Problem solved!
June 4, 2014 4:58 PM Subscribe
After the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canadian prostitution laws (previously), the Conservative Party has introduced new measures that would legalize the sale of sex, but that also criminalize the purchase of sex or soliciting in public, print or online.
Katrina Pacey of the Pivot Legal Society told the CBC that "this legislation is going to have an absolutely devastating impact on sex workers' safety across the country." Another intervener in the Supreme Court case, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said the law would "teach future generations of boys that it is unacceptable to buy sex."
Katrina Pacey of the Pivot Legal Society told the CBC that "this legislation is going to have an absolutely devastating impact on sex workers' safety across the country." Another intervener in the Supreme Court case, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said the law would "teach future generations of boys that it is unacceptable to buy sex."
Oops, my quote was on the same topic but from an article not linked in the post. Here it is.
posted by desjardins at 5:05 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by desjardins at 5:05 PM on June 4, 2014
I am Johns' complete lack of surprise.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:24 PM on June 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:24 PM on June 4, 2014 [12 favorites]
The threat of criminal punishment for purchasing sexual services is supposed to decrease – and eventually end – the demand for sex work.
That is working out so well in the United States. A land with no prostitution.
posted by birdherder at 5:38 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
That is working out so well in the United States. A land with no prostitution.
posted by birdherder at 5:38 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
you know she's a patriotic canadian hooker when she doffs her panties and you see the maple leaf.
prostitution should be legal and regulated for the safety and welfare of all.
posted by bruce at 5:46 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
prostitution should be legal and regulated for the safety and welfare of all.
posted by bruce at 5:46 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
There was a huge celebration among left-leaning people here in Ontario when the Supreme Court decision came in last year. People were virtually dancing in the streets.
I never understood why. It was never plausible that the Harper government would do anything but create a new, stricter law.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:01 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
I never understood why. It was never plausible that the Harper government would do anything but create a new, stricter law.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:01 PM on June 4, 2014 [1 favorite]
Don't forget the line immediately following: "why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?"
posted by dr_dank at 6:41 PM on June 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
posted by dr_dank at 6:41 PM on June 4, 2014 [11 favorites]
I never understood why. It was never plausible that the Harper government would do anything but create a new, stricter law.
If the new law doesn't adequately address the Supreme Court's original concerns, then presumably the one-year reprieve will expire and, in the absence of any law, prostitution will be completely decriminalized. I think. It's not clear to me how the Supreme Court would come to rule on the new bill in practice, though, nor that they would necessarily deem the new bill wanting (though the lawyer representing the women who brought the original suit thinks the court will find it unacceptable).
posted by chrominance at 6:42 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
If the new law doesn't adequately address the Supreme Court's original concerns, then presumably the one-year reprieve will expire and, in the absence of any law, prostitution will be completely decriminalized. I think. It's not clear to me how the Supreme Court would come to rule on the new bill in practice, though, nor that they would necessarily deem the new bill wanting (though the lawyer representing the women who brought the original suit thinks the court will find it unacceptable).
posted by chrominance at 6:42 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Thanks chrominance, that's interesting. I hadn't seen that angle in the news coverage today, and I assumed the CPC had massaged the law into the kind of shape that would get it past the Court. But you're right -- Harper caring what the SCC has to say is not something to be assumed. ;)
posted by saturday_morning at 7:05 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by saturday_morning at 7:05 PM on June 4, 2014
It was never plausible that the Harper government would do anything but create a new, stricter law.
I have a close friend who worked for Pivot while in law school. Shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Bedford, we were discussing how the government would react. We agreed that pushing a Nordic Model law was pretty much the only response that Harper would ever consider. The fact that it seems to completely fail the test set out in Bedford is probably a feature, not a bug. This way Harper can continue his dangerous feud with the Chief Justice and the judiciary in general. He is probably planning on running against the Supreme Court next election. I wouldn't be surprised if his political team was already shooting TV attack ads showing Beverly McLachlin in her ermine trimmed robes and insinuating she's a pimp.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:16 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I have a close friend who worked for Pivot while in law school. Shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Bedford, we were discussing how the government would react. We agreed that pushing a Nordic Model law was pretty much the only response that Harper would ever consider. The fact that it seems to completely fail the test set out in Bedford is probably a feature, not a bug. This way Harper can continue his dangerous feud with the Chief Justice and the judiciary in general. He is probably planning on running against the Supreme Court next election. I wouldn't be surprised if his political team was already shooting TV attack ads showing Beverly McLachlin in her ermine trimmed robes and insinuating she's a pimp.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 7:16 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't understand the opposition to this law. Aren't systems that criminalize johns while leaving sex work legal often held up as model feminist approaches to sex work?
posted by indubitable at 7:26 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 7:26 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
Aren't systems that criminalize johns while leaving sex work legal often held up as model feminist approaches to sex work?
Sure, but they're just as often derided by other feminists. It's safe to say that feminist opinion on sex work is not monolithic.
This is an excellent summary of the new law from Pivot, by the way.
posted by ripley_ at 7:48 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
Sure, but they're just as often derided by other feminists. It's safe to say that feminist opinion on sex work is not monolithic.
This is an excellent summary of the new law from Pivot, by the way.
posted by ripley_ at 7:48 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
As a layperson, one huge problem I see with it is that making illegal the advertising of sexual services online or in print forces sex workers onto the street to attract business, which is the opposite of what they wanted and which was part of the reason that the old law was struck down in the first place, in that it put sex workers in danger.
posted by Flashman at 7:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Flashman at 7:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [6 favorites]
It means sex workers can't work out of a safe workspace with a receptionist/bouncer where they can evaluate clients and avoid the dangerous ones.
Instead, they'll have to work out of alleys and unsupervised motel rooms because that's where the jobs will be. So more rape, assault, and so on.
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Instead, they'll have to work out of alleys and unsupervised motel rooms because that's where the jobs will be. So more rape, assault, and so on.
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [5 favorites]
Seems like a clever rules-lawyer could probably find a loophole. Like, I dunno, a safe workspace with a receptionist/bouncer, which doesn't advertise or solicit, but via word of mouth you might hear that you can buy a $200 clicky-pen there, and the women who work there are very friendly.
It's like Japanese pachinko parlors. Legally, they can't give you cash when you win, because gambling is against the law. But you can win a bag of plastic spider rings, and there just happens to be a guy in the alley around the back who collects plastic spider rings, and pays cash.
posted by rifflesby at 8:09 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's like Japanese pachinko parlors. Legally, they can't give you cash when you win, because gambling is against the law. But you can win a bag of plastic spider rings, and there just happens to be a guy in the alley around the back who collects plastic spider rings, and pays cash.
posted by rifflesby at 8:09 PM on June 4, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's not clear to me how the Supreme Court would come to rule on the new bill in practice.
There are a few routes. The most obvious one is that someone would be charged under the new legislation and challenge it on constitutional grounds. That will take a number of years to make it to the Supreme Court. The federal government could also refer the matter to the Court itself, but that seems unlikely. The provincial governments can refer matters to their own courts of appeal, leaving a likely subsequent appeal of that decision to the Supreme Court itself.
My guess is that no one will want to touch this issue, so we'll have to wait for a case to wind its way through to the top court.
posted by sfred at 8:33 PM on June 4, 2014
There are a few routes. The most obvious one is that someone would be charged under the new legislation and challenge it on constitutional grounds. That will take a number of years to make it to the Supreme Court. The federal government could also refer the matter to the Court itself, but that seems unlikely. The provincial governments can refer matters to their own courts of appeal, leaving a likely subsequent appeal of that decision to the Supreme Court itself.
My guess is that no one will want to touch this issue, so we'll have to wait for a case to wind its way through to the top court.
posted by sfred at 8:33 PM on June 4, 2014
Here's the loophole: Suddenly across Canada, all prostitutes are now porn actresses, which is still legal. Prospective johns are now perfectly legal porn actors, who pay to audition for a porn scene. All sex scenes are filmed, cause it's not prostitution, but the john can pay extra to accidentally drop the batteries out of the camera before filming starts.
posted by praiseb at 8:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by praiseb at 8:49 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
But this assumes paying porn performers is legal under the proposed law.
I just skimmed the actual proposed statute, but I didn't see "sexual service" defined. Could not performing sexually for a camera be considered a sexual service, and thus illegal to be bought?
posted by kevinsp8 at 8:55 PM on June 4, 2014
I just skimmed the actual proposed statute, but I didn't see "sexual service" defined. Could not performing sexually for a camera be considered a sexual service, and thus illegal to be bought?
posted by kevinsp8 at 8:55 PM on June 4, 2014
Either both sides of the transaction should be legal, or both should be illegal. Making it legal to sell and illegal to buy is an insupportable hypocrisy of the law.
posted by knoyers at 9:01 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by knoyers at 9:01 PM on June 4, 2014 [3 favorites]
I don't understand the opposition to this law. Aren't systems that criminalize johns while leaving sex work legal often held up as model feminist approaches to sex work?
I hope not, such laws are a joke. It should never be legal to sell something which it is illegal to buy.
posted by Justinian at 9:03 PM on June 4, 2014
I hope not, such laws are a joke. It should never be legal to sell something which it is illegal to buy.
posted by Justinian at 9:03 PM on June 4, 2014
It also makes it "illegal to sell sexual services in public spaces where persons under the age of 18 could be present". So the Tories have closed off the street as well.
No online or print advertising? I forsee some interesting radio ads or something akin to gaisensha. Or, more realistically, touts standing outside well-known but unmarked brothels.
posted by figurant at 9:14 PM on June 4, 2014
No online or print advertising? I forsee some interesting radio ads or something akin to gaisensha. Or, more realistically, touts standing outside well-known but unmarked brothels.
posted by figurant at 9:14 PM on June 4, 2014
"why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?"
"Girls walk this earth all the time screwing for free. Why is it you add business to the mix and boys like you can't stand the thought? I'll tell you: It's 'cause suddenly you don'town it, the way you thought you did."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:38 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
"Girls walk this earth all the time screwing for free. Why is it you add business to the mix and boys like you can't stand the thought? I'll tell you: It's 'cause suddenly you don'town it, the way you thought you did."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:38 PM on June 4, 2014 [4 favorites]
You get opposition to legalization from all sides of the ideological divide, really, with both pseudo-moralist right wingers and (some) feminist left wingers against it. For very different reasons obviously. And both misguided even if I respect the reasons some feminists oppose it far more than I respect the reasons behind right-wing opposition.
posted by Justinian at 9:56 PM on June 4, 2014
posted by Justinian at 9:56 PM on June 4, 2014
This is really about getting sex workers to go away for as long as it takes the law to climb up the ladder of appeals, or for the Tories to deny responsibility for the increasing, visible prevalence of street level sex work.
I live in one of Ontario's poorest non-rez communities, where I've worked for a number of nonprofits. In 2010 we were briefed about the rise of "survival prostitution"--ad hoc sex work to secure immediate needs--in the face of skyrocketing rent and food prices and a collapsing job market. It took another two and years before I started seeing street corner prostitution--this in a city of only 70,000 people with perhaps 10 downtown, non-residential blocks total, mind--and another year after that for this to evolve to insistent panhandler/prostitutes who I have learned to give a toonie and without pausing, refer them to a particular social worker at the Elizabeth Fry society.
These women are part of a network of semi-legal rooming houses that have become centers for drug abuse, crime and other problems because the tenants can't afford to live anywhere else and can barely afford to rent the room, because my city is home to retirees and students who have caused rents to skyrocket. Widespread background checks and illegal requests for key money mean that the listed tenant is often not the only, or even regular inhabitant of a room. This creates problems for welfare applications, and welfare isn't enough. The only ground level labour for uneducated people is short term industrial work, which discriminates against women as a matter of course.
This is happening in other communities as well, of course, all over the province.
So these visible sex workers (and not all sex workers, who of course represent a wide variety) represent the distilled failures of a government. The federal Tories have ground Ontario down to nothing but banks and their appendages, and their provincial predecessors in the late 90s/early 00s did damage that is still being felt. And when Aboriginal leaders are reviving calls to account for women from their community that Canadian society has evidently deemed disposable, this new wave of impoverished sex labourers is the last thing the government wants in front of it.
It would literally rather see them die.
posted by mobunited at 1:25 AM on June 5, 2014 [19 favorites]
I live in one of Ontario's poorest non-rez communities, where I've worked for a number of nonprofits. In 2010 we were briefed about the rise of "survival prostitution"--ad hoc sex work to secure immediate needs--in the face of skyrocketing rent and food prices and a collapsing job market. It took another two and years before I started seeing street corner prostitution--this in a city of only 70,000 people with perhaps 10 downtown, non-residential blocks total, mind--and another year after that for this to evolve to insistent panhandler/prostitutes who I have learned to give a toonie and without pausing, refer them to a particular social worker at the Elizabeth Fry society.
These women are part of a network of semi-legal rooming houses that have become centers for drug abuse, crime and other problems because the tenants can't afford to live anywhere else and can barely afford to rent the room, because my city is home to retirees and students who have caused rents to skyrocket. Widespread background checks and illegal requests for key money mean that the listed tenant is often not the only, or even regular inhabitant of a room. This creates problems for welfare applications, and welfare isn't enough. The only ground level labour for uneducated people is short term industrial work, which discriminates against women as a matter of course.
This is happening in other communities as well, of course, all over the province.
So these visible sex workers (and not all sex workers, who of course represent a wide variety) represent the distilled failures of a government. The federal Tories have ground Ontario down to nothing but banks and their appendages, and their provincial predecessors in the late 90s/early 00s did damage that is still being felt. And when Aboriginal leaders are reviving calls to account for women from their community that Canadian society has evidently deemed disposable, this new wave of impoverished sex labourers is the last thing the government wants in front of it.
It would literally rather see them die.
posted by mobunited at 1:25 AM on June 5, 2014 [19 favorites]
Making it legal to sell and illegal to buy is an insupportable hypocrisy of the law.
No, it's not hypocritical at all; the principle is harm reduction and that principle is being followed. We know that laws criminalising the sale of sex do a lot of harm to vulnerable people - more harm than criminalising the purchase.
You can argue that you can prevent even more harm by making prostitution completely legal so it's out in the open, and that's fair, but to call the current law "insupportable hypocrisy" is, I think, to ignore the kinds of barbarity that take place when the sale is criminalised.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:39 AM on June 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
No, it's not hypocritical at all; the principle is harm reduction and that principle is being followed. We know that laws criminalising the sale of sex do a lot of harm to vulnerable people - more harm than criminalising the purchase.
You can argue that you can prevent even more harm by making prostitution completely legal so it's out in the open, and that's fair, but to call the current law "insupportable hypocrisy" is, I think, to ignore the kinds of barbarity that take place when the sale is criminalised.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:39 AM on June 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
But using sex to sell other things is still legal. Just can't buy sex itself.
What a prude, Harper!
posted by St. Peepsburg at 4:26 AM on June 5, 2014
What a prude, Harper!
posted by St. Peepsburg at 4:26 AM on June 5, 2014
No, it's not hypocritical at all; the principle is harm reduction and that principle is being followed. We know that laws criminalising the sale of sex do a lot of harm to vulnerable people - more harm than criminalising the purchase.
Worth noting that the Canadian bill that was just struck down would have criminalized sex workers also - specifically, it would have made "communicating in a public place" for the purpose of prostitution a criminal offence for both sex worker and customer.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:38 AM on June 5, 2014
Worth noting that the Canadian bill that was just struck down would have criminalized sex workers also - specifically, it would have made "communicating in a public place" for the purpose of prostitution a criminal offence for both sex worker and customer.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:38 AM on June 5, 2014
Prostitution is an economic choice. One that is made in the economic realities we live in. Eliminate poverty, eliminate prostitution.
Reminds me of a tweet I saw the other day: "hmm well I'd say I'm fiscally conservative but socially very liberal. the problems are bad but their causes...their causes are very good"
posted by fontophilic at 7:42 AM on June 5, 2014
Reminds me of a tweet I saw the other day: "hmm well I'd say I'm fiscally conservative but socially very liberal. the problems are bad but their causes...their causes are very good"
posted by fontophilic at 7:42 AM on June 5, 2014
No, it's not hypocritical at all; the principle is harm reduction and that principle is being followed. We know that laws criminalising the sale of sex do a lot of harm to vulnerable people - more harm than criminalising the purchase.
You can argue that you can prevent even more harm by making prostitution completely legal so it's out in the open, and that's fair, but to call the current law "insupportable hypocrisy" is, I think, to ignore the kinds of barbarity that take place when the sale is criminalised.
But the the sale of sex wasn't criminalized prior to the SCC ruling and this new law. Selling and buying sex was legal. However, communicating in public for the purpose of engaging in sex work, living off the avails of sex work, and various prohibitions related to "bawdy houses" (brothels), effectively prohibited sex work, which forced sex workers to have to conduct their work in ways that endangered their health and safety for fear of criminal prosecution. This bill criminalizes the purchase of sex, and so there is little incentive for johns to want to negotiate transactions in circumstances that are any more safe than before. The legislation in this regard goes against the spirit of the SCC ruling and may do little to advance the goals of harm reduction without additional social programming. Sex workers may no longer be fined / prosecuted (as long as they stay away from schools), but the legislation does nothing to make things safer on the streets, where true harm reduction is necessary, addressing violence, disease, and addiction. Sex workers need access to labour rights, health and safety standards, and human rights legislation.
I could say a lot more about what this legislation says about the current relationship between the executive, the judiciary, and our constitutional democracy in general, but I'll leave it at that.
posted by ageispolis at 8:18 AM on June 5, 2014
You can argue that you can prevent even more harm by making prostitution completely legal so it's out in the open, and that's fair, but to call the current law "insupportable hypocrisy" is, I think, to ignore the kinds of barbarity that take place when the sale is criminalised.
But the the sale of sex wasn't criminalized prior to the SCC ruling and this new law. Selling and buying sex was legal. However, communicating in public for the purpose of engaging in sex work, living off the avails of sex work, and various prohibitions related to "bawdy houses" (brothels), effectively prohibited sex work, which forced sex workers to have to conduct their work in ways that endangered their health and safety for fear of criminal prosecution. This bill criminalizes the purchase of sex, and so there is little incentive for johns to want to negotiate transactions in circumstances that are any more safe than before. The legislation in this regard goes against the spirit of the SCC ruling and may do little to advance the goals of harm reduction without additional social programming. Sex workers may no longer be fined / prosecuted (as long as they stay away from schools), but the legislation does nothing to make things safer on the streets, where true harm reduction is necessary, addressing violence, disease, and addiction. Sex workers need access to labour rights, health and safety standards, and human rights legislation.
I could say a lot more about what this legislation says about the current relationship between the executive, the judiciary, and our constitutional democracy in general, but I'll leave it at that.
posted by ageispolis at 8:18 AM on June 5, 2014
One that is made in the economic realities we live in. Eliminate poverty, eliminate prostitution.
Wayull.... There are certainly people who do sex work because they have no other options, but there are also people who do sex work because their other options do not offer things that sex work does.
Eliminating poverty would have many positive effects, among them people not feeling compelled to do jobs that are exploitative or unsafe. However, to quote Melissa Gira Grant and many others, sex work is work - many forms of work are dangerous, exploitative and/or unsafe, and yet are not criminalized, but rather regulated more or less effectively.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:28 AM on June 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Wayull.... There are certainly people who do sex work because they have no other options, but there are also people who do sex work because their other options do not offer things that sex work does.
Eliminating poverty would have many positive effects, among them people not feeling compelled to do jobs that are exploitative or unsafe. However, to quote Melissa Gira Grant and many others, sex work is work - many forms of work are dangerous, exploitative and/or unsafe, and yet are not criminalized, but rather regulated more or less effectively.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:28 AM on June 5, 2014 [2 favorites]
Ripley_ thanks for the Pivot article. It makes the situation very clear: Peter MacKay + doctrinaire Conservatism = incompetent government.
"This cynical, dystopic model does not resolve the problems found by the Court in Bedford to be unconstitutional, and adds new ones such as the prohibition on advertising. The Charter rights engaged by this proposed law include life, liberty, security of the person, freedom of expression and equality. Arguably all are breached.
This is not the “Nordic” approach, nor is it a Canadian variation on the “Nordic” approach. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken laws that impose more danger, more criminalization, and fewer safe options, contrary to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada to address these dangerous and ineffective laws.
This made in Canada model will lead to continued epidemic of violence against sex workers in Canada."
What did we expect?
posted by sneebler at 10:36 AM on June 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
"This cynical, dystopic model does not resolve the problems found by the Court in Bedford to be unconstitutional, and adds new ones such as the prohibition on advertising. The Charter rights engaged by this proposed law include life, liberty, security of the person, freedom of expression and equality. Arguably all are breached.
This is not the “Nordic” approach, nor is it a Canadian variation on the “Nordic” approach. It is an unconstitutional variation of our broken laws that impose more danger, more criminalization, and fewer safe options, contrary to the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada to address these dangerous and ineffective laws.
This made in Canada model will lead to continued epidemic of violence against sex workers in Canada."
What did we expect?
posted by sneebler at 10:36 AM on June 5, 2014 [1 favorite]
Could not performing sexually for a camera be considered a sexual service, and thus illegal to be bought?
So they may have inadvertently outlawed the making of porn in Canada?
posted by JaredSeth at 1:53 PM on June 5, 2014
So they may have inadvertently outlawed the making of porn in Canada?
posted by JaredSeth at 1:53 PM on June 5, 2014
I am so goddamn terrified every time I think of the upcoming federal election (sometime next year) and the fact that Harper could conceivably win it again.
The only good way to deal with prostitution is to legalize it, regulate it, form a governing body to deal with licencing, and require that all clients must ask for their worker's licence.
So they may have inadvertently outlawed the making of porn in Canada?
I'm wondering if it was actually inadvertent, and whether they've also essentially outlawed porn, period.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:04 PM on June 6, 2014
The only good way to deal with prostitution is to legalize it, regulate it, form a governing body to deal with licencing, and require that all clients must ask for their worker's licence.
So they may have inadvertently outlawed the making of porn in Canada?
I'm wondering if it was actually inadvertent, and whether they've also essentially outlawed porn, period.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:04 PM on June 6, 2014
feckless fecal fear mongering: "The only good way to deal with prostitution is to legalize it, regulate it, form a governing body to deal with licencing, and require that all clients must ask for their worker's licence."
Even though they exist in other countries it's still kind of weird to conceive of a prostitution trade union. I can hear the heads asploding over at Red Seal Program from here.
posted by Mitheral at 8:50 PM on June 8, 2014
Even though they exist in other countries it's still kind of weird to conceive of a prostitution trade union. I can hear the heads asploding over at Red Seal Program from here.
posted by Mitheral at 8:50 PM on June 8, 2014
Red Seal (at least in my industry) doesn't really mean much anyway. And it's not like you could test for technical blowjob skills.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:34 AM on June 9, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:34 AM on June 9, 2014
I'm an electrician, practically no one is working as an electrician without either a Red Seal/provincial certification or being a registered apprentice. I could see prostitution working the same way. The provinces could require trade certification for a licence which would be obtained with a combination of work experience (the actual sex work) and class room work covering health, safety, business practices, etc.
More likely though it would be treated like childcare. Where unlicensed providers do limited business but if you want to setup a brothel your workers would need to have training and be licensed.
posted by Mitheral at 4:18 PM on June 9, 2014
More likely though it would be treated like childcare. Where unlicensed providers do limited business but if you want to setup a brothel your workers would need to have training and be licensed.
posted by Mitheral at 4:18 PM on June 9, 2014
« Older The future that everyone forgot | Smiley Smile Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
ahahaha... you mean like it decreased the demand for drugs?
posted by desjardins at 5:04 PM on June 4, 2014 [26 favorites]