How many were dropped or pushed to the back of the line when Harper prorogued Parliament.
Criminalizing Clients at the Conservative Party Convention in Calgary
- Thread starter CAEC
- Start date
But what happened to the Supreme Court judge who was supposed to rule on prostitution legality??
Did that case get dropped?? I dont understand
Did that case get dropped?? I dont understand
Also, there's another bill thats pro-legalization:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/Res...BillShortTitle=prostitution&Language=E&Mode=1
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/Res...BillShortTitle=prostitution&Language=E&Mode=1
They heard arguments & soon should make rulingBut what happened to the Supreme Court judge who was supposed to rule on prostitution legality??
Did that case get dropped?? I dont understand
No, I'm not blaming him. There are a lot of self-important blowhards in the world. I can't even blame the groups that retained him. Anyone crazy enough to think that the courts are going to allow open solicitation on the street must be on crack and, hence, beyond blame.
Did you watch Alan's submissions? The best part was when he said: "Parliament is certainly free to make prostitution illegal."
If I was single and as rich as Silvio Berlusconi, I'd take one for the team.
Maybe we should start a war chest fund?
Prostitution was mentioned in the throne speech as well.
Expect something to happen this year.
It will be tough to fight. Who among us is willing to stand up publicly and oppose these measures?
Truth be told.. the court case may have been ill-advised. Winning the battle, but losing the war.
Thank you for the free sex. I am now quite tired, and have decided I will decline the hotel room tour. I would like a refund of any money paid in advance for said tour.
Bedford v. Canada, Osgoode Law School
I think it is a mistake to suggest the Bedford v. Canada challenge by Alan Young is part of the problem.
The idea of asymetric criminalization was mentioned during the recent arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada and the impression I got was that it would not stand in Canadian law. There could be an ugly mess for a while but at the end there should be a large gain for sex workers rights.
Inaction and just keeping your head down, hoping everything will just blow over can be a dangerous strategy. Gay rights have progressed because activists held parades, fought legal battles and got in peoples faces.
Regardless of whether or not we had Bedford v. Canada, the prohibitionists were going to push for the Swedish scam, saying how much they care about the poor prostituted women and how the helpless and hopeless creatures will be better off with laws that make paying them a criminal offence. I expect it is being pushed in other countries where there has been no substantial challenge to existing laws.
The Himel decision is a huge step forward, especially if it is confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, regardless of how the Conservatives act or react.
I think it is a mistake to suggest the Bedford v. Canada challenge by Alan Young is part of the problem.
The idea of asymetric criminalization was mentioned during the recent arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada and the impression I got was that it would not stand in Canadian law. There could be an ugly mess for a while but at the end there should be a large gain for sex workers rights.
Inaction and just keeping your head down, hoping everything will just blow over can be a dangerous strategy. Gay rights have progressed because activists held parades, fought legal battles and got in peoples faces.
Regardless of whether or not we had Bedford v. Canada, the prohibitionists were going to push for the Swedish scam, saying how much they care about the poor prostituted women and how the helpless and hopeless creatures will be better off with laws that make paying them a criminal offence. I expect it is being pushed in other countries where there has been no substantial challenge to existing laws.
The Himel decision is a huge step forward, especially if it is confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, regardless of how the Conservatives act or react.
But what happened to the Supreme Court judge who was supposed to rule on prostitution legality??
Did that case get dropped?? I dont understand
Justice Himel of the Superior Court of Ontario issued her decision a couple years ago, which was then appealed. Since neither side got completely what they wanted, both sought leave to appeal to the Supremes. We are now waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada decision.
The legality of prostitution was never at issue. Prostitution is not illegal in Canada (pending what the Cons do in their upcoming sessions of parliament). The case was about the ancillary activities of prostitution (living off the avails, bawdy house and communication).
Agreed. The grumblings are from the commercial perspective, albeit shortsighted and obviously self-interested. They are also frankly scared of change. What we have has worked well for them. LE has only cracked down on operations drawing public complaints, or involving human/drug trafficking. If you run a good agency or spa, no one bothers you.
Those who dismiss the significance of the Cons policy agenda are, IMO, missing the big picture. The Cons have always appealed to the right and religious right. What has changed in the Bedford decision, and the political momentum of the Cons. Take a look around Canada. Ontario, and Toronto, is not representative but rather the exception.
Wouldnt it be smart if the heterosexual prostitution industry joined forces with they gay rights movement?? Maybe set up a few floats in the next gay pride parade??
Strength in numbers!
Because I'm assuming the gay prostitution industry will also be hurt if Conservatives get their way
I know it is hard for you to cope with the knowledge that you have added to the burden of prostitutes, but you need to accept reality. As we speak, Harper is waiting with the speech he will give as soon as the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the Court of Appeal decision. He is going to say that the laws must be changed and men must be criminalized. He will then use his majority to push it through. This was 100% predictable.
As for your impression "that it would not stand in Canadian law", give your hero Alan Young a call. He will tell you to read the transcript of his submissions to the court. He outright told them that it is open to parliament to do whatever they want.
And no, there was no movement in Canada for a swedish model until you came along with your court challenge. There also won't be a massive prostitute rights march once a year on the weekend following the gay rights march. I think you are living in a bubble and it is really affecting your sense of reality.
The net effect of your court challenge will be the criminalization of men seeking prostitutes and the net effect of that will be that the only men who will visit prostitutes are men who have nothing to lose by getting charged with a criminal offence. Is this your ideal client base? I don't think so. When prostitutes tell you that their only customers are now broke drug addicts, be sure to tell them: "The Himel decision is a huge step forward, especially if it is confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, regardless of how the Conservatives act or react."
Our only hope is for the Supreme Court to allow the appeal and reverse the courts below.
I'm with Thomas Aquinas on this one. Proposing an unjust law is no law at all. When laws are so grossly unjust, I decline to follow them (clearly, lol). Mr. Harper, stay out of the bedroom! It sounds like a publicity stunt and incendiary at best.
Don't be silly. The prostitution industry is going to have its own parade. And it's going to be bigger than the gay pride parade. Just ask the CAEC.
Naw, I would wager that there would be a dozen, followed by maybe another bunch...wearing masks.Ha ha yes, all 3 of them
IMO, assymetric criminalization will be a tough nut to swallow in Canada. Unlike Sweden (which appears to have become a nightmarishly nasty Feminazi State), no one in Canada believes in it. The newspapers will slam it. The man and woman in the street will laugh at it. The judges will despise it as being a sleazoid way for the Tories to avoid having to admit they lost Bedford. It will be a law with little or no public support and a joke throughout the country. Even the cops will hate it.
Bear in mind that the Supreme Court has already struck down the bawdy house provisions as they apply to swingers' clubs. The courts right now have a heavy socially progressive and libertarian bias and will come out swinging against the new law if they get a chance.
Criminalizing johns could prove an even more embarrassing Round Two for the Harperoids.
That is, assuming he gives enough of a shit about the party convention resolutions to do anything about the issue.
Bear in mind that the Supreme Court has already struck down the bawdy house provisions as they apply to swingers' clubs. The courts right now have a heavy socially progressive and libertarian bias and will come out swinging against the new law if they get a chance.
Criminalizing johns could prove an even more embarrassing Round Two for the Harperoids.
That is, assuming he gives enough of a shit about the party convention resolutions to do anything about the issue.
