For those of us who exclusively use outcall how will the new law effect us? If we use known agencies we should b good bcuz as it is we only pay for company, anything else that may happen is just by happenstance between consenting adults, so undecover policewoman would b the only way and ud have to actually come out and say im giving u this $ for sexual services, this is something i have never done anyways, i dont sit there and talk about what i wanna do, we chit chat for a few mins she goes to the bathroom comes out and we get it on, never had to have a discussion about it! I think we should b good
It's Official Canada has adopted Nordic Model Prostitution Law
- Thread starter jons242
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
As far as using our reviews as evidence thats impossible, it could b all bullshit and lies on here, in the us u cant b arrested for drugs if ur seen on video smoking drugs, because there is no way for them to prove that the substance was actually drugs, i believe the same logic would apply here, prove what i wrote actually happened, shit prove ive even really met that girl in person!!
From what I read it is paying for advertising that will be illegal...So applied to me it means advertising on Merb will be a problem but it is my only paying venue, my site is free hosted and I do not advertises anywhere else that requires a fee...
It is sites like Merb that have to find a way to allow us to keep advertising or I guess I will just continue but keeping a,even more,lower profile...
You know there is a way around the advertising part of the law and merb. Make merb paid membership and advertisers advertise for free. Or only individual girls pay for ads. They arr exempt. Lily won't you be exempt since you are now a victim?
L
Lily from Montreal
Yes they say sp are victims (!) and guys are perverts....
It makes my blood boil when someone implies I am a victim...nobody can make me do something I do not want...I admit being on the stubborn side loll so implying I am a sp because I am a helpless victim is beyond insulting...
It makes my blood boil when someone implies I am a victim...nobody can make me do something I do not want...I admit being on the stubborn side loll so implying I am a sp because I am a helpless victim is beyond insulting...
The thing is, escorts are not considered victim of the crime. They are considered victims of circumstances that make them irresponsible for their actions and incapable of giving consent. Now I wonder why they are not trying to apply that logic to all the crimes? Female drug dealers and burglars would rarely choose those jobs if they had better alternatives.
I think that is their goal. They try to do everything to make it go invisible without criminalizing the workers themselves. It's obvious they are trying to protect the sensibilities of their voters and not the workers.
The difference with the previous law is that the goal is different. Before, it was legal and laws were meant to prevent public nuisance. Now it would be illegal and laws would aim to eradicate prostitution. When people complain that it will make it more dangerous they say no one is forcing them to do that and if they don't like it they can find some other job. They can argue that making the job more dangerous is just an acceptable price to pay to achieve that ''good'' goal. In that respect one could argue that it does not violate the Charter.
However, their argument is that most woman are forced or cannot stop without help, so they are increasing the risk of violence for a group of persons that are not in a position to quit. I think that would make it a breach of human rights and would also be inconstitutional, even if they don't recognize the right to make a living from that job.
One part of the law mystifies me. Why outlaw advertising? This will drive prostitution further underground, making it more diffocult for LE. No one has ever said lawmakers are smart or have common sense.
I think that is their goal. They try to do everything to make it go invisible without criminalizing the workers themselves. It's obvious they are trying to protect the sensibilities of their voters and not the workers.
The difference with the previous law is that the goal is different. Before, it was legal and laws were meant to prevent public nuisance. Now it would be illegal and laws would aim to eradicate prostitution. When people complain that it will make it more dangerous they say no one is forcing them to do that and if they don't like it they can find some other job. They can argue that making the job more dangerous is just an acceptable price to pay to achieve that ''good'' goal. In that respect one could argue that it does not violate the Charter.
However, their argument is that most woman are forced or cannot stop without help, so they are increasing the risk of violence for a group of persons that are not in a position to quit. I think that would make it a breach of human rights and would also be inconstitutional, even if they don't recognize the right to make a living from that job.
Hi alThe thing is, escorts are not considered victim of the crime. They are considered victims of circumstances that make them irresponsible for their actions and incapable of giving consent. Now I wonder why they are not trying to apply that logic to all the crimes? Female drug dealers and burglars would rarely choose those jobs if they had better alternatives.
And Hi Siocnarf
Is this new law and debate at the house Of Commons really about consent I quote the amendments in law made by the Harper government in 2008 !
Laws must be fluid and no contradictory not to open space for challenge in appeal courts like the previous prostitution was because of The Canadian Charter of rights that entrenched in the Canadian Constitution in 1982 !
Age of Consent to Sexual Activity
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the "age of consent" or "age of protection" mean?
The age of consent, also known as the "age of protection", refers to the age at which a young person can legally consent to sexual activity. All sexual activity without consent, regardless of age, is a criminal offence.
To what kind of sexual activity does this apply?
The age of consent laws apply to all forms of sexual activity, ranging from sexual touching (e.g., kissing) to sexual intercourse.
What is Canada's age of consent?
The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act.
However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person's age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person.
Are there any exceptions to this?
The Criminal Code provides "close in age" or "peer group" exceptions.
For example, a 14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. This means that if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity will be considered a criminal offence unless it occurs after they are married to each other (in accordance with the "solemnization" of marriage requirements that are established in each province and territory, governing how and when a marriage can be performed, including the minimum age at which someone may marry).
There is also a "close-in-age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds: a 12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with another young person who is less than two years older and with whom there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or other exploitation of the young person.
Are 16 and 17 year olds also protected against sexual exploitation?
The Criminal Code protects 16 and 17 year olds against sexual exploitation, where the sexual activity occurs within a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or where there is other exploitation. Whether a relationship is considered to be exploiting the 16 or 17 year old will depend upon the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the age of the young person, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person. As well, 16 and 17 year olds cannot consent to sexual activity that involves prostitution or pornography.
What are the actual Criminal Code offences against child sexual abuse and exploitation?
The Criminal Code protects all Canadians, including children, against sexual abuse and exploitation. For example, the Criminal Code contains offences that protect everyone against all forms of sexual assault (section 271); sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm (section 272); and aggravated sexual assault (section 273), voyeurism (section 162), obscenity (section 163) and trafficking in persons (section 279.01).
Children are also protected by child-specific offences in the Criminal Code. These offences include the following:
Sexual Interference (section 151) - no one can touch any part of the body of a child under the age of 16 for a sexual purpose. The penalty for this offence is a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of up to a maximum of 10 years;
Invitation to Sexual Touching (section 152) - no one can invite a child under the age of 16 to touch himself/herself or them for a sexual purpose. The penalty for this offence is a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of up to a maximum of 10 years;
Sexual Exploitation (section 153) - no one in a position of trust or authority over a 16 or 17 year old (for example, a teacher, religious leader, baby-sitter or doctor) or upon whom the young person is dependent, can touch any part of the body of the young person for a sexual purpose or invite that young person to touch himself/herself or them for a sexual purpose. The penalty for this offence is a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment of up to a maximum of 10 years;
Incest (section 155) - no one may have sexual intercourse with their parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild. The penalty for this offence is a maximum of 14 years imprisonment;
Child Pornography (section 163.1) - no one may make, distribute, transmit, make available, access, sell, advertise, export/import or possess child pornography. Child pornography is broadly defined and includes materials that show someone engaged in explicit sexual activity who is, or seems to be, under the age of 18 years; or show a young person's sexual organ or anal region for a sexual purpose. Child pornography also includes written and audio material that encourages others to commit a sexual offence against a child, or is primarily a description of unlawful sexual activity with a child that is intended for a sexual purpose. The penalties for these offences are mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment and vary up to a maximum of either 5 or 10 years;
Luring a Child (section 172.1) - no person may use a computer system, such as the Internet, to communicate with a young person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual or abduction offence against that young person. This offence is sometimes called "Internet luring". The penalty for this offence is a maximum of 10 years imprisonment;
Exposure (subsection 173(2)) - no one may expose their genital organs for a sexual purpose to a young person under the age of 16 years. The penalty for this offence is a maximum of 6 months imprisonment;
Procuring (sections 170, 171, 212(2), 212(2.1) and 212(4) - it is against the law for parents and guardians to procure their child under the age of 18 years to engage in illegal sexual activity. It is also against the law for anyone to offer or obtain the sexual services of a young person under the age of 18 years (i.e., prostitution). The penalties for these offences are mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment and vary up to a maximum of 14 years imprisonment;
Bestiality (section 160) - it is against the law for anyone to engage in sexual activity with an animal, including making a child do this or doing this in front of a child. The penalties for these offences vary up to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment; and,
Child Sex Tourism (subsections 7(4.1) - 7(4.3) - it is against the law for a Canadian to travel outside of Canada and engage in any sexual activity with a young person that is against the law in Canada. If the Canadian is not found guilty of committing such a sexual offence in the country where it occurred, the Canadian could be convicted in Canada and would face the same penalty as if that offence had occurred in Canada.
In addition to these criminal laws against child sexual abuse and exploitation, each province and territory has its own laws to protect children against abuse, exploitation and neglect.
Laws are there to protect all against abused without laws it would be anarchy?
Each reader must exercise is judgment!
Will the new Bill past on its current form ?
There is many obstacles
Until final text wording is out it is very difficult to speculate about the issues in might or might bring !
In any circumstances if loopholes remains in the law is it good to discuss them openly or preferable to let the government leave some space so all can continue enjoying Hobbying and offering SP offering there seervices ?????
Regards all
Hi allSo who will the new law protect? It seems that everything is covered above?
One scary item is will they/can they broaden the Sex Tourism law to include all sex tourism and not just child sex tourism?
and Hungary
In the actual version it is very scary !!!!
And who does is protect is a valid question?
Will it stand?Will it be challenge ?
What are the political agenda if any ?
What are the ramifications with the rest of Canadian laws?
With the charter of rights ?
It is a big issue for all who are in this industry for work or pleasure !!!
Until the final wording is out it is very difficult to speculate !!!!!
Even a broken mechanical watch provides the right time twice a day !!!!!
Is it reliable or would prefer a watch, time set in perfect perfect working conditions ??????
If the new law is passed, there will be casualties in the form of stings of men customers, raids at massage parlors. and investigations into agencies that do not close shop because of the law.
The Hotel incall will be the thing of the past.
You will take a risk with Hotel outcalls, because the law will give hotels the option of calling LE if they think a patron is calling for escorts. Some hotels will cooperate with LE, and some will turn a blind eye. I bet that some police departments will stake out hotels looking for women they think fit the profile of a SP. What I am describing will take place in the first couple of years of the laws passing, because politicians don't pass laws not to enforce them.
I have one question about the odds of this law passing. Is the party in power 100 percent behind the law? I have not read that much about the support or non-support of the law, as it is written in its proposal.
The Hotel incall will be the thing of the past.
You will take a risk with Hotel outcalls, because the law will give hotels the option of calling LE if they think a patron is calling for escorts. Some hotels will cooperate with LE, and some will turn a blind eye. I bet that some police departments will stake out hotels looking for women they think fit the profile of a SP. What I am describing will take place in the first couple of years of the laws passing, because politicians don't pass laws not to enforce them.
I have one question about the odds of this law passing. Is the party in power 100 percent behind the law? I have not read that much about the support or non-support of the law, as it is written in its proposal.
I hate to say this but laws like this is what makes Canada still a "small country" full of petty people. this is really an attack on Supreme court, a challenge.
it'll get overturned taken over and sent back down to the floor. Violates peoples right to free speech... god knows what else. More problems in this bill then any real crime bill.
In the USA we respect supreme court, we ignore em and resect their opinion as the highest court.
This bill is a blatant FU. like a child hurting itself to prove a point
it'll get overturned taken over and sent back down to the floor. Violates peoples right to free speech... god knows what else. More problems in this bill then any real crime bill.
In the USA we respect supreme court, we ignore em and resect their opinion as the highest court.
This bill is a blatant FU. like a child hurting itself to prove a point
Patron, I agree 100 percent with your post, some people are overreacting to a worst case scenario which will not happen in my opinion and even if it did us hobbyists will find someway around it, Joe.t forever a proud hobbyist.:smile:
I will believe that kind of stuff when I see it, Daydreamer. I follow TER, ISG and UsaSexGuide and I have never heard of any of those things happening in any country. Sure when there is a specific lady working incall, there is surveillance in the US. But a Canadian hotel deciding to start calling the cops because he had a guest? The cops hanging around the hotel looking for a sexy woman, asking her if she is a hooker and asking her to identify her customers? Those things are just not going to start happening in my opinion. Politicians pass laws to look good to constituents. The populace associates prostitution with streetwalkers. Every damn article in the Canadian media on this subject features a lady getting into a guy's car. If there are busts of customers, it will involved street prostitution and Asian massage parlours.
Yes but I like Asian massage.
According to the article below, the Conservative caucus was actually quite divided on this proposal; social conservative MPs wanted to make prostitution completely illegal, while others were more concerned with crafting a bill that would survive a Supreme Court challenge.I have one question about the odds of this law passing. Is the party in power 100 percent behind the law? I have not read that much about the support or non-support of the law, as it is written in its proposal.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...spite-staunch-social-conservative-opposition/
That being said, I highly doubt any Conservatives will break ranks when the bill comes to a vote.
Definitely, this is the Conservative government we are talking about. But it is not about 'protecting' the SP - it is about legislating morality, and little else.it's very condescending to consider Sp as victims. There is probably a part of machismo and old school paternalism behind these laws that claim they want to protect the Sp...
AGREE ABSOLUTELY. They fail to ignore the difference between a pimped street worker and an independent SP who chooses to do this freely - because she wants to.Yes they say sp are victims (!) and guys are perverts....
It makes my blood boil when someone implies I am a victim...nobody can make me do something I do not want...I admit being on the stubborn side loll so implying I am a sp because I am a helpless victim is beyond insulting...
I cannot tell you how much that angers me.
Hi all
Interesting media article analyzing the effect of Bill C-36 in its present wording
On December 20, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the laws that criminalize aspects of adult prostitution were unconstitutional and gave the federal government one year to consider whether to design new laws that comply with the Charter of Rights of Freedoms.
Today Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled the Conservative Government's long anticipated new prostitution legislation. The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act criminalizing the purchase of sex, communicating for the purpose of selling sex, gaining material benefit from sex work, and advertising sexual services.
This cynical, dystopic model does not resolve the problems that were created by Canada’s existing prostitution laws, which the Court held to be unconstitutional in Bedford, and adds new ones such as the prohibition on buying sex and advertising sexual services. The Charter rights engaged by this proposed law include life, liberty, security of the person, freedom of expression and equality. Arguably all are breached.
This is not the “Nordic” approach, nor is it a Canadian variation on the “Nordic” approach. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken laws that impose more danger, more criminalization, and fewer safe options, contrary to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada to address these dangerous and ineffective laws.
This made in Canada model will lead to a continued epidemic of violence against sex workers in Canada.
Here is a look at some of the specific provisions in the proposed legislation:
Provision 213: “Stopping or impeding traffic and communicating to offer or provide sexual services for consideration”
There is only one part of the Communicating provision that is different than the pre-Bedford regime. What was previously section 213(1)(c) of the Code now applies only to communicating to offer sexual services in a public place that is or is next to a place where anyone under the age of 18 could "reasonably be expected to be present." This Communicating provision is only marginally narrower than what the Court struck down in Bedford, as it captures a broad range of places where communication is prohibited. All other aspects of section 213, including stopping or impeding traffic, remain criminalized and apply to everyone. These remain summary offences.
Key Considerations: As a result of this law, street-based sex workers will be the target of law enforcement and can be arrested. They will be displaced into dangerous and isolated parts of the city where they are more likely to work alone in order to avoid police detection. Sex workers will rush to get into vehicles without taking the time to screen clients and negotiate the terms of the transaction, resulting in much greater risk of harm. Sex workers will also face barriers to police protection, as a result of their criminalization.
Constitutional Implications: This amounts to a version of the Communicating law in Bedford that is only marginally narrower, and defies the spirit of the judgment, which was concerned with the displacement of sex workers and blocking their ability to screen clients for safety. All that will be required for police to surveil and target sex workers is the suggestion that a person under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present. This law will function in a highly similar fashion to the Communicating provision that the Bedford court struck down for creating dangerous circumstances, and it will violate section 7 of the Charter.
Provision 286: Prohibition against the purchase of sexual services: “Commodification of Sexual Activity”
s. 286.1(1): Obtaining Sexual Services for Consideration
This single aspect of the law is similar to the Nordic model, in that it applies to purchasing or communicating in order to obtain sexual services.
This provision criminalizes everyone in any place who purchases or communicates in order to obtain sexual services. This provision adds mandatory fines to all violations. Sanctions include mandatory minimum fines ranging from $500 to $4,000, and can include up to five years in jail. These new mandatory fines are higher for repeat offenders and for anyone who purchases sex in a place where a person under 18 could reasonably be found.
The addition of tough punishments for clients will force sex workers to go to great lengths in order to help their clients avoid these sanctions. This will recreate the dangerous conditions that the court in Bedford said made the criminal laws unconstitutional.
Key Considerations: Prohibiting the purchase of sexual services creates extremely dangerous conditions for sex workers. In Sweden, Norway and in Canadian cities where law enforcement is directed at clients, sex workers are displaced to unsafe areas, they cannot screen their clients, they lack access to police protection and they are less able to operate in safer indoor venues. In Norway, violence against sex workers increased following the enactment of the law. Two recent reports on sex work in Vancouver found that street-based sex workers are facing very dangerous working conditions as a result of law enforcement targeting clients.
Constitutional Implications: While criminalizing the purchase of sexual services is said to be aimed at protecting sex workers, this prohibition will have the same harmful impact as the current adult prostitution laws that were struck down in Bedford. For this reason, the ban on purchasing sex or communicating for the purpose to obtain sexual services violates the security of the person rights of sex workers, which are protected by section 7 of the Charter.
Provision 286.2: “Material Benefit from Sexual Services”
The new provision continues to criminalize those who gain material benefits from sex work. This replaces the “living on the avails” provision that was struck down in Bedford.
This version of the law does not apply to those in “legitimate living arrangements” or with “legal or moral obligations” to sex workers. It does apply to exploitative and abusive relationships, and to those in which a person supplies drugs or alcohol.
Key Considerations: Being able to work together or to employ safety services is a key component of a safer sex trade. This provision does not assist in making this more possible for most sex workers.
It will only apply to occasional ad hoc services for sex workers, and does not allow sex workers to establish regular secure conditions for themselves.
This definition of exploitation may be inconsistent with the experiences of sex workers and may capture relationships that actually enhance their safety. It is therefore likely that this provision will be found inconsistent with section 7 rights because of its application will be overbroad.
Constitutional Implications: This law still impairs the ability of sex workers to retain assistance in their work from employees or contractors. The provision applies to benefits received in the context of any commercial enterprise offering sexual services.
The bill also intrudes into personal relationships by exempting “legitimate living arrangements”.
This provision does not remedy the problem the SCC addressed by striking down the living on the avails provision. It introduces uncertainty, criminalizes relationships intended to improve safety, and recreates the same harms.
Provision 286.4: Advertising Sexual Services
The bill proposes to ban any advertising of sexual services, stating:
Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term on not more than 18 months.
Key Considerations:This is an entirely new provision that attempts to radically change the sex trade in Canada. Without the ability to advertise in newspapers, online, or other forms of media, sex workers will now have severely limited means for working safely indoors. This is particularly concerning given that the court in Bedford clearly found that the ability to operate in safer indoor venues is a key measure for sex workers to reduce their risks. This new provision does not ban working indoors itself, which is not surprising given that the Supreme Court of Canada clearly stated that such a law would violate the Charter. But this new provision makes the option of safer indoor work all but impossible.
We should also have serious doubts about the capacity of the state to enforce this law, and the extraordinary resources that such enforcement would require.
Constitutional Implications: By restricting the ability of sex workers to effectively work indoors, this provision engages sex workers section 7 rights in that increases the risks faced by sex workers. It also violates sex worker’s section 2(b) rights by restricting their freedom of expression. This is a very misguided law, which is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford. There is little question that Canadian courts would declare this new prohibition on advertising to be unconstitutional.
The new sex work legislation explained
Written by Peter Wrinch on June 04, 2014
Regards all
Interesting media article analyzing the effect of Bill C-36 in its present wording
On December 20, 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada held that the laws that criminalize aspects of adult prostitution were unconstitutional and gave the federal government one year to consider whether to design new laws that comply with the Charter of Rights of Freedoms.
Today Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled the Conservative Government's long anticipated new prostitution legislation. The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act criminalizing the purchase of sex, communicating for the purpose of selling sex, gaining material benefit from sex work, and advertising sexual services.
This cynical, dystopic model does not resolve the problems that were created by Canada’s existing prostitution laws, which the Court held to be unconstitutional in Bedford, and adds new ones such as the prohibition on buying sex and advertising sexual services. The Charter rights engaged by this proposed law include life, liberty, security of the person, freedom of expression and equality. Arguably all are breached.
This is not the “Nordic” approach, nor is it a Canadian variation on the “Nordic” approach. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken laws that impose more danger, more criminalization, and fewer safe options, contrary to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada to address these dangerous and ineffective laws.
This made in Canada model will lead to a continued epidemic of violence against sex workers in Canada.
Here is a look at some of the specific provisions in the proposed legislation:
Provision 213: “Stopping or impeding traffic and communicating to offer or provide sexual services for consideration”
There is only one part of the Communicating provision that is different than the pre-Bedford regime. What was previously section 213(1)(c) of the Code now applies only to communicating to offer sexual services in a public place that is or is next to a place where anyone under the age of 18 could "reasonably be expected to be present." This Communicating provision is only marginally narrower than what the Court struck down in Bedford, as it captures a broad range of places where communication is prohibited. All other aspects of section 213, including stopping or impeding traffic, remain criminalized and apply to everyone. These remain summary offences.
Key Considerations: As a result of this law, street-based sex workers will be the target of law enforcement and can be arrested. They will be displaced into dangerous and isolated parts of the city where they are more likely to work alone in order to avoid police detection. Sex workers will rush to get into vehicles without taking the time to screen clients and negotiate the terms of the transaction, resulting in much greater risk of harm. Sex workers will also face barriers to police protection, as a result of their criminalization.
Constitutional Implications: This amounts to a version of the Communicating law in Bedford that is only marginally narrower, and defies the spirit of the judgment, which was concerned with the displacement of sex workers and blocking their ability to screen clients for safety. All that will be required for police to surveil and target sex workers is the suggestion that a person under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present. This law will function in a highly similar fashion to the Communicating provision that the Bedford court struck down for creating dangerous circumstances, and it will violate section 7 of the Charter.
Provision 286: Prohibition against the purchase of sexual services: “Commodification of Sexual Activity”
s. 286.1(1): Obtaining Sexual Services for Consideration
This single aspect of the law is similar to the Nordic model, in that it applies to purchasing or communicating in order to obtain sexual services.
This provision criminalizes everyone in any place who purchases or communicates in order to obtain sexual services. This provision adds mandatory fines to all violations. Sanctions include mandatory minimum fines ranging from $500 to $4,000, and can include up to five years in jail. These new mandatory fines are higher for repeat offenders and for anyone who purchases sex in a place where a person under 18 could reasonably be found.
The addition of tough punishments for clients will force sex workers to go to great lengths in order to help their clients avoid these sanctions. This will recreate the dangerous conditions that the court in Bedford said made the criminal laws unconstitutional.
Key Considerations: Prohibiting the purchase of sexual services creates extremely dangerous conditions for sex workers. In Sweden, Norway and in Canadian cities where law enforcement is directed at clients, sex workers are displaced to unsafe areas, they cannot screen their clients, they lack access to police protection and they are less able to operate in safer indoor venues. In Norway, violence against sex workers increased following the enactment of the law. Two recent reports on sex work in Vancouver found that street-based sex workers are facing very dangerous working conditions as a result of law enforcement targeting clients.
Constitutional Implications: While criminalizing the purchase of sexual services is said to be aimed at protecting sex workers, this prohibition will have the same harmful impact as the current adult prostitution laws that were struck down in Bedford. For this reason, the ban on purchasing sex or communicating for the purpose to obtain sexual services violates the security of the person rights of sex workers, which are protected by section 7 of the Charter.
Provision 286.2: “Material Benefit from Sexual Services”
The new provision continues to criminalize those who gain material benefits from sex work. This replaces the “living on the avails” provision that was struck down in Bedford.
This version of the law does not apply to those in “legitimate living arrangements” or with “legal or moral obligations” to sex workers. It does apply to exploitative and abusive relationships, and to those in which a person supplies drugs or alcohol.
Key Considerations: Being able to work together or to employ safety services is a key component of a safer sex trade. This provision does not assist in making this more possible for most sex workers.
It will only apply to occasional ad hoc services for sex workers, and does not allow sex workers to establish regular secure conditions for themselves.
This definition of exploitation may be inconsistent with the experiences of sex workers and may capture relationships that actually enhance their safety. It is therefore likely that this provision will be found inconsistent with section 7 rights because of its application will be overbroad.
Constitutional Implications: This law still impairs the ability of sex workers to retain assistance in their work from employees or contractors. The provision applies to benefits received in the context of any commercial enterprise offering sexual services.
The bill also intrudes into personal relationships by exempting “legitimate living arrangements”.
This provision does not remedy the problem the SCC addressed by striking down the living on the avails provision. It introduces uncertainty, criminalizes relationships intended to improve safety, and recreates the same harms.
Provision 286.4: Advertising Sexual Services
The bill proposes to ban any advertising of sexual services, stating:
Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term on not more than 18 months.
Key Considerations:This is an entirely new provision that attempts to radically change the sex trade in Canada. Without the ability to advertise in newspapers, online, or other forms of media, sex workers will now have severely limited means for working safely indoors. This is particularly concerning given that the court in Bedford clearly found that the ability to operate in safer indoor venues is a key measure for sex workers to reduce their risks. This new provision does not ban working indoors itself, which is not surprising given that the Supreme Court of Canada clearly stated that such a law would violate the Charter. But this new provision makes the option of safer indoor work all but impossible.
We should also have serious doubts about the capacity of the state to enforce this law, and the extraordinary resources that such enforcement would require.
Constitutional Implications: By restricting the ability of sex workers to effectively work indoors, this provision engages sex workers section 7 rights in that increases the risks faced by sex workers. It also violates sex worker’s section 2(b) rights by restricting their freedom of expression. This is a very misguided law, which is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bedford. There is little question that Canadian courts would declare this new prohibition on advertising to be unconstitutional.
The new sex work legislation explained
Written by Peter Wrinch on June 04, 2014
Regards all
According to the article below, the Conservative caucus was actually quite divided on this proposal; social conservative MPs wanted to make prostitution completely illegal, while others were more concerned with crafting a bill that would survive a Supreme Court challenge.
In fact, complete criminalization would have more chance to survive a challenge. If prostitutes are criminal, the law does not have to protect their safety.
This decision is more about crafting a bill that will get the feminist votes while also pleasing their religious base.
''In an effort to rally support, he said that if the courts throw the new bill out, the government will have no option but to introduce full legalization of prostitution.''
Then, why is he making a bill that is almost certain to be thrown out? It seems he is lying even to his own members.
I don't think the Conservatives are especially interested in winning feminist votes (that's not going to happen), but they do have their eyes on winning more support among women. When it comes to the voting intentions of women in Canada right now, the Tories are actually in third place, well behind the Liberals and a couple of points behind the NDP.
If they're going to win the election in 2015, they're going to need to shore up support among suburban moms (especially in the 905 belt of southern Ontario), and I suppose you could make the case that this bill serves that end. (Suburban moms are, of course, disgusted by the idea of prostitution and the "protection of children" elements of the legislation are music to their ears.) This editorial captures the point of view the Conservatives are playing to:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinio...selling+human+flesh+upheld/9911317/story.html
But I think in general, this was not a battle that the Conservatives really wanted to fight: the Supreme Court's decision forced their hand, and the result was a bill that was intended to keep their caucus happy, and to perhaps win them an extra few percentage points of support among women that might mean the difference between remaining in power and being in opposition.
If they're going to win the election in 2015, they're going to need to shore up support among suburban moms (especially in the 905 belt of southern Ontario), and I suppose you could make the case that this bill serves that end. (Suburban moms are, of course, disgusted by the idea of prostitution and the "protection of children" elements of the legislation are music to their ears.) This editorial captures the point of view the Conservatives are playing to:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinio...selling+human+flesh+upheld/9911317/story.html
But I think in general, this was not a battle that the Conservatives really wanted to fight: the Supreme Court's decision forced their hand, and the result was a bill that was intended to keep their caucus happy, and to perhaps win them an extra few percentage points of support among women that might mean the difference between remaining in power and being in opposition.
HiI don't think the Conservatives are especially interested in winning feminist votes (that's not going to happen), but they do have their eyes on winning more support among women.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinio...selling+human+flesh+upheld/9911317/story.html
But I think in general, this was not a battle that the Conservatives really wanted to fight: the Supreme Court's decision forced their hand, and the result was a bill that was intended to keep their caucus happy, and to perhaps win them an extra few percentage points of support among women that might mean the difference between remaining in power and being in opposition.
Contraversy is not usually the best way to obtain votes!
And C-36 is contraversial in its present wording format!
Cheers
Similar threads
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 790
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 315
