i wanted to post something about the new law...but am so overwhelmed i cannot find the words.
i am angry, disgusted, afraid.....17 year olds will be arrested for corrupting each other.....is this what the abolitionists want?
really...i can't think where to begin....
....is this what the abolitionists want?
It is what the Harper government wants. I wouldn't put it on anyone else .
Now that everything has been driven underground, people ought to be concerned about an increase in emergency room visits, and activity at the morgue.
What else would you expect from a gang of SoCons?
Must rid these vermin like you would any other cancer.
Susan,
The news was very disappointing.
....is this what the abolitionists want?
It is what the Harper government wants. I wouldn't put it on anyone else .
There were too many detractors aligned with too many useless political representatives. There's plenty of 'anyones' implicated by this.
Another law set and designed to be struck down by the SCC. They are playing to their base.
i agree, they are using us for a pre election stike to solidify their support in their voting base...now, whatever happens with the bill, they can stand in front of their supporters and say we did the moral thing...
its dispicable....i am glad to see that even abolitionists are against it.....
Another law set and designed to be struck down by the SCC. They are playing to their base.
That is so true. To the point the opposition is saying send it to the SCC right now, stop wasting everyone's time in other words.
I've spent so much time on various sites with people trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense. I will show a recent police report, for those who are convinced these new laws are necessary to replace the very few overturned by the SCC. SCC didn't overturn every single prostitution related offense. The abolitionists want you to think it did, in order to get you to swallow what they are selling. however, i am also seeing more and more of these NGOs rescue project people being exposed for the frauds that they are. It goes deeper than anyone might know. Also, I've been seeing reactions from more and more former sex workers, some of whom did not enjoy having to make the choice as a last resort. however, they are fiercely against anyone who would take away that choice from any person, and are making noise about it.
Here is why we don't need new laws, or anything other than the ones we already have:
Firstly, note that the police were able to find and charge these people, without c-36.
If anyone tells you we need new laws, and that C-36 is going to fix 'everything', here are the current charges against this group. Now tell me, anyone, if this is an insufficient list to cover all the major issues that any abolitionist has with the sex trade:
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/29315
As a result of the executed search warrants, the following people have been arrested and charged:
Shanicka Providence, 18, of Toronto
1) Conspiracy to Commit an Indictable Offence
2) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
3) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
4) Forcible Confinement
5) Procure to become a Prostitute
6) Exercise Control
7) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
8) Uttering Threats
9) Assault
10) Telecommunication Agreement to Commit Specific Criminal OffencesYoung Person, 17, of Toronto
1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
3) Procure to become a Prostitute
4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
5) Exercise Control
6) Fail to Comply with Probation Order (two counts)Tchello Whyte, 25, of Toronto
1) Possession of Child Pornography
2) Sexual Assault
3) Sexual Interference
4) Procure to become a Prostitute
5) Exercise Control
6) Make Child Pornography
7) Fail to Comply with Probation OrderAlia Alexandra Abdellatif , 25, of Toronto
1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
2) Procure to become a Prostitute
3) Exercise Control
4) Make Child Pornography
5) Imports, Distributes, Sells or Possesses Child Pornography (two counts)
6) Possession of Child PornographyYoung Person, 17, of Toronto
1) Procure to become a Prostitute
2) Fail to Comply with Probation Order (three counts)Markus Cole, 20, of Toronto
1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
Young Person, 17, of Toronto
1) Procure to become a Prostitute
Anthony Talbert, 21, of Toronto
1) Sexual Assault
2) Assault
3) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
4) Fail to Comply Recognizance
5) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
6) Procure to become a Prostitute
7) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
8) Exercise ControlWarrants have been issued for the arrest of the following people:
Darren Letts, 22, of Toronto
1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
3) Procure to become a Prostitute
4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
5) Exercise Control
6) Sexual Assault
7) Sexual InterferenceJason Bartley, 19, of Toronto
1) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
2) Import, Distribute, Sells or Possesses Child Pornography (four counts)
3) Possession of Child Pornography (two counts)
4) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
5) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
6) Procure to become a ProstituteBrian MacKenzie, 22, of Toronto
1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
3) Procure to become a Prostitute
4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
5) Exercise Control
6) Uttering Threats
7) Forcible Confinement
8) Telecommunication Agreement to Commit Specific Criminal Offences
9) Fail to Comply with Probation Order
10) Make Child PornographyKamille Fraser, 21, of Toronto
1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
3) Procure to become a Prostitute
4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
5) Exercise Control
6) Forcible Confinementhttp://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/29327
On Saturday, June 7, 2014, one of the outstanding Project Dove suspects surrendered to police at 43 Division.
Brian Mackenzie, 22, of Toronto, was charged with:
1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
3) Procure to become a Prostitute
4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
5) Exercise Control
6) Uttering Threats
7) Forcible Confinement
8) Telecommunication Agreement to Commit Specific Criminal Offences
9) Fail to Comply with Probation Order
10) Make Child Pornography
11) Import, Distributes, sells or possess for the purpose of Distribute
12) Possession of Child pornography
13) Import, Distributes, sells or possess for the purpose of Distribute.On Sunday, June 8, 2014, another Project Dove suspect, Kamille Fraser, 21, of Toronto, was arrested.
She was charged with:
1) Trafficking in Persons under eighteen years by recruiting
2) Material benefit resulting from trafficking in persons
3) Procure to become a Prostitute
4) Living on avails of Juvenile Prostitution
5) Exercise control
6) Forcible confinement.Warrants have been issued for the arrest of the following people:
Darren Letts, 22, of Toronto:
1) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
2) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
3) Procure to become a Prostitute
4) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
5) Exercise Control
6) Sexual Assault
7) Sexual InterferenceJason Bartley, 19, of Toronto:
1) Living on the Avails of Juvenile Prostitution
2) Import, Distribute, Sells or Possesses Child Pornography X4
3) Possession of Child Pornography X2
4) Trafficking of a Person under the age of 18 years
5) Material Benefit Resulting from Trafficking in Persons
6) Procure to become a Prostitute
http://rabble.ca/polls/what-do-you-think-about-peter-mackays-proposed-se...
What do you think about Peter MacKay's proposed sex work law?
On Wednesday, Peter MacKay tabled the Conservatives' new sex work legislation, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which criminalizes the purchase of sex, the communication for the purpose of selling sex, the gain in material benefit from sex work and advertising sexual services.
What do you think about Peter MacKay's proposed sex work law?
Choices It's terrible! This model will lead to continued violence against sex workers. It's okay. It's good they are criminalizing demand, but a lot more needs to be done. Regardless of my stance, this bill won't be passed because it doesn't address the problems found by the court. It's great! This new 'Canadian model' sounds like a good hybrid for Canada. I'm not really sure and am still confused about the 'sex work debate.' None of the above.
The law will have other unintended consequences as well. Technically it makes the traditional marriage ceremony illegal, since there is a promise of sexual intimacy (and later on consumation), followed by an exchange of rings. Since rings are an item of value, and the law covers more than just money, that part would be criminalized.
Good article by Edward Keenan in the Grid: Peak Cynicism: The federal Conservative government’s new anti-prostitution law is not only a waste of time, but a dangerous bid for a voter base.
I posted this in the How will the Parties Respond thread in Canadian politics, but I feel it fits more here (and my post kinda got buried under a mountain of legal speculation posts). So, I'm reposting here. It's a letter I wrote. Whenever I'm at a loss, I always like writing a letter.
The post:
Well, I finally got around to writing the government about it. The "s. 53 of the Supreme Court of Canada Act" reference I got from Alan Young's letter. Anyone else who wants to take the basic format of my letter and use it yourself, do feel free to. Or, feel free to write one of your own that's more direct and to the point. You can find a list here of MP's contact info. Or, see here to simply find your own MP's email address via postal code.
Dear Honourable Joe Oliver,I live in Lawrence-Eglinton. Bill C-36 is a response of the government to the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford. However, similar to the laws that Bill C-36 is replacing, I feel that Bill C-36 also potentially violates the constitutional right to security of the person of full-service sex trade workers. So, I would like for the government to either quash Bill C-36, or to refer Bill C-36 to the Supreme Court of Canada for a determination of the constitutional validity of this proposed legislation pursuant to s. 53 of the Supreme Court of Canada Act.
Sincerely,
mark_alfred
cc: Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Honourable Attorney General of Canada Peter MacKay, Honourable Leader of the Opposition Tom Mulcair, Official Opposition Critic for Justice Francois Boivin.
Ricochet: [url=http://ricochetmedia.ca/preview/listen-to-sex-workers-kill-bill-c-36]Listen to sex workers, kill Bill C-36[/url]
The bill “ignores other demographics of sex work," according to Anita. "Trans women can’t get straight jobs because of social discrimination so they do sex work. They are very vulnerable [to violence] on the street already. The police harass them already."Nora Butler Burke, former coordinator at ASTT(e)Q, a Montreal advocacy and harm reduction organization with a focus on trans people, shares Anita’s concern for the disproportionate number of trans people involved in sex work.
“Trans people’s lives are very much regulated by the identity documents we have. It can result in a lot of barriers to accessing other forms of employment. It’s really important … for people who are interested in trans issues to know that the fight for decriminalization of sex work and for sex workers’ rights should go hand in hand with any movement or work being done to address the needs of trans people.”
“Some of the worst violence, and most visible forms of violence, is against trans women in the sex trade and also largely against women who are poor, who are Indigenous or racialized. And because trans women are more likely to be working in visible places, on the streets or in bars, being able to access and screen clients is incredibly important – having control over whom one’s clients are, rather than having to make a quick transaction or a quick decision to hop into somebody’s car. [This bill] means that there will be continued targeting of trans women, among others.”
Good article above, thx. On that topic, I also know that many transgenders do sex work also due to the higher income they can get, along with more time. They are seeking to pay for surgery, medications, doctors, cosmetic surgery, etc, none of which is govt funded, and can cost thousands. So many make their transition via sex work, which allows a higher income, and the abilty to take time off needed for surgery recuperation, etc.
More on the above topic, online ;)
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2014/06/mackays-bill-c-3...
.......So, if you want to hear from those who will be directly affected by MacKay's dangerous and unconstitutional legislation, we need to listen to sex workers. They have more at stake than those who think arrests of sex workers and incarceration of "perverts" (your tax dollars at work!) will 'end demand' for sex.
Some related articles/informational pdfs
http://www.aidslaw.ca/publications/interfaces/downloadFile.php?ref=2257
Reckless Endangerment: Q&A on Bill C36
Prostitution bill condemned as immoral by Island faith groups -
Faith leaders in Victoria and across the country are speaking out against a federal prostitution bill they say increases potential dangers for sex workers and is immoral.
“This is a human rights issue,” said Bruce Bryant-Scott, rector at St. Matthias Anglican Church. “We’re concerned about the health, safety and lives of sex workers.”
On Friday, he released a statement of concern about the legislation signed by a consortium of 34 clergy and faith groups. Most are Anglicans from Vancouver Island; about half are women. They include hospital chaplains, university professors, nuns, a reverend mother from Toronto, First Nations and divinity students.
-
There is a new petition.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay: Produce new legislation legalizing prostitution and related activities.
Sex work is and always will be a part of life. Follow the Supreme Court's ruling, and recognize that our current laws regarding prostitution and related offences violatiolates the constitutional guarantee to life, liberty and security of the person.
There is a big difference between protecting children against trafficking and child pornography, and protecting adults from being forced into sex work, and the very real industry of voluntary sex workers. The majority of members of the sex industry are there of their own free will, and by legalizing the industry, we make it safer for all. It also encourages workers to report abuse (including physical and sexual assault) which they may be hesitant to do while it is illegal. Legalizing the industry also permits people to work in safe environments, such as well-run brothels, where their safety is more assured than when working in more anonymous situations.
There will always be prostitution, the question is whether we would rather shame and marginalize, or respect, protect, and tax it.
For more information on sex work, check out http://www.spoc.ca/
This is self explanatory:
Abbotsford police recommend common bawdy-house charge after highest court rules it's unconstitutional
IN DECEMBER 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Criminal Code provision against keeping a common bawdy-house.
That's because Canada's highest court found that it violated section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Despite this, Abbotsford police issued a news release today declaring that they're "recommending charges of 'Keeping a Common Bawdy House' against a 54-year-old woman from Vancouver".
It came after police received tips of a potential "bawdy house" in the 2800 block of Townline Road.
Abbotsford police noted that the location isn't far from an elementary school and a high school.
"It was also important to determine if there was evidence of Human Trafficking or the involvement of youth at the residence," the news release stated.
Last December's Supreme Court of Canada ruling striking down the bawdy-house prohibition won't tak
e effect for a year.
This gives the federal government time to bring in new laws that don't violate sex workers' charter rights.
Bill C-36 has been introduced in Parliament in response to the court ruling, but the legislation has not yet been scrutinized by the Commons justice committee. It's still a long way from receiving royal assent.
Meanwhile, there are provisions on the books for addressing the issues of concern to Abbotsford police. The Department of Justice website notes that section 279 of the Criminal Code offers a comprehensive response to human trafficking, with penalties ranging up to 14 years in prison.
In addition, section 212.4 of the Criminal Code makes it illegal to communicate with anyone under the age of 18 for the purpose of prostitution. This carries a maximum sentence of five years.
So the question remains: why would Abbotsford police recommend a charge of keeping a common-bawdy house when it could recommend these other charges? Is it for a lack of evidence?
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/6/e005191.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=dJU3wHl0LEkteB7
Criminalisation of clients: limited effect on deterrence of sex work
Sex workers reported that when police target clients, some clients are deterred from purchasing sex on the street.
No one will pull over if there's a car, a police car near you. It's, like, if they see the lights they'll disappear. You can see the difference in traffic. They're just gone.—Selina, transgender woman sex worker
Some sex workers, however, felt that rather than preventing clients from purchasing sex, police presence resulted in potential clients seeking out sex workers in a different area of the city.
Once the guy that's looking for a woman sees a cop, in the neighbourhood, he's scared. So he'll go to another neighbourhood and find another woman somewhere.—Rebecca, cisgender woman sex worker
For participants in this study, the reality of living in poverty and marginalisation often combined with illicit substance use meant that even when police target clients, sex workers report that they continue to work for the obvious reason of earning an income. Ethnographic observation and sex workers’ narratives indicated that police enforcement of clients had no effect on deterring women from engaging in street-based sex work (box 1). Indeed, for many participants the enforcement of clients forced them to spend longer hours on the street to earn an income. Thus, contrary to the objectives of criminalising clients, impeding sex workers’ ability to engage with potential clients did not result in less street-based sex work for these women. Instead, having access to fewer clients meant it was harder to earn an income and forced sex workers to accept clients or services (eg, sex without a condom) that they would otherwise reject due to safety concerns; this directly increased risks for physical and sexual violence and poor health, including HIV/STIs.
,,,,
Sex worker voices:
While they're going around chasing johns away from pulling up beside you, I have to stay out for longer […] Whereas if we weren't harassed we would be able to be more choosy as to where we get in, who we get in with you know what I mean? Because of being so cold and being harassed I got into a car where I normally wouldn't have. The guy didn't look at my face right away. And I just hopped in cause I was cold and tired of standing out there. And you know, he put something to my throat. And I had to do it for nothing. Whereas I woulda made sure he looked at me, if I hadn't been waiting out there so long.—Violet, cisgender woman sex worker
It pisses me off that they [the police] are there because basically what it comes down to is the shortest time that I'm out there, the shorter I'm on the street and the better I'm paid. But you [police] stand out there and you fuck up my business and scare away my dates. The longer I'm out there my chances of getting sick, raped, robbed, beat up whatever are greater so.
—Lisa, cisgender woman sex worker
Of course, ‘cause no one's [clients] going to stop with them there. I'm not going to go home. So they're [police] not really doing anything, they're just keeping me out there longer. Really, if they would just leave me alone, I'd get a date and go home and they wouldn't see me. But that way I end up staying out there for hours ‘cause I'm not going home empty-handed so I don't know what they think they're really achieving.
—Charlene, cisgender woman sex worker
Destabilising effect of police safety checks
It's a drag, you know? I'm out there to make money, not waste twenty minutes talking to them [police]. And then I'm talking to them and half the dates that see me talking to them now think maybe I'm a cop, so they don't wanna stop, now they know the cops are around, they don't wanna stop, or they wonder what I've done to attract the cops so they don't wanna stop, it's just a hassle, you know?
—Charlene, cisgender woman sex worker
If the clients see you talking to the cops then they don't pick you up. [When police talk to me] they're respectful but they know that they're wasting my time so. They can do whatever they want. They're fucking up everything.
—Selina, transgender woman sex worker
Reporting violence to police
No I would never go to the cops [to report violence]. Because it makes it look like, we shouldn't be out there like we can't take care of ourselves. I feel like if I went and reported some of these things that it might do more harm to the working profession than do good. So I don't do that. Basically we have to fend for ourselves. They don't really like us to begin with.
—Rose, cisgender woman sex worker
I've needed the police's help with bad dates and they've done absolutely nothing. The fact that it's not legalized you kinda can't do it, you know.
—Charlene, cisgender woman sex worker
