new laws

When the new laws come into effect it will be illegal to even think about sex!!

The OP seems very confused. I think that with all the media attention, you are just now getting the information about the laws that have been around since 1985. They are not new, they are existing, and in fact there are no "new" laws at all.

There are a lot of people who have been overly confused by the court case and the reportage, I think. Since 1985, it has not and is not legal to do incalls, whether there is one sp or a dozen using the same place. Many many sps think that it is legal for one sp, but not if there are 2 or more. Not so. However, all the LE does is arrest the multiple person setups, so it looks like that is the law. LE could come and get one single sp, if they wanted to, but they just don't. Incalls are possible, but they aren't legal even tho the activity taking place (prostitution itself) is legal.

The court challenge and the decision by the court to throw out this and a couple of other laws is ONLY in Ontario. No matter what happens there, if the laws are replaced or not, it will still only apply to what happens in Ontario not BC, AB or MB.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about prostitution being protected as far as I can see.

There are protections while it is legal, but that will change if it becomes illegal.

Pillowtalk said:

The OP seems very confused. I think that with all the media attention, you are just now getting the information about the laws that have been around since 1985. They are not new, they are existing, and in fact there are no "new" laws at all.

There are a lot of people who have been overly confused by the court case and the reportage, I think. Since 1985, it has not and is not legal to do incalls, whether there is one sp or a dozen using the same place. Many many sps think that it is legal for one sp, but not if there are 2 or more. Not so. However, all the LE does is arrest the multiple person setups, so it looks like that is the law. LE could come and get one single sp, if they wanted to, but they just don't. Incalls are possible, but they aren't legal even tho the activity taking place (prostitution itself) is legal.

The court challenge and the decision by the court to throw out this and a couple of other laws is ONLY in Ontario. No matter what happens there, if the laws are replaced or not, it will still only apply to what happens in Ontario not BC, AB or MB.

Click to expand...

An incall is legal, as long as it is your place of residence, and not shared. Your home is a private place, and is not considered a bawdy house, when occupied by only one person. It's when there is more than one person, were things get illegal. And if anyone finds out and your a renter, you'll most likely lose your lease and be kicked out. They would also be required to show evidence that the residence is being used for those purposes.

As far as my understanding goes, which could be totally wrong. As everyone's interpretation of the law as read, can be different.

I got drunk, smoked pot, sniffed cocaine and blew a kid from Brazil while I was high on E

Nobody has knocked on my door yet.

alinburnaby said:

The expression of sexuality, ie the right to have sex for money is protected in the same manner as the right to have sex with the same sex. Pierre Elliot Trudeau didn't believe that the government had any business in the bedrooms of the nation.

The reason that governments rushed, in 1985, to make activities around prostitution illegal was that the old prostitution laws were struck down.

The reason that section 197 reads the way it does is because of a 1990 case http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/freedom_assoc/skinner.html

Note that all of the Justices on the Supreme Court of Canada have been replaced since 1990, Beverley McLachlin's court is much more liberal than the court in 1990. Since Justices for the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed from serving justices of provincial superior courts, the coming replacement justices will also be liberal in the application of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverley_McLachlin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada
http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/decisions/index-eng.asp

Articles 2, 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are what all challenges to current prostitution laws are based on.

Here is a summary of activity on Prostitution Law (to 2004) http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-e.htm
Here is a summary of activity on Sexual Orientation Law (to 2004) http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/921-e.htm

Click to expand...

Yes, but that all relates to control of activities around prostitution, not prostitution itself.

I think people should also consider that although the same laws apply through out Canada currently regarding bawdy houses or in calls, the by laws are different in every place and how they are enforced is different cities and provinces through out Canada. So where you can find an agency like seductions who has been in the same place for nearly a decade I believe, with no hassles from the police regarding shutting it down or raids, you then move to Calgary where it is heavily enforced and illegal to maintain an in call for either agencies or independents. I really hope they start making changes to the systems regarding in calls in other parts of the country so that women will be safer in their working conditions, amd thanks for the information everyone put in this thread I learned quite a bit more from it all.

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/current_20110613_46486.mp3

just for a laugh!!!
love susieXXXO

susi said:

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/current_20110613_46486.mp3

just for a laugh!!!
love susieXXXO

Click to expand...

You owned that "debate" Susi, but to be fair, your opponent was badly overmatched in both facts and intellect. This is a newer spokesperson for the Vancouver Rape Relief Society? What happened to the sobbing woman?

Diversions said:

OK, so the bottom line...guys goes to an agencie, it gets raided while he is having sex with SP....what happens?

Click to expand...

Most likely, he gets embarassed by a bunch of questions from moralistic cops. Maybe he gets sent to a "john school," depending on the city where this happens, and possibly charged with a prostitution-related offense. He should keep his mouth shut and get a lawyer.

If the woman in the debate with Susi (podcast just above) sees her political views accepted in Canadian law, he will be charged as a client of a prostitute, who has contributed to human trafficking and the degradation of women.

HankQuinlan said:

You owned that "debate" Susi, but to be fair, your opponent was badly overmatched in both facts and intellect. This is a newer spokesperson for the Vancouver Rape Relief Society? What happened to the sobbing woman?

Click to expand...

i know!lol i just think it reflects that they don't care about the feelings of the women they send in to do these things. i mean she must've been pretty upset after. i don't know what's going on with trisha baptie, she was in attendance at an event out at UBC where her cohorts attacked me so maybe she's feeling some doubt...?

love susie XXXO

Technically Speaking

"...Agency gets raided while he is having sex with SP....what happens? "

Prostitution is a lawful and legitimate occupation/profession/activity and there is no distinction between the actions of the client and the provider. Both are exchanging sex for money. No problem so far.

This is an agency so the police prove that prostitution commonly occures there. The place is therefore found to be a common bawdy house and anyone found there without lawful excuse is commiting a crime. This applies to everyone equally. I have no idea how they argue that engaging in prostitution is not a lawful excuse.

We are talking about the law here, not justice or reason.

Technically, I understand there is no difference between an incall where one person works and an incall or agency where two or more people work. If there is recurrent prostitution at one location then it becomes a common bawdy house. I am contradicting what Ivana Humpalot said on the first page so please correct me if you think I have it wrong.

The important point here is that all the independants working on their own can have their incalls declared common bawdy houses by the police. A nasty police chief can do huge harm to this community. It is esential that these laws be struck down.

Another interesting point. If I recall correctly, a provincial court back east has determined that any sexual touching for money is prostitution. That means private dances, at least the sort I have enjoyed, are prostitution. The club can be shut down as a common bawdy house and everyone there can be charged with being found there without lawful excuse. Again it doesn't matter who touches who. Again, bad laws make everyone in this community vulnerable.