Speaking Out Against Bawdy House Bust

Kaj Hasselriis reports on xtra.ca, 3 Feb 2010:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Lesbian_prostitute_speaks_out_against_Winnipeg_bawdy_house_bust-8195.aspx

I concur, and truly believe laws that are based on outdated views of sexuality and morality should be abolished. And given what happens semi-regularly in our north end (if ever you visit our fine city in the center of Canada, please stay away from the area near Magnus and Main St), I also believe scarce resources are better spent fighting actual crime. "Bawdy House" and laws relating to it should have stayed in the more puratanical times they were written. Legalize, tax (sorry, ladies and gentlemen workign in the business), and fix my streets. That's my rant. Excellent post and good info - Thanks.

Legalize, tax (sorry, ladies and gentlemen working in the business), and fix my streets. That's my rant. Excellent post and good info - Thanks.

I'm pleased you're in support of change...it is important to note that as sex workers and activists, legalization is not what most of us are looking for...the following is from ChezStella - a Montreal organization for sex workers created bi sex workers:

Legalization vs. Decriminalization

It’s essential to know one from the other so we can make demands in all solidarity when we speak to the media, to politicians and fellow citizens.

Legalization:

In countries where sex work has been legalized, the State regulates sex work. For example, sex workers may have to pay special taxes, work exclusively in brothels or certain designated zones, or get a permit (these restrictions can cost a lot for a person who only wants to work part time or when a worker isn’t getting a lot of work). It can also mean that sex workers are obliged to register and pass physical exams that can lead to the workers being quarantined. (Or worse, knowing about the compulsory exams could lead clients to believe that bareback sex is risk-free, which would lead to more clients asking for this dangerous practice and to more pressure on workers.)

Legalizing sex work means that certain forms of the work that used to be illegal become regulated in a specific way, which does not provide sex work with the same status as any other form of work.

Decriminalization:

Decriminalization means removing the sections that make our work criminal in the eyes of the law from the law itself:

Section 210: keeping or being found in a common bawdy-house.

Section 211: taking or offering to take someone to a common bawdyhouse (a chauffeur or a lift from a friend or partner)

Section 212: procuring someone into becoming a prostitute or living wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution.

Section 213: communicating or attempting to communicate with any person in a public place or in any place open to public view for the purpose of engaging in prostitution (solicitation).

This would mean we could no longer be arrested because of the work we do, or because of how we market what we have on offer. Basically, what that means, is that anyone doing any type of sex work would be considered in the same way as any other self-employed worker. She would have the same rights and responsibilities as any other self-employed worker from any other field!

We would be protected by the same laws as those regulating and protecting other workers. It would mean sex work and other fields are equal and would help remove stigma from our work.

Many sex worker groups are asking for decriminalization, as it leaves more room for the diversity inherent to sex work; it also means each of us can manage our work the way we see fit.

Now...with regard to you being sorry about ladies and gentlemen who work in the industry paying taxes...I must say, I find it fascinating how many people, particularly men who partake of this hobby, consistently make comments like yours...

Over the past three years I have had the great pleasure of meeting many SPs from all over the country and the US...I can, without a doubt, say that most (upwards of 75%) pay our income tax...why wouldn't we?? We file as self employed and as of 2008, CRA had these (and other) options available when identifying the type of work we do: Escort, Adult Entertainer and Performance Artist...

Most of us ascribe to the theory of "If you play you pay"...meaning, we want our roads fixed as well...we also want to be able to qualify for mortgages, buy cars, use our healthcare system, go to school and/or send our kids to school...we utilize the infrastructure and like the idea of having paramedics, firefighters and yes, even the police around when we need them...we like knowing they are there even if we don't....well, maybe not the police so much :)

Seriously though, the police enforce the laws as they are now...they are doing their jobs...jobs that we, as taxpayers pay them to do...and expect them to do...LE in particular, as of late, face much more risk on the job than we, as non-street SPs do...they have chosen that line of work just as most of us have...while yes, there are those who abuse their power and intimidate but there are more who don't...

So, darlin...while I'm so happy you're rootin' for the cause, I take issue with the offhanded remark about us paying income tax...we all know the story of how Al Capone finally lost his freedom...it wasn't for bootlegging, murder or racketeering...it was for tax evasion...CRA is waaaaaaay more frightening than LE...thank goodness I'm so neurotic about receipts!! I actually got a little refund last year!!

Now that you know most of us pay taxes and why we look to decrim vs. legalization, you're ready to don a red umbrella and help us fight the good fight! Oh, and if you're not quite ready for that, we will happily invite you to participate in the opportunity to very quietly show your support...you are more than welcome to contact me directly with regard to making a financial contribution to WeSWEAR...we cannot issue a tax receipt but we will provide you with a definitive, tangible way to put your money where your mouth is...so to speak...and very graciously say thank you for helping our cause :bowdown:

A fight this big is very expensive and while SP might be the first two letters in the word SPeaker, believe me when I say the income level isn't even close...:razz:

The article was written by K. Hasselriis....he ran in the City of Winnipeg municipal elections a few years back.

The problem with having a size eleven in your mouth is that anything else that comes out doesn't do so all that right. My apologies on the implication that SP's do not pay their fair share of taxes - that wasn't my intent. My beef, as it were, is in the resources ($$$) used to prosecute under the Sections of our Criminal Code you noted. In essence, we agree... and now I agree more with decriminalization than legalization/regulation. Well-worded response - forgive my ignorance in the prior response. Thanks for the info.:-?

It's always gratifying when someone agrees with us and our cause!

P.S. I often open my mouth to change feet...lol

I am all for the bawdy house laws being changed. However I think there is a point being overlooked in this particular case.

 

After reading the newspaper article, the "problem" I see with this particular situation is that there were teenagers living in that house. I assume they would still be minors. This I do not think "business" should go on in a house where children are living. There are too many things that could go wrong and obviously in this case it did.

 

Whether they are at school during the day when this goes on is irrelevant. What happens if say they got sick and came home early one day. And I am curious - how did they continue doing business during summer vacation? Did they ship their kids off somewhere else?

 

Sorry, I don't feel sorry for the couple that got busted. In my opinion, they were not using good judgment.

 

After speaking to other SP friends, they are in total agreement with me.

I do agree with Angela of Ottawa. Yes, the house was been used as a bawdy house. BUT, the police knew trying to bust the place for this reason would be difficult. It was report in the media in Winnipeg that there were drugs in the home. The teenage son knew what was going on in the home as the room used by the providers belong to the son. The son was also charged with have drugs.

Wasn't there a young girl living in the house as well? Approximately 12 years old? That's not right, in my opinion.