Another Ontario court ruling UPHOLDING Bill C-36

[tmmsmyth]

All,

I have been hearing rumblings on Twitter of a different Ontario judge now disagree with the ruling in the Anwar case and upholding the Constitutionality of Bill C-36. The case is subject to a publication ban so it is difficult to find much information about it but it is apparently called R. vs. Macdonald that is being heard by a former crown prosecutor that was just appointed as a judge last year named Giulia Gambacorta. The quote I heard was that Judge Gambacorta said in her ruling in R. vs. Macdonald that Judge Thomas Mackay(in the Anwar case) was simply "wrong" in his application of the law.

Second the Supreme Court of Canada in my opinion looks weaker and weaker in writing Bedford how they did. It is quite obvious that the Supreme Court of Canada was reluctant both during Bedford and now to say that buying and selling is a charter protected activity comparable to selling and buying newspapers or paying unions dues instead trying to pass the political heat from those members of the public opposed to prostitution to Parliament. If it did it would be the first court in the world to basically rule this way, even in the countries with decrim the courts have not actually said there is a human right to buy and sell sex akin to freedom of speech and buying and selling newspapers. However, the aftermath of Bedford now seems to be lower court judges now fighting among themselves and calling each names something which the Supreme Court of Canada claims to want to avoid.

**The Supreme Court of Canada ruled about 15 years that consensual sex including "group" sex and swingers clubs are a constitutionally protected form of freedom of association and "positive source of human expression, fullfillment, and pleasure" there words not mine. Hence Parliament cannot ban all sexual intercourse whether or not money changes hands in the same way Parliament can ban hard drugs whether or not money changes hands something a lot of radical feminists don't seem to understand the difference between. Hence my argument that trying to ban paid sex is like saying Parliament has to allow newspapers to publish what they wish to but Parliament if they wanted could ban newspapers from charging a subscription fee for articles the govt of the day disapproved of.

R. v. Labaye - SCC Cases

This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.

scc-csc.lexum.com

 

[Jenesis]

The buying of sex is not a charter right and will never be.

Selling - yes. It is my body but buying - nope. You don’t have a right to sex.

 

[corrie fan]

The buying of sex is not a charter right and will never be.

Selling - yes. It is my body but buying - nope. You don’t have a right to sex.

I think everyone who has a willing partner has the right to sex. The problem arises when my partner is willing for reasons some people disagree with.
From time to time I read about physically challenged people complaining about the fact that their right to a sexual relationship is not recognized.
The right to sex will never be a specific Charter right but falls under other rights mentioned in the Charter eg. the freedom of association and the right to life liberty and security of person.

 

[drlove]

So, will the Charter challenge actually go anywhere, or is the status quo now the be all and end all?

 

[Jenesis]

I think everyone who has a willing partner has the right to sex. The problem arises when my partner is willing for reasons some people disagree with.
From time to time I read about physically challenged people complaining about the fact that their right to a sexual relationship is not recognized.
The right to sex will never be a specific Charter right but falls under other rights mentioned in the Charter eg. the freedom of association and the right to life liberty and security of person.

You and I have a different definition of “right”

 

[corrie fan]

You and I have a different definition of “right”

I see it as a right to privacy. It's no one else's business what people do in private as long as there is genuine informed consent.

 

[Jenesis]

I see it as a right to privacy. It's no one else's business what people do in private as long as there is genuine informed consent.

That is agree with. People have the right to privacy and sex is a private matter. I get that but that is different then having an actual right to sex.

but I get what you are saying.

 

[tmmsmyth]

This is basically what the Labaye case says. What the govt is arguing is that while consenting adults do have the right to have sex with each other they don't have the right the to exchange money between each other. My point is if you take that logic into the freedoms of expression realm then the govt could say could publish what ever you want but the govt can punish you for charging people for it or for buyers purchasing a book the govt doesn't like.

**Supposedly in this second court ruling the judge makes quite clear that the govt can ban people from selling sex not just buying even though that is not technically part of bill C-36

 

[csmitting]

Rather silly thinking Buy/selling sex a human right.

Our courts/govt need to stay out of people sex lives. Thought we all agreed to that on 1965.

 

[csmitting]

My point is if you take that logic into the freedoms of expression realm then the govt could say could publish what ever you want but the govt can punish you for charging people for it or for buyers purchasing a book the govt doesn't like.

They can and already do that. You can’t buy weed killer, baby carriers with wheels, lots of drugs. Also all the Sin taxes. We all know gasoline cars ares getting banned sooner or later.

Buying or selling something is commerce, it’s not a form of expression. Depressing that the courts entertain these arguments for expansion of the charter beyond what they were drafted for.

 

[tmmsmyth]

Publishing is a form of commerce and expression. You are buying and selling expression.

 

[tmmsmyth]

The drug laws also apply not just to selling drugs but also giving them away. They are not that good of an analogy. Treating sex work like drug laws would be like banning sexual intercourse among consenting adults whether or not money changed hands.

 

[mandrill]

The buying of sex is not a charter right and will never be.

Selling - yes. It is my body but buying - nope. You don’t have a right to sex.

It's impossible to imagine that there could be a legal right to DEMAND sex, either for purchase or otherwise at this point.

But if a legal right to control one's body by selling sexual access to it is recognized under s. 7 - (or an analogous s.7 right to privacy, which includes the right to sell sexual access to one's body) - there also has to be a right to legally purchase the sexual access which is being offered. Otherwise, the legal right to sell sexual access to one's body is negated.

 

[Jenesis]

It's impossible to imagine that there could be a legal right to DEMAND sex, either for purchase or otherwise at this point.

But if a legal right to control one's body by selling sexual access to it is recognized under s. 7 - (or an analogous s.7 right to privacy, which includes the right to sell sexual access to one's body) - there also has to be a right to legally purchase the sexual access which is being offered. Otherwise, the legal right to sell sexual access to one's body is negated.

That was the point when the law was passed.

Same with smoking laws. You could smoke at 16 but couldn’t buy until 18.

Don’t ask me how they figure it is ok but no where in our Charter does one have the right to sex and I don’t believe that is changing anytime soon. Regardless of how stupid is all appears.

 

[escortsxxx]

That is agree with. People have the right to privacy and sex is a private matter. I get that but that is different then having an actual right to sex.

but I get what you are saying.

If your saying that you have the right to sell sex, by that logic sex is already in law as a right, but less than it was.
Marriage contracts are only valid with sex. If one partner with holds sex either the marriage can not be legally consummated in the first place or it allows the right to end the marriage via divorce.
Further this right can be spelled out specifically via marriage contract (sexual act expected, and how often)
It could be argued that this is nor a right but it the same set of laws that clearly said it was a right (most have been removed over time.) It might be that remaining laws will be against the charter and well and sex will be removed from marriage altogether - such as cheating.
The reason that prosittion used be legal was it was considered anolgoous of marriage which was considered in legal literature to be legalized prostitution - to make one illegal makes the other illegal as well (but this has yet to go to court, divorce court is where i might be challenged)

 

[Jenesis]

If your saying that you have the right to sell sex, by that logic sex is already in law as a right, but less than it was.
Marriage contracts are only valid with sex. If one partner with holds sex either the marriage can not be legally consummated in the first place or it allows the right to end the marriage via divorce.
Further this right can be spelled out specifically via marriage contract (sexual act expected, and how often)
It could be argued that this is nor a right but it the same set of laws that clearly said it was a right (most have been removed over time.) It might be that remaining laws will be against the charter and well and sex will be removed from marriage altogether - such as cheating.
The reason that prosittion used be legal was it was considered anolgoous of marriage which was considered in legal literature to be legalized prostitution - to make one illegal makes the other illegal as well (but this has yet to go to court, divorce court is where i might be challenged)

I am saying you don't have a “right” under the Charter. Now where does it say that you have a “right” to sex which is why it was done this way.

Woman can and did argue the right to sell their body. They won that. The PCs then said we will do it this way and criminalize it for men instead because men can't argue an infringement of “rights” like a women was able to

 

[escortsxxx]

I am saying you don't have a “right” under the Charter. Now where does it say that you have a “right” to sex which is why it was done this way.

Woman can and did argue the right to sell their body. They won that. The PCs then said we will do it this way and criminalize it for men instead because men can't argue an infringement of “rights” like a women was able to

IT docent previous case law and precedent does under the marriage act. Previously for example it was impossible to be sexually assaulted by a spouse. That was challenged in 1983 and is now no longer.
There are several laws on the books that violate the charter including the current prostitution laws and the previous ones also violated the charter, but it took over twenty years for the previous set to be challenged.

The city of Toronto several by laws that are clearly against the charter but will probably never be challenged as the small fine does not make it worth a costly charter challenge.

Of course a court may just ignore x or y for political reasons, which happened in the states over abortion in Texas.

Examples of Charter-related cases

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site

www.justice.gc.ca

 

[Jenesis]

IT dosent previous case law and precedent does under the marriage act. Perviously for example it was impossible to be sexually assaulted by a spouse. That was challenged in 1983 and is now no longer.

Marital rape myths have no place in Canadian law

Sexually assaulting one’s spouse too often remains effectively decriminalized

www.theglobeandmail.com

We are talking about now though. And there is no where in our charter of rights currently that says as a person you have the “right” to sex. Therefore by extension you do lawfully have the right to purchase it.

 

[escortsxxx]

We are talking about now though. And there is nowhere in our charter of rights currently that says as a person you have the “right” to sex. Therefore by extension you don’t have the right to purchase it.

The CHARTER is not the only law in the land. Drinking and driving laws are against the charter yet they stand. No one is willing ot challenge them and all the law behind them - precedent trumps the charter except for a charter challenge - which is 10 to 20 years of legal fighting.
And then you can just use the withstanding clause to ignore the charter from the get go as Ford did already.

Doug Ford uses the notwithstanding clause for political benefit

Ontario has historically been the province in Confederation most concerned about buoying Ottawa and limiting its own relative power for the sake of national unity. Doug Ford puts that legacy at risk.

theconversation.com

Which is super unethical but legal.

"The province’s Progressive Conservative government has passed a bill limiting third-party election advertising via the use of Sec. 33 — more commonly known as the notwithstanding clause — of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms after a judge struck the law down as unconstitutional. The clause effectively allows governments to go around the Charter. "

The charter is always OPTIONAL. .

 

[Brill]

We are talking about now though. And there is no where in our charter of rights currently that says as a person you have the “right” to sex. Therefore by extension you don’t have the right to purchase it.

There’s no mention in the Charter of a right to buy gasoline as well but we can.