Nice to see the Conservatives taking the time to memorize their talking points.
Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments
- Thread starter gustave55
- Start date
Yes. The Premier, through the Attorney General of Ontario, can instruct Crown Prosecutors, not to pursue charges.
Although the Criminal Code is an act of Federal Parliament, it is the Provinces that enforce it. It is the Provinces and municipalities that have to spend money to police, prosecute, and incarcerate in Provincial jails. Given limited resources and the increasing debt load of the Province, the Province could prefer spending their limited budgets on issues that are more beneficial to society. That wouldn't make Petey very happy, as he had admonished Alberta for not enforcing the struck down the sections of the CCC, but there's little he could do about it.
Safety provided by the contributions of taxed to the hilt citizens...... for non tax paying citizens so that they can make two or three hundred dollars an hour in relative safety and comfort with little expenses or overhead. Its a great deal, a real winner if they can swing it.
I think she only acknowledge her letter. I don't think she made a decision yet about sending to court. I'm sure it would be much faster if she did. The present judges know well the subject and there would be no need to get new evidence.
True. Especially since their activity is not illegal for them. The main advantage of decriminalization is not financial; it's to not be under constant police harassment.
I think he made a mistake when he said that. Not that anyone should be surprised...He has said many times that he can't believe anyone would choose such a profession.
They would still say that they think the majority are exploited. Their argument is that potentially discriminating against a small fraction would be justified to rescue all the others. According to the charter some infringement of rights are justified it they serve a higher purpose against some serious harm. However, their premises here is flawed and demonstrably false. The inherent harms of prostitution are just a moral opinion. The harms of the laws on sex workers is a reality.
I just watched the video of part of the Senate inquiry. One conservative senator said explicitly: ''We do not want to make it safe for prostitutes; we want to end prostitution''. This is totally unacceptable under Bedford.
The biggest contradiction is that they define prostitutes as victims, but don't care if they suffer more harm. It's like making a law against rape that would increase the amount of violence the victims suffer. Or rescuing the ISIS hostages by dropping a bomb on them.
Logic and Conservatives don't usually go together. They don't care about the prostitutes, this is all about morality and removing a perceived social nuisance. Look at the States where everything about prostitution is illegal. They have just as much prostitution we have here if not more. The law doesn't do anything, this is all rooted to poverty.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...s-but-goal-is-to-end-sex-trade/?__federated=1
OTTAWA — Justice Minister Peter MacKay defended his prostitution bill Tuesday as a balanced policy that criminalizes the purchase of sex but gives prostitutes “immunity” from prosecution so they can ply their trade more safely.
Moreover, Mr. MacKay said his department’s lawyers have conducted a review of the bill and the government has concluded that the future law would “likely” withstand a court challenge from those who say it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“We believe we have it right in this bill,” the minister told a Senate committee that is holding three days of public hearings on Bill C-36. “This bill does not drive prostitutes into the dark [and] back into the alleys.”
Under the government’s proposal, prostitution would be illegal and the law would target johns and pimps with criminal penalties if they bought sex from prostitutes or exploited them. continued on link
OTTAWA — Justice Minister Peter MacKay defended his prostitution bill Tuesday as a balanced policy that criminalizes the purchase of sex but gives prostitutes “immunity” from prosecution so they can ply their trade more safely.
Moreover, Mr. MacKay said his department’s lawyers have conducted a review of the bill and the government has concluded that the future law would “likely” withstand a court challenge from those who say it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“We believe we have it right in this bill,” the minister told a Senate committee that is holding three days of public hearings on Bill C-36. “This bill does not drive prostitutes into the dark [and] back into the alleys.”
Under the government’s proposal, prostitution would be illegal and the law would target johns and pimps with criminal penalties if they bought sex from prostitutes or exploited them. continued on link
Ms Bedford does have a valid point...It would be interesting to disclose which of the pro C-36 groups are reliant upon, or expecting to get, tax payer funding from this government. I think that certainly puts any such groups in a conflict of interest position.
Exactly, their greedy little hands are held out and waiting but it's ok for them to be soliciting for money.
Sex workers speak out as Senate hearings wrap up
Anti-prostitution activists, sex worker advocates shared their thoughts on prostitution bill
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sex-workers-speak-out-as-senate-hearings-wrap-up-1.2762927
http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeB...&ses=2&comm_id=11&Language=E&meeting_id=15415
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
4:15 PM
Videoconference
Televised live on PTN
Link to ParlVu for this meetingVideo Webcast Time, witnesses or other details may changeSubject to Change
Location: Room 257, East Block
Clerk : Shaila Anwar (613) 991-0719
Agenda
The subject-matter of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other ActsPanel 1
Witnesses
Canadian Police Association
- Tom Stamatakis, President
(by videoconference)
- Other witnesses may follow
Panel 2
Witnesses
As Individuals
- Alan Young, counsel for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal, Terri-Jean Bradford
- Georgialee Lang, Lawyer
(by videoconference)
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
4:15 PM
Videoconference
Televised live on PTN
Link to ParlVu for this meetingVideo Webcast Time, witnesses or other details may changeSubject to Change
Location: Room 257, East Block
Clerk : Shaila Anwar (613) 991-0719
Agenda
The subject-matter of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other ActsPanel 1
Witnesses
Canadian Police Association
- Tom Stamatakis, President
(by videoconference)
- Other witnesses may follow
Panel 2
Witnesses
As Individuals
- Alan Young, counsel for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal, Terri-Jean Bradford
- Georgialee Lang, Lawyer
(by videoconference)
Chris Bruckhert is an amazing advocate for why Bill C36 is wrong. Her testimony was bang on and we need more like her to appear on the industries behalf.
I really shouldn't watch these hearings because the more I hear the the Reform Party Senators speak the more I'm disgusted by slimy politicians.
I really shouldn't watch these hearings because the more I hear the the Reform Party Senators speak the more I'm disgusted by slimy politicians.
Listening more carefully to the hearings and reading the law again, I realize that prostitutes can be arrested anywhere in public, not just next to schools.
Section 213, stopping cars in order to offer services applies anywhere. Subsection 1.1 criminalizes for ''communicating'' next to schools, but they can still be arrested for ''impeding traffic'' absolutely anywhere. Immunities about ''their own services'' only apply to section 286. So streetwalking will be completely illegal de facto?
Section 213, stopping cars in order to offer services applies anywhere. Subsection 1.1 criminalizes for ''communicating'' next to schools, but they can still be arrested for ''impeding traffic'' absolutely anywhere. Immunities about ''their own services'' only apply to section 286. So streetwalking will be completely illegal de facto?
Jean Macdonald from Maggies is awesome and not bad if I may say so.
Don't hold your breath, it's obvious the Reform Party Senators are going to ram this through. The Liberal Senators are the only ones trying to help but are out manned.
