Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision on the Bedford, Lebovitch and Scott
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Is that what you call it? A derivative action? Sounds good to me.
Another terbite responded in the public announcement section (see Madonna's link above), that he may be forced to harm his kidney and liver to the bar scene and the impact on his pocket book just to try to sleep with average-looking girls that impose their ten date 'admission fee'. Doesn't that infringe on a guy's right to life, liberty and happiness (or whatever the Canadian Charter says)?
While the latter may not get much sympathy, what about paraplegics or those with other disabilities who find it more difficult to have sex?
In any event, anti-john legislation would be the equivalent of imposing economic sanctions against sex workers. How can it not be that?
Yup, I find it fascinating. I've also long since abandoned any notion that I know anything. I enjoy the debate, and the "eureka!" that comes with being proven wrong.Well, then, if you and I were sitting in judgment on these questions, one of us would be with the majority and the other would be dissenting.
That is what makes "the law" so interesting... no?
Perry
Today's decision strikes down the existing laws, but the ruling has been suspended for one year. One year from today, if the feds don't enact new law, there will be no laws. The one year period is arbitrary.
I don't know if it would be a derivative action, or simply as intervenors in an application by some brave John.
I'm not sure that sexworkers would have standing, that's all.
By your logic, couldn't a barkeeper claim economic sanctions because of public drunkeness laws or similar? Drinking itself is not illegal.
What's missing in this discussion is the role of social policy. That would be fundamental basis of the Cons platform should they decide to attack prostitution itself.
Better than nothing I suppose.
http://o.canada.com/news/national/alert-prostitution-laws-unconstitutional-supreme-court-rules/
Public drunkenness laws are not the equivalent to prohibition. Anti-john legislation outlaws the buying of sex outright.
Harper: So what do we do now?
staff: You can just make it illegal
Harper: Really thats it?
Staff: Yep.
staff: You can just make it illegal
Harper: Really thats it?
Staff: Yep.
I've read a few different media reports about the decision. A question for the lawyers here - Assume there is new legislation passed, whatever that may be. Who gets to decide if that new legislation adequately deals with the SCC's concerns about the the current law? I assume a new case would have to brought before the court or can the SCC just review the law and decide yeah or nay?
Decriminalization could lead to municipal bylaws regulating prostitution as though it were like any other business selling a service to the public. Escort agencies are regulated in the city of Calgary as legitimate businesses. If you want an idea of the sort of restrictions escorts will face under municipal bylaws read this.
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Documents/licence/dating_and_escort_service_bylaw.pdf?noredirect=1
http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Documents/licence/dating_and_escort_service_bylaw.pdf?noredirect=1
I don't think that the cons will have any problem with "uncomfortable" legislation. They aren't going to think about the way you are. The minister is going to call in his legal staff and tell them to go draft the toughest legislation that has a shot at passing the Supreme Court. Then when they come back with a proposal, just to make their political point about the unacceptability of activist judges, the minister will send the legal team back to make it even tougher, to force a confrontation with the SCC.
You seem to think that the SCC is going to punish the government and that they are little children to be punished for behaving badly by big powerful judges. You are totally missing that it is on the conservative agenda to reform the courts, and any wedge issue that they can use to force a confrontation with the courts in order to get the conservative voting public on their side, they will pursue. It will help them win elections and achieve majorities to do that. So they are not going to be afraid of putting the courts into a difficult situation. They are going to relish it.
I find that most people who bring a strictly legal position carefully analyze all the trees and totally miss the forest.
I am a lawyer. The new law would need to go through the same 5 year court process that this case went through. Plus a john would need to be the one who fights it. I doubt many would step up.
Politicians are smart about things like this. Take the initiative on the own, and everyone will ask why you are riding this hobby horse. It's bad optics. People will start talking about hidden agendas and wonder if abortion is next, why don't they focus on the economy, why not leave well enough alone, etc.
Wait for the court to "force" you to respond, and you look responsible and statesmanlike. They have no choice now -- the courts have actually told them to go draft some legislation, what else can they do but go draft some legislation?
The SCC has handed the Cons a golden opportunity to tackle a social conservative issue, greatly pleasing their base, but without looking like social conservative fanatics to everybody else.
Fuji, I doubt any government has an agenda to emasculate the courts and muzzle them. It is part of the "game" of being in power that the judges get to interfere under the banner of "constitutional challenges". The downside to muzzling the courts is that you nullify the Charter entirely and no politically aware person regards that as an acceptable outcome.
And most particularly, this is not an issue that will garner support for Harper in Central Canada. Most Ontarians and Quebeckers would opt for decriminalization. And the Cons have the West in any event.
The Big bad scary Stephen Harper with his much hyped 'Hidden Agenda' ......after seven years....... Has yet to materialize.
And even after this rework of a constitutional botch job by the Liberals years ago....Harper is gonna disappoint those hoping for a 'hidden agenda'
Well, that is the spirit of debate that I welcome and enjoy!Yup, I find it fascinating. I've also long since abandoned any notion that I know anything. I enjoy the debate, and the "eureka!" that comes with being proven wrong.
So let me change my example a little bit and bring to the fore what I am thinking about.
If Parliament were to pass a law that lawyers are free to sell legal services and advise but people are prohibited from buying it... what would you say?
After all, neither prostitution or lawyering have ever been illegal in Canada, and both vie for the claim of being the oldest profession... :Eek:
Perry
Sexual services? No, still not 'legal', and never were. This verdict concerns laws already existing re: prostitution, and outright sexual services in MP's/SC's were never 'legal' to begin with.
For those of you that don't know how this all got started, it goes back 20 years. Terri-Jean Bedford stood up for her rights, and the rights of all Canadians, and today after 20 years of fighting she won! :thumb:
In 1994, police raided her “Bondage Bungalow” in Thornhill, Ontario.
When I first realized I was being raided I was shocked and angry. I had been there doing this openly for almost two years. I had checked with lawyers, a couple of whom were clients, to ensure legality. I had run my dominatrix house as if all visitors, repeat all, were police.
There was absolutely no need for a SWAT team. There was absolutely no need for them to strip the place almost clean by seizing 700 items, most of them everyday items. There was no need to mock us. And they didn’t have to call a press conference the day after the raid to display what they had had taken. They could have just charged me or given me a ticket and awaited trial. I knew this during the raid and it was raised in subsequent legal proceedings.
In future I was actually glad they made such a big splash, because it led to my profile in the media where I could advocate for my rights and bring big issues to national attention and publish my story as well.
I’m not sure what I would have done differently. I had a chance to run a first rate dungeon and facility for adult role play. I had a chance to earn a decent living. My dream of running such a facility came true, and the cause brought me allies to enable me to rise up again with another facility a few years later and bring forth my book. I don’t think, looking back, I would have changed a thing I had done.
Terri-Jean Bedford
In 1994, police raided her “Bondage Bungalow” in Thornhill, Ontario.
When I first realized I was being raided I was shocked and angry. I had been there doing this openly for almost two years. I had checked with lawyers, a couple of whom were clients, to ensure legality. I had run my dominatrix house as if all visitors, repeat all, were police.
There was absolutely no need for a SWAT team. There was absolutely no need for them to strip the place almost clean by seizing 700 items, most of them everyday items. There was no need to mock us. And they didn’t have to call a press conference the day after the raid to display what they had had taken. They could have just charged me or given me a ticket and awaited trial. I knew this during the raid and it was raised in subsequent legal proceedings.
In future I was actually glad they made such a big splash, because it led to my profile in the media where I could advocate for my rights and bring big issues to national attention and publish my story as well.
I’m not sure what I would have done differently. I had a chance to run a first rate dungeon and facility for adult role play. I had a chance to earn a decent living. My dream of running such a facility came true, and the cause brought me allies to enable me to rise up again with another facility a few years later and bring forth my book. I don’t think, looking back, I would have changed a thing I had done.
Terri-Jean Bedford
