Someone on the board recently mentioned that C-36 is a 'one shot deal' - that is, after someone is finally charged under the new law, the judge will likely throw it out of court. Now, let's back track for a minute. So far, the court and LE seem to have more common sense than our elected government. They are focusing on trafficking/exploitation as they should, and cases proceed regardless as these activities were illegal prior to C-36 anyway. Today, the SCC ruled against allowing city councils to recite a prayer during their meetings. Reasoning: Government must remain neutral E.g. (separation of church and state). Yet, with C-36 the Conservatives took a very active role in bringing together various religious groups to seek their input on the new laws. It has been said that C-36 is a blatant attempt at legislating morality. Morality however is a subjective construct and therefore arbitrary. It begs the question 'whos morality? yours? mine?' As such the entire concept is a moot point in and of itself and goes against the notion that religion per se has no role to play in the crafting of laws. There is presently a lawsuit underway in California which seeks to legalize prostitution in that state:
Two lawyers have filed a high-profile case that seeks to legalize prostitution in California.
Lou Sirkin and Brian O’Connor of Cincinnati-based Santen & Hughes, filed the case last month in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on behalf of an organization representing escorts known as the Erotic Service escort Legal, Education & Research Project. It named three current or former escorts and a man with a disability who wants to be able to legally hire escorts as other plaintiffs in the case.
Their argument centers on people’s right to do what they want as long as it’s legal. "It’s legal to have sex, so why should it be illegal to pay for it?" the argument goes. O’Connor compared it to having the freedom of the press but making it illegal to sell newspapers.
“It’s really a constitutional issue, we think,” Sirkin said. “We’re talking only about consenting adults here. Our whole theory is that any law based on morality has no place in this country. Morals are different for different people. Legislation should not be determined by morality.
“Because you exchange a dollar rather than dinner, why should it be made illegal?”
Sirkin compared the argument with the nation’s past opposition to legalized gambling. Casinos used to be legal only in Nevada and New Jersey, and now they’re in plenty of states.
How did two guys from Cincinnati wind up filing a case in California to legalize prostitution? It’s mainly because of Sirkin’s experience. He’s been involved in several high-profile cases involving individual liberty issues around the country.
Those included a Texas case to overturn a law that made sex toys illegal and an obscenity case in Pittsburgh to allow the sale of movies over the Internet.
“I’ve kind of been a front-runner on this issue,” Sirkin said.
The group in San Francisco contacted him a few years ago about handling the case. While the group raised money through crowdfunding, Sirkin waited for some rulings on similar cases in Canada where prostitution is legal.
“The timing is right on this one,” Sirkin said. “We think we can win and sustain it. It’s an important issue of individual freedom in a country that prides itself on individual freedom. People might think we’re crazy, but this would protect a lot of people.”
Sirkin hopes to get a ruling by late summer, but he expects the case to be taken to higher courts after that.
This line of reasoning can also be applied to C-36. If by chance consenting adults were charged by overzealous law enforcement, couldn't some of these ideas be presented as part of an argument to have C-36 struck down? I'm not sure what the legal process is, but if a judge throws out such a case, what is the next step? Does it automatically head up the ladder all the way to the SCC, or does it mean that C-36 is effectively dead in the water?
Two lawyers have filed a high-profile case that seeks to legalize prostitution in California.
Lou Sirkin and Brian O’Connor of Cincinnati-based Santen & Hughes, filed the case last month in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on behalf of an organization representing escorts known as the Erotic Service escort Legal, Education & Research Project. It named three current or former escorts and a man with a disability who wants to be able to legally hire escorts as other plaintiffs in the case.
Their argument centers on people’s right to do what they want as long as it’s legal. "It’s legal to have sex, so why should it be illegal to pay for it?" the argument goes. O’Connor compared it to having the freedom of the press but making it illegal to sell newspapers.
“It’s really a constitutional issue, we think,” Sirkin said. “We’re talking only about consenting adults here. Our whole theory is that any law based on morality has no place in this country. Morals are different for different people. Legislation should not be determined by morality.
“Because you exchange a dollar rather than dinner, why should it be made illegal?”
Sirkin compared the argument with the nation’s past opposition to legalized gambling. Casinos used to be legal only in Nevada and New Jersey, and now they’re in plenty of states.
How did two guys from Cincinnati wind up filing a case in California to legalize prostitution? It’s mainly because of Sirkin’s experience. He’s been involved in several high-profile cases involving individual liberty issues around the country.
Those included a Texas case to overturn a law that made sex toys illegal and an obscenity case in Pittsburgh to allow the sale of movies over the Internet.
“I’ve kind of been a front-runner on this issue,” Sirkin said.
The group in San Francisco contacted him a few years ago about handling the case. While the group raised money through crowdfunding, Sirkin waited for some rulings on similar cases in Canada where prostitution is legal.
“The timing is right on this one,” Sirkin said. “We think we can win and sustain it. It’s an important issue of individual freedom in a country that prides itself on individual freedom. People might think we’re crazy, but this would protect a lot of people.”
Sirkin hopes to get a ruling by late summer, but he expects the case to be taken to higher courts after that.
This line of reasoning can also be applied to C-36. If by chance consenting adults were charged by overzealous law enforcement, couldn't some of these ideas be presented as part of an argument to have C-36 struck down? I'm not sure what the legal process is, but if a judge throws out such a case, what is the next step? Does it automatically head up the ladder all the way to the SCC, or does it mean that C-36 is effectively dead in the water?