The Edmonton Approach

[eastender]

The following posted elsewhere in cyberspace caught my attention:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/11/27/11949581-sun.html

Basically it involves licensing sex trade workers and operators.

Comments appreciated and encouraged

 

[daydreamer41]

I think it is a good idea. $125 per girl and $3000 for an agency is not much when you think a girl will make it back in less than 2 hours and the agency less than a week depending on the size of the agency.

You as a client will be assured that the girl is not underaged, not that I think that it is a problem in Montreal. The agencies seem strict in investigating the girl's age before hiring her.. The consequences are too great if they did hire an underaged girl.

 

[naughtylady]

The problem with this approach is that it could limit her travel possibilities.

For example, the USA will not let any KNOW prostitute enter the country.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[daydreamer41]

The problem with this approach is that it could limit her travel possibilities.

For example, the USA will not let any KNOW prostitute enter the country.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

I doubt very much that the border patrol will have access to individual city licenses and take the time to add it to their database. The US border patrol asks the same questions as the Canadian border patrol. Why are you going to the US? Do you know anyone? Are you visiting anyone? Do you have a gift for anyone? What do you do for a living? I suppose you would have a different answer for the last question.

Correct, the US border patrol does not want a woman to come to the US for the purpose of breaking any laws of their member states. But their priority is more drug smuggling, terrorists, etc. and I doubt they would ask Edmonton or any other city for a list of SP's having licenses. And I would doubt that a city would give the US border patrol that list since it is a legal activity in Canada. I suppose if they did, the women would have a good reason to sue the municipalities.

 

[YouVantOption]

The following posted elsewhere in cyberspace caught my attention:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/11/27/11949581-sun.html

Basically it involves licensing sex trade workers and operators.

Comments appreciated and encouraged

Their reasoning behind it is paper-thin.

licensing escorts and agencies is key to keeping the industry clean and gang-free.

Escorts face a yearly criminal record check when they hold a licence.

Cops will decline or take their licences if they've been involved in violent, drug-related or recent crimes.

That helps cuff the hands of organized crime to take control of the girls.

"Someone has to control it. Because if we don't do that, we will have nothing but trouble as organized crime moves into the area, and the ages of the girls drop. They're not 18; they're 14 or 12," said Prince.

"You take the control away, someone steps over the line, and nothing happens, they take one bigger step over the line."

This does nothing to address the gang problem. Being over 18 and not having a criminal record is not indicative in any way of non-involvement with a gang. Nor do licenses help to diminish under-age prostitution. The lack of a license will not be indicative of an escort being under age, not having a birth certificate indicating she is over 18 does.

If this licensing was worth a shit, it would require regular (monthly) mandatory health checks, and provide for support services (networking, bad trick lists, counselling).

Correct, the US border patrol does not want a woman to come to the US for the purpose of breaking any laws of their member states. But their priority is more drug smuggling, terrorists, etc. and I doubt they would ask Edmonton or any other city for a list of SP's having licenses. And I would doubt that a city would give the US border patrol that list since it is a legal activity in Canada. I suppose if they did, the women would have a good reason to sue the municipalities.

Why would this not fall under the active exchange of information we have in place? Currently, we have systems in place to flag trouble-makers of other types, why not prostitution? Sue the municipality?? On what grounds?

 

[eastender]

Step by Step

Previously in another thread:

https://merb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=52971&page=2

post #19, EB related how massage parlours in a certain jurisdiction in Connecticut fared.
The one that played the game and approached the mainstream survived the one that did not failed.

The concept of licensing brings with it a certain stigmata factor as well as costs. It is far from a magic wand solution to all concerns. The "underage issue" would not be eliminated by licensing but it would reduce opportunities since licenced establishments would have to protect their investment in being "legit" and would be even more careful. Also the LE time spent in law enforcement would be shifted to gang issues since the licencing would be bureaucratic in nature.

The travel and other restirctions or prohibitions would be an issue. Not being able to travel to the USA would be minor compared to the impact say on mortgage applications - even with bankers who claim that they do not care about the provenance of the money.

As for health and safety issues being influenced or improved under a licensing system somewhat of a misdirected position. Health and safety are basic common sense issues that stand alone. Being licensed to drive a car in a jurisdiction does not involve any guarantees that the holder of the license will always take the necessary precautions to insure that they are sufficiently healthy or sober to drive or that the car they are driving is safe or that the weather and road conditions are safe.

With or without licensing you will never be able to force SP to avail themselves or contribute to "bad trick lists" or universally take all the necessary pre and post health testing precautions.

 

[daydreamer41]

Their reasoning behind it is paper-thin.



This does nothing to address the gang problem. Being over 18 and not having a criminal record is not indicative in any way of non-involvement with a gang. Nor do licenses help to diminish under-age prostitution. The lack of a license will not be indicative of an escort being under age, not having a birth certificate indicating she is over 18 does.

If this licensing was worth a shit, it would require regular (monthly) mandatory health checks, and provide for support services (networking, bad trick lists, counselling).




Why would this not fall under the active exchange of information we have in place? Currently, we have systems in place to flag trouble-makers of other types, why not prostitution? Sue the municipality?? On what grounds?

I really don't get your link. It was about a journalist who was traveling to Canada to give a talk.

The US and Canadian Border Patrol will scan your name and ID numbers to see if you are a fugitive from an FBI list, RMP or Interpol, but why would Canadian cities be willing to give up a list that consists of women who have licenses that allow them to legally operate a legal activity in Canada?

It is legal in Canada to be a SP. In the US it is not. The only reason why the US border patrol would stop a woman from entering is if the agent thinks he or she is intending to break the law by providing sex for money in the US. If the border patrol asks what she does for a living, he may stop her for questioning if she says she is an SP in Canada, even if she tells him it is legal to do so in Canada.

He probably will try to determine if the purpose of her trip is legitimate or to illegally ply her trade. They have ways of determining her itenary. Reservations at a hotel. Is she traveling with family or friends? What she plans to see in the US. And yes, they can say that they think that she is going to work, even though the purpose of her trip does not invovle working, but vacation.

Perhaps it is better for an SP to say she is between jobs and mention a past job that did not involve being an SP as her last job?

I remember that Tamara said on Merb that she was stopped from entering the US, probably because her answers to the agents questions were suspicious. I don't remember exactly the reasons. I think she was planning to go on tour in the US, which is not a good idea these days.

 

[YouVantOption]

As for health and safety issues being influenced or improved under a licensing system somewhat of a misdirected position. Health and safety are basic common sense issues that stand alone. Being licensed to drive a car in a jurisdiction does not involve any guarantees that the holder of the license will always take the necessary precautions to insure that they are sufficiently healthy or sober to drive or that the car they are driving is safe or that the weather and road conditions are safe.

your analogy conveniently leaves out testing for auto licenses in the issuance phase, and Nevada enjoys a good level of health and safety as a result of mandatory monthly health testing, to maintain the license.

With or without licensing you will never be able to force SP to avail themselves or contribute to "bad trick lists" or universally take all the necessary pre and post health testing precautions.

of course, but were licensing fees spent to maintain and promote such services one would expect better ubiquity in deployment and use.