Prostitution laws continue for at least another month

[whiteman 14028]

Prostitution laws continue for at least another month

"Alan Young, the lawyer who argued the case for the winning side, said Friday in a taping of Global News's Focus Ontario program that he's agreed to a Crown request for a longer grace period.

 

"Simply because they look like they're panicking and in disarray and I feel somewhat sorry for them and I imagine if you've had a bad law for 30 years, another 30 days isn't going to make a huge difference," Young told Global News."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/canada/Prostitution+laws+continue+least+another+month/3646435/story.html

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Makes sense, a prolonged extension of the stay during the appeals process is pretty much inevitable, I'd think (layman's opinion). No use wasting energy and money fighting the inevitable. Keep your powder dry until it can be used where it counts.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Marianne Takacs reports for The Star, 12 Oct 2010:

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/874306--lawyer-seeks-to-speed-prostitution-case-to-top-court

Prostitution laws recently ruled unconstitutional may be enforced until at least February under a deal being discussed by the Crown and the lawyer representing the three sex workers who challenged them.

 

Alan Young, acting on behalf of Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, said he will agree to the extension until February of a judge?s stay delaying implementation of her ruling striking down the laws, if the Crown takes certain steps to expedite the case. His goal is to get the matter more quickly before the Supreme Court.

 

?That was the plan from day one,? Young said Tuesday. ?A case of this significance can?t be left to the lower courts.?

 

On Sept. 28, Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court ruled prostitution laws violate sex workers? rights and endanger their lives.

 

If her decision withstands appeal, prostitutes will be able to communicate freely with customers on the street, do business in their homes or brothels and hire bodyguards without exposing them to the risk of criminal charges. Ottawa has indicated it will appeal the decision.

 

Himel stayed her judgment 30 days to give the Crown time to make further submissions on the 18-month stay it requested. On Tuesday, Himel agreed to extend the stay another 30 days.

 

Young has approached the Crown with a deal to lengthen the stay until February if the Crown can get a hearing date before the Ontario Court of Appeal by then.

 

?It?s a small price to pay to get this thing heard quickly because if I don?t do things like this we may not get a decision for more than five years,? Young said. He hopes to get it to the top court in two years.

 

Young said he will oppose further stays. If Himel?s decision is upheld he expects the Crown to appeal, and if it is overturned he expects to appeal. He added it is in everybody?s best interest to expedite this case.

 

?Police have to know whether they can charge people. A legal limbo is the worst of all possible worlds.?

[Grass_Hopper 18263]

I've been searching on the Internet where it was written that prostitution was illegal... Nowhere to find it!

 

I've found some interesting laws thought, that makes some practices illegal...

 

link in French, sorry: http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/loi/contrevenants_et_accuses/399/

 

So, basicly, it is forbidden to discuss any kind of sexual favors in a public area, such as Internet, street, payphone, cell phone (house phone is ok), or any place relating to a public area. (Up to 6 months in prison)

 

It is forbidden to enter or drop somebody in any place known for prostitution, as a massage parlor or a bawdy house.

 

Also, no sollicitation to minor, people under 18 of age. (Up to 5 years)

 

I've also asked my lawyer who told me that I can give business cards to my clients, but they are not allowed to give them away. That becomes sollicitation...

 

As I can see, eventhought Ontarion wants to make some changes, it would be very difficult for them to change the Canadian laws...

[Capital Hunter 18263]

 

So, basicly, it is forbidden to discuss any kind of sexual favors in a public area, such as Internet, street, payphone, cell phone (house phone is ok), or any place relating to a public area. (Up to 6 months in prison)..

 

I don't read French much, but I don't think this is fully correct. Solicitation in a public place (and place is a very important word here) is illegal (i.e. street, hotel lobby, car on public road, apartment complex common areas, shopping mall, public parking....) but that does not extend to internet, cell phone, email...as they are not considered to be public or place. This is likely why it would be more difficult to shut down erotic section of CL in Canada (unless they change the law or CL voluntarily shut it down). Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

[fortunateone 156618]

I don't read French much, but I don't think this is fully correct. Solicitation in a public place (and place is a very important word here) is illegal (i.e. street, hotel lobby, car on public road, apartment complex common areas, shopping mall, public parking....) but that does not extend to internet, cell phone, email...as they are not considered to be public or place. This is likely why it would be more difficult to shut down erotic section of CL in Canada (unless they change the law or CL voluntarily shut it down). Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

You are quite right. afaik, the main question to ask about any discussion of rates/servies, is when it is done, do you have an expectation of privacy. So, even on your cel, you expect your conversation to be private. Emails as well, even tho technically someone can get into your account, you have set a reasonable limit on them and expect your access to be yours alone.

 

And yes, prostitution is definitely not illegal, which is why those stupid laws were created in the first place. I imagine it is near impossible to make it illegal, otherwise they wouldn't have messed around with criminalizing the activities around it. Also, keep in mind, that until the mid-80's, none of those laws even existed.

[Grass_Hopper 18263]

Is considered as a public area, all area exposed to the public.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-f.htm#definitiontxt

 

Regarding CL, it's an American website, to wich does'nt apply regular laws. http://www.prac.org/materials/1997_Santiago/PRACstewart.html . I never talked about e-mails, and is considered by law a public area everywhere that conversation COULD be heard by any unsollicitated person, including children. (See previous link.)

 

The way I see it, the only way to be legal is: If you work for Government, do not use your worktime to set up an appoinment or to meet (it is consider as a public good, since it's tax founded), lock yourself in a single bathroom where nobody can hear you, meet at your place (hotel-motel are public areas, her appartment considered as a bawdy house), make sure she drives her own car (driving somebody in the intent of prostitution - living of the avail of prostitution), in doubt, ask for ID's (juvenile prostitution), make sure she does'nt have a roommate (contributing to a criminal offense - living of the avail of prostitution), AND HAVE FUN!

 

Most of the websites I've visit are stating that eventhought prostitution IS LEGAL, most of the ACTIVITIES RELATING TO IT is ILLEGAL...

 

Gee, sorry, but I'm not digging over the Internet for more info, my brain does'nt participate anymore, and I call my lawyer by his first name now...

 

OuFFF!

 

Additional Comments:

Vancouver, Calgary, Niagara Falls, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax have tried to fight prostitution in three ways: Criminization, Decriminization and Regulation, but the Frazer Comitee never agreed on neither of them...

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-f.htm

[mod 135640]

a court challenge in the 80's here in Canada defined "place" as a physical public location. a magaine (was either eye or now magazine in Toronto). was charged for allowing the escorts to advertise in it. the magazine took this to court and won as the judge determined that a magazine is not a "place". making advertising in newsprint, tv, and Internet all very much legal.

 

now, if you advertise you do illegal things (in calls) or advertise you do stuff like "car dates". and "public sex". that is illegal.

[Mister T 45020]

Is considered as a public area, all area exposed to the public.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-f.htm#definitiontxt

 

Here is one of Sabrina's link in english.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-e.htm#issuetxt

 

It's an interesting read. It summarises many points i've read.

 

This article (french only)

http://soquij.qc.ca/fr/ressources-pour-tous/articles/les-danses-contacts-divertissement-ou-acte-de-prostitution

applies the same analysis from court cases in Quebec in regards to strip clubs (entertainment vs prostitution - thus applying the bawdy-house rule and or committing indecent acts).

 

Complex issues better read at another time thatn 11 at night...

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

a court challenge in the 80's here in Canada defined "place" as a physical public location. a magaine (was either eye or now magazine in Toronto). was charged for allowing the escorts to advertise in it. the magazine took this to court and won as the judge determined that a magazine is not a "place". making advertising in newsprint, tv, and Internet all very much legal.

 

I think that same decision also said that advertising in print was not the same as soliciting in public, in that no one is forced to read advertisements if they don't want to. Reading ads is considered to be private activity.

[vanboy 100]

so what is the situation presently? What is meant by the decision being "stayed"? Does this mean the laws are still on the books or off the books?

[mod 135640]

the current laws remain at this time.

[VedaSloan 119179]

My understanding of advertising is that if you are advertising in a form of media (newspaper, magazine, internet, etc) this is not a place--it's a type of media and as such falls under freedom of speech.

[roamingguy 300292]

Is considered as a public area, all area exposed to the public.

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-f.htm#definitiontxt

 

Regarding CL, it's an American website, to wich does'nt apply regular laws. http://www.prac.org/materials/1997_Santiago/PRACstewart.html . I never talked about e-mails, and is considered by law a public area everywhere that conversation COULD be heard by any unsollicitated person, including children. (See previous link.)

 

The way I see it, the only way to be legal is: If you work for Government, do not use your worktime to set up an appoinment or to meet (it is consider as a public good, since it's tax founded), lock yourself in a single bathroom where nobody can hear you, meet at your place (hotel-motel are public areas, her appartment considered as a bawdy house), make sure she drives her own car (driving somebody in the intent of prostitution - living of the avail of prostitution), in doubt, ask for ID's (juvenile prostitution), make sure she does'nt have a roommate (contributing to a criminal offense - living of the avail of prostitution), AND HAVE FUN!

 

Most of the websites I've visit are stating that eventhought prostitution IS LEGAL, most of the ACTIVITIES RELATING TO IT is ILLEGAL...

 

Gee, sorry, but I'm not digging over the Internet for more info, my brain does'nt participate anymore, and I call my lawyer by his first name now...

 

OuFFF!

 

Additional Comments:

Vancouver, Calgary, Niagara Falls, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax have tried to fight prostitution in three ways: Criminization, Decriminization and Regulation, but the Frazer Comitee never agreed on neither of them...

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/822-f.htm

 

As one (and I'm sure not the only one) who works for the government, that reason (italics mine, but post is Grasshopper's) is another reason not to provide a sp your work number, it could lead to violation of the law

RG

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

The Ontario Court of Appeal heard arguments today about whether the stay of Judge Himel's ruling should be extended beyond the 60-day expiry date of 27 November. The decision has been reserved. The stay will remain in effect until the decision is made, even if that is after the 27th. The decision is expected to be announced before the 27th, however.

 

Allison Jones reports for the Globe & Mail, 22 Nov 2010:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/court-asked-to-put-landmark-prostitution-ruling-on-hold/article1809279/

Bowing to speculation that Canada will be plunged into a wild social experiment in prostitution if a landmark court ruling stands means turning a blind eye to violence against sex-trade workers, court heard Monday.

 

It's now up to an Ontario Court of Appeal judge to decide whether what amounts to decriminalized prostitution should come to the province, as another judge ruled, or whether the ruling should be put on hold to allow Parliament to craft stop-gap measures.

 

Laws against keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade are ?contributing to the danger faced by prostitutes,? an Ontario Superior Court judge said in September in striking them down.

 

The judgment, however, was subject to a stay, during which the laws remain in place. But with that set to expire on Saturday, the federal and provincial governments are pleading with the court to extend the stay until a proper appeal can be heard.

 

Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg of the appeal court has reserved his decision. He said he would try to issue his ruling by Saturday, but in case he cannot he extended the stay until his decision is released.

 

If no stay is granted, Canada will be plunged into a ?social experiment unprecedented in this country,? federal government lawyer Michael Morris told the appeal court on Monday.

 

?It will profoundly and irreversibly alter the status quo,? he said.

These laws ?are at the heart of the regime chosen by Parliament to ... deter prostitution in Canada.?

 

As far as alternative tools in the Criminal Code for police to crack down on activities such as human trafficking, exploitation or drug dealing, there is ?nothing,? Mr. Morris said, which brought a rebuke from the judge.

 

?We don't have nothing, so let's talk about what we do have,? Judge Rosenberg said. ?There's a whole host of legislation in place ... so let's not overstate it.?

 

Mr. Morris clarified, saying while there are alternative provisions, they are not effective substitutes for the laws that have been struck down.

 

Lawyer Alan Young, who successfully argued in the lower court to have the laws struck down, said given the judge's ruling that the laws contribute to the harm faced by prostitutes, it is ?ethically problematic? to put a stay in place.

 

?Granting a stay does serve as a perpetuation of violence,? he said.

A stay is not the answer, Mr. Young said, instead proposing an expedited appeal. Mr. Morris said an appeal could be heard as early as June, but Mr. Young pushed for an even earlier date.

 

If the original ruling stands after appeal, a stay will have prevented sex workers from ?taking rudimentary safety measures? that could save their lives, Mr. Young said. If no stay was in place the public might have been inconvenienced for a time, he said.

 

The federal government listed a litany of ?likely? scenarios should Judge Susan Himel's ruling come into effect.

 

Removing the bawdy house law would likely lead to crimes such as human trafficking, prostitution of minors, extortion and assault going undetected, Ottawa argues. The Ontario government's arguments echo Ottawa's.

 

More prostitutes will likely be exploited by pimps, police would be forced to ?abandon all ongoing investigations? and doing away with the laws will ?likely encourage the movement of prostitutes to Ontario from other jurisdictions,? the government adds.

 

Sex-trade workers say removing the laws will allow them to work indoors, hire bodyguards and communicate with potential clients to determine whether they would pose a threat.

 

A group of sex-trade workers in British Columbia has also launched a challenge to Canada's prostitution laws.

 

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Amy Dempsey reports for The Star, 26 Nov 2010:

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/897750--no-prostitution-free-for-all-this-weekend

Saturday marks the expiration date of the 60-day stay on Justice Susan Himel?s landmark court decision to strike down Ontario?s prostitution laws.

 

But nothing will change for the province?s sex workers this weekend, as the Court of Appeal continues to mull over an application by the Crown to extend the stay until the federal government can prepare a proper appeal.

 

The court?s decision won?t make the Nov. 27 deadline, but it will come ?sooner rather than later,? said John Kromkamp, senior legal officer for the appeal court.

 

?I can?t tell you whether it will be Monday or Friday or a week Friday,? he said. ?We try to get our decisions out as quickly as possible.?

 

The court will give a day?s notice when Rosenberg?s decision is ready.

 

In an appeal court hearing on Monday, all partiesagreed that the struck-down laws would remain in place until Rosenberg makes a decision.

 

?It?s a heavy weight on a single judge,? lawyer Alan Young, who argued on behalf of sex trade workers challenging the law, said on Friday.

 

?No judge wants to be responsible for chaos, and that?s what?s been put on the table (by the Crown)? [...]

[JuliasUndies 7288]

Here is another article

http://www.yourottawaregion.com/news/article/894362--prostitution-ruling-gets-hintonburg-community-association-talking

 

Pat O’Brien wants sex workers to be protected, but he also relates prostitution to drugs, crack houses and pimps – and he wants to make sure his community is protected.

That’s why O’Brien, president of the Hintonburg Community Association, recently held a meeting with police and other community members to see how they’re interpreting the recent prostitution ruling. He’s also hoping that community groups will get involved in the final decision.

“We’re saying to the government – at the municipal, federal and provincial level – that when it comes time to come up with a solution, talk to the communities,” he said. Ontario Superior Court Judge Susan Himel recently struck down three provisions: communicating for the purpose of prostitution, pimping and operating a common bawdy house.

It’s still against the law for sex workers to stop or attempt to stop motor vehicles, and to impede the flow of pedestrians or vehicle traffic.

Himel originally delayed her order from taking affect for 30 days at the end of September, but a “grace period” is now in place for it to be extended for an additional 30 days.

O’Brien said Hintonburg used to be an area with high prostitution and drug use in the 1990s and early 2000s.

He said the community worked together to implement programs, get citizens involved and create community patrols.

“The issue we’ve primarily had with prostitution was not prostitution itself, but everything that comes with it,” said O’Brien. “We have a completely different community today.”

Because of this community work in trying to abolish prostitution in Hintonburg, O’Brien said it’s important that communities be involved in the ultimate decision regarding sex workers.

“It’s the citizens with practical experience who have worked in this area for years and years who should be consulted,” he said. “We want to be part of the decision-making, which we think would be better than just having something imposed.”

Chris Bruckert, a University of Ottawa criminology professor and former sex worker, said she understands that communities are concerned. But, she said the relation between sex workers and drugs isn’t so clear cut.

While she acknowledges that there are sex workers who are drug users, they don’t always accompany one another.

“This idea that with one comes the other, that’s a questionable assertion,” Bruckert said. “The empirical evidence does not support that.”

She adds that if communities are concerned with sex workers who are also drug users, there are already laws in place for drugs and crack houses.

“The police have a very large toolbox and there are adequate laws in place to deal with nuisance,” she said. “In my opinion, we have to realize that there are too many laws to regulate sex workers.”

O’Brien said he’s heard from residents in Vanier’s community association who have complained about feeling insecure in their own neighbourhood because of drug use and prostitution.

He said it’s important for the community to feel safe, while making sure sex workers are safe as well.

There has to be solutions to drug problems and crime in a community where prostitution is being practiced, O’Brien said.

“The solutions are best made in consultation with the communities affected,” he said.

In the case of Hintonburg, O’Brien said nobody defended the recent decision at his meeting with the police and community.

However Bruckert said communities need to be careful in making generalizations about Canadian society as a whole, and how Canadians view prostitution.

She said an Angus Reid poll came out before Himel’s decision that indicated 50 per cent of Canadians want prostitution decriminalized.

“Sex workers live in places like Hintonburg and Vanier,” Bruckert said. “You have to appreciate that sex workers are a part of the community. You have to acknowledge the multiplicity of the community and exercise caution.”

She added that she’s surprised that a community association would be concerned with the recent prostitution decision.

“Even if her judgment took effect, they would be able to work in small establishments and apartments,” she said. “It seems to me a community interested in the safety of sex work, and interested in the neighbourhood, would really embrace these laws.”

O’Brien said that the recent discussion has people talking about the issue, which is a good start.

“Whether you agree with the ruling or not, society tackled this as opposed to swept this under the rug or did the hush-hush,” he said. “Let’s see what we can do as community to ensure that those in the community practicing the profession are safe, and ensure the communities are safe.”

 

Additional Comments:

:handjob:

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Here is another article , and this guy totally stole my quote from Cerb.

Thanx for reading , I guess copying is the best form of flattery LOL ...

 

To be fair, it should be noted that this article was published 28 October 2010. This is before you joined Cerb. So perhaps it's more like "great minds think alike"!

[JuliasUndies 7288]

Oh Thx! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[whiteman 14028]

Chris Bruckert, a University of Ottawa criminology professor and former sex worker, said she understands that communities are concerned. But, she said the relation between sex workers and drugs isn?t so clear cut.

This is fascinating. An U of O prof that was a sex worker?

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

whiteman - She is a friend of mine and yes she's a former sex worker who is now a professor.

Posted via Mobile Device

[fortunateone 156618]

interesting in the article, the guy is quoted to say the most trouble they had started or was in the 1990's and 2000s. It is important to note that this is after the laws came in place. It seems a natural assumption that with decrim of those same laws, that perhaps things will return to what they were like before those problematic years for that area ?? lol

[Andee 220524]

interesting in the article, the guy is quoted to say the most trouble they had started or was in the 1990's and 2000s. It is important to note that this is after the laws came in place. It seems a natural assumption that with decrim of those same laws, that perhaps things will return to what they were like before those problematic years for that area ?? lol

 

He was referring to a particular part of Ottawa which was notorious for street walkers which was very noticeble during those years. I hate to say it, but it was also when harder drugs like crack cocaine emerged on the drug scene in Ottawa. The on-street presence of street walkers in the Hintonburg area has died down quite a bit. It has now spread to other areas like Carlington Heights and South Keys. Police and neighbourhood presence may account for some of it, but it may also be attributed also to the fact that these girls have found other venues to solicit (telephone chat line, free on-line ads like CL, etc.). Just because you don't see it on the street, doesn't mean, it's still not going on behind closed doors.

 

Would it go back to the way it was? Who's to say for sure.

[whiteman 14028]

He was referring to a particular part of Ottawa which was notorious for street walkers which was very noticeble during those years. I hate to say it, but it was also when harder drugs like crack cocaine emerged on the drug scene in Ottawa. The on-street presence of street walkers in the Hintonburg area has died down quite a bit. It has now spread to other areas like Carlington Heights and South Keys. Police and neighbourhood presence may account for some of it, but it may also be attributed also to the fact that these girls have found other venues to solicit (telephone chat line, free on-line ads like CL, etc.). Just because you don't see it on the street, doesn't mean, it's still not going on behind closed doors.

 

Would it go back to the way it was? Who's to say for sure.

But if it's moved indoors, isn't that exactly what everybody was looking for? That is, that it is not public on the street anymore?

 

Additional Comments:

whiteman - She is a friend of mine and yes she's a former sex worker who is now a professor.

Posted via Mobile Device

Interesting, so did you and her work together for a time? Did she ever mention why she was a sex worker, i.e. was she doing research, or paying her way through school, etc.?

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

CBC News reports, 29 Nov 2010:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/11/29/toronto-prostitution-appeal-ruling-pending.html

An Ontario Court of Appeals judge is to rule Tuesday whether to allow key sex-trade laws to be struck down as ordered by a lower court.

 

Sex-trade workers have said that removing the laws will allow them to work indoors, hire bodyguards and communicate with potential clients to determine if they would pose a threat.

 

Government lawyers have argued that striking down the laws will cause some crimes, such as human trafficking, to increase.

 

On Sept. 28, an Ontario Superior Court judge threw out three provisions of Canada's anti-prostitution laws in response to a constitutional challenge by a Toronto dominatrix and two prostitutes in 2009.

 

Justice Susan Himel ruled the Criminal Code provisions that prohibit keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution contribute to the dangers faced by sex-trade workers.

 

Tuesday's ruling from appeal court Justice Marc Rosenberg could see Himel's decision either upheld or put on hold

so that Parliament can create new legislation.