What are the short-term consequences of C-36?
- Thread starter arodb
- Start date
little or no cost of sting and surveillance operations ? are you kidding me. They have an immense cost and drain on police budgets.
Actually this is not true. The reason few bawdy house charges have been laid in the last couple years was because Bedford won her prostitution case at the Superior Court level I believe in 2010. Ever since, the provincial attorney generals have told their police forces to calm down on the enforcement of potentially unconstitutional laws. Their ultimate responsibility is abide by the constitution.
Under the old laws, the cops didn't need to run a sting operation. With reasonable belief, they could just arrest everyone inside an incall location either as being an inmate of a bawdy house or found-in a bawdy house. The offence had reverse onus, which means you had to prove you were there for a legitimate reason to be there (i.e. I am the cable repair man who just happened to be here). I have said this many times but will say it again, obviously the agencies and massage owners have a vested interest in perpetuating a sense of security. I would do the same in their position. I am sure the chance of getting caught is very slim and it is ultimately up to the individual if they wish to take that risk. For anyone to say there is no risk which is what "Toronto's Finest" seems to be advocating (I really think he should be the last guy anyone should be listening to...) - this is just not true. For people saying the sky is falling and the cops will employ every resource available to screw Johns is possible but extremely unrealistic. Like with most things, the most realistic scenario lies between these two extremes.
HATE to keep re-posting this BUT case you miss.... this is example that cities have the jurisdiction to decide how to enforce laws. Up to now no harder to shut down an incall or nab clients than with the new laws.
Our response to the passing of Bill C-36
November 7 2014
Vancouver City Hall
The City is concerned with the passing of Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, as research confirms that criminalization of sex work puts those involved in sex work at further risk of increased violence.
The passing of Bill C-36:
•Undermines the health and safety of sex workers
•Increases social exclusion and pushes sex workers to work in more isolated areas
What this decision means for the City going forward
Going forward, the collective focus needs to continue to be on the health and safety of sex workers and the communities that they live and work. The City remains committed to this, and in October 2014, Mayor and Council adopted Vancouver’s Healthy City Strategy, which identifies 13 goals, including:
•Safety and inclusion
•To promote health and well-being for all
•A target to make Vancouver the safest major city in Canada by reducing crimes, including sexual assault, year-over-year
The City will continue to work in partnership with community groups and the provincial government to minimize safety risks and harms for sex workers. This includes:
•Addressing all forms of exploitation and abuse
•Providing opportunities for education and awareness
•Enabling access to health and social service gaps
•Creating transitioning opportunities for those seeking to exit
City urged the federal government to refer the proposed legislation to the Supreme Court
In submissions to the Federal Government, the City urged that the proposed legislation be referred to the Supreme Court to ensure its compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the spirit of the Bedford Decision: prioritizing the health, safety and dignity of those it’s declared to protect. The City also asked that there be consultation, which previously did not take place, with municipalities across the country on potential impacts.
In 2013 the City provided over $400,000 in grants to 11 community organizations to:
•Promote sex worker health and safety
•Address child and youth sexual exploitation
Our response to the passing of Bill C-36
November 7 2014
Vancouver City Hall
The City is concerned with the passing of Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, as research confirms that criminalization of sex work puts those involved in sex work at further risk of increased violence.
The passing of Bill C-36:
•Undermines the health and safety of sex workers
•Increases social exclusion and pushes sex workers to work in more isolated areas
What this decision means for the City going forward
Going forward, the collective focus needs to continue to be on the health and safety of sex workers and the communities that they live and work. The City remains committed to this, and in October 2014, Mayor and Council adopted Vancouver’s Healthy City Strategy, which identifies 13 goals, including:
•Safety and inclusion
•To promote health and well-being for all
•A target to make Vancouver the safest major city in Canada by reducing crimes, including sexual assault, year-over-year
The City will continue to work in partnership with community groups and the provincial government to minimize safety risks and harms for sex workers. This includes:
•Addressing all forms of exploitation and abuse
•Providing opportunities for education and awareness
•Enabling access to health and social service gaps
•Creating transitioning opportunities for those seeking to exit
City urged the federal government to refer the proposed legislation to the Supreme Court
In submissions to the Federal Government, the City urged that the proposed legislation be referred to the Supreme Court to ensure its compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the spirit of the Bedford Decision: prioritizing the health, safety and dignity of those it’s declared to protect. The City also asked that there be consultation, which previously did not take place, with municipalities across the country on potential impacts.
In 2013 the City provided over $400,000 in grants to 11 community organizations to:
•Promote sex worker health and safety
•Address child and youth sexual exploitation
YES I have heard comment from Toronto Chief of Police & a few city officials. Sorry they have not published written letters. MAYOR JOHN TORY is mentioned to " right the wrong of Harper's c-36 " I am on twitter ..... asked for update on more details as it progresses. If I hear anything I will post.
Check out some posts I made from an anonymous source on the privacy of communications and burden of proof for LE in obtaining such records. Look in the ChALLENGED thread. It is somewhat re-assuring.
It's a good thing that you did your homework. (I don't blame you for doing so, since you need to know what's coming down).
Everything the police do costs a fortune. RIDE checks cost a fortune. It's government. CH is right, the old laws did not enable the police to run an incall sting. The new laws do.
Cost won't stop them if they want to, they will. The alternative investigations they could do are just as costly, the only question is how many officers they assign based on whatever priorities they decide to act on.
Has Allan answered these lingering questions of mine?
How can it be entrapment if an SP (or anyone offering to sell sex) is IMMUNE from prosecution? Or does that not matter as a defense for the client?
As for explicit advertising, it is still illegal to do so, regardless of immunity for prosecution therefor (it's still an offence by anyone). Or does immunity for the SP advertiser render the offence null and void, and ultimately 'legal'?
Good idea. I'm bringing a Bible with me from now on, and gonna be a regular church goer too.
Entrapment doesn't work in Canada like it does in the States. It is a motion that is made once all the elements of the offence has already been proven. Basically you are already found guilty, but you are now arguing your guilt was induced by the state. Furthermore, the argument that Bill C-36 is entrapment is not exactly a slam dunk. You would need to prove that the state went "beyond providing an opportunity and induce[d] the commission of an offence." Would it be completely true that legally allowing someone to sell sex is inducing someone to buy it? Or are they merely just providing an opportunity to buy it?
How will the courts rule on a law that provides no means for a lawful citizen to buy a legal service without breaking the law ?
Can't see it. Penis trumps brain.
In any event, there is a big difference between the law being on the books and cops searching to find every participant.
BUT, get it overturned in court and the next option is full illegality which will stick.
Providers are allowed to advertise. Providers are allowed to hire security aiding them in in plying their trade. No they are not victims, they are willingly selling a service. WHICH CANNOT BE LEGALLY PURCHASED. like I said above, our lawyers have said any first year fucking law clerk can beat that one.
The courts will never be asked to rule on whether or not SPs are victims. Prostitution has always been, and still is legal. "Communicating for the purpose...." Under Bill C36 completely prohibits anyone from purchasing it without breaking that law.
