Prostitution laws continue for at least another month

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Thanks for posting that, WiT.

 

Does this still leave it open for Maggie's to launch a Section 15 challenge in the future? ....

 

Anyone is free to try such things at any time, if they have the wherewithal and the fortitude to start at square one. Today's ruling is only that they can't combine a challenge on such different grounds with this one so late in the process. Evidence and testimony have not been gathered on those grounds during the long and arduous process of the various stages of the current case. So if they wanted to give the additional challenge due, proper, and fair consideration, they'd basically have to start this case all over, if the two were to be combined now. (That's the way I read it, anyway.)

[Paradise Spa 24019]

I completely agree with O'Connor's ruling. My thoughts are why so late did Maggie jump on board? It is a fair ruling in my opinion to avoid further delays of the outcome ....as they say too many hands in the cookie jar is not always a good thing. Thanks WIT love to be keep uptodate on all of the legal elements of this case.

[Mister T 45020]

This sentence implies there is a distinction between prostitutes, strippers and escorts.

 

What is the distinction between prostitution and escorting ? Is this distinction supported by way of legislation ?

 

A quick search in the CCofC didn't show a definition for prostitution.

 

Just saw your post. Some would argue that there are no distinction, if you look at the recent article i published on SC's in Quebec city.

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=49890

 

I have put a short english summary. Seems that some will use a municipal court decision from Laval to try to close down SC's. Yet, the supreme court agreed that Contact DAnces were acceptable. Ah well ....

[Lou 9208]

"The brief asserts this provision protects prostitutes from being harassed in the streets and police crackdowns on bawdy houses help officers find women who are brought into the country illegally to work in the sex trade."

 

Really!!! how come they still haven't found one then and that why looking for the trafficked women, all they did is arrest canadian women of asian origin...

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

In Vancouver, at least, many of the women in the Asian micro-brothels are not trafficked, but come here knowing that they will be working in the sex trade. They enter Canada as visitors and, as such, are not entitled to be working. They work, touring around between cities or neighbourhoods in large urban areas, until it's time for them to return home. They're migrant workers, not indentured.

 

If bawdy houses operate legally, the police and immigration authorities should still have the right to determine whether the women are working legally.

 

The trafficking excuse is just a smokescreen, imho. Are the authorities as concerned about people who are trafficked to work in agricultural and industrial labour? What about women who come to Canada to work in domestic labour, as nannies and housekeepers? These are the sectors with the greatest number of trafficked and indentured labourers.

[Megan'sTouch 23875]

FYI Maggie's joined us (POWER) as interveners.

Posted via Mobile Device

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

.... SC's in Quebec city ... Seems that some will use a municipal court decision from Laval to try to close down SC's. Yet, the supreme court agreed that Contact DAnces were acceptable. Ah well ....

 

The Supreme Court ruling of 1999 (Canada v. Pelletier) that is referenced by the Quebec club owners was to the effect that contact dancing was acceptable in the specific sense of not being indecent. Therefore, clubs which allow contact dancing are legal ... insofar as the specific Bawdy House clause regarding the practice of acts of indecency.

 

(http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii644/1999canlii644.html).

 

The latest case (Marceau v Canada) involves the other clause of the Bawdy House Law. The prosecutions and convictions in this case are based on the different proposition that even though contact dancing is not indecent, clubs which allow contact dancing are Bawdy Houses nevertheless, based on the premise that contact dancing constitutes prostitution. This is not merely a Municipal Court ruling - it was upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal, and this January the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear further appeal.

 

(For more, see my thread "Strip Club Contact Dances" http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46599)

[drlove 37204]

I can't help but feel that a Conservative majority cannot bode well for the outcome of this case. I hope I'm wrong...

[whiteman 14028]

I do hope we come up with less schizophrenic prostitution laws, but I'm not confident we'll get them with Harper in charge.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

Thanks for these summaries, WiT.

 

Maybe it's just my own idealism that's getting hooked, but I don't accept the view, espoused by the feds, that the world is violent and we should all just accept that nothing can be done about it. Why, in a violent world, should sex workers expect to be singled-out for victimization rather than deserving the right to protect ourselves?

 

I visited a jewellery store recently. We had to wait for the staff to open the locked door before we could go in. We knew we were being monitored by a very obvious video camera the whole time we were there. We didn't object to these sensible measures.

 

When the Prime Minister is in town, a chauffeur drives him around in a limousine and he has several RCMP close at hand, presumably for his protection. I have no objection to such security measures.

 

But it seems that, even though I may occasionally frequent high-end jewellery stores, and even though I notice and approve of some of the PM's security provisions, I'm supposed to accept that, in this violent world, I'm not entitled to have driver or bodyguard when I sell something that's as legal to trade as gold, diamonds and pearls. And I should not be allowed to ply my trade from my own home or a place I've retained for the purpose because I'm simply not entitled to the resulting safety and protection.

 

Does the federal government think that it's appropriate for violence to be directed towards me and other paid companions? What I meant to say is, are violent men supposed to have access to us--is that our purpose in society?

[fortunateone 156618]

I didn't realize all this was happening already.

 

I kind of like these judges. I like the way the stories are written too, emphasizing how the judeges seem to be putting the lawyer on the spot lol.

[AlannaJohnson 3926]

Nikki is such an awesome spokesperson for our industry. Thank you so much Nikki! And a huge thanks to all the brave individuals involved in this legal challenge. They are not just fighting for our industry rights; they are fighting for individual freedoms for all Canadians!

 

Thank you Thank you Thank you

 

I am humbled to be living through this historic decision (( ))

 

[Guest tr*****e]

Still, he said, "even if one person moves indoors and as a result doesn't end up on a pig farm...then something good has happened."[/indent]

 

Exactly! This is what this is all about, making sure everyone is equally equal(!).

[drlove 37204]

a lawyer representing three religious groups, the Christian-Legal Fellowship, Catholic Rights League and REAL Women of Canada, told the panel that the appeal should be granted because there's a general consensus from society that an infringement of constitutional rights is justifiable because prostitution is immoral.

 

This is the type of narrow minded drivel that just floors me. The justice system is in place to enforce laws, not morality. IMO, anyone with a bit of common sense can see that the laws surrounding the practice of prostitution in Canada are fundamentally flawed, and should therefore be eradicated. I feel that Bedford et.al are doing a superb job of presenting empirical evidence to support this argument. On the other hand, the religious right is stating that prostitution is immoral. This begs the question "by whose standards?" Morality by nature is subjective, and therefore does not provide a sound footing to base a case like this on. Constitutional rights are precisely that - rights afforded to all Canadians and cannot be denied based on a purely arbitrary distinction.

[Guest tr*****e]

This is the type of narrow minded drivel... begs the question "by whose standards?" Morality by nature is subjective, and therefore does not provide a sound footing to base a case like this on. Constitutional rights are precisely that - rights afforded to all Canadians and cannot be denied based on a purely arbitrary distinction.

 

They just want to control everyone, regardless of belief, for their personal comfort. I would know, I used to be one of these narrow-minded haters(:(). Now I'm a potty-mouth at work, and a cross-dresser on the weekends. Funny how haters turn into their hates...:icon_twisted:

[whiteman 14028]

This is the type of narrow minded drivel that just floors me. The justice system is in place to enforce laws, not morality.

Morality is the basis for all law. Morality is the precursor of law. However, it has to be seen whether prostitution is still considered seriously immoral anymore in this day and age? Religious groups will say yes, other folks maybe not so much.

[rickoshadows 937]

There is a profound difference between Morality and being ethical. Morality is very subjective and dependant on values a person was brought up in (Thou shall not covet another man's wife) Ethics are more based on universal values (Do unto others as you want them to do unto you) Most commandments, rules and laws are based on both these lines of thought. Modern thinking has moved towards conventions based on ethical standards and away from moral standards as morals change from religion to religion and culture to culture. On a personal observation, I find people with deeply held religous convictions tend not be able to tell the difference between ethical and moral conventions and push for moral solutions even when those solutions are considered unethical by a less dogmatic majority.

Posted via Mobile Device

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

As long as [anti-solicitation laws] remain on the books, sex workers and their customers are prevented from discussing any sexual activity they may engage in, including conversations that could establish whether it is consensual, Young argued.

 

This is one of the more bizarre claims made in this appeal hearing. Frankly, I don't understand what, exactly, Young is referring to. He seems to have said, a day or two ago, that sex workers and clients can't even legally discuss the use of condoms.

 

If the issue is that it's illegal to have a discussion in a public place about exchanging sex for money, that's true. That would include discussing what kinds of activities are available. But once a sex worker has decided to solicit, I doubt very much that she's going to split hairs over discussing what she will or won't agree to do with a potential client.

 

The way Young's argument is summarized, though, makes it seem that it's illegal for sex workers to discuss services, etc., period, regardless of whether we have the conversation in public or in private.

[Guest C*****tte]

This is one of the more bizarre claims made in this appeal hearing. Frankly, I don't understand what, exactly, Young is referring to. He seems to have said, a day or two ago, that sex workers and clients can't even legally discuss the use of condoms.

 

If the issue is that it's illegal to have a discussion in a public place about exchanging sex for money, that's true. That would include discussing what kinds of activities are available. But once a sex worker has decided to solicit, I doubt very much that she's going to split hairs over discussing what she will or won't agree to do with a potential client.

 

The way Young's argument is summarized, though, makes it seem that it's illegal for sex workers to discuss services, etc., period, regardless of whether we have the conversation in public or in private.

 

It applies I think mostly to those that work on the street or in bars. They often do try to negotiate specifics of safety before going into a car or hotel, but if they fear arrest then they speed up the discussion and only negotiate once they are at the location which of course leads to some dates going terribly wrong. I read this type of thing on Stella's Bad Date list all the time.

 

I am not sure if he meant to say it was illegal to discuss this in private.

[drlove 37204]

I believe Young was referring to discussion of sexual services etc. in public. E.g. (focusing on the inherent dangers of street level prostitution).

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

That makes sense to me, Charlotte and drlove. The confusion probably comes from the news reporter and/or their editor.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic, or at least feeling somewhat encouraged, by the kinds of questions the Appeal Court judges have been asking. I know that there are no guarantees, but if the COA upholds Justice Himel's decision, the Supreme Court of Canada may be very cautious about overturning it. Appeal Court judges take a very strong line about respecting other judges' decisions and thought processes.

 

If the COA and Justice Himel agree, the federal government may simply decide to try to enact new legislation rather than spending the time and money for a SCC appeal which, if it agreed with the lower courts' decisions, could make it very difficult for Parliament to ignore these recent definitions, arguments and rulings to bring in new laws.

[mod 135640]

He was, in private (outside of public view and not in a public "place" - this includes inside a car on the street or even a hotel hallway or lobby) it is illegal to discuss anything related to prostitution (Price, protection, services, location, etc..) adding more danger to the date.

[drlove 37204]

If the COA and Justice Himel agree, the federal government may simply decide to try to enact new legislation rather than spending the time and money for a SCC appeal which, if it agreed with the lower courts' decisions, could make it very difficult for Parliament to ignore these recent definitions, arguments and rulings to bring in new laws.

 

This is what worries me, as it is a real possibility. Considering that Canada now has an elected Conservative majority government, the new laws (if enacted) could have disasterous consequences for sex work in this country.

[Phaedrus 209521]

If the COA and Justice Himel agree, the federal government may simply decide to try to enact new legislation rather than spending the time and money for a SCC appeal which, if it agreed with the lower courts' decisions, could make it very difficult for Parliament to ignore these recent definitions, arguments and rulings to bring in new laws.

Yep. My understanding is that the Himel ruling hinges on the fact that the exchange of sex for money is - for now - legal, and so making life more dangerous for people who engage in these legal transactions is not on. But if the law is changed to make prostitution illegal, that entire argument vanishes.

 

The question, of course, is whether this is a legislative fight Harper will want to begin when the COA ruling comes through (assuming, of course, that it goes the right way). If not, a SCC appeal may be used as a holding measure, whether or not the government expects to win... after all, it's only taxpayers' money being spent on the lawyers, right?

[drlove 37204]

Just out of curiosity, why can it take up to six months for the court of appeal to render a decision?