Tory Convention

Among the 80 plus resolutions they will be workshoping is...

- Sexual exploitation

The Tories will vote on whether to "reject the normalization of prostitution and declare that human beings are not objects to be enslaved, bought and sold." The resolution also calls for a "comprehensive strategy" to stop prostitution.

I am not terribly optimistic. Actually, not optimistic at all. Even if the Supreme Court of Ontario was not hearing the recent case I bet that the Tories would try to push for harsher laws for us all - sex workers and clients. The committee from a few years ago that examined the current situations across Canada had everyone agreeing that the laws put people in danger - except the Conservative member. He argued that even if they did it didn't matter. Sex work = Wrong. Lovely.

Oh and the wording irks me beyond belief. I am never enslaved or sold as an object. I am paid for my time and I offer companionship along with sexual intimacy during this time. Then either the client leaves or I do. Afterward, I pay my bills, go to school, wash my dishes, hang out with my cats, see my family, etc... Like most every other person who is self employed in Canada.

If some one is enslaved, bought or sold, aren't there already laws in place to handle this?

Sigh

Playing with the definition of marriage? Limiting foreign ownership of resource companies? With a mix of social conservatism and protectionism, it sounds like the curmudgeons are exerting their influence. Should be a hot time in O-town during the convention... "Myrtle, let's eat a sensible meal, walk around denouncing everything we see as corrupt or brimming with moral turpitude, and then go to bed at 8." :)

If there's a bright side to this announcement, it's that this is only a convention to steer policy; better to have the party's intentions regarding prostitution laws in the open so opposition can begin rather than being stung with a surprise. Sunlight is the best disinfectant...

Hopefully things get better for our country, the conservative party is very strange. They model a lot after the republican party to the south of us, and after how well Nevada has been doing with there laws in surprised we haven't implemented something like this here.

good post

I think it really comes down to the current case before the courts. If the decision to overturn the current laws is upheld, the Gov't will be forced to write new law that I suspect will be much more restrictive or even lead to prohibition.

If the current laws or reinstated then I doubt Stephen Harper will be the least bit interested in taking on this issue despite what some of his more rabid supporters will be pushing for.

sigh.... Some of these proposals actually sound reasonable, provided that one doesn't know the truth.

More and more, I recognize that a few of us companions could probably make a very big difference in any discussion of prostitution in Canada. Most of us, here, are nothing like the stereotype most people subscribe to. The trouble is that the stigma associated with this profession is so damaging and can have such far-reaching repercussions that most of us can't afford to take the risks required.

It's a sad irony that, because the governments and police departments have so little interest in taking steps that would protect the lives of women in the sex trade, it's not safe to speak the plain truth about our lives.

sigh.... Some of these proposals actually sound reasonable, provided that one doesn't know the truth.

 

More and more, I recognize that a few of us companions could probably make a very big difference in any discussion of prostitution in Canada. Most of us, here, are nothing like the stereotype most people subscribe to. The trouble is that the stigma associated with this profession is so damaging and can have such far-reaching repercussions that most of us can't afford to take the risks required.

 

It's a sad irony that, because the governments and police departments have so little interest in taking steps that would protect the lives of women in the sex trade, it's not safe to speak the plain truth about our lives.

This is so disconcerting because the effects of this disinterest are so tangible. The law and order agenda can march its way through Parliament without ever needing to recognize the plain truth of who you are or the dangers they will worsen against you so very directly. Debates in the House have been confused and unsympathetic on every topic but the economy, that will not likely change. The Parliamentary Committees that vet proposed laws have attention deficit disorder - so even if some representatives got on the witness list, the ten or fifteen minutes they would have to deliver the plain truth and show the wonder of who they are would be shut down with aggressive, shitty and condescending questions and their courageous message would then be coldly forgotten. Other than back room lobbying there is no real way to have the basic humanness discussion.

So yeah, the court case is going to have immense implications. The only way at this point I could see any swing in public or Parliamentary opinion is if the cause was to find a political champion - someone fearless and charismatic enough to force the debate in the House, the House Committees and the media. I cannot imagine who that could be - but anyone who did take that on would clearly be fighting to save many beautiful lives in this country.

Ugh. This party's so utterly hopeless. I can't believe people value economic policy over humanity. *kicks pebble*.

As far as the cons wanting to adopt backwards policies, painting all types of exchange of money for sex as abuse of women and human slavery, well I told you so when I was pleading with you not to vote for a Harper majority, post after post lol.

However, as far as opposing sexual exploitation I agree with them completely. Enough is enough with exploitation of women and treating them like sex objects performing the most disgusting sexual acts causing pain and humiliation on likely drugged young ladies. Enough with human trafficking and underage exploitaion of children. Enough to see or hear young girls selling their bodies to buy drugs or finance their pimps or some specific agencies.

If they oppose to all that and pass harsh laws and enforce the laws as well to stop for once and all, all of the above I am all for it and based on my recent reading about 80% of prostitution actually falls into above categories. What I am opposed to, is the remaining 20% that there is consensual sex between two adults. A drug free, pimp free environment where two adults can have a date and exchange gifts for their time which the lady can use to finance college education (and we all know how expensive they have become) or as a temporary job to pay off some big debts or as a bridge (again temporary) to cross into better lives (by putting themselves in college,taking care of new born, pay off long standing debt, helping family members),otherwise yes it must become illegal and enforced too, especially when forced or pimping or drugs or inhuman sexual acts are involved. And no prostitution should not be normalized when large percentage of that is as a result of childhood abuse, or drug addiction or forced sexual act or pimping. There is nothing normal about any of above. The normalized prostitution is a party or date between totally consenting adults which would be mutually beneficial without the use of force, pimps or drugs.

We need progressive prostitution laws that bans the dark sides of prostitution (and they exits. There is no point to deny that but not sure by what percent though) and distingush the consenting dates for money or gifts and make the former totally illegal and only the latter legal. I am not a lawyer or constitutive experts sonot sure how it can be accomplished but the cons are not intelligent enough to do it. They are likely going to take the easy way out and ban all forms of prostitution in Canada....

PS - This post expresses my personal views on how prostitution laws should be and may not be shared by some or many. But they are mine.

SA, I don't know where you get your information, but most paid companions work indoors and are not coerced by pimps. We are no more likely to have drug or alcohol addictions than women in "straight" professions. About 85% of us work indoors. Nearly all of the women who engage in street prostitution have multiple problems: most are addicted to illegal drugs; many also have significant mental health issues and the great majority are aboriginal women. Poverty, though, is the critical factor underlying everything else.

Canada has laws against human trafficking. Good laws with stiff penalties, they are, too. The problem is that there is little police or judicial will to enforce these laws. Most of the people who are caught up in genuine human trafficking are farm and industrial workers, not prostitutes. Some women are migrant sex workers. That is, they leave their home countries to come to places like Canada in order to engage in the sex trade. They hope to make a significant amount of money that they can send home to help support their families. Many of the Asian women in the micro-brothels in Vancouver are migrant sex workers who make genuine, deliberate choices to come here on visitor's visas to work for up to six months before returning home. They are not "trafficked."

We also have laws against the sexual exploitation of children. They, too, should be relentlessly enforced. There is no excuse whatever for sexually abusing children.

That said, if we were to document every person who was sexually abused by anyone before the age of 18 or 19, the number would be staggering!

It may be that a large number of women who work as paid companions have been sexually abused at some point in their lives. I do think that many of us have been abused in some way, at some point, usually by fathers, brothers, male relatives, boyfriends, partners, lovers or husbands. It maybe that survivors of violence are over-represented among sex trade workers, but that may not be true. Violence against women is endemic and also sanctioned in our culture. If you don't think so, have a look at debates about what really constitutes violence or how to define what is or is not genuinely abusive. Physical violence is only one kind of abuse. Emotional and psychological abuse are both more prevalent and far more destructive.

The Harper Conservatives may try to pass legislation that will make prostitution much more dangerous for many women. The women who are most at risk, however--women working on the streets--will not stop engaging in it. They work in the sex trade because they have no other legitimate alternatives; because of poverty; because of addictions; because of mental health problems. These workers will work in conditions that are much higher risk than they are, now. Pimps will thrive because they will offer to protect the women who work for them and because they will strive to guarantee male clients' safety from the police.

Some of the rest of us may decide that it's not worth the hassle to work around whatever new laws are created. These women will retire to other professions.

Make no mistake, though: many of us will simply carry on doing what we do. The demand for paid companionship will not go down, regardless of what legislative bodies do. Indeed, when men are under greater pressure to avoid arrest and prosecution, paid companions such as me will have a far easier time screening potential clients. That is, there will be fewer arguments about references, contact information, cell phones and the real identities of our clients. Not only that, but expect our rates to increase, considerably, too!

If the Harper government has any genuine interest in protecting women from the likes of Picton, they should outlaw poverty, put an end to the drug trade and make effective mental health resources available to everyone when needed, rather than forcing many to wait months or years to see a psychiatrist.

I don't think this will happen, though. Legislating a minimum, liveable income would be expensive. Ending the drug trade would have a profound impact on many economies. Vancouver alone would be directly harmed by such a step. And the government is doing its utmost to limit access to health care already because of the expense.

The government is not going to do anything that will actually benefit women, protect any of us from predation or violence, or end the sex trade.

SA, I don't know where you get your information, but most paid companions work indoors and are not coerced by pimps. We are no more likely to have drug or alcohol addictions than women in "straight" professions. About 85% of us work indoors.

I have my information from Canadian news media (various newspapers throughtout the country) that in 80% of cases of prostitution, childhood abuse or drug addiction or forced/pimpimg is the reason behind it (you seem to agree with the childhood abuse and drug component and I didn't say that 80% is pimp/forced either). I sincerely hope those figures are wrong and the majority are willing participants and pimp/drug/abuse free. Btw,they also say only small portion of prostitutes are SWs. So thinking that only SWs have those problems is not likely correct.

I also don't agree that the demand for paid companionship will not go down if Nordic style is implemented in Canada (only one side of equation is guilty (opening the door to blackmail and extorsion by the other side of the equation) and punishable up to 6 months in jail). I for one will stop hobbying altogether and many like myself will do same too. It is just not worth taking such a huge risk lol.

The important point in my post however was not about percentages (I conceded that I am not sure about exact figure) but the fact that they are two sides of prostitution. The dark side (involves childhood abuse, underage, human trafficking, drugs, pimps) and the good side (consenting date for exchange of gifts to help out education,career,temporary financial problem between adults) and banning prostitution altogether (both the dark and the right side) is wrong and that is what the cons are planning to do as they are not intelligent enough to distinguish between the two and want an easy way out so they brush everyone with the same paint, so to speak.

Make no mistake, though: many of us will simply carry on doing what we do. The demand for paid companionship will not go down, regardless of what legislative bodies do. Indeed, when men are under greater pressure to avoid arrest and prosecution, paid companions such as me will have a far easier time screening potential clients. That is, there will be fewer arguments about references, contact information, cell phones and the real identities of our clients. Not only that, but expect our rates to increase, considerably, too!

 

I really don't agree with this line of reasoning. It would seem to me with more at stake it will be harder to screen clients (men would be under even more pressure to remain anonymous). Upscale SP's would have fewer potential clients (I for one would cease hobbying if prohibition was to become the law of the land). That is after all the classic argument against prohibition ie it drives the industry underground and makes it more dangerous, not less.

I would think you would find a gradual transition into a few upscale agencies and independents offering absolute discretion at very high prices at one end of the spectrum, and then an increase in street trade (impulse arrangement made with no electronic trail) with lower than current rates. I would imagine the mid-range independent escorts would come under the most pressure in this type of enviroment. Certainly ones that are well established now with a reliable clientele could continue (though I would expect many clients would disappear) for a while but finding new clients would be very difficult in such an enviroment since advertising would be illegal and even a forum like CERB would find itself either outlawed or lacking in financing (no EC Canada)

Just my opinion

Thanks for posting the resolution, WIT! I agree, it's nothing like as bad as it could have been.

The first part is the classic political trick of putting two unrelated things into the same sentence in order to create an association in the mind of the audience; if you do this often enough you'll convince anyone who isn't really paying attention (which is most people, where politics is concerned) that the two things are, in fact, related. But then you can - truthfully - deny ever having said this if it later becomes necessary or expedient to do so.

And the second bit, as far as I can see, merely commits them to continuing to fight the Bedford case to prevent things being legalized. There's no call to actually push a new law through to make anything that's currently legal into a crime.

I think it really comes down to the current case before the courts. If the decision to overturn the current laws is upheld, the Gov't will be forced to write new law that I suspect will be much more restrictive or even lead to prohibition.

 

If the current laws or reinstated then I doubt Stephen Harper will be the least bit interested in taking on this issue despite what some of his more rabid supporters will be pushing for.

Yes I agree with above statement. I also think that the court challenge was a big mistake and short sighted. It may likely open up a big can of worms.

If the supreme court rules in favor of them, I believe we will see that the newly elected conservative govenment will take advantage of its majority and bring new laws that would ban all forms of prostitution altogether. Otherwise they may not bother to go through the hassels of the issue. I personaly believe that the status quo though not perfect but is the best we can have under present circumstances. I don't know why they did what they did (the court challenge). It was short sighted to say the least, in my view.

.... I don't know why they did what they did (the court challenge). It was short sighted to say the least ...

It's about improving the safety of sex workers. Under the current laws, sex workers have been killed by the dozens.

The challenge is based on the proposition that the impugned provisions prevent prostitutes from conducting their lawful business in a safe environment.

For extensive details about this - consult the rest of the legal section here on Cerb.

Yes WIT I understand the first two points (though I disagree with legalization of public solicitation for many reasons and I also disagree with legalization of living off the avails when it extends to managers and agencies, just for drivers and bodyguards and family members should be legalized) but I genuinely believe that the timing was not right for that challenge. I believe that if they suceed we will have new laws which will jeopardize the safety of sex workers much more.

The tiiming for the court challenge was not right because we had a federal conservative government who openly opposed prostitution (and prostitution laws are under federal jurisdiction not provincial) and at the time all polls were pointing to another conservative government tobe re-elected (the question was a majority or minority). Now if the superior court rule in their favor then we will all be likely paying a heavy price for their action. They should drop it now if they can when we have a backward conservative majority government. The chances for above three points becoming legal for long before new tough federal laws passes the parliament (if the superior court votes in their favor) is nill. However, the chances for a much tougher laws on prostitution (if they win) is almost certain. In summary it is now a NO-WIN situation now lol.

... The tiiming for the court challenge was not right ...

The case was launched in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice over four years ago - the Notice of application is dated 20 March 2007. It would of course have required much legal work and expense prior to that. It will take years more work to see it through. Saying "oops, I changed my mind" in the middle of the process means flushing all that time and effort and painstakingly-raised money for legal costs down the toilet. And then starting the whole torturous process again, from scratch, at some indeterminate point in the future. All based on fears about what a government might do?

Because of the extended timeframe involved in any such case wending its glacial way through the court system, no matter when it might be launched, federal elections are guaranteed to take place during the process. There has never been a point in time, and never will be a point in time, at which anyone would be able to know beforehand that the moment would be perfect to try to take steps to advance social justice and stem the tide of dead sex workers.

If not then, when? What better time to launch a case for sex workers' safety than in 2007, at the moment when the horrific Pickton case was galvanizing public attention and focusing it on the central issue? And right after Parliament's own Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws concluded in December 2006 that:

When is the right time to fight for social justice, anyway? When is the convenient time to stand up for the safety of members of our society?

Is the answer really ... "not now... maybe some other time"?

In 2007 we also had a Harper minority govenment but yes at that time a majority was not in sight. I would lauch a fight and continue the fight on anything when there is a reasonable chance of winning. I see no chances of that now over the next 4 to 5 years. The best outcome is to (possibly) win temporarily but only to lose bad shortly after. I don't think it would take more than 4 to 5 years for the supreme court to make a decision on this challenge. Besides as I said I don't agree with some parts of what has been challenged and I am a hobbyist myself so what do you think that the general public would think about what has been challenged lol.

It's important to remember that the law is a living thing. Justice Himel's decision has been appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. That court may uphold her ruling, overturn it completely, or endorse some parts while rejecting other parts.

Whatever the OCA does, the matter will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It will be several more years before the SCC makes a ruling. They may reject the appeal, revert to Justice Himel 100%, or uphold some things and not others. They may advise Parliament that a new law is needed, or they may not.

Parliament may decide to create new laws which may or may not be improvements over the old ones.

If there are new laws, people will have to be charged under those laws and more judicial rulings will be made, interpreting sections of the law, defining terms, identifying instances where the laws do or do not apply. Different judges will make different rulings, depending on many factors. Some decisions may be appealed.....

It goes on and on. That's why it's important to make a case for change--there are many options and opportunities for success.

In Sweden, very shortly after the laws criminalizing the purchase, but not the sale, of erotic services, men were arrested and tried under the new laws. Those laws provided for imprisonment as a reasonable penalty. Judges, however, quickly decided that jailing men for wanting to purchase sex was too extreme. They decided that it wasn't such a horrible crime. They chose to issue fines--which the laws had allowed for--and the amounts of the fines are roughly comparable to speeding tickets, even when the man was a repeat offender.

The up-shot has been that the "Swedish model" hasn't actually worked the way it was anticipated to work. Men have little to fear when it comes to purchasing sex in Sweden. Street prostitution did go down about 40% initially, but is now reported to be at the same level as before the laws were enacted. Meanwhile, the incidence of violence directed against outdoor sex workers is reported to have increased.

It's hard to say what, exactly, will transpire if the Himel decision is upheld and if the federal government later takes steps to enact new legislation.

The Swedish model was taken up by a few other countries and I don't think that it took so many years for those other countries (Norway, iceland,ireland .....) to make it a law in their countries. I remember that the cons brought the same sex marriage issue to parliament (and fortunately it was voted down as they had a minority then) within a few months of taking office so why they can't do same with prostitution laws?, if OCA votes for it, no? They don't have to wait for supreme court decision, do they? Especially if OCA decision makes prostitution legal in Ontario (not sure if it will as I am not a constitution expert) they will move fast and do anything to reverse it as soon as they can.

The fact that nobody seems to have been jailed sofar doesn't mean that will never happen (it is simply up to the judge and hence luck) but making it criminal (record) is bad enough as the victim will be disqualified for many jobs if not all not to mention that he will lose his present job and likely family too as I believe the Nordic system also makes it mandatory to disclose the names. The fact is that punishment is too severe for many to risk with or without jail terms. We have to make sure this unfair backward model will never spread to Canada. Minimizing the impact of it however, likely doesn't help with that. It is good however to argue that the Nordic system has not worked as it may persuade a few con MPs with some brains to vote against it.

... what do you think that the general public would think about what has been challenged lol.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I quote yet again from the Oct 2010 Angus Reid poll, which asked the general public the following questions (among others):

http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010.10.19_Prost_CAN.pdf

These poll results are mildly encouraging. Hopefully this will give the Harper government some pause in pushing ahead with their announced broadly prohibitionist agenda.

In Sweden, very shortly after the laws criminalizing the purchase, but not the sale, of erotic services, men were arrested and tried under the new laws. Those laws provided for imprisonment as a reasonable penalty. Judges, however, quickly decided that jailing men for wanting to purchase sex was too extreme. They decided that it wasn't such a horrible crime. They chose to issue fines--which the laws had allowed for--and the amounts of the fines are roughly comparable to speeding tickets, even when the man was a repeat offender.

 

An excellent example of the judiciary acting as a check on the other branches of government. Also a great example of the flawed approach of "mandatory sentencing".

One role for the judiciary is to act as a check on "over democraticiation" (rule by the mob). Sadly the new conservative mandatory sentencing laws have weakened judges in this regard. We are soon going to see a flood of new (mostly young) non-violent offenders (drug convictions) arbitrarily thrown into the prison system in a short sighted and misguided impulse to "get tough" (whatever that is suppossed to mean) on crime.

Whatever the OCA does, the matter will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It will be several more years before the SCC makes a ruling. They may reject the appeal, revert to Justice Himel 100%, or uphold some things and not others. They may advise Parliament that a new law is needed, or they may not.

 

It's hard to say what, exactly, will transpire if the Himel decision is upheld and if the federal government later takes steps to enact new legislation.

I hope that I am wrong but I think that if OCA upholds Himel's decision that may likely legalized some or all aspects of prostitution in Ontario and in this case the Federal govenment will move quickly to push tough new prostitution laws through the parliament. So it may be a matter of weeks rather than years for us to see those tough new laws inplace. This conservative government who is just given a majority mandate will NEVER allow legalization of all aspects of prostitution anywhere in Canada than a majority NDP would allow say Capital Punishment to be the law of the land lol. I repeat what I said that the status quo on prostitution is just fine. It is the best compromise between a total legalization and a total ban.