Babypowder:
MrsCaloki accuses anyone who calls her a bigot of being...a bigot.
It is an advanced form of debate taught in the 5th Grade commonly referred to as the "I know you are but what am I?" gambit.
No Coloured Man
- Thread starter amaya777
- Start date
MrsCaloki accuses anyone who calls her a bigot of being...a bigot.
It is an advanced form of debate taught in the 5th Grade commonly referred to as the "I know you are but what am I?" gambit.
Im way late on this thread but dude... your not applying for a job here.
One of the perks about being an escort is its their body and and for the most part, they are free to do what they like with it. They can sell their body/sevices to whom they like and when they like.
I don't like the term "decriminalized" because prostitution has never been criminal. I think those are US-centric terms.
Independent outcall prostitutes can declare their occupation on their tax returns, and a few do. The ones who don't mostly don't because they are evading taxes, not because declaring would have any negative consequences.
The "avails" law prevents them from hiring assistants, who would be illegal under the anti pimping law, so in that sense they do not have the same rights as other self employed workers, but otherwise they do.
Much of that law is currently subject to a supreme court challenge, the court found those laws interfere with a woman's right to security of person by preventing her from taking steps to ensure her safety. However the ruling is not yet in effect, and the government may appeal further or redraft the law.
I still can't understand/follow legality of prositution in Ontario and Canada. It's legal if you do x, it's illegal if you do Y, it's okay if you do b, but back to illagel if you do xy on a monday before 5pm....lol.
You don't understand security of the person, nor do you understand the law, nor is Morgentaler the "controlling" case, nor does it apply. As usual you don't have a sound grasp of even basic legal concepts. It just shows me you spent two minutes on wikipedia or some such and came away with some sound bites and no understanding.
No one is suggesting that women be forced to have sex with people they don't want.
But when they sell sexual acts they are offering a commercial service, and the commercial service is fully open to regulation by the government, including the provincial government and municipalities. As you should know, but either don't or choose not to, security of the person does not apply to protection of economic activities.
Let's state the obvious:
1) the government has the right to regulate where and when prostitution takes place;
2) the government has the right to regulate the cost of prostitution.
3) the government has the right to require licenses for prostitution.
4) the government has the right to restrict who these services may be sold to.
5) the government has the right to restrict how these services may be offered.
The Human Rights Code does not suggest that women have to have sex with anyone they don't want to, any more than it suggests I have to have lunch with a group of ethnic people this week. What it says, quite clearly, is that is I choose to sell lunches I cannot refuse to sell them to people based on race.
Your suggesting that SCOTUS would strike down the provision on Charter grounds is silly. That provision has been challenged and Charter grounds multiple times and has survived each and every time. There is no reason to believe that this time would be any different.
You should also know Fuji is arguing from a profoundly racist place. The basis of his argument is that offering sexual services to a black man, or oriental, etc would harm the prostitute. A Charter challenge requires a factual underpinning. Who is signing that affidavit, David Duke?
You are entirely right that prostitution is not currently treated as a legitimate business in Canada, and I used the example of the crack dealer way earlier in this thread.
But many people want it to be more regularized and moved into the mainstream, and I think that would be good. But if you are going to do that, you have to think about the broader issues, and amending this act in Ontario would be one of them.
Unless being butt ugly is a disability (and I don't think it is, but havn't checked), it would not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Having read your analysis I suspect you have not read that decision. Do you claim to have read it?
I have and it is in no way applicable here. It is also not the "controlling" case on security of the person.
You are suggesting that they be threatened with sanctions of various sorts if they refuse to offer sex in particular instances.
But not a right to require that it take place.
But not a right to require that it occur.
No contract can be written that would require a woman to have sex.
But not the converse right to require that it be offered.
But not a right to require that the service be offered.
The moment that the Human Rights Code is used to threaten a woman with any sort of fine for refusing sex, it crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.
At which point, in this instance, it is clearly unconstitutional.
That is exactly what I am suggesting.
There is every reason to believe that this time would be very different: The government lacks the power to require a women to have sex, because requiring it would be requiring an invasion of her bodily integrity, which would be a violation of her security of person. Any threat of sanction of any kind in relation to this invasion of her bodily integrity would result in psychological harm which in and of itself would be a violation of her security of person.
Read the damn decision and stop making shit up.
Now that is funny.
I have read the Morgentaler SCC decision. Have you? If so you are dishonest because it does not say what you claim it says. If not you are also dishonest for claiming to understand both its ratio and statements on security of the person without having read it.
Nice job proving yourself a liar without me having to lift a finger.
As usual you make a fool of yourself on legal issues. The Human Rights Code does not require that sex occur any more than it requires I requires a plumber to fix plumbing for money.
Tell us again who adultery is not grounds for divorce in Canada?
Your paraphrase was from wiki.
Tell us where did the SCC say that having sex with coloured people causes harm?
And just answer the question...have you read the case. You still have not answered a simple question.
That's not up to the SCC to decide, nor any other part of the government. That's up to the woman to decide. In any moment where she is confronted with someone demanding to have sex with her, she must be free to decline it, where free means, without fear of any sanction by the state.
You could construct a regulated prostitution industry, sure--but it could not require women to engage in sex acts that compromise her bodily integrity. The decision to include sex as part of the service would always and only ever be a personal decision made by the woman for her own private reasons.
The way it was explained to me:
I have a right to rent out my body. MY BODY being the emphatic word.
I and clients do not have a right to discuss it in public, because that might offend Canadians or tourist who over hear. Similarely street walking etc is bad because it offends the Canadian image so it is all illegal.
To protect me from being expoited and abused by pimps and houses they make pimpish (
) activities illegal. So pimping, living from the money I make renting out, recruiting a girl into prostitution, running or going to a whore house are all illegal.Girls under a certain age are unable to give concent so helping, recruiting, or seeing a young girl is a big NO NO. I was told it did not even mater if she lied about being under age. If the judge thinks she looks under-age, you are in a mess. A lot like the selling cigarets to a minor thing in Canada
Does that help?
