Yeah I think the Criminal Code applies on a federal basis that is to say across the land although a provincial ruling as is the case here can set a precedent for other cases and provinces. I would expect any other prosecutions currently underway to be stayed or appealed pending new legislation, SCC appeal, however this ultimately plays out. Certainly wouldn't expect any new prosecutions under the invalidated provisions pending a definitive outcome.
Ontario Court of Appeal greenlights brothels, sweeps aside many of Canada’s anti-pros
- Thread starter herelookin (pt2)
- Start date
Gentlemen, you are confusing something. The criminal code is defined by the contents of the constitution and the charter, not the other way around. It was brought into place by Trudeau...the exact date evades me ATM.
It's basically the tactical nuke of Canadian politics, not to be used lightly, if ever.
It's basically the tactical nuke of Canadian politics, not to be used lightly, if ever.
Presuming the ruling takes effect: in Ontario the law would effective change as follows:
Blue is strikeout, Red is add
§ 197. (1) In this Part,
“bet”
« pari »
“bet” means a bet that is placed on any contingency or event that is to take place in or out of Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a bet that is placed on any contingency relating to a horse-race, fight, match or sporting event that is to take place in or out of Canada;
“common bawdy-house”
« maison de débauche »
“common bawdy-house” means a place that is
(a) kept or occupied, or
(b) resorted to by one or more persons
for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;
§ 212. (1) Every one who
(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person, through circumstances of explotation.
Link to the ruling: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0186.pdf
Blue is strikeout, Red is add
§ 197. (1) In this Part,
“bet”
« pari »
“bet” means a bet that is placed on any contingency or event that is to take place in or out of Canada, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a bet that is placed on any contingency relating to a horse-race, fight, match or sporting event that is to take place in or out of Canada;
“common bawdy-house”
« maison de débauche »
“common bawdy-house” means a place that is
(a) kept or occupied, or
(b) resorted to by one or more persons
for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency;
§ 212. (1) Every one who
(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person, through circumstances of explotation.
Link to the ruling: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2012/2012ONCA0186.pdf
Reading the decision, one question I have is whether fetish brothels (Dungeons) as are legal in Australia would be legal in Ontario or whether they will still be caught up by the "acts of indecency" provision of §197? Thoughts?
Then, we need to know what the legal definition of "acts of indecency" means? Otherwise the change means nothing at all, really. Is it indecent to pay for sex, or to pick your nose, or to fist a girl up the bum? I really depends on definition.
I
Intrigued
Very interesting I hope everything goes well so the ladies can work in a save environment.
Cheers.
Cheers.
What I predict:
1. It is CERTAIN that the govt will appeal this to the SCC.
2. It is very likely that the SCC will follow the so-far unanimous lead of 6 lower court judges and strike down the incall and avails sections.
3. It is likely that street solicitation will remain criminalized.
4. This one is too much of a hot potato for the Tories to crack down hard. They want to build their power base in Central Canada and this is not a vote getter. Look for a licensing system to be put into effect with police participation.
1. It is CERTAIN that the govt will appeal this to the SCC.
2. It is very likely that the SCC will follow the so-far unanimous lead of 6 lower court judges and strike down the incall and avails sections.
3. It is likely that street solicitation will remain criminalized.
4. This one is too much of a hot potato for the Tories to crack down hard. They want to build their power base in Central Canada and this is not a vote getter. Look for a licensing system to be put into effect with police participation.
This is great news. But it is up to everyone to keep it going.... don't let it die. Remember Weed Reform... that was going great and then ran into some walls.
But this news is of utmost importance - in my mind, it legitimizes the industry, and more important, it makes it safer for the women working.
I even heard some of the girls on CP 24 say this is long overdue on many occasions previously. Things have to be more mainstream, but with necessary discretion.
Very important to keep the ball rolling!
But this news is of utmost importance - in my mind, it legitimizes the industry, and more important, it makes it safer for the women working.
I even heard some of the girls on CP 24 say this is long overdue on many occasions previously. Things have to be more mainstream, but with necessary discretion.
Very important to keep the ball rolling!
I would tend to agree with Fuji - I can't see Harper allowing legal brothels in Canada. Mainly because NIMBY people will go nuts lobbying the government saying 'no brothel in my nice residential neighborhood of Toronto'.
Condo buildings that currently have under the radar incalls would still ban incalls under the 'no business run out of a residential unit' clause, whether it be a legal brothel or legal fishing tackle shop. So they couldn't advertise or they'd get evicted (but not charged, just evicted). It would be good for the client though as no more charge of being a 'found in' if brothels are legal. All the condo board could do is evict the resident.
I'd like to see the 19th century mansion house brothels of old return. No worries of eviction as the brothel madam owns the house. Guys mingle with a selection of girls in the parlor and living room, then go upstairs to a bedroom with the girl of their choice. Private security on the ground floor is in a security room to throw out troublemakers. Still, I see major NIMBY protests that could result in the city making zoning laws regulating where brothels can be located, and that would basically create a red light zone, but that would get major NIMBY action from whatever areas was so designated. Unless it was some post-industrial wasteland.
A nice mansion in Rosedale for an upscale brothel would be nice, but on street parking for 30 cars all the time? Residents go insane; zoning is introduced. I don't think one can run a business out of a home there. In some upscale residential areas you can run a law office or doctor's office out of your home. In the Annex/Yorkville area some big homes have been converted to offices that house interior decorators, consulting offices, fraternities, etc. Not sure what business qualifies for this (or not).
I hope we get legal brothels, but I'm not convinced we will get them legally in the same locations we get them now.
What is the percentage of all men who seek prostitutes once in a while in Canada.
Is it around 5%, 10%?? More?? Less??
Because if its 10% Harper would lose a lot of that vote, including mine
While I know that Australia is different from Canada, at least in Sydney a number of brothels are in older houses in mixed use neighborhoods.
Many strip clubs and MPs have been charged in the past with operating a common bawdy house. That law is meaningless now. Free-for-all will start at both.
I am happy for the sex workers. I am not sure that this ruling can be easily overturned. Let's wait and see. It comes into effect in a year. And government may necessarily appeal. I hope the SC keeps it as is. Cheers
Exactly. Which is why competition for massage parlours as a "legal" adult playgrounds just got a whole lot more intense.
MPs are actually at somewhat of a disadvantage because, while they can (in theory) offer full service now, they are still regulated under the municipal code (subject to inspections, posting prices, advertising restrictions, etc) Until the city starts to regulate incalls, they won't be subject to the same limitations. Although, I would be wary of incalls advertising openly (zoning issues and neighborhood complaints).
Less so for SCs because of the nature of the business; they just are set up for the same thing.
If I were an agency owner, I'd be looking at snapping up a few holistic centre spas and handing in the licenses.
Religious people are the biggest customers.........just a guess.that is truly the great news, now the annoying religious ppl and all the other protesters can stop bothering people....
