Lol. Epic deflection.
Charter? Wait, no, laws. Not charter. But check the charter. Its not in the charter. Oh. Ok. I was talking about laws. Lol!!!
Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
Charter? Wait, no, laws. Not charter. But check the charter. Its not in the charter. Oh. Ok. I was talking about laws. Lol!!!
You're funny! :happy: Thanks to reverdy for quoting the exact section 1 I was talking about.
These are limits on how the law is allowed to infringe on the charter. You know, the basis for a constitutional challenge of a law. Reverdy quoted you section 1 and I quoted previously the Oakes test that is used to evaluate it.
Here's a link that explains it clearly, because I know you like to read references and be well informed:
http://www.ojen.ca/sites/ojen.ca/files/Oakes%20Test%20English_Final.pdf
Now it is only a simple disagreement, between sexworkers, stakeholders and clients on this board. In the coming months as bill C36 comes into effect and the first john's get charged, watch as the purchase of sexual services go down resulting in greatly increased competiton between sexworkers, incalls and mps. Deflation of the price to purchase a sex act might occur as an enticement as prostitutes chase a diminishing pool of johns. Even greater and malicious tactics and fighting among sexworkers will occur as the competition heats up. There are enough johns who simply cannot risk becoming known to the police who will as a result greatly reduce their frequency in purchasing sex. Ironically the situation and comments in these threads are analagous to what is happening in the Alberta oil patch with the drop in oil prices and the climate change deniers as the polar ice cap continues to melt. The polar vortex making things colder in the GTA is only a local phenomena, not the big picture.
I think you are mixing things up fuji.
Maybe you are referring to the Ontario Humans Rights Code which protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I don't think the Charter contains such a direct provision.
Uhhhhhh. Page one, section one of the Charter uses those exact words.
You know fuji, you are sort of right on manythings but you open yourself up when you make such incorrect pronouncements...and invite ridicule when you do.
There's no reason why someone can't try to argue that the purchase of sex is a fundamental human right. There's evidence on the therapeutic effects of human touch. I would humbly suggest that the challenger be a elderly widowed gentleman or a differently abled young man. I wouldn't suggest that a middle-aged married man be the poster boy for that campaign.
What's really changed, other than, now the onus is solely on the buyer.
There might be a few arrests at the beginning to appease the do-gooders and witch hunters.
But I suspect that in the the end, everything will return to the status quo.
Until that point in time, where this new law is deemed unconstitutional.
Nobody has the power, to stop this business.
There might be a few arrests at the beginning to appease the do-gooders and witch hunters.
But I suspect that in the the end, everything will return to the status quo.
Until that point in time, where this new law is deemed unconstitutional.
Nobody has the power, to stop this business.
You will see arrests. Trafficking, pimping, underage. 150%! Steer clear of street level sex work, and hotels/condos.
But to think indy's, agencies, and mp's/sc's are gonna drop prices & have swat team arrests or stings, you need to study the law AND process of investigation.
I think you are dead right on that. S. 28 is irrelevant to this problem and I would be very surprised if we see any challenge brought suggesting the immunity violated the charter. As I said before this stands and falls with a s. 7 analysis, and I would still bet against that challenge as well for a multitude of reasons.Only a constitutional expert can answer this question and not every lawyer here might know either, if that's not there area of specialty, but I'll give it a shot.:
Look at Section 15 (2) here:
Under the heading of "Equality Rights" this section states:
“ 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This would seem to trump your argument that immunity cannot be granted to SPs, because it is not fair to johns, so either criminalize SPs as aiding or abetting, or get rid of the buying prohibition.
Also, the Charter is subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
So, absolutely irrelevant to the topic we are discussing as that section is a defense the crown uses to argue that an unconstitutional law is nevertheless justified, and no one here is arguing c36 is justified even though it violates the charter. Certainly the post I was responding to was not attempting to use that phrase to argue c36 is justified. The post I responded to was trying to claim that behavior that was "demonstrably justified" could not be restricted by law.
In no uncertain terms nothing in the charter or the constitution allows you to engage in "demonstrably justified" behavior.
No SWAT arrests, but I guarantee you prices will drop and/or spas will offer financial incentives to encourage us peons to venture out.
Emily, you said it yourself "tumbleweeds down Tangiers for a few months". As an owner are you going to sit on your hands and count the tumbleweeds?
The Charter does not explicitly mention sexual orientation and, if I recall correctly sexual orientation was specifically omitted from the language of s. 15 when the Charter was drafted. However the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the list of characteristics in s. 15 is not exhaustive because of the language "in particular" and has further held that sexual orientation is an "enumerated or analogous ground" - Egan v Canada, M. v H., Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada, etc.
lol .... like guns cause shootings, and spoons cause obesity
LOL I agree!
Yet, the Libs and Dippers want to ban guns...
The proper question is not whether an activity is considered to be a "basic human right", but rather whether the activity is considered to be a "legally protected right". Sexual orientation is a legally protected right (s. 15 of the Charter). Being a prostitute (or any other profession for that matter) is not a legally protected right. The Charter protects people from discrimination based on immutable characteristics (something a person has no control over or is so central to their identity that they cannot separate themselves from it without losing their identity (i.e., race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).
In any event, C-36 does not present a discrimination argument (s. 15 of the Charter) it presents, arguably, a "life, liberty and security of the person" argument (s. 2) - specifically liberty. Further, it is clear that the government has tried to present an argument that C-36 does not impact on anyone's right to be a prostitute. It does not criminalize the act of trading sex for consideration. It make purchasing sexual services a crime.
While I acknowledge Prof. Young's expertise and respect his opinion even he will tell you that just because he believes the C-36 provisions are not rationally connected to the objective, even he would tell you that this is simply his (well-educated and informed) opinion. It does not mean that a Court is bound to agree with him. The mythology surrounding prostitution, particularly the "all prostitutes are victims" theme is tremendously powerful and has wide acceptance (just look at the C-36 hearings). I don't have much faith the Supreme Court is going to tell the Canadian Government that it has to legalize prostitution.
Keep in mind that "SWAT" arrests have happened in the past, so it's not without precedent. Still, full scale "raids" have always been the exception rather than the rule. More likely are enforcement visits by teams of LE and bylaws, which have historically occurred regularly.
If I'm reading the tealeaves correctly, the optimists are saying that the sky won't fall because of a lack of resources or difficulty in collecting evidence. Neither has ever been a serious obstacle when push comes to shove.
I take little comfort in assuming that a law won't be enforced, especially when that assurance is coming from beat cops. That's like asking the delivery boy for the editorial position of a newspaper.
Agreed. Last time I checked, we were (supposedly) living in a democracy. We don't have to prove that an activity is legal. I don't have to prove that scratching my balls or using a teaspoon to drink soup is legal. We can do what we want. It's up to the government to prove that some activity is harmful to society and therefore enact laws to govern or restrict it.
You say they can't prohibit prostitution because of the victim argument? Why not? Why do we prohibit suicide?
Respectfully, this is not an accurate description of what the decision in R v Leo stood for. This was a case where the accused was charged with attempting to obtain, for consideration, the sexual services of a minor. The minor was 14 but the Court accepted the accused's evidence that he believed the minor was 16. The accused, in his defence, attempted to argue that it was reasonable for him to believe it was legal to purchase sexual services from a 16 year old girl. In analyzing this defence the Court said:
The accused says the net result is that society has approved, or at least not disapproved, consensual sexual contact with a person 14 years or more. The accused submits that it was therefore reasonable for him to conclude that purchasing sexual services from a 16 year old girl was legal.
14 Ostensibly, the argument of the accused has merit. However, it does not take into account the differences between:
(1) consensual sexual activity borne of some perceived emotional attachment; and
(2) sexual activity consent to which is obtained by the payment of money.
15 These are qualitatively different acts. Society has acknowledged that it is inappropriate to make criminal what are consensual actions between those having an affinity towards one another, even when one of the parties is between 14 and 18 years of age. However, it does not logically follow that society would take the same view if the person under 18 years of age is paid to consent to the sexual activity. Paying for sexual services is, in my view, a completely different matter from two people who, for whatever emotional reason, decide to voluntarily engage in sexual activity.
16 I am mindful that Parliament has not made prostitution illegal for adults. From that it might be argued that society has not disapproved of the exchange of sexual services for money. That is true, but the approval must be considered in its context. That society approves of such conduct when engaged in by adults does not mean that society approves, or will tolerate, such activity involving those under 18 years of age. Again, the situations are qualitatively different. The same distinction applies to those in positions of trust in respect of sexual contact with a person between 14 and 18 years of age. Society offers no respite for those in such a position of trust. Likewise, society offers no respite for those who purchase sexual services from persons under 18 years of age. In neither case, can one fairly conclude that society's acceptance of:
(1) adult prostitution; or
(2) adolescent, consensual, sexual activity (to use a generalized term)
leads to any logical inference that society accepts:
(a) under-aged prostitution; or
(b) adolescent, consensual, sexual activity with a person in a position of trust.
Nothing in R. v Leo can be taken as suggesting that it will be a successful defence for a man to insist he paid a woman for an hour of companionship, developed an affinity for her and happened to have sex. When the Court in R. v. Leo spoke about "consesnual actions between those having an affinity towards one another" it was explaining why it was not against the law (then) for persons between the ages of 14 and 18 to have sexual relationships.
Super, Jessica. You're very intuitive and have deep insight.lol .... like guns cause shootings, and spoons cause obesity
In the liberal mind, no one is responsible for their actions. Hence, inanimate objects like guns cause shootings and spoons cause obesity. Also cars cause accidents and masturbation causes hair growth on the palms of one's hands and are a direct cause of premature blindness.
Would assume the money changing hands in exchange for a fixed time would be an issue. Not knowing the friend's name, no friendly history of calls on phones, no knowledge of the friends personal life. Proving there was a sexual service involved would be more difficult, unless the guy cracks and admits as much when questioned.
I really doubt that the cops are going to go out of there way to try and arrest guys who are seeing a known SP, as it would be too difficult and time consuming to prove what was going on, and the police would have to rely on the testimony of some flaky girl in a distant court case. Much easier to do sweeps with an undercover female officer as they did in the past when they wanted to get rid of street walkers.
