Groups refused standing at prostitution law July 3/09

[Susie 1472]

Groups refused standing at prostitution law trial July 3/09

 

 

KIRK MAKIN

An Ontario judge has turned down a request from two religious groups and a conservative women's group to take part in a constitutional challenge of the country's prostitution laws.

Mr. Justice Ted Matlow of the Ontario Superior Court said that the groups would be liable to turn the trial into a soapbox for spiritual views, which would be out of place in a strictly legal proceeding.

Judge Matlow said that the groups struck him as being unaware that the challenge "does not provide a political platform where interested persons are permitted to speak in order to advance their personal views, beliefs, policies and interests at large."

The ruling came as a blow to the Christian Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada and Catholic Civil Rights League - which had argued that the court should hear a broad range of voices on a question with important moral dimensions.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/groups-refused-standing-at-prostitution-law-trial/article1205115/

[Akhenaton 221]

Thanks for posting Susie.

[Ariane Valmont 332]

Now this is great news! :-D

 

Thanks for sharing, Susie.

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

thank goodness for common sense, why are these people so obsessed with other peoples private lives?

[whatsup 11893]

Great post and some of the replies to the article are very good.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Praise the Lord for this, and every, tiny step on the long road towards rationality.

 

Background reading:

 

Court filing, 20 Mar 2007:

 

http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/files/Ontario%20Superior%20Court%20Application%20March%202007.doc

 

March 2007 report on the filing:

 

http://hazel8500.wordpress.com/2007/03/22/mike-strobel-serves-it-straight-up/

[Annessa 22743]

AMEN! ( and yes....pun intended!)

 

Thanks for posting this, I have seen far too many groups with their outrageous opinions try and get involved with the sex-workers movement. Its groups like these who plug their ears to the facts and stand by their "educated views" (translation: opinions) regardless of what is laid before them (pun not intended, hehe). I have a firm belief that groups like these have no place in the end result of such a trial.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

An Ontario judge was wrong to prohibit two religious groups and a conservative women's group from supporting the country's prostitution laws at a coming constitutional challenge, the Ontario Court of Appeal said Tuesday.

 

In a 3-0 ruling, the appeal court said that the groups have a legitimate contribution to make to an issue that has a clear moral dimension.

 

It ruled that Mr. Justice Ted Matlow of the Ontario Superior Court misunderstood the case and used flawed reasoning when he concluded that groups would be out of place making moral arguments during the trial.

 

The groups were the Christian Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada and the Catholic Civil Rights League.

Full report by Kirk Makin for the Globe & Mail, 22 Sep 2009:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/religious-womens-groups-allowed-to-back-prostitution-laws/article1297813/

 

Ruling:

 

http://www.ccrl.ca/doc/Ont%20court%20of%20appeal%20Sept%2009.pdf

[Susie 1472]

fuck.......brace yourselves.....abolitionism surging......

[Andee 220524]

As much as this seems like a setback, I figure, let them have their say because hopefully intelligence will prevail and the powers that be will recognize morality has no role in this decision.

 

An SP friend of mine had her neighbour call the cops on her because even though legally she was not breaking the law, the neighbour's belief that what she was doing was wrong should have been good enough. Fortunately the cops told the neighbour they were in the business of enforcing the law, not morality.

 

P.S. The only reason why the neighbour knew what she was doing was because her son became obsessed with my friend and started following her around and figured it out, that's all.

[Ragnaglar 440]

in a better world yes, Angela but religion and intelligence do not go hand in hand.

 

the Law and religion are 2 separate things and need to be kept in their respective corners lest we regress to the dark days of yore!

 

 

As much as this seems like a setback, I figure, let them have their say because hopefully intelligence will prevail and the powers that be will recognize morality has no role in this decision.

 

An SP friend of mine had her neighbour call the cops on her because even though legally she was not breaking the law, the neighbour's belief that what she was doing was wrong should have been good enough. Fortunately the cops told the neighbour they were in the business of enforcing the law, not morality.

 

P.S. The only reason why the neighbour knew what she was doing was because her son became obsessed with my friend and started following her around and figured it out, that's all.

[Guest e**m***h]

As much as this seems like a setback, I figure, let them have their say because hopefully intelligence will prevail and the powers that be will recognize morality has no role in this decision.

 

An SP friend of mine had her neighbour call the cops on her because even though legally she was not breaking the law, the neighbour's belief that what she was doing was wrong should have been good enough. Fortunately the cops told the neighbour they were in the business of enforcing the law, not morality.

 

P.S. The only reason why the neighbour knew what she was doing was because her son became obsessed with my friend and started following her around and figured it out, that's all.

Too bad about this - I think, though, that you have something by hoping intelligence can prevail. In hearings where there is a constitutional challenge like this, it is not all that unusual for intevenors to get standing to express their views, even if those views are extreme and intolerant - I have seen a few such live wires. On the up side, intervenors like these groups don't usually have a really big affect on the outcome of a case. In fact, when they are really extreme, judgmental or narrowly religious, they can start arguing your case for you. All may not be lost. :cool:

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Proceedings at Ontario's Superior Court of Justice commence today (5 Oct 2009) in Toronto:

 

http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/local/article/330626--dominatrix-challenging-prostitution-law-in-court

 

Terri-Jean Bedford apparently plans to bring her riding-crop with her to court ...

[mod 135640]

If anyone is attending these court hearings we would love to hear from you.

[Susie 1472]

came to me from osgood regarding supreme court;

 

As well, I think an update on the status of the case is in order. You may have heard that a couple of Christian groups, combined with REAL Women Canada, were granted intervenor status in the case. While we opposed their motion, they really aren't a big deal. They'll only get an hour or two at the end of the case to say their piece about Christian values and morality. Their position is not relevant to our argument that the current laws relating to prostitution are putting sex workers in a situation of danger. Hopefully Alan will be able to convince the judge to ignore the group's distracting and irrelevant position.

 

All of the materials in the case have been filed, save for the Christian group's factum. The entire record, including all of your affidavits and transcripts from cross-examinations, comprises 86 volumes or 8 boxes of material. The case is set to go forward on Tuesday, October 6 (next week!) in Toronto. Our arguments will take the first two days. The Attorney General of Canada will then get two days to present it's arguments. We will then return to court on Monday, October 19 so that the Attorney General of Ontario and the new intervenors can present their arguments. We will then get a brief period of time to present any sort of reply that we may have. At that point, the judge, who we have learned is Justice Susan Himel, will take time to wade through everything and come up with a decision. This will likely take several months. I'll keep you all posted when we hear anything.

 

I'd like to thank you all for everything you have done to help us along the way. None of this would have been possible without each and every one of you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, comments, etc. in the future.

 

from terri jean........

 

 

Dear Friends,

Please find attached to your email a Thank You Card from all of us to all of you. We couldn?t have made it without you. Please print it out and save it for your scrapbook. Love Always - T.J. Bedford.

It is with sincere thanks and gratitude that I write to express our appreciation for your support and generosity that you have shown to the ?Safe Haven Initiative?. We have been at it for over a year now and time has gone by quickly mostly due to the strong work ethics of Professor Alan Young and his volunteer law students. We are proud to have this opportunity to confront the issues, defend the women who work in the sex trade industry and to help save lives.

This experience has taught us how urgent the need is to improve the working conditions of prostitutes especially health and safety concerns. We are proud of the progress we have made thus far. It is my pleasure to be a part of this experience. 18 months is a long time to prepare to for a case, but knowing that there are lives at stake makes our job that more rewarding, and knowing that there are other like minded friends that still care and so generously support us makes it that much easier. Again thank you for your generosity and unending support.

Sincerely,

Terri-Jean Bedford & Professor Alan Young

*The Safe Haven Initiative

Constitutional Challenge to Canada?s Prostitution Laws

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Tuesday Oct.6th to Friday Oct.9th

& Monday Oct.19th 2009

361 University Avenue, Toronto Ontario

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Canadian Press newsclip from today 6 Oct 2009 with succinct, well-spoken statements to the press by Young, Bedford, and Scott (1:58 ) :

 

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/10/06/11324661.html

[sexnonstop724 1727]

And a Judge with comon sense and the Balls to stand up to these single minded groups.

[mod 135640]

It is nice to see this portrayed in a positive way with the media. Alan Young is very well spoken (it shows in this video). It will be very interesting to see how this progresses.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Summary of Alan Young's arguments in court today 7 Oct 2009. The Applicants' two day presentation of their side is complete. Next up will be the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Respondents.

 

"Lawyer Alan Young said that many of the Crown's experts have a history of lying to foreign legislators, conducting simplistic research, fabricating scare stories and employing absurd rhetoric to help stall the global liberalization of prostitution laws."

 

Report filed by Kirk Makin for the Globe & Mail:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-prostitution-case-crowns-witnesses-characterized-as-liars-and-alarmists/article1316018/

 

"Canada's prostitutes are trapped in an X-rated version of the movie Groundhog Day, in which governments keep commissioning and then ignoring studies on how to make their business safe ...

 

'The government, either knowingly or unknowingly, has gone into business with the black market,' Young said":

 

Report posted by The Star:

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/706930--government-underworld-in-cahoots-prostitution-hearing-told

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

From the National Post editorial (even though the Crown has not even begun to present their arguments in court yet!) :

" ... the arguments being made by government lawyers in the Ontario Charter case seem ridiculous: Their essential claim is that all prostitution is equally dangerous. Every adult knows perfectly well it?s not so, and the sooner we start making laws and regulations consciously on the basis of the truth, the better for everyone."

Full editorial by the National Post Editorial Board:

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/07/national-post-editorial-board-legalize-the-sex-trade.aspx

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Reports on the first day's arguments of The Attorney General of Canada:

 

Lead summary by Kevin Connor for Sun Media:

"An A-list prostitute working indoors faces the same dangers as drug-addicted hookers working the low track on the street, a court heard yesterday."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/10/09/11351791-sun.html

 

Kirk Makin for the Globe & Mail:

In a staunch defence of the country's embattled prostitution law, federal Crown counsel Michael Morris argued that the law against communicating in public is aimed at more than merely curbing an unappetizing spectacle.

 

"It is directly tied to a concern about children being attracted into prostitution," he told Madam Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court. "That is what happens when an 11-year-old is exposed to the sale of sex and is potentially attracted to it."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/amending-prostitution-law-puts-kids-at-risk-court-told/article1318058/

 

Natalie Alcoba for the National Post:

Mr. Morris argued yesterday that there is no such thing as a safe place for prostitution. He said the harm, both physical and psychological, comes from the act itself, and not from the laws.

 

"No one's security is in danger by following the law," said Mr. Morris, who went on to describe the impact drugs and violence associated with prostitution had on the streets of one neighbourhood in Edmonton: contaminated needles, condoms, theft and property crime.

 

"Doesn't all this support Prof. Young's position of the additional danger on the street?" asked Judge Himel.

 

Mr. Morris said the government agrees street prostitution is dangerous, but he said that does not prove it is safer indoors. He said not enough is known about "the hidden phenomenon of indoor prostitution" to conclude that it is a better option.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2083988

[mod 135640]

Maybe someone should point the Judge over to cerb to see how amazing the community really is!! See that we are all regular people (not drug addicted hookers and sexual deviant predators as the religious groups and anti-prostitution activists want everyone to beleive).

 

This comment from the judge "Doesn't all this support Prof. Young's position of the additional danger on the street?" is wonderful to see. It shows that the judge is not falling for the anti-prostitution propaganda that the attorney is trying to feed her.

 

For someone to actually beleive that escorting and street level prostitution carry the same risks is insane and we all know it ... anyone with any common sense knows otherwise so this statement just makes the attorney look like they are crusaders (with no actually evidence to support these statements) just like the moral crusaders who make these statements without any evidence to back them up.

 

Of course the attorney knows it is safer... but their job is to convince the court that it is not.

[Suzirider 737]

Mr. Morris said the government agrees street prostitution is dangerous, but he said that does not prove it is safer indoors. He said not enough is known about "the hidden phenomenon of indoor prostitution" to conclude that it is a better option.

So "not enough is known". Me thinks gov don't want to know either !

What ? No studies, polls, surveys ! In other words, since we have made it illegal, we can hide the truth we don't want to hear about. (So logical)

 

This is what Mr Layman (me) has found with a little googling !

 

"Although no comparative figures are presented from these two

domains, ?We found significantly more physical violence in street,

as opposed to brothel, prostitution? (Farley et al., 1998, p. 419)."

 

"The other, better designed studies cited above do indeed find

significant differences in the amount of violence in various indoor

versus street settings. No one is arguing that indoor prostitution

is free of violence, but based on the available research literature,

violence is nowhere near as prevalent as the image presented by

Raphael and Shapiro (2004). Even Farley found ?significantly?

more violence in street prostitution than in brothel prostitution

(Farley et al., 1998, p. 419). Street prostitutes are more vulnerable

to victimization than escorts, call girls, and those involved in consensual

brothel and massage parlor work"

 

Found in

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&ved=0CBQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvegaspundit.typepad.com%2Fvegas_pundit%2Ffiles%2FVAW-1.pdf&ei=8BjQSsX-LYrFlAfa3JmpCg&rct=j&q=street+prostitution+study&usg=AFQjCNHjiTm_B7ZB_K4_EIEnyZaESFuahg

 

I suggest a poll on Cerb, to ask a simple question.

Would you rather work indoors or outdoors ?

We could add to the truth in this case !

[Susie 1472]

tamara o'doherty from simon fraser university criminology did research some time ago that does prove it is safer to work indoors and is included in professor youngs argument. the crown simply don't seem to have read our testimony.....

 

it will mean crowns downfall......

 

see her full research/ thesis here;

 

http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/9250?mode=full&submit_simple=Show+full+item+record

Lack of violence among off-street sex workers

 

June 28, 2007

 

 

By Marianne Meadahl

 

Contrary to popular perceptions about prostitution and violence, more than two-thirds of off-street sex workers who participated in a recent SFU study say they don?t experience violence while working.

Sixty-three cent of the study participants?who work in massage parlours, for escort agencies or independently out of their homes?have never experienced violent behaviour.

Those who did said the majority of incidents were related to a client?s refusal to pay or to wear a condom.

School of Criminology grad student Tamara O?Doherty, who conducted the study, says her findings suggest that the off-street sex trade is safer than it is for the 10?20 per cent of prostitutes who work at the street level.

"The lack of violence as shown in this study doesn?t reflect what many people typically fear about prostitution in general?that it is a dangerous profession," says O?Doherty, who surveyed 39 off-street sex workers and conducted in-depth interviews with 10 women involved in the sex industry.

The women were mainly Caucasian, aged 22?45, and earned an average of $60,000 annually working four days a week. Ninety per cent had some post-secondary education and more than a third had a university degree.

O?Doherty says the findings suggest that potentially violent men target street prostitutes.

That "should be no surprise," she says. "Street sex workers, forced to work in isolation with little or no protection from police, are ideal prey for violent men."

O?Doherty argues that exploitative working structures and the quasi-legal status of prostitution severely compromise sex workers? safety.

Instead of protecting these vulnerable women, she says, "we have enacted laws that further marginalize and expose them to harm."

O?Doherty?s thesis supervisor, criminologist John Lowman, says the research is at odds with the Conservative government?s prohibitionist approach to prostitution.

"This research suggests that Canadian prostitution law exposes street prostitutes to extreme violence, while many women in the effectively legal off-street trade are working violence free."

[lookinggg 125]

Posted via Mobile Device