More importantly, sex offences against minors are a big exception. Doesn't change the rule, of course.
Bill C-36 tabled (New Prostitution Law)
- Thread starter DigitallyYours
- Start date
Just overhaul their site advertise themselves as a companionship agency. You only pay for time and companionship. That's what the states do to get around it.It's funny how some people think they won't go after "reputable" escort agencies. As if there's really such a thing in the eyes of the people who want to criminalize prostitution.
The fact that they haven't defined sexual services will turn out to be a major problem with the law. It appears they want it to be a catch-all, so authorities can pick and choose what to prosecute. They have an obligation to be clear what they are outlawing, if they want people to be ABLE to follow the law. This is a truly amateur bill.
I don't know what a CR is but I'm guessing the strip clubs that do remain will get pretty lame. No lapdance for you.
I think the law as proposed would actually make the production of porn illegal. Unintended consequences? I think not.
You don't escape prosecution by playing word games. Claiming that "companionship" is the only thing being provided wouldn't be very convincing in court.
What if a photographer wanted to hire a nude model to pose nude. I guess that would be illegal too under this new law.
The National Post seems to agree with you.
"John Ivison: Peter MacKay’s prostitution law a failure on all counts
Peter MacKay’s role as Attorney General of Canada requires him to be the guardian of the rule of law. He is mandated to protect the personal liberties of Canadians and advise Cabinet to ensure its actions are legal and constitutional.
By introducing a new law on prostitution that is all but certain to be struck down by the courts, he has failed on all counts.
The new law makes it an offence for the first time in Canada to purchase sexual services, or to communicate in any place for that purpose. It makes it an offence to receive a material benefit from sexual services and it prohibits the advertising of sexual services in newspapers or online.
The main targets are “the perpetrators, the perverts, the pimps,” according to Mr. MacKay. But it also takes aim at prostitutes, if they try to sell sexual services in “public places” where people under 18 might reasonably be expected to be present.
Last December, the Supreme Court struck down the existing law on prostitution, on the basis that it diminished the security of sex workers, in violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights.
There have been a number of studies conducted, before and since the Supreme Court decision, on the impact of shifting the guilt burden from sellers to purchasers, including one conducted in Vancouver and published in the British Medical Journal. None suggest the well-being of sex workers is enhanced – the key ingredient of any constitutional law.
When johns are targeted, prostitutes continue to take steps to avoid police detection; they are unable to screen clients and remain at risk of violence, abuse and HIV.
Prohibition of the purchase of sex is as likely to violate sex workers’ rights of security in the eyes of the Supreme Court, as prohibition of the selling of sex.
This bill is likely to make life even more unsafe for many prostitutes. If they can’t advertise their services to persuade the johns to come to them, many more are likely to take to the streets in search of business.
The government says it will spend $20-million to assist sex workers to leave the industry. But does Mr. MacKay seriously think this is going to reduce the number of women selling sex – or improve the lot of those who remain?
None of this bodes well for the long-term survival of this legislation.
If the new law is deemed to be “grossly disproportionate,” the burden of proof will shift to the government to justify itself.
Mr. MacKay knows this law will not stand constitutional scrutiny. But it could take years for a challenge to reach the Supreme Court and in the meantime, the new law will hold sway.
The cynicism that marked its introduction has mirrored the farce of the public consultation process. As La Presse revealed Wednesday, a $175,000 survey on public attitudes toward prostitution was commissioned by the government but Mr. MacKay was warned in a memo by Justice officials in January that the results may contradict government policy. The report was promptly shelved and the results won’t be published until the new bill has been sent to committee.
Instead, the government published an online consultation that fit with its preferred result – a majority suggesting the purchase of sexual services should be an offence.
The problem from day one for Mr. MacKay was that the Conservative Party’s members adopted a resolution that rejected the legalization of prostitution and called for a new law that targeted the purchasers of sex at its convention last November.
The emphasis in the new bill is to protect communities — an admirable goal. But that could equally have been done in a way that was consistent with the constitution.
Does MacKay seriously think this is going to reduce the number of women selling sex – or improve the lot of those who remain?
The party’s preferred option ruled out the adoption of an alternative model — the decriminalization and regulation of prostitution.
This is unfortunate. Countries like New Zealand have moved in that direction and found, while there was no dramatic change in the number of people involved in the sex industry, there was an improvement in safeguarding the rights of workers to refuse particular clients.
Adopting this model would have given Canada a new law robust enough to survive further Charter challenges.
As it is, the reputation of the office of the Attorney-General has been tarnished, hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money have been wasted on surveys that reveal inconvenient truths and a stop gap law that will need to be re-written has been imposed.
The decision should have been based on the evidence. Instead, it smacks of the Queen of Hearts’ logic: sentence first, verdict afterwards."
Sounds kinda like marriage (some might argue)? I guess anyone living in a common law relationship could easily be charged. "I washed the dishes. She fucked me. GUILTY"
This Bill, which very well could become law in its present form, would instantly put Canada at the bottom of the heap when it comes to ridiculously repressive prostitution laws. The most ridiculous part of this Bill is the maximum penalty for purchasing sex... an insane 5 years in prison... much longer than in Sweden or any other non-Islamic country that comes to mind. (And by the way the same as the current maximum penalty in Canada for buying sex from a child). Clearly the Conservatives made no attempt to create a law that would stand up to a court challenge. They've simply reinstated all the old laws, and added new even more obviously unconstitutional ones, basically criminalizing anything related to sexual services. Now they can show they've tried to be tough on crime, and blame the courts when (years from now) the status quo is restored.
The Cons may have overshot their mark though... Swedish-type laws would have allowed them to pander to their base without alienating too many fiscal conservatives. It's hard to see these draconian laws being anything but a negative for them. Still, in the meantime, the threat of a 5-year prison sentence for buyers, combined with some of the other measures may very well kill the industry... I thought people on this board who were predicting that over the past few months were panicking needlessly, but looks like they may have been right.
Oh well... here's wishing a slow painful death for that piece of shit Peter Mackay and worthless cunt Joy Smith.
The Cons may have overshot their mark though... Swedish-type laws would have allowed them to pander to their base without alienating too many fiscal conservatives. It's hard to see these draconian laws being anything but a negative for them. Still, in the meantime, the threat of a 5-year prison sentence for buyers, combined with some of the other measures may very well kill the industry... I thought people on this board who were predicting that over the past few months were panicking needlessly, but looks like they may have been right.
Oh well... here's wishing a slow painful death for that piece of shit Peter Mackay and worthless cunt Joy Smith.
Last edited:
The net has been cast widely here for just that reason I believe. It is a catch all.
LG
Its a bill, not a law. If the bill passes in the house, which it probably will (Conservative Majority), it will be sent to the Supreme Court for review. It will not pass. I have already heard from numerous lawyers that it will be rejected on the basis that it is unconstitutional. Since the conservatives were caught/failed to stack the supreme court with conservative biased judges, I wouldnt worry about it. But only time will tell.
Cheers
Cheers
I've been wondering how this would affect the Dominas of Toronto, but I think you are right, they are purposely leaving it open ended so they can cover all kinds of grey areas...
Yes, but there is a steep risk premium attached.
God, I hope this doesn't stick. I am fucking pissed off that any government in this country would even attempt to propose such bullshit.
They would still have to prove they provide more then "companionship" If they can't the case gets thrown out.
I thought powerful and rich men rule this country?... I'm sure they see escorts.
How could they let this happen?!
How could they let this happen?!
