Parliamentary committee to consider changing prostitution laws

[HaywoodJabloemy]

The Parliamentary Subcommittee examining prostitution laws has been restarted, and begins meeting again on Jan. 31.

Chair is John Maloney (Liberal from Ontario), Vice-Chair is Libby Davies (NDP from BC), other members are Hedy Fry (Liberal from BC), Paule Brunelle (BQ), and Art Hanger (although I wouldn't expect a Conservative from Calgary to be in favour of decriminalization).

You can write letters to Members of Parliament urging decriminalization. Before you say "That will never happen", realize that New Zealand and most of Australia have already changed their laws, which were formerly very much like Canada's, to decriminalize brothels.

It's important to let them know what we want, because there will be the religious zealots and the anti-sex trade element of feminists advocating a total prohibition similar to Sweden. Here is what they heard about Sweden in NZ (from speech by Member of Parliament Sue Bradford).

Nor should we turn to the Swedish model which prosecutes the men who pay for sex. The Swedish experience shows that all this does is drive prostitution underground...

While on the Select Committee we heard evidence from a sex worker in Sweden who talked about the much greater physical dangers she and others now face as a result of the law change there. She reported that some of the worst consequences of the Swedish law have been that there is a lot more underage teenage prostitution, that the mafia bosses have more control, and that workers are too scared to get police help even when friends are murdered because if it gets out that they've called the cops, they lose all their customers.

The committees and debates lasted nearly three years in NZ before decriminalization passed by one vote.

*Edit - I received a response from John Maloney's office to an e-mail that I had sent last month. The committee will be examining the reforms made in New Zealand, as well as other countries.

 

[naughtylady]

I encourage you all to write your local MP and share your thoughts.... Pierre Elliot Trudeau got the law out of our bedrooms. Now we need to get them out of our beds!

To see the current laws:http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/42053.html

take the time to read it and you will find some strange laws that really need to be removed from the books, and others that need to be re-written for the good of working girls, clients and the general population.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[Lawless]

Government

A dream for some people.
Surviving right now is on the agenda!
Nothing else.
Prostitution, forget about it!
Next decade may be!

 

[naughtylady]

I know that. I already decare what I earn and pay my income tax.

Lawless>> Prostitution is already legal in Canada. It is the laws surrounding it that need to be changed. Specifically art.213, 212, 211, and 210. Check out that link.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[Lawless]

Ronnie,
Forget about amendments to the Code in any near future, other more urgent items are on the agenda!
You may have to review your understanding of "prostitution"!
Another decade, may be....

 

[naughtylady]

So why do they have it on the agenda? They have been talking about it for the past 10 years or so, but only now have they created the committee and put it on the agenda?
It was only after th BC serial killer was caught that they finally began to take us seriously when we say that the current laws put us more at risk than protect us. Only after this guys trial that the comittee was formed. Think about that. Finally public attention and our lobbiests told the government the same thing, we need some changes.
There will always be other things on the agenda. It wont wait untill there is a lull politically, because there is always something pressing.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

I hope the committee eventually plans to hear from someone representing the thousands of sex workers in this country, not just sociology professors.

The laws here force sex workers to work in dangerous conditions, but there is one other important reason to change the laws.

The countries that had (or still have) laws similar to Canada's have realized something the media and politicians in Canada never talk about. The laws are simply no longer enforced with any degree of sincerity.

All of the escort agencies and massage parlours that are knowingly tolerated by police and licensed by cities obviously violate the "living off the avails of prostitution" and "keeping a common bawdy house" laws. This is a dishonest and likely corrupt situation. Police corruption inquiries in 2 Australian states found that the plain clothes cops had been getting payed off by these businesses for many years.

The first thing that happened when you were at the Vice Squad, was you were taken round to collect what he called 'taxes' and 'fees' from working girls and brothels.

In Britain

Blunkett hinted in an article that brothels disguised as "legitimate" businesses such as massage parlours will no longer be tolerated

From New Zealand

"The state licenses massage parlours, knowing they are fronts for prostitution...there is no morality, no consistency in that."

Yet in Canada we keep stupidly believing all the police and politicians who pretend the laws are still being enforced. See "How cities 'license' off-street hookers" from The Ottawa Citizen. But of course, there could never be corrupt police and politicians in Canada, right?

* The committee is scheduled to be in Montréal on Wednesday March 16th.

 

[tmgol]

A subcommittee of the House of Commons justice committee recently received more than $157,000 to travel with nine staff members...

If they gave the $157,000 to fourteen MERBites, I bet we could find out a heck of a lot more than these jokers will.

But maybe not in Edmonton or Winnipeg. Not sure I'd be interested in getting around to that part of the trip.

 

[joeblow]

Liberals vote to decriminalize prostitution

At their March congress, the federal Liberal party voted the following resolution:

85 - SEX WORKER RIGHTS

WHEREAS officially the sex trade is not criminal;

WHEREAS section 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada still forbids communicating for the purposes of sex trade-related acts;

WHEREAS fear of ticketing and judicial consequences incurred from section 213 drive sex trade workers into dangerous and harmful locations;

WHEREAS criminalizing acts related to the sex trade also perpetuates a negative social stigma surrounding sex trade workers;

WHEREAS the sex trade is a profession central to the subsistence of many Canadian citizens who deserve the same workplace safety and social respect as any other member of our society;

AND WHEREAS we must never again have the tragedy of 50 women missing from Vancouver’s downtown eastside without notice;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada support removal of section 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

(Young Liberals of Canada)

 

[joeblow]

The Criminal code has several sections dealing with prostitution of which section 213 is but one (Ronnie has explained all this in a thread somewhere...) By voting to remove 213 and by setting up the roaming subcommittee, my read is that the Liberals are signaling their intention to eventually decriminalize prostitution, without going the full distance at this time, however. As a minority government, I doubt they will take on another controversial, value loaded issue like prostitution, on top of gay marriages, before the next election, hence Martin's remarks.

 

[naughtylady]

Just to confuse you some more: Prostitution is legal in Canada and always has been. Martin is looking at section 213 in particular because of the serial murders in BC. These are the laws in question:

Bawdy-houses

Keeping common bawdy-house
210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Landlord, inmate, etc.
(2) Every one who

(a) is an inmate of a common bawdy-house,

(b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, or

(c) as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Notice of conviction to be served on owner
(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court shall cause a notice of the conviction to be served on the owner, landlord or lessor of the place in respect of which the person is convicted or his agent, and the notice shall contain a statement to the effect that it is being served pursuant to this section.

Duty of landlord on notice
(4) Where a person on whom a notice is served under subsection (3) fails forthwith to exercise any right he may have to determine the tenancy or right of occupation of the person so convicted, and thereafter any person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) in respect of the same premises, the person on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) unless he proves that he has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the recurrence of the offence.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 193.

Transporting person to bawdy-house
211. Every one who knowingly takes, transports, directs, or offers to take, transport or direct, any other person to a common bawdy-house is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 194.

Procuring

Procuring
212. (1) Every one who

(a) procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada,

(b) inveigles or entices a person who is not a prostitute to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse or prostitution,

(c) knowingly conceals a person in a common bawdy-house,

(d) procures or attempts to procure a person to become, whether in or out of Canada, a prostitute,

(e) procures or attempts to procure a person to leave the usual place of abode of that person in Canada, if that place is not a common bawdy-house, with intent that the person may become an inmate or frequenter of a common bawdy-house, whether in or out of Canada,

(f) on the arrival of a person in Canada, directs or causes that person to be directed or takes or causes that person to be taken, to a common bawdy-house,

(g) procures a person to enter or leave Canada, for the purpose of prostitution,

(h) for the purposes of gain, exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of a person in such manner as to show that he is aiding, abetting or compelling that person to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally,

(i) applies or administers to a person or causes that person to take any drug, intoxicating liquor, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower that person in order thereby to enable any person to have illicit sexual intercourse with that person, or

(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Idem
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(j), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Aggravated offence in relation to living on the avails of prostitution of a person under the age of eighteen years
(2.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(j) and subsection (2), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person under the age of eighteen years, and who

(a) for the purposes of profit, aids, abets, counsels or compels the person under that age to engage in or carry on prostitution with any person or generally, and

(b) uses, threatens to use or attempts to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person under that age,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years but not less than five years.

Presumption
(3) Evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute or lives in a common bawdy-house is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person lives on the avails of prostitution, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(j) and subsections (2) and (2.1).

Offence -- prostitution of person under eighteen
(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

(5) [Repealed, 1999, c. 5, s. 8]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 212; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 9; 1997, c. 16, s. 2; 1999, c. 5, s. 8.

Offence in Relation to Prostitution

Offence in relation to prostitution
213. (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view

(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,

(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or

(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person

for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definition of "public place"
(2) In this section, "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

There's an article in The Gazette today (unfortunately not available for free online) titled "MPs review prostitution laws"

Former Conservative justice minister John Crosbie has come out in support of decriminalizing prostitution, saying it is the best way to deal with the growing violence and murder rates among the country's sex workers.

He was Justice Minister when 213 was changed to its present form, in the 1980s when Brian Mulroney was PM.

 

[tmgol]

``Street prostitution and neighbourhood life are not compatible,`` said Agnes Connat, a member of the Association des residentes et residents des Faubourgs de Montreal.

She estimated that 200 hookers, most of them drug-dependent, were plying their trade in parts of the Centre-South and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve areas.

These residents urged the sub-committee of the Standing Committee on Justice not to recommend dropping Article 213 of the Criminal Code, which bans communicating with someone in a public place for the purpose of prostitution.

Maybe this will be a controversial point of view in this forum, but I`m on the side of these residents on the narrow issue of street prostitution, particularly when it takes place anywhere near residential areas. (Of course, focusing on this specific, hardest-to-defend aspect may be a conscious part of the anti-reform strategy.)

I, naturally, believe that I and the companion of my choice ought to be left alone by the authorities (unless the authorities are rather cute and want to join in...but that`s a whole `nother topic...); but I also believe that we in turn have a duty to the community to exercise a certain discretion.

And I am not sure that the street end of the trade will ever be anything resembling safe or healthy, for the provider or client, whether it is legal, illegal, or somewhere in between. Maybe it`s just my own lack of knowledge speaking here, but the whole scene always seemed pretty disturbing to me.

 

[naughtylady]

My personal opinion on street prostitution is that prohibition does not work. With this in mind we need a "red light" district. Perhaps in a commercial/industrial zone.

Art Hanger's idea is to crack down on Johns. I know this because I asked him, after my presentation on Wednesday to the committee. But police crack downs just push street prostitutes further into the shadows where they have less security than ever.

Hanger also believes that repealing exixting laws, will increase juvenile prostitution. I am not sure how he came to this conclusion.

We have to remember that this committee was formed because of the slayings in Vancouver. It's intention is to reduce the violence.

If you want your opinions heard, you can email (I was told this is the preferred method, because it makes distribution to all members of the comittee, and transaltion easier):

Mark-Olivier Girard
Committee Clerk
Committees Directorate
PS-Procedural Services

[email protected]


Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[naughtylady]

As far as street johns, i disagree with what one of the interviewees said. I think that the best way to deter street johns is to maximize police surveillance and client harrassement (ie. sting ops), not only using car patrols but also by having more LE officers patrolling on foot and on bikes scouring anything from the main roads to the smaller side roads to back alleys and parking lots, etc., perhaps with the concurrent help of some of the local citizens located in certain key spots who could inform LE on anything fishy they might see and who could receive remuneration for their services.

If you think prostitutes cost alot of money, think about how much increased police crackdowns and surveillance costs, including lock up, court time, court fees, legal fees, and remember while cops are harassing prostitutes and their clients, they are not chasing down "real" criminals... Unless they hire more officers, which would mean another tax increase... Crack downs don't eliminate street prostitution, it just moves it to a different area. Usually one where the girls are more isolated and therefore less safe.

I'm surprised that no one has proposed the designation of an area(s) devoted to prostitution. I agree that a residential area is incompatible with prostitution. However, i think that the governement should hold either public hearings or consultation sessions with various groups of citizens in order to try to find another more suited area for prostitution. Personally, i would focus on a remotely located industrial sector, perhaps an older one, more quiet, where economic activity is not as vibrant, bustling and active as some newer development. Or maybe i would look at an area close to the harbour where, once again, there's lots of open space and big storage buildings and warehouses.

This is why the committee needs your letters. Your ideas. Even if you just sign them "a John in Montreal". I think it is understandable why you would not want to disclose your legal name to the government on such an issue. I happen to think a "red light" zone is a good idea, though I would say in a commercial/industrial area. One where there is access to a depaneur, phone booth, and coffee shop 24hrs.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Art Hanger is an ex-RCMP detective, from Calgary, which may be the only big city left in Canada where they still go after all the escort agencies for "living off the avails". It's the usual party line from all the police, whether it's drugs or the sex trade - "spend more of your tax money on police so we can stop this evil". Like I pointed out in the first post, Sweden making it illegal to pay for sex has just made life more dangerous for sex workers.
http://www.petraostergren.com/english/studier.magister.asp

I realize this committee was started because of the serial murders in the Vancouver and Edmonton areas, but like it or not the debate about allowing street prostitution in designated areas is almost certainly a waste of time, since no one wants to be their area. I'm not convinced it would do much good even if it was allowed. I'm not sure it would help the street walkers be any safer after they're picked up by guys in cars. And I don't hear a large number of ladies or guys demanding the right to participate in street prostitution.

"Red light districts"? Who is asking that all the incalls, escorts, and massage parlours (or brothels if legal) be allowed to operate only in one small area, and no where else? Does anyone want that? Libby Davies is on the committee and points out in this article on TheTyee.ca

...decriminalizing the sex trade is not the same thing as allowing red light districts, given that "when you start at that point, you immediately think where is the red light district going to go?* It all comes down to that one question, the red light district. I want to back away from that.

I think what most of us would want is for the laws to be reformed so that the business can operate more safely and legally behind closed doors, and the general public would also be more likely to accept this than street prostitution and red light districts. New Zealand and most of Australia have already done this.

 

[naughtylady]

I think what most of us would want is for the laws to be reformed so that the business can operate more safely and legally behind closed doors, and the general public would also be more likely to accept this than street prostitution and red light districts. New Zealand and most of Australia have already done this.

HaywoodJabloemy>> How would you propose changing the current laws? I think it is safe to say that here on this board, nobody wants to be thought of as a criminal just because they participate in the sex trade.

Red light districts, while not increasing the safety in the car, allows girls to look out for eachother, write down plate numbers, keeps prostitution away from residential areas... that is why I proposed commercial/industrial areas... Though having never worked the streets I would rather hear ideas from street girls (unlikely here) or at least guys who use the street scene.

I would like the law which makes living off of the avails illegal wiped from the books. That law makes anybody we live with criminals, we have to live alone, and we are not allowed to kelp support a parent for example. It is not right to make my boyfriend a criminal because we share the rent. It is not right tp make my mom a criminal because I sometimes give her money to help make ends meet.

Bawdy house laws make incalls illegal. Procuring laws mean we cannot work together. For many working incalls, feels safer; especially if there is someone else in the other end of the appartment (EX>2 working girls sharing an appartment)

I could go on but you see what I am getting at. How would you propose changing the laws? Think about it and then write the committee. Opportunities like this don't come up very often, possibly never again in our life time. Take advantage and be heard.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Probably everyone agrees that coercion and employing people under 18 should be crimes. I suppose there could be some kind of national media regulations about advertising.

Decriminalization by the federal government likely means the lower levels of government will make their own new regulations on where and how the business can operate.

Since New Zealand had recently been through the process of reforming their laws, which were previously much like Canada's, I had sent an e-mail suggesting the subcommittee look at the changes made there.

I received a reply saying that my e-mail had been translated and forwarded to the committee members, and that they would be examining the reforms made in New Zealand and other countries.

Apparently some of the police there are complaining about technicalities making it difficult for them to prosecute those found to be employing underaged workers, but I don't think it necessarily means there are more of them as Hanger claims.

In looking through other articles about New Zealand, most people there seem to think the reforms were generally a good idea. For example, this column from a New Zealand newspaper is critical of former massage parlours seeking to be exempt from having to conform to new brothel regulations, yet even its writer says "Don't get me wrong, the law change was long overdue."

A petition started by some of the anti-sex trade types to attempt to force a referendum to repeal the changes failed to get enough signatures.

 

[naughtylady]

femaleluver >> I agree no tricks in cars in my idea also, though if a girl leaves with a guy in a car to go to a hotel... you got the idea.

The committee has heard from police groups, criminologists, social workers, social psychologists, all sorts of researchers, Maggies (In Toronto), Stella (in Montreal) prostitutes, and other interest groups.

Who they haven't heard from are the clients.

They need to hear your ideas. Also they need to know that you are not a bunch of sex crazed perverted deviants with degrading views of women.

That you are just normal guys. They need to hear it from you what are the reasons you use our services. That on a multi hour date it is not 5 hours of non stop pounding that we provide companionship, touch, comfort, we make the world a little less lonely. That we have become your friends and lovers. Your mistresses and therapists. A listening ear, a comforting shoulder (as well as other parts of the body ). They need to know that we regularly practice safer sex. They need to know why what we do is effectively an essential service to many of you. (I have one client who told me that I was the only one who ever touches him!)

This is why I urge you to send in your letters, with your ideas. You and I are not criminals. Yet who here would go to the police to report a theft? Didn't think so. My mom, my boyfriend, they are not criminals either. Though the law says different.

Ok I ranted enough for now

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

Mar. 24 Josie Vogels column
http://www.seemagazine.com/Issues/2005/0324/josey.htm
or
http://www.joseyvogels.com/MyMessyBedroom.html

Maisonneuve article by Christopher DeWolf.
The added comments which follow the article are very interesting and well-informed, comparing the differences of Canada, Holland, Sweden, and Australia, including one from a sex worker in Sydney.