Canada's Prostitution Laws Struck Down By Court

[Luv2play]

In a court ruling by the Ontario Superior Court handed down today, the key provisions of Canada's prostitution laws were struck down. While prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada, the three key provisions which sought to regulate the trade were ruled invalid. They are communication for the purpose of procuring sex for money, keeping a common bawdy house and living off the avails of prostitution.

 

The three women who brought the case argued that these provisions force sex workers into the street where they are exposed to more danger than if they were able to conduct their business from their own homes (or presumably a brothel).

 

The case is significant in that it was brought in a major jurisdiction (Ontario, the largest province) and one Supreme Court justice has already said that the communication provision was "bizarre". Whether the federal government will appeal is not known. Canada's government is a Conservative one with right-of-centre views on many social issues. But it is also a minority government and could be defeated by the joint action of the opposition parties, which are all more liberal on social issues than the governing party.

 

This is going to be fun to see what happens next. Under the current provisions (until today that is), there was little chance of being prosecuted for obtaining sexual services over the phone or internet. These communications are protected by privacy laws. The law was used primarily to crack down on street workers although arrests in common bawdy houses were not unknown.

 

In fact several years ago, a dozen or so dancers and the manager were arrested at Taboo, a Montreal gay strippers club, for being found-ins in a common bawdy house. I believe most if not all of the charges were later dropped but it did bring a chill at the time and the dancers concerned went through a period of anxiety and stress.

 

My guess is that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, as the only other option open to the government would be to try to fashion a watered down set of provisions.

[Juan Vancouver]

I have to confess that I am a bit saddened by some of this. While the bawdy house laws and the laws against living of the avails of prostitution were ridiculous, the bit about selling sex for money was incredibly useful and resulted in preventing abuse. If all I am charging for is my time of companionship, nobody can ever force me to do anything I don't want to do, therefore it prevents potential rape.

The minute I am allowed to charge for a sexual activity, my ability to give my consent is taken away. I am supposed to perform this service whether or not I want it. I haven't read the amended laws yet, but I am very curious. I hope that it only involves the decriminalization of soliciting escorting services without actually changing the definition of escorting.

Here's to hoping!

[Luv2play]

I have to confess that I am a bit saddened by some of this. While the bawdy house laws and the laws against living of the avails of prostitution were ridiculous, the bit about selling sex for money was incredibly useful and resulted in preventing abuse. If all I am charging for is my time of companionship, nobody can ever force me to do anything I don't want to do, therefore it prevents potential rape.

The minute I am allowed to charge for a sexual activity, my ability to give my consent is taken away. I am supposed to perform this service whether or not I want it. I haven't read the amended laws yet, but I am very curious. I hope that it only involves the decriminalization of soliciting escorting services without actually changing the definition of escorting.

Here's to hoping!

 

Juan, your response is very interesting and a little bit surprising. I don't see how agreeing to a certain sex act takes away one's right to protect themselves against rape. Even a husband has no right to have sex with his wife if she does not agree.

 

The "charging for time" pretense, which escorts have to use in jurisdictions where prostitution is illegal, appears to me to give the upper hand to the escort. Even if the understanding is that sex will take place the escort can change his mind on a whim if he so wishes and refuse to do the things which were agreed orally. The client in such cases can write a negative review in Daddy's.

 

The women in this case argued that the current law is more likely to result in acts of violence against sex workers, including rape and even murder. We have seen many of these cases in Canada and elsewhere. You are arguing the opposite, that agreement to commit certain sexual acts may lead to the client forcefully seeking to do things not agreed or simply resorting to violence.

 

I wonder if that is the tendency in jurisdictions where prostitution is completely decriminalized as in certain European countries. From my knowledge, violence is not as common in places like Amsterdam and Hamburg between prostitutes and their johns. Do you have contrary knowledge?

 

As a client of escorts, I am more drawn to the advertising of escorts that leave little to the imagination when it comes to what one is agreeing to before putting up good money for a date. Frankly, I would never pay anyone $250 or more an hour just for their time. I have lots of friends that give me their time for nothing. With an escort, I am looking for something more.

 

Anyway, who knows where this will end? The current law is absurd. There is still wide resistance to completely legalizing prostitution. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court judgement, something will have to be done by governments at both the federal and provincial level, particularly if brothels are allowed. And yes, if this happens, some escorts may find their business reduced as there will be other options for clients to what exists today.

[Guest]

The minute I am allowed to charge for a sexual activity, my ability to give my consent is taken away. I am supposed to perform this service whether or not I want it. I haven't read the amended laws yet, but I am very curious. I hope that it only involves the decriminalization of soliciting escorting services without actually changing the definition of escorting.

Here's to hoping!

Oh, come on. You always have the option of refusing the money and sending the client home. Would you really take a client's money and then scream "Rape, rape!"? Allowing you to charge for sexual activity just makes everything above board with everyone involved. As with any other business, you have the right to refuse service to anyone. Just don't take their money then. Are you honestly telling me you've taken a client's money, then said "No, I don't want to!"???