Toronto Escorts

Is C-36 a one shot deal? / New arguments

drlove

Ph.D. in Pussyology
Oct 14, 2001
4,709
52
48
The doctor is in
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?
 

stay

New member
May 21, 2013
906
2
0
judge's laughing
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.

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?
Long

You are looking at things with your eyes half shut. Does someone have a right to earn money off of someone who sells sexual service?

If you want my opinion if a women wants to suck and fuck for a buck, it is not my business. I have concerns if she is:
Working in a strip club or MP, they should go escort or get laws and licensing changed.
Giving a chunk of her earnings to another person and yes in some cases it may be a supposed SO.
 

corrie fan

Well-known member
Nov 13, 2014
908
327
63
The California case will be very interesting to watch. They have some valid reasons why the sex trade should be legal.

The preamble to C-36 states that the purpose of the bill is to protect exploited persons. When the law is challenged it seems to me the govt. should be required to prove that the majority of sex workers are being exploited. They can prove some are exploited but I don't see how they can prove most or all are. What does exploitation mean anyway? Some radical feminists seem to think any relationship between a man and woman is exploitation.

I don't have a problem with a woman working at a SC or MP as long as she is treated fairly. If the sex trade was legal sex workers would be able to make an official complaint when they are treated unfairly. This is what happens in New Zealand.
 

TeasePlease

Cockasian Brother
Aug 3, 2010
7,740
4
38
The short answer is "no", the first buying charge under C-36 doesn't necessarily "head up the ladder". It will depend on the parties and the circumstances. The more likely outcome will be some sort of plea bargain, the charges will be dropped or something much less dramatic. If the charges stick, it will depend on whether the accused, if convicted, chooses to appeal, etc. Although, i think it's a sure bet that if a case goes through the lower courts and ultimately seeks leave to the SCC, the SCC will hear it.

btw, I don't think the debate should be about why something "should be legal". That's not the test of permissible activity in a free and democratic society. The onus is on the government to prove that an activity should be made illegal.
 
Toronto Escorts