Bill C-36 tabled (New Prostitution Law)

[lovelatinas]

It's not over yet. This bill will get struck down as it still does not address the safety of sex workers, which why the first one got struck down the first place. I hope I have confidence in that.

 

[afterhours]

Canada just became Saudi Arabia

Kinda.
It's wild that you can beat the shit out of somebody and receive a conditional or absolute discharge, but for prostitution related stuff there is a minimum punishment which is a criminal record. Wow!

 

[lovelatinas]

Come on guys, don't get your panties in a bunch over this. Harper's majority isn't the end of the conversation, there are still judges in Canada who know how to read the constitution, even if the Conservative Party doesn't. The law won't pass third reading in its current state, and whatever scraps make it through the committee process will promptly be struck down by the courts. It won't take five years, it won't require an injunction from Bedford, it won't even require a constitutional challenge. The first judge who looks at it will strike it down, and the appeal courts will quickly agree.

As for advertising, the newspapers are already preparing challenges under the consitutional right to free speech. As long as sex work remains legal - which is does - there's no legitimate way to criminalize the advertising of sexual services. The government is just pandering to their evangelical base, they know full well that this legislation has no chance of staying on the books - they're just doing it to say they did it, so they can look tough and moral in the eyes of their supporters. Some of the lawyers who worked on the Bedford case have already come out and stated that the new legislation violates the Charter the same way the old laws did:

http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_sex_work_legislation_explained

The sky isn't falling, guys - tomorrow, it'll still be business as usual.

I hope I have confidence in what you said. :thumb: BTW, are there any special rates to cheer up the Terb community? It's pretty gloom around here. LOL!

 

[afterhours]

There is an easy way around this law. You place the envelope in a locked mailbox. No evidence that the cash was linked to you.

Coincidentally this ingenious solution also works for all illegal drug transactions, as well as extortion and bribes. Oh, wait, it doesn't.

 

[mynameisearl11]

So, where are all the optimists who thought we we're over-reacting with our doom and gloom predictions, saying that the sky is falling? Well, the sky just fell.

Lovelatinas--great point. All these lovely women, currently making more than lawyers/hour, are now "liberated" from their "victimhood" by the white knights Mackay and Harper, and now have the pleasure of applying to corporate slavery jobs paying minimum wage, with a resume that is basically empty of "job experience". God I hate these people.

Short term,with the introduction of bill C-36 it will create an uptick in escorts business because most guys are in panic mode to book their atf's asap. Longer term we may see more marriages or more babies produce as bill C-36 turns into law

 

[freestuff]

We all need to complain loudly and forcefully.
Personally, I've already sent off an e-mail to Peter MacKay. For those who may wish to adapt for their own use, here's what I sent:

Did you include your real name in the email?

 

[staggerspool]

It does not. You don't get off of drug trafficking charges by claiming to be a vendor of journeys to the inner mind and psyche.

I think it does. If I hire someone for companionship in a private space, no-one knows that we aren't just sitting and talking. The only people who know that the proposed law has been broken are the two of us. In the event she wants to be a witness against me, she'd have to be willing to be outed in court.

The appropriate drug crime analogy would be a charge of trafficking without proof, like actual drugs being exchanged for money. They won't charge you if they don't have that. See Rob Ford and Sandro Lisi. He ain't charged with drug trafficking, even though there are real reasons to suspect that he was trafficking drugs. They haven't charged him with that, because they haven't got sufficient evidence to convict.

If they had proof that I'd had paid sex, you analogy would suggest that my defense was that I wasn't having sex, I was just rubbing my penis on her vagina.

 

[james t kirk]

It could be years before this is passed and by then many changes will occur.

Why would you say that?

The Reform Party (whoops, I mean the "Conservative Party of Canada" has a majority in parliament.

I doubt it will take more than a few weeks to pass.

 

[blackrock13]

Why would you say that?

The Reform Party (whoops, I mean the "Conservative Party of Canada" has a majority in parliament.

I doubt it will take more than a few weeks to pass.

Chances are it won't pass before they rise for the summer and it has to be passed by December as per SCOC, so there's your window. As sure as shootin', there will be another SCOC challenge and I suspect another smackdown for the same reason as before. Whether the election plays a part is anyine guess.

 

[d_jedi]

Did you include your real name in the email?

I am not that brave/foolish.

 

[james t kirk]

I think this is, pure and simple, the PCs trying to impose a fundamentalist Christian view of sexuality on the country. It clearly does not address the safety of sex workers, and clearly does not respect the current laws under which sex work is legal....only certain activities associated with it are not. It may force the street trade further under cover, it will make a lot of the current escorting practices illegal, and it can essentially give the power to arrest a sex worker or a customer any time anywhere....because someone under 18 could reasonably be present almost anywhere.

It is clear that the intent is to prevent any sort of sex for money. Dechert made it clear that the intent or the hope would be to bring a total end to the disgusting practice of prostitution.

These people just thought they could do an end run around the intent of the court.....just make it illegal, which they effectively are doing....and then there will be no debate around safety.

I agree with you completely.

Except for your argument with respect to safety. Calling it about "safety" was and is utter bullshit. What it needs to be about is the right to pay for sex between consenting adults and that my friend is just too explosive a topic in our puritan society (or at least Stephen Harper's society) to discuss.

As far as I'm concerned, ban street walking, ban anyone under 18 from selling sex, regulate gaudy signage - all good.

But regulating everything else is just plain old enforcing morality.

 

[staggerspool]

There are HUGE problems with this bill - it doesn't meet the challenge that the Supremes put before them, and it will be challenged and struck down as the previous law was.

The anti advertising provisions are very likely against the right of free speech, and will likewise be struck down.

Regarding the predictable voice wagging his finger at those of us who didn't expect the sky to fall - it hasn't fallen yet, there will be a lot of discussion of the situation, and remember how the gov has caved on other bills - the internet spying one, and the worst aspects of the election one. There may well be so many problems that they miss their deadline.

But I am surprised at how IDIOTIC this bill appears to be. Mackay is completely incompetent. I'd known this forever, but no-one could predict how stupidly he has handled this. They look like major prudes, right out of the moral 50s.

I'm waiting for some escort to start name names among the conservative MPs...

 

[MissElizabeth]

Can't you just meet at a local restaurant and have a drink, even if it is a McDonald's then go to her in-call place to continue the conversation and see where the possibilities go? I am sure many escorts who would like to continue enjoying what we do will not mind this. The law cannot tell you who you are and are not allowed to date, even if it is for a short time. Yes the revolving door policies may have to disappear but is that a bad thing?

 

[staggerspool]

Come on guys, don't get your panties in a bunch over this. Harper's majority isn't the end of the conversation, there are still judges in Canada who know how to read the constitution, even if the Conservative Party doesn't. The law won't pass third reading in its current state, and whatever scraps make it through the committee process will promptly be struck down by the courts. It won't take five years, it won't require an injunction from Bedford, it won't even require a constitutional challenge. The first judge who looks at it will strike it down, and the appeal courts will quickly agree.

As for advertising, the newspapers are already preparing challenges under the consitutional right to free speech. As long as sex work remains legal - which is does - there's no legitimate way to criminalize the advertising of sexual services. The government is just pandering to their evangelical base, they know full well that this legislation has no chance of staying on the books - they're just doing it to say they did it, so they can look tough and moral in the eyes of their supporters. Some of the lawyers who worked on the Bedford case have already come out and stated that the new legislation violates the Charter the same way the old laws did:

http://www.pivotlegal.org/the_new_sex_work_legislation_explained

The sky isn't falling, guys - tomorrow, it'll still be business as usual.

Thanks for this, well put.

 

[canada-man]

banning advertising is against free speech in the charter of rights

 

[james t kirk]

Most of the emphasis is on selling and purchasing sexual services in public places where children could be present. I believe that is where LE will be mostly targeting.

Really?

See, I don't see it that way. There is going to be a LOT of interpretation as to what is and what is not public.

I could totally envision a scenario where the local massage parlour operating behind closed doors is now "visible in public". After all, they have to have a door don't they.

Bam.

 

[james t kirk]

I blame the fools who gave Harper the Majority...

EXACTLY.

And lots of those fools reside right here on TERB ironically enough.

Fuji has been pointing this out for years. (And I've been agreeing with him.)

 

[james t kirk]

The sky isn't falling, guys - tomorrow, it'll still be business as usual.[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]

Till the bill is passed, which is a given.

It will still be business as usual, but then the stings will start. They will be well publicized, the public at large will lap it up.

And a huge percentage of guys who buy sex will figure, "it's not worth it" and will rethink their entire "pay for play is ok" mentality.

The oldest profession isn't going anywhere I admit, but there is going to be a severe downturn in business. Of that I am sure.

 

[Fred Zed]

EXACTLY.

And lots of those fools reside right here on TERB ironically enough.

Fuji has been pointing this out for years. (And I've been agreeing with him.)

Those who voted for Harper just don't make the same x2 by voting for Hudak.

 

[DigitallyYours]

Chances are it won't pass before they rise for the summer and it has to be passed by December as per SCOC, so there's your window. As sure as shootin', there will be another SCOC challenge and I suspect another smackdown for the same reason as before. Whether the election plays a part is anyine guess.

It doesn't need to pass by December. The old laws expire as of end of year. So, there may be a few months where we have no laws on prostitution, but it's not as if this bill will die in December if it isn't passed by then.

This bill would die if it hasn't passed by the time parliament is dissolved for the next election however.