Coolopolis ponders prostitution in Montreal
Kristian has some thoughts about Montreal prostitution in the 1940s. This follows a piece on how any attempt to legalize or tolerate prostitution has been political suicide for municipal politicians here.
A day ago, the Mirror had the only piece I’ve seen (besides one of my own posts) that raised the question of the danger to the prostitutes from a plan like the one suggested by borough mayor Ménard. But like everything else on the Mirror site, it has now been blown away.
John 22:16 on 2012/06/22 Permalink
Your question in the earlier post about whether sex workers do it in the car, or take clients back to a rented room highlights the questions that the Ontario Court of Appeal struggled with in a recently decided case that has now gone to the Supreme Court.
Prostitution is legal in Canada.
Public communication for the purposes of prostitution, the keeping of a bawdy house, and living off its avails are illegal.
Those who argued to strike down the law argued that it was the things that could make it safer for a sex worker that were illegal.
Using her or his own apartment, or sharing one with others, would make it a common bawdy house (i.e. a place kept, occupied or resorted to for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency). If a street worker picks up a client and goes back to the same room it can be considered a bawdy house.
If she or he has a driver to drop them off (and check on them), then the driver is living off the avails.
While I doubt Réal Ménard will be successful, his suggestion of the police lightening up on the application of the law is not without precedent.
Any strip bar where dancers perform what is better known as the $10, or table dance can be considered a common bawdy house – and that would include the strip bars in the gay village. In that case, the police seem to be ignoring what they know is going on while they wait for the Supreme Court to provide a clearer definition of prostitution based on the Ontario case.
Kate 06:54 on 2012/06/23 Permalink
These are such weird laws. It’s like saying reading is legal but libraries are not, and you’re not allowed to buy books either.
Raymond 07:38 on 2012/06/23 Permalink
no weirder than the sexual human psyche! ou est-ce human sexual psyche?
qatzelok 10:30 on 2012/06/23 Permalink
I used to think that prostitution was worse for the individual than other jobs. But I have since witnessed that most chain-of-command jobs (99% of employment) involve humiliation, physical and psychological damage, and lowered self esteem. Yay, capitalism!
Kate 16:55 on 2012/06/23 Permalink
qatzelok, it depends whether you think the potential for acquiring sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies – plus making its practitioners vulnerable to further exploitation and abuse – puts prostitution into a special category of its own. Many cultures think so, including our own. I don’t deny that most low-grade jobs involve humiliation and damage, but they don’t tend to involve admitting parts of other people’s bodies into one’s own.
Blork 11:08 on 2012/06/24 Permalink
I agree that prostitution is in a special category of its own. One that, according to what I’ve read, has a very wide range of experience (everything from the destitute street hooker to “empowered” high price escorts who essentially choose their clients.)
That said, when it comes to non-prostitution (or so-called “regular” jobs) it’s not just the low-grade ones that involve humiliation and damage. All that stuff qatzelok mentions happens across the range, from burger flippers to the executive offices. You can always argue that the more well-off people can always get a different job, but things like that are really easy for a third-party to say but not always so easy to do.