Prostitution laws continue for at least another month

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

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

 

There are complex legal issues and precedents for justices Cronk, Doherty, Feldman, MacPherson, and Rosenberg to weigh and consider, and a massive mountain of submissions and evidence to review and evaluate. Remember - the Bedford v Canada case came to the Court of Appeal burdened with over 25,000 pages of documentation from the Superior Court filings alone.

 

(see my thread "Understanding Bedford v Canada" for a taste of the legal nuances to be deliberated upon - http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=47795)

 

In any higher court case, the justices involved must first confer with each other to see where each stands on the issues to be decided; this typically involves a number of meetings, debates, and lobbying amongst themselves to achieve unanimity if possible. Then a justice is assigned the task of writing the (either unanimous or majority) judgement (which can be quite lengthy - the Himel ruling was 130+ pages, for example); any dissenting (minority) opinions must be authored and responded to; all justices must then sign off on the final written ruling.

 

All the while, the justices are seriously multi-tasking - the Ontario Court of Appeal hears over 1000 appeals and over 1000 motions each year.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

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 thing is, it's very difficult to outlaw prostitution. If a law declares that it's illegal to exchange money for sex, that's all well and good, but would it be illegal to exchange, say, gifts for sex? If he takes me out to dinner or away for a weekend and we have sex, is that illegal? Suppose he just pays my rent for me? What if he leases a car for me? Perhaps he might buy a condo, townhouse or a house and give it to me--would that be illegal? What if he has groceries delivered to my house every week? He might give me a gift card or arrange for me to have credit with various stores or other places. Would that be the same as giving me money and expecting me to have sex with him?

 

My point is that it's difficult to distinguish prostitution from things that happen in dating and marriage relationships.

 

If you think that we don't get offers of condos, cars, luxury items and even basics like groceries, you're wrong: we do. Many of us--myself included--decline such offers because we don't want to deal with the strings that are attached to such gifts. Cash transactions are simply clearer and simpler for all concerned. Nevertheless, I would not categorically refuse offers such as those I've outlined, above. I would, however, adopt even more stringent and restrictive screening policies and my fees would certainly increase, as well. The basic principles of a capitalist economy would be in my favour.

 

Outlawing street prostitution isn't going to work. It's illegal, already, to solicit in public, but it still happens, and the women who have to work this way are the ones who are at greatest risk of harm. Nothing will change for them if prostitution itself is made illegal.

[Guest tr*****e]

Outlawing street prostitution isn't going to work. It's illegal, already, to solicit in public, but it still happens, and the women who have to work this way are the ones who are at greatest risk of harm. Nothing will change for them if prostitution itself is made illegal.

 

The current government can play 'I can't see you!' all it wants but this is true: prostitution isn't going anywhere. Lonely people will still pay for sex; some women(and men, etc.) will still find it can pay an amount of money other jobs can't. 'Nuff said.

[qwertyaccount 15793]

The thing is, it's very difficult to outlaw prostitution. If a law declares that it's illegal to exchange money for sex, that's all well and good, but would it be illegal to exchange, say, gifts for sex? If he takes me out to dinner or away for a weekend and we have sex, is that illegal? Suppose he just pays my rent for me? What if he leases a car for me? Perhaps he might buy a condo, townhouse or a house and give it to me--would that be illegal? What if he has groceries delivered to my house every week? He might give me a gift card or arrange for me to have credit with various stores or other places. Would that be the same as giving me money and expecting me to have sex with him?

 

...

 

They can change the rules, but we all adapt and the game goes on.

 

I'd hire a lady to clean my place, and if something else happens after or during her "work", well that's just a happy coincidence!

[drlove 37204]

I agree with you, Samantha. Indeed, you hit the conundrum of non-sensical arguments in favour of criminalizing prostitution on the head. It reminds me of a conversation my ex girlfriend and I had one time. We met on a dating site. As a bit of a joke, she made a comment on our first date that it should change its name to "Plenty Of Prostitution" since men will curry a woman's favour by "wining and dining" them in exchange for sex. It's odd that sex can be 'given away for free' so to speak in the context of dating, yet treating it as a commodity in the free market raises a plethora of objections. Moreover, the official explanation points to the guise of protecting women from exploitation, yet IMO the majority of the sentiment stems from antiquated Victorian notions surrounding the moral implications of selling sex. I feel society at large should just get over itself and move on.

 

The thing is, it's very difficult to outlaw prostitution. If a law declares that it's illegal to exchange money for sex, that's all well and good, but would it be illegal to exchange, say, gifts for sex? If he takes me out to dinner or away for a weekend and we have sex, is that illegal? Suppose he just pays my rent for me? What if he leases a car for me? Perhaps he might buy a condo, townhouse or a house and give it to me--would that be illegal? What if he has groceries delivered to my house every week? He might give me a gift card or arrange for me to have credit with various stores or other places. Would that be the same as giving me money and expecting me to have sex with him?

 

My point is that it's difficult to distinguish prostitution from things that happen in dating and marriage relationships.

 

If you think that we don't get offers of condos, cars, luxury items and even basics like groceries, you're wrong: we do. Many of us--myself included--decline such offers because we don't want to deal with the strings that are attached to such gifts. Cash transactions are simply clearer and simpler for all concerned. Nevertheless, I would not categorically refuse offers such as those I've outlined, above. I would, however, adopt even more stringent and restrictive screening policies and my fees would certainly increase, as well. The basic principles of a capitalist economy would be in my favour.

 

Outlawing street prostitution isn't going to work. It's illegal, already, to solicit in public, but it still happens, and the women who have to work this way are the ones who are at greatest risk of harm. Nothing will change for them if prostitution itself is made illegal.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

[T]he official explanation points to the guise of protecting women from exploitation, yet IMO the majority of the sentiment stems from antiquated Victorian notions surrounding the moral implications of selling sex. I feel society at large should just get over itself and move on.

 

The notion that the government is trying to protect women from exploitation is astounding to me. I think it surprised the Ontario Court of Appeal judges this week, too.

 

If the government was genuinely interested in protecting women, they would not hesitate to prevent poverty--that's doable. They would guarantee that women would always be able to earn a liveable wage or to receive assistance comparable to such a wage if or when they can't work. When marriages and similar relationships end, women wouldn't have to jump through complex and sometimes expensive hoops to ensure that they receive child support from their children's fathers and the support that they received would actually reflect the cost of raising the children. Human trafficking would not only be illegal, but the police and judiciary would be zealous to root out and prosecute traffickers. Merely being born aboriginal and female would not dramatically increase one's likelihood of ending up in poverty. Sexual assault would no longer be one of the easiest crimes to get away with: when men rape women, they would end up in jail.

 

The laws about bawdy houses, soliciting and living on the avails of prostitution are not and never were expected to reduce the exploitation of women. The laws are there to reduce competition between men. Men don't want their access to women for sex to be mediated through other men. This is important.

 

Occasionally, someone will post something on this board expressing concern about whether a paid companion will expose him or compromise his privacy--whether meeting with one of us may expose him to coercion, blackmail or violence. In fact, it's extremely rare for a paid companion to do anything like this. It's not so rare for a pimp, however. In addition, men simply don't want to pay other men for the opportunity to have sex with women, whether they're negotiating dowries or access to a prostitute.

 

Outlawing prostitution or driving it underground ensures that pimps will thrive. Yes, the women who work for them may be coerced, manipulated, drugged, and subjected to threats and violence. However, our society is not terribly concerned about women's safety, particularly if they are poor or aboriginal. Women know this: some of us accept the protection pimps offer because we expect men to be coercive, exploitative and violent. We hope that a man may be less likely to harm or kill us if another man knows he was with us.

 

Meanwhile, clients want to have sex without having to pay another man for it, without having their activities monitored and without the risk of being identified if they injure or kill us or if the intermediary decides to blackmail them later.

 

On the whole, men don't fear prostitutes; they fear each other. Laws against soliticing, keeping bawdy houses and living on the avails are there to eliminate the middle man, not protect prostitutes.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I saw this article and thought may be related to this thread so decided to attach it below:

 

TORONTO -- There are three certainties in the future of the landmark ruling on theprostitution laws in Ontario.

 

By the end of this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal will either kill or uphold the trio of anti-prostitution laws: Pimping, communicating and keeping a common bawdy house or brothel. The next sure thing is the losing side -- either the attorneys general of Canada and Ontario or the sex trade workers who challenged the law -- will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

And the third guaranteed element -- whether these laws perish, persist or morph into something new -- nothing will happen quickly.

 

A five-day appeal of a lower court ruling which found the laws unconstitutional wrapped up last week at Osgoode Hall In Toronto. If the court issues its ruling as expected in late November or early December, the losers will seek leave -- ask permission to be heard -- at the Supreme Court.

 

ANOTHER APPEAL

 

Legal observers expect Canada's highest court will agree by the spring to hear the leave argument. By the fall of 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada will likely hear the charter case. There's no deadline for the judges to release their ruling, but they usually do so within a year, meaning it would come out in 2013.

 

If the highest court of the land does kill the laws, the Crown has already asked for an 18-month stay to permit Parliament to react to the ruling.

 

Federal Crown Michael Morris convinced the appeals court this time would be required to prevent a period of lawlessness or disorder.

 

The charter-challenged laws would remain enforceable until the government either drafted new legislation shoring up weaknesses identified by the courts or introduced new laws.

 

CRIMINALIZE JOHNS

 

If the government elected to change the laws, it could follow the Swedish model and criminalize johns, or the politicians could criminalizeprostitution itself. Such a change would allow the government to kill any argument that current laws makes working conditions unsafe for someone in a "legal" job.

 

In some countries,prostitution laws vary in different jurisdictions: Australia has different laws in each of its states or territories.

The federal government could allow a bawdy house of one or two people. In the U.K., a bawdy house can have one woman working alone in her own house, but not two or more people

 

 

My views:

 

I, for one would be more than happy to see status quo continue (that is the OSC turns down Justice Susan Himel's decision) until the end of this government's mandate at least rather than risking the Swedish model imposed by this very right wing majority conservative government which in my view there is no way they are going to relax prostitution laws but rather use the Supreme court favorable decision as an excuse to totally ban it all together and use their majority to do so and therefore put more sex workers in greater danger ever by driving it underground and also the fact that many safe hobbyists will stop hobbying because of harsh punishments and disgrace associated with that system. My view anyways. I hope I am wrong.

[drlove 37204]

It's kind of a double edged sword, isn't it?