Tory Convention

[Guest C*****tte]

A new federal law would take more than weeks to pass. Its a lengthy process.

 

If the law gets over turned I would not be surprised if the issue remains vague as the status of abortion has. Great article on the subject recently in the Globe and Mail.

 

If things get sent to municipal level then it will still take some time to develop the regulations and have it approved as well. In the larger cities there will be debate and involvement by sex worker rights groups. Even if not invited to the process you can bet we will be speaking up. Some municipalities will ban in entirely though I will wonder if they will be able to enforce it. In the end it could be a mish mash of different services available in different manners across the country.

 

The court looks at this issue starting June 13th so we ca expect more articles and talk about it.

 

An aside - when I read the comments in the Globe and Mail article time and time again someone raises a mandatory STI check with a card proving 'cleanliness'. I hate this idea. It is just plain ridiculous. STI testing is but a reflection of your health for a brief moment in time. Its a great thing for you to get - yes. So you can get treatment if you have something. But it does not make you safe in any other respect. You are only as 'clean' as your last encounter - professional or otherwise. This kind of thing also encourages clients to push for unprotected activities. Dumb dumb dumb. I think only people who don't get tested or understand what sex work is all about suggest this as a good idea for regulation.

 

/rant

[thompo69 198]

A new federal law would take more than weeks to pass. Its a lengthy process.

 

It can be a lengthy process. It can also happen in a matter of hours. It depends on the urgency of the issue, the determination of the government, and their balance of power. With Harper's majority in both chambers he would have no problem getting such legislation through in a few weeks.

 

Having said that, if Justice Himmel's ruling is upheld by the Court of Appeal, I doubt we'll see any legislative response. They will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, who will undoubtedly grant a further stay to the ruling while they consider it. I would be surprised if the government tried to do anything legislatively before that point.

[drlove 37204]

This conservative government who is just given a majority mandate will NEVER allow legalization of all aspects of prostitution anywhere in Canada...

 

That's what worries me... If only the constitutional challenge would have occurred back in the early to mid 90's when the Liberals were in power, I think the prospects would have seemed a lot brighter. As it stands now, it may well be a case of one step forward, and two steps back.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

That's what worries me... If only the constitutional challenge would have occurred back in the early to mid 90's when the Liberals were in power, I think the prospects would have seemed a lot brighter. As it stands now, it may well be a case of one step forward, and two steps back.

 

My point exactly. The timing was not right when it was challenged and it is a lot worse now. I also think thompo is correct. A majority government can push through new laws very quickly if they wish so and not follow the norm. Did the same sex marriage took years to be introduced and voted on, in the parliament?. They said they put it to vote before the election and a few weeks after it was voted upon.

 

Also prostitution laws are under Federal jurisdictions so I don't understand why municipalities have to approve or decide how best to implement them, but I am not a constitutional expert so I don't know!!. As i said the timing to challenge federal prostitution laws is not right. It should be dropped because if the OCA votes in favor of Himel's decision it will have unpredictable and most likely undesirable consequences for all of us. I hope OCA turns down the decision. At least this way the status quo will likely to remain in effect for a few years and then the law can be challenged again when we have a more progressive thinking government in place.

[Guest C*****tte]

In terms of timing I think we need to look at the history of the sex workers rights movement in Canada. You don't wait until the timing is right to bring forth a lengthy court battle. You don't count on there being a government in power that will not have a bias against you. You just start your fight and keep going.

 

I have been a part of it for 10 years and have seen very little public will to change things. We have been banging our heads against a very hard wall of disinterest and stigma for a long time (especially when I speak to the people who have been a part of the movement for 25 plus years). It took a tragedy to get the public attention and if you look at how long it took for that tragedy to even be considered by the police then I think you get a sense of how there is no right time. Not when so many women have been assaulted and murdered just because they were sex workers. There is just the present, just the now.

 

We cannot play a waiting game.

 

-

 

I want to add that I know that both workers and clients alike are scared of there being a change in the status quo. I know I am. I do not believe in the legislation of sex between consenting adults. I feel it is private matter. Still, when I see how the status quo leads to the assault and murder of my fellow workers - usually those in a more vulnerable position than I - then I do not feel comfortable protecting my position of privilege at the cost of their lives. I rather lose that privilege.

 

I will continue to speak up for my rights as a sex worker if and when law reform occurs (I have been doing this for 10 years and haven't had full burn out yet as an activist - hope it does not happen) and if things do not go in my favour (ie my activities are further restricted) then I will make the necessary adjustments.

 

I know I am very passionate about this issue and there is no consensus. I just feel that with lives on the line that it is important to consider those made most vulnerable by the status quo. We cannot forget them.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

The rules allow the Ontario Court of Appeal to take up to six months to release a decision. I know, from personal experience before this court, that they do take the full amount of time allotted to them when they consider any complex issue. We shouldn't expect a decision before late November. Applications to the Supreme Court of Canada take months to prepare and many more months will elapse before an appeal is heard there, too.

 

The Harper government runs on polls and surveys. While the prime minister and some MPs may personally prefer to reduce or eliminate women's access to abortions in Canada, every reputable survey shows that the Canadian public is strongly opposed to re-opening the debate.

 

Canadians are also in favour of decriminalizing prostitution, as Wrinkled in Time outlined, above. The article in this weekend's Globe and Mail, "Why the courts must decriminalize prostitution," has had more than 660 comments as I write this post, and the great majority of those comments are in favour of the article. Most print media estimate that a single written comment represents the views and values of at least 1,500 readers who did not comment. In simple terms, those 660 comments may represent up to about 10,000 readers. One should make allowances for trolls and for simple, one-line responses, but even with that downward adjustment, the number of responses in favour of the article is significant. The Harper government will take note of this--they would be very foolish not to. And, whatever any of us may think about this government and its MPs, they are not stupid, ignorant or incapable of thinking things through.

 

Canadians do not think that the laws presently on the books are working. We may not have much of an idea about what drives women into street prostitution, but no one can ignore the truth: it's the most dangerous form of prostitution, anywhere, because the women who engage in it are too easily preyed upon by guys like Robert Picton.

 

I imagine that the biggest concern for most of the public is that they don't want to have a brothel in their own neighbourhood. They imagine that brothels will bring in a lot of undesirable traffic, noise and dangerous elements. That's fair enough, I suppose, if the stereotype were accurate, but it's not. Most paid companions who work indoors as independents are operating brothels, even if only one woman is working in them. We are all over the country, in every city and in every neighbourhood. We're hard to notice and most of us wouldn't have it any other way.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

If there was a reasonable chance that the fight would be resulting in legalization of prostitution I would have supported you. As i said there is no way that this most right wing government in Canadian history just elected as majority would allow legalization of all aspects of prostitution in Canada. On the contrary even a win (a favorable decision by OCA) would be counter productive and results in tougher laws and regrefully more sex workers fallingf victims in future. I seem like a broken record but I say it again, that I think a court challenge at this time will be couter-productive no matter which way it goes.

 

I understand however, your passion but starting a fight when there is no chance of winning is like going on a suicide mission. There is no point or logic in trying to punch out an advancing tank in the battle field lol. We have to outsmart the backward government and think with our minds rather than emotions and not give them a chance to bury us for once and all.

[Phaedrus 209521]

A majority government can push through new laws very quickly if they wish

 

Even with an overall majority, things can be slowed down; pushing things through *really* fast requires cross-party cooperation, and I just can't see that happening. Yes, the current government could ram this through if they chose; the question is whether or not they think they've got better things to be doing (more on which below).

 

It took a tragedy to get the public attention and if you look at how long it took for that tragedy to even be considered by the police then I think you get a sense of how there is no right time. Not when so many women have been assaulted and murdered just because they were sex workers. There is just the present, just the now.

 

True. And in addition, the public memory for things is often quite short. Maybe Pickton will turn out to be different - I hope so - but most incidents will only be remembered by the public for a far lesser time than is required to get a case through the judicial system.

 

Canadians are also in favour of decriminalizing prostitution, as Wrinkled in Time outlined, above.

<snip>

The Harper government will take note of this--they would be very foolish not to. And, whatever any of us may think about this government and its MPs, they are not stupid, ignorant or incapable of thinking things through.

 

I must admit, I wasn't aware of the poll results WIT posted. I'm quite encouraged by how reasonable people seem to be on this - the 'live and let live' attitude seems to be far more prevalent than I'd thought it was.

 

What would be interesting would be to see polls on how *strongly* people feel about this; although there may be a majority who are OK with the legalization of brothels, I doubt peoples votes will really swing on this sort of thing. Elections will still come down to jobs and taxes and schools and hospitals, in the end.

 

I imagine that the biggest concern for most of the public is that they don't want to have a brothel in their own neighbourhood. They imagine that brothels will bring in a lot of undesirable traffic, noise and dangerous elements. That's fair enough, I suppose, if the stereotype were accurate, but it's not. Most paid companions who work indoors as independents are operating brothels, even if only one woman is working in them. We are all over the country, in every city and in every neighbourhood. We're hard to notice and most of us wouldn't have it any other way.

 

I think this is probably the biggest obstacle to public acceptance right now - but then, nimbyism will never go away, and the fact that nobody really wants to live next door to a power station doesn't mean we're going to turn the lights off. But this is where local government can make a huge difference, if it's actually prepared to have a sensible debate on the topic; there's a reason why commercial and residential properties are already separated, and adding a new type of commercial property to the equation really doesn't change it all that much.

 

On a more whimsical note - wouldn't it be great if we could just *tell* people where their nearest SP incall was, and then started asking questions like "If they're so awful, how did you fail to notice what was going on next door/ in the apartment downstairs/ down the street"? Okay, it's never going to happen, but...

 

If there was a reasonable chance that the fight would be resulting in legalization of prostitution I would have supported you. As i said there is no way that this most right wing government in Canadian history just elected as majority would allow legalization of all aspects of prostitution in Canada. On the contrary even a win (a favorable decision by OCA) would be counter productive and results in tougher laws and regrefully more sex workers fallingf victims in future. I seem like a broken record but I say it again, that I think a court challenge at this time will be couter-productive no matter which way it goes.

 

You may be right. But I feel more optimistic on this point having seen the polls WIT posted - I have no doubt the government's seen them too.

 

I understand however, your passion but starting a fight when there is no chance of winning is like going on a suicide mission. There is no point or logic in trying to punch out an advancing tank in the battle field lol. We have to outsmart the backward government and think with our minds rather than emotions and not give them a chance to bury us for once and all.

 

I don't agree that this is a suicide mission; there's a reasonable chance of success, and no guarantee that failure would be disastrous. And if you *don't* fight, the only guarantee is that you lose.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

 

I don't agree that this is a suicide mission; there's a reasonable chance of success, and no guarantee that failure would be disastrous. And if you *don't* fight, the only guarantee is that you lose.

 

So,you believe that there is a reasonable chance that the current majority conservative government just elected would allow legalization of prostitution in Canada??.

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

So,you believe that there is a reasonable chance that the current majority conservative government just elected would allow legalization of prostitution in Canada??.

 

I think so, yes. They might try writing new laws about soliciting to crack down on street prostitution, but they'd only have limited, temporary success if they do that because street prostitution is motivated by drug addiction, mental illnesses and the most dire forms of poverty.

 

Remember that prostitution is legal in Canada, now. It's not legal to operate a brothel and it's not legal for anyone other than the prostitute herself to live off the proceeds of her income.

 

However, there are brothels all over the country, operating undetected under the radar, causing no trouble for anyone. Technically, I'm the sole proprietor and employee of a brothel in one of Vancouver's most up-scale residential neighbourhoods.

 

Charging me would serve no useful purpose because I am not a nuisance, I cause no trouble for anyone, there are no noise problems, no drugs, no late-night drunken brawls outside my door--nothing for the neighbours or the police to be interested in. To charge me would simply be vindictive. If I am prevented from making my living as I do, there's a good chance that I would have to rely on social assistance of various kinds, which is also not in the public interest.

 

I provide for my children on my income. My youngest lives with me. Is he better off without my income? His father refuses to pay child support and it would take a couple of years--and cost a great deal--for the province to get results if they pursue my son's father for unpaid child support because we were on welfare.

 

Technically, my landlord is living on the avails. Should they be charged, though? They say that we are the finest tenants they've ever had and they hope that we'll stay for years to come. We're quiet, undemanding and happy to take care of basic maintenance ourselves.

 

Do taxpayers want to have their money used to pursue women like me? Do they believe that the best thing the police departments can do is to set me up to imagine I'm entertaining another nice middle-aged man only to find that he's a police officer who is going to arrest me? (I'll say nothing about the RCMP and city police officers who are or have been my clients before this.) Maybe--just maybe--it would be better to put the police to work finding the people who have been murdering the prostitutes who work on the streets downtown.

 

If they're concerned about my taxable income, the CRA has ways of ensuring that I pay taxes on my earnings. I'm ready to be audited. I declare my income, so I'm not worried about that.

 

If they're concerned that I may not be healthy and may be spreading diseases, well, lots of people pass communicable diseases to others. It's an offense to knowingly expose others to diseases like HIV/AIDS, but I am 100% certain that I don't have HIV or other serious illnesses. Studies show that a man's wife or girlfriend is more likely to expose him to most STDs than I am.

 

My point in all of this is to question what needs to be regulated. Most paid companions work much as I do. We aren't causing problems. There's no reason to enact laws to regulate our behaviour.

 

If the Himel decision is upheld, it's possible that more people will enter the sex traqde. It's possible, but over time, I don't think there will be a significant increase in the number of paid companions. This work is a lot more difficult and demanding than most people realize. One has to work very hard to make a good living and one has to put up with a lot of nonsense from clients and potential clients, at times. Most women don't stay in the sex trade for very long.

 

So, yes, I do think there's a reasonable chance that the federal government will not rush to pass useless, pointless legislation, particularly if most Canadians don't want it.

[Capital Hunter 18263]

I hope that you are right. There are in my view two possible issues with your comments. One is that government usually do what they wish and is their mandate. The conservative mandate is to make prostitution illegal no strings attached. They don't usually listen to the people (especially this government) and bear in mind that prostitution law is not really a vote changer. It is not a hot issue like abortion or economy. And second I think that there is a misconception about sex workers among general public. Some think of sex workers as drug addicts with mental or physical illnesses and who spread stds. It is regretful but is likely true. There is not going to be a public outrage if they make prostitution illegal. They may even gain some support. Again I hope that you are right. But I have to see the day in order to believe it, that this conservative government actually passes laws in the parliament to legalize or relax prostitution laws in Canada!!!!.

[Guest s******ecan****]

I think so, yes. .

 

 

I think this seriously misreads Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. I have no doubt that they don't want to become involved in this issue, their preference it would seem is to leave the status quo intact. However if the ultimate result is that the laws are struck down and the Tory's are still in power I fully believe more restrictive laws will result. As SA said there is no way the Conservative Party is going to be the first party to legalize prostitution. I also believe they will appeal to the SC if the current decision is upheld as this gives them more time to kick the issue down the road to someone else, or hope that the SC rules the current laws are acceptable (the likely result given the current court's make up).

[Phaedrus 209521]

So,you believe that there is a reasonable chance that the current majority conservative government just elected would allow legalization of prostitution in Canada??.

No. But I believe there's a good chance they won't want to take it on, and the issue will just get punted into the long grass, which is probably the best we can hope for from the current lot.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

"The resolution also calls for a "comprehensive strategy" to stop prostitution"....

 

See post 12 in this thread to see what the resolution actually says. Despite what the news article cited in the OP claims, the resolution does not call for a comprehensive strategy to stop prostitution:

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=229547&postcount=12

[Capital Hunter 18263]

No. But I believe there's a good chance they won't want to take it on, and the issue will just get punted into the long grass, which is probably the best we can hope for from the current lot.

 

So, what good will come out of this lol !!!!

 

In your earlier post you indicated a reasonable chance of success that the court challenge was a right thing to do and should continue as shown below:

 

there's a reasonable chance of success, and no guarantee that failure would be disastrous. And if you *don't* fight, the only guarantee is that you lose.

 

What will be the success?

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

It's possible that the federal government won't do anything if the Himel decision is upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. They don't have to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. If they do, and the SCC upholds the Himel decision, the feds could just let things be. The laws would be nullified. They could wait and see what happens. Will there be unmanageable levels of street prostitution? Will brothels open up all over the country? How will cities and municipalities respond?

 

Doing nothing for awhile could be in the feds' best interests. If everything is okay, there's no reason to create crimes. If things are going badly in some area, new laws may be one approach to dealing with whatever problems arise.

[Phaedrus 209521]

In your earlier post you indicated a reasonable chance of success that the court challenge was a right thing to do and should continue as shown below:

 

What will be the success?

 

Winning the case, in the medium term (I don't think there *is* a short term here). If that's at the SCC level, great. But even if it's won at the Ontario level and not appealed, that'd be a powerful precedent elsewhere.

 

So, what good will come out of this lol !!!!

Assuming, of course, that it goes the right way (and given that round one already has, I'd presume that's not entirely a pipe-dream), a ruling that the marginalizing of a group of people and making it more dangerous to engage in a lawful activity is a Bad Thing, even if you don't approve of their career choices. And the ball will be very much back in the politicans' court.

 

The question, of course, is what happens then. You seem - if I've understood you correctly - to be of the opinion that Harper will still be PM and that he'll act reasonably swiftly to simply outlaw the exchange of any sort of sexual services for money, as well as anything related to that. I agree that Harper may well still be in power by the time the SCC rules on this (assuming, of course, that it hears the case) - but he might well be looking at an election in the not-too-distant future (hopefully he won't just have won another) and probably won't want to take on a potentially divisive issue. In fact, regardless of who's in power, I don't think any politicians would want to take this on; they do tend to be a fairly spineless bunch and more concerned with not losing votes than with gaining them, which means that unless there's a broad cross-party consensus - which there isn't here, I don't think - the really hard debates, like this one, tend to get ducked entirely. This would mean that the eventual court ruling would simply be left to stand. And if Harper wants to please his base and start a real fight, he's always got abortion law to go at.

 

So, there you go. This is, of course,, merely my own guesswork and speculation. But hell, it's interesting to speculate...