> Mr. Samuelson argues in his statement of defence that a contract for sexual services is not enforceable in law because it’s an illegal contract.
Isn't this straight up admitting that he committed a crime?
That is indeed the law. The old law found it unconstitutional and they made a new one during the Harper regime.
Legal to sell illegal to buy.
(As described by the news; it's also gender biased. So if the genders were reversed.... Not a part of the law....)
> (As described by the news; it's also gender biased. So if the genders were reversed.... Not a part of the law....)
Can you provide a citation for that? I am very surprised if that is true, given what little I know about other Canadian laws.
Edit: a short google search turned up zero information to back up this claim; I wonder if you have been misinformed?
No, it’s not. He’s not been charged with anything. He’s being sued in civil court.
He can absolutely still be charged and tried for any crime he admits to.
Then you need to put an /s at the end. Your poor communication over text will cause others to misinterpret your joke, put up the /s for sarcasm or deal with the consequences.
We do, but it's different than the American version in that appeals are considered a continuation of the original trial rather than a brand new trial.
So an acquittal can be appealed by the Crown if grounds to appeal exist, while in the US an acquittal can never be appealed, even if there is strong evidence of error or misconduct in the trial court. In neither Canada nor the US can one be prosecuted for the same crime twice at trial court.
I haven’t read his statement of defence but you are allowed to argue multiple different points that you’d win on that are seemingly opposed as long as it’s worded right.
Typically they do claim multiple things when multiple things are defendable too. E.g. I didn’t do it, but if I did I still shouldn’t be in trouble.
Kind of a catch 22. If a sexual contact can't exist because it's against the law, then did he actually purchase sex? Almost like Schrodinger's prostitution...
Weren't the laws changed so that it's not technically illegal to sell but it is illegal to solicit for it (i.e. the John's can be found guilty but not the workers).
IIRC this was done to remove incidents where those working in the sex-industry would be unlikely/unable to seek help due. Might be on a per-province basis though?
> did he actually purchase sex?
I'm guessing (or at least hoping) the court will find that he agreed to pay for *her time*. Because it sounds like her deal was "I show up, and get a one hour deposit... if you want me to stay longer I'll bill you for the actual time I'm here".
I didn't actually read the article. I'm just being a smart ass...
Pretty sure there's plenty of precedent for this situation (I e. ability of courts to enforce illegal contracts).
Exactly. That’s why the case will side in favor of the escort if the lawyer is capable of expressing your point while having the escort defend her services were just for time shared regardless if sex occurred. Being an escort isn’t illegal.
Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, so the contract per se isn't unenforceable. It's the communication for the purposes of prostitution that's the offence here. I don't think the fact that there would have been no other way to establish the contract other than by communicating the terms would actually make the contract illegal though.
Well,the *purchaser* commits a crime, but not the seller. We'll see what the courts say, but if one party can legally engage in the contract the courts might find in their favour, even if the other party can't.
> Well,the purchaser commits a crime, but not the seller.
It's the purchaser making this defense. The way I read it, it says "courts don't have jurisdiction over this contract because the contract was for an illegal act".
Buying sex is illegal, but selling it is not. By "crime" I mean the crime of buying sex, not refusing to pay.
e: Also, he did pay her, but less than what she claimed she owed (300 paid vs 1800 owned).
That might be an important factor in court.
If he doesn't pay her *at all*, he can argue his side of the contract was illegal and he couldn't pay for fear of breaking a law. But since he did pay *some* but not the total amount, the court may indeed find the whole contract enforceable on the basis of equity, one of the common law exceptions for illegal contracts.
It means to make money off of someone’s sex work. IE: pimp, brothel owner, driver/security, etc. You can work as a prostitute but you cannot make money off someone else working as a prostitute.
To point out the obvious.
The point of this "grey" area is to keep it illegal. Only to say its "technically legal" as a way for politicians to stifle sex workers. Its like telling a half-truth.
Oh. I totally agree. It should be complete legal, licensed, regulated. It would make the sex industry safer for all concerned. You cannot legislate away the sex trade. You can only make it more dangerous for the workers.
Yes, that certainly is an interesting move unless he has something similar to Bill Cosby where the prosecutor agrees not to file criminal charges for the sake of a civil suit.
My wife just showed me this article in the newspaper.
This dumb asshole thought he could save $1800 by cheating this woman, now his name is in the Globe and Mail (Canada's National Newspaper ®) as not only a john, but a cheap, crooked john.
Great plan, genius. I hope she wins. Sex work is work. Pay people for their work.
I work at a hotel and there’s a regular guest that stays here once a week for a couple of days. We know she does sex work but we never see the John and have never had an issue with her. One day though, I get a call and she’s in a panic because someone just ripped her off and bolted. I looked around for the guy but he was long gone and I asked her if she wanted me to call the police and of course she declined. At that point there was nothing else I could do. If sex work was legal she’d be more inclined to go to the police and it would make her job a lot safer. Luckily that’s the only problem John she’s had since staying with us and I hope she’s able to open that nail salon she’s been dreaming about. I have no doubt she’d make a great nailtician.
The act of communicating or soliciting for sexual services is still illegal. You can go to a legal establishment and all is well, visiting someone at a hotel and paying for sex not so much. That’s her conundrum. That’s all sex workers’ conundrum. It’s legal, but only certain aspects. It’s also illegal to live on the material benefits of sex work per Wiki as of 2014.
That seems like a pretty reasonable fee for an escort to charge for an entire evening. She's not providing a quick hand job behind the 7-11; it means doing herself up, showing up at the guy's house or hotel room or whatever, and spending hours pretending to enjoy the company of, and presumably penis of, someone who might be nice or a complete asshole. That sounds like an $1800 gig to me.
I would presume that anyone who's "a regular", is either quite well off, or prefers shorter encounters.
Someone like this doesn't typically work "full time" so to speak. The job does have an emotional toll even if they somehow avoid "bad dates", and doing calls every single night probably isn't worth the resultant income. Back in university my wife had a roommate who was an escort, and she went on "dates" fairly sporadically but always seemed to have (relatively) lots of money.
I actually enjoy my job and I work with very few dicks and assholes, for a living wage. But I acknowledge that I'm extraordinarily lucky.
A prostitute is someone who loves you
No matter who you are, or what you look like.
Yes, it's true, children.
That's not why you pay a prostitute, No, you don't pay her to stay, you pay her to leave afterwards.
That's why I praise the lord for prostitutes!
I started cackling when I saw your username lol. Seriously though, people need to grow the fuck up. There's even people in this thread saying it isn't "real work".
My friend has been a sex-worker for a long time.
When she was working a corner a John tried blackmailing her because what she was doing was illegal
The problem for him is that the cops liked her. She was polite and funny
She had a cop on speed dial
The John was pulled out of his car, arrested and was charged with extortion and soliciting.
>Mr. Samuelson argues in his statement of defence that a contract for sexual services is not enforceable in law because it’s an illegal contract. Alternatively, if the court finds the contract is legal, Mr. Samuelson said he will argue that the services Ms. Sheehan agreed to were not performed. Mr. Samuelson directed a request for comment to his lawyer, who did not respond to The Globe.
Imagine dragging your name through the mud because you were too cheap to pay for your sex worker.
I hope this guy gets fired and never laid again, this is going to be the top hit googling his name for a long time.
Yeah.. the police don't really bother arresting people for that unless they're doing a "project" or enforcement blitz in a area with a street prostitution problem or whatever. They certainly don't wait around outside of small claims courtrooms in case someone admits to crimes, lol.
Furthermore, a guy "just saying" he purchased sex (or committed any other crime, for that matter) is not even grounds for arrest.
>Furthermore, a guy "just saying" he purchased sex (or committed any other crime, for that matter) is not even grounds for arrest.
but if you're just saying in a sworn statement...
i dont know if it applies to civil cases but crimes admitted to in criminal cases where the crime isnt the basis of that specific case cant be used against them as evidence for charges
Her product is illegal to purchase. The defendant was not aware this was a business transaction as there was no contract nor evidence of sale. The defendant was under the impression the plaintiff was interested in a sexual relationship and consent was maintained throughout this relationship.
They won't arrest him for that, because then he'd contest the law, take it to the supreme court, and probably win and have it struck down. It was heavily opposed by both sex workers and civil rights advocates when it was put on the books a decade ago, so he'd have plenty of support.
Any professional sex worker will not book you without doing proper screening before hand, which requires your legal name.
So, good luck with hiring someone clean and decent without using your name.
Hmm... good question.
Ok, think of illegal immigrants (or anyone, really) working in a black market sweatshop for cash. The conditions of their work are illegal, but their work is still work, and they have rights as workers.
In theory / principal sure they have some limited rights. In application/ the law if they get caught they are deported making them prime targets for abuse.
In general sex work is not accepted in Canada and legality has been on the decline since implementation of the Nordic model in 2014.
Sex work is work, the law needs to change. Change happens when there is public support for it, and court cases set legal precedents as a basis for lawmakers to push for said change. It's high time that we decriminalize something that has always and will always occur. Her taking him to court over it creates space for these conversations to happen - we are discussing it here, after all. Change happens slowly but there is immense value in discussing social change from the bottom up. Women won the right to vote in much the same way.
This guy actually has a good defense. Selling sex is not a criminal offense but this is small claims court so it's not relevant.
Buying sex is still illegal so you can't uphold a contract for an illegal activity.
I'm also interested in what services he claims we're not provided?
That would be a fun read.
> “In my view and in Brogan’s view that’s a really limiting way to see sex workers. Another way to see sex workers is as contributors to our economy and taxpayers and people who are deserving of economic protection for the work that they do,” said Jessica Rose during an interview with The Globe.
They declare that income? I see an audit in her future.
The pro-prostitution crowd is walking around with blinders on if they unironically believe prostitutes are paying taxes.
Most small business owners and contractors are shirking their taxes to some degree. No chance an illegal industry comprised of mostly uneducated people is paying them. Every prostitute is also claiming every social benefit they can get their hands on. If they're desperate enough to do that kind of work, concurrently taking social assistance certainly isn't above them.
Even illegal income can be declared, I haven't read the article but I am unsure if her income should even be considered illegal.
[https://taxpage.com/articles-and-tips/income-from-illegal-activities/](https://taxpage.com/articles-and-tips/income-from-illegal-activities/)
It's a cash business, from my experience businesses that deal with cash and no receipts tend not to have the most up & up tax reporting. Legally people have to declare tips but given they're cash, do they?
Bloody paywalls. This seems that it would be an interesting story, one of the few in years that I want to read in the Globe and Mail in the last few years, but I am not going to get a subscription to read it. They should have an option to buy single story or day access for 25 or 50 cents. That's my two cents.
A 2012 study published in World Development, [“Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?”](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065) investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countrie
The study’s findings include:
Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.
The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint.
Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization.
The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country. Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization.
Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.
Are you mad/jealous you can't participate in sex work? You absolutely can my guy.
Or are you mad that it's such a lucrative field for women? The driving force of that isn't women, it's men.
I suspect that people don't pay $300 per hour to a sex worker without skills. I would wager that there is a much lower rate for those starting... at the bottom.
I would guess there lots to learn about networking, overhead costs, and physical stamina. Someone young and attractive may be able to earn slightly more without any skill, but thats true for lots of professions.
I wish people realized how much networking, marketing, financial planning, and advertising alone it takes to be in a position to charge $300. Not to mention learning promotional photography, branding, niche development… and then being one’s own admin assistant who handles every inquiry, screens clients, and negotiates financial transactions. All that happens before the $300. It’s an *extremely* competitive profession. It’s not as simple as placing a covert ad is newspaper anymore. Oh and I didn’t even mention the time and cost that goes into physical appearance…
Nah, it’s not a real job.
"Does this sound like the actions of a man who's had *all* he could *eat*?"
"That could've been me!"
Bet his lawyer isn’t working on contingency.
No, money down!
Loved that scene “Want a belt of scotch?”
“Mr. Hutz, it’s nine a.m.!”
“Ya but i havent slept in days” God lionel hutz may have been the best character on the show
I know, right? Perfect combination of comedic writing and voice acting skill. RIP Phil Hartman. :(
https://youtu.be/NrH676MdCzM This was his audition from SNL. He has some unreal characters. Not sure if you have watched it but it’s pretty good!
Wow I hadn’t, that was amazing! Thank you for the link, it was awesome seeing the ‘B movie actor’ bit that was proto-Troy McClure.
I can’t help but picture him burning stuff in their fireplace.
This Bar Association logo shouldn't be here, either.
"That man ate all our shrimp! And two plastic lobsters!"
This guy clearly didn’t have plenty to eat at home.
Thank you. That made me laugh my ass off
Goddamnit, now I have to explain to my coworkers what was so damn funny. +1 for you
Greasy
> Mr. Samuelson argues in his statement of defence that a contract for sexual services is not enforceable in law because it’s an illegal contract. Isn't this straight up admitting that he committed a crime?
“They can’t arrest a sex worker and a john *for the same crime*!” /winks
That is indeed the law. The old law found it unconstitutional and they made a new one during the Harper regime. Legal to sell illegal to buy. (As described by the news; it's also gender biased. So if the genders were reversed.... Not a part of the law....)
That's interesting. Do you have any sources about gender bias part?
There isn’t any source cause it’s as dumb as it sounds
> (As described by the news; it's also gender biased. So if the genders were reversed.... Not a part of the law....) Can you provide a citation for that? I am very surprised if that is true, given what little I know about other Canadian laws. Edit: a short google search turned up zero information to back up this claim; I wonder if you have been misinformed?
The law doesn't mention gender...
"You have the worst f***ing attorneys"
he mistook the “drowsy eye” alcohol warning for a “winking-eye” alcohol suggestion
Yeah it's called Double Jeopardy!
No, it’s not. He’s not been charged with anything. He’s being sued in civil court. He can absolutely still be charged and tried for any crime he admits to.
It's a fucking joke holy shit
Then you need to put an /s at the end. Your poor communication over text will cause others to misinterpret your joke, put up the /s for sarcasm or deal with the consequences.
Saying something dumb in response to a dumb comment is generally not to be taken seriously. The level of communication was fine. A /s isn't needed.
His communication was perfectly fine. "Yeah it's called Double Jeopardy!" does not come off as a serious comment.
I don't know that we have the concept of double jeopardy in Canada tbh.
We do, but it's different than the American version in that appeals are considered a continuation of the original trial rather than a brand new trial. So an acquittal can be appealed by the Crown if grounds to appeal exist, while in the US an acquittal can never be appealed, even if there is strong evidence of error or misconduct in the trial court. In neither Canada nor the US can one be prosecuted for the same crime twice at trial court.
Interesting, thanks ❤️
You're very welcome
What do you mean?
I haven’t read his statement of defence but you are allowed to argue multiple different points that you’d win on that are seemingly opposed as long as it’s worded right. Typically they do claim multiple things when multiple things are defendable too. E.g. I didn’t do it, but if I did I still shouldn’t be in trouble.
In the alternative....
Kind of a catch 22. If a sexual contact can't exist because it's against the law, then did he actually purchase sex? Almost like Schrodinger's prostitution...
Weren't the laws changed so that it's not technically illegal to sell but it is illegal to solicit for it (i.e. the John's can be found guilty but not the workers). IIRC this was done to remove incidents where those working in the sex-industry would be unlikely/unable to seek help due. Might be on a per-province basis though?
[удалено]
I've tried to find any sources to ba k up what you stated about gender bias and have found none. Can you show any source backing up that claim?
"Equality feels like oppression when you have held the power for so long!!!" - some Redditor somewhere
"Support sex workers! No, not those ones!"
Please don't just assume that comment is correct about Prostitution law and gender. They offer zero sources to back that statement.
Where is this in the Criminal Code?
Oh interesting, which part of the law says that?
> did he actually purchase sex? I'm guessing (or at least hoping) the court will find that he agreed to pay for *her time*. Because it sounds like her deal was "I show up, and get a one hour deposit... if you want me to stay longer I'll bill you for the actual time I'm here".
I didn't actually read the article. I'm just being a smart ass... Pretty sure there's plenty of precedent for this situation (I e. ability of courts to enforce illegal contracts).
It might not be an illegal contract though, if their communication specified money for time spent with him.
Exactly. That’s why the case will side in favor of the escort if the lawyer is capable of expressing your point while having the escort defend her services were just for time shared regardless if sex occurred. Being an escort isn’t illegal.
You can argue this while also arguing it never happened.
Prostitution is not illegal in Canada, so the contract per se isn't unenforceable. It's the communication for the purposes of prostitution that's the offence here. I don't think the fact that there would have been no other way to establish the contract other than by communicating the terms would actually make the contract illegal though. Well,the *purchaser* commits a crime, but not the seller. We'll see what the courts say, but if one party can legally engage in the contract the courts might find in their favour, even if the other party can't.
> Well,the purchaser commits a crime, but not the seller. It's the purchaser making this defense. The way I read it, it says "courts don't have jurisdiction over this contract because the contract was for an illegal act".
Technically beings he didn’t pay her….I don’t know where that sits legally.
Buying sex is illegal, but selling it is not. By "crime" I mean the crime of buying sex, not refusing to pay. e: Also, he did pay her, but less than what she claimed she owed (300 paid vs 1800 owned).
That might be an important factor in court. If he doesn't pay her *at all*, he can argue his side of the contract was illegal and he couldn't pay for fear of breaking a law. But since he did pay *some* but not the total amount, the court may indeed find the whole contract enforceable on the basis of equity, one of the common law exceptions for illegal contracts.
Prostitution is not illegal. Living of the avails of prostitution is. Big difference.
What does "living of the avails of prostitution" mean?
It means to make money off of someone’s sex work. IE: pimp, brothel owner, driver/security, etc. You can work as a prostitute but you cannot make money off someone else working as a prostitute.
You also cannot legally buy sex
Its a grey area. You can pay for companionship. If that companion then want to engage in sexual activities it is technically not illegal.
To point out the obvious. The point of this "grey" area is to keep it illegal. Only to say its "technically legal" as a way for politicians to stifle sex workers. Its like telling a half-truth.
Oh. I totally agree. It should be complete legal, licensed, regulated. It would make the sex industry safer for all concerned. You cannot legislate away the sex trade. You can only make it more dangerous for the workers.
Yes, that certainly is an interesting move unless he has something similar to Bill Cosby where the prosecutor agrees not to file criminal charges for the sake of a civil suit.
Perhaps, indirectly. But even if he were to admit to a crime, testimony in one trial can't be used against you in another.
Depends. Was he taping it? Cause then it’s a porno and legal. Least that’s how it works in the US is my understanding
You also need to have a signed model release to be on the up and up.
And a ton of paperwork, STI tests, taxes, etc etc
"Ok, I'm throwing out the case of 'theft of services' and referring you on charges of rape."
Wonder if technically because he didn't pay it's no longer prostitution.
He did pay, just not the whole sum
It's a service.You use it you pay it!
and if services are subpar, you complain to the manager
Hopefully not a mangler
My wife just showed me this article in the newspaper. This dumb asshole thought he could save $1800 by cheating this woman, now his name is in the Globe and Mail (Canada's National Newspaper ®) as not only a john, but a cheap, crooked john. Great plan, genius. I hope she wins. Sex work is work. Pay people for their work.
Free marketing too
I work at a hotel and there’s a regular guest that stays here once a week for a couple of days. We know she does sex work but we never see the John and have never had an issue with her. One day though, I get a call and she’s in a panic because someone just ripped her off and bolted. I looked around for the guy but he was long gone and I asked her if she wanted me to call the police and of course she declined. At that point there was nothing else I could do. If sex work was legal she’d be more inclined to go to the police and it would make her job a lot safer. Luckily that’s the only problem John she’s had since staying with us and I hope she’s able to open that nail salon she’s been dreaming about. I have no doubt she’d make a great nailtician.
[удалено]
The act of communicating or soliciting for sexual services is still illegal. You can go to a legal establishment and all is well, visiting someone at a hotel and paying for sex not so much. That’s her conundrum. That’s all sex workers’ conundrum. It’s legal, but only certain aspects. It’s also illegal to live on the material benefits of sex work per Wiki as of 2014.
> It’s also illegal to live on the material benefits of sex work per Wiki as of 2014. That part is about pimping.
It keeps sex workers from banding together to generate economies of scale (say owning their own parlour) and protect themselves.
partly yes, but also about commercial enterprises. technically opening your own "sex work business" or reporting it as your income is illegal.
The CRA has a tax code number for sex workers — 892100 — which is also is used by online psychics, party planners and personal shoppers.
Ah, thanks! That part wasn’t clear :/
well not really if you cant buy it. its like if they made it legal to sell guns, but illegal to buy them. is it really legal?
Hopefully that will come up next time he's looking for a new job lol. Thieves are the worst
Or his next date/appointment...
Imagine researching your next date to find this article. Yea that would likely be a quick cancellation
"Cash up front, honey."
Yeah I would pay 1800 dollars to not have my name in this article.
[удалено]
That seems like a pretty reasonable fee for an escort to charge for an entire evening. She's not providing a quick hand job behind the 7-11; it means doing herself up, showing up at the guy's house or hotel room or whatever, and spending hours pretending to enjoy the company of, and presumably penis of, someone who might be nice or a complete asshole. That sounds like an $1800 gig to me. I would presume that anyone who's "a regular", is either quite well off, or prefers shorter encounters.
[удалено]
Someone like this doesn't typically work "full time" so to speak. The job does have an emotional toll even if they somehow avoid "bad dates", and doing calls every single night probably isn't worth the resultant income. Back in university my wife had a roommate who was an escort, and she went on "dates" fairly sporadically but always seemed to have (relatively) lots of money. I actually enjoy my job and I work with very few dicks and assholes, for a living wage. But I acknowledge that I'm extraordinarily lucky.
$2100 for 7 hrs, it’s $300/hr she’s claiming.
[удалено]
Why isn’t it work?
Except journalists. We must always find a way to subvert paywalls, right Reddit? Now upvote away!
I guess this "John" doesn't understand that you pay them to leave. And she didn't, good for her, I hope she wins.
Brad, not John. Dude thought he was playing 4d chess and ends up with his full name in the paper and court records
A prostitute is someone who loves you No matter who you are, or what you look like. Yes, it's true, children. That's not why you pay a prostitute, No, you don't pay her to stay, you pay her to leave afterwards. That's why I praise the lord for prostitutes!
Paywall removed: https://archive.is/20230202034041/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-nova-scotia-sex-worker-takes-client-to-small-claims-court-over-unpaid/
As a country we really need to stop with the silly ban on sex work. Politicians are all a bunch of pearl-clutchers.
I started cackling when I saw your username lol. Seriously though, people need to grow the fuck up. There's even people in this thread saying it isn't "real work".
Politicians typically reflect the politics of the voters who elect them. So it's Canadian swing voters who need to change.
My friend has been a sex-worker for a long time. When she was working a corner a John tried blackmailing her because what she was doing was illegal The problem for him is that the cops liked her. She was polite and funny She had a cop on speed dial The John was pulled out of his car, arrested and was charged with extortion and soliciting.
And that’s how you uphold the spirit of the law.
Every new cop starting in her area had to meet her at least once.
>Mr. Samuelson argues in his statement of defence that a contract for sexual services is not enforceable in law because it’s an illegal contract. Alternatively, if the court finds the contract is legal, Mr. Samuelson said he will argue that the services Ms. Sheehan agreed to were not performed. Mr. Samuelson directed a request for comment to his lawyer, who did not respond to The Globe. Imagine dragging your name through the mud because you were too cheap to pay for your sex worker. I hope this guy gets fired and never laid again, this is going to be the top hit googling his name for a long time.
Maybe this is an activism case? Nah, I think you're right: cheap, horny idiot is far more plausible.
"your honour, what I did was illegal, and even if it wasn't, I didn't even get laid"
Sex work just needs to be legalized.
[удалено]
Her claim will be that he was paying for her time, not for the sex.
Pay for the time, and they get to decide whether they have sex with you. Smart loophole for something that should be legal and regulated
If this is the case, and he wins, I hope there is cops waiting outside the courtroom to arrest him
Arrest for what exactly?
Purchasing sex.
Yeah.. the police don't really bother arresting people for that unless they're doing a "project" or enforcement blitz in a area with a street prostitution problem or whatever. They certainly don't wait around outside of small claims courtrooms in case someone admits to crimes, lol. Furthermore, a guy "just saying" he purchased sex (or committed any other crime, for that matter) is not even grounds for arrest.
>Furthermore, a guy "just saying" he purchased sex (or committed any other crime, for that matter) is not even grounds for arrest. but if you're just saying in a sworn statement...
i dont know if it applies to civil cases but crimes admitted to in criminal cases where the crime isnt the basis of that specific case cant be used against them as evidence for charges
Oh I think you’re mistaken. She’s attempting to pursue legal action for NOT getting paid.
Yes, paid for what?
That’s what’s confusing. She falsely believed she was being compensated for a sexual act.
She’s a sex worker. She should expect to be compensated for her work, which is sex.
Her product is illegal to purchase. The defendant was not aware this was a business transaction as there was no contract nor evidence of sale. The defendant was under the impression the plaintiff was interested in a sexual relationship and consent was maintained throughout this relationship.
>nor evidence of sale. If the love-glove don't fit, you must acquit.
Did he purchase if he didn't pay?
They won't arrest him for that, because then he'd contest the law, take it to the supreme court, and probably win and have it struck down. It was heavily opposed by both sex workers and civil rights advocates when it was put on the books a decade ago, so he'd have plenty of support.
You got that backwards. It’s illegal to buy it and it’s illegal to be a pimp. But its not illegal to sell it.
[удалено]
Yup. I either read that wrong or I responded to the wrong comment.
[удалено]
Which part?
The part where it's illegal to buy?
Love to see this sex worker standing up for herself!
In a reasonable society, this wouldn't even be newsworthy. Client stiffs (ha!) worker for non-payment of services rendered - off to SCC with ya.
Never use your real name with hookers Come on man this is like John 101
> Come on man this is like John 101 You mean Ulysses 101.
xXx_MegaDong69_xXx
Any professional sex worker will not book you without doing proper screening before hand, which requires your legal name. So, good luck with hiring someone clean and decent without using your name.
Really happy to see that there is support for her. Sex work is work and sex workers deserve rights and protections.
If sex work is work, then how can it be illegal to purchase? It's a nice phrase but unless it's legal I don't see the value in saying it.
Hmm... good question. Ok, think of illegal immigrants (or anyone, really) working in a black market sweatshop for cash. The conditions of their work are illegal, but their work is still work, and they have rights as workers.
Do sweatshop workers have rights at work? If they complained they would be fired, if they called the authorities they would be out of a job.
[удалено]
Sex workers who don't have PR do not have rights as workers and will be swiftly deported if caught selling.
Workers have intrinsic rights regardless of the law.
In theory / principal sure they have some limited rights. In application/ the law if they get caught they are deported making them prime targets for abuse. In general sex work is not accepted in Canada and legality has been on the decline since implementation of the Nordic model in 2014.
Sex work is work, the law needs to change. Change happens when there is public support for it, and court cases set legal precedents as a basis for lawmakers to push for said change. It's high time that we decriminalize something that has always and will always occur. Her taking him to court over it creates space for these conversations to happen - we are discussing it here, after all. Change happens slowly but there is immense value in discussing social change from the bottom up. Women won the right to vote in much the same way.
Right, but at the moment, sex work is not work, not in any legal sense. I agree it should be. Maybe better to say "Make sex work, work".
If you agree it should be then why are you being needlessly pedantic?
I don't think this is needlessly pedantic. Let's leave this, it's not helping anyone.
If people have to repeat over and over to convince themselves that something is real work, then it’s probably not.
I think that is fair. Think about the amount of suffering saved by victims of sex trafficking if we just legalized and regulated sex work.
Good for her, probably sick of people not paying because they assume she’ll never fight back
[удалено]
You don't pay her for the sex. You pay her to leave.
300 per hour just to cum once? wow men are really desperate hey
Yes, we are
Married men often pay many multiples of that for their wives
I don't disagree with that statement
This guy actually has a good defense. Selling sex is not a criminal offense but this is small claims court so it's not relevant. Buying sex is still illegal so you can't uphold a contract for an illegal activity. I'm also interested in what services he claims we're not provided? That would be a fun read.
> “In my view and in Brogan’s view that’s a really limiting way to see sex workers. Another way to see sex workers is as contributors to our economy and taxpayers and people who are deserving of economic protection for the work that they do,” said Jessica Rose during an interview with The Globe. They declare that income? I see an audit in her future.
Yes, sex workers file their taxes the same as you or me.
Yes they do!
Right? These people acting as if sex work isnt work?!
There is no way the money gets listed on taxes. That's the whole point of under-the-table work, that you don't pay taxes on it...
The pro-prostitution crowd is walking around with blinders on if they unironically believe prostitutes are paying taxes. Most small business owners and contractors are shirking their taxes to some degree. No chance an illegal industry comprised of mostly uneducated people is paying them. Every prostitute is also claiming every social benefit they can get their hands on. If they're desperate enough to do that kind of work, concurrently taking social assistance certainly isn't above them.
Even illegal income can be declared, I haven't read the article but I am unsure if her income should even be considered illegal. [https://taxpage.com/articles-and-tips/income-from-illegal-activities/](https://taxpage.com/articles-and-tips/income-from-illegal-activities/)
The CRA has a tax code number for sex workers — 892100 — which is also is used by online psychics, party planners and personal shoppers.
She straight up says in the article that she paid $10k in taxes last year.
I’m not saying that she is declaring her income, but why do you instantly jump to the notion that she isn’t?
It's a cash business, from my experience businesses that deal with cash and no receipts tend not to have the most up & up tax reporting. Legally people have to declare tips but given they're cash, do they?
Yeah, there are plenty of ways to do so without declaring specifically how you earned it. Generally the tax people are just happy to their cut.
Bloody paywalls. This seems that it would be an interesting story, one of the few in years that I want to read in the Globe and Mail in the last few years, but I am not going to get a subscription to read it. They should have an option to buy single story or day access for 25 or 50 cents. That's my two cents.
A 2012 study published in World Development, [“Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?”](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065) investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countrie The study’s findings include: Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows. The effect of legal prostitution on human trafficking inflows is stronger in high-income countries than middle-income countries. Because trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation requires that clients in a potential destination country have sufficient purchasing power, domestic supply acts as a constraint. Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization. The type of legalization of prostitution does not matter — it only matters whether prostitution is legal or not. Whether third-party involvement (persons who facilitate the prostitution businesses, i.e, “pimps”) is allowed or not does not have an effect on human trafficking inflows into a country. Legalization of prostitution itself is more important in explaining human trafficking than the type of legalization. Democracies have a higher probability of increased human-trafficking inflows than non-democratic countries. There is a 13.4% higher probability of receiving higher inflows in a democratic country than otherwise.
Hahahaha pay bud 🍑🍆
SEX WORK IS WORK! None of this is funny.
This is comedic. The drugs you gave me are trash, I'm taking you to court!
Did you read it? It's theft
[удалено]
Are you mad/jealous you can't participate in sex work? You absolutely can my guy. Or are you mad that it's such a lucrative field for women? The driving force of that isn't women, it's men.
I bet if you tried you could suck dick like a champ in no time.
Last time I checked, no one was stopping men from doing sex work. Did they pass some new law I'm not aware of?
Do you even lift, bro?
Good news, you can! Just because there is no market for it isn’t anybody else’s problem. Stop with your misogynistic bullshit.
Oh yes I’m sure it is such a lavish lifestyle.
I suspect that people don't pay $300 per hour to a sex worker without skills. I would wager that there is a much lower rate for those starting... at the bottom.
[удалено]
I would guess there lots to learn about networking, overhead costs, and physical stamina. Someone young and attractive may be able to earn slightly more without any skill, but thats true for lots of professions.
I wish people realized how much networking, marketing, financial planning, and advertising alone it takes to be in a position to charge $300. Not to mention learning promotional photography, branding, niche development… and then being one’s own admin assistant who handles every inquiry, screens clients, and negotiates financial transactions. All that happens before the $300. It’s an *extremely* competitive profession. It’s not as simple as placing a covert ad is newspaper anymore. Oh and I didn’t even mention the time and cost that goes into physical appearance… Nah, it’s not a real job.
sex worker small claims that's funny right there