Talk:Prostitution in Canada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bridgetdunsmore, Shaynemarin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the Articles?[edit]

Perhaps the articles "Prostitution in Canada" and "Prostitution Law in Canada" should be merged, as they seem to have a lot of content in common... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.249.249 (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is prostitution NOT illegal in Canada?[edit]

If prostitution is not illegal in Canada, why do people go to jail for seeking prostitution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.28.203 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public communication for the purpose of prostitution and soliciting prostitutes on the street is illegal. The actual act of paying for sex is not illegal. Exasperation (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Criminal Code, available online, clearly indicates it is legal. There are simply activities surrounding prostitution that are illegal.

Communicating for the purpose of prostitution is illegal in public. Communicating in private makes the private location a bawdy house (or brothel), which is illegal to operate. So the exchange of sexual services for some form of payment has always been legal (primarily to allow a husband and wife to have sexual relations without fear of legal implications where the husband had traditionally been the sole income earner in the marriage), but communication for this purpose was illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.61.154 (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exchange of sexual services for some form of payment has always been legal because it is viewed as a form of labour; it is not "to allow a husband and wife to have sexual relations without fear of legal implications where the husband had traditionally been the sole income earner in the marriage". That is suggesting that housewives are prostitutes, which is a frivolous interpretation of women's labour in the home being meaningless and valueless. 19:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.86.55 (talk)

POV[edit]

Why is pimp m/o discussed in this article? surely this is not unique to Canada--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article shows a clear bias against prostitution. This is evident in the references used, which often come from sites that are professed to be against prostitution. I question, for example, the statement that there are 10,000 child prostitutes. First, how would that be known. Second, consider in a common sense way what that would imply about the number of people frequenting prostitutes. Assume each prostitute is being seen by 25 men a week. If the 10,000 child prostitutes were to represent even 20% of all prostitutes, (and even this article does not assert that large a percentage), that would mean 40,000 prostitutes for 8,000,000 men between the ages of 20 and 60 -- a prostitute for every 200 men -- so every man in Canada would be frequenting a prostitute nearly once a month. That seems a bit much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.150.165 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm putting a neutrality tag on the last section, which seems especially biased. 72.145.218.13 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am checking for accuracy and have removed a number of extreme inaccuracies Mgoodyear (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a platform for abolitionist policies--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have mothballed this material - more properly discussed on a page related to this subject - --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term abolitionism originally referred to the abolition (eradication) of slavery in the US. At the end of the 19th century it became used to refer to the abolition of the Napoleonic system of regulation of prostitution, which legitimised the activity, this being considered unacceptable see Prostitution Abolition in France. The current global prostitution abolition movement, which is primarily feminist led, draws inspiration from two sources. The first is the 18th and 19th century movement to abolish slavery, which acted from the fundamental belief that slavery so abrogated the rights of human beings that it could not be tolerated in any form. Protection of the fundamental equality rights of all human beings necessitated the abolition of slavery. Similarly, prostitution abolitionists view prostitution as such an egregious assault on women's equality, that only abolition, not reform, can secure the status of prostituted people and the equality of women generally in society. [1] The second inspiration is the legal/welfare/public education set of meaures enacted first in Sweden and later in both Iceland and Norway, which de-criminalise the people (mostly women) who are prostituted, criminalise the johns (buyers), pimps, procurers and traffickers, and offer adequate welfare and specialised exit services to assist prostituted people to exit prostitution. [2] Prostitution abolitionists view prostitution as a form of violence against women. [2] The fundamental equality problems with prostitution are the sex oppression/misogyny inherent in male demand for a supply of women's bodies for use in prostitution. This sex oppression intersects with race and class oppression such that we find, for example, a disproportionately large number of Aboriginal women in street prostitution [3] and a demand within the sex industry for more 'exotic' women or women who have had racist sexuality stereotypes imposed upon them. [4] Women are often trafficked from the Global South and Eastern Europe for the purposes of prostitution. [5] Poverty is a major influence pushing women to tolerate their use in prostitution [5][6]

Further deletion --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibitionism generally refers to the enactment of laws to eliminate an activity. Here, it refers to continued criminalisation of all aspects of the prostitution industry, including criminalisation of all people involved in prostitution, including clients, pimps, procurers and traffickers. Abolitionism here refers to the eradication of prostitution through continued criminalisation of such third part activities but de-criminalisation of the actions of those offering sexual services together with increased provision of welfare and exit services to those wishing to leave prostitution. [2] Public debate has traditionally been seen as a prohibitionist-legalisation divide, but those who self identify as abolitionists wish to be seen as a third alternative.

References

  1. ^ Lakeman, Lee. "A Feminist Definition of Abolition", Vancouver, 01 January 2008. Retrieved on 2011-02-18.
  2. ^ a b c Ekberg, Gunilla. The Swedish Law that Prohibits the Purchase of Sexual Services: Best Practices for Prevention of Prostitution of Human Beings, Violence Against Women, vol. 10(10) October 2004
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference AWAN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Vednita Carter, "Prostitution and the New Slavery", "Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prositution and Pornography", North Melbourne, 2004
  5. ^ a b Monica O'Connor and Grainne Healy, "The Links between Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: A Briefing Handbook", 2006, Prepared for the Joint Project Coordinated by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) and the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) on Promoting Preventative Measures to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings for Sexual Exploitation: A Swedish and United States Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisation Partnership x=89931&AA_EX_Session=51183aa7727627a33bb7c260888fbc45
  6. ^ Janice Raymond, "Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution And a Legal Response to the Demand for Prostitution", "Journal of Trauma Practice", vol 2, 2003: pp.315-332

Etiquette[edit]

Please don't delete whole sections without some discussion. Mgoodyear (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one "delete[d] whole sections". I removed one paragraph that was uncited and largely speculative. The whole structure of the article needs work - this "Prostitution issues by province" contains only this one subsection. Unless it's going to be fixed up soon it needs to be removed. If that's your plan it's preferable to keep it in your sandbox and work on it there, then re-add it when it's done. TJ Black (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the long cut-and-paste from the Canadian civil code should probably be removed as well. The proceeding paragraph does a reasonable job of summarizing it. TJ Black (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest edits are definitely an improvement. Keep up the good work! TJ Black (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make changes without justification and explanation. Also if you have something to say, don't hide behind anonymity Mgoodyear (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would be best to reword what is above ...pls see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by 174.89.116.211[edit]

Ip 174.89.116.211 has made several highly problematic and disrupting edits to this article. He/she has changed the original statement "Other organisations deny any link between the legal status or extent of sex work and trafficking pointing to lack of evidence" to "Other organisations find there is no evidence linking prostitution and human trafficking" (what organization claims that there is no such thing as human trafficking for the purpose of prostitution??? source??).

He/she is adding erroneous material, he/she refered to the "Netherlands Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003" quoted by judge Himel, when in fact the judge quoted the "New Zealand Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003"...New Zealand and Netherlands are not the same thing ...

He/she has repetitively added, in the begging of the Human trafficking and crime section, material which is not about trafficking in Canada, but about trafficking and prostitution in general, about how "Prostitution by willing adults is not human trafficking regardless of whether it is legalized, decriminalized or criminalized" and so on. That lengthy paragraph has been clearly added in order to push a POV, does not belong here, and is in violation of WP:SOAP.

I have a feeling that this editor is determined to do the same thing for a long period of time from now on, therefore he/she should be watched and warned. 123username (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To deny is to state that something is not true which is. It is true in your opinion. If there is no evidence for something, that is the proper way to say it. If you would like to out yourself as an anti-prostitution advocate, or a member of government, please say so. You are obviously no neutral, but determined to shape the evidence in the world your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlem Justice (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trafficking[edit]

There seems to be an attempt on Wikipedia generally to turn every page on prostitution into a discussion on the evils of trafficking as if the two were synonymous.

Here we have the bizarre situation where the section on trafficking in this article is much much longer than the "main" article - most of it should be removed and much of it is irrelevant Mgoodyear (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with move that was done to Human trafficking in Canada of this section.Moxy (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

Ok i am here to help with the last tag I put on...PS great job with the article Mgoodyear....SO for the tag "its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations." i will work on getting this into the main body of the article ..should be done by tomorrow. Then we will be tag free.Moxy (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self -->TABLE OF CONTENTS by gov

Edit war: Abolition or Prohibition?[edit]

Since there seems to be an edit war, this needs addressing in text. Abolition is an ambiguous term that has changed its meaning over the years aqnd is confused with abolition of slavery - originally it meant abolition of regulationism, and now increasingly of prostitution. Experts favour prohibition as less ambiguous and conveying real meaning of prohibiting prostitution (with the intention of eradicating it) Mgoodyear (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation[edit]

Somebody just made a real mess of this article with reference errors and topic headings that are illegible - it needs some major reorganization - and perhaps breakig up Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford, Scott and Lebovitch[edit]

This article doesn't seem to cover the Bedford/Scott/Lebovitch case, nor do we have a separate article for the case. This seems like one of the most notable issues regarding prostitution in Canada in many years. It surprises me that Wikipedia has so little information about it. I'm going to start a stub article and would appreciate any contributions from people more knowledgeable about the case than I am. -- Pburka (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Court of Appeal Decision March 2012[edit]

I can see we are in some danger of posting a lot of incorrect information because of this decision - it changes nothing. We will have to wait to see about appeals, applications for extension of stays etc. The Himel decision in 2010 changed nothing either. The article is not out of date - I will remove the tag --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - as a legal position we are currently in limbo (only in Ontario). We need to wait and see what happens next. However reporting the position of the Ontario courts should be there..as it is .Moxy (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Abolition in Canada[edit]

This entire section about prostitution and minors has taken over this topic with misleading and inaccurate so called statistics, by researchers who were prohibited by the SCC to present their reports to the SCC. There is ample evidence that the majority of articles and researchers that remain in this topic have been discredited by their peers, as well as the SCC regarding their research.

That is a topic that should be in an entirely different article, as it has nothing to do with actual prostitution in Canada. Exploitation of young people is not the same thing as prostitution. The federal laws still remain that the legal age to engage in legal prostitution is 18. Any discussion about minors willingly or forcibly entering prostitution is a completely separate issue from adults engaging in it, and all of that should be completely removed from here. It is hysterical, and grossly inaccurate, using numbers that have absolutely no basis in any research whatsoever.

I can see in the Talk section that many have tried to come in to edit and correct these inaccuracies, over the years, and yet to date, there is little factual evidence and information in this section. It is horrifying that the numbers and comments in this topic should be allowed to remain, and facts deleted or edited.

In fact I can see that the information was added and someone above says the inaccuracies were removed. Clearly the original posters came back in and put these faulty stats back into this article. As the comment above notes, the math doesn't add up. it is impossible for there to be those kinds of numbers. One I read is that there are 500 underage sex workers on the streets (so outdoor workers) when the fact is there aren't even 500 total street sex workers in Vancouver, there couldn't possibly be that many, there would be 2 to 3 of them people on each street intersection of the downtown east side. It's ridiculous. That doesn't account for the over 18 years olds, and since the 'researchers' claim the underagers are a minority, then there must be 4500 of age street workers working outside on the curb of the downtown core of the city of Vancouver.

Now, just do a drive around any day of the week and tell me you see a crowd like that anywhere anytime, and then ask yourself if there are that many on the street, there must by necessity be an equal or greater number of men seeking their services. It's like a small city out roaming and driving around now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.184.149 (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

70.71.184.149 (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that I have been working on over the last year, but progress is very gradual. Of greatest importance, I have found, is the language and finding reputable citations to verify content. Hopefully all of the sex work/prostitution articles in Wikipedia will be brought up to standard in 2014. Please feel free to contribute if you have access to citations.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Fast reply :) I think you can look at http://www.sexsafetysecurity.ca/about_team.php http://www.understandingsexwork.com/project-team/researchers http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-119-e.pdf the last article is produced for the government. The amount of time spent on at risk youth is small compared to the amount spent on the main page of this article. You could also see the majority of the concerns appear to be the 'nuisance' of either street work or places like adult entertainment venues.  :) 70.71.184.149 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And will add one more, but the link can lead to more: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2599932&Language=&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&File=33#TOCLink_08_4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.184.149 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010 I went through every word of this page and checked every reference and looked for confirmatory or refuting documents. There was much misleading or inaccurate information. However I cannot vouch for what has happened since. The information on minors was particularly problematic. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not replying sooner, but I am continuing to watch this page, so will look at those URLs and will also look at more recent events. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law[edit]

In view of the large amount of legal material now available and the moving target, and the fact we have several spin off articles, we can probably consolidate and reduce the amount of legal material on this page, moving it where necessary. A key consideration as the story evolves will be to ensure all sections are consistent without unnecessary replication. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed[edit]

Given the new prostitution law, this article requires a massive overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.4.239 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved some things around, but this is going to require more work. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to also keep working on this page. My main issue is the tone, as Wikipedia is not a forum to air grievances about the morality or nature of sex work—we are here to present verifiable information that is notable. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely confusing: "illegal to purchase sexual services but legal to sell them"[edit]

It's in the first sentence. I don't understand the laws, but can somebody please add a clarification sentence after that? Because I don't think that would make sense to the majority of people reading.5ives (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Prostitution in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Prostitution in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Prostitution in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.uwcvancouver.ca/about-us/advocacy-work archive link does not work

I could find no errors with that source, but I fixed the globalnews.ca source which was not working. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiCompositeNumber: When I visit https://web.archive.org/web/20101115031146/http://www.uwcvancouver.ca:80/about-us/advocacy-work the only content I see is "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt." Are you getting a different result? This one was in the previous batch of fixes dated 23 February 2016. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kendall-K1: Yeah, I get the proper archived page from that link. Did you try clearing your browser's cache? --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 03:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AntiCompositeNumber: Yes, and I also tried a different browser. There are many reports of people having this problem.[1][2] Some say it goes away if you refresh a few times (it didn't for me) and others say you have to log in to archive.org. Are you logged in? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kendall-K1: I was, but I'm not on my phone and it still oworks. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well then it's a mystery and not our bug. Let's leave it as-is. Thanks for your help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Prostitution in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed as keep. --John B123 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting[edit]

Like the post above in 2016 that was never answered, this is contradictory and utter nonsense: "make it illegal to purchase or advertise sexual services and illegal to live on the material benefits from sex work. Although it is legal to sell sexual services," Please explain or even better rewrite this to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5C03:400:BD2E:AC7A:B4D9:FBCC (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prostitution_in_Canada&oldid=1212408737"