Tsk. How convenient for you.
I will still see C36-compliant indies who are reputable if not just regulars (apart from MPs) at their hotels, houses or condos.
That being said, any new territory ventured must be made with caution.
Possible for C-36 to be immediatley S.C.C. CHALLENGED once Law.
- Thread starter Toronto`s Finest
- Start date
I will still see C36-compliant indies who are reputable if not just regulars (apart from MPs) at their hotels, houses or condos.
That being said, any new territory ventured must be made with caution.
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.
I agree that it might come down to a liberty argument (if not security argument for other particular provisions of C-36).
However, I didn't quite get your very last sentence. Was there a negative missed there, or did you mean exactly what you wrote?
the rate of coercion for adult sex workers is 2% or less. a new zealand study shows 3.5% of sex workers are underage. NZ is similar to modern western first countries. a new york study shows 8-10% of underage are pimped/coerced
got them from a retired SP'S BLOG
http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/
Did anyone present this to the government's hearings?
If true, this goes against the rhetoric of C-36.
Here you go blathering again. MacKay could take your correspondence course. A section 1 analysis is TOTALLY relevant to any constitutional challenge. Take C-36 or any challenged law that is argued to breach the charter. When it is demonstrated that there is a breach the crown then has to provide a Section 1 argument for every single one of these. C-36 is argued to limit the rights of people's under sections 7 (safety), 2 (speech) and 15 (discrimination). This last one is less certain, but 2 and 7 are very clear. The only way for MacKay to save his law will be to demonstrate that these effects are justified. Section 2 might be easier to justify, but a breach of section 7 is almost never found to be justified under section 1. Read again the link I posted, there is a nice flow-chart describing this procedure.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.
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.
There's no reason why someone can't try to argue that the purchase of sex is a fundamental human right.
I agree with colt, but we are not exactly talking about a simple ''profession''. We are talking about the right to have sex with who you want under the terms you decide. We are talking about making personnal life choice, which is not so different than your choice of religion, marital status, etc.
Like TeasePlease, I would argue that it is a fundamental right, on the basis that people have the right to do what they want with their sexuality. Not that you have a right to demand sex per se, but that people have the right to make their sex decisions for themselves. If two consenting adults decide to do something in private it is their right.
However, Section 1 of the Charter says that your rights can be limited if the law has a good reason for it. The argument would be that preventing consenting adults to buy sex is meant to prevent human trafficking. This goal is serious enough I think, but in my opinion the effect of the law would be clearly disproportionate to the objective, since most prostitutes are consenting and most clients are not dangerous and not interested in a slave.
Another point is that after a challenge, the court has different ways of fixing the law. Instead of striking down a law they can ''Read it down'', meaning they narrow some definition to make it acceptable under the charter. For example, they could say the buying or advertisement provisions are too broad and narrow it down to situations of exploited persons and exclude consenting adults.
Yes in very unique circumstances. There are specific exceptions in Canadian Anti Drug legislation that provide police the ability to break the law while undercover. I do not believe there is such an exemption for enforcing prostitution. Furthermore, while the police can break the law for the purposes of law enforcement, it is generally viewed as an abuse of process by the courts. The courts look at the proportionality of the breach vs. the purpose. For instance, if a cop goes undercover to break up a human traffiking ring and during that process they beat up some people to gain the trust of the criminals - this would be fine.I agree with you for the most part Bobcat40, but I think cops can break the law in limited ways to obtain arrests or convictions, or establish evidence. What's the use if an undercover cop can't pose as a criminal?
Try justifying the idea that police went undercover and broke the law (communicated and/or received the services of a prostitute) to enforce that very same law against others (communicated and/or received the services of a prostitute). Such activity just defies logic and most definitely would be seen to put the administration of justice into disrepute.
Yes in very unique circumstances. There are specific exceptions in Canadian Anti Drug legislation that provide police the ability to break the law while undercover. I do not believe there is such an exemption for enforcing prostitution. Furthermore, while the police can break the law for the purposes of law enforcement, it is generally viewed as an abuse of process by the courts. The courts look at the proportionality of the breach vs. the purpose. For instance, if a cop goes undercover to break up a human traffiking ring and during that process they beat up some people to gain the trust of the criminals - this would be fine.
Try justifying the idea that police went undercover and broke the law (communicated and/or received the services of a prostitute) to enforce that very same law against others (communicated and/or received the services of a prostitute). Such activity just defies logic and most definitely would be seen to put the administration of justice into disrepute.
I'm sure you've heard that female cops posed as streetwalkers to nab johns no? Isn't that the same, only in the opposite direction?
In fact the female cop is not breaking the law. She is waiting for someone to come and communicate to her. If she walked over to you and offered you sex directly that would be different I think. If a civilian woman is accosted by a would-be customer who mistakes her for a prostitute, she is not breaking the law herself. Same logic for a policewoman I guess. The client mistakes her for a prostitute based on her look and communicates with her.I'm sure you've heard that female cops posed as streetwalkers to nab johns no? Isn't that the same, only in the opposite direction?
I understand if the guy propositions her first, but what if he rolls down his window, smiles at her, and she says "Looking for some company honey?", and after he says, "Depends. What are you offering?", she perhaps goes on to say "$100, half-and-half". That's not breaking the law? Didn't the old communication rule apply to both SW and John alike? (Please note: My main point is that I would think that a female cop can say this without committing a crime herself, while working undercover).In fact the female cop is not breaking the law. She is waiting for someone to come and communicate to her. If she walked over to you and offered you sex directly that would be different I think. If a civilian woman is accosted by a would-be customer who mistakes her for a prostitute, she is not breaking the law herself. Same logic for a policewoman I guess. The client mistakes her for a prostitute based on her look and communicates with her.
Under c36 the sex worker can sell. Its the undercover that would be the law breaker. So no, this method wouldn't work. He would catch himself lol.I'm sure you've heard that female cops posed as streetwalkers to nab johns no? Isn't that the same, only in the opposite direction?
Your example is entrapment. You are going beyond just providing someone with a mere opportunity to commit a crime. This example is really the cop inducing a crime. The only way I see this being legal is if a cop is standing on a street corner in suggestive clothing and a man approaches her with an offer of $100 for sex. Following your logic a female police officer can just go walk around the street telling every man she would give them a blowjob for $50. The second, a man seems interested and starts discussing the offer she would then arrest him for communicating for the purposes of purchasing a sexual service.I understand if the guy propositions her first, but what if he rolls down his window, smiles at her, and she says "Looking for some company honey?", and after he says, "Depends. What are you offering?", she perhaps goes on to say "$100, half-and-half". That's not breaking the law? Didn't the old communication rule apply to both SW and John alike? (Please note: My main point is that I would think that a female cop can say this without committing a crime herself, while working undercover).
Actually I always thought a gay man would be best. I don't think they could discriminate and not charge based on sexual orientation. And as its a man paying that would be the same.We should find a senior widower who's got nothing to be ashamed about to forge ahead.
One of my bigger worries it this becoming the latest fad on social media. To "out" us. Whether on actual websites or even on Twitter. It really wouldn't take much to get the ball rolling on this.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.
Our greatest defense has always been our anonymity, not just between those in it, but from the general public. Out of sight, out of mind. All it will take is one high profile bust, one website, one viral tweet with picture to create a wave.
We saw them during the Senate hearings. Some people have an agenda. And some may be willing to take it further thinking they have the upper hand.
Like bobcat says, if the cops makes an explicit offer it is entrapment. I am not sure how far they are allowed to go to incriminate a client. My impression was that they mostly let the guy incriminate himself, leading the conversation until he says something that can be interpreted as sexual. When they realize that they are talking to a cop then the cop has a good excuse to question them more directly on their motive for asking a stranger to get in their car at 1am on a deserted industrial boulevard. It's probably easy to wiggle some confession if you make it clear that they can go to John school instead of being arrested. Most clients I think don't really know the law and can't tell if the police has enough to arrest them or not.I understand if the guy propositions her first, but what if he rolls down his window, smiles at her, and she says "Looking for some company honey?", and after he says, "Depends. What are you offering?", ...
We are talking about an example of undercover cops breaking the law to make an arrest.Under c36 the sex worker can sell. Its the undercover that would be the law breaker. So no, this method wouldn't work. He would catch himself lol.
Yes, under C36 female cops can pose with impunity to nab johns, but undercover female cops did that pre-C36 (others are saying they couldn't or at least, didn't cross the line, just let the horny john make the first move).
I also believe that male cops can pose as johns to ascertain info about providers, not to arrest them, but to make a case against a real john. Such male, undercover cops might break the law in the performance of their duties, but I think they can do so as an undercover cop, no?
One of my bigger worries it this becoming the latest fad on social media. To "out" us. Whether on actual websites or even on Twitter. It really wouldn't take much to get the ball rolling on this.
Our greatest defense has always been our anonymity, not just between those in it, but from the general public. Out of sight, out of mind. All it will take is one high profile bust, one website, one viral tweet with picture to create a wave.
We saw them during the Senate hearings. Some people have an agenda. And some may be willing to take it further thinking they have the upper hand.
Oh god don't start.
Hmmm. Okay. So they walked a fine line in those high heel stilettos then?Like bobcat says, if the cops makes an explicit offer it is entrapment. I am not sure how far they are allowed to go to incriminate a client. My impression was that they mostly let the guy incriminate himself, leading the conversation until he says something that can be interpreted as sexual. When they realize that they are talking to a cop then the cop has a good excuse to question them more directly on their motive for asking a stranger to get in their car at 1am on a deserted industrial boulevard. It's probably easy to wiggle some confession if you make it clear that they can go to John school instead of being arrested. Most clients I think don't really know the law and can't tell if the police has enough to arrest them or not.
Again as I've said before. They are breaking the very same law they are trying to enforce in the name of enforcing it. Furthermore, the admissibility of such circumstantial evidence is of little value. Your logical thinking is:We are talking about an example of undercover cops breaking the law to make an arrest.
Yes, under C36 female cops can pose with impunity to nab johns, but undercover female cops did that pre-C36 (others are saying they couldn't or at least, didn't cross the line, just let the horny john make the first move).
I also believe that male cops can pose as johns to ascertain info about providers, not to arrest them, but to make a case against a real john. Such male, undercover cops might break the law in the performance of their duties, but I think they can do so as an undercover cop, no?
1) Cop breaks the law and propositions a women for sex for money, she agrees
2) Cop establishes she works as a sex worker
3) Then what?? Are cops going to now be able to arrest and convict any man that makes a visit to her?? That case is so stupid that any crown attorney would drop such a case immediately as they don't have sufficient evidence. It is almost laughable to suggest it. The only realistic course of action is to use this information to do further surveillance and wiretapping against this women to catch Johns. This would obviously make a stronger case against John's but I am doubtful any Judge would authorize a warrant for this as it would open up every sex worker to intrusive surveillance. Almost for sure, this would appear to be unconstitutional as it doesn't properly balance the needs of law enforcement against a persons right to privacy.
I agree with your criticism of Fuji's hypothetical scenario wherein an undercover cop establishes or tries to establish that, 'companionship' is really 'sexual service' (I argued that what happens with John A isn't necessarily what happened with John B).Again as I've said before. They are breaking the very same law they are trying to enforce in the name of enforcing it. Furthermore, the admissibility of such circumstantial evidence is of little value. Your logical thinking is:
1) Cop breaks the law and propositions a women for sex for money, she agrees
2) Cop establishes she works as a sex worker
3) Then what?? Are cops going to now be able to arrest and convict any man that makes a visit to her?? That case is so stupid that any crown attorney would drop such a case immediately as they don't have sufficient evidence. It is almost laughable to suggest it. The only realistic course of action is to use this information to do further surveillance and wiretapping against this women to catch Johns. This would obviously make a stronger case against John's but I am doubtful any Judge would authorize a warrant for this as it would open up every sex worker to intrusive surveillance. Almost for sure, this would appear to be unconstitutional as it doesn't properly balance the needs of law enforcement against a persons right to privacy.
However, I was only curious as to the extent to which an undercover cop can break the law to enforce the law (I'm not talking about having full service with the unsuspecting SP but to have her confirm up to the point she agrees by words or actions that she's going to sleep with him). I thought they had latitude.
No. A street walker sting is extremely different. Cops can't go fuck prostitutes to charge a john! Tax dollars, sexual harassment, criminal charges, etc would all be in question for such antics. Remember the cop who got charged last year for demanding a bj from an mpa? Ya they aren't even allowed to cross the threshold of rooms any more. There is no way in heck undercover will go for sessions in an incall format. Let alone to prosecute possible clients.We are talking about an example of undercover cops breaking the law to make an arrest.
Yes, under C36 female cops can pose with impunity to nab johns, but undercover female cops did that pre-C36 (others are saying they couldn't or at least, didn't cross the line, just let the horny john make the first move).
I also believe that male cops can pose as johns to ascertain info about providers, not to arrest them, but to make a case against a real john. Such male, undercover cops might break the law in the performance of their duties, but I think they can do so as an undercover cop, no?
I didn't mean that the cop would go all the way to break the law, but I'm asking if he has some latitude to get her to admit by words or actions that she's going to engage sexually with him, but not cross that line.No. A street walker sting is extremely different. Cops can't go fuck prostitutes to charge a john! Tax dollars, sexual harassment, criminal charges, etc would all be in question for such antics. Remember the cop who got charged last year for demanding a bj from an mpa? Ya they aren't even allowed to cross the threshold of rooms any more. There is no way in heck undercover will go for sessions in an incall format. Let alone to prosecute possible clients.
