drlove

I feel it's more the principle of it all... why should anyone be put in a position where they fear the long arm of the law for simply seeing an escort? Why should sex workers be forced into even more unsafe working conditions? And for that matter, why should the government be free to implement any laws they want, even those which fly in the face of the SCC ruling? It's these sorts of things that make my blood boil - especially since Peter Mackay initially said that the Nordic model was not the right fit for Canada... Well, along comes Joy Smith who practically brow beat him into submission to acquiesce to her backward, moralistic way of thinking. She's pushing her agenda at every opportunity, so look out!

I agree that the Nordic model would eventually get struck down... The question is, when? How long would it conceivably take to mount yet another constitutional challenge and see it through? I certainly don't want to be forced to curtail my hobbying for the next "x" number of years for fear of the law. Also who will do it? Something tells me the Conservative government is hellbent on pushing this through no matter what.

Sad but true.

I only put money into important things: savings, investments and real estate. Oh yeah, can't forget this hobby, either! *lol* But seriously though, you don't get rich by spending money.

Done! Only 300+ signatures? Come on people... sign and be counted - it only takes a minute!

I was wondering the same thing...

Contact the Conservatives and tell them you will be voting Liberal if they choose to pass draconian legislation as it pertains to prostitution. Hit them where it hurts... that should get their attention!

In that case, what good is a Supreme Court ruling if the government of the day can override it without so much as a second thought?

With all indications pointing towards the government planning to implement a version of the Nordic model in Canada, I'd like to urge everyone to fill out the government questionnaire on prostitution if they have not already done so, and write letters to Peter Mackay and/or your local MP to let them know how you feel. I'm also hoping sexworker organizations will mobilize and organize protests / contact the media etc. I feel we all need to do our part to prevent a tragic step backwards in the fight for decriminalization, as it affects all of us. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

Government holds In person consultation... http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2014/doc_33053.html

Congratulations... keep it up!

I really hope you're right! Additional Comments: What about a client simply being charged for buying sex? E.g that would still be illegal regardless of whether the transaction took place in a bawdy house or elsewhere. That wasn't part of the original ruling, unless the lawyer will focus on the conundrum / nonsensical nature of it being illegal to buy a legal service.

Yes, I agree with most of what you said. However, the fundamental difference (at least for me) is that with the old laws, outcalls were 100% legal. That is, for a strictly outcall guy like myself, I could have my fun without the risk of being charged. Now, under a Nordic model, I would effectively be breaking the law every time I invite a lady to my residence.

Are you sure about that? The thing is, Harper has a majority government and can do as he pleases. We all know the Nordic model is unjust, and will not pass muster in a new constitutional challenge, and so do the Conservatives. Herein lies the rub... Any law which Parliament crafts to replace the old laws governing prostitution in this country does not have to gain approval by the SCC before being implemented. As ironic as it is, the SCC's decision will be rendered moot until such time that another challenge is brought forth, which may take years. Long story short, we will be stuck with whatever the government hands us for a very long time.

Well, all signs point to the Nordic model being implemented, possibly as early as the spring. Now, while there are problems with it, I think the new law would gum up the works so to speak for a lot longer than one year. The last constitutional challenge was started back in 2006/2007 or so, and it's just now coming to a head. I believe the laws could/would still be enforced even in the face of another challenge down the road.

Perfectly understandable, to say the least!

Originally posted by Maggies: (This doesn't sound good..) The police are only allowed to enter and search your location with a warrant; however, there are some instances where the police can search your location without a warrant. These include: with your permission, situations where the police are chasing a suspect and the suspect enters your home, as well as, when the police believe someone is in immediate danger (i.e responding to a 911 call), they have reason to believe evidence of a crime will be destroyed, or they are arresting you or someone who lives in your residence. You have the right to deny police entry, but they may force entry if they have a warrant or reasonable cause based on any of the above factors. Additionally, they may force entry regardless of whether their reasonable cause is valid, and they may detain you while they conduct their search. If this happens remain silent and get out of they way.

Which agency?

Ok, I admit my ignorance on how the legal system works in Canada, but answer me this: The SCC has stated that government must write fair laws governing prostitution which adhere to their ruling. We all know that the Nordic model will never pass muster when it is challenged again, and the government no doubt is aware as well. How then is it possible for unjust laws to be passed regardless, without any checks and balances at the forefront? In effect, it renders the SCC decision moot for a period of time until it is again dragged through the courts. In light of this, should not a law of this nature be subject to approval by the SCC prior to being implemented? It would certainly expedite the process and save everyone a lot of grief.

Therein lies the rub... While in theory the Constitutional Challenge has merit over the long term, the reality is that we will now be much worse off under the Nordic Model.

Done! I sincerely hope our efforts resonate with the Government, for all our sakes... Consultation Questions 1. Do you think that purchasing sexual services from an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No. I feel that purchasing of sexual services should not be a criminal offence as it is contrary to the recent SCC ruling which struck down Canada's existing prostitution laws. Criminalizing the purchase of sex violates section seven of the Canadian Charter Of Rights and Freedoms since it does nothing to aid the safety of the person who is engaged in sex work. Criminalization will only relegate prostitution further into the shadows and have the effect of making it less safe for women to conduct their affairs, which rails against the spirit of the SCC's ruling. Of course, exceptions should be made for exploitation of minors and sex trafficking. However there are already current laws in place to effectively deal with these issues. 2. Do you think that selling sexual services by an adult should be a criminal offence? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No. Selling sexual services should not be a criminal offense. Exceptions should apply in cases where someone is coerced. However, where participants are engaging in sex work of their own volition, there should be no state intervention. 3. If you support allowing the sale or purchase of sexual services, what limitations should there be, if any, on where or how this can be conducted? Please explain. Comment: I feel that the health and safety of sex workers and their clients should be of paramount importance. To that end, those who engage in sex work should be afforded a safe place to conduct business, and have health access as required. Furthermore, clients should be free to purchase said legal services without impediment. 4. Do you think that it should be a criminal offence for a person to benefit economically from the prostitution of an adult? Should there be any exceptions? Please explain. Comment: No. As in other legal professions, workers have the right to hire assistants for monetary compensation. The case for willing sex workers should be no different, as anything else would be discriminatory. Sex workers should have the right to hire body guards, drivers, and other aids as they see fit. 5. Are there any other comments you wish to offer to inform the Government's response to the Bedford decision? Comment: In light of the SCC's ruling, decriminalization is the best possible option. To do otherwise would only subject participants to undue harms pursuant to a misguided ideology. Certainly, if the safety, well being and the right to conduct legal work without duress exists in all other legal professions, sex work cannot be an exception. 6. Are you are writing on behalf of an organization? If so, please identify the organization and your title or role: Comment: No.

Let's hope you're right, but I'm not holding my breath on that one...

So how would this system conceivably work with outcalls here?

This is something that I'm still not clear on. So, the Conservatives want to implement the Nordic Model as it 'is a system which reflects Canada's values' (their words, not mine.) Under that particular system it would be legal to sell sexual services, yet illegal to buy. Further to this, the SCC has ruled that brothels will now be legal. So, imagine that 'Lexy's Brothel' opens up on Main Street (again, perfectly legal). Will LE will be arresting clients as they walk through the door? I honestly don't see how the Tories could possibly get a Nordic approach passed precisely due to pragmatic issues in implementing it. How could a court successfully prosecute someone for purchasing a legal good/service? As I mentioned in another thread, it's the same thing as being arrested for purchasing an apple in a grocery store. The only difference being that their are negative connotations associated with selling sex as it goes against the Conservatives moral ideology. The point being, it's a subjective construct which cannot be reasonably legislated. Thoughts, anyone?

Happy Birthday, Cato... Have good one! Cheers