Originally Posted by Charlatan

This is a step in the right direction. Prostitution was already legal. The laws enacted to curb it's spread, while good in spirit, were not so good for the women in the sex trade industry.

The no pimping law (living off the avails) is a good idea to keep sex workers from being exploited by pimps. The problem is, any independent sex worker could not hire a body guard, have a roommate, etc. as they would be living off the avails.

The no communicating for the procurement of sex in public was meant to keep the practice off the streets but in practice meant that sex workers had to move into alleys and other out of the way places to communicate... putting them in danger from predators.

The no brothel house rules was meant to protect neighbours from the industry but, again, what it resulted in was a lack of security and being forced to meet strangers in less than ideal situations.

It turns out that there are already laws on the books that can deal with most of these issues that do not carry the stigma of the sex trade. As for the bawdy house issue, it is easily fixed by licensing these establishments and creating city zoning by-laws that allow them in certain areas and not others. There is already the precedent of licensing body rub establishments (i.e. rub and tugs).

The appeals will go through the motions and, hopefully, we come out the other side with better laws.