions that are made in conjunction with us and mediate the needs and rights of the general public, clients, and most definately sex workers.

Regulation can be good if given careful consideration as to the impact on the business and workers those regulations will have. Simply rushing into legalizing prostitution will result in the government making legislation that serves the interest other lobby groups, but still impacts our business and our control over our own bodies. Decriminalizing gives sex workers control over theemselves as the government is not supposed to start imposing all sorts of regulations. If they want to do that, and control the industry more, they would have to legalize the industry.

A few examples of regulations that the government might make if prostitution is legalized that threaten the business and lives of sex workers:

- making prostitution only possible in a brothel setting
- demanding that sex workers meet a certain quota per year
- possibly limiting certain practices and/or controlling how we use our bodies
- forcing us to report the names of our clients, and so forth...

Just a few reasons.
-

 

[naughtylady]

As for regulations particular to the escort industry, some kind of periodic STD testing would surely be in order. This creates regulatory compliance costs for the industry, which would be passed on to the clientèle, but I believe these are justified in light of the social cost of propagating STDs.

What strikes me about this statement is that it takes on the assumption that it is the prostitute who is responsible for the spread of STIs and not the client. If it is not the client, who is infecting the SP?

With this in mind I think that everybody who is sexually active chould be checked for STIs during their annual check-ups as a matter of routine testing. Those at higher risk should be tested more often. Even those who are married and believe themselves to be in a monogamous relationship need to be tested annually; based on the statistics reguarding adultry.

This way nobody is being singled out for testing, and nobody needs to be stigmatised by becoming a "known" prostitute. Some countries (such as the USA) will not allow "known" prostitutes to cross their borders and enter their country.

Originally Posted by bond_james_bond
Personally, I'm not a big fan of incall or street action, so the law in Canada seems fine the way it is.

Originally Posted by joeblow
... And what is the government's interest in this issue? I'd say public health and safety, and bringing sexwork into the taxable economy.

All income is taxable regardless of how it is earned. (Even the money you earned at your garage sale; which all you law abiding citizens obviously declare!)

Sex work, like any other all cash business will have its discrepancies between actual income and declared income. As for SPs who get welfare, they are no different that any one else who works under the table and claims welfare. In other words, there willl always be those out there who cheat the system. Sex workers do not need to be singled out in this regard.

The problem with the current laws, is they allow, in fact encourage sex workers, especially those who work the street or incalls, to work in dangerous conditions.

It is hard to protect yourself from clients when you are busy trying to protect yourself from LE.

Street girls, more and more are being pushed away from visible bust street corners at night into industrial areas where nobody will see them. However this way they ear even more vulnerable. LE likes to break up groups of girls who work together on corners. Makes them less obvious. This also means nobody is taking down plate #s and paying attention to how long someone is gone for after she gets into the vehicule. One of the many reasons Robert Picton got away with murdering all those SW (27 and still counting; out of 60 missing in total) was that they were easy targets and the girls had noone to go to for help. Street workers risked getting themselves busted if they went to report a missing girl. Even family members who went to the police were told that their worries were probably unfounded because the missing women were probably just laying low to avoid LE.

By making incalls illegal, you take away the safety advantages that legal brothels can offer. I don't think it is really necessary for me to name them...


Sex workers rights are human rights. We want the right to police protection from criminal attacks. We want good health care; where we are treated with respec and dignity. To be counted as part of the public when you say "public health and safety"


Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[joeblow]

Un rapport recommande au gouvernement de décriminaliser la prostitution

Copied from an online news site:

OTTAWA/MONTREAL (PC) - Dans un rapport rendu public aujourd'hui, le Réseau juridique canadien VIH/SIDA recommande au gouvernement fédéral de décriminaliser la pratique de la prostitution.

Le rapport demande aux autorités de veiller à ce que la santé, la sécurité et les droits humains, garantis à toute personne au Canada, soient aussi accordés aux travailleurs sexuels.

Claire Thiboutot, directrice générale de Stella, un organisme montréalais de soutien aux travailleurs du sexe et qui appuie ce rapport, affirme qu'il est légal, au Canada, d'échanger des rapports sexuels contre de l'argent. Elle rappelle que c'est la sollicitation qui est illégale et qu'en conséquence les travailleurs sexuels ne peuvent pas exercer leur métier dans la sécurité et sans mettre leur santé en danger.

Selon Mme Thiboutot, la criminalisation des activités entourant la prostitution pousse les travailleurs sexuels dans des situations qui les exposent à la discrimination, à la violence et à la possibilité de contracter le VIH.

 

[joeblow]

UK Government moves to facilitate incall

... according to an account I read in today's JdM. The full policy is here:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-paying-the-price/

and the media spin, which puts the focus on combatting street prostitution, is here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/Nl1/Newsroom/NewsroomArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10031254&chk=LspW7x

If someone has the time to read the policy paper and report back to us, that would be great.