lookinggg 125 Report post Posted October 11, 2009 Thing is > half the freekin judges/lawyers and politicians likely have (or have had!) their own escorts! ffs (maybe that's been said already in this post as I didn't read every thread in it!) Posted via Mobile Device Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted October 14, 2009 Toronto City Councillor muses on possible fallout from case: "The city better get its act together and start thinking and figure out, if it becomes legal, where would we allow for the zoning and the usage in the city. It's worthwhile for us to have that debate again," said Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti .... One way to manage the legalities of brothels is through zoning or licensing, Mammoliti said. He hopes with the ruling comes the opportunity for the city to set up zoning or land usage parameters and look into the planning act to allow for prostitution to be in only particular areas. "If the courts rule in the same judgment that municipalities should have the right to regroup and talk about it, then good, but if they don't we're all screwed," he said .... There are some benefits of having a red-light district, Mammoliti said, if it does come to that. "You're cleaning up pockets of your community. You're making sure that enforcement is regular in one part of the city and you're raising revenues for the city by collecting those fees," he said. "Are we ready for this kind of system? I'm not sure." Other thoughts on what might result: Councillor Howard Moscoe, who heads the Municipal Licensing and Standards committee, said he'd rather wait for the court decision before jumping the gun on what the city should do. "There are so many moral opinions (from councillors) on it. We'd have to respond in any changes to federal legislation," he said. "If we did license, we'd have to look at what our reasons would be for licensing, and those seem to be obvious -- medical checks and to ensure it's adult activity going on (not minors)." .... Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford, one of three women who launched the case .... wants a committee made up of city officials, police, sex and health workers and government officials, to come up with solutions on how to handle prostitution if the laws are changed ... Valerie Scott of Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC) said she wants prostitution decriminalized, not legalized, because legalization means heavily containing and controlling sex workers to one district ... "A red-light district condones illegal behaviour and drug use," said Councillor Rob Ford. "It brings in guns and gangs and that's not the environment I want our tourists to see or families to bring their kids up in. I want to have a safe, family-oriented city." .... Full report by Jenny Yuen for Sun Media: http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/10/13/11381466-sun.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ariane Valmont 332 Report post Posted October 14, 2009 I thought this might interest you... :) http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2098361 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted October 14, 2009 I thought this might interest you... :) http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2098361 Excellent letter, Ariane! I especially liked the way you put the following (I know I am taking this passage out of its context, but everyone should take the time to read your entire letter): "Violence against sex workers does exist .... But who is at fault? Is it really sex work itself, or is it society's representation of sex work that provokes and exacerbates this violence?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drlove 37204 Report post Posted October 19, 2009 Councillor Howard Moscoe, who heads the Municipal Licensing and Standards committee, said he'd rather wait for the court decision before jumping the gun on what the city should do. "There are so many moral opinions (from councillors) on it... - (referring to prostitution) Morality is subjective, and in my opinion would be difficult to build a solid case around. What's at stake is the right to work in a safe environment, period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted October 19, 2009 City councils (as far as I know) are not allowed to structure any municipal by-laws based on moral reasons. They must have legitimate reasons and 'moral objection' is not a legitimate reason. Moral objections of prostitution are brought on by religion. I want to say something witty here like "we don't burn witches anymore" but I think I would take some criticism for that so just ignore I said that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted October 20, 2009 Applicants cannot claim to speak for prostitutes, argues the Ontario Crown prosecutor Shelley Hallett on 19 October: Ms. Hallett repeatedly described the litigants Monday as ?self-actualized? prostitutes who cannot pretend to speak for hundreds of others who lack their intellect, lifestyle or opportunities: ?Not everyone will be able to run, or even work in, a prostitution establishment due to their vulnerabilities,? she said. Meanwhile, the Judge keeps her eye on the ball: ?Prostitution is based on sex, lies and violence,? Ms. Hallett said. ?Prostitution cannot be practised safely anywhere.? However, the force of her argument hit an unexpected roadblock when Ontario Superior Court Justice Susan Himel expressed skepticism about its relevance. ?And your point is?? she asked Ms. Hallett. Judge Himel pointed out that a group of prostitutes who are behind the court challenge have conceded that prostitution is an unsavoury, risky trade. Rather, the litigants maintain that striking down the laws would at least enable prostitutes to screen potential clients and operate in a more secure environment, Judge Himel said. Kirk Makin's report filed for the Globe & Mail on 19 October's arguments: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prostitution-dangerous-regardless-of-the-venue-judge-told/article1330013/ Current law may be "best that can be done" in "protecting" the "vulnerable", says Crown. If law struck down, Parliament should be given the chance to draft a new one: Prostitution is legal in Canada, but that does not mean Parliament authorizes or condones it, Canada's lawyer said earlier in the day. "It has decided to address it indirectly rather than directly," Michael Morris told the court. "The provisions seek to discourage it wherever it is practised." He said prostitution is a complex issue with a myriad of solutions, and little consensus on what works best. That lack of consensus, Ms. Hallett argued, needs to be taken into account when considering whether parliament has "done the best that can be done." Mr. Morris said Canadian laws are backed up by state interests, including preventing the commercialization of the sex trade and protecting prostitutes, most of whom he described as vulnerable ... He asked Judge Himel to dismiss the application or, in the event that she sides with the applicants, to give parliament 18 months to come up with new laws. Natalie Alcoba's report for the National Post: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2120436 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted October 20, 2009 "Prostitution is legal in Canada, but that does not mean Parliament authorizes or condones it" Chances are a number of people in "Parliament" do support it but most if not all of them will probably not want to openly admit to that in front of their peers and the public as that would be bad for a political career!! This is what a number of people fear may happen is the this law is replaced with a "NEW" law that could just make prostitution completely illegal or worse... more messed up than it already is (make it that much more unsafe).... also who knows what greedy hands will get involved, cities and towns are dying to legalize prostitution with by-laws and insane license fee's... many already to to exploit the business already by enforcing by-laws on anyone using the word "escort" (because they currently can not license prostitution) Right now the laws are suppose to combat street prostitution and target pimps... we all know how well they are doing to enforce those laws! What on earth would make them think new laws would help this? You know this comment is only saying "mess with the laws and we will make it illegal all together". This comment "give parliament 18 months to come up with new laws" is not exactly what any of us want to hear being suggested. This could very well make things MUCH worse for everyone!! (in fact.. I would bet on that). A few of the ladies have expressed concern over the years about protesting the laws like this (and I have to admin as many of you know, I agree with them as I fear it could go either way and make things much better or MUCH MUCH WORSE). At first I was all for it but than after speaking with some of the ladies (especially the older ladies who have been in the business for many many years) messing with something like a law can go either way! The common term is "don't mess with a good thing" now the laws are not really a "good thing" but many of the ladies work with and around them comfortably... it is possible this could make a workable situation much more uncomfortable... A number of the ladies are concerned that this court hearing could do more harm than good and they do have good reason to be concerned. Thankfully the Judge seams to be leaning in favor of the sex workers at this time. It could still back fire and push things even more underground. Everyone protesting the laws are doing it for the right reasons (it could be much more safe) So far I think the outcome is looking bright and we can't really stop it from happening now but we all have to cross our fingers and hope for the best. Hopefully the Judge and all decision makers involved realize that no law will ever stop prostitution and no law would make any workplace 100% safe. If the laws could make the profession safer I think we would all want to support that, I just hope that "parliament" doesn't interfere with that and make things even worse! It's a needed service and they may as well work with the ladies and make it as safe as possible! Collect taxes on it from everyone involved and learn to co-exist as no law is ever going to stop it (we all know that) so they might as well work with everyone to make it safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted October 20, 2009 Great post WrinkledinTime !! I did have concerns with this going on while Harper is in the chair and this just reinforces those concerns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted October 21, 2009 Arguments by the Crown and Intervenors continued Tuesday 20 October. Crown cited "human dignity and equality". Crown condemned the "public ... nuisance", "normalizing prostitution", and "commodification of women" ("and children" -- stop me if you've heard this gambit before). Speaking for the Christian Legal Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights League, and REAL Women of Canada, lawyer Derek Bell requested the continued protection of "public morals", drawing parallels with criminal laws against "bestiality, voyeurism, and public nudity". Bell pointed to surveys that showed in 1985, the year Parliament enacted the communication law, that 62 per cent of Canadians believed prostitution to be immoral. That number was 68 per cent in 2006, according to Leger pollsters, Bell said. "I'll submit that it's difficult to get 68 per cent of Canadians to agree on much," he said. [Applicant's lawyer Alan] Young said it is misleading to rely on just one survey, saying that he, too, has opinion polls to draw on, but lawyers for the government of Canada argued against introducing more evidence. Judge Himel said she would ignore the Leger poll .... Reports by Natalie Alcoba: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2124532 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Brothel+protects+women+Ontario+lawyer+tells+hearing/2124632/story.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drlove 37204 Report post Posted October 21, 2009 Let's all vote Liberal in the next federal election! :mrgreen: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted October 21, 2009 I am always heartily offended when women are lumped in with children. The concerns of children are not the same concerns of grown women, and it also makes an assumption that all women have children, therefor the concerns of children and women are interchangeable and linked. I also feel that a case could be made that the side laws re: prostitution are specifically designed to limit women's ability to make a decent wage in a field that can actually be a stepping stone towards a good education and different career, or to simply be able to afford to both work and care for their own children. Alot of guys are able to choose to do very hard demanding work for the same reason, or to simply earn a very large wage. Prostitution allows women to make an income that matches or meets any traditionally male employment (trades, resources like oil or fishery have traditionally been male dominated with huge paycheques but women typically do not get hired in these fields. When they were young, men may not have dreamed of working on an oil rig any more than a girl would not have dreamed of becoming an escort. Both would see these fields as opportunities, or simply a good yet demanding way to make a lot of money in a short period of time. But no one is worried about "children" or young men choosing to work in fishing, logging or oil, and no one has set up laws which make it difficult for them to find out about or apply for such work. Or to let it be known that they do such work either, fwiw. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drlove 37204 Report post Posted October 22, 2009 You're forgetting that the challenge concerns equal rights for workers, moreover the right to work in a safe environment. The law should not discriminate arbitrarily on the basis of morality, which is the way it is now. I should hope that the judge will decide the case in a just and prudent manner in accordance with the above mentioned sentiments. To do otherwise by actually strengthening existing laws governing prostitution would (IMHO) be a monument to idiocy, not to mention an affront to equal rights for women. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted October 28, 2009 The last day of arguments was Monday 26 October. Judge Himel has reserved her decision as expected. Government lawyers talked a lot about a lack of consensus, but Mr. [Alan] Young [for the applicants] said that pertains to what laws should be enacted if the present laws are thrown out. "There is complete consensus on the important points for our case, which is the law is failing, the status quo is unacceptable and the law is not protecting the community or sex workers." He called it "bizarre" for opposing lawyers to say the laws are designed to protect people who are usually considered outcasts. "The government of Canada has never been concerned with the health and well-being of sex workers," said Mr. Young in court. Report by Natalie Alcoba in the National Post: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2149076 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted October 28, 2009 Does anyone know if the courts publicly announce when a decision will be made? Maybe a website that would have that info for the public? There must be something made public since the reporters and lawyers all know when stuff like that takes place. I assume this is now in discovery (to review the details and evidence submitted to the judge) so I suspect that she could continue the trial further? no? (or) make a decision based on what she has as evidence? (I wish I studied law at times) Does the judge have a time line / schedule that she must adhere to for a formal decision? Maybe someone on the site here has some legal knowledge and would share with us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted October 28, 2009 I am clueless legal-wise, so I have no intelligent answer. Nothing I have seen indicates anything other than that all that is left is for the judge to review the evidence and decide, with no formal timeline. John Lowman (School of Criminology, SFU), in "Deadly Inertia: A History of Constitutional Challenges to Canada's Criminal Code Sections on Prostitution" states (p.23) (my bold): The Ontario Superior Court of Justice is hearing the formal constitutional arguments of the respective parties at the time of writing (October 10, 2009). The court will take months to deliver a decision. Whatever the outcome, the losing party is likely to take the Superior Court decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. In turn, the losing party will likely take the appeal court?s decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, which will take us into 2011 and beyond .... Whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides, one can only hope that its decision forces Parliament to change Canada?s "unacceptable" prostitution laws and, in so-doing, end Canada?s deadly inertia when it comes to prostitution law reform. http://24.85.225.7/lowman_prostitution/HTML/deadly_inertia/Lowman_Deadly_Inertia.pdf It looks like maybe the Decisions are available through here after they have been released: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/scj/en/about/judgments.htm This has a link to the RSS feed from the Canadian Legal Information Institute: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/rss_new.xml Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted October 28, 2009 The John Lowman report was full of good information and I knew a website must exist that announces judgments (thanks for the links - I bookmarked them all) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ariane Valmont 332 Report post Posted October 29, 2009 Does anyone know if the courts publicly announce when a decision will be made? Maybe a website that would have that info for the public? There must be something made public since the reporters and lawyers all know when stuff like that takes place. I assume this is now in discovery (to review the details and evidence submitted to the judge) so I suspect that she could continue the trial further? no? (or) make a decision based on what she has as evidence? (I wish I studied law at times) Does the judge have a time line / schedule that she must adhere to for a formal decision? Maybe someone on the site here has some legal knowledge and would share with us. I would also be very interested to have the answers to those questions... Anyone could help? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Susie 1472 Report post Posted October 31, 2009 from what i have been told the decision will come in january or february....in case people don't remember, i testified in the challenge and so receive updates...i will keep everyone informed if i hear anything new... love susie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted November 1, 2009 Thanks Susie! (and we do remember!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VedaSloan 119179 Report post Posted November 1, 2009 Keep us posted! I've said it before and I'll say it again, morality based laws are bs and should be done away with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drlove 37204 Report post Posted November 3, 2009 Keep us posted! I've said it before and I'll say it again, morality based laws are bs and should be done away with. Exactly! Couldn't have said it better myself. Also, I just wanted to add that from what I've read from the reports concerning the court proceedings, the presiding judge seems pretty level headed. I believe this will serve to help our cause. Surely, she will be able to see the nonsensical nature of the state's argument. That is, since moral sentiments are subjective by nature, they cannot / (should not) be used as a basis for imposing arbitrary laws that limit a worker's rights. e.g. ( a right to a safe workplace). Moreover, by virtue of the fact that the current law is discriminatory e.g. ( it singles out persons who choose sex work) it is unconstitutional and therefore must be repealed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest W***ledi*Time Report post Posted November 4, 2009 Yup, the Crown knew full well that it could not argue morality, and therefore it did not. It was the intervening "abolitionist" groups who argued morality -- a sideshow that was irrelevant to the application in any substantive sense, and also irrelevant to the Crown's argument against the application. For the convenience of those of you whose eyes may have glazed over many posts ago, here is the case-in-a-nutshell (I hope my feeble understanding has got this basically right, but I stand to be corrected): The core of the case is the applicants' claim that the criminal code provisions reduce the safety of sex workers, and therefore are causing harm to them. They argue that this fact overrides any benefit that the criminal code provisions may (or may not!) provide to the state, and therefore these laws are unconstitutional. (The challenged laws make it illegal to run or work in a bawdy house, illegal to communicate for the purposes of prostitution, and illegal to live off the avails of prostitution.) The Crown's first line of defense against this core claim of the applicants is to assert that the current criminal code provisions, however much they may or may not influence the form of sex work in Canada, cannot possibly be shaping it into a form that reduces the safety of sex workers. This is because, they say, prostitution is inherently, and equally, dangerous in any form imaginable [insert laughtrack here]. The Crown's second line of defense against the applicants, is its argument that even if the current laws do happen to have the side-effect of reducing the safety of sex workers in one (or even several) specific ways as is alleged by the applicants, these same laws are nevertheless justified, by their following goals and benefits: -- The current laws protect sex workers in a different way (by using the law as a tool to uncover the exploited, and as a lever to investigate their exploiters) -- The current laws act as an indirect deterrent method of "discouraging" the entire practice of prostitution which (see first line of defense above) is inherently harmful in any conceivable form -- The current laws reduce nuisance (on the street) -- The current laws protect impressionable children (who might be influenced to engage in inherently-harmful-prostitution themselves, if it is displayed on the street and/or "normalized") Obviously, the less effective the current laws are seen to be in meeting the state's claimed objectives (as outlined above), the less legal justification there can be for this whole second line of defence. With this in mind, the applicants replied to this second line of defense by asserting that in practice, none of these claimed theoretical objectives of the state is actually being effectively served by the current laws -- in practice, they just don't work. Meanwhile, in the real world, as a result of these same laws, sex workers are demonstrably being seriously harmed. In order to strike down the criminal code provisions as the applicants have requested, Judge Himel must find that the current laws constitute not only a threat to the life, liberty and security of sex workers, but an unjustifiable threat. If the Judge finds that there is in fact harm being done to sex workers as a result of the criminal code provisions, and also that the specific harm to sex workers that is being caused by these laws is "grossly disproportional" and "arbitrary" (technical legal lingo, apparently) when this harm is weighed against the benefits of those laws, then these two findings would by themselves be sufficient to render the laws unconstitutional. This would hold even were she also to find that the state's other (supposed) goals were actually being met by the laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drlove 37204 Report post Posted November 4, 2009 The Crown's second line of defense against the applicants, is its argument that even if the current laws do happen to have the side-effect of reducing the safety of sex workers in one (or even several) specific ways as is alleged by the applicants, these same laws are nevertheless justified, by their following goals and benefits: 1) The current laws protect sex workers in a different way (by using the law as a tool to uncover the exploited, and as a lever to investigate their exploiters) 2) The current laws act as an indirect deterrent method of "discouraging" the entire practice of prostitution which (see first line of defense above) is inherently harmful in any conceivable form 3) The current laws reduce nuisance (on the street) 4) The current laws protect impressionable children (who might be influenced to engage in inherently-harmful-prostitution themselves, if it is displayed on the street and/or "normalized") The crown's case does not hold water. Here's why: 1) If prostitution was legalized, it would be "above board" so to speak, and regulated, which would make it much more difficult for unscrupulous individuals to exploit others. 2) The argument that "prostitution is inherently harmful in any conceivable form" cannot be used since it is a value judgement, and therefore subjective. The court is interested only in empirical evidence. 3) The current laws ADD to "nuisance on the street" by driving sex workers onto the pavement e.g. (incalls are illegal, and common bawdy houses are busted regularly, and subsequently closed). 4) The laws have nothing to do with the "impressionable". Again, moral judgements are at play here. Moreover, if incalls / bawdy houses were legalized, IMO street level prostitution may become less noticable as more sexworkers move indoors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mod 135640 Report post Posted November 4, 2009 The application is not to legalize it but to decriminalize it. The crown agreed that it is not a safe business. They argued that to remove the law (decriminalize it) would not make it any safer. The crown claimed that it was not safe in brothels either (how would they know this) very week argument and anyone with common sense would know that it would be safer if you had security and other staff members in the building as opposed to walking into a strangers house or hotel room by yourself with no security or getting into a strangers car on the streets. The applicants do not want to see it "legalized" as that would mean reform to the law and potentially it could make it more restrictive. They want it removed completely. The crown is seeking 18 months time - to give parliament the time needed to draw up a reform bill and to re-write the laws if the choice to decriminalize it was chosen. If the judge does not give them 18 months technically it would fall to the municipalities to structure the industry using local by-laws for zoning, license fee's if any and other rules the cities wish to address (if someone was to open up a place before the city passed the by-law they would fall under a grandfather clause as far as I know so time may be given to allow the cities to create new by-laws as well). How do you think the government would address this if they were given the task to re-write the laws to make them safe and to make them fair. Would they take the time to legalize it and do all the homework or would they simply make it completely illegal like much of the USA? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
