This is all part of their plan. Strike down the current laws and issue a new law making prostitution illegal. This is the Conservatives we're talking about here. The reason it was unconstitutional is because it was a gray area. This is real bad for the hobby folks. Its going to get buried completely underground. No craigslist ads, no banner ads for escorts, no release in massage as being consenting between adults.
Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
It rarely happens? It never happens because it does not exist!
Call again when you are back from lunch!
Perry
I disagree. As a business we still have the same bylaws to follow. Hj's are not illegal in an mp.
Because that's not what was happening - it was about whether those laws were constitutonal, and just that. The SCC doesn't write laws.
Everyone with an agency, and some indies.
I can see this being a civil rights issue to come too. It's already VERY active online.
I echo the concerns of many that "jail-the-johns" might be Canada's answer. I think this is entirely against the spirit of the ruling, and could very well fall under concerns (s7) that were already decided.
I'm really excited at the opportunity to address this issue. I hope escorts are consulted in the process, when you ask us what we need or want it's very different from the public's perspective.
Touche! This is one of the big inconsistencies in the existing jurisprudence! What is prostitution? What is sex? I will certainly bet that this question will be heavily contested in the years to come.
There's no shortage of cases in Canada that define "prostitution" quite broadly. As I recall, one judge (sorry, don't recall the case or the judge) said that it was the rental of a body part for sexual pleasure. WTF is that??? On that basis, a MPA definitely falls within performing acts of prostitution. (And that's just for hand jobs. What about pussy slides, titty fucks, blow jobs, etc that we all know happen from time to time at MPs? "By time to time" I mean from opening to close. lol)
I suspect the decision you're relying on about handjobs is the Ponomarev case from 2007, which was completely misunderstood by many (most?) industry peeps. Chisvin J. ruled that a manual release, provided as part of a full body massage, was not illegal. But, if you separately bargain for a release, you would be clearly offside.
This is one narrow decision, from the lowest provincial court (not Superior court). Would you bet your business and livelihood on it?
That first definition of prostitution is definitely overbroad because it would capture kissing booths.Touche! This is one of the big inconsistencies in the existing jurisprudence! What is prostitution? What is sex? I will certainly bet that this question will be heavily contested in the years to come.
There's no shortage of cases in Canada that define "prostitution" quite broadly. As I recall, one judge (sorry, don't recall the case or the judge) said that it was the rental of a body part for sexual pleasure. WTF is that??? On that basis, a MPA definitely falls within performing acts of prostitution. (And that's just for hand jobs. What about pussy slides, titty fucks, blow jobs, etc that we all know happen from time to time at MPs? "By time to time" I mean from opening to close. lol)
I suspect the decision you're relying on about handjobs is the Ponomarev case from 2007, which was completely misunderstood by many (most?) industry peeps. Chisvin J. ruled that a manual release, provided as part of a full body massage, was not illegal. But, if you separately bargain for a release, you would be clearly offside.
This is one narrow decision, from the lowest provincial court (not Superior court). Would you bet your business and livelihood on it?
Anyway, I always just ask for the bodyslide.. whatever else happens... I didn't negotiate for. ha ha.
Yup. Which is why enforcement has been totally arbitrary and inconsistent across the land. Community standards, blah blah blah
Many civil libertarians will... as you can see, they already do!
Civil libertarians always are concerned with how the law treats the least of us, the most marginalized, the "least deserving."
That requires an extensive legal analysis which also involves several other section of The Charter... much too long and inappropriate for this board.
Let me put it this way: I don't think that our Courts would tolerate a situation in which something that is legal to sell is illegal to buy. What do you think would happen if Parliament were to pass a law that says it is legal to manufacture and sell automobiles, but illegal to buy them?
Perry
How do the Nordic countries pull this off then? Are their charters that different?
Really cuz I wouldn't want a by-law officer to barge in while I was getting one (based on what I heard, it would be a by-law infraction but not a crime).
Almost sounds like the logic behind the most recent decision based on what Jerry Agar said this morning on his radio show (man, I felt like giving him a piece of my mind from his moralizing and biased opining).
Let's hope you're right cuz the SC has given the government a month to respond, which paves the way for a new law to counter the decision.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union isn't *that* different. There are a right to liberty and security. They even have a freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work and freedom to conduct a business. You'd think those could be used to challenge a john law that you can't engage in an occupation where it is illegal to buy what is being sold.
The context of my comment about carrying the banner for sexworkers was by pols and parties.
The buy vs. sell analysis is far too simplistic. I've always enjoyed your posts and respected your thoughts. I know that you're smarter than that.
The right to utilize (sell) your own body is fundamentally different from the right to buy (rent) another's body.
A more apt analogy would that we had laws that prohibited driving, but you could sell cars. The point of the prohibition was to discourage people owning cars and cluttering up the streets. That prohibition was ruled unconstitutional, so now they prohibit buying cars. Same effect; different approach.
Benjamin Perrin's [former chief legal advisor in the PMO] editorial in the G&M 2 days ago probably sums up the PMO's positition.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/whatever-the-supreme-court-rules-its-time-to-end-prostitution-in-canada/article16022947/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/whatever-the-supreme-court-rules-its-time-to-end-prostitution-in-canada/article16022947/
I personally think that rocking the boat on prostitution was an enormous miscalculation and I doubt we will have much of an incall industry within 2 years time... of course, all contingent on the the next election.
