Prostitution Appeal to Be Heard Monday

[rld]

I read in the Star today that the Conservative party voted this past weekend one of their priorities over this coming term is to be to pursue avenues that will keep prostitution illegal. Given that this is a constitutional challenge, I'm not sure what they could do in terms of re-writing the law to make it constitutional. Nothing I would think. Their only recourse would be to amend the constitution... Good luck with that!!

It would not be hard at all to re-write this law in accordance with a new decision. I would be really surprised if the Cons leave this alone if the appeal is unsuccessful.

Anyone know who the panel will be today?

 

[rld]

For those who are curious the case is in courtroom one today, and they are doing a panel of five so it should be interesting. The panel is a real mixed bag so it is a hard case to call. I wonder if they will finish today:


Courtroom One

Before The Honourable:

Justice David Doherty
Justice Marc Rosenberg
Justice Kathryn Feldman
Justice James MacPherson
Justice Eleanore Cronk

Commencing at 10:30 a.m.:

 

[james t kirk]

Hopefully if Terry Jean Bedford shows up she has the common sense to leave her riding crop at home and dress like she was in court.

I see the CBC is posting a pic of her in full leather with her riding crop in her hand at her shoulder.

Jay-sus.

 

[oldjones]

Hopefully if Terry Jean Bedford shows up she has the common sense to leave her riding crop at home and dress like she was in court.

I see the CBC is posting a pic of her in full leather with her riding crop in her hand at her shoulder.

Jay-sus.

Tabloid journalism is all we get these days.

 

[Tangwhich]

Tabloid journalism is all we get these days.

While I would agree with this statement for the most part, in this case you're not being fair. The woman actually wore that shit to court, CBC are not using pics from some sort of hidden camera.

 

[james t kirk]

While I would agree with this statement for the most part, in this case you're not being fair. The woman actually wore that shit to court, CBC are not using pics from some sort of hidden camera.

Yep.

Here she is in all her glory. While I admire the cause, she is doing it a huge disservice by playing into the stereotype.

Leave the sex gear at home, show up in a conservative business suit and leave the talking to the lawyers. Please.

 

[Art Mann]

Worth the read to see how mainstream society views "the hobby".
Interestingly, the support for legalization arguments runs about 2/3's in favour of legalization

Checking the stats at the bottom of the Forum page, it's interesting to note that there are more than 100,000 members on this board ... and at any given time "guests" perusing the board usually outnumber members logged in.

But very few among us are willing to be "out" with a public stance supporting decriminalization.

 

[blackrock13]

It's booked for 5 day in court. Then they have mull it over.

 

[Rockslinger]

I've seen this movie before. I was really young then but I remember when they "legalized" homos. Same old tired moral arguments were marched out then. In the famous words of then Minister of Justice John Turner: "Some people might find homos morally offensive, but it shouldn't be criminal to be homo."

 

[Spacewalker]

Absolutely too lazy to read this thread. Give me the one sentence Cliff Notes version of what happened today at court. LOL

 

[fuji]

Absolutely too lazy to read this thread. Give me the one sentence Cliff Notes version of what happened today at court. LOL

A bunch of old men argued about something they do to young women.

 

[krazyplayer]

Leave Bedford alone. The masses like her.

 

[CORRY20]

Natasha Falle on City news claimed the average girl enters the industry at 13 to 16 years.I don't know about that.I love City news how Just before they came back to Pam Seatle The zoomed in on a girl crossing the Street with a umbrella.It was kind of funny.I think city news thinks everyone is a Prostitute now.

[/url] image host[/IMG]

 

[Rockslinger]

Natasha Falle on City news claimed the average girl enters the industry at 13 to 16 years.

Those are "escort ages". To get their real chronological age, you have to add 10-20 more years. Tamara Cherry proved that already. They booked appointments with a bunch of escorts advertised as 24 years old and a bunch of 45 year old women showed up.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Absolutely too lazy to read this thread. Give me the one sentence Cliff Notes version of what happened today at court. LOL

That's Coles Notes to us Canucks!

 

[rafterman]

Coverage in the Globe which I skimmed today, the Court is giving the Govt a rough ride on their position that they don't have to "protect" sex workers with legislation.

 

[Aardvark154]

Coverage in the Globe which I skimmed today, the Court is giving the Govt a rough ride on their position that they don't have to "protect" sex workers with legislation.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nequities-in-prostitution-law/article2059569/

"For the decision to be upheld, the women must persuade the Court of Appeal judges not only that the laws violate their rights, but that the government cannot justify those infringments.

Mr. Morris (for the Federal Government) insisted on Monday that becoming a prostitute is an economic choice that individuals make knowing it is unsafe. He said the legal challenge is rooted in a false premise that the state must protect prostitutes regardless of how they engage in their work.

“It is not a constitutionally protected right,” he said. “Unless this court accepts that prostitution is a constitutionally protected right that has to be protected by Parliament, this court should dismiss those arguments.”

However, the judges took turns noting the incongruity of the government making it difficult to practice a trade that is itself perfectly legal.

“I find it hard to understand why it isn’t self-evident that the provision impacts on the ability to carry out prostitution safely,” Mr. Justice David Doherty said at one point.

Judge Doherty said the law that prevents a prostitute from communicating with a client compels her to size up him up in haste or run the risk of being arrested. The prohibition against living off the avails of prostitution precludes prostitutes from hiring a bodyguard or driver, he said.

Judge Doherty compared the situation for prostitutes with that of a banker who needs to deliver a bundle of currency across town and has to choose from two options – send it in a well-guarded armoured truck, or walk across town with it tucked under his arm.

“I would have thought that we don’t really need evidence that it’s safer to take precautions when you’re carrying money from one place to another,” he said. “It’s a matter of common sense that these kinds of measures can make trading in sex a lot safer.”


“Can you name one other legal occupation in Canada where the participants are prevented from doing things like hiring a bodyguard or a driver?” Mr. Justice James MacPherson asked. He observed that if a prostitute were to call Pinkerton’s security firm to hire a bodyguard for three months, the driver would be subject to prosecution.

Judge Doherty said that the situation is akin to the government prohibiting a convenience store from using security cameras. “The owners would come and say: ‘Hey, they are putting us at significant risk when someone comes in at 2 in the morning,’” he said.

“What the respondents are saying is that prostitutes can’t take the security steps anybody else would take in any other business,” Judge Doherty added. “To comply with the law, they have to take much greater risks than anybody else.”

A third judge, Madam Justice Eleanore Cronk, observed that the prostitutes challenging the law do not argue that the government has to take active steps to protect them – just that it must remove legal impediments to them enhancing their own safety.

“It has nothing to do with whether the government must enter the field or be obliged to make it safer,” Judge Cronk said. “Rather, it has to do with not making it un-safer.”

The judges also took issue with Mr. Morris’s contention that prostitution laws are too remotely connected to the dangers prostitutes face for them to be liable to being struck down.

“What’s remote about a law that prohibits a prostitute from having a driver or a bodyguard?” Judge MacPherson demanded. “These laws are pretty direct in preventing them from doing obvious things to do.”

In other arguments on Monday, Mr. Morris said that Judge Himel misunderstood the significance of evidence, paid heed to witnesses who didn't know what they were talking about and erroneously allowed herself to be drawn into a policy debate that belongs exclusively in Parliament.

 

[TeasePlease]

I wouldn't read much into the Court's questions during argument. Judges play poker too.

I find the media coverage to be me informing.

IMO, the Government made the wrong arguments. Protecting sexworkers and the vulnerable is a valid legislative objective. But that can be done quite separate and apart from the laws being challenged. The simple reply is that the Gov should come up with better/more relevant laws.

 

[rld]

I wouldn't read much into the Court's questions during argument. Judges play poker too.

I find the media coverage to be me informing.

IMO, the Government made the wrong arguments. Protecting sexworkers and the vulnerable is a valid legislative objective. But that can be done quite separate and apart from the laws being challenged. The simple reply is that the Gov should come up with better/more relevant laws.

At the Ont CA, the judges questions are considered a good guide to what they are thinking.

 

[exbrower]

A better guide is when they start rolling their eyes.