Government Advisory Council Recommends Decriminalization

[joeblow]

The Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, a Quebec government advisory body, yesterdeay called for the decriminalization of prostitution, or more precisely of the anti-sollicitation section in the Canadian criminal code.

"Le CPJ réclame la fin de la répression de l’exercice de la prostitution. Il recommande en ce sens la décriminalisation des activités des femmes et des hommes qui exercent la prostitution ainsi que celles de leurs clients, dans les cas où ces derniers obtiennent les services de personnes prostitué(e)s d’âge majeur."

More at: http://www.cpj.gouv.qc.ca/fr/comm.html

 

[joeblow]

Link to the report: http://www.cpj.gouv.qc.ca/fr/pdf/avis_prostitution.pdf

 

[Lawless]

EB
Don't get excited, we are years away from it in Canada!
Any pressure group notwithstandung!!!!
Voters rule!

 

[Legolas]

I'm not a lawyer but in our context decriminalization and legalization are different things.

I believe decriminalization means its still illegal but you can't get a criminal record for doing it. I guess the penalties are fisical. Since its still illegal, it would be inconsistent to establish standards.

Legalization means its legal. You can tax (GST, etc) and set standards.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Legalization or decriminalization will never happen!

About 5 years ago, the cheif of police in Toronta announced that they will not arrest girls working the streets unless they cause a nuisance. Around the same time the Montreal police announced that they would be doing the same, they were met with all sorts of protest from women, womens groups, religious organizations, and resisdents groups from the Ontario street area. The Montreal police quickly retracted their announcement. I suspect the police appied the law after that but slowly increased their tolorance. The police will now stop and check the sex workers I.D. and will only take them in if they have outatanding warrants or unpaid fines. The only other time the police might get involved is if the sex worker is under 18.
The general population is not aware that the police will not bother sex workers if they abide by certain rules. On the street if girls are not obvious or pressing and persistant, they are allowed to ply their trade. Escort agencies are allowed to advertise and see clients as long as they do not use underaged girls. The proof of this is in the countless numbers of agencies that advertise in the newspapers. Examples of toleration are the Pussycat and Massage plus. These places ply their trade behind closed doors, but if you call them up they will tell you exactly what you will be getting naming the price and the act on the telephone.
The situation now with prostitution parallels marijuana use. Just in the last 18 months there is an increased tolorance of marijuana use in Canada. A Montreal policeman told me that if he saw a young person on the street using marijuana, all he could do is to take away the joint and send him on his way. There is a change in attitude towards prostitution in Montreal because society is changing rapidly, people are changing, the economy is evolving. We live in a world community now, where changes are communicated instantly around the world via internet and television. Things like images of Brittany Spears and Jannet Jacksons tits influence our thoughts and oppinions of what is right and wrong, and what is acceptable and what is not.
IHO, I do not think that there will be any decriminalization or legalization of prostitution, due to the fact that in this quickly changing society of ours we are still hypocritical. Even if we are of the opinion that prostitution should be legalized, our wives and girl friends will not allow us the privilage to speak our minds on this matter. Slow acceptance and increased tolorance is the way to go on this matter.

 

[Not-a-Homo]

Translation: I want Canadians to lobby politicians to make it easier for your sisters and daughters to become a cheap sex resource for us American sex tourists.

 

[joeblow]

Decriminalization and regulation

Well I'm for decriminalization and also for regulation of the SP industry, especially for public health reasons. If SPs had to register with some sort of government agency, perhaps their CLSC (local health clinics), they could be required to take tests on a regular basis and thus stem the propagation of STDs. If they were above-the-table workers, they or their employers would have to contribute to the CSST (workers' compensation) and in turn could benefit from that insurance program when they catch an STD. As of now, an STD-diagnosed SP who acts responsibly and stops working gets no income support whatsoever. Her incentive is to continue working and spreading the disease. Remember Tammy's story in the "GFE not safe" thread?

The argument that decriminalization & regulation would push prices up is valid but incomplete. D&R would also probably increase supply in the marketplace, since the illegal and unsafe nature of the industry may discourage some women from entering it. These 2 factors would push prices in opposing directions, and it's hard to predict the net outcome. Prices could perhaps rise of fall a bit, but in any case I value my health more than that.

JB

 

[naughtylady]

Interesting thread...thought you might like to know, prostitution is not, nor ever was illegal in Canada. Soliciting is. Operating, or being found in a bawdy house is. Living off the avails is. Influencing a person to practice is.

An escort who does out calls only, is prudent in her advertising and communicating, limits the possibilities of legal problems. On the other hand a girl who does incalls risks being founf to be operating or being found in a bawdy house.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[naughtylady]

I am legally allowed to support myself through prostitution, I may not support anybody else, if I have a roommate than they are breaking the law because they are partially living off the avails. It doesn't make sense but what can I say. the law reads:

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

Ronnie

 

[MotJuste]

Originally posted by StripperLover
NaughtyLady,

The article states it clearly, that no one is permitted to live fully or partially from the revenues of prostitution, so I don't understand how you conclude that you are allowed support yourself off of the revenues of prostitution, fully or partially ?

The problem here is that Ronnie has not quoted the actual text of the law. When she started citing these articles, she at least had said that it was a summary -- however distorted it might be -- and sometimes added her own personal commentary. The intro she gave above is misleading inasmuch as she now says "the law reads". Article 212 of the Criminal Code prohibits a series of acts relating to procuring or pimping, and what is quoted describes only one of ten sub-paragraphs listing the prohibitions. The actual text of what the summary seems to be describing reads "lives wholy or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person".

 

[E B Samaritano]

Ronnie is the only person on this thread who has any idea of what she's talking about.

EBS

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

The terms decriminalization and legalization are both non-specific, although legalization usually implies more government regulation. This article summarizes the changes that New Zealand made last year that were described as decriminalization.

They seemed to think it would cause prices to increase,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisp...n=news&thesubsection=general&reportid=1162602

but the more populated states of Australia have been through this already and their rates don't look to be much different from Canada.
http://www.club316.com.au/html/rates.html

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Ottawa Citizen editorial on the report pointed out there is no purpose for keeping the laws the way they are now. Except for the public communicating law, they're not enforced much, and public soliciting doesn't seem like a serious enough transgression to be a criminal offence.

It's too bad that the federal politicians are so afraid of this subject that they ignore it. In looking over the stories about New Zealand, it looks like all decriminalization really means is that control is passed down to the municipal level, where the city councils decide if and where they want to allow brothels. That's just what happens already with strip clubs and massage parlours. In 1995, Toronto city Council passed a motion asking the federal government to do this by decriminalizing prostitution.

It was a private members bill (that passed by one vote) that decriminalized prostitution in New Zealand. Since the parties are all afraid of this issue, maybe that's what would be needed here. I think all parties with the possible exception of the Conservatives would probably allow a free vote. NDP's Libby Davies of Vancouver wants the laws to be changed.