Canada Reconfirms Decriminalization = Safety If only the US was as smart.

Once again a Canadian law against prostitution was found unconstitutional based on the "safety of person" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution. While the case only involves advertising and an escort agencies income, the same arguments should apply to future cases involving right to purchase sex.

"Legislation for which the stated purposes include eliminating exploitation and reducing the risk of violence to sex workers actually has the effect of exposing sex workers to an increased risk of exploitation by discouraging all third parties other than the criminal element from becoming involved in the sex industry. The provisions also increase the risk of violence by preventing or restricting the way in which many effective safety measures can be implemented by sex workers."," saidJudge McKay in his decision.

Advertising, McKay wrote, allows sex workers to screen their clients before meeting them face-to-face, and helps create social networks to reduce isolation and stigma.

"The evidence, which I have accepted, suggests that sex workers view the ability to advertise as a communication tool which is more important to security and safety concerns than it is to promoting their economic interests," he wrote.

"Limiting the ability of sex workers to clearly communicate terms and conditions for their services and to effectively screen potential clientele will result in a significantly increased risk of serious injury or death."

McKay had before him thousands of pages of reports, testimony from several experts and case law.

Anti-sexwork folks say:
The Crown argued that sex work cannot be made safe and says the legislation is constitutional

"We're protecting pimps. Their Charter rights apparently supersede the rights of vulnerable girls and women," said John Cassells, an anti-human-trafficking specialist with the Christian mission organization SIM Canada. "This has to be appealed."

History
In 2013 the Ontario Supreme court in one of the longest, most thoughtful rulings declared the previous law against incalls (bawdy houses) and "living of the avails" was unconstitutional since violated the safety of persons. Outcall had always been legal. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 2014 the conservative government of Stephen Harper passed the "Nordic Model" law called C-36 that makes prostitution legal for the prostitute but illegal for customers. The new law criminalized the purchase of sex, and communication for that purpose. It also outlawed related advertising

Due to its questionable constitutionality and makes cities less safe, most major city police agencies refused to enforce the C-36 law since it would make their cities more dangerous if prostitution had to be hidden, not out in the open and treated like any legitimate business with full protections.

More conservative London Ontario charged the owner couple of an escort agency known as Fantasy World Escorts with violations of the new C-36 law. In Court the agency owners argued the new law made it even less safe for sex workers.

They also argued the law violated their freedom of expression and their right to be free from unreasonable government interference

Justice Thomas McKay ruled that the laws, which prohibit procuring, advertising and materially benefiting from someone else's sexual services, are unconstitutional. In his ruling, McKay said the law against advertising violates the Charter right to freedom of expression, and the laws against procuring and materially benefiting violate the Charter guarantee of "security of the person."

The judge found a wide variety of reasons that adults engage in sex work, with money a primary motivator. Many of them are self-employed or work independently much of the time, he found. While some third parties might be abusive partners or predators, most aren’t, McKay said. They do administration, offer training and support, and security, he said.

“Canadian research suggests that coercion and control of sex workers by third parties is not pervasive.”

The Ontario court decision applies only to this particular case, but does set an important precedent, said James Lockyer, a lawyer for Anwar and Harvey. "It's a very important precedent for other judges to consider when the same issue comes up, but it doesn't amount to a declaration across the country that these sections (of the Criminal Code) are void and of no effect," Lockyer said outside court. "Right now, it's a provincial court decision."

The Ontario Court of Appeal would have to uphold the ruling in order for laws to be nullified. The Crown has not said whether it will appeal the judgment. The case could wind up at the Supreme Court as in the prior case where the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the prostitution law was unconstitutional based on the safety provision of the Charter of Rights, etc.

"On the one hand, this ruling was for my clients, because it means their charges are dismissed," Lockyer said. "But on the other hand, this judgment is very important for sex workers. It enables sex workers to have proper protection in their profession, they can set up their own co-operatives to protect each other, they can hire expert managers to make sure their business is run properly, and it allows them to get off the street, which is the most important thing, because that's where sex work is most dangerous."

Lockyer and Jack Gemmell, the couple's other lawyer, argued that Canada's 2014 prostitution laws drive sex work underground, making it more dangerous because clients can't be screened, and women can't legally hire protection or managers to help them run their business.

Canadian Comments terb.cc
This will definitely help combat trafficking by allowing girls a legit business and hobbyists legit options so they don’t need to rely on the shady black market. Similar to cannabis where people were forced to deal with drug dealers and who knows what kind of dirty impure unregulated cannabis.

This is a huge step toward eliminating corruption sparked by the government’s decision to violate fundamental human rights to choose what they want to do with their bodies as adults.

I have mixed feelings about this. I have always been against prosecution of prostitutes, but decriminalization I'm afraid will lead to new tax laws raising the price to hobby. It's the old "fine we can't stop it, so make the cost so high most people can't afford it."

California essentially did that with legislation of pot. There still is a thriving underground market, but local cities and counties have cracked down and fikeing charges.

Prostitution is legal in certain counties, but read the Northern Nevada forums about the cost at the cat houses.

While this is a good thing, I am a little more suspicion about government legalizing prostitution so they can tax it to the point it's unaffordable.

There is a huge difference between legalization vs decriminalization. Legalization is a terrible situation in Nevada which I would never go to. Decrim is in most Europe, Canada, New Zealand, most of Australia etc. Women in charge of their own business and bodies.

Costs where decrim is far lower than in the U.S. since companions don't take the legal risk. Taxation is a non-issue since its taxable regardless of legal status. Tax evasion is a crime and needs tax returns with a good income to qualify for a home or many other things.

For example, what I pay $200/hr for companionship in Canada for zillions of choices of beautiful women costs about $400 in the U.S. Likewise rates are relatively less in the UK, Germany (although the FKK clubs were a bit too much for me).

Further, there are huge discussion and review boards in Canada and many great agencies - even provide drivers for outfall and of course incalls all over. I basically will not pay more than about $200/hour for companionship (never pay for sex even in Canada) but time. Of course that equates to about $CDN250 with our exchange advantage.

The bottom line it is less costly in countries with decrim especially compared to the U.S.

I have mixed feelings about this. I have always been against prosecution of prostitutes, but decriminalization I'm afraid will lead to new tax laws raising the price to hobby. It's the old "fine we can't stop it, so make the cost so high most people can't afford it."

California essentially did that with legislation of pot. There still is a thriving underground market, but local cities and counties have cracked down and fikeing charges.

Prostitution is legal in certain counties, but read the Northern Nevada forums about the cost at the cat houses.

While this is a good thing, I am a little more suspicion about government legalizing prostitution so they can tax it to the point it's unaffordable. Originally Posted by Fizley

I think it would keep the prices down. It would allow so much more competition they would stay at what the area will support. Think about if all the girls on the sugar sites flooded the public market. College towns would be full of girls who are just avoiding having to punch a clock 4-5 nights a week by seeing 1-2 guys a week leaving time to focus on school. It would open up the small town markets, maybe. I could see shaming in small towns keeping people away. Sure, some girls will market themselves as the best and there will be more mega-rich clientele to push the cap up, but all other levels would become competitive. That would help weed out any girls that only offer the grin-n-bearIt experience.

Canada, Europe and the rest.. Even Mexico has Zona Rosa areas..

why does the US remain backwards on this issue? we are hardly a Religious Country.. it's not Catholic Church influence. what is holding us back from acting civilized?

Chung Tran- there is a massive conservative movement with $millions funding local LE raids from large non-profit groups that believe all sexwork is abuse of women and no women who isn't trafficked or forced into sex work would lower herself to do it.

I have reviewed many of these groups tax filings (990 Forms). Here in Arizona Ms McCain (as in former now deceased Senator) leads one large organization with funding from the McCain Foundation and many others.

All the local boards shut down a few years ago when AZ passed a law making it illegal to promote or encourage as a felony. That risk was too much for the local boards. I had a Phoenix private list by e-mail that went to about 1500 folks (about half escorts) that we stopped all reviews and ads and is now discontinued with FOSTA etc.

It also had lots of bad client warnings, fake cops. We had a client that choked to the point of passing about at least 12 escorts we know of and I worked with LE who got them protection and testimony that resulted in the capture, conviction and about 100 year sentence. Likewise worked with LE to convict DE who founded TER who went to prison when he hired a hit man (who was an undercover cop)and Phoenix PD wanted to get him for rape.

The local community no longer exists that protected many from bad clients, assaults etc. with the new laws.

I have mixed feelings about this. decriminalization I'm afraid will lead to new tax laws raising the price to hobby.

Prostitution is legal in certain counties, but read the Northern Nevada forums about the cost at the cat houses.

While this is a good thing, I am a little more suspicion about government legalizing prostitution so they can tax it to the point it's unaffordable. Originally Posted by Fizley

I would pick decriminalization over legalisation anytime. Legalization would bring nothing short of all kinds of regulations. Nevada I am sorry to say may be one of the worst states for getting serviced in the country if you go to these brothels. I hit most of them over a period of 15 years. Girls give a massive cut to the house. They have to pay for their own expenses and live under strict rules some of them. The house can listen in on your session. Condoms required for anything. At one point dental dams were required for eating pussy.

I do not think any state would be any different there will always be a faction of the electorate and state county that will need to be placated with stupid crap that would work against us, like condoms for blowjobs! And prices would skyrocket.. BTW I can tell you w/o doubt the quality of the girls in the cat houses is nothing like seen on TV and when the cameras are off those ladies certainly aren't smiling like they appeared to on the TV. However, these ladies are there on their own accord without being trafficked; unlike where I go...

Decriminalization, a different story. A better option. I have clue how prices would react I just know that legalization would be very bad for us. The states should just decriminalize it, let people do what they want. I think that is a better option..

Actually for me the best option is airline tickets out of here across the pond; for the price of 2-3 hours of a girl in TX I can land over there in Playland...and cheap prices

Canada, Europe and the rest.. Even Mexico has Zona Rosa areas..

why does the US remain backwards on this issue? we are hardly a Religious Country.. it's not Catholic Church influence. what is holding us back from acting civilized? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Because there's not enough votes to gain from it. And they have spent so many years portraying it as tabboo they wouldn't want to add ecorts to their voter base of established party members. And gawd forbid a senator is seen talking to one at a rally.
Other recreational things that are becoming legal are getting new voters. The new IL governor won because that was one of his first promises. There were enough voters to be had it would be the main topic of the next debate.

what is holding us back from acting civilized? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Uh-huh.

I once met someone who's favorite book wasn't the Bible. Last time I checked her "favorite" book now was the Bible. Jesus Christ. I wish her well.

I think that is a better option.. Originally Posted by KosherCowboy

It probably is. I doubt it's gonna happen around here.

Canada, Europe and the rest.. Even Mexico has Zona Rosa areas..

why does the US remain backwards on this issue? we are hardly a Religious Country.. it's not Catholic Church influence. what is holding us back from acting civilized? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

The liberal feminists consider it to be exploitation of women and they team up with the evangelical Christians and of course call it trafficking rather than mundane commercial sex.

I think the Judge made a good point about how advertising and group boards actually offer protection to the ladies.

I was so disapointed thart during the early Obama administration,the most liberal administration IN OUR HISTORY, nothing was done to decriminalize prostitution.


This election cycle, our best hope in this regard is Bernie Saunders. He has openly ststed his support for legalizing prostitution.

“While Sanders’ chances of becoming president are slim, the odds he wins the nomination and reshapes the party are good and have been improving weekly.”

Canada, Europe and the rest.. Even Mexico has Zona Rosa areas..

why does the US remain backwards on this issue? we are hardly a Religious Country.. it's not Catholic Church influence. what is holding us back from acting civilized? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

1) American women don't want competition. American men have been neutered, and women want it to stay that way. The metoo movement is founded on the premise that prostitution is immoral.

2) American men don't want the daughters to become hookers. This really only applies to them when the kids are between 14 and 25.

The combination of those two demographics is insurmountable.

I SAY AGAIN:

This election cycle, our best hope in this regard is Bernie Saunders. He has openly ststed his support for legalizing prostitution. Originally Posted by ICU 812