Toronto Escorts

Charter challenge of Canada's prostitution laws underway today

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,941
68,452
113
The first-ever court challenge of Canada's prostitution laws resumed Wednesday, with defence lawyers raising advertising rules as part of their final arguments.
Advertising sexual services is effectively banned under Bill C-36, Toronto lawyer Jack Gemmell told a Kitchener, Ont., courtroom. And that puts sex-trade workers at risk, he said.

Sex workers are allowed to advertise their own sexual services, but third parties such as websites or newspapers that host such advertisements are prohibited from doing so.

"Advertising in advance reduces the chance of conflict. The client gets to know exactly what services are being provided," Gemmell said.

"That helps assist in the health and safety of the sex worker."- Jack Gemmell, defence lawyer

Gemmell and his partner James Lockyer are trying to make the case in their closing arguments that Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act,is unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They're representing Tiffany Harvey and HamadAnwar, who ran Fantasy World Escorts in London, Ont., until it was raided by police and shut down in 2015.

The pair were charged with procuring, advertising and materially benefiting from the sale of someone else's sexual services, all of which are illegal under the new laws.

Harvey and Anwar's defence team argues the charges against their clients put sex-trade workers at risk, because they prevent them from working with third parties such as escort agencies to mitigate risk, therefore violating the sex-trade workers' Section 7 Charter right to security of the person.

Crown makes its case

After the defence is finished, likely Wednesday afternoon, Crown attorneys will defend Canada's prostitution laws.

They say the laws were not meant to protect sex-trade workers, but rather discourage people from entering the sex trade, which is in inherently risky.

The laws, based on similar ones in other countries, are known as the Nordic Model. They outlaw the purchasing of sexual services, but allow the selling of it, in an effort to criminalize those who buy sexual services and therefore decrease demand.

This is the first constitutional challenge of the four-year-old prostitution laws, and the case is being closely watched around the country by legal experts as well as those who advocate for and against the new laws.


https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...-sex-trade-workers/ar-BBWfzyr?ocid=spartandhp
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,941
68,452
113
My own off the cuff 0.02:

The prohibition against customer's buying sex will likely survive. But the prohibitions against 3rd party advertising and working for an agency will likely be struck down.

Fingers' crossed.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,591
1,194
113
My own off the cuff 0.02:

The prohibition against customer's buying sex will likely survive. But the prohibitions against 3rd party advertising and working for an agency will likely be struck down.

Fingers' crossed.
A very minor step in the right direction, but at least the right direction. It would improve the safety of providers in that it would avoid misunderstandings with the client, and therefore keep expectations aligned.
 

Samantha Jones

Active member
Jul 12, 2013
1,691
22
38
Toronto
If anyone wants to join me at pride with SW rights signs and education, I'd love to start a group. Love is love, even if you choose to pay for it, or sell it. More actions like this, please! Sign petitions and keep the conversation going when you can!
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,096
2,592
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/sex-trade-charter-of-human-rights-charter-challenge-1.5108982

The first court challenge to Canada's new prostitution law will likely not conclude until the fall, after arguments in a Kitchener, Ont., courtroom ran long on Wednesday.

Justice Thomas McKay of the Ontario Court of Justice is not expected to return his decision until months after the proceedings finally wrap up on June 13.

"I expect my decision, when it comes, will be a lengthy one," McKay told the court at the end of the day.

Toronto lawyer Jack Gemmell and his partner James Lockyer tried to make the case in their closing arguments that the law, specifically the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, is unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They're defending Tiffany Harvey and HamadAnwar, who ran Fantasy World Escorts in London, Ont., until it was raided by police and shut down in 2015.

The pair was charged with procuring, advertising and materially benefiting from the sale of someone else's sexual services, all of which are illegal under the law, which was passed in 2014.

Gemmel and Lockyer raised advertising rules as part of their final arguments on Wednesday.


The law effectively bans advertising sexual services Gemmell said, and that puts sex-trade workers at risk. Sex workers are allowed to advertise their own sexual services, but third parties such as websites or newspapers that host such advertisements are prohibited from doing so.

"Advertising in advance reduces the chance of conflict. The client gets to know exactly what services are being provided," Gemmell said.

The defence team argues the charges against their clients put sex-trade workers at risk, because they prevent them from working with third parties such as escort agencies to mitigate risk, therefore violating the sex-trade workers' Section 7 charter right to security of the person.

Crown makes its case
After the defence presented its final arguments, Crown attorneys defended the law.

They say the law was not meant to protect sex-trade workers, but rather discourage people from entering the sex trade, which is inherently risky.

"This case is all about the rights of the prostitutes. It is not about strippers or people in massage parlours, and it is not about which policy model of prostitution legislation is better," said assistant Crown attorney Brian White.

Human trafficking charges dropped against London escort agency owners
"It was the job of Parliament to determine which policy is better, and it has been decided."

The law, based on those in other countries, follow what is known as the Nordic Model. It outlaws the purchasing of sexual services, but allow the selling of it, in an effort to criminalize those who buy sexual services and therefore decrease demand.

The law defines a "material benefit" as one that derives from a commercial enterprise, and the commercial enterprise between a sex-trade worker and an escort-agency owner, for example, is a "parasitic relationship," White said.

There is no violation of any rights, he argued.

This is the first constitutional challenge of the four-year-old prostitution laws, and the case is being closely watched around the country by legal experts and those who advocate for and against the new law.

It will be up to McKay to determine if there is a constitutional violation.

If he rules there is, Harvey and Anwar will be acquitted. If not, the pair will be sentenced.

It's unclear how much time they might face. The law include no mandatory minimum sentence, and neither side has made sentencing submissions.
 

corrie fan

Well-known member
Nov 13, 2014
908
327
63
The crown says the law is not meant to protect sex workers. It seems like he is admitting that C36 does not follow the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the original law because it endangered sex workers. He says the law is meant to discourage people from entering the sex trade which is inherently risky. If he believes the sex trade is risky, why is he arguing against changes which will reduce the risk? Roofing is a risky job. Why is there not a law to discourage people from working as roofers?
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,941
68,452
113
The crown says the law is not meant to protect sex workers. It seems like he is admitting that C36 does not follow the Supreme Court ruling that struck down the original law because it endangered sex workers. He says the law is meant to discourage people from entering the sex trade which is inherently risky. If he believes the sex trade is risky, why is he arguing against changes which will reduce the risk? Roofing is a risky job. Why is there not a law to discourage people from working as roofers?

The pre C-36 law that was struck down "was not meant to protect sex workers" either. Which is one of the reasons it got struck down. So I don't think the Crown is going to strike gold with that argument.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
27
48
Yeah, that seemed like a pretty stupid argument for the crown to use. The entire C-36 case was literally about sex worker rights. To argue that the laws passed as a result of that case were not about protecting sex workers seems like shooting yourself in the foot. Seems like they know their case holds no water and that’s the best they could come up with. Maybe we actually will get better laws out of all this nonsense. I really don’t see how any reasonable judge could uphold a law that makes it illegal to buy a product that’s legal to sell. That’s completely nonsensical.
 

rhuarc29

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2009
9,591
1,194
113
Ha, it was definitely stupid wording on the Crown's part, and that might bite them in the ass. But what they meant was that the industry is inherently risky, so discouraging clients would help in protecting sex workers by preventing them from being able to make a living selling sex, thus getting them out of the industry. We all know in practice that's both a ridiculous argument and a harmful one.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
27
48
Hopefully the judge is smart enough to know that. Honestly, though, I’m not sure why they’d go with that argument. Selling sex is legal in Canada. Period. Unless that changes, making the argument that you’re making laws to make this legal thing more difficult to do seems like you’re essentially admitting that you’re violating the sellers’ charter rights.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
It would seem that the uptight faction (and they run a broad spectrum) have come up with a new angle of fighting the sex trade.

Now, it's no longer about exploitation of women, or women being the victims of the sex trade, now it's all about "human trafficking".

To those opposed to selling sex, every woman in the sex trade is now being branded an unwilling slave and those who buy sex are being labeled as enablers or worse, party to human trafficking. (Look at Kraft down in Florida. They have charged him with human trafficking.)

The connotations and the imagery of human sexual trafficking are very powerful, even if they are not true in all buy a small number of instances. But those opposed to the oldest profession won't let a thing like the truth stand in the way of their agenda.

My point is that I highly doubt that Canada's anti-prostitution laws will be struck down any time soon. You can bet on it.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
69,941
68,452
113
It would seem that the uptight faction (and they run a broad spectrum) have come up with a new angle of fighting the sex trade.

Now, it's no longer about exploitation of women, or women being the victims of the sex trade, now it's all about "human trafficking".

To those opposed to selling sex, every woman in the sex trade is now being branded an unwilling slave and those who buy sex are being labeled as enablers or worse, party to human trafficking. (Look at Kraft down in Florida. They have charged him with human trafficking.)

The connotations and the imagery of human sexual trafficking are very powerful, even if they are not true in all buy a small number of instances. But those opposed to the oldest profession won't let a thing like the truth stand in the way of their agenda.

My point is that I highly doubt that Canada's anti-prostitution laws will be struck down any time soon. You can bet on it.
That's what we said before R v Bradford . So I am cautiously optimistic this time.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
27
48
I really don’t get why the SJW types are against sex work. Seems out of line with what they generally do. Guess it’s ok to marginalize another group as long as it’s to punish straight, CIS males who, as we know, are literally worse than Hitler.
 

penelopebloom

Active member
Mar 18, 2014
475
26
28
james lockyer's comments about sex workers not being able to take any steps forward without being charged under the current laws are completely inaccurate. and his comments about how we can't hire third parties - also completely inaccurate.

we can all hire whoever tf we want right now, as long as they do not encourage us to sell sex or if they do not charge us a fee proportional to the benefit we are getting.

s. 286.2(4)(d):



i was amazed at the comments made in court that were reported on, including by his experts. this one sounds easy for the crown to defend.
 

penelopebloom

Active member
Mar 18, 2014
475
26
28
Yeah, that seemed like a pretty stupid argument for the crown to use. The entire C-36 case was literally about sex worker rights. To argue that the laws passed as a result of that case were not about protecting sex workers seems like shooting yourself in the foot. Seems like they know their case holds no water and that’s the best they could come up with. Maybe we actually will get better laws out of all this nonsense. I really don’t see how any reasonable judge could uphold a law that makes it illegal to buy a product that’s legal to sell. That’s completely nonsensical.
no R v Bedford was not actually about sex worker rights, it was about not violating an individual's security of the person and other Charter rights by criminalizing the actions they take when they do not have any other choice. e.g. it was all about sex workers who had no choice but to fuck for money. it had nothing to do with a person's "right" to choose to profit off their own body/person.

also, even if Bedford was about "protecting sex workers", the objective of any new legislation passed afterwards does not have to have the same purpose as previously written case law striking down past legislation.
 

penelopebloom

Active member
Mar 18, 2014
475
26
28
i think if anything, the advertising laws will be struck down (good) but the procuring and receiving material benefits laws will stay on the books (meh).

and the buying sexual services laws are going to be untouched because they don't even come into play here. and i think it's going to be a long time before any court recognizes a charter right for people to pay for sex lol.

this entire case has absolutely nothing to do with sex worker rights and everything to do with agency owner's 'rights'.
 

SchlongConery

License to Shill
Jan 28, 2013
11,037
4,312
113
i think if anything, the advertising laws will be struck down (good) but the procuring and receiving material benefits laws will stay on the books (meh).

and the buying sexual services laws are going to be untouched because they don't even come into play here. and i think it's going to be a long time before any court recognizes a charter right for people to pay for sex lol.

this entire case has absolutely nothing to do with sex worker rights and everything to do with agency owner's 'rights'
.

I am of a similar mind. I don't think that the Defendants (Agency) have standing to bring a Charter challenge to defend the rights of the sex workers security of person. Unless they can argue that the law is unconstitutional to the sex worker and therefore that law that they are charged against is invalid. Hmmmmmm....
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts